Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You misunderstand logic. The job of logic is to determine whether arguments are valid. Whether they are sound, 'true' if you will, depends on the state of the universe. There is no reason to assume that the universe is ultimately logical. For instance, the premise 'The universe popped into existence completely spontaneously' is only 'illogical' if you accept the premise "There must be a first uncaused cause."

I know what 'logically valid' means, and the Cosmological argument is a Valid construct. The concussion can't be false if the premises are true. Whether it is sound or not is another matter and the obvious premise to attack is the first one regarding the impossibility of the infinite regress and that there must be a first uncaused cause.

Can you do better than 'that's bullshit'? Can you prove that there can be an infinite regress of causation?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You can say that all you want, does not make it true. There can be an infinite regress. Prove otherwise! There is no reason there has to be a first cause. prove otherwise. The Cosmological argument is not an argument at all. Even if you insist that there has to be a first cause, there is no warrant for calling that cause god, big bang, or the fibruous bundersnatch
The Cosmological Argument is circular. God is the first cause, there has to be a first cause therefore god has to be.
It's a fantasy for people with faith.

An infinite regress of causes is logically impossible since you would never actually arrive at a cause, a chain of events can't not have a beginning, it would just be a chain of effects. It's a logical necessity that there must be a first uncaused cause.

You are assuming that the universe has not always existed.

Science has shown that the universe had a beginning, we know how old it is, and since we can't know what came before it, it's just an assumption to claim that there was anything before it. You have no way to show that the universe has always existed.

If you add time to the start of the universe then time too also came into being. This contradicts the assertion that "there was a time when the universe never existed". If time came to be with the universe then the universe has always existed in time.

Only you have claimed that. I would have phrased it 'the universe, and Time, haven't always existed'. Now there's no contradiction except the one you artificially created with the way you phrased it.

You are unworthy

[uwot]

Can you do better than 'that's bullshit'?

I'm not sure what I have said that you equate with "that's bullshit", so pending clarification, I'd better say no.

Can you prove that there can be an infinite regress of causation?

I'm not trying to. Can you prove there can't?

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You are unworthy

And you are quite unpleasant. It's a shame that in the 30 years you haven't learned to be able to discuss things civilly.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You are unworthy

And you are quite unpleasant. It's a shame that in the 30 years you haven't learned to be able to discuss things civilly.

You keep saying the same thing over and again, without moving the discussion on.
I've only so much patience.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You misunderstand logic. The job of logic is to determine whether arguments are valid. Whether they are sound, 'true' if you will, depends on the state of the universe. There is no reason to assume that the universe is ultimately logical. For instance, the premise 'The universe popped into existence completely spontaneously' is only 'illogical' if you accept the premise "There must be a first uncaused cause."

I know what 'logically valid' means, and the Cosmological argument is a Valid construct. The concussion can't be false if the premises are true. Whether it is sound or not is another matter and the obvious premise to attack is the first one regarding the impossibility of the infinite regress and that there must be a first uncaused cause.

Can you do better than 'that's bullshit'? Can you prove that there can be an infinite regress of causation?

It's a false circular argument.
The premises are false and so the (ahem!) "consussion" must also be false.
Deductions teach nothing, they simply clarify the implications of the premises.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

Can you prove that there can be an infinite regress of causation?

I'm not trying to. Can you prove there can't?

An argument has been presented to show why there must be a first uncaused cause but instead of countering it, you're telling me that I don't understand logic. I understand logic well enough to know that the Cosmological argument is logically valid. Since you seem to disagree with it, the onus is now on you to show why it's unsound. The first premise is what is being challenged, this is the argument that supports it.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

The universe had a cause, but since it's logically impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causation (there would only be effects, no cause and no beginning), the must be a first uncaused cause.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You keep saying the same thing over and again.

Because you haven't shown why it's not true and since the construct is logically valid I think it's fair to ask you to. The burden of proof for the positive claim is met by the argument, it's now up to critics to show why it's now sound.

I understand why you think the argument is circular, that the first premise is basically saying 'god did it', which is also the conclusion, but it's not saying that. It's simply saying that there must be a first uncaused cause, and having established that uncaused cause (by necessity) we'll call it god because that cause must share the attributes that we understand god to have.

Counters include that the uncaused cause is a type of Special Pleading and worse, it's Inductive logic because the idea that everything must have a cause is based on a posteriori reasoning, an extrapolation, and that can never be logically valid. Physicist Laurence Krauss has an argument, based on what we understand of Physics currently to show how something could have come from nothing without need an agent. His debates with WLC are worth watching.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Can you prove that there can be an infinite regress of causation?

I'm not trying to. Can you prove there can't?

An argument has been presented to show why there must be a first uncaused cause but instead of countering it, you're telling me that I don't understand logic. I understand logic well enough to know that the Cosmological argument is logically valid. Since you seem to disagree with it, the onus is now on you to show why it's unsound. The first premise is what is being challenged, this is the argument that supports it.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) The Universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

The universe had a cause, but since it's logically impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causation (there would only be effects, no cause and no beginning), the must be a first uncaused cause.

P 1 is from induction; an unsubstantiated premise. a posteriori.
P 2 is unverifiable. Nothing more than an assertion. axiomatic
Therefore C1 is not a valid conclusion.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

P 1 is from induction; an unsubstantiated premise. a posteriori.
P 2 is unverifiable. Nothing more than an assertion. axiomatic
Therefore C1 is not a valid conclusion.

Yes, it is a Valid conclusion, but it may not be Sound. Serious question, do you understand what Logical Validity is? The way you're using the word 'valid' is confusing, it's like you think it means 'true' and it doesn't. If P1 and P2 are correct, then the conclusion can't be anything other than what it is, so it's a Valid construct.

Do you agree now that the Cosmological argument isn't Circular? A philosopher like WLC wouldn't make such a basic error of logic.

So this still hinges around whether or not you can have an infinite regress of causation, now do you see why I'm still there in this discussion? We haven't resolved that problem, and frankly we're unlikely to since no one has successfully in 800-2000 years that this argument has been around in it's various forms.

[Hobbes' Choice]

P 1 is from induction; an unsubstantiated premise. a posteriori.
P 2 is unverifiable. Nothing more than an assertion. axiomatic
Therefore C1 is not a valid conclusion.

Yes, it is a Valid conclusion, but it may not be Sound. Serious question, do you understand what Logical Validity is? The way you're using the word 'valid' is confusing, it's like you think it means 'true' and it doesn't. If P1 and P2 are correct, then the conclusion can't be anything other than what it is, so it's a Valid construct.

Do you agree now that the Cosmological argument isn't Circular? A philosopher like WLC wouldn't make such a basic error of logic.

So this still hinges around whether or not you can have an infinite regress of causation, now do you see why I'm still there in this discussion? We haven't resolved that problem, and frankly we're unlikely to since no one has successfully in 800-2000 years that this argument has been around in it's various forms.

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

No the argument is circular.

It's not, I think it's that you just still don't understand how the first premise is being used, irrelevant of whether or not it's True.

[Hobbes' Choice]

No the argument is circular.

It's not, I think it's that you just still don't understand how the first premise is being used, irrelevant of whether or not it's True.

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

[BishBoshMcCosh]

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

It seems like you don't really have a problem with there being a first uncaused cause so much as that people then refer to it as god and use it to support that he exists?

[Hobbes' Choice]

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument.

P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2) God began to exist.
C1) Therefore, God had a cause.

It seems like you don't really have a problem with there being a first uncaused cause so much as that people then refer to it as god and use it to support that he exists?

It seems like you can't read.
Or have a problem with irony.