On 10/20/2014 5:32 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Xeno,
After a long introduction to your reasoning, you state that: "I tend
to prefer 'everything that exists has no cause'. Everything is just
there. That is my position."
>
Everything that exists has a cause.
/"The philosophical treatment on the subject of causality extends over
millennia. In the Western philosophical tradition, discussion stretches
back at least to Aristotle, and the topic remains a staple in
contemporary philosophy."/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
>
IMO, you're statement is the same as saying "everything that begins to
exist has no cause". But, in either case, your statement becomes
problematic. Essentially, you're saying that you came into existence
in this world without the involvement of your mother and father. That
is contrary to the natural way human beings are born. How is that
possible?
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
I don't know what it means, explain it to me, as you seem to know what
it means. That NASA sent Curiosity to Mars is not logically connected
to your statement that 'it appears that humans know can understand the
meaning of "begins to exist". You may have connected it in your mind,
but not in the post.
In the link I provided, there are some criticisms of the Kalam
argument, but you have still not read them apparently.
For me some things exist. Other things do not. 'Begins to exist' seems
redundant. How does that work? What are the steps between
non-existence and existence? I have no clue. I suspect you do not
either, but I am willing to hear you out on this. You need to explain
your position.
My position is this:
There is an essential value of existence. All things that exist have
this essential value. We can say there are things that do not exist
but this is meaningless as the essential value of existence is missing
and therefore there are no such things. We cannot know of them because
they are not.
Curiosity exists and is on Mars. It exists because someone had a
thought, and then manipulated the extant universe to correspond to the
thought. Where did the thought come from? It appeared in someone's
brain, how did it arise? There was (we assume) prior activity in the
person's brain before the thought arose. Was it just a refashioning of
previous neural events, or a spontaneous outlier from out of nowhere?
Everything Curiosity is made of was fashioned from previously existing
matter, already part of the currently extant universe. Basically it is
a sophisticated auto-mobile, but all its parts previously existed in
another form so can we really say it came into being, when its
components already had being?
The argument you seem to be proposing does not involve refashioning,
so that was not a good analogy. You need to explain your argument to
me. What specifically does 'begins to exist' mean in your context?
What is the difference in saying 'everything that exists has a cause'
compared to 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'? I tend to
prefer 'everything that exists has no cause'. Everything is just
there. That is my position. I am not sure you have a position, other
than you want people to accept the Kalam argument.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Xeno,
Are you saying that the human mind would not be able to fathom the
meaning of "begins to exist"? If that is so, how is it possible for
you to begin and end a project at work or at home?
But we know that NASA has been able to send the Curiosity rover to
Mars which is a very high technological feat. So, it appears that
humans know can understand the meaning of "begins to exist". If not,
NASA would not have been able to send the rover to Mars.
I believe you're avoiding the question by claiming that you don't know
what statement 1 of the KCA means. In other words, you're being
disingenuous. Or, that you're pulling a Curtis on us.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
x exists
x does not exist
I do not know what the phrase 'begins to exist' means, especially in
regard to the universe as a whole. If x were an auto-mobile, perhaps
one could say that when it was partially assembled, it began to exist,
but all the components of that were manufactured prior to that and
merely gathered together with welds, bolts, and glue. And those parts
had precursors, ad infinitum (almost) to the beginning of the
universe, before which we have no knowledge, and in fact we have only
induction as to regard the early universe. And induction is logically
invalid.
The link I gave in the previous post did do some analysis why the
Kalam argument is flawed, apparently you did not read it. Here it is
again: Cosmological Kalamity
<http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html>
Cosmological Kalamity
<http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html>
Home » Library » Modern » Dan Barker » Cosmological Kalamity Dan
Barker "Daddy, if God made everything, who made God?" my daughter
Kristi asked me, when she was five years old.
View on infidels.org
<http://infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html>
Preview by Yahoo
I do not know how the universe began.
I do not know what 'begins to exist' means in this context, can you
fill in some detail?
If this were science, all I would have to do is wait for your
demonstration of the truth of the argument, but as it seems no one
knows, I doubt this would be forthcoming. As Curtis pointed out,
proving a negative is impossible. It is a time waster. In science one
simply ignores those who do not show up with evidence for their claims
and thus science ('to know' is the meaning of the word) only works
with people who actively produce results.
For all I know the Kalam argument might be accidentally true, but
essentially I just find it unconvincing. If god is un-caused, then god
did not begin to exist, and if god did not begin to exist, he cannot
exist. The word everything would seem to include what is called god,
other wise, the first sentence includes a false concept. We would have
not 'everything that begins to exist has a cause', and then we would
have a number of possible things that were un-caused. For example,
Zeus, the king of the gods, a step higher in divinity than the other
gods, of which perhaps your god is one of those lesser ones.
I can say on the basis of experience, that the universe was re-created
this morning when I woke up. It was recreated again this morning and
this evening when I came out of meditationafter a timeless spell (I am
not saying what sort of meditation was happening or not). I am
un-caused, and therefore I must not be beginning to exist, and
therefore I am not the universe, but seeing the universe seemed to
emerge from what I am, I must be a creator of some sort. So if this
happens with me, what am I? I must be more than a human form and mind,
being able to contain all this.
Since in my own estimation, I seem to have created the universe, where
does that leave your argument? If the universe has a cause, how do you
determine what that cause is or is not? Simply stating that the
universe has a cause does not reveal the nature of the cause. It could
be a quantum fluctuation in a multi-verse continuum. With
multi-verses, maybe some have gods, and some do not. Maybe some are
created by farts in a hyper-cosmic digestive system.
You have also not mentioned the argument that the universe has no
cause. Suppose we say, that in spite of all appearances, the universe
has no cause at all. It was a spontaneous event that had no priors;
that would mean that all the stuff in the universe ultimately had no
cause either, the stuff within would have prior events but ultimately
could not be traced back to a primal cause. Accidental existence.
Perhaps we are all part of an unwanted pregnancy.
Curtis is actually much better at this kind of reasoning than I am. I
think he just wanted you to provide a positive example of the
stipulation you made, something he could work with. A philosopher
needs an argument, and needs to be able to state the other person's
position accurately so they can look for a weakness in definition of
terms and logic. You need to provide that. Otherwise you are not worth
his time. He might as well waste his time with a Bible-thumping
preacher from Hicksville. His time would be better spent teaching kids
critical thinking. I can tell you when I was young in school, this is
a skill that was not taught. America is a nation of idiots and
climbing out of that pit of un-reason is no easy task. To be fair, had
I ever remained in Greece, I doubt I would have fared better, though
there are more opportunities for causes way back at the beginning of
our place in the scheme of things:
Greek gods prepare for comeback
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece>
image <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece>
Greek gods prepare for comeback
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece>
It has taken almost 2,000 years, but those who worship the 12 gods of
ancient Greece have finally triumphed. An Athens court has ordered
that the adulation of...
View on www.theguardian.com
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/may/05/greece>
Preview by Yahoo
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Xeno,
I have asked Curtis about his support or evidence for disagreeing with
the statements in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But he just gave
me a lot of song and dance about his opinions without providing the
evidence for his arguments. Can you give us a solid argument with
evidence and support why the statements in the KCA have a flaw?
Let's take the KCA which states:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
/Therefore/:
3. The universe has a cause.
Do you agree with statement 1 or not? If not, please give us your
reasons for disagreeing.
