I’m just saying that everyone knows you don’t use dictionaries unless you’ve just never seen the word. What the hell does Webster know?
Really? I think of it as the opposite. Now, the version you cite that Craig likes so much certainly refers to the Universe as though it were a thing in C2. But Aquinas' version makes it pretty explicit that he's talking about a series of discrete things, off the top of my head, I don't think 'the universe' even comes up. With that in mind, I think you could interpret Craig's 'universe' in C2 to mean 'the set of all things that began to exist' without changing much of the rest of the argument. I suppose he must have meant something like that, because 'the set of all things' period would include his God, and while I don't think he's the best philosopher ever, he's not gonna make that mistake.
Anyway, Craig aside, what I think is this: since the universe is the set of all things, it doesn’t make any sense to talk about the circumstances of it’s existence. What we have, is a bunch of things that began to exist, and the observation that they need causes. With that information, you can build some variety of the cosmological argument along first cause/infinite regress lines, which is exactly what Aquinas did. Saying “Maybe the universe is the kind of thing that doesn’t need a cause” and saying “The universe is a thing that needs a cause and that cause is X” are the same kind of mistake.
Only if you try to compare rabbits and hats to The Universe, which I think we've both agreed there's no point in doing through lack of information. I'm just saying there's versions (and not versions I just made up right now to win an argument on the internet) of the cosmological argument that don't fall into that trap.
Or you just want to know or say the truth.
The cosmological argument wasn’t given in gutter English.
Cave-man philosophy, I like it.
But seen from a rational perspective, it’s just belief in language as God.
“Cause” is a word. When you employ it, you imply another word: “effect”. Here’s the secret: these two super interesting words can be combined to form a “concept”. Actually the concept comes first and, when employed, splits up into these two words.
It’s real magic.
Aquinas proposed that infinite regression was impossible. That would be only true concerning the reasoning type of cause, not the time line type of cause.
No, it’s clearly the cosmological argument—and the support of it such as gave examples of.
I don’t think that would work, either. The argument:
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore, the universe was caused.
What would you change?
Probably right. But that is essentially what every cosmological argument attempts to do. —That’s what makes them “cosmological” arguments.
It’s not a lack of information about what’s in the universe that leads to the fallacy of irrelevance, it’s that the universe is a distinct logical category from all the things you might mention in the world as having causes. Perhaps in the future I’ll dig up Aquainus and do something with him to the tune of Robert Service.
I’d just add a stipulation that ‘the universe’ means ‘the set of all things that began to exist’. Even then you’d want to point out that the new P2 is true on the assumption that one ought to avoid an infinite regress:. I really do like the Aquinas version better- P2 in the above is just too vague and controversial.
Well, again, the original cosmological argument doesn't reference the universe at all.
1.) Any given thing is either caused or it isn't.*
2.) At least some stuff is caused.
3.) Either there is some stuff that isn't caused that is the first cause of everything else, or else there is an infinite regress of things causing other things.
4.) INFINITE REGRESS BAD!!!
C.) God exists.
- What you need here is a stipulation that a thing not having a cause, and a thing being the cause of itself, are functionally identical.
P2 is not supportable.
You can have a set of all things that began without the set itself being within that list.
…is an oxymoronic phrase.
I do not think that changes the argument. There is still a shift from saying something about the members of a set, to the set itself, and then the conclusion. Ultimately, it is treating the set as if it could be a member of itself. Have a look at the following argument:
P1. All men are mortal.
P2. The human race is made up of men.
C. Therefore, the human race is mortal.
I think it makes the same error.
Here’s a question: Is God the only X that does not begin to exist? Many people would say ‘yes’. If so, then the set of things that don’t begin to exist includes only God. That makes P1 equivalent to, “Everything except God has a cause”. And that inserts into the premise what the argument is trying to prove. Perhaps that’s a separate potential problem with the argument. I think it applies as well to the argument below.
What’s wrong with a thing not having a cause? In the above argument, there is an absence of “material cause”, assuming God creates the world ex nihilo. For the atheists, they’ll have an absence of an “efficient cause”, since they lack god. Really, why prefer one rather than the other? Is there some reason to think it’s anything but a preference?
Bless your heart my brotha… many actual scientists will have something to say to you, and not just philosophers. But I like your spirit.
That which causes the universe had no beginning.
A Cause can’t be a cause without its associated effect.
Thus the universe had no beginning either.
It’s mathematically provable that absolute nothingness can never be the state.
And you will never find any scientist who could debate that with me.
Even quantum physicists are caving into that one.
Although I am a little curious to know exactly why they try so hard to convince people otherwise.
So, let me get this straight my friend: the universe had no beginning, but happened to be caused by something. …OK, well, you take care now.
I am a simple man, with humble and realistic ambitions. You have no business talking to me about “absolute nothingness” and using that in mathmatics, as if it were a fucking number.
Again, I do not understand what you say. To me, it is incoherent. To someone smarter than me, it may be very insightful. But we’re not getting anywhere as it is… so…
See if you can realize this one;
First, the word “because” merely means “by the cause of”, right?
If I say that because
2 + 1 = 3
then
3 - 1 = 2
Does that mean that “2+1=3” existed before “3-1=2” in time?
Or does it just mean that "my deduction begins with 2+1=3 and that leads to my conclusion that “3-1=2”?
There are two kinds of “causes”;
A) timeline causes wherein the “cause” precedes the effect in time
B) logical causes wherein the “cause” merely precedes the conclusion in the line of reasoning
Logical causation has no need for infinite regression and thus has a “First Cause” = the beginning of the explanation.
But physical timeline causation requires infinite regression and thus can have no beginning.
Physical time has no beginning or end. But the chain of reasoning that leads to the existence of time is a short chain of reasoning with a beginning and with the existence of time as its end and was known as “The Word of God” (the reasoning was “the word”. A word is an assembly of smaller meanings that add up to higher meanings, “spelling”).
The Greeks and Moses were referring to the reasoning type of causation; “What is, is what is”, “A is A”.
That later became the notion of a beginning timeline wherein “God kick-started” the universe, by those without understanding or simply didn’t want others to understand.
Yes, it is logically necessary that existence exists. Non-existence is logically impossible. And as you say, the regression of physical time also logically implies “infinity” (boundlessness), in both directions.
And yeah, saying “God did it” is the sort of mindrape which occurs when logic is misused by authorities to manipulate people, to conceal rather than reveal.
JSS, there is no such thing as “logical causation”—it’s just a confusion and misuse of language on your part. Your entire last post was confused.
The fact that some premise/line comes later in your thinking/deduction, doesn’t mean the earlier ones caused the truth of it—they don’t. They only validate your thinking it true.
Logic deals with validity and inference, not causality.
Only to the illogical mind.
So they cause the belief in the conclusion, “it is true because…”
As the doctor mockingly stated, “You must be one of those silly people who believe that illnesses have causes… Take this prescription and come back in a week for your next treatment?”
But you just stay in the tiny world of your little mind because if you don’t…
… that little river just might overflow its banks.
Again, I think you are confused. Arguments are not true or false, they are valid or invalid. Logical rules don’t cause anything, lines don’t cause anything, premises don’t cause anything… they’re simply true or false depending on facts in the world—physical facts about the world, or else analytically true. I think it would be good if you go back through your own last couple of posts, very slowly. Read them carefully. Try to flesh out what you were thinking. And then see if you can explain what you were saying to a layman. You might have something, but right now, it’s incoherent.
von, just because you have chosen to forsake your capacity to think doesn’t mean others will do the same at your request.
Right, of course. Thank you, quack.
What I am saying is simply that what THEY were saying (as well as many people of today) is their word “cause” and your word “cause” don’t mean the same thing.
You are thinking in terms of the materialist, “Cause-Effect” = physical causation - “event A led to event B”
They are thinking in terms of reasoning/logic, “Cause-Effect” = analytical causation - “premise A led to conclusion B”
Ontology is the juncture between the mind and physical reality. An ontology is a map of what is perceived as reality, an under-standing, bases for belief and decisions. And your beliefs are an issue of your ontology, your inner mental map. Your map is used to verify what is or isn’t true. It is built partly by what you witness yourself and largely upon what others have explained. Discreet objects, terms, words, and causal relationships are all determined by either your first hand deductions or what others have convincingly told you about. When something fits into your map of reality well, you believe whatever it was whether from seeing it or from hearing about it.
Because you believed A, B becomes true for you. Your belief in A caused your belief in B.
The Cosmological argument is all about WHY a person would believe in something called “God”. And due to the premises that a person already believes, the conclusion of believing in God becomes apparent. Thus the premises are the cause of the belief. And the belief becomes the ontological reality, the map of what is = “map of reality”.
And when you say that X is true, you are saying that “in accord to my map of reality, X is what is out there as physical reality.” You do not say, “in my ontology, I believe in this made up entity and pretend it is true”. No, you say, “Because of my understanding, I know that it is true.”
Thus arguments cause belief which cause your understanding from which you proclaim what is real. And if your map is coherent with experience and comprehensive, what is real is what you believe… because of the premises in your map. To those with accurate maps, what the map holds as entities is what is real. The universe itself has no discreet entities. The universe is just a bunch of noise gathered a little more here than there and constantly flowing and intermixing.
Atoms are only atoms because of your ontological construct for such tiny noises. There is nothing in the real physical universe that exactly fits your map, so your map is used to determine true vs false, not physical reality itself because you can never know enough physical reality.
Truth = “Fits in my map.”
Thus the cause of “Truth” is the set of premises and logic applied to deductive observation and reports from others, not physical reality itself. Physical reality merely makes it easier or harder for you to adjust your map (aka “Truth”) to match it. But the Truth is determined by your premises, the “First Cause” of your belief which is then appended by further deductive observations or rumors.
And your First Cause (initial premise) is “What is, is what is” which later got translated as “I ma that I am” (exact same lettering in ancient Hebrew) and that is what they are calling “God”, the first cause of everyone’s “reality”.