The endless chain of causes

Author: Benjamin

Posts

Total: 138
Topic's author
#121
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Does logic break down at Big Bang simply because our scientific models are no longer adequate at that point? 

Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

So the answer is no. A = A, that is the basic law of logic. This means that the logical argument I am proposing is valid, it is a strict syllogism: "A = B, B = C, thus A = C"


If A=A breaks down at BB, then my argument is false. However, you have provided no proof to suggest that A =/= A before BB. Why would we assume that simply because our mathematical models break down that A stops being A? Remember that my argument does not rely on any kind of empirical assumptions, it simply assumes that A = A.

#122
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Incorrect - because you are taking an outcome, something that we assume, and asserting that it applies before the big bang - of course our assumptions will always be true - because we assume them - that is not to say they are TRUE, it means to you it makes no practical difference. However the things which INFORM logic break down, and you failed to address that. That shows that you are deliberately ignoring my reasoning, for what reason? I could assert more than a couple. 

You are ignoring the second principle of logic - soundness. Which the truth of the matter asserted and the validity of the premises built upon the conclusion. You cannot come to any conclusions using logic which are sound UNLESS you have information or precedents to draw from, THEREFORE you cannot use deduction or induction, ERGO logic breaks down. Address that please, or this whole thing is done here.

TLDR: A=A is assumed, so of course it applies - it is however impossible to KNOW that A is A, or that A equals A, because we have no data or precedent from before the big bang.
#123
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
We have no way of effectively evaluating (no-time/no-space)/(anti-time/anti-space) and I'm not sure we can even describe it sufficient to make arguments about it possible. 
Topic's author
#124
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
you are deliberately ignoring my reasoning
I am not. You cannot claim that logic breaks down, you have simply asserted that SCIENCE breaks down -- to which I would agree. 


the things which INFORM logic break down
We cannot know which premises to use without observation, but the logical process itself is completely sound. This means that any argument is sound and valid IF all possible explanations are covered. Let me demonstrate:

P1: A human dies
P2: War kill humans
C: Human was killed by war

The fallacy in this argument is not the logical process, but that premise 2 was chosen arbitrarily, ignoring other options.

Is this what you accuse my argument of? That my argument arbitrarily makes unsound premises?

Considder this very same type of syllogism:

P1: A human is found with a bullet in his chest
P2: Guns are only fired by humans
C: The humans was killed by another human

Now, this syllogism is also sound. But the second premise does not cover all options, so it is false, right? No. We have observable facts to support premise 2. This is the process called SCIENCE, and this process breaks down at BB, but logical syllogisms don't.


UNLESS you have information or precedents to draw from
I disagree.

In science, we need DATA to make an argument, because the possibilities are nearly endless. But in this discussion, we are talking about dualistic logic. We can discuss all possible scenarios and analyze their impacts. We don't need specific evidence to assert any premise, because we can simply brute force through each single uncertainty. If you can cover all possible scenarios, you don't need information to make your logic sound, you simply have to use sound methods to analyze the validity of each option. You accuse me of arbitrarily using unprovable premises -- an accusation that falls apart when I actually test ALL possible scenarios.


For example, God either exists or he doesn't. This is not an observable fact -- it is self-evident, to claim otherwise would be a denial of A = A.

Thus, the method I used is at least as valid as that of the scientific method -- after all, science doesn't consider ALL possible options. 
#125
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
The point is, Gods defining characteristic necessarily belongs to SOMETHING. Because if this trait, independency, doesn't exist, then the existence of something dependent doesn't make any sense. The only way to claim that something independent doesn't exist is to claim that NOTHING exists.
If anything could exist independently then everything could exist independently.

Can you demonstrate that the universe’s existence is dependent? If not, how does this play into your argument?

God has no beginning, and the law of causality doesn't require him to have a cause.
Is the universe subject to causality? Not that which exists within it, but the universe itself.
Topic's author
#126
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Is the universe subject to causality?
This is actually the entire point of the argument. If one can prove that the universe is subject to causality, then one has proven that the universe was caused by something independent -- being God, or something god-like.



Not that which exists within it, but the universe itself.
I can, in fact, do exactly that.

The only option for the universe to be independent (aka God-like) is for it to be eternal in time. But in fact, it is expanding, and there is a finite amount of energy inside the universe. This means that IF the universe is eternal in time, every instance of energy would be infinitely far apart. Since that is not the case, we know that the universe is not eternal. The only option for it to be eternal is a cyclic universe -- which contradicts modern science and also means that the universe would be dependent on previous iterations of itself.


P1: Every point in time is dependent on the last point in time and the laws of physics
P2: Nothing can be dependent on itself. 
C: The first point in time must be dependent on something external

It all boils down to this simple problem:
  • Something independent must be the reason something exists at all
  • If the universe was "independent", that would be a false independency
    • The universe cannot be truly independent, since its dependent on previous iterations of itself
    • An independent universe is actually just a universe dependent on itself - which is nonsensical
  • God, or something god-like, CAN indeed be genuinely independent.
    • God is not dependent on himself, he is genuinely independent
    • Anything dependent on God can both have a finite beginning and follow the laws of causality without becoming a paradox
  • Thus, the only way NOT to believe in a paradox is to believe in God, or something god-like

Obviously, God is not a logical deduction, but one needs to believe in the existence of the traits he posses, like true independency.


#127
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
C: The first point in time must be dependent on something external
Do you believe there is some kind of progression to God’s existence? Yes or no?
Topic's author
#128
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Progression: a sequence of numbers in which each term is related to its predecessor by a uniform law

No, God is not in progression.
#129
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
Obvious dodge. You know what I am asking.
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
P1: Every event has a cause
P2: An endless chain of causes is impossible
C: There exists a first cause
P1: Every observable event is the result of a prior event
P2: This chain of events can be traced back to the initial-singularity (bigbang)
C: It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits (including our human perception of the flow of time).

ALSO,

NOUMENON.
#131
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
The only option for the universe to be independent (aka God-like) is for it to be eternal in time. But in fact, it is expanding, and there is a finite amount of energy inside the universe. This means that IF the universe is eternal in time, every instance of energy would be infinitely far apart. Since that is not the case, we know that the universe is not eternal. The only option for it to be eternal is a cyclic universe -- which contradicts modern science and also means that the universe would be dependent on previous iterations of itself.
ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA.

#132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
P1: Every point in time is dependent on the last point in time and the laws of physics
P2: Nothing can be dependent on itself. 
C: The first point in time must be dependent on something external
GODEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM.
Topic's author
#133
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
No.

Your question is all about semantics.

God exists independently, which means that his existence is not based on a previous iteration of himself. He is constant.
#134
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well no, because the big bang, the most widely accepted and evidenced model of the beginning of the known universe, time did have a beginning. This is a fairly basic fact.
Well stated.
#135
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
God exists independently, which means that his existence is not based on a previous iteration of himself. He is constant.
Upon what criteria do you suppose "GOD" identifies as a "male"?
#136
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Benjamin
Do you believe there is some kind of progression to God’s existence? Yes or no?
No
If there is no progression then there are no thoughts, no actions, and it cannot cause anything. All of these things require its state of existence to change. For example, to make a decision is to begin by existing in a state of being undecided and progress to a state of being decided.

A state of non progression is to be infinitely frozen in time. That is mutually exclusive with any of the normal traits associated with a god.

Your question is all about semantics.
No, it’s about basic meaning of words. You’re making an argument while disregarding that the words you are using if taken for what they actually mean contradict each other. If it’s being misunderstood then that is exactly why we have to go through this exercise.
#137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,303
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe there is some kind of progression to God’s existence? Yes or no?
No
If there is no progression then there are no thoughts, no actions, and it cannot cause anything. All of these things require its state of existence to change. For example, to make a decision is to begin by existing in a state of being undecided and progress to a state of being decided.

A state of non progression is to be infinitely frozen in time. That is mutually exclusive with any of the normal traits associated with a god.

Your question is all about semantics.
No, it’s about basic meaning of words. You’re making an argument while disregarding that the words you are using if taken for what they actually mean contradict each other. If it’s being misunderstood then that is exactly why we have to go through this exercise.
Well stated.
Topic's author
#138
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 92
Posts: 828
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Double_R
A state of non progression is to be infinitely frozen in time. That is mutually exclusive with any of the normal traits associated with a god.
Ok I agree.



BTW that was my objection against the cosmological argument from my first post. Funny that I ended up defending instead of objecting to the cosmological argument.

How the turntables.