Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 2:36:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The audio wouldn't load for me. I assume it's the same type of idiocy he normally espouses.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is a fundamentally inductive argument relating to things within the universe. It cannot be used to make a claim about the universe itself.

We do not, and possibly cannot, know anything outside the universe. Any comment about what came "before" the universe is necessarily about something outside the universe: we can make no claims about it.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples. Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 1:57:21 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I've noticed many folks on here denying this premise to the KCA, Dr. Craig clarifies these objections.

Also, what do you mean by "these" objections? Craig barely scratches the surface when it comes to rebuttals to P1.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:21:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 2:28:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Existence did not begin to exist, it just simply....is.

Yeah but we're talking about the universe now.. so... :/
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 2:36:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The audio wouldn't load for me. I assume it's the same type of idiocy he normally espouses.

Idiocy eh...

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is a fundamentally inductive argument relating to things within the universe. It cannot be used to make a claim about the universe itself.

Yea he addressed that.

We do not, and possibly cannot, know anything outside the universe. Any comment about what came "before" the universe is necessarily about something outside the universe: we can make no claims about it.

He addressed this too
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:25:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:15:16 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 1:57:21 PM, Apeiron wrote:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I've noticed many folks on here denying this premise to the KCA, Dr. Craig clarifies these objections.

Also, what do you mean by "these" objections? Craig barely scratches the surface when it comes to rebuttals to P1.

The common objections I hear on here he addresses. These aren't scholastic objections by any means either.

Grunenbaum's and Oppy's objections he's dealt with in his written work- those are the scholastic ones worth some thought.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:53:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

If you didn't hear the audio then I guess we won't have a discussion about it- I've defended P1 against your views before and recall really no new insight on the matter.

Why the disdain for Craig? lol
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:55:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

Uhh, it's an important point. Your title is impossible because whatever exists didn't begin to exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 3:59:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:53:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

If you didn't hear the audio then I guess we won't have a discussion about it-

I know you don't want to discuss this, because I just debunked P1, and neither you or Craig have a response.

I've defended P1 against your views before and recall really no new insight on the matter.

Here is some new "insight" for you....P1's foundation is a metaphysical principle. However, if nothing exists, then no metaphysical principle exists. Thus, nothing would not have to adhere to any metaphysical principle, which would prevent something from existing. This tears the KCA down easily, and I have never heard you or Craig address this.


Why the disdain for Craig? lol

Because he uses embarrassing support for his arguments sometimes.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:05:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree, Science had a cause, The human mind. If science was constructed by the human mind then the human mind interprets how it is used and what it says. Science is not close to being the forefront of knowledge. The human mind is the forefront of knowledge, besides God. So, How is anyone of you going to say, well we do not know outside of the universe(false BTW) and the same breath tell someone that science and physical means is the base of knowledge? Not clear thought there.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:05:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially I'm saying your title is a straw man. It says nothing about this existence, which didn't begin to exist.

This assumes the universe is all existence, instead of just a sub-set of existence. There is nothing to support this assumption. The universe could have very well had a beginning, not necessarily an absolute beginning, but some type of beginning...
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:59:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:53:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

If you didn't hear the audio then I guess we won't have a discussion about it-

I know you don't want to discuss this, because I just debunked P1, and neither you or Craig have a response.

I've defended P1 against your views before and recall really no new insight on the matter.

Here is some new "insight" for you....P1's foundation is a metaphysical principle. However, if nothing exists, then no metaphysical principle exists. Thus, nothing would not have to adhere to any metaphysical principle, which would prevent something from existing. This tears the KCA down easily, and I have never heard you or Craig address this.

That's not insight lol, I've already said we're not discussing nothing. But let's pretend a possible world in which nothing exists, would anything come out of that world?

... Simply saying there exists no principle in that world only seems to turn a blind eye to the question. Propositional content such as metaphysical principles can take on any number of philosophical interpretations, let's say I were a nominalist- now what? So much for this response right? I already knew universals don't exist in THIS world, and THIS world exists.. what about the nothing world?

Why the disdain for Craig? lol

Because he uses embarrassing support for his arguments sometimes.

I've yet to hear a sound response from you on it.. I think if you were to actually hold to the principles your arguments require of you on a regular basis, ... why you could barely get up in the morning and think rationally ;-)
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:13:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just to deal with the first objection he makes (I think it's from TBS, but he doesn't name him for some reason), his defence of this premise as a metaphysical intuition strikes me as very weak.

He denies that it's intuitive in the colloquial sense (women's intuition), but that's exactly the way he defends it. He says that when we just think about it, it seems absurd to deny and so forth, likening to it to, among other things, logic.

One of the problems (as TBS noted in the question) is that there are serious people who seem to deny it, Graham Oppy being just one example. Is it the same with logic?

Second, denying logic is self-refuting. There's nothing incoherent or contradictory of an uncaused beginning. In isolation, it isn't even as drastic as it sounds, when we take a serious look at the alternatives.

Third, he says the point only has to be more plausible than its denial. The problem with this it undercuts how sure one is supposed to be of this principle. Remember, this is supposed to be a metaphysical principle, absurd to deny. Again, to compare it to logic, logic just isn't open to such creeping doubt. There's no room for even a 5% chance that its false.

Lastly, again noted by the question, we would struggle to pick a worse circumstance for intuition, even if it's applicable generally.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:15:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:23:21 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 2:36:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
The audio wouldn't load for me. I assume it's the same type of idiocy he normally espouses.

Idiocy eh...

Yup. WLC is a fool and a defender of genocide, and his "arguments", such as they are, have been refuted numerous times.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is a fundamentally inductive argument relating to things within the universe. It cannot be used to make a claim about the universe itself.

Yea he addressed that.

As I said, the audio would not load. Just a screen with a play button that did not play. I'm sure he addressed it in the sense of "made up nonsense that you immediately believed because it fed into your biases, but which isn't actually valid". But perhaps that's harsh of me to say. He still undoubtedly made up nonsense, but while I have no problem impugning him, I shouldn't impugn you, I'm sure you believe you have reasons to think that he's not a dishonest idiot.

We do not, and possibly cannot, know anything outside the universe. Any comment about what came "before" the universe is necessarily about something outside the universe: we can make no claims about it.

He addressed this too

Why not post a transcript, which undoubtedly exists, so that those of us who cannot, or will not, waste our time listening to his voice can tear it apart for you via text?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:05:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 4:01:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Essentially I'm saying your title is a straw man. It says nothing about this existence, which didn't begin to exist.

This assumes the universe is all existence, instead of just a sub-set of existence. There is nothing to support this assumption. The universe could have very well had a beginning, not necessarily an absolute beginning, but some type of beginning...

False. I did not ever utter the word 'universe.'
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:06:59 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:59:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:53:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

If you didn't hear the audio then I guess we won't have a discussion about it-

I know you don't want to discuss this, because I just debunked P1, and neither you or Craig have a response.

I've defended P1 against your views before and recall really no new insight on the matter.

Here is some new "insight" for you....P1's foundation is a metaphysical principle. However, if nothing exists, then no metaphysical principle exists. Thus, nothing would not have to adhere to any metaphysical principle, which would prevent something from existing. This tears the KCA down easily, and I have never heard you or Craig address this.

That's not insight lol, I've already said we're not discussing nothing.

We have to be discussing "nothing", if we are discussing the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is because the only support for it, is a metaphysical principle which states that something cannot come from nothing. Acting like the discussion of nothing is irrelevant, is extremely naive.

But let's pretend a possible world in which nothing exists, would anything come out of that world?

You are switching the burden of proof. One has to show that if nothing existed, that that something couldn't come from nothing. The only support for this is a metaphysical principle, which would not exist if "nothing" did, so "nothing" would not have to adhere to that princple. Also, We can't even speak of nothing occupying any possible world, because to do that we would have to give "nothing" a positive hypothetical ontological status. I don't see how it's possible for "nothing" to have a positive ontological status in any possible world.


... Simply saying there exists no principle in that world only seems to turn a blind eye to the question. Propositional content such as metaphysical principles can take on any number of philosophical interpretations, let's say I were a nominalist- now what? So much for this response right?

One one interpretation is relevant with regards to this argument, so I fail to see how what you are saying means much. Since nobody is justified in making the claim that something cannot come from nothing, then there is nothing to support P1. Thus, P1 fails. Also, different interpretations of metaphysics could lead someone out of accepting Craig's interpretation of metaphysics, making the truth of P1 even less likely to more people. Since there is no way to support P1, it fails.

I already knew universals don't exist in THIS world, and THIS world exists.. what about the nothing world?

What nothing "world"? How can "nothing" have a positive ontological status in any world? If there was ever "nothing", it would have no meaning with regards to possible worlds speech. Even if it did have meaning, you still could not argue that a metaphysical principle could apply to it. Once you did that, what we are talking about is not nothing anymore. You would have, in a sense, proved that something could come from nothing ;)


Why the disdain for Craig? lol

Because he uses embarrassing support for his arguments sometimes.

I've yet to hear a sound response from you on it.. I think if you were to actually hold to the principles your arguments require of you on a regular basis, ... why you could barely get up in the morning and think rationally ;-)
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:26:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:06:59 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:59:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:53:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

If you didn't hear the audio then I guess we won't have a discussion about it-

I know you don't want to discuss this, because I just debunked P1, and neither you or Craig have a response.

I've defended P1 against your views before and recall really no new insight on the matter.

Here is some new "insight" for you....P1's foundation is a metaphysical principle. However, if nothing exists, then no metaphysical principle exists. Thus, nothing would not have to adhere to any metaphysical principle, which would prevent something from existing. This tears the KCA down easily, and I have never heard you or Craig address this.

That's not insight lol, I've already said we're not discussing nothing. But let's pretend a possible world in which nothing exists, would anything come out of that world?

... Simply saying there exists no principle in that world only seems to turn a blind eye to the question. Propositional content such as metaphysical principles can take on any number of philosophical interpretations, let's say I were a nominalist- now what? So much for this response right? I already knew universals don't exist in THIS world, and THIS world exists.. what about the nothing world?

Why the disdain for Craig? lol

Because he uses embarrassing support for his arguments sometimes.

I've yet to hear a sound response from you on it.. I think if you were to actually hold to the principles your arguments require of you on a regular basis, ... why you could barely get up in the morning and think rationally ;-)

Basically, possible world lingo only deals with the way reality could have been. If Nothing exists, then "reality" or "existence" doesn't exist, because "nothing" = non-"existence". You cannot group "nothing" into the possible world lingo, for this reason.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
All the OP is doing is permitting the word 'God' to do things the word 'universe' or 'existence' cannot, namely, permitting God to not need a beginning while demanding that the universe have one. Then, when he can't explain how the universe could have one, he points to God and says "He did it!."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:28:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:27:09 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
All the OP is doing is permitting the word 'God' to do things the word 'universe' or 'existence' cannot, namely, permitting God to not need a beginning while demanding that the universe have one. Then, when he can't explain how the universe could have one, he points to God and says "He did it!."

*how the universe could not have a beginning
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:44:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:06:59 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:59:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:53:53 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:35:57 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:26:44 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples.

Did you listen to the audio? No one's arguing nothing exists.

I'm going to spend 18 minutes listening to something, it's not going to be Dr. Craig. If you believe what he is saying is true, then you can defend it yourself.
P1 is arguing that something could not have come from nothing, this is presented as a metaphysical principle. Without this, P1 has absolutely nothing to support it. However, if "nothing" existed, there would me no metaphysical principles, thus, "nothing" would not have had to have adhered to any metaphysical principle preventing the universe from existing. This means that using the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, to try to make the argument that something cannot come from nothing, fails.


Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

I don't think you heard the audio, he addressed this.

I know, he says he is not relying on observation within the universe. He is relying on the ex nihilo nihil fit, which I just proved was meaningless when it comes to the beginning of the universe.


Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.

If you didn't hear the audio then I guess we won't have a discussion about it-

I know you don't want to discuss this, because I just debunked P1, and neither you or Craig have a response.

I've defended P1 against your views before and recall really no new insight on the matter.

Here is some new "insight" for you....P1's foundation is a metaphysical principle. However, if nothing exists, then no metaphysical principle exists. Thus, nothing would not have to adhere to any metaphysical principle, which would prevent something from existing. This tears the KCA down easily, and I have never heard you or Craig address this.

That's not insight lol, I've already said we're not discussing nothing. But let's pretend a possible world in which nothing exists, would anything come out of that world?

... Simply saying there exists no principle in that world only seems to turn a blind eye to the question. Propositional content such as metaphysical principles can take on any number of philosophical interpretations, let's say I were a nominalist- now what? So much for this response right? I already knew universals don't exist in THIS world, and THIS world exists.. what about the nothing world?

Why the disdain for Craig? lol

Because he uses embarrassing support for his arguments sometimes.

I've yet to hear a sound response from you on it.. I think if you were to actually hold to the principles your arguments require of you on a regular basis, ... why you could barely get up in the morning and think rationally ;-)

Also, my responses have been very sound. Your responses, make no sense (like the idea of "nothing" existing in a possible world). So, with respect, do not talk about my rationality, when your attempts to knock down my arguments included nonsense questions. There is no, and I mean no support for the idea that something cannot come from nothing. P1 relies on a metaphysical principle which has no meaning with regards to nothing. It's a sound argument, which you have utterly failed to address sufficiently.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:47:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples. Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

That works in reverse too, and is even more applicable. There is no metaphysical principle, or condition that would ALLOW something to happen. Not even potentiality can exist, thus P1 is valid.

Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:47:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples. Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

That works in reverse too, and is even more applicable. There is no metaphysical principle, or condition that would ALLOW something to happen. Not even potentiality can exist, thus P1 is valid.

If it works both ways, as you claim, ("That works in reverse too") P1 is still invalid, because we don't know it to be true, we only know that we don't know anything about nothing.


Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 4:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 4:47:45 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/12/2013 3:13:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then neither do metaphysical princples. Thus, using some metaphysical principle to say something couldn't arise from nothing, is meaningless. This assumes "nothing" would adhere to metaphysical principles, which is impossible. With nothing, there is no "metaphysical principle" which could prevent "something" from happening.

That works in reverse too, and is even more applicable.
There is no metaphysical principle, or condition that would ALLOW something to happen. Not even potentiality can exist, thus P1 is valid.

You are right, there would be nothing to allow something to exist, and nothing to prevent it to exist. This just puts us in a neutral zone though, that doesn't put us in a zone, where the P1 is justified. For P1 to be justified, we would have to crawl out of this neutral zone, and find something in P1's favor. Also, If not even possibility can exist, then there is no possibility of the the universe not existing. It works both ways, like you said. Since ex nihil nihil fit can only work, if it is in your favor (not in a neutral zone), then P1 is not valid, and the support for it fails.


Also, we only observe causation within the universe pertaining to things that begin to exist, this is only a general rule of thumb based on observation with regards to the parts of the universe. There is no way conclude that if the universe had a beginning, it must have a cause, based on the workings within the universe.

Since the only thing backing up P1 of the KCA is a metaphysical princple (which would not apply to "nothing"), and observation within the universe (which says nothing about the universe as a whole), then P1 is a dud.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:01:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If "nothing" exists, then it's both true that no possibilities exist. This means:

1) There is no possibility of the universe existing
2) There is no possibility of the universe not existing

This means, that "nothing" itself, is riddled with logical contradictions. However, does this really matter? If nothing exists, then the laws of logic don't exist anyway ;)
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2013 5:20:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/12/2013 5:01:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If "nothing" exists, then it's both true that no possibilities exist. This means:

1) There is no possibility of the universe existing
2) There is no possibility of the universe not existing

This means, that "nothing" itself, is riddled with logical contradictions. However, does this really matter? If nothing exists, then the laws of logic don't exist anyway ;)

I am listening to the audio right now, and here are his 3 main fortifications to premise 1:

1. It is a First principle of metaphysics that something cannot Come from nothing.

He then goes on to say that this a intuitional truth, something so deep it does not require another deeper truth to back it up, like logic.

2. If something can come into being without a cause, then why doesn't Just anything and everything come into being without a cause?

3. It's an inductive inference that as we look around the world and as we explore the natural world, we see that things just don't pop Into existence uncaused from nothing.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!