Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An Interesting Objection To Kalam

SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 9:19:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

I used the same tactic in my debate with Suburbian Survivior. It's certainly valid, and I believe others have used it. I wasn't successful, but I think that's more a result of dishonest voting than the strength of my argument.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 9:31:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 9:19:49 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

I used the same tactic in my debate with Suburbian Survivior. It's certainly valid, and I believe others have used it. I wasn't successful, but I think that's more a result of dishonest voting than the strength of my argument.

Agreed, most of the RFDs on the debate are dishonest or misinterpretation of the argument used.

I actually prefer this refutation to the argument more than the commonly used one, as it's short and sweet, to the point.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:23:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

No, it's not a valid argument. Creation ex nihilo would require a cause just like creation ex materia would. If I told you that an apple just popped into existence in front of me, you likely wouldn't believe me (due to the fact that apples just don't pop into existence from nothing). But what if we assume that God exists? Then it's certainly possible for an apple to pop into existence out of nothing, but you still wouldn't believe me if I told you it happened on its own. It would still require a cause. God is certainly capable of creation ex nihilo, so if God is assumed as existing, then it would be possible for an apple to come into existence from nothing, and God would have caused it.

This is where atheists constantly trip up, is they don't really understand the concept of "nothing." Nothing is literally "non-existence." It has no properties. It literally does not exist. Even if nothing else exists, it is still not technically correct to say that "nothing" exists. Nothing has no properties, and it is not intelligent. Something cannot come from nothing. Existence cannot come from non-existence. Being cannot come from non-being. If nothing exists, then it is not possible for existence to spring from it uncaused.

The thing is, God is eternal. So even before the universe existed, there wasn't absolute "nothing." There was God. And God decided to create the universe, ex nihilo (because nothing, save God Himself, existed so God didn't have any pre-existing materials to create from).
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:30:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:23:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

No, it's not a valid argument. Creation ex nihilo would require a cause just like creation ex materia would. If I told you that an apple just popped into existence in front of me, you likely wouldn't believe me (due to the fact that apples just don't pop into existence from nothing). But what if we assume that God exists? Then it's certainly possible for an apple to pop into existence out of nothing, but you still wouldn't believe me if I told you it happened on its own. It would still require a cause. God is certainly capable of creation ex nihilo, so if God is assumed as existing, then it would be possible for an apple to come into existence from nothing, and God would have caused it.

This is where atheists constantly trip up, is they don't really understand the concept of "nothing." Nothing is literally "non-existence." It has no properties. It literally does not exist. Even if nothing else exists, it is still not technically correct to say that "nothing" exists. Nothing has no properties, and it is not intelligent. Something cannot come from nothing. Existence cannot come from non-existence. Being cannot come from non-being. If nothing exists, then it is not possible for existence to spring from it uncaused.

The thing is, God is eternal. So even before the universe existed, there wasn't absolute "nothing." There was God. And God decided to create the universe, ex nihilo (because nothing, save God Himself, existed so God didn't have any pre-existing materials to create from).

That's just an assertion, after all, it seems intuitive, but it doesn't make it true.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:35:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:23:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

No, it's not a valid argument. Creation ex nihilo would require a cause just like creation ex materia would. If I told you that an apple just popped into existence in front of me, you likely wouldn't believe me (due to the fact that apples just don't pop into existence from nothing).

But that's the point. The first premise, the causal premise, has roots in induction. Take your example. We assert that an apple can't pop into existence uncaused because we don't observe apples popping into existence uncaused. The first premise is basically this generalized.

But there are limits to generalization. All of our observations are of the "ex materia" kind. Ergo, you can't generalized beyond "ex materia." Which means it can't be used to entail a cause of the "ex nihilo" kind.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:46:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.

I don't see how this argument is bad, it simply explains why the KCA is assuming things and isn't sound. And it is valid, so really, I'm surprised people don't use the argument more.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:47:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:46:17 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.

I don't see how this argument is bad, it simply explains why the KCA is assuming things and isn't sound. And it is valid, so really, I'm surprised people don't use the argument more.

Oh, unless you mean using the KAC, not the refutation. Sorry for misunderstanding.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:48:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:23:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

No, it's not a valid argument. Creation ex nihilo would require a cause just like creation ex materia would. If I told you that an apple just popped into existence in front of me, you likely wouldn't believe me (due to the fact that apples just don't pop into existence from nothing). But what if we assume that God exists? Then it's certainly possible for an apple to pop into existence out of nothing, but you still wouldn't believe me if I told you it happened on its own. It would still require a cause. God is certainly capable of creation ex nihilo, so if God is assumed as existing, then it would be possible for an apple to come into existence from nothing, and God would have caused it.

This is where atheists constantly trip up, is they don't really understand the concept of "nothing." Nothing is literally "non-existence." It has no properties. It literally does not exist. Even if nothing else exists, it is still not technically correct to say that "nothing" exists. Nothing has no properties, and it is not intelligent. Something cannot come from nothing. Existence cannot come from non-existence. Being cannot come from non-being. If nothing exists, then it is not possible for existence to spring from it uncaused.

The thing is, God is eternal. So even before the universe existed, there wasn't absolute "nothing." There was God. And God decided to create the universe, ex nihilo (because nothing, save God Himself, existed so God didn't have any pre-existing materials to create from).

This is where theists tend to drop the ball. Apples popping into existence uncaused is allowed by no laws of physics we are aware of. The universe coming into existence as a quantum nucleation event is allowed by the laws of physics. Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).

Also, this metaphysical nothingness (or non-being) is irrelevant. Something could come into existence, uncaused, from "something", and this would still falsify the first premise. There is also no reason to think the universe came from this metaphysical nothing in the first place. There certainly is no science supporting the claim that the universe came from absolutely nothing.

I find it funny that theists always try to say that something cannot come from nothing. Then, in the same breath, claim that God made something come from nothing. This is clearly contradictory.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:50:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:47:32 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:46:17 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.

I don't see how this argument is bad, it simply explains why the KCA is assuming things and isn't sound. And it is valid, so really, I'm surprised people don't use the argument more.

Oh, unless you mean using the KAC, not the refutation. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Yes, I'm talking about the KCA being a bad argument. Out of all the theistic arguments, I find that one the easiest to respond to. However, I still haven't found any satisfying refutations to the Modal Ontological Argument though.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:52:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

The Fool: I know Craigh changed the argument to metaphysical argument But the cosmological One FAILED> ahahahahahhhhaha CRAIG. But now he is trying to pass it off as the same. I can crush it. Fast. But I am tired. I right some arguements against it latter..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 10:57:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:50:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:47:32 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:46:17 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.

I don't see how this argument is bad, it simply explains why the KCA is assuming things and isn't sound. And it is valid, so really, I'm surprised people don't use the argument more.

Oh, unless you mean using the KAC, not the refutation. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Yes, I'm talking about the KCA being a bad argument. Out of all the theistic arguments, I find that one the easiest to respond to. However, I still haven't found any satisfying refutations to the Modal Ontological Argument though.

The one with possible worlds? Well, simply, we don't know if these possible worlds exist, so the Ontological argument is assuming stuff. Oh, and, using the same logic, you can say that things like a trans-world pencil that rotates around our heads exist, which obviously doesn't. Obviously, if the trans-world pencil exists in some possible world, it will exist in every, since trans-worldness it its property.

Well, using the same logic, there's a pencil that rotates around my head. Too bad I fail to see it :/
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:01:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: true they need to prove tha other worlds exist for the possible worlds one or its useless.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:03:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: But Craig changed it. He added in different types of Aritotlian causes and such,.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:04:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:03:07 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: But Craig changed it. He added in different types of Aritotlian causes and such,.

I haven't seen the change. How is this new argument different now?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:07:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:48:03 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:23:22 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/27/2012 9:17:18 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
I just re-read the debate KeytarHero had with Dakota (where is that guy, anyway? I miss him) on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and Dakota's refutation to it was something quite new for me, can anyone explain to me if it's valid or not?

Basically, his whole argument was that the causation refers to ex materia in which everything that begins to exist has a cause, but we have no reason to believe that the same rule applies to ex nihilo creation, which was most likely how the universe came to be. And that's why the Kalam argument just doesn't work.

Now, this seems to be a pretty fine argument, one I've only seen Dakota promoting? Is it flawed or does it work as a solid refutation?

The link to the debate: http://www.debate.org...

No, it's not a valid argument. Creation ex nihilo would require a cause just like creation ex materia would. If I told you that an apple just popped into existence in front of me, you likely wouldn't believe me (due to the fact that apples just don't pop into existence from nothing). But what if we assume that God exists? Then it's certainly possible for an apple to pop into existence out of nothing, but you still wouldn't believe me if I told you it happened on its own. It would still require a cause. God is certainly capable of creation ex nihilo, so if God is assumed as existing, then it would be possible for an apple to come into existence from nothing, and God would have caused it.

This is where atheists constantly trip up, is they don't really understand the concept of "nothing." Nothing is literally "non-existence." It has no properties. It literally does not exist. Even if nothing else exists, it is still not technically correct to say that "nothing" exists. Nothing has no properties, and it is not intelligent. Something cannot come from nothing. Existence cannot come from non-existence. Being cannot come from non-being. If nothing exists, then it is not possible for existence to spring from it uncaused.

The thing is, God is eternal. So even before the universe existed, there wasn't absolute "nothing." There was God. And God decided to create the universe, ex nihilo (because nothing, save God Himself, existed so God didn't have any pre-existing materials to create from).

This is where theists tend to drop the ball. Apples popping into existence uncaused is allowed by no laws of physics we are aware of. The universe coming into existence as a quantum nucleation event is allowed by the laws of physics. Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended).

Also, this metaphysical nothingness (or non-being) is irrelevant. Something could come into existence, uncaused, from "something", and this would still falsify the first premise. There is also no reason to think the universe came from this metaphysical nothing in the first place. There certainly is no science supporting the claim that the universe came from absolutely nothing.

The Fool: something coming from nothing is faith based. Unless you know the very method. I would be hitting you up will appeals to authorty.

I find it funny that theists always try to say that something cannot come from nothing. Then, in the same breath, claim that God made something come from nothing. This is clearly contradictory.

The Fool: if you don't know anything about you can't fight it. They could argue that it was made with a final Cause which is a purpose. They are saying it no longer ex nilo my only ex material.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:11:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I used the same tactic in my debate with Suburbian Survivior. It's certainly valid, and I believe others have used it. I wasn't successful, but I think that's more a result of dishonest voting than the strength of my argument.

The Fool: that is the problem with faith voters.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:12:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:57:22 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
The one with possible worlds? Well, simply, we don't know if these possible worlds exist, so the Ontological argument is assuming stuff.

It seems you misunderstand what possible worlds are. Possible worlds are just the way things could have been. It is not a planet or another universe or anything like that. It is simply a total world description. So the theist does not claim these possible worlds exists. Just that the existence of a possible world, is well, possible.

Oh, and, using the same logic, you can say that things like a trans-world pencil that rotates around our heads exist, which obviously doesn't. Obviously, if the trans-world pencil exists in some possible world, it will exist in every, since trans-worldness it its property.


False, pencils can be used to write with and they eventually run out of graphite and clay binder it is made from. Therefore a pencil cannot be metaphysically necessary because if it cannot be written with it is not a pencil and also if it can be written with and used up then it is not metaphysically necessary.

Well, using the same logic, there's a pencil that rotates around my head. Too bad I fail to see it :/

And I hope now you know why (:
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:27:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:12:52 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:57:22 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
The one with possible worlds? Well, simply, we don't know if these possible worlds exist, so the Ontological argument is assuming stuff.

It seems you misunderstand what possible worlds are. Possible worlds are just the way things could have been. It is not a planet or another universe or anything like that. It is simply a total world description. So the theist does not claim these possible worlds exists. Just that the existence of a possible world, is well, possible.

But these ways that the world could've been haven't happened, so I don't see why we use them to prove things. Since this is the only world, the possible worlds have no meaning. I have no reason to assume they exist.

Oh, and, using the same logic, you can say that things like a trans-world pencil that rotates around our heads exist, which obviously doesn't. Obviously, if the trans-world pencil exists in some possible world, it will exist in every, since trans-worldness it its property.


False, pencils can be used to write with and they eventually run out of graphite and clay binder it is made from. Therefore a pencil cannot be metaphysically necessary because if it cannot be written with it is not a pencil and also if it can be written with and used up then it is not metaphysically necessary.

Pencil doesn't have to be written with to be a pencil. By themselves, the pencil doesn't serve a purpose until we give it the purpose. I'm just talking about a pencil that exists across all worlds. There is nothing contradictory in this pencil so it exists in one world, and therefore all. Whether or not it can be used is unrelated to this.

Well, using the same logic, there's a pencil that rotates around my head. Too bad I fail to see it :/

And I hope now you know why (:

I still don't :/
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:33:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:27:45 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
But these ways that the world could've been haven't happened, so I don't see why we use them to prove things. Since this is the only world, the possible worlds have no meaning. I have no reason to assume they exist.


No one assumes they exist. We agree that possible worlds don't actually exist. Modal logic deals with contingency and non-contingency.

Pencil doesn't have to be written with to be a pencil.

But it must be able to in order to be a pencil.

By themselves, the pencil doesn't serve a purpose until we give it the purpose. I'm just talking about a pencil that exists across all worlds. There is nothing contradictory in this pencil so it exists in one world, and therefore all. Whether or not it can be used is unrelated to this.

It doesn't matter if the pencil is written with or not. It has to be able to be written with and used up in order to be a pencil. If that is the case, it is not metaphysically necessary. If it is not the case, than it is not a pencil. If you want more in depth answers type into youtube something like, "maximally great pizza." All atheist that try to parody the argument just add "maximally great" to a common item and they quickly become logically incoherent.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:41:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:33:56 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/27/2012 11:27:45 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
But these ways that the world could've been haven't happened, so I don't see why we use them to prove things. Since this is the only world, the possible worlds have no meaning. I have no reason to assume they exist.


No one assumes they exist. We agree that possible worlds don't actually exist. Modal logic deals with contingency and non-contingency.

I do not understand modal logic fully, but how would contigency and non-contigency affect whether or something exists?

Additionally, if these worlds don't exist, why always use them when explaining the argument?

Pencil doesn't have to be written with to be a pencil.

But it must be able to in order to be a pencil.

Water can still be water even if it cannot be drank (if by some means, it was inaccessible to us). I really don't see how this matters. And I don't see why we wouldn't be able to write with this pencil. We could, but we don't see it, so we can't.

By themselves, the pencil doesn't serve a purpose until we give it the purpose. I'm just talking about a pencil that exists across all worlds. There is nothing contradictory in this pencil so it exists in one world, and therefore all. Whether or not it can be used is unrelated to this.

It doesn't matter if the pencil is written with or not. It has to be able to be written with and used up in order to be a pencil. If that is the case, it is not metaphysically necessary. If it is not the case, than it is not a pencil. If you want more in depth answers type into youtube something like, "maximally great pizza." All atheist that try to parody the argument just add "maximally great" to a common item and they quickly become logically incoherent.

So if an object isn't able to fill its man-made purpose, it cannot be metaphyisically necessary? I don't see how that is. And let's say it is not a pencil, I still don't see it. Change the pencil in my argument with an object that looks just like a pencil, and the argument flow then. I'm not adding maximally great, only trans-world to something.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 11:54:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 10:57:22 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:50:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:47:32 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:46:17 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.

I don't see how this argument is bad, it simply explains why the KCA is assuming things and isn't sound. And it is valid, so really, I'm surprised people don't use the argument more.

Oh, unless you mean using the KAC, not the refutation. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Yes, I'm talking about the KCA being a bad argument. Out of all the theistic arguments, I find that one the easiest to respond to. However, I still haven't found any satisfying refutations to the Modal Ontological Argument though.

The one with possible worlds? Well, simply, we don't know if these possible worlds exist, so the Ontological argument is assuming stuff.

I don't believe the theist is claiming they exist, just that they are possible.

Oh, and, using the same logic, you can say that things like a trans-world pencil that rotates around our heads exist, which obviously doesn't.

This doesn't make sense. Humans would have to exist in every possible world, for their to be pencils that rotate our head in every possible world. However, there is a possible world, where there are no humans (assuming possible worlds is a valid concept).

Obviously, if the trans-world pencil exists in some possible world, it will exist in every, since trans-worldness it its property.

How could a pencil have necessary existence?


Well, using the same logic, there's a pencil that rotates around my head. Too bad I fail to see it :/

It's not the same logic, at all, you just think it is because you don't understand the argument.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 12:01:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:54:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:57:22 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:50:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:47:32 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:46:17 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:41:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, the only evidence we have of causation exists within space-time. So there is literally 0 grounds for claiming that space-time as a whole had a cause. So I would say it is a valid refutation.

The KCA simply doesn't work because there is no basis for claiming that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Even if everything around us had a cause, it wouldn't matter, this does nothing to justify the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This of course, only scratches the surface. The KCA has been sufficiently refuted many times using different objections, I'm surprised people still use the argument to be honest. It's quite bad.

I don't see how this argument is bad, it simply explains why the KCA is assuming things and isn't sound. And it is valid, so really, I'm surprised people don't use the argument more.

Oh, unless you mean using the KAC, not the refutation. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Yes, I'm talking about the KCA being a bad argument. Out of all the theistic arguments, I find that one the easiest to respond to. However, I still haven't found any satisfying refutations to the Modal Ontological Argument though.

The one with possible worlds? Well, simply, we don't know if these possible worlds exist, so the Ontological argument is assuming stuff.

I don't believe the theist is claiming they exist, just that they are possible.
Why base an argument of something that is only possible? Until its proven that those worlds exist, why would we even consider the argument?

Oh, and, using the same logic, you can say that things like a trans-world pencil that rotates around our heads exist, which obviously doesn't.

This doesn't make sense. Humans would have to exist in every possible world, for their to be pencils that rotate our head in every possible world. However, there is a possible world, where there are no humans (assuming possible worlds is a valid concept).

Change it to a pencil that, if there are conscious beings in its universe, rotates around their heads or body, but if there are not any of them, just stays idle.

Obviously, if the trans-world pencil exists in some possible world, it will exist in every, since trans-worldness it its property.

How could a pencil have necessary existence?

It's a pencil that has trans-worldness as its trait. It's possible, so it exists in some world, and therefore every. How can pencil have trans-worldness a trait? I dunno, but there's nothing incoherent with it.


Well, using the same logic, there's a pencil that rotates around my head. Too bad I fail to see it :/

It's not the same logic, at all, you just think it is because you don't understand the argument.
Perhaps, but that is how I see it. The argument seems highly flawed to me. Wouldn't it also prove multiple maximally great beings? You can use the argument for millions of types of Gods. Or I'm getting something wrong?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 12:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:12:52 AM, stubs wrote:
At 7/27/2012 10:57:22 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
The one with possible worlds? Well, simply, we don't know if these possible worlds exist, so the Ontological argument is assuming stuff.

It seems you misunderstand what possible worlds are. Possible worlds are just the way things could have been. It is not a planet or another universe or anything like that. It is simply a total world description. So the theist does not claim these possible worlds exists. Just that the existence of a possible world, is well, possible.

Oh, and, using the same logic, you can say that things like a trans-world pencil that rotates around our heads exist, which obviously doesn't. Obviously, if the trans-world pencil exists in some possible world, it will exist in every, since trans-worldness it its property.


False, pencils can be used to write with and they eventually run out of graphite and clay binder it is made from. Therefore a pencil cannot be metaphysically necessary because if it cannot be written with it is not a pencil and also if it can be written with and used up then it is not metaphysically necessary.

Well, using the same logic, there's a pencil that rotates around my head. Too bad I fail to see it :/

And I hope now you know why (:

"It is simply a total world description. So the theist does not claim these possible worlds exists. Just that the existence of a possible world, is well, possible."

What if determinism is true though? I'm not saying it is, but if this is the case, then this is the only possible world. There is no way the world "could have been" a world where bunny rabbits could talk and humans couln't, for example, if determinism is true.

So, while I think the possible world concept can be useful, I fail to see that just because we can imagine an imaginary world without any logical contradiction, that it makes it possible. If determinism is true, then a world where I have a mansion at the age of 24 is not possible, at all.

There is no other way the world "could have been" if determinism is true.

I could be completely wrong, but wouldn't one have to prove determinism false in order to establish the validity of the idea of possible worlds?
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 12:29:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 11:41:07 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:

I do not understand modal logic fully, but how would contigency and non-contigency affect whether or something exists?


If a thing exists non contingently than it exists in every logically possible world.

Additionally, if these worlds don't exist, why always use them when explaining the argument?


They are just a world description of the way things could have been.

Water can still be water even if it cannot be drank (if by some means, it was inaccessible to us). I really don't see how this matters. And I don't see why we wouldn't be able to write with this pencil. We could, but we don't see it, so we can't.


Do you mean like dirty water or something that should be boiled before drinking or what do you mean? I don't know of water that cannot be drank.

So if an object isn't able to fill its man-made purpose, it cannot be metaphyisically necessary? I don't see how that is.

That's not what I'm saying. If it is not able to fill its man-made purpose. It, most likely, is not actually that thing. I say most likely even though I have never heard a complete objection.

And let's say it is not a pencil, I still don't see it. Change the pencil in my argument with an object that looks just like a pencil, and the argument flow then. I'm not adding maximally great, only trans-world to something.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 12:30:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 12:02:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"It is simply a total world description. So the theist does not claim these possible worlds exists. Just that the existence of a possible world, is well, possible."

What if determinism is true though? I'm not saying it is, but if this is the case, then this is the only possible world. There is no way the world "could have been" a world where bunny rabbits could talk and humans couln't, for example, if determinism is true.

So, while I think the possible world concept can be useful, I fail to see that just because we can imagine an imaginary world without any logical contradiction, that it makes it possible. If determinism is true, then a world where I have a mansion at the age of 24 is not possible, at all.

There is no other way the world "could have been" if determinism is true.

I could be completely wrong, but wouldn't one have to prove determinism false in order to establish the validity of the idea of possible worlds?

Very good question that I do not have a good answer to. I have done basically no studying of determinism. This may be a dumb question, but does determinism just apply to the actual world? Because if it does, than there still could be other possible worlds correct?
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:00:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 12:29:26 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/27/2012 11:41:07 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:

I do not understand modal logic fully, but how would contigency and non-contigency affect whether or something exists?


If a thing exists non contingently than it exists in every logically possible world.

Additionally, if these worlds don't exist, why always use them when explaining the argument?


They are just a world description of the way things could have been.

Water can still be water even if it cannot be drank (if by some means, it was inaccessible to us). I really don't see how this matters. And I don't see why we wouldn't be able to write with this pencil. We could, but we don't see it, so we can't.


Do you mean like dirty water or something that should be boiled before drinking or what do you mean? I don't know of water that cannot be drank.

So if an object isn't able to fill its man-made purpose, it cannot be metaphyisically necessary? I don't see how that is.

That's not what I'm saying. If it is not able to fill its man-made purpose. It, most likely, is not actually that thing. I say most likely even though I have never heard a complete objection.

And let's say it is not a pencil, I still don't see it. Change the pencil in my argument with an object that looks just like a pencil, and the argument flow then. I'm not adding maximally great, only trans-world to something.

Unanswered. Would the argument work with this?
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 12:30:49 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/27/2012 12:02:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

"It is simply a total world description. So the theist does not claim these possible worlds exists. Just that the existence of a possible world, is well, possible."

What if determinism is true though? I'm not saying it is, but if this is the case, then this is the only possible world. There is no way the world "could have been" a world where bunny rabbits could talk and humans couln't, for example, if determinism is true.

So, while I think the possible world concept can be useful, I fail to see that just because we can imagine an imaginary world without any logical contradiction, that it makes it possible. If determinism is true, then a world where I have a mansion at the age of 24 is not possible, at all.

There is no other way the world "could have been" if determinism is true.

I could be completely wrong, but wouldn't one have to prove determinism false in order to establish the validity of the idea of possible worlds?

Very good question that I do not have a good answer to. I have done basically no studying of determinism. This may be a dumb question, but does determinism just apply to the actual world? Because if it does, than there still could be other possible worlds correct?

Well, possible worlds are descriptions of the world could have been, without involving logical contradictions. For example, in some possible world, rabbits rule the planet Earth and humans are kept for pets.

However, if we assume the universe is all that exists, and determinism is true, then reality could not have been different.

"Determinism is a philosophy stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen." - http://en.wikipedia.org...

If determinism is true, then humans ruling the Earth exactly as we do now could not have been different. There would be no "possible" world where rabbits rule the Earth.

"For each distinct way the world could have been, there is said to be a distinct possible world;" - http://en.wikipedia.org...

The problem is, if determinism is true, then there is only one way the world could have been...The way we see it today. If we went back in time, everything would turn out the exact same. It would be literally, impossible for any other world to exist.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2012 1:03:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/27/2012 1:00:54 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:

And let's say it is not a pencil, I still don't see it. Change the pencil in my argument with an object that looks just like a pencil, and the argument flow then. I'm not adding maximally great, only trans-world to something.

Unanswered. Would the argument work with this?

My apologies, I must have missed that. I don't think it would work because we have no knowledge of something that looks like a pencil, acts like a pencil, but is not a pencil. But as Rational pointed out, in your example, humans would have to be metaphysically necessary. Which we know for a fact we are not. Furthermore, as InquireTruth has shown, logical necessity does not follow to metaphysical necessity.