Thank you that.It was a good post. I didn't have a problem with it.Because…..
And do remember that post was very long, but brief to the effect that
With same desire to be thorough….this one is longer as well.
So thank you this…….all that follows…….
Yes God is a member of the set of everything.Right. Anything that exists is part of the allaverse. If gods exist, they are part of the allaverse.
And….
I thought at the time you were asserting they were one in the same like Sagan and skepticalbip. It’s a common refrain here.Which is why I was astounded that you thought my use of "allaverse" somehow precluded the existence of theists.
Quoted whole to present whole thought. Parsed here….Yes.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.
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.
Absolutely. But………….this……The allaverse includes everything that exists, regardless of whether begun or unbegun.
Well I’m reasonably certain that that you would agree most things begin to exist.Though I don't stipulate that some things begin to exist and some things don't.
So…… your stipulation, stated positively, must be that you believe that all things begin to exist….
Well………..
If the universe were eternal would it begin to exist?
No? because reasonably……
That which is eternal wouldn’t begin to exist. That’s the non-trivial implication of p2, a beginning universe.
Keep this in thought………………That is the power of the KCA, or any argument really. You are perfectly free to reject the reasoning. But at what cost? A rejection is an oppositional line of reasoning. Thus the reasoning of the rejection is weighed against the reasoning of the argument. P1 is the basic principle of cause and effect. A principle foundational to good reasoning. To reject p1 would bankrupt the economy of your reasoning. To reject the reasoning that things either begin to exist or not also diminishes your economy. Hence why I’m highlighting that.
To clarify…..“boundary” is too vague a term. The distinction between them is clear, the interaction between them is unclear. Similar but not exact….I build a house. I am distinctly separate from the house yet I can freely go into the house and exit the house. I can sustain and modify the house from within or without.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!"
So….
Just to be clear....“boundary” does not blur the distinction of the two.
Absolutely.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.
I’m not assuming the c. That is the structure of all arguments to be stated conclusively. It is understood in all arguments that the premises need to be supported…..as you go on to do here.....….I can give you valid at this point, but not sound. By calling it sound, you've just assumed your conclusion without proving it.Then the c still follows and is sound and valid.
And that the conclusion is understood. The rest is measuring the economy of my reasoning for support against your economy of reason to reject. Giddy up.At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.
Thank you very much.Granted.No equivocation,
“exclude” is the term that is vague here. How it is exluded is important issue. If it is excluded by definition then I would be committing a fallacy. But it is not exluded by definition….. because things that begin to exist and do not begin to exist are part of the allaverse. We have already agreed to that.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.no special pleading,
So now….
The KCA is overtly a deductive argument. Thus logically it deduces to a conclusion. Are you asserting that I’m wrong because I’m using deductive reasoning?
I don’t understand. I addressed this before……………………here…
So…….in our new terminology……….I know there are too many thank you assertions here but this also needs noting. It is refreshing that you explained your special pleading and didn’t just simply assert it. If only the others could learn to do the same, at least after asking several times.- First, it looks like special pleading.
Why do those who believe in an unbegun god say that everything that begins to exist has a cause? If they believed in a blue god, would they say everything that isn't blue has a cause?
Either everything is caused or not. I don't know of any reason to carve an exception for things unbegun.
P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This is the law of cause and effect. Sometimes referred to as the causal principle or the law of causality. It’s foundational reasoning. Foundational to science. To deny it would basically render your position unreasonable.
But …..
You are attempting to reason that this principle is constructed as a special pleading.
So……
1) It is not a construction….it is a recitation of an observed principle we all know to be basic reasoning.
2) There is no human intentional “carve out”. There is a logical exemption of things that don’t begin to exist. Thus there is no intent to carve out. Eternality is a reasonable exemption of the principle of cause and effect. After all we are not looking for the first effect.
3) If the universe were eternal it would not need a cause, because it did not begin to exist and then would itself be a candidate as the first cause. Now with that hopefully understood we need to look at history. For millennia the universe was strongly believed to be eternal. However, with the discovery of an expanding universe the strength for that belief came into question. Only 150 years ago is was reasonable to consider the universe eternal.
Now…
Juxtaposed with the understanding that the first cause argument predates the discovery of an expanding universe. Thus it is unreasonable to NOW assert special pleading because for millennia the universe was thought to be in the same category that you are now calling a “carve out”. What was carved out was the reasonability of the universe being eternal.
History is replete with number 3. The paraverse was widely and commonly thought to be eternal, thus not to have begun, thus was the first cause. Check out Sagan’s quote posted by James Brown post 121. Now he was clinging on to this notion long past the expiration date. So you can’t possibly charge special pleading with a history of this very notion applying to the paravesre as well. And I emphasize again the cosmological argument predated the current understanding that now the paraverse most reasonably began to exist. Predates it by over 1000 years. No special pleading by definition….but reasonable exclusion by the rational power of deduction.
Bottom line…if you are still going to still assert special pleading against p1 then the economy of your reasoning will suffer greatly for you would have to ignore a whole lot of history and deny deductive reasoning.
Further on that same point…..because you suggested…..
1) Why would the husband consider the wife’s claim about the unbegun presence of the naked man to be reasonable? Has the man been there in their presence eternally? Doesn’t make sense.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.
2) You are conflating cause and explanation. The KCA and LCA…Leibnitz. The LCA does not assert that God doesn’t have an explanation even though he is uncaused. The KCA does reason that God is uncaused but says nothing of explanation.
Also…….
Who would ever “suggest” that the plane was eternal? You see I’m not “suggesting” uncaused, I’m “reasoning” that eternal entities are uncaused. So….. What is wrong with reasoning that?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.
Does it still FEEL like that now?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.
How do you NOW weigh the economy of our reasoning here regarding special pleading? I think I have defeated your defeater over and over and over again. But still willing to hear possibly a new angle on that.
As explained above. All arguments are stated conclusively, with the understanding that the premises may be challenged. Everyone who deals with arguments knows this, except abaddon and attrib. I have defended this reasonable argument for decades. No one has YET presented any reasoning credible enough for me to reject either premise. Thus I was speaking from my experience that the argument is sound. That is not a process of assumption it is ongoing process of reason. You have not presented any reasoning yet that would be better than the reason I have to present and defend it. All of what you presented thus far is misunderstandings of the argument. That have been easy to address. Thus why should I consider the KCA unsound?You just called your argument sound, which is to say you assumed that your premises are true. How is that not begging the question?no begging the question.
You believe that …….do you?I believe it does mean uncaused. I believe the scientific consensus is that indeterminism entails lack of causation.And quantum indeterminism does not mean uncaused, and thus is no defeater to p1.
Well….
Now here you are not presenting a misinterpretation of the KCA. You are properly attempting to rebut the reasoning of cause and effect, by asserting that you can name a temporal effect without a cause. Thereby rebutting p1.
So…
Now right from the start you are asserting the sensational. Pulling a rabbit out of an empty hat. So let’s weigh the reasoning.
Your position….. Virtual particles just begin to exist without a cause…..magically!
My position….. We don’t know how they began to exist. And it seems like we hit a wall because our measurements to get at that cause mess up our attempts to determine the cause. So for now its indeterminate.
Which economy of reasoning is more prosperous on that?
Also…
Notice we’re trying to fill a gap in our reasoning here. Aren’t we?
And
You are filling the gap with magical reasoning.
And
I’m simply asserting we don’t know. It’s indeterministic.
Do you see what I’m inferring…..
Do you recognize the reasoning pattern there?
So….
Whose position “sound”s more reasonable?
Since the answer is obvious….I still contend the p1 is sound.
Did that feel like I just assumed it?
Experience dictates that everything that “begins” to exist has a cause. Reason dictates that the first cause therefore must be eternal. Necessary. Has the power of being in its own nature. That is the force of the first cause argument. The KCA’s effectiveness is to first show that the paraverse cannot be the first cause, and that only the theistic God has the attributes to be that first cause.If experience dictates that things have causes, how can there have been a first cause?Logically the first cause needs no cause.
I’m not abandoning that causes precede their effects, I simply recognize that some causes are simultaneous to their effects. I mentioned this before. Simultaneous cause and effect. Think of a depression caused by a bowling ball placed on a cushion.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.
Thus, I don’t have to abandon that the first cause is uncaused.
But again you miss the force of the reasoning. The two major candidates for the first cause are the paraverse or the mono-theistic God. I have provided the age old history of the battle several times now.All you've proved is that some things are caused. That's not news.How is that trivial?
So
The KCA doesn’t just prove somethings are caused.
The KCA takes dead deductive aim at the subject of p2, paraverse, and eliminates it as the first cause, thus God.
Is that still trivial?
Only if you continue to ignore the forensic reasoning I have given you twice now. It has been lightly reasoned out to you at a quick basic level. Room for more discussion of course. But you didn’t address the reasoning I gave. You just expressed your feelings.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.