Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Arguments for God's Existence

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 37 of 39
 [ 766 posts ] 
Arguments for God's Existence
Author Message
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:1 is not granted, and since everything seems to follow from 1 your whole argument collapses. "A" can cause "B" without C.

This is wrong. If there isn't a state C prior to B (where C is not B) then A can not be said be said to cause B because B already existed.

Let's use your example:

leroy wrote:for example an object gets wet because it touches water,

"A" would be touching water (cause)
"B" would be getting wet.

it is also true that A and B are simultaneous, which means that you don't need time to go from A to B


If there wasn't a state "C" not being wet, touching the water would not cause it to be wet because it is already wet.
Causal relations without time makes no sense. If A and B happens simultaneously you can't say that A caused B, because they just are simultaneously.

Not to mention how terrible your example is. "Wetness" is not something onto itself, you need something to be wet. And Wet is by definition touching water, and not really a cause.

leroy wrote:
What's the meaning of the words "efficient cause" without a "material cause"?

Well think about the diameter of a sphere, or the orbit of the earth, or the expansion of the cosmos, these things obviously had an efficient cause, but it is not clear if they also had a material cause.
It would help if you define efficient cause, material cause, and then explain why one can’t exist without the other


To briefly answer your question. The orbit of the earth is determined by the dynamics of material accretion, the expansion of the cosmos is determined by the energy contained there in, and even the diameter of a sphere comes into being by the assembly of the sphere itself. All of which are material. It is not surprising that the only examples you can come up with about causation are material.

But the most important point I want to make about this is that once again you failed to follow the rules of argumentation, because you are not equipped to do so.
When some one challenges you that your concept of something is meaningless, the burden is on you to provide a definition. You can not just continue arguing as if that wasn't an issue.
And if you can not provide a definition, then the argument is by default over, because you can't have a conversation about undefined things, and all arguments you make about it are by default wrong because you have nothing it refers to.
I'm not going to provide a definition for you, my point is that it doesn't have one, hence why it is illogical.

Your are not equipped to debate this topic. And I would need to teach you some basic principles of philosophy before you could even remotely start a conversation, and I'm in no mood to do that.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Fri Mar 30, 2018 8:00 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I pointed out the equivocation fallacy.



even if true, that would not be anequivocation fallacy, you probably meant "fallacy of composition" ..........but whatever we can use your own words and definitions for the sake of this thread. (just keep in mind that these kind of mistakes makes your arguments hard to follow) and this is why I misunderstood your argument in the first place.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Right, Premise 1, when properly formulated is, "Whatever begins to exist from existing material has a cause". We cannot draw any conclusion about the Universe from that premise, hence the equivocation
.


no, that is your straw man definition of premise 1.

the actual premise is supported by 3 arguments and perhaps even more important you haven't provided any good reason to make an arbitrary exception in the universe.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 01, 2018 4:40 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
To briefly answer your question. The orbit of the earth is determined by the dynamics of material accretion, the expansion of the cosmos is determined by the energy contained there in, and even the diameter of a sphere comes into being by the assembly of the sphere itself. All of which are material. It is not surprising that the only examples you can come up with about causation are material.



these are all examples of efficient causes, the reason why I asked you to define these terms is because to me it seems obvious that you don't understand the concept of efficient and material causes.


Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[

When some one challenges you that your concept of something is meaningless, the burden is on you to provide a definition You can not just continue arguing as if that wasn't an issue.
And if you can not provide a definition, then the argument is by default over, because you can't have a conversation about undefined things, and all arguments you make about it are by default wrong because you have nothing it refers to.
I'm not going to provide a definition for you, my point is that it doesn't have one, hence why it is illogical.




I already provided a definition for eficient twice.
The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aris ... ur-causes/


if you think that the concept is meaningless, you have to justify your assertions.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
If A and B happens simultaneously you can't say that A caused B, because they just are simultaneously


well Kant argued that causes can be simultaneous
The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/i ... 1.2.2.html


and he justifies his assertion in his published material.

or look how Britannica defines causation
Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).


if you what to affirm that causation can not be simultaneous, you have to explain why is Kant and so many philosophers are wrong, and then erect a case of your own where you provide evidence that shows that simultaneous causation is imposible.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
Your are not equipped to debate this topic. And I would need to teach you some basic principles of philosophy before you could even remotely start a conversation, and I'm in no mood to do that.



ohh don't worry don't do it for me, do it for the sake of all the neutral readers that might come to this thread, perhaps they would like to know how do you justify your assertions.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:06 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 119Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:
Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
To briefly answer your question. The orbit of the earth is determined by the dynamics of material accretion, the expansion of the cosmos is determined by the energy contained there in, and even the diameter of a sphere comes into being by the assembly of the sphere itself. All of which are material. It is not surprising that the only examples you can come up with about causation are material.



these are all examples of efficient causes, the reason why I asked you to define these terms is because to me it seems obvious that you don't understand the concept of efficient and material causes.


Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[

When some one challenges you that your concept of something is meaningless, the burden is on you to provide a definition You can not just continue arguing as if that wasn't an issue.
And if you can not provide a definition, then the argument is by default over, because you can't have a conversation about undefined things, and all arguments you make about it are by default wrong because you have nothing it refers to.
I'm not going to provide a definition for you, my point is that it doesn't have one, hence why it is illogical.




I already provided a definition for eficient twice.
The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aris ... ur-causes/


if you think that the concept is meaningless, you have to justify your assertions.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
If A and B happens simultaneously you can't say that A caused B, because they just are simultaneously


well Kant argued that causes can be simultaneous
The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/i ... 1.2.2.html


and he justifies his assertion in his published material.

or look how Britannica defines causation
Causation, Relation that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect).


if you what to affirm that causation can not be simultaneous, you have to explain why is Kant and so many philosophers are wrong, and then erect a case of your own where you provide evidence that shows that simultaneous causation is imposible.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
Your are not equipped to debate this topic. And I would need to teach you some basic principles of philosophy before you could even remotely start a conversation, and I'm in no mood to do that.



ohh don't worry don't do it for me, do it for the sake of all the neutral readers that might come to this thread, perhaps they would like to know how do you justify your assertions.


Just curious, in your example where an object gets wet when it touches the water, what specifically are you referring to as the cause which occurs in the same moment as the effect?

edit: For reference:

Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, System of all Principles of the Pure Understanding, Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality, Seventeenth Paragraph wrote:Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved. The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that the principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous. For example, there is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air. I look about for the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room. In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good. The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen. Here it must be specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous with the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there does not thereupon follow a leaden ball.
Last edited by psikhrangkur on Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:50 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:[...]
these are all examples of efficient causes, the reason why I asked you to define these terms is because to me it seems obvious that you don't understand the concept of efficient and material causes.
[...]
I already provided a definition for eficient twice.
The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aris ... ur-causes/


if you think that the concept is meaningless, you have to justify your assertions.


Nice foot work pal, but that ain't going to fly. I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of providing you with a definition onto me.
It's your claim, you better define your terms or concede the point.
And No, you have never provided a definition. What you have provided here is "an example", and an example of a "material cause" at that. If your contention is that efficient causes are not necessarily material causes, what is that I should look for so that when I'm a presented with an example I will be able to make the judgement "ah, yes this is an efficient cause, but not a material cause"? What is it that I should should look for in an efficient cause that allows me to identify it as an efficient cause?

But lets be honest, you and I both know that you can't do that. And all I need to justify the statement that your concept is meaningless, it is to demonstrate that you can't provide a definition. And I think I have done just that.


leroy wrote:
Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:[
If A and B happens simultaneously you can't say that A caused B, because they just are simultaneously


well Kant argued that causes can be simultaneous
The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/i ... 1.2.2.html


and he justifies his assertion in his published material.
[...]
if you what to affirm that causation can not be simultaneous, you have to explain why is Kant and so many philosophers are wrong, and then erect a case of your own where you provide evidence that shows that simultaneous causation is imposible.

Ok, this is going to be short then. Kant wasn't arguing that cause and effect can be simultaneous, we was arguing the exact opposite!
He was arguing that cause always precedes the effect in time. The quote you took is him raising an objection to his argument, and the paragraph right after that he explains why that objection is wrong! This is a gimmick used all the time by philosophers to justify their points. You just quote mined him and claimed he said the exact opposite of what he actually said. Unbelievable!
But lets say for the sake of argument that Kant did claim the opposite of what he actually claimed. I'm sorry, but he would be wrong! We have more modern tools today, special from computational theory that can translate this mathematically. You are just categorically wrong!
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Last edited by Master_Ghost_Knight on Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:44 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3471Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I pointed out the equivocation fallacy.



even if true, that would not be anequivocation fallacy, you probably meant "fallacy of composition" ..........but whatever we can use your own words and definitions for the sake of this thread. (just keep in mind that these kind of mistakes makes your arguments hard to follow) and this is why I misunderstood your argument in the first place.


:lol:

How cute. The person that regularly uses logical fallacies is failing at pointing them out (see the last two posts for a perfect example being pointed out). Simply adorable.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Right, Premise 1, when properly formulated is, "Whatever begins to exist from existing material has a cause". We cannot draw any conclusion about the Universe from that premise, hence the equivocation
.


no, that is your straw man definition of premise 1.


Nope. That is it properly formulated.

leroy wrote:the actual premise is supported by 3 arguments and perhaps even more important you haven't provided any good reason to make an arbitrary exception in the universe.


I pointed out that the whole argument rests on the fallacy of equivocation. Pointing out that you are equivocating between two different creations is not making an arbitrary exception, it knocks out the heart of the argument. You went out of your way to say the Universe came from nothing. Again, you are equivocating two different creations. We cannot draw any conclusions between the two because they are different.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:20 am
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:I already addressed every single of those points (multiple times in some cases) if you think there is a specific point that you think I haven’t address please let me know and I will answer. If there are many points that you think I haven’t address, select your favorite one.

Image

What a way to run Leroy. You're still running from Master_Ghost_Knightand he_who_is_nobody and my comment was highlighting how you've failed to address "every single of those points (multiple times in some cases". :lol:

Except for the "So do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?" point. That one was entirely mine and you've failed to address it, multiple times too.

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I pointed out the equivocation fallacy.


even if true, that would not be anequivocation fallacy, you probably meant "fallacy of composition" ..........but whatever we can use your own words and definitions for the sake of this thread. (just keep in mind that these kind of mistakes makes your arguments hard to follow) and this is why I misunderstood your argument in the first place.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Right, Premise 1, when properly formulated is, "Whatever begins to exist from existing material has a cause". We cannot draw any conclusion about the Universe from that premise, hence the equivocation
.


no, that is your straw man definition of premise 1.

the actual premise is supported by 3 arguments and perhaps even more important you haven't provided any good reason to make an arbitrary exception in the universe.

:lol:

Oh Leroy, you are just too funny.
1. No one except you has a hard time understanding he_who_is_nobody's point about false equivocation. The only person that constantly uses their own words and definitions is you (Leroy's ever-changing definition of choice/freedom/will/free will/libertarian free will/etc. and Leroy's definition of transcendent that means the opposite of transcendent come to mind)

And it is a false equivocation (someone even linked you a video about this) when the premises are supported by the apologists' "additional arguments". Case in point:

2. Do you actually know William Lane Craig's 3 arguments? Because you keep mentioning how they're supposed to do something yet you always fail to explain how. Go on Leroy, go find them (but I'd suggest you straight up quote and copy-paste them) and then try to explain them.

We'll then see how you'll fail to realize the straight false equivocation between the 3 of them and premiss 2 of the Kalam.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:56 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
Nice foot work pal, but that ain't going to fly. I'm not going to allow you to shift the burden of providing you with a definition onto me.
It's your claim, you better define your terms or concede the point.
And No, you have never provided a definition. What you have provided here is "an example", and an example of a "material cause"



No I provided both a definition and an example of an efficient cause (not a material cause) this kind of comments strongly suggests that you don’t know what you are talking about.
If you what more details, go to the source and reed the complete paragraph, not enough? Well go to any source that you would consider reliable and read the definition of efficient cause.
You are the one who is affirming that the concept of efficient cause (as defined by Aristotle) is meaningless. The burden is yours



Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:But lets be honest, you and I both know that you can't do that. And all I need to justify the statement that your concept is meaningless, it is to demonstrate that you can't provide a definition. And I think I have done just that.




A definition has been provided, + the fact that I am not inventing my own definitions, you can look at the definition of efficient and material cause in any source that you would consider reliable.




Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:But lets say for the sake of argument that Kant did claim the opposite of what he actually claimed.


:lol:
We don’t have to pretend anything; Kant did affirmed that causes and effects can be simultaneous.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote: I'm sorry, but he would be wrong! We have more modern tools today, special from computational theory that can translate this mathematically. You are just categorically wrong!


Maybe Kant (and I ) are wrong but you have to support your assertions.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:20 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Nope. That is it properly formulated.



Properly formulated according to whom? You? That is by definition a straw man, no theist to my knowledge has ever used your version of the KCA.

The KCA does not assert nor denies any specific type of “creation” the conclusion of creation Exnihilo is a result of the KCA + other independent arguments.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:39 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

MarsCydonia wrote:Except for the "So do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?" point. That one was entirely mine and you've failed to address it, multiple times too.


Fair enough, I haven’t address that before.
The answer is NO, see how easy it is to answer with a simple and direct answer?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:12 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 119Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote: :lol:
We don’t have to pretend anything; Kant did affirmed that causes and effects can be simultaneous.


I imagine that you found your Kant quote here, as they refer to the same quote and link the same source that you linked in this conversation. However, they do give a little more explanation:

Apologetics Press on Immanuel Kant wrote:The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen…. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time


I imagine that you cut out the rest, simply because it demonstrates that there is more to the quote than is being displayed here, and on top of that suggests that you can in fact determine the cause and the effect in any given situation by looking at the sequence of events that took place, ie by time in the last sentence.

Not that it really matters. After all, you linked the ebook, and with the actual source available to us, we can easily determine the truth about what Kant said. Once again:

Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, System of all Principles of the Pure Understanding, Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality, Seventeenth Paragraph wrote: Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved. The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that the principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous. For example, there is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air. I look about for the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room. In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good. The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen. Here it must be specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous with the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there does not thereupon follow a leaden ball.


I will link to the Table of Contents of that ebook here. This way, anyone curious enough to check can go look for the headings which I presented to find the bit of text being referred to.
Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:28 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

psikhrangkur wrote:
leroy wrote: :lol:
We don’t have to pretend anything; Kant did affirmed that causes and effects can be simultaneous.


I imagine that you found your Kant quote here, as they refer to the same quote and link the same source that you linked in this conversation. However, they do give a little more explanation:

Apologetics Press on Immanuel Kant wrote:The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen…. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time


I imagine that you cut out the rest, simply because it demonstrates that there is more to the quote than is being displayed here, and on top of that suggests that you can in fact determine the cause and the effect in any given situation by looking at the sequence of events that took place, ie by time in the last sentence.

Not that it really matters. After all, you linked the ebook, and with the actual source available to us, we can easily determine the truth about what Kant said. Once again:

Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, System of all Principles of the Pure Understanding, Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality, Seventeenth Paragraph wrote: Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved. The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that the principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous. For example, there is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air. I look about for the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room. In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good. The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen. Here it must be specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous with the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there does not thereupon follow a leaden ball.


I will link to the Table of Contents of that ebook here. This way, anyone curious enough to check can go look for the headings which I presented to find the bit of text being referred to.


Excuse me but where did cant denied the possibility of simultaneous causation?
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:21 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 119Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:Excuse me but where did cant denied the possibility of simultaneous causation?


Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, System of all Principles of the Pure Understanding, Principle of the Succession of Time According to the Law of Causality, Seventeenth Paragraph wrote: Here, however, a difficulty arises, which must be resolved. The principle of the connection of causality among phenomena is limited in our formula to the succession thereof, although in practice we find that the principle applies also when the phenomena exist together in the same time, and that cause and effect may be simultaneous. For example, there is heat in a room, which does not exist in the open air. I look about for the cause, and find it to be the fire, Now the fire as the cause is simultaneous with its effect, the heat of the room. In this case, then, there is no succession as regards time, between cause and effect, but they are simultaneous; and still the law holds good. The greater part of operating causes in nature are simultaneous with their effects, and the succession in time of the latter is produced only because the cause cannot achieve the total of its effect in one moment. But at the moment when the effect first arises, it is always simultaneous with the causality of its cause, because, if the cause had but a moment before ceased to be, the effect could not have arisen. Here it must be specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous with the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there does not thereupon follow a leaden ball.


Just the Emboldened wrote:Here it must be specially remembered that we must consider the order of time and not the lapse thereof. The relation remains, even though no time has elapsed. The time between the causality of the cause and its immediate effect may entirely vanish, and the cause and effect be thus simultaneous, but the relation of the one to the other remains always determinable according to time. If, for example, I consider a leaden ball, which lies upon a cushion and makes a hollow in it, as a cause, then it is simultaneous with the effect. But I distinguish the two through the relation of time of the dynamical connection of both. For if I lay the ball upon the cushion, then the hollow follows upon the before smooth surface; but supposing the cushion has, from some cause or another, a hollow, there does not thereupon follow a leaden ball.
Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:00 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:A definition has been provided, + the fact that I am not inventing my own definitions, you can look at the definition of efficient and material cause in any source that you would consider reliable.

No it hasn't.
If it is so easy, why don't you copy paste it for us then?

leroy wrote:Maybe Kant (and I ) are wrong but you have to support your assertions.

Kant never made the claim you made. You are wrong. And yes I can prove it mathematically.

Lets define terms:
Entities:
S - Represent the state space
A,B - Represents sub-states

Function:
T() - Transition function from S1 to S2

Operators:
∩ - State intersection
= - State Equivalence
≠ - State Diference
~ - State Negation
& - Statement and
| - Statement or
! - Statement negation
⇔ - If and only if (statment equivalence)

A causes B ⇔ (S ∩ A) = A & (S ∩ B) ≠ B & T(S) ∩ B = B & T(S ∩ ~A) ∩ B ≠ B

Let's give an example:
A - Throwing a Hammer
B - Broken glass
C - Inflate a balloon on the moon

Throwing a hammer causes broken glass if and only if:
1. (S ∩ A) = A - Hammer is thrown
2. (S ∩ B) ≠ B - Glass is not broken
3. T(S) ∩ B = B - State results in broken glass
4. T(S ∩ ~A) ∩ B ≠ B - State where hammer isn't thrown results in glass not broken.

A does not cause B if at least one of the following applies:
1. !((S ∩ A) = A) - Hammer is not thrown
2. !((S ∩ B) ≠ B) - Glass is already broken
3. !(T(S) ∩ B = B) - State does not result in broken glass
4. !(T(S ∩ ~A) ∩ B ≠ B) - State where hammer isn't thrown does not result in glass not broken.




Your statement that causes can be simultaneous to effect sums up to: (S ∩ A) = A & (S ∩ B) = B
1. (S ∩ A) = A - Hammer is thrown
2. (S ∩ B) = B - Glass is already broken

If causality was defined in such a way the following would be true:
1. ((S ∩ A) = A & (S ∩ B) = B) ⇔ ((S ∩ B) = B & (S ∩ A) = A). A causes B is equivalent to B causes A - I.e. The statement a thrown hammer causes a broken glass, is equivalent to the statement, a broken glass causes a thrown hammer.
2. It would be possible to define S such that ((S ∩ A) ≠ A | (S ∩ B) = B) & T(S) ∩ A = A & T(S) ∩ B = B. I.e. Thrown hammer causes broken glass even if glass was already broken before the hammer was thrown.
3. All definitive sub-states must necessarily cause each other. I.e. ((S ∩ C) = C & (S ∩ B) = B) - an inflated balloon on the moon also causes the broken glass.
4. And even worse given 3. With a A causes B in state S3, it is possible to formulate T() convergent states S1 and S2 where B and not B is definite respectively.
I.e. T(S1) = S3 & T(S2) = S3 & (S1 ∩ B) = B & (S2 ∩ B) ≠ B). I.e. Looking at the current state where a hammer has been thrown and a glass is broken, you must always say that the thrown hammer caused the broken glass, and you are not able to distinguish from a scenario where the glass was already broken (where you would say that the thrown hammer did not cause the broken glass) and the scenario where it wasn't (where you would say the thrown hammer caused the broken glass).

Your statement is absurd!
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:47 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3471Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Nope. That is it properly formulated.



Properly formulated according to whom? You? That is by definition a straw man, no theist to my knowledge has ever used your version of the KCA.


According to how English works. We already know that words can have more than one meaning, hence why equivocation can happen in the first place.

Beyond that, of course no apologist would care to be accurate when formulating it. If they cared to be accurate, they would not use it in the first place.

leroy wrote:The KCA does not assert nor denies any specific type of “creation” the conclusion of creation Exnihilo is a result of the KCA + other independent arguments.


It equivocates between creation from nothing and creation from existing matter. There is no way around this and why apologists hide it by not formulating the argument properly. Thus, unless these other independent arguments address the equivocation, they are all moot.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:05 pm
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 812Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Bernhard.visscher wrote:Argument for God's existance:

Thousands of years and atheists still can't prove a negative..... I just did...

Feel free to counter argue with an argument God does not exist.

That would be considered the "evidence" to "debunk" my claim atheists can't prove a negative... that's a friendly fyi ;)

Does anyone else have a problem decryphering that Bernie is trying to say? That because atheists can't prove a negative his God exists? Because he can prove a negative and atheists can't his God exists? That he doesn't understand the statement "you can't prove a negative" and therefore his God exists?
Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:28 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2719Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Image
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:44 am
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

leroy wrote:
MarsCydonia wrote:Except for the "So do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?" point. That one was entirely mine and you've failed to address it, multiple times too.


Fair enough, I haven’t address that before.
The answer is NO, see how easy it is to answer with a simple and direct answer?

It is simple. What you find hard is understanding simple and direct answers when they have more than 1 word.

Case in point:
Why is your answer NO? Aren't you just asserting NO out of your personal incredulity?

Think about your comments on the previous page before you answer Leroy. Maybe something will dawn on you but I doubt it will.

leroy wrote:The KCA does not assert nor denies any specific type of “creation” the conclusion of creation Exnihilo is a result of the KCA + other independent arguments.

Again Leroy, your own words: With "universe" I mean al space time and everything in it.

So you don't have even have to reformulate premiss 1 with the supporting arguments you regurgitate from Craig, you could only reformulate premiss 2 with what you "mean".

Maybe something will dawn on you but I doubt it will.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Mon Apr 09, 2018 3:12 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:No it hasn't.
If it is so easy, why don't you copy paste it for us then?
.


I already provided a definition 3 times
The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. If your eye sees, then it sees because light from the object strikes your eyes and causes you to see what is there. Efficient causes answer the what did that question, but do not answer how it was done.


Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:Your statement that causes can be simultaneous to effect sums up to: (S ∩ A) = A & (S ∩ B) = B
1. (S ∩ A) = A - Hammer is thrown
2. (S ∩ B) = B - Glass is already broken


If we assume that the glass was broken in the exact moment where the hammer touched the glass, then the cause and the effect would be simultaneous. Both events would be chronologically simultaneous (even though the hammer would be causally prior) this was explained by Kant, WLC and even the youtuber that you used as a source.

Lets look at an obvious example, 2 semicircles began to exists at the exact same chronological time at when a sphere was split in halves however due to the causal relation that these 2 events have cutting the sphere is the cause, and 2 semicircles would be the effect.

You are presenting a false dilemma, the glass was not broken before the hammer touched the glass.

I agree that this is a controversial point and that there is peer reviewed literature on both sides, but if our alternatives are.
1 Accept simultaneous causation as possible
2 Accept that the universe came in to existence “a causally”

I would go for the first, since the second is demonstrably incoherent while the first has never been proven to be incoherent.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:09 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Arguments for God's Existence

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
According to how English works. We already know that words can have more than one meaning, hence why equivocation can happen in the first place.

Sure, but the word “creation” is not even used in the KCA, therefore equivocation can’t happen.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Beyond that, of course no apologist would care to be accurate when formulating it. If they cared to be accurate, they would not use it in the first place.


The guy who makes the argument is the guy who decides how the argument should be formulated.
Any alteration of the original formulation is by definition a straw man.

the KCA does not say anything about the type of causation,
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:19 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 37 of 39
 [ 766 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests