|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
|
Okay, so we've had a lot of arguing over definitions lately, and its been frankly unhelpful. So, I thought it might be fun to set a rule for this thread. For this entire thread, whenever you use the word 'begins' or 'cause', you must accompany it with a definition of that expression. You do not have to use the same definition each time, but you must make this clear.
Now, I'm going to present what I consider the most defensible definitions that can be fitted into the KCA. I do not believe this to be what Craig intends by the words, and am not trying to. If a supporter of the argument wants to substitute their own definition in, then they must defend why that word is better, and how the premise is defended using that definition. So, here I go:
1) Everything that begins (comes into existence from the rearrangement of preexisting matter) to exist has a cause (temporally preceding event which was sufficient for its existence)
2) The universe began (had a finite temporal boundary in the past) to exist.
Therefore: ???????
Support:
1) The support for this premise is empirical. Every time we have seen something come into existence, it has been the result of pre-existing matter rearranging in some way. Although I reject the existence of things such as thoughts etc. this is also true for them, as they are always accompanied by the rearrangement of physical matter. Every time this has happened, there has also been a preceding event which we believe to be sufficient for the existence of the caused thing.
2) The support for this is similar to Craig's. An actually infinite past seems untenable.
Conclusion) Nothing can be validly inferred from this argument other than a conjunction of the premises, or a couple of negations.
Okay, so there's my formulation, with as much logical or empirical support as I think can be given for any interpretation of the words.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheTrueTheist
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
|
Are the definitions of 'begin' not different in your first two premises? It seems that, assuming the universe came 'from nothing' (sigh...), we can't say that the universe began using your definition in the first premise (i.e. as a simple rearrangement of pre-existing matter).
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Matthias
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheTrueTheist
Are the definitions of 'begin' not different in your first two premises?
That's the point, yes. Adopting definitions in each premise that make the premise very unlikely to be false result in the argument being invalid because of the inconsistency of "begin" in each. But I would more readily interpret the thread as an invitation for someone who finds the KCA convincing to specify a single meaning of "begin" for which each premise is very unlikely to be false.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by MatthiasQuote: Originally Posted by TheTrueTheist
Are the definitions of 'begin' not different in your first two premises?
That's the point, yes. Adopting definitions in each premise that make the premise very unlikely to be false result in the argument being invalid because of the inconsistency of "begin" in each. But I would more readily interpret the thread as an invitation for someone who finds the KCA convincing to specify a single meaning of "begin" for which each premise is very unlikely to be false.
Bingo, with the addition of defining 'cause' in such a way as to make the first premise probably true, whilst still resulting in a conclusion that is probably God.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheTrueTheist
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Lovely 
Although I think the KCA needs no help in completely failing - even with all definitions clearly set in place. I always get a chuckle when someone attempts to go from 'the universe has a cause' to 'God'.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheTrueTheistLovely
Although I think the KCA needs no help in completely failing - even with all definitions clearly set in place. I always get a chuckle when someone attempts to go from 'the universe has a cause' to 'God'.
I agree, though let's see if anyone manages this step first, then we can worry about whether or not the conclusion implies God or not |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Rostos
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheTrueTheistLovely
Although I think the KCA needs no help in completely failing - even with all definitions clearly set in place. I always get a chuckle when someone attempts to go from 'the universe has a cause' to 'God'. Rather, the cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. It can be one of 2 things, Abstract numbers, but do they cause anything? Or a cause that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.. What does that sound like?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RostosRather, the cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial. It can be one of 2 things, Abstract numbers, but do they cause anything? Or a cause that is spaceless, timeless and immaterial.. What does that sound like?
Please don't derail the thread. I'm not picking on you, I should have said it to TTT as I was worried this would happen. The topic is very clear, and specific.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Archsage
|
|
Posted 05/14/12
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
- Everything that begins to exist (has its existence instantiated when, in a prior state of affairs its existence was not actual) has a cause (an event that led to a logically following event by nature of the initial event's existence).
- The Universe began to exist (had its existence instantiated when, in a prior state of affairs its existence was not actual).
- Therefore, the Universe has a cause (an initial event that led to a logically following event by nature of the initial event's existence).
This is a fun thread. Does that work?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/15/12
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage- Everything that begins to exist (has its existence instantiated when, in a prior state of affairs its existence was not actual) has a cause (an event that led to a logically following event by nature of the initial event's existence).
- The Universe began to exist (had its existence instantiated when, in a prior state of affairs its existence was not actual).
- Therefore, the Universe has a cause (an initial event that led to a logically following event by nature of the initial event's existence).
This is a fun thread. Does that work?
Yay Arch Should have guessed you'd be the one to step up!
It might, the other part of the game is to justify the premises according to the definitions given. I think this should narrow down exactly where contentions lie. For example I think you have presented a solid set of definitions, but I need significantly more explanation on what you mean by 'prior' in each case, and also a defense for the premises on this basis.
To elucidate my issue. Premise two suggests that the universe did not exist in some prior state of affairs, but my contention would be that there was no prior state of affairs. You wrote in a way that I assume you did not mean temporally prior, but then we need an explanation of what such a state of affairs is, and how without begging the question, we can know that it existed in way that universe did not exist in it.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
itsallgood
|
|
Posted 05/15/12
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAutoOkay, so we've had a lot of arguing over definitions lately, and its been frankly unhelpful. So, I thought it might be fun to set a rule for this thread. For this entire thread, whenever you use the word 'begins' or 'cause', you must accompany it with a definition of that expression. You do not have to use the same definition each time, but you must make this clear.
Now, I'm going to present what I consider the most defensible definitions that can be fitted into the KCA. I do not believe this to be what Craig intends by the words, and am not trying to. If a supporter of the argument wants to substitute their own definition in, then they must defend why that word is better, and how the premise is defended using that definition. So, here I go:
1) Everything that begins (comes into existence from the rearrangement of preexisting matter) to exist has a cause (temporally preceding event which was sufficient for its existence)
2) The universe began (had a finite temporal boundary in the past) to exist.
Therefore: ???????
Didn't you change your definition of begin/began in point 2?
begins = (comes into existence from the rearrangement of preexisting matter).
began = (had a finite temporal boundary in the past).
Are not begin and began the same thing from just a differing perspective and you jumped from a rearrangement of existing matter for begin to a temporal boundary for began.
If not or im missing summat sorry.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/15/12
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by itsallgoodNow, I'm going to present what I consider the most defensible definitions that can be fitted into the KCA. I do not believe this to be what Craig intends by the words, and am not trying to. If a supporter of the argument wants to
Didn't you change your definition of begin/began in point 2?
begins = (comes into existence from the rearrangement of preexisting matter).
began = (had a finite temporal boundary in the past).
Are not begin and began the same thing from just a differing perspective and you jumped from a rearrangement of existing matter for begin to a temporal boundary for began.
If not or im missing summat sorry.
Yes I did. This has already been addressed  I do not believe it is possible to arrive at one single definition of cause which is the same in both premises, and with each premise still justified. Hence I said that on my formulation there is no conclusion that can be derived from the argument. I am inviting defenders of the KCA to provide definitions that fit both premises, and leave the premises probably true.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lawlessone777
|
|
Posted 05/15/12
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
Quote: 1) Everything that begins (comes into existence from the rearrangement of preexisting matter) to exist has a cause (temporally preceding event which was sufficient for its existence)
Isn't this still openly mereological nihilism? To define "begins" as "comes into existence from the rearrangement of pre-existing matter" you're making it impossible for anything which is abstract, or non-physical to ever begin to exist. Concepts, philosophical movements, idealisms, or any insubstantial existence. For example, on your definition America never began to exist. America is an immaterial concept applied to a land mass. That land mass has remained largely unchanged for quite some time, and so at one point that land mass was not considered America, and the next that land mass was considered America without and physical alteration. By your logic America could never begin to exist, as beginning to exist requires that it be a physical rearrangement of matter.
Also on your definition of begins to exit you claim that it is a physical rearrangement of matter, however there is already a word that we use for that exact definition: change. When one alters pre-existing material into a new form one is changing that material, not causing it to begin to exist. You cause the immaterial concept of a "chair" to begin to exist by physically "changing" the shape of wood. And so in applying your definition to actual reality wouldn't you be forced to abandon the word "change" on top of being forced to conclude that any non-physical entity could not begin to exist?
And finally with regards to your definition that any causal event must transpire temporally prior to the effect which takes place, aren't you once again ignoring the reality of simultaneous causation? While you could argue that the ice cubes in my tray in the freezer are frozen because at some point I placed water into the freezer, isn't the "cold temperature" causing the ice cubes to "remain frozen" simultaneously with the water being frozen?
It seems, as I've said in previous threads Crash, that you're embracing both mereological nihilism and temporal causality as a requirement in order to dismiss the first premise of the Kalam. The problem I'm seeing with how you're re-defining things is that we already have language we use to describe these events, and the kalam clearly borrows its language from the common everyday uses of these words. William Lane Craig has, himself, defined this argument as "begins to exist" meaning an efficient cause which brings an effect into being. He has defined that cause can be simultaneous in temporal nature, and in fact uses all of these definitions in order to support the cause of the universe in part 2 of his arguments. Dr. Craigs definitions are also supported by mainstream philosophy. An efficient cause is exactly what he defines it to be, and temporal causality is exactly as he defends it.
So my question to you would be this: In insisting that causes must be both physical and temporal ignoring the obvious problems which arise when we adopt mereological nihilism, aren't you simply changing the argument you're trying to refute by installing these new definitions into it, and showcasing the self refuting nature of this new altered Kalam argument? In insisting we change the argument isn't what you're in essence doing not refuting the argument as it's philosophically presented by it's supporters, but attempting to change the playing field before even stepping into the game to ensure your victory before we even get to bat?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lawlessone777
|
|
Posted 05/15/12
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
|
Actually one more problem on your definition of "cause", Crash. The definition you use for cause "physically rearranging pre-existing matter into a new form" already has a proper english word for it "change", as I said in my post above. If we adopt your definition of the word "cause" replacing "change" then by the rules of logic nothing exists.
If my causing a statue to begin to exist means I rearrange pre-existing material into a new form, then I am not changing that marble into a statue, I'm simply causing a statue to begin to exist. And so, if I am not simply changing the shape of the marble, that means that the statue ceases to be "marble" and becomes "a statue". Which means the statue is no longer marble, we're replacing my changing the marble. This means chairs are not wood, buildings are not brick. Nothing exists but matter, plain and simply, as there are no immaterial concepts. A chair is no longer wood, wood is no longer a dead tree, a tree is no longer a plant, it all basically breaks down to matter since no immaterial concept is allowed to begin to exist on your definition.
So in short if we adopt your definition of cause all that exists is matter, there are no conceptual beginnings, only physical ones. I am not Lawlessone777, you are not Crash, we are nothing more than matter hammering away at small keys of matter. In fact this post doesn't exist, as I cannot cause this post to begin to exist unless it is a physical alteration of pre-existing matter.
I think we ought to stay with the traditional definition of an efficient cause, "Something which brings an effect into being." Otherwise, on your definition, literally nothing exists.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CrashTestAuto
|
|
Posted 05/15/12
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
|
Lawless, have you abandoned reading my posts altogether now??? How was any of that a response to my OP? Its like you read a single sentence in the middle (my premise one) and just ignored the context and topic of discussion...
|
|
Loading...
|
|
