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.
At this point, we've agreed on what the premises are. We haven't agreed that they're true.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.
You have stated the KCA, and you think that makes the KCA sound until I express a counter-argument? You think that, once you state your argument, the burden of proof is on me to refute it?
If that's your position, I reject it. Arguments are not presumed sound until refuted. The burden of proof is on you.
I have presented an argument. It is valid. I have REASONED and purported it to be sound. I have supported each premise with evidence and reasoning. Now how is it to be determined sound? I have been and remain willing to meet my burden.
I did support p1 as basically the principle of cause and effect….what more could I possibly say….other than redress your objections to wiggle out of the overt understanding. I did present evidence for p2……which was my objective….to present evidence and reasoning for my belief. I reasoned that to deny either premise would place your reasoning in a diminished state. Now you may not agree, but I did present the reasoning and evidence. The conclusion reasonably follows…… things that begin to exist need a cause. The universe began to exist therefore has a cause. And that alone is evidence for a theistic God. But I did not leave it there…I lead you through the forensics and reasoning that leads to the mono-theistic God of the Bible. I’m only trying to establish that I have reasoning and evidence for my beliefs.
Now where specifically have I not made a case with reasoning and evidence? None of it assumed. Have I not been willing again and again to address your objections? You have even dismissed some of your own objections upon receiving my defense. Even to the point of agreeing the argument is valid.
So where am I assuming this is sound? I wouldn’t have even presented it if I had not reasoned to be sound to me. I should think by know you would respect that I have really reasoned through this. So I have presented a common argument that I have reasoned to be sound. If you don’t think it is sound then reasonably show me. If you can then I will forsake my reasoning that the argument is sound. Let’s please end this “it’s your burden game”….. I’m here and ready. And remember you asked for it. And confidently told me you would show me my mistakes. And you have for the most part put forth a great effort.
So now….
Certainly not. Deductive reasoning is good. It's a kind of reasoning. I'm on the side of reasoning.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 just don't think you get to establish the soundness of your argument by announcing it.
I didn’t just announce it. You would have to ignore a ton and reasoning and evidence that I have overtly presented to assert that I just announced it.
And….
How do you just get to announce or assume that it is unsound?
It’s absolutely implied in the definition. “beginning” is inherent in the reasoning.That's absurd. It's like calling a sparkplug the law if internal combustion.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.
Here, I Googled it: "The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause, there is a definite effect."
There is no mention of things beginning to exist. There is no claim that anything that begins must be an effect, nor that unbegun things need not be effects.
Finally I think I understand your objection here.
I didn’t realize you were challenging the implicit, intuitive nature of being.
So…………
You are missing the implicit logic that “being” is precisely the state of existence of the effect.
Here…….let me attempt to make the implicit understanding ….explicit……
You can’t reasonably deny……..that…… A causes brings an effect into existence.
Thus
Logically a cause….. causes an effect to begin to exist.
Thus….……
An effect that begins to exist has a cause.
Actually...…
Every effect that begins to exist has a cause.
Thus…..
p1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
So…..
………there is an implicit “begins to exist” in the understanding of the definition…..Here, I Googled it: "The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause, there is a definite effect."
Here…..
The universal law of cause and effect reasonably states for every cause there is a definite effect that begins to exist.
And again in reverse……
The universal law of cause and effect reasonably states that for every effect that begins to exist, there is a definite cause.
Clear?
So I have to admit there was an assumption in there on my part….it was….that I assumed you would understand that a cause logically causes an effect to begin to exist. So I wasn’t assuming the reasoning….. only that you understood it. I was wrong.
It absolutely would apply to God if he began to exist. Remember we agreed that God is a member of “everything” in p1. Thus no special pleading.I don't deny cause and effect. I dispute your claim that you have established that you get to arbitrarily announce that it doesn't apply to your god.It’s foundational reasoning. Foundational to science. To deny it would basically render your position unreasonable.
Just a cool ponder….Does math have a cause? Does logic have a cause?