fishbulb

Not really. But let me provide you with an example:

1. All leprachauns are socialists.
2. George W. Bush is a leprachaun.
3. Therefore, George W. Bush is a socialist.

Perfectly valid syllogism, so if the premises are true, so is the conclusion. Few would deny the monumental implications of having a socialist leprachaun in the White House. Do you think it's worth having a sersious discussion about the consequences of the conclusion being true, or would you want me to provide some evidence to substantiate my premises before you bothered wasting time on such a topic? I vote for the latter.


The conclusion is meaningless because the premises are meaningless. You haven't presented one iota of evidence to suggest that we should take the premises seriously, so any conclusions that follow from them are likewise not worthy of consideration.


Let me repeat: I don't want to discuss either of them because I find no reason to suspect a discussion of either will bear fruit. If you have evidence to support either claim, present it. If I find it credible, then I might want to discuss further. But I have no intention of starting a discussion on either of these two points myself.

Normal

For the logical precedent to begin the universe, it must be extra-universal to be coherent.

haverbob

Yes it's your favorite tongue in cheek pain in the ass again.
Yes, seems like you are saying that if there is a God, he could not have been created by us (figment of our imagination). Yeah? So?[/quote]

Yeah... That's what the concept of God is supposed to explain or at least point to. If you want to go deeper, try the concept of "infinite origin" that science uses to explain things. Either way. They are both just as unexplainable.
If someone or something created God, then that would immediately mean we are speaking about something other than God. Right??

Wiploc

I think you gave up coherence when you started trying to distinguish causal precedence from chronological precedence.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you didn't. Then, if causes need not precede (chronologically) effects, there is no reason the beginning of the universe couldn't have been caused by some later part of the universe.

It is my position that:
1. causes need not precede effects is nonsense. And,
2. If causes need not precede effects is NOT nonsense, then the beginning of the universe may have been caused by some later part of the universe is not nonsense either.

It is your position that:
1. Causes need not precede effects is NOT nonsense. But,
2. Nonetheless, it is nonsensical to assume that the beginning of the universe was caused by some later event.

My statements seem to me intuitively obvious. Your statements seem to me clearly contradictory. Why do you maintain the general rule while objecting to a specific instance of the rule?
crc

Normal

People generally give up coherence when talking about "before the beginning" of time.

Things only have to precede logically. It is not logical for something to begin to exist when it was caused by a later existant.

mattdamore

Ok, but the premises inherent in the KCA are little less obviously false than the argument you presented. There are Christian and Non-Christian scholars who argue for their truth. So, an attempt to undermine the truth of the premises of KCA on the basis of conjuring up an argument with the same logical structure containing absurd premises no one would believe is not only non-analogous, but absurd.

I would argue that their not meaningless. This is what I've been getting at. If you think they are meaningless and I think they are not meaningless, then the next most reasonable step we should take is to have either you explain to me why you think they're meaningless, or to have me explain to you why why are meaningful. This undertaking in itself should be motivation enough for honest discussion. You keep on saying that they do not warrant serious discussion, because I have not provided one inkling of evidence. I have not provided one inkling of evidence, so therefore they do not warrant serious discussion. But if you already have it made up in your mind that the conclusion is meaningless and that to even go through the process of the presentation of the evidence is superfluous, because of it's meaningless, how am I supposed to get off the ground? If you meet someone that claims that they can provide evidence for it's meaningfulness, then you should temporarily suspend your presupposition regarding it's meaninglessness. I do claim to that I can provide evidence for not only its meaningfulness, but it's truth, so, therefore, you should temporarily suspend your presupposition regarding it's meaninglessness. Since your presupposition maybe seen to be false in light of the evidence.

This presentation of the evidence is exactly what I mean by my wanting to discuss them. So, would you like me to present the evidence for Premise 1 or 2? Your call.

Tell me if you think this is fair: I don't want to discuss the meaninglessness of the premises, because I find no reason to see this discussion bearing much fruit. If you have evidence to support your claim, present it. So, I have no intention of starting a discussion on why you think the premises are meaningless, because there are no reason for such a conclusion.

Don't you see begged questions and stringent presuppositions which preclude even the honest exchange of argumentation and debate? It's gone, because one of the sides of the argument already has made up his mind. And progress is impossible with this kind of disposition.

Wiploc

The leprechaun part is non-falsifiable. And if Bush is an agent provocateur, that will explain, well, a lot. But even if, for some reason, you believe the premises of the KCA are are less obviously false than the premises of the LSA (the Leprechaun-Socialist Argument) surely you will grant that there is no reason to think they're true. No?



Your position:
1. Some Christians and non-Christians argue that a thing is true.
2. A person recognizes the weakness of their argument.
3. Therefore, that person's view is absurd.

Nice.



He declines.



He accepts.



He just wants you to go first; he sees no reason to make your argument for you so that he can then refute it so that you can say you had a different argument. If you can give us a real reason to believe the KCA (or to believe the president is a leprechan) we very much want to know about it.



I'd certainly like to see your argument. Both premises at once, please, because the refutation will probably involve pointing out that your word-meanings or unstated assumptions have changed between premises.



Information theory holds that the less likely it is that something is true, the more important it is if it turns out to be true. We are prejudiced against the KCA because we have never found a resonable argument in favor of it. This doesn't mean we aren't prepared to be shocked and astounded if you actually present such an argument.
crc

fishbulb

That's not what I am saying. You asked for an explanation of what I meant by a logically valid but semantically meaningless argument. I gave you another example. The point is, I refuse to discuss either the internal logic of or the consequences of an argument whose premises are completely unsupported. The fact that some scholars believe that the premises are true is not evidence that they are; if you are aware of any compelling evidence that they have that leads them to believe their premises are true, then by all means present it. Otherwise, it's not a worthwhile point to discuss.


They are meaningless because they are not supported by any evidence. Therefore, they are nothing more than bald assertions. People can assert all kinds of things. I have made numerous invitations to you to present any evidence you may have to support the premises, but you have so far declined. That's fine, but I have no intention to consider their validity without having at least some sort of prima facia case in support of them.

Surely you understand that I assert your conclusion is meaningless because your premises are unsupported. An argument as a mere formal structure is not meaningful. Only when the premises are true does the conclusion that comes out the other side have meaning. Until a case has been made that the premises are true, the conclusion is just the abstract product of an abstract argument.

Nonsense. Actually provide your evidence and it will be an entirely different story. Since it would be just as easy to present your case as it is for you to argue that I should just trust that you have a case to make, the fact that you have chosen to do the latter and not the former should make me suspicious that you, in fact, don't have a case. If you have evidence, provide it. Otherwise, I suggest you abandon this line of argument.

I don't care. Why don't you do both, if you have evidence for both?

mattdamore

fishbulb,

Ok, then I should have stated that there does exist support, and I'm willing to share that with you if you are willing.

The reason why I brought up the scholars was because not only dismantle the analagous relationship that you were saying existed between KCA and this argument: 1. All leprachauns are socialists. 2. George W. Bush is a leprachaun. 3. Therefore, George W. Bush is a socialist, but also to show that people who have studied the argument believe that there does exist this support, independent of whether or not you think it is good or not, with which I am willing to discuss with you to see if you would conclude that it is good support or no.

Ok. Premise 1 or 2? Which one of the premises would you like to discuss in the context of this alleged support.

I haven't really declined, I've been asking you're permission on which of the two premises you would be more inclined to discuss first.

This entails the false conditional that if anything is not supported by evidence, then it is meaningless. This is just false. A unicorn is a perfectly meaningful concept for which there exists no evidence of it's existence.

Agreed.

If someone can provide one with evidence, then it is common sense that one has evidence to provide. I'm not asking to trust the fact that I have evidence and so, therefore, my premises are supported, I'm only pointing out that if one approaches you with actual evidence which one is able and willing to share, one should temporaly suspend one's presupposition to where-ever that evidence may lead. I think we may have been talking past eachother.

I don't want to do both at one time, because of space contraints.
I'll give support for premise 1 first.

An argument from intuition.

We'll start, for our foundation, from a quote from Shandon L. Guthrie as a spring-board for discussion.

The first premise in the kalam argument claims to conform with the general uniform intuition that something is not spontaneously brought into being without any cause. Nothing in nature or in the theoretical sciences prompts anyone to push for an incredible belief that something can or did mysteriously "pop" into existence without a cause. This premise seems to stand as a monument to this intuition. It just seems to be a simple fact of life that everything that exists has a cause for its existence. We would naturally question anyone with an alternative claim.

mattdamore

wiploc,

Not on that basis, no. But on independent reasons given for their support.

I wasn't talking about the soundness or unsoundness of the argument on its own, but the existence of argued support which Christians and non-Christians both utilize.

It should be:

1. Some Christians and non-Christians argue that a thing is true.
2. A person, fishbulb, recognized that there exists no support existing within the contents of their argumentation and/or other areas which they utilize to support other conclusions not related to KCA, but Premise 1 in general.
3.Therefore, fishbulb is not looking at the facts which exist in the interaction between Christians and non-Christians in the literature on the issue under discussion.

Now, I realize that there is a difference between saying that there exists support and there exists 'valid' support. The former is observably false, and the latter is still up for grabs within the context of our discussion.

I believe I did this in the above post.

Yea, I see that. I just think there was a communication problem.

I don't think that'll happen so I'll just stick with providing support for Premise 1.

Ok, I can understand a state of prejudice. This is different from having your mind made up.