OK OK we are saying the same things. I THINK. You are just making it more complicated. IMO.
I'm after making it simpler. If you use a word with one meaning, and I use it with another, and we at times can't tell which meaning the other is using because we're quoting each other,
that makes things complicated.
So let me try to place your terms allaverse and partaverse into the KCA.
Partaverse means just the spacetime continuum, all space matter and time, not including God
Close enough for government work.
And allaverse means everything…..all things that begin and do not begin to exist....God, partaverse, house, chairs, rainbows, pi etc.
Right. Anything that exists is part of the allaverse. If gods exist, they are part of the allaverse.
Then the KCA would read as follows…………..
p1 allaverse that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the partaverse began to exist.
c the partaverse has a cause.
That isn't valid. I'm happy with P2 and C.
P1 can be something like this:
P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Or, as you put it below:
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Which to me with those given definitions means the same thing as
p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 the universe began to exist
C the universe has a cause.
So your allaverse is to me is the same thing as my term “everything” in p1….both things that begin and don’t begin to exist.
Yes.
Though I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't.
The allaverse includes everything that exists, regardless of whether begun or unbegun.
And..
Your term partaverse to me means “universe” (spacetime continuum, all space matter and time, not including God) in p2.
There are so many times that I'm tempted to quibble. I want to let things slide, but I don't want it to come back to bite me.
For instance, I'm told that "spacetime continuum" may be Roddenberry's coining, that it doesn't mean anything to scientists. I don't mind if you use it so long as I'm not seen as endorsing it.
The boundary between the orange zone and the blue zone is not clearly established. Many (most?) theists, including William Lane Craig, think gods exist in the orange zone, that they exist in time and space. WLK: "That's how it has to be!"
But, I don't want to go back and forth on these issues, so, now that I've mentioned my reservations, I'm happy to let this slide so we can talk about other things.
But I do want the boundary between orange and blue to be fixed, even if not precisely identified. That is, whatever's in the orange zone in premise 2 must still be in the orange zone in the conclusion. If we agree on that, then we can agree on the KCA's validity.
Then the c still follows and is sound and valid.
I can give you
valid at this point, but not
sound. By calling it sound, you've just assumed your conclusion without proving it.
At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.
Granted.
Then why did you choose to exclude unbegun things from the scope of P1? Isn't that because, and only because, you believe in an unbegun god? That looks like special pleading to me.
Suppose Joe demands an explanation when he discovers a naked man in his wife's bedroom. Suppose his wife says the naked man's presence is unbegun, and therefore uncaused, and therefore not in need of explanation. You might think that a satisfactory reply, but to me it raises questions rather than answers them.
Charles Lindberg's plane, the Spirit of St. Louis, had a fuel tank in front of the pilot so he couldn't see forward, couldn't see the runway to land. Why was that?
I'm happy with the explanation that Lindberg had to carry an enormous amount of fuel, and putting the fuel behind him would have unbalanced the plane. I would
not be happy with the "explanation" that the plane has just always been like that, that the plane is unbegun, and that it therefore requires no explanation. That would seem like an evasion, not an answer.
You argue that things need causes, but then you carve an exception for your god. This feels like special pleading to me, and this I do not let slide.
You just called your argument sound, which is to say you
assumed that your premises are true. How is that not begging the question?
And quantum indeterminism does not mean uncaused, and thus is no defeater to p1.
I believe it does mean uncaused. I believe the scientific consensus is that indeterminism entails lack of causation.
(I believe that, at this point, the discussion is supposed to turn to distinguishing between "uncaused" and "ex nihilo.")
So what is the problem? ........Well if that is established you said it would still be trivial………
The reasoning is carefully stated and confirmed in our experience. [Emphasis added.]
Everything that begins to exists needs a cause. Where does that infer everything needs a cause?
Our
experience is that science tells us some things don't need causes, virtual particles, radioactive breakdown, tiny things in general. I don't see any way for you to get from there to everything-needs-a-cause-except-my-god.
You don't agree that virtual particles are uncaused. That suggests a worldview in which we can say that
everything in our experience is caused. If we rely on our experience, then, P1 should read, "P1: Everything has a cause."
If you want to carve out a special exception for your god, that exception is
not based on experience. It is contrary to experience. So you shouldn't be invoking experience as our authority.
Logically the first cause needs no cause.
If experience dictates that things have causes, how can there have been a first cause?
If you intend to abandon the requirement that causes precede effects, then, logically, you must also abandon the claim that first causes don't have causes.
All you've proved is that some things are caused. That's not news. I'm reminded of a joke a read in sixth grade:
A sailor walking thru town sees a sign in the window of the hardware store. The sign says, "Cast Iron Sinks."
The sailor says, "Everybody knows that."
You undertook to prove there's a blue zone with gods in, and that one of them is first. This is the argument we wait for.
You also keep inserting that one of these gods is intelligent, personable, powerful, and so on. I don't want to get off topic, but I will mention here that I demur; these claims are not established, and I don't believe they can ever be established. They strike me as whimsy, as wishful thinking, as begging the question.
Again my use of the word “everything” there is equivalent to your allaverse.
Agreed.
Which is why I was astounded that you thought my use of "allaverse" somehow precluded the existence of theists. If you can use "everything," why shouldn't I get to use a word that means the same thing?
Further the conclusion is that the partaverse needs a cause.....is in no way trivial.
"Some things have causes," isn't trivial?
Because…..
And do remember that post was very long, but brief to the effect that
It was a good post. I didn't have a problem with it.
I was only trying to establish that the universe (partaverse) was caused.
If you want to prove that virtual particles are caused, I'm all ears. If you want to prove that everything that exists in any place and time (including William Lane Craig's god, if that exists) is caused, then I'm for you.
So far, what you've "proved" is that things with causes have causes. This is not news. It is not significant. It is trivial.
Now if the partaverse has a cause then forensically that cause must be immaterial, non-physical, spaceless, timeless, incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent, personal…..because a choice was made to create, beyond natural, efficient cause.
I don't see any reason to believe any of that. We can discuss one of those if you want to abandon the KCA, but I'm thinking I should just demur and let these claims slide.
So I ask again…..How is that trivial?
If we choose to ignore the science of quantum mechanics, if we choose to
assume that everything we observe is caused, then we've sort of established that everything we observe is caused.
If we extrapolate a rule from that, and say that everything is caused, then that would be non-trivial. It would be a proof-based-on-assumption that everything is caused, that the allaverse is an infinite regress.
But if we arbitrarily curtail our assumed rule, saying that everything before march 3rd is caused, everything not-blue is caused, everything made by Chevy is caused, or everything unbegun is caused, then all we've got is a claim, based on special pleading that some things are caused even if other things may not be.
Our conclusion is that some things are caused. That's trivial, pointless, insignificant.