irichc

I did it in "Necessity of God".

Daniel.

Philosoft

What do you mean by "universe"? If you mean "matter and energy," you've got a couple of empirical laws to deal with before pronouncing victory.
Again, you are equivocating terribly, which turns this whole line of reasoning into a great big strawman.

Quote:

2. By "grades of perfection" I understand any perceivable or conceivable improvement. Everything in the Universe could be improved in quantity or quality. Thus, I call "absolutely perfect" something without spacial and temporal limits, which can't be improved. If God has none, then he is perfect. And being absolutely perfect means having every grade of perfection at the maximum: a perfect will, a perfect perception, a perfect goodness, a perfect power, etc.

Huge problems approaching. There are a number of "perfect" attributes that are logically exclusive. For instance, perfect justice and perfect mercy, both of which are allegedly possessed by God.

Keith Russell

Originally posted by Keith Russell
In fact, your argument is circular.

An uncaused 'God' caused the first cause ex nihilo.

Wonderful.

Now, prove it. (Or, at least, support it.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to which Daniel replied:
"I did it in 'Necessity of God'".

Keith: You did nothing of the kind.

What you said in the 'Necessity of God' forum was this:
"I'm saying: "I know that God has to be presupposed in the creation of the Universe, although I can't offer any empirical proof of it"."

Keith

Bill Snedden

You are my new best friend...

Clutch

Thanks, Bill. Not to be confused, of course, with reductio ad flatus vocis, which (as we say technically) infers in the opposite declension.

I was really hoping someone would challenge the truth of my premises, though, so I could reply: Fine, you tell me how non-phlogistonation infers to randomization, hmmm?!

tronvillain

There is one thing that no one seems to have pointed out yet.

irichc:There are more logical options, such as the possibility that some things which are mobile are uncaused.

Not a big point, given the various other problems, but I thougth I would point it out.

Amergin

irichc:

>>I challenge anyone to refute the following syllogism. I'm asking >>for a logical refutation. Logic is always true, while experience >>can be based on partial or fallacious appreciations.

* * *

Syllogism #1:

>>Everything which is still is always uncaused. <<

What is the reference to this assumption?

>>Nothing is still in the Universe. <<

Does anyone really know that? Doesn''t all movement stop at 0 degrees Kelvin? Isn't all movement stopped by a cause in a compacted neutron star? Isn't movement all relative?

>>Nothing is uncaused in the Universe.<<

This conclusion is based on two unproven assumptions in premises one and two.

Prosyllogism a sensu contrario (tertius non datur):

>>Everything which is mobile is always caused.
Everything is mobile in the Universe.
Everything is caused in the Universe.<<

I am not sure how different this is from the first syllogism. While structure is correct, it is based on assumptions that need documentation. What is the Dark Matter in the universe doing?

Syllogism #2:

>>Every multiple thing is divisible. <<

I think you mean molecules, even atoms, quarks, humans. And that may well be so.

>>Every caused phenomenon is multiple*. <<

You are posing a conclusion here, not a premise. Do we not know that some multiple things are uncaused. The Christians believe that their God has three personalities, ie multiple. Does that require him to be caused by a creator?

>>Every caused phenomenon is divisible. <<

This is tricky. I suppose that if we use the singularity at the earliest stage of the Big Bang it might be both immobile and non-divisible until it expanded in the Big Bang. But it is speculation that we can say anything is uncaused or caused.

Prosyllogism:

>>Every caused phenomenon is divisible.
Everything is caused in the Universe.
Everything is divisible in the Universe. <<

Are vibrating strings divisible? Everything "in" the universe may be uncaused for sake of argument. But the Universe itself may be uncaused as a whole, with matter and energy shifting but never being created or destroyed.

Daniel.

* As far as it implies two or more things.

Buenos noches, El Señor Daniel

Amergin

Silent Acorns

An effect is the inevitable result of a cause. You say that all effects must involve motion. However, even if I grant you this, it does not follow that the existence of motion implies effect and thus a cause, unless you are saying that effect and motion are the same thing. Is this what you are claiming? If so, please say it clearly.

If so, by defining effect as motion, and at the same time recognizing that effect requires a cause, you are effectively defining motion as: "the result of a cause". Defined as such, you can't use motion to prove "cause" because you defined it as such at the begininning. I am asking you to show that this is good definition of "effect". Just saying "what is it if it isn't motion" is not a good answer in this context.

There is another problem with your method. The terms "cause", "effect", "motion", and "still" all require the concept of time. Unfortunately, it is precisely the "begininning of time" that is at issue here. As a result, your "first cause" must exist "before time" which is a meaningless phrase.

I grant you that "why does something exist instead of nothing" is a great mystery. But simply shifting this mystery to another, via an uncaused first cause that exists outside of time, doesn't explain anything.

irichc

From syllogism #2 I conclude that everything which is caused is divisible. Let's check it again:

Every multiple thing is divisible
Every caused phenomenon is multiple [as far as every uncaused phenomenon is singular or, in other words, a singularity, tertius non datur]
Every caused phenomenon is divisible

You are assuming that there are uncaused effects or movements, and that means, tertius non datur, indivisible effects. Then, taking your premise:

Every indivision leads to a singularity
Quarks are indivisible
Quarks are not singularities

Then:

1) First premise is false

Or:

2) Quarks aren't indivisible

In both cases I'm right.

Daniel.

Demigawd

Irichc posted, for some reason, "tertius non datur".

This uneducated American's response:

Que?