Learner
Veteran Member
or:
(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
![Winking face :wink: 😉](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png)
(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
![Winking face :wink: 😉](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png)
All things need a cause, except god who always was and always will be?or:
(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
![]()
I am so persuaded by Kalām by explaining the argument. The way I have presented the argument is in a deductive form as follows:
From these premises
it necessarily follows,
- (1) All things that begin to exist came into existence by something else.
- (2) The universe is something that began to exist.
The argument is formally valid.
- (3) The universe came into existence by something else.
That's only formally valid if you don't equivocate on the words existence and begin.
But, unless you equivocate on those words, the argument is so trivial as to prove nothing of interest to either side.
The argument is valid but it’s unsound. Premises 1 and 2 are unsupported.
(Conclusion 1) God caused itself - From (1), (2) and (3)or:
(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
![]()
I am so persuaded by Kalām by explaining the argument. The way I have presented the argument is in a deductive form as follows:
From these premises
it necessarily follows,
- (1) All things that begin to exist came into existence by something else.
- (2) The universe is something that began to exist.
The argument is formally valid.
- (3) The universe came into existence by something else.
That's only formally valid if you don't equivocate on the words existence and begin.
But, unless you equivocate on those words, the argument is so trivial as to prove nothing of interest to either side.
The argument is valid but it’s unsound. Premises 1 and 2 are unsupported.
I think it's bad tactics to cede validity. The argument is valid only if they don't equivocate. They're always going to equivocate. Without equivocation, the first cause argument has no point.
Since they don't use "begin" and "universe" to mean the same things in the premises as they do in the conclusion, the argument is not valid.
(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
(Conclusion 1) God caused itself - From (1), (2) and (3)or:
(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
![]()
(4) A real thing cannot preceed its own cause
(Conclusion 2) Nothing real can cause itself - From (1) and (4)
Contradiction - (Conclusion 1) and (Conclusion 2) cannot both be true.
Therefore your list of three (unsupported) premises cannot all be true.
Either some real things do not need a cause; Or God is not the cause of some real thing(s) (and specifically, of God); Or God is not real; Or more than one of these.
By the way, you know that a logical syllogism isn't just a list of premises, right?
Right?
You certainly seem to struggle with simple logic.
I am so persuaded by Kalām by explaining the argument. The way I have presented the argument is in a deductive form as follows:
From these premises
it necessarily follows,
- (1) All things that begin to exist came into existence by something else.
- (2) The universe is something that began to exist.
The argument is formally valid.
- (3) The universe came into existence by something else.
That's only formally valid if you don't equivocate on the words existence and begin.
But, unless you equivocate on those words, the argument is so trivial as to prove nothing of interest to either side.
The argument is valid but it’s unsound. Premises 1 and 2 are unsupported.
I think it's bad tactics to cede validity. The argument is valid only if they don't equivocate. They're always going to equivocate. Without equivocation, the first cause argument has no point.
Since they don't use "begin" and "universe" to mean the same things in the premises as they do in the conclusion, the argument is not valid.
I am so persuaded by Kalām by explaining the argument. The way I have presented the argument is in a deductive form as follows:
From these premises
it necessarily follows,
- (1) All things that begin to exist came into existence by something else.
- (2) The universe is something that began to exist.
The argument is formally valid.
- (3) The universe came into existence by something else.
That's only formally valid if you don't equivocate on the words existence and begin.
But, unless you equivocate on those words, the argument is so trivial as to prove nothing of interest to either side.
The argument is valid but it’s unsound. Premises 1 and 2 are unsupported.
I think it's bad tactics to cede validity. The argument is valid only if they don't equivocate. They're always going to equivocate. Without equivocation, the first cause argument has no point.
Since they don't use "begin" and "universe" to mean the same things in the premises as they do in the conclusion, the argument is not valid.
To follow up, the argument as stated not only has equivocal and unsupported premises, it is plainly enthymematic. At least one hidden premise is: The universe is the kind of thing that CAN begin to exist. Once this premise is unearthed, we see a composition fallacy. While it may (or may not) be true that all things WITHIN the universe that begin to exist came into existence by something else, it does not follow that the universe as a whole is the kind of thing that can begin to exist.
(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.
(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.
Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?
Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.Yes, both can be true, because the test for the worth of an argument is not its validity, but its soundness. An argument can be valid even if its premises are bullshit and the argument is enthymemetic.Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?
Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.
Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?
Yes, both can be true, because the test for the worth of an argument is not its validity, but its soundness. An argument can be valid even if its premises are bullshit and the argument is enthymemetic.
I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.
(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.
I disagree. Arguing science via rhetoric is nonsensical.Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.
It’s not stupid, because establishing the formal validity of an argument is the first step toward discovering whether it is sound. Validity is a necessary but insufficient condition for soundness. If an argument is not even valid, it can be dismissed out of hand.
I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.
(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.
Instead of the line in your 1st
premise that states: All things real need a cause....
...how about this alternative option out of a dozen & a half, one could design:
(1) All things in nature has a cause?
I disagree. Arguing science via rhetoric is nonsensical.Yeah, that is why arguing via that shit is stupid.
It’s not stupid, because establishing the formal validity of an argument is the first step toward discovering whether it is sound. Validity is a necessary but insufficient condition for soundness. If an argument is not even valid, it can be dismissed out of hand.
I was ... I'm just responding to a later post.I do notice of course the structure of your 1st premise that purposely limits God to a very particular conclusion by design, to suit.(1) and (3) do not support each other because if a god is real it needs a cause based on the first premise. A sound argument for an uncaused god would be:(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
(1) All things real need a cause.
(2) God is uncaused.
(3) God is magical.
(2) and (3) could be reversed and the argument would still be sound. An uncaused god only makes sense if it is something magical.
Instead of the line in your 1st
premise that states: All things real need a cause....
...how about this alternative option out of a dozen & a half, one could design:
(1) All things in nature has a cause?
I thought you were kidding about this argument because of the wink smilie, but maybe you are serious??
or:
(1) All things real needs a cause.
(2) God is that cause.
(3) God is real
![]()