There is a big difference between the understanding that the law of causality addresses at temporal relationship and asserting that the law of causality itself is temporal.
What does “law of causality
itself” even mean? Do you think it’s a thing in itself?
Causality is just a human generalization from empirical observations of nature. I don’t know how it can be an eternal… whatever. Force? Rule? Thought in the mind of God
Specifically…………….
What does “law of causality itself” even mean?
The law of causality immaterial law that exits eternally.
Do you think it’s a thing in itself?
Yes, don’t you? You have been trying to use it throughout our discussion here.
Causality is just a human generalization from empirical observations of nature. I don’t know how it can be an eternal… whatever.
Before there were any humans on the earth, was the condition that there were no humans on the earth, true?
Also ……………..
Human generalizations change the laws of logic do not.
No
Law.
Thought in the mind of God
Part of the nature of God.
Next ...
The fallacy of composition is when one takes an observation of objects or events and assume it applies to the whole collection. Each song on the album is short therefore the album is short. Everything in the universe is caused therefore the universe is caused. Each thing in nature is “contingent” so the whole of nature is “contingent”.
There is the straw man. The argument is not claiming or assuming that the universe needs a cause because things in the universe have a cause. The argument is based on the reasoning that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Word game bullshit. Causality isn’t only a “reasoning”, it’s an abstraction
from observation. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is something one can only extrapolate from things or events within experience (in the universe) having apparent causal relations. There’s no other way to derive the main assumption, causality, upon which your argument to God is based except looking at nature.
I think you missed my point there. To claim that theists are committing the fallacy of composition there is to assert that our reasoning for the universe to have a cause depends on faulty logic ….. that since we observe that things in the universe having causes therefore we assume the universe has a cause. If that is the logic of the argument then it would be a fallacy of composition comparable to your record example.
But the logic of the argument depends on things having a beginning. Anything that begins to exist (regardless of subset characteristics) needs a cause. There is no composition of the logic in the argument.
Further ……………
Causality isn’t only a “reasoning”, it’s an abstraction from observation.
So is gravity. But does that mean gravity didn’t exist before humans were around?
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause” is something one can only extrapolate from things or events within experience (in the universe) having apparent causal relations.
Yes, but human observation and extrapolation did not cause the law of causality or gravity to exist. The law of causality is nonphysical characteristic we have discovered not invented. In the same manner as the law of gravity is a physical characteristic that we discovered not invented. Each existed prior to human discovery. The Earth was the similar shape as the Mars before humans were here to observe their shapes. Earth was closer to the sun than Neptune before there were humans here to observe their mathematical relations.
In this context our observation is not causal, it’s descriptive. Without the existence of the law of causality we would never have been able to make sense of our observations?
There’s no other way to derive the main assumption, causality, upon which your argument to God is based except looking at nature.
Yes our observations discovered and confirmed its existence, but our observations did not cause its existence.
Yet skeptics still claim the argument is defeated by a pseudo-defeater.
I don’t claim it’s defeated. If it’s doubtable then it’s not a solid argument. It’s been argued by dozens over centuries with no absolute "defeaters" and to no end because ultimately it reveals nothing at all but how people value things. You get “God” out of it if that word seems meaningful (seems to have explanatory power because of assumptions about "eternal" and other). But you think “no I’m not convinced” if the concept "God" isn't perceived as meaningful.
Noted … not defeated just doubtful.
Then……….
It’s been argued by dozens over centuries with no absolute "defeaters" and to no end because ultimately it reveals nothing at all but how people value things.
It does not address how people value things …. Non sequitur.
You get “God” out of it if that word seems meaningful (seems to have explanatory power because of assumptions about "eternal" and other).
Conclusion does not rest upon any premise or logic of humans values.
But you think “no I’m not convinced” if the concept "God" isn't perceived as meaningful.
No. I’m challenging your claims of why it is doubtful. You will likely still find the argument uncompelling, but that does not make the argument unsound or invalid it just means you don’t find it compelling. Thus it is your reasoning vs the logic of the argument that is there to be judged. More specifically we are addressing the plausibility of the argument. You reject it for certain expressed doubts. I simply have been challenging the validity of those doubts. You have been challenging my efforts and defending yours. That’s the way it works.
Label and dismiss that any way you like, values are the central fact of this argument and not logic because the logic's riddled with value-laden assumptions and terms.
How so? Premises, logic and conclusion is the central thesis. It is an objective argument based on logic, no need for subjective values. You may be rejecting it based on subjective values but that again does not render the objective argument invalid.
Next …………..
You would be correct if the laws of logic were a physical characteristic. But they are not physical characteristics bound by the physical. Same reasoning applies to your asserted fallacy feature. Your reasoning fails. Further you are begging the question for materialism when you errantly claim they don’t apply outside of the physically material universe.
No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition because logic’s material and belongs only within the material universe. Look up the fallacy of composition if you don’t understand it. There’s no physicalist assumption going on.
I saw this a different fallacy. As to the regards of the law of causality as being physical there, I was addressing the fallacy of begging the question not composition. Go back and read it. It is “write” there. There were two different concerns. Your prior concern that I reposted had nothing to do with composition as I saw it.
Further……………..
No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition
But you did exactly that at the beginning of your last post …………
The fallacy of composition was explained several pages ago.
No it was asserted by underseer.
No, I referred to myself and you quote that instance of me explaining it later in this post.
No that was begging the question ….. as you quoted me.
AND NOW you are claiming ………. In the same post…..
No, I’m not saying your argument’s a fallacy of composition because logic’s material and belongs only within the material universe. Look up the fallacy of composition if you don’t understand it. There’s no physicalist assumption going on.
You are arguing with yourself and criticizing me for it. I recognized from the beginning you were committing two different fallacies.
Next……………
The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.
No it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?
1) “No it doesn’t necessarily mean that”.
Then you are illogically asserting the universe created itself? Based on what? Faith?
I will withdraw that because I’d already conceded previously the premise that IF this universe is an effect then there’s a cause of the effect.
Very rational.
2) “If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from?”
Let’s leave the “God Hypothesis” out of this for a just a moment.
This is the rationale for the argument. If something exists now then something has to be eternal. Rationally something necessarily has to exist eternally without cause. That which is eternal does not begin. That which is eternal rationally has no cause. For most of human history the universe has been reasoned to be eternal and reasoned to not have a cause because it did not begin. Science recently has shown that not to be the case.
Now do you understand the logic of ……………..
1. that something has to be eternal
2. a entity that is eternal it does not have a cause
3. the universe is not eternal ……………
………..without the burden of the “God Hypothesis?”
So……..
Here I went from doubting the necessity of an external cause to wondering why does god get an “out” regarding your eternal “law of causality”?
He doesn’t. God is eternal and did not begin to exist. Again that which is eternal does not have a cause.
This is not a case of special pleading for this EXACT logic throughout history (until recently) has been the reasoning why the universe was considered to be the first cause.
(And so the wheel just spins on and on and on and on and on and on, the argument's old because it's unsolvable and it'd be so much less onerous ... maybe even interesting ... if you would just move on to why it's a Christian God and not another).
To clarify …
1. These two arguments point to a theistic God, not necessarily the Christian God.
2. What remains (as I see it) in the pool of God’s that has not been filtered out by these two arguments is…..
The Christian God, the Islamic God and the God of Judaism. One could make a case for the deistic God as well, but then one would first have to admit there is a God, and then examine the scriptural evidence to why that is or is not the case.
I will of course entertain any other candidates you may wish to contend.
