[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: PaliGap, What I meant is that his position is like that of an ant on the floor staring at your shoe, and saying that humans don't exist. That's everybody's position. He's no more nor less of an ant than the rest of us. And he's got a better mind than almost all of us, as well as vastly greater knowledge of the shoe. That's well put. Amen.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
I will not make further comments on your stories below until we clarify your position as discussed above. turquoiseb: Excellent. Goodbye. Turq obviously believes in Causation, his 'free will' caused his finger to hit the exit button.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, WillyTex willytex@... wrote: I will not make further comments on your stories below until we clarify your position as discussed above. turquoiseb: Excellent. Goodbye. Turq obviously believes in Causation, his 'free will' caused his finger to hit the exit button. He bailed out quickly didn't he?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Judy, You understand the KCA fairly well. Well, I get the basic syllogism. I wouldn't want to have to make a detailed argument either for or against it, though. I've read just enough about it to know such arguments can get very complicated, way beyond my grasp of formal logic. About all I can do is pick a few nits at the most preliminary stage (and instruct Barry in the nature of syllogisms!). I was *hoping* to see you make an argument for it, in particular the one about actual vs. potential infinities, which I find especially interesting. But nobody's let you get beyond the first premise, unfortunately. I should say that while I'm inclined to favor the conclusion in the First Cause sense, I'm highly resistant to a First Cause that involves a theistic-type God, God as *a* Being as opposed to God as *Being*. So I was also interested in seeing a defense of the theistic version of the conclusion. Also, you've included the role of science with the argument accurately. If you mean this-- you can only address the syllogism using philosophical logic; you can't bring science into it, because science is completely silent on the issue. --I'm thinking of taking that back after rereading the essay at the link I gave Curtis. It's a recap of arguments against Craig by two cosmologists, Davies and Hawking--one of whom (Davies) is also schooled in philosophy--and a philospher of science; plus Craig's attempts to rebut them; plus an argument *against* Craig's rebuttals by the essay writer, a philosopher of religion. Lots of hard science involved in that discussion (which I can't say I followed in much of any detail). I'm not at all sure, however, that anybody here on FFL is qualified to deal with a science-based argument, pro or con. I think we're pretty much limited to a philosophical logic-based argument, and most likely a fairly elementary version at that. But it would be interesting to have, and all of us might learn something from it, one way or the other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
I should think it would be interesting to accept the first premise of the syllogism just for the sake of the discussion, and see where John takes it, how he gets from there to the conclusion. I've seen some incredibly complex, sophisticated ways to do that. Don't know if John is going to use any of them, but I'd love to find out... John: It appears that Curtis, through the example he presented, agreed to the first premise. But then again, maybe not... Of course, both Turq and Curtis agree with the first premise, that events have a cause. Because, it's the most practical and believable theory. They both, every day, experience how human excrement flows downstream, not up, because that's just the practical thing to infer, based on the evidence and our sensory experience. Shit does not fall up into the sky, unless they have a really big fart, so don't fall for anyone's attempts to go metaphysical. A famous sage in China was once always looking up at the clouds, and one day he fell into a ditch and hurt himself really bad!
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say This is the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'. But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to ask what's north (on the globe) of the north pole?. I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn to eternalism. Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? But then you have to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to intone until it starts to sink in: No, there WAS no *before*, No, there WAS no *before*... On the other hand, there's a sense in which we can say that the universe always existed, since there was no time when it didn't exist. Indeedy. Good point. It makes me think that Big Bang cosmology is perhaps best thought of as neither eternalist nor creationist. Of course just when you think it's safe to dip your toe in the cosmological waters (quagmire?), something pops up to rock the boat. I saw a program recently in which Penrose put forward his idea of a cyclical universe (which to be honest I would *prefer* to believe in, though what my preferences should have to do with anything, I don't know!). The idea (if I get it correctly) is like that Yin/Yangy thing whereby if you push something to its complete extreme, it turns into its opposite. In this case he seems to think that if you extrapolate into the VERY far distant future, at extreme entropy the universe shares key characteristics of the extreme singularity. So, puff! there you go again... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 (Any congruence between Penrose's actual views and my cartoon characterization above would be purely down to chance. But in an infinite universe, anything that is *possible* not only CAN happen, but has already happened an infinite number of times to date. So we can't rule out my having gotten it right. But don't bet on it...). I think the idea that the universe didn't have a beginning, all the evidence that it did notwithstanding, is actually a function of the inability to conceive of there having been no before that beginning. It's very much akin to the terror many people feel at the notion that they will no longer exist in any sense after death. What they're subconsciously imagining is *being there* to experience not existing, being conscious of not existing (which would indeed be horrible). Me, I harbor the suspicion that at some point it will become crystal clear that we have completely misconstrued what time is. (Also, I suspect the idea of matter expressed in the statement matter was *contained in* the singularity is meaningless). Same here. I wonder, in fact, whether the singularity could be described as Neti, neti--not this, not that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: Of course just when you think it's safe to dip your toe in the cosmological waters (quagmire?), something pops up to rock the boat. I saw a program recently in which Penrose put forward his idea of a cyclical universe I think it was BBC Horizon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vdkmj
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! PaliGap, 1. But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say This is the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'. But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to ask what's north (on the globe) of the north pole? According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines that there is no need for a God. IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. JR I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn to eternalism. Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? But then you have to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to intone until it starts to sink in: No, there WAS no *before*, No, there WAS no *before*... On the other hand, there's a sense in which we can say that the universe always existed, since there was no time when it didn't exist. Indeedy. Good point. It makes me think that Big Bang cosmology is perhaps best thought of as neither eternalist nor creationist. Of course just when you think it's safe to dip your toe in the cosmological waters (quagmire?), something pops up to rock the boat. I saw a program recently in which Penrose put forward his idea of a cyclical universe (which to be honest I would *prefer* to believe in, though what my preferences should have to do with anything, I don't know!). The idea (if I get it correctly) is like that Yin/Yangy thing whereby if you push something to its complete extreme, it turns into its opposite. In this case he seems to think that if you extrapolate into the VERY far distant future, at extreme entropy the universe shares key characteristics of the extreme singularity. So, puff! there you go again... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 (Any congruence between Penrose's actual views and my cartoon characterization above would be purely down to chance. But in an infinite universe, anything that is *possible* not only CAN happen, but has already happened an infinite number of times to date. So we can't rule out my having gotten it right. But don't bet on it...). I think the idea that the universe didn't have a beginning, all the evidence that it did notwithstanding, is actually a function of the inability to conceive of there having been no before that beginning. It's very much akin to the terror many people feel at the notion that they will no longer exist in any sense after death. What they're subconsciously imagining is *being there* to experience not existing, being conscious of not existing (which would indeed be horrible). Me, I harbor the suspicion that at some point it will become crystal clear that we have completely misconstrued what time is. (Also, I suspect the idea of matter expressed in the statement matter was *contained in* the singularity is meaningless). Same here. I wonder, in fact, whether the singularity could be described as Neti, neti--not this, not that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! PaliGap, 1. But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say This is the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'. But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to ask what's north (on the globe) of the north pole? According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines that there is no need for a God. IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. Don't understand your point John. What's anything got to do with his being quadraplegic?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
I think all of you need to get laid more often.and if you live in Fairfield you definitely need to eat a chicken sandwich. --- On Sun, 5/8/11, John jr_...@yahoo.com wrote: From: John jr_...@yahoo.com Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 3:37 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! PaliGap, 1. But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say This is the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'. But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to ask what's north (on the globe) of the north pole? According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines that there is no need for a God. IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. JR I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn to eternalism. Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? But then you have to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to intone until it starts to sink in: No, there WAS no *before*, No, there WAS no *before*... On the other hand, there's a sense in which we can say that the universe always existed, since there was no time when it didn't exist. Indeedy. Good point. It makes me think that Big Bang cosmology is perhaps best thought of as neither eternalist nor creationist. Of course just when you think it's safe to dip your toe in the cosmological waters (quagmire?), something pops up to rock the boat. I saw a program recently in which Penrose put forward his idea of a cyclical universe (which to be honest I would *prefer* to believe in, though what my preferences should have to do with anything, I don't know!). The idea (if I get it correctly) is like that Yin/Yangy thing whereby if you push something to its complete extreme, it turns into its opposite. In this case he seems to think that if you extrapolate into the VERY far distant future, at extreme entropy the universe shares key characteristics of the extreme singularity. So, puff! there you go again... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 (Any congruence between Penrose's actual views and my cartoon characterization above would be purely down to chance. But in an infinite universe, anything that is *possible* not only CAN happen, but has already happened an infinite number of times to date. So we can't rule out my having gotten it right. But don't bet on it...). I think the idea that the universe didn't have a beginning, all the evidence that it did notwithstanding, is actually a function of the inability to conceive of there having been no before that beginning. It's very much akin to the terror many people feel at the notion that they will no longer exist in any sense after death. What they're subconsciously imagining is *being there* to experience not existing, being conscious of not existing (which would indeed be horrible). Me, I harbor the suspicion that at some point it will become crystal
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
Don't ask me what I think you need to do, Peter, OK? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@... wrote: I think all of you need to get laid more often.and if you live in Fairfield you definitely need to eat a chicken sandwich. --- On Sun, 5/8/11, John jr_esq@... wrote: From: John jr_esq@... Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 3:37 PM --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! PaliGap, 1. But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say This is the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'. But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to ask what's north (on the globe) of the north pole? According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines that there is no need for a God. IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. JR I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn to eternalism. Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? But then you have to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to intone until it starts to sink in: No, there WAS no *before*, No, there WAS no *before*... On the other hand, there's a sense in which we can say that the universe always existed, since there was no time when it didn't exist. Indeedy. Good point. It makes me think that Big Bang cosmology is perhaps best thought of as neither eternalist nor creationist. Of course just when you think it's safe to dip your toe in the cosmological waters (quagmire?), something pops up to rock the boat. I saw a program recently in which Penrose put forward his idea of a cyclical universe (which to be honest I would *prefer* to believe in, though what my preferences should have to do with anything, I don't know!). The idea (if I get it correctly) is like that Yin/Yangy thing whereby if you push something to its complete extreme, it turns into its opposite. In this case he seems to think that if you extrapolate into the VERY far distant future, at extreme entropy the universe shares key characteristics of the extreme singularity. So, puff! there you go again... http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388 (Any congruence between Penrose's actual views and my cartoon characterization above would be purely down to chance. But in an infinite universe, anything that is *possible* not only CAN happen, but has already happened an infinite number of times to date. So we can't rule out my having gotten it right. But don't bet on it...). I think the idea that the universe didn't have a beginning, all the evidence that it did notwithstanding, is actually a function of the inability to conceive of there having been no before that beginning. It's very much akin to the terror many people feel at the notion that they
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: snip According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines that there is no need for a God. IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. WTF??? What does his physical condition have to do with his thinking about the Big Bang and God??
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
PaliGap, What I meant is that his position is like that of an ant on the floor staring at your shoe, and saying that humans don't exist. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@ wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. Now I've caught up I see you have been making just this point! PaliGap, 1. But I'm not sure it's getting home? John - you say This is the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened 'before the Big Bang'. But it's not for want of capability to probe that far, or for not having the method. As Hawking would have it, you're trying to ask what's north (on the globe) of the north pole? According to reviews of Hawking's latest book, he has apparently changed his mind again about his previous position about the Big Bang. He is now saying it is possible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As such, he opines that there is no need for a God. IMO, this is a rather presumptious opinion considering that he is a quadraplegic, and can't speak with his own voice. But then again human beings have the free will to speak his or her own mind. Don't understand your point John. What's anything got to do with his being quadraplegic?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: PaliGap, What I meant is that his position is like that of an ant on the floor staring at your shoe, and saying that humans don't exist. That's everybody's position. He's no more nor less of an ant than the rest of us. And he's got a better mind than almost all of us, as well as vastly greater knowledge of the shoe.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
turquoiseb: John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it... It's not logical for Turq to make stuff up, when he knows that Judy will be signing on any minute now to correct him for telling a fib! LoL!!! John did NOT declare something to be not only true, but Truth. But obviously, nobody is really very interested in this debate, so why is Turq bringing it up again? Go figure. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. turquoiseb: Buddhists (or at least some of them) believe that the universe was never created, that it has always been, is now, and always will be. There has never been a time when it was not. There will never be a time when it is not... FairfieldLife/message/276037 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/276037
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it. The basic argument you put forth for discussion last week was fatally flawed from a logical point of view, for several reasons. JohnR, listen up. Barry is about to give you a lesson in logic... First, it was of the following form: 1. Declare something to be not only true, but Truth. 2. Declare something else to be not only true, but Truth. 3. Infer a third Truth from these two declarations. First agree with Barry your argument is fatally flawed because... This is not logic. This is a fairly desperate attempt by a believer trying to convince others of his belief. He want you to make your argument more acceptable to Barry... Here's how you could turn your proposed argument into a more viable discussion -- turn it into program logic by inserting a programmatic IF...THEN statement that reveals it as the speculation it is, and turns the declarations into the mere assumptions they are: IF Whatever begins to exist has a cause. AND IF The universe began to exist. THEN Therefore, the universe has a cause. See how simple it it? Just use IF...THEN statements...But wait... There is nothing wrong with this argument, as the spec- ulation it is. Actually, there IS still something wrong with it, because two of the IF statements contain an unsubstantiated declaration begins to exist. As a result, the argument applies only to things that can be said to have begun to exist. It would be inapplicable to any situation that involved something that was eternal, and had no beginning. New rule...don't use too many IF's...But wait... In its original form, the argument you are clinging to so desperately is fatally flawed. It consists of nothing but two declarations of Truth, followed by the inference of a third Truth. I consider it possible that you don't even *realize* that the first two statements are nothing but declarations of Truth. You consider them to *be* Truth because someone you consider an authority said them. New rule...don't assume anything an authority says is true, unless Barry, who *is* an authority says it... Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. What you have *still* failed to address in all of these discussions is the fact that your entire argument falls apart and becomes even more meaningless babble than it started out to be if the universe was never created, and is in fact eternal, never-created. I think that's pretty weasel-ly and cowardly of you. There you have it JohnR. Barry and Curtis are their own very smart, authorities, and you're a babbling weasel. Now wasn't that a helpful lesson in logic? But, wait...Barry who hates rules, has more rules... IF You pose the things you're trying to prove as the speculations they are AND IF You manage to do so in an entertaining way THEN We might engage in pleasant conversation about them in the future. New rule...be entertaining and Barry will talk to you...However... IF You continue to make declarations as if they were Truth. AND IF You continue to follow them up with additional declar- ations of Truth, and then attempt to infer from them THEN We're going to laugh at you as the logic-impaired True Believer trying desperately to prop up his belief system you come across as being. Barry's final rule of logic...IF you don't follow Barry's declarations of Truth, Barry, the Master of Inadvertent Irony will THEN will laugh at you, but never at himself. Ain't it the truth? Get it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
Wow, just like Barry said a week ago about him always caring and doing for others. After they get done with Pope John Paul II's process for sainthood at the Vatican, I KNOW who they should nominate next... --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it. The basic argument you put forth for discussion last week was fatally flawed from a logical point of view, for several reasons. JohnR, listen up. Barry is about to give you a lesson in logic... First, it was of the following form: 1. Declare something to be not only true, but Truth. 2. Declare something else to be not only true, but Truth. 3. Infer a third Truth from these two declarations. First agree with Barry your argument is fatally flawed because... This is not logic. This is a fairly desperate attempt by a believer trying to convince others of his belief. He want you to make your argument more acceptable to Barry... Here's how you could turn your proposed argument into a more viable discussion -- turn it into program logic by inserting a programmatic IF...THEN statement that reveals it as the speculation it is, and turns the declarations into the mere assumptions they are: IF Whatever begins to exist has a cause. AND IF The universe began to exist. THEN Therefore, the universe has a cause. See how simple it it? Just use IF...THEN statements...But wait... There is nothing wrong with this argument, as the spec- ulation it is. Actually, there IS still something wrong with it, because two of the IF statements contain an unsubstantiated declaration begins to exist. As a result, the argument applies only to things that can be said to have begun to exist. It would be inapplicable to any situation that involved something that was eternal, and had no beginning. New rule...don't use too many IF's...But wait... In its original form, the argument you are clinging to so desperately is fatally flawed. It consists of nothing but two declarations of Truth, followed by the inference of a third Truth. I consider it possible that you don't even *realize* that the first two statements are nothing but declarations of Truth. You consider them to *be* Truth because someone you consider an authority said them. New rule...don't assume anything an authority says is true, unless Barry, who *is* an authority says it... Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. What you have *still* failed to address in all of these discussions is the fact that your entire argument falls apart and becomes even more meaningless babble than it started out to be if the universe was never created, and is in fact eternal, never-created. I think that's pretty weasel-ly and cowardly of you. There you have it JohnR. Barry and Curtis are their own very smart, authorities, and you're a babbling weasel. Now wasn't that a helpful lesson in logic? But, wait...Barry who hates rules, has more rules... IF You pose the things you're trying to prove as the speculations they are AND IF You manage to do so in an entertaining way THEN We might engage in pleasant conversation about them in the future. New rule...be entertaining and Barry will talk to you...However... IF You continue to make declarations as if they were Truth. AND IF You continue to follow them up with additional declar- ations of Truth, and then attempt to infer from them THEN We're going to laugh at you as the logic-impaired True Believer trying desperately to prop up his belief system you come across as being. Barry's final rule of logic...IF you don't follow Barry's declarations of Truth, Barry, the Master of Inadvertent Irony will THEN will laugh at you, but never at himself. Ain't it the truth? Get it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it. I hurt myself laughing at this. The basic argument you put forth for discussion last week was fatally flawed from a logical point of view, for several reasons. First, it was of the following form: 1. Declare something to be not only true, but Truth. 2. Declare something else to be not only true, but Truth. 3. Infer a third Truth from these two declarations. This is not logic. This is a fairly desperate attempt by a believer trying to convince others of his belief. Actually, it's called a syllogism, a very common, basic form of logical argument. Here's how you could turn your proposed argument into a more viable discussion -- turn it into program logic by inserting a programmatic IF...THEN statement Actually, a syllogism is already an IF...THEN statement, by definition. IF...THEN program logic is syllogistic; it was derived from the philosophical syllogism, which dates back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. Here's the classic example: 1. All human beings are mortal. 2. Socrates is a human being. 3. Socrates is mortal. Typically, one doesn't bother to put in the IFs and the THEN because they're integral to the form of the argument, as anyone is aware who knows what a syllogism is. You can certainly include them if you want, but they don't change the nature of the argument in the slightest. You can dispute *any* syllogism in a variety of ways. With the example above, you could dispute both the major (1) and minor (2) premises: We don't know for certain that all men are mortal; and we don't know for certain that Socrates is a human being. He could be an immortal human being, or he could be a robot. So we cannot say for certain that he is mortal. But few would want to do this; the vast majority of people would assume that the first two premises are true. And that's how one goes about constructing a valid syllogism: by proposing two premises that are unlikely to be questioned from which a third can be logically inferred. that reveals it as the speculation it is, and turns the declarations into the mere assumptions they are: No, wrong. This was all obvious from the beginning (at least to anyone who knows what a syllogism is). IF Whatever begins to exist has a cause. AND IF The universe began to exist. THEN Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is nothing wrong with this argument, as the spec- ulation it is. There wasn't anything wrong with it before you put in the IFs and the THEN. They're implicit in the syllogistic form; there's no need to make them explicit. Actually, there IS still something wrong with it, because two of the IF statements contain an unsubstantiated declaration begins to exist. No, in the first, the word whatever qualifies begins to exist, implying that there *could* be things that exist that have no beginning (and therefore no cause). The way to dispute the first premise is to argue that things that *do* have a beginning don't have to have a cause. That's what Curtis has been doing. As a result, the argument applies only to things that can be said to have begun to exist. It would be inapplicable to any situation that involved something that was eternal, and had no beginning. That's correct. However: In its original form, the argument you are clinging to so desperately is fatally flawed. It consists of nothing but two declarations of Truth, followed by the inference of a third Truth. I consider it possible that you don't even *realize* that the first two statements are nothing but declarations of Truth. You consider them to *be* Truth because someone you consider an authority said them. Actually it's not fatally flawed on any grounds you're competent to present, with or without adding IFs and THAT. As far as the vast majority of people, and the even vaster majority of scientists, are concerned, the universe *did* have a beginning. You're one of the very few outliers. Most of the (competent) dispute about this syllogism involves the conclusion, not the premises. Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. What you have *still* failed to address in all of these discussions is the fact that your entire argument falls apart and becomes even more meaningless babble than it started out to be if the universe was never created, and is in fact eternal, never-created. I think that's pretty weasel-ly and cowardly of you. Barry, here's the hard truth: He hasn't addressed it because it's so obvious as to be virtually meaningless. All it means is that anybody who believes the universe didn't have a beginning isn't going to accept the syllgism--just as anybody who believes not all human beings
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: snip Actually it's not fatally flawed on any grounds you're competent to present, with or without adding IFs and THAT. Correction: THEN, not THAT.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. So the biggest problem with John's premise might be the assumption that we know of anything that can be said to have begun in an ultimate sense. And causes are not needed once you know how matter and energy operate under those conditions. Nice job on presenting syllogisms. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it. I hurt myself laughing at this. The basic argument you put forth for discussion last week was fatally flawed from a logical point of view, for several reasons. First, it was of the following form: 1. Declare something to be not only true, but Truth. 2. Declare something else to be not only true, but Truth. 3. Infer a third Truth from these two declarations. This is not logic. This is a fairly desperate attempt by a believer trying to convince others of his belief. Actually, it's called a syllogism, a very common, basic form of logical argument. Here's how you could turn your proposed argument into a more viable discussion -- turn it into program logic by inserting a programmatic IF...THEN statement Actually, a syllogism is already an IF...THEN statement, by definition. IF...THEN program logic is syllogistic; it was derived from the philosophical syllogism, which dates back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. Here's the classic example: 1. All human beings are mortal. 2. Socrates is a human being. 3. Socrates is mortal. Typically, one doesn't bother to put in the IFs and the THEN because they're integral to the form of the argument, as anyone is aware who knows what a syllogism is. You can certainly include them if you want, but they don't change the nature of the argument in the slightest. You can dispute *any* syllogism in a variety of ways. With the example above, you could dispute both the major (1) and minor (2) premises: We don't know for certain that all men are mortal; and we don't know for certain that Socrates is a human being. He could be an immortal human being, or he could be a robot. So we cannot say for certain that he is mortal. But few would want to do this; the vast majority of people would assume that the first two premises are true. And that's how one goes about constructing a valid syllogism: by proposing two premises that are unlikely to be questioned from which a third can be logically inferred. that reveals it as the speculation it is, and turns the declarations into the mere assumptions they are: No, wrong. This was all obvious from the beginning (at least to anyone who knows what a syllogism is). IF Whatever begins to exist has a cause. AND IF The universe began to exist. THEN Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is nothing wrong with this argument, as the spec- ulation it is. There wasn't anything wrong with it before you put in the IFs and the THEN. They're implicit in the syllogistic form; there's no need to make them explicit. Actually, there IS still something wrong with it, because two of the IF statements contain an unsubstantiated declaration begins to exist. No, in the first, the word whatever qualifies begins to exist, implying that there *could* be things that exist that have no beginning (and therefore no cause). The way to dispute the first premise is to argue that things that *do* have a beginning don't have to have a cause. That's what Curtis has been doing. As a result, the argument applies only to things that can be said to have begun to exist. It would be inapplicable to any situation that involved something that was eternal, and had no beginning. That's correct. However: In its original form, the argument you are clinging to so desperately is fatally flawed. It consists of nothing but two declarations of Truth, followed by the inference of a third Truth. I consider it possible that you don't even *realize* that the first two statements are nothing but declarations of Truth. You consider them to *be* Truth because someone you consider an authority said them. Actually it's not fatally flawed on any grounds you're competent to present, with or without adding IFs and THAT. As far as the vast majority of people, and the even vaster majority of scientists, are concerned, the universe *did* have
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. So the biggest problem with John's premise might be the assumption that we know of anything that can be said to have begun in an ultimate sense. I think all this amounts to a big fat red herring, actually, since the universe is defined as what came into existence--what began to exist--only with the big bang. But this is what Barry is questioning. He's a proponent of the old steady-state theory, which had some currency awhile back but has since been pretty much discredited in favor of the big bang theory, which was developed on the basis of observational data that wasn't available to the steady-state folks. (Barry isn't aware that there ever *was* a steady-state theory, though. He believes that human beings seem to find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not* having a beginning, much less to have an actual theory that it had no beginning.) In any case, the phrase before the big bang is distinctly iffy, given that time itself is said to have been created in the big bang. (Time *and* space, in fact, along with matter and energy.) And causes are not needed once you know how matter and energy operate under those conditions. This would depend on how you define cause. Matter and energy are also created in the big bang. The issue would be whether the potential of the singularity to manifest as the universe can be considered a material cause, in Aristotle's Four Causes formulation. I'm curious to know if you're sticking to this from one of your earlier posts in the thread: In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. Also wondering if you're willing to retract your original fallacious inductive reasoning claim, now that you've had at least a bit of a look at the Craig argument. I should think it would be interesting to accept the first premise of the syllogism just for the sake of the discussion, and see where John takes it, how he gets from there to the conclusion. I've seen some incredibly complex, sophisticated ways to do that. Don't know if John is going to use any of them, but I'd love to find out. Nice job on presenting syllogisms. Thanks. Pretty basic stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. So the biggest problem with John's premise might be the assumption that we know of anything that can be said to have begun in an ultimate sense. I think all this amounts to a big fat red herring, actually, since the universe is defined as what came into existence--what began to exist--only with the big bang. Seems like an arbitrary point. We just don't know enough about what the state was before. Maybe this is like high tide of the ocean, would you call it an ocean only when it hit your sand castle on the beach? And this is all due to the imprecision of the premise which you highlight again below. But this is what Barry is questioning. He's a proponent of the old steady-state theory, which had some currency awhile back but has since been pretty much discredited in favor of the big bang theory, which was developed on the basis of observational data that wasn't available to the steady-state folks. (Barry isn't aware that there ever *was* a steady-state theory, though. He believes that human beings seem to find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not* having a beginning, much less to have an actual theory that it had no beginning.) In any case, the phrase before the big bang is distinctly iffy, given that time itself is said to have been created in the big bang. (Time *and* space, in fact, along with matter and energy.) This makes my head hurt. It also highlights how lame the presupposition is in this argument. And causes are not needed once you know how matter and energy operate under those conditions. This would depend on how you define cause. Matter and energy are also created in the big bang. The issue would be whether the potential of the singularity to manifest as the universe can be considered a material cause, in Aristotle's Four Causes formulation. I complained about the lack of defined terms in the beginning. I agree. I'm curious to know if you're sticking to this from one of your earlier posts in the thread: In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. I am using existence imprecisely here. I probably should have said matter. I don't even know what the word existencemeans outside a specific context. Also wondering if you're willing to retract your original fallacious inductive reasoning claim, now that you've had at least a bit of a look at the Craig argument. I'll have to look at it again. I don't think I labeled it wrong. I should think it would be interesting to accept the first premise of the syllogism just for the sake of the discussion, and see where John takes it, how he gets from there to the conclusion. I've seen some incredibly complex, sophisticated ways to do that. Don't know if John is going to use any of them, but I'd love to find out. I'm not getting much back and forth, just re-assertions of the premise. It has been fun to dig in an try to sort out what my position is. But it really doesn't need the syllogism. I think that is hokey. He should just assert that the universe has a cause. It is the same thing without all the hoops. Nice job on presenting syllogisms. Thanks. Pretty basic stuff. I did one course in formal logic. It got pretty challenging as it went on. It was the idea that logic doesn't generate but only preserves truth that had the biggest impact on me.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: snip Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. Whoops, hold the phone. I just did a quick bit of research, and in big bang theory, the appearance of the singularity is said to be the first instant *of* the big bang, not what existed before the big bang. The singularity is the first something to come out of nothing. In terms of big bang theory, John's syllogism concludes that the singularity must have had a cause. As far as I'm aware, there are no scientific theories or even wild conjectures as to why the singularity appeared, or even as to whether it had a cause. Big bang theory tells us only *what* happened: a singularity appeared, and it expanded (instantly; it didn't sit around). Big bang doesn't refer just to the expansion; it includes the appearance of the singularity. (The phrase at the beginning of time, which sounds like a poetic or metaphysical expression, has a quite specific scientific meaning in the big bang context: Time began when the singularity appeared.) Bottom line, unless you're going to question big bang theory itself, like Barry, and assert that the universe has always existed, you can't use science in your analysis of John's syllogism. You can only address it with logic.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. So the biggest problem with John's premise might be the assumption that we know of anything that can be said to have begun in an ultimate sense. I think all this amounts to a big fat red herring, actually, since the universe is defined as what came into existence--what began to exist--only with the big bang. Seems like an arbitrary point. We just don't know enough about what the state was before. We don't know *anything* beyond the fact that a singularity appeared and expanded. The universe is what we can know something about, and it came into existence with the big bang. Maybe this is like high tide of the ocean, would you call it an ocean only when it hit your sand castle on the beach? No, because you know something about what's out there before it hits the sand castle. And this is all due to the imprecision of the premise which you highlight again below. The premise is logically precise; it only becomes funky once you try to drag science into it. But this is what Barry is questioning. He's a proponent of the old steady-state theory, which had some currency awhile back but has since been pretty much discredited in favor of the big bang theory, which was developed on the basis of observational data that wasn't available to the steady-state folks. (Barry isn't aware that there ever *was* a steady-state theory, though. He believes that human beings seem to find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not* having a beginning, much less to have an actual theory that it had no beginning.) In any case, the phrase before the big bang is distinctly iffy, given that time itself is said to have been created in the big bang. (Time *and* space, in fact, along with matter and energy.) This makes my head hurt. It's worse than quantum mechanics. It's virtually impossible to talk about it at all. It also highlights how lame the presupposition is in this argument. Not really. As I said in my subsequent post, it means you can only address the syllogism using philosophical logic; you can't bring science into it, because science is completely silent on the issue. And causes are not needed once you know how matter and energy operate under those conditions. This would depend on how you define cause. Matter and energy are also created in the big bang. The issue would be whether the potential of the singularity to manifest as the universe can be considered a material cause, in Aristotle's Four Causes formulation. I complained about the lack of defined terms in the beginning. I agree. Actually the material cause business is irrelevant, given what I just found out about the singularity, i.e., that it's considered the starting point of the big bang, not what existed before the big bang. I'm curious to know if you're sticking to this from one of your earlier posts in the thread: In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. I am using existence imprecisely here. I probably should have said matter. I don't even know what the word existence means outside a specific context. OK, because what you seemed to be suggesting is what we call Being or Beingness in the TM context: Existence Itself. It's also known as the Prime Mover or the First Cause--i.e., exactly what the syllogism attempts to prove! I just thought that was a funny slip. Also wondering if you're willing to retract your original fallacious inductive reasoning claim, now that you've had at least a bit of a look at the Craig argument. I'll have to look at it again. I don't think I labeled it wrong. Look at the Craig argument again, you mean? May I suggest: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html Abstract: Kalam cosmological arguments have recently been the subject of criticisms, at least inter alia, by physicists --Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking--and philosophers of science--Adolf Grünbaum. In a series of recent articles, William Craig has attempted to show that these criticisms are 'superficial, ill-conceived, and based on misunderstanding.' I argue that, while some of
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@... wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn to eternalism. Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? But then you have to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to intone until it starts to sink in: No, there WAS no *before*, No, there WAS no *before*... (Also, I suspect the idea of matter expressed in the statement matter was *contained in* the singularity is meaningless). So the biggest problem with John's premise might be the assumption that we know of anything that can be said to have begun in an ultimate sense. And causes are not needed once you know how matter and energy operate under those conditions. Nice job on presenting syllogisms. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it. I hurt myself laughing at this. The basic argument you put forth for discussion last week was fatally flawed from a logical point of view, for several reasons. First, it was of the following form: 1. Declare something to be not only true, but Truth. 2. Declare something else to be not only true, but Truth. 3. Infer a third Truth from these two declarations. This is not logic. This is a fairly desperate attempt by a believer trying to convince others of his belief. Actually, it's called a syllogism, a very common, basic form of logical argument. Here's how you could turn your proposed argument into a more viable discussion -- turn it into program logic by inserting a programmatic IF...THEN statement Actually, a syllogism is already an IF...THEN statement, by definition. IF...THEN program logic is syllogistic; it was derived from the philosophical syllogism, which dates back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. Here's the classic example: 1. All human beings are mortal. 2. Socrates is a human being. 3. Socrates is mortal. Typically, one doesn't bother to put in the IFs and the THEN because they're integral to the form of the argument, as anyone is aware who knows what a syllogism is. You can certainly include them if you want, but they don't change the nature of the argument in the slightest. You can dispute *any* syllogism in a variety of ways. With the example above, you could dispute both the major (1) and minor (2) premises: We don't know for certain that all men are mortal; and we don't know for certain that Socrates is a human being. He could be an immortal human being, or he could be a robot. So we cannot say for certain that he is mortal. But few would want to do this; the vast majority of people would assume that the first two premises are true. And that's how one goes about constructing a valid syllogism: by proposing two premises that are unlikely to be questioned from which a third can be logically inferred. that reveals it as the speculation it is, and turns the declarations into the mere assumptions they are: No, wrong. This was all obvious from the beginning (at least to anyone who knows what a syllogism is). IF Whatever begins to exist has a cause. AND IF The universe began to exist. THEN Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is nothing wrong with this argument, as the spec- ulation it is. There wasn't anything wrong with it before you put in the IFs and the THEN. They're implicit in the syllogistic form; there's no need to make them explicit. Actually, there IS still something wrong with it, because two of the IF statements contain an unsubstantiated declaration begins to exist. No, in the first, the word whatever qualifies begins to exist, implying that there *could* be things that exist that have no beginning (and therefore no cause). The way to dispute the first premise is to argue that things that *do* have a beginning don't have to have
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
Barry, 1. John, here's a little lesson for you in logic, since you clearly don't seem to understand it. The basic argument you put forth for discussion last week was fatally flawed from a logical point of view, for several reasons. First, it was of the following form: 1. Declare something to be not only true, but Truth. 2. Declare something else to be not only true, but Truth. 3. Infer a third Truth from these two declarations. This is not logic. This is a fairly desperate attempt by a believer trying to convince others of his belief. As I recall, you gave a lame example to support your disagreement to the first premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Your vision of a portal never existed in the first place and was caused by your own hallucinations. As such, the premise still holds. I asked you to reconsider your position. Or, if not, give us a better example of your disagreement to the first premise. So far, you have avoided to do so. Can it be that you really agree with the first premise? I will not make further comments on your stories below until we clarify your position as discussed above. Perhaps, we may even get to discuss the second premise if that's possible given the state of confusion in your mind. JR Here's how you could turn your proposed argument into a more viable discussion -- turn it into program logic by inserting a programmatic IF...THEN statement that reveals it as the speculation it is, and turns the declarations into the mere assumptions they are: IF Whatever begins to exist has a cause. AND IF The universe began to exist. THEN Therefore, the universe has a cause. There is nothing wrong with this argument, as the spec- ulation it is. Actually, there IS still something wrong with it, because two of the IF statements contain an unsubstantiated declaration begins to exist. As a result, the argument applies only to things that can be said to have begun to exist. It would be inapplicable to any situation that involved something that was eternal, and had no beginning. In its original form, the argument you are clinging to so desperately is fatally flawed. It consists of nothing but two declarations of Truth, followed by the inference of a third Truth. I consider it possible that you don't even *realize* that the first two statements are nothing but declarations of Truth. You consider them to *be* Truth because someone you consider an authority said them. Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. What you have *still* failed to address in all of these discussions is the fact that your entire argument falls apart and becomes even more meaningless babble than it started out to be if the universe was never created, and is in fact eternal, never-created. I think that's pretty weasel-ly and cowardly of you. IF You pose the things you're trying to prove as the speculations they are AND IF You manage to do so in an entertaining way THEN We might engage in pleasant conversation about them in the future. IF You continue to make declarations as if they were Truth. AND IF You continue to follow them up with additional declar- ations of Truth, and then attempt to infer from them THEN We're going to laugh at you as the logic-impaired True Believer trying desperately to prop up his belief system you come across as being. Get it?
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, PaliGap compost1uk@... wrote: -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: Barry Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. Judy Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe had a beginning, actually. I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing my mind. Although the universe in its present form is thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. It's an odd thing this. I think we are almost unavoidably thinking of Time as a backdrop within which the Big Bang happened. e.g. the inconceivable density of the singularity that existed before the big bang. But there is no before the Big bang. Time itself emerged (is that the right word?) at the Big Bang. At least that's how I understand it. Yup, that's what they say. I find myself, like Barry, intuitively drawn to eternalism. Why could there not be a sequence of Bangs? But then you have to stop yourself, swallow hard, and try to intone until it starts to sink in: No, there WAS no *before*, No, there WAS no *before*... On the other hand, there's a sense in which we can say that the universe always existed, since there was no time when it didn't exist. I think the idea that the universe didn't have a beginning, all the evidence that it did notwithstanding, is actually a function of the inability to conceive of there having been no before that beginning. It's very much akin to the terror many people feel at the notion that they will no longer exist in any sense after death. What they're subconsciously imagining is *being there* to experience not existing, being conscious of not existing (which would indeed be horrible). Me, I harbor the suspicion that at some point it will become crystal clear that we have completely misconstrued what time is. (Also, I suspect the idea of matter expressed in the statement matter was *contained in* the singularity is meaningless). Same here. I wonder, in fact, whether the singularity could be described as Neti, neti--not this, not that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
Judy, 1. I think all this amounts to a big fat red herring, actually, since the universe is defined as what came into existence--what began to exist--only with the big bang. But this is what Barry is questioning. He's a proponent of the old steady-state theory, which had some currency awhile back but has since been pretty much discredited in favor of the big bang theory, which was developed on the basis of observational data that wasn't available to the steady-state folks. (Barry isn't aware that there ever *was* a steady-state theory, though. He believes that human beings seem to find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not* having a beginning, much less to have an actual theory that it had no beginning.) I agree that the steady state theory of the universe is no longer the favored model of the universe. 2. In any case, the phrase before the big bang is distinctly iffy, given that time itself is said to have been created in the big bang. (Time *and* space, in fact, along with matter and energy.) This the way I understand the present cosmology as well. There is no present method in science to determine what happened before the Big Bang. Also, scientists state that time, space and energy exist within the confines of our universe. By definition, there is NOTHING outside of the universe. 3. And causes are not needed once you know how matter and energy operate under those conditions. This would depend on how you define cause. Matter and energy are also created in the big bang. The issue would be whether the potential of the singularity to manifest as the universe can be considered a material cause, in Aristotle's Four Causes formulation. I agree with the point that the universe has a cause. IMO, the cause would have to lie outside of the universe. 4. I'm curious to know if you're sticking to this from one of your earlier posts in the thread: In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy without needing a cause. Also wondering if you're willing to retract your original fallacious inductive reasoning claim, now that you've had at least a bit of a look at the Craig argument. I should think it would be interesting to accept the first premise of the syllogism just for the sake of the discussion, and see where John takes it, how he gets from there to the conclusion. I've seen some incredibly complex, sophisticated ways to do that. Don't know if John is going to use any of them, but I'd love to find out. It appears that Curtis, through the example he presented, agreed to the first premise. But then again, maybe not. :) JR Nice job on presenting syllogisms. Thanks. Pretty basic stuff.
[FairfieldLife] Re: A short lesson in logic for JohnR
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John jr_esq@... wrote: Barry, ... I will not make further comments on your stories below until we clarify your position as discussed above. Excellent. Goodbye.
