The argument is valid, so which premise is false?
compellingtruth.org
>>890629
Neither. The only argument to be made is to what caused the universe to exist.
>C comes after 2
Anyway just because the universe exists, doesn't mean it has a cause. That's the false premise.
Also we don't fully know if we exist, false vacuum and whatnot. However to be fair, we might as well live like we do.
Also it'll probably piss Catholics off, but the Big Bang is a pretty bad description for the beginning of the universe. Prior to the expansion of the universe everything was so hot and condensed that it's figuratively impossible for us to comprehend since it no longer obeyed our conceptions of time and space. That being said, the universe probably didn't just come from nothing, but stretched from an infinitely smaller fraction of what it is today. So we may be heading back into an understanding that the universe always existed, which will definitely piss off the religious, unless they're pantheists or something. But like I said our monkey brains have trouble wrapping around the idea of an existence that's all energy, without time and space.
>>890685
>C comes after 2
It stands for 'conclusion'.
>Anyway just because the universe exists, doesn't mean it has a cause. That's the false premise.
But neither premise says that 'because the universe exists it has a cause'.
>>890694
>If the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause
>>890694
It assumes that for something to begin existing it must have cause, which is a false premise.
>>890699
That premise is not equivalent to 'because the universe exists it has a cause'.
the problem is in the phrase "began to exist". what exactly do you mean by that? because there is no time before the big bang. so it cannot be the case that
>at time T the universe did not exist
>at time T+1 it did exist
the problem with this argument is that you very rapidly run into the limitations of language and of our ability to conceive of such things
there is another problem
i have seen WLC make this argument and use the example of a table
>a table exists
>at one point it did not exist
>therefore something caused it to come into existence since tables dont just spring out of thin air
>therefore things that begin to exist must have a cause
the problem is that the table is created out of the existing matter and energy of the universe. there is no reason why the same logic should apply to creating the universe itself
>>890702
Fine, I'm not sure why you're responding to my post though. I was merely pointing out that no premise in OP's argument is equivalent to 'because the universe exists it has a cause'.
>1. If the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause.
>began
Shaky terminology, ten points from Gryffindor.
>then the universe had a cause
You haven't even demonstrated that the universe began as opposed to always existing in some form, now you're making a second enormous mental leap. Things don't "need" a cause. Unless you have empirical evidence and observations to back this claim up, it can safely be ignored.
So right away, we can discard this entire problem. Thanks for playing.
>>890719
Craig responds to that objection at 27:52 here:
https://youtu.be/sfsYhWNMYr4?t=27m52s
>>890629
That the universe "began" to exist. It never began. It always was.
The first premise contains an "if", which is a plank in the spokes of all cosmological arguments, and I don't know how it can be logically justified either. All that takes for it to be false is the possibility of true randomness.
>>890844
>plank in the spokes
spoke in the wheel
just woke up no judging
The universe exists in the manner it does because its laws specifically allow the creation of consciousness. Any other universe might exist, but never be perceived (and therefore may as well not exist).
>>890629
>Everything had a cause
Proof?
>>890854
That claim doesn't feature in the argument, did you read it?
>>890859
It's part of the complete cosmological argument which I assumed OP was talking about rather than the concise version in the picture.
In that case
>Then the universe had a cause
Why is this necessary?
If it's not following the a posteriori premise of the cosmological argument then there's simply no point in claiming the universe had a cause.
>>890848
That goes against the definition of the universe though, which is everything that exists anywhere.
>>890866
Scientifically the definition of the universe is currently: all of space-time and it's contents, which doesn't specifically deny other space-times from existing.
>>890876
Mostly the universe is a shortening of "the observable universe", because when describing certain aspects of it, like its topology, claims can be made about one but not the other.
For instance, on the curvature of the universe, it only seems flat with the 50~+ light year slice of it that we have, if we could see another 500 maybe we'd have a different picture of it and could in fact see it to be closed/open.
>>890704
The conclusion basically says "because the universe existed, it has a cause." That is the whole point of the god damn argument.
Care to explain what you think A!=A?
>>890886
To clarify, are you the original poster who was suggesting that (1) 'because the universe exists it has a cause' and (2) 'if the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause' are equivalent?
>>890876
But you just said it yourself. The definition is ALL of space-time. There are no "other space-times" then. It's ALL of it.
>>890629
unfalsifiable =/= true
>>890903
there's no guarantee that space-time is the end-all-be-all shape the universe takes. there's no guarantee that space-time isn't a product of our being human, that in reality, the universe is utter fucking chaos, and we make sense of it through our being living organisms.
>>890903
Another kind of space-time would be an other space-time. Scientists do not talk about the way our universe works while at the same time extrapolating about all other "possible" kinds.
>>890702
>for something to begin existing it must have cause, which is a false premise.
Would you explain why it is false? I'm legitimately asking.
The cause of the universe was itself.
>>890916
>unfalsifiable =/= true
unfalsifiable =/= untrue
>>890629
>which premise is false
that's a strange assumption to make.
>>890886
Saying the universe at some point began meaning that something must have caused it to begin is what this argument is saying. Saying because the universe exists is leaving out the clause that it at some point began.
>>890629
We know that the current state of the universe had a beginning and will have an ending. We don't know what the universe was like before the current state began and what it will look like, and what exactly caused said state to begin the way it did and what exactly will cause it to end the way it will either.
The argument is invalid, and neither of the premises can be true or false simply because we can't prove them wrong or right (at least not yet).
reported
>>890940
>>Would you explain why it is false? I'm legitimately asking.
because you have no proof and it remains a fantasy until you are rigorous instead of just pretending to be so.
Science assumes the real world in the same sense we assume that the Sun goes around the Earth in our everyday lives, or mathematics assumes an ideal realm populated with numbers and structures. It is a practical attitude of a working scientist (farmer, mathematician,...) that saves time and effort on complications irrelevant to the task at hand. Upon reflection one could conjecture that this attitude does reflect operation in a mind independent world inhabited by real things. A realist might even argue that doing otherwise undermines our usual activities, scientific activities in particular, and leaves them hanging. But this reasoning is moralizing and emotional, not rational. Which bring us directly to what it means to have "faith in science": what is the goal of science?
>>891025
ok, stop pretending to be retarded and name one particular object that exists without cause.
A necessary object if you will, as opposed to a contingent one.
>>891032
Plato once taught that the goal of geometry is to lift the soul from the bonds of the sensible to higher pastures of philosophy. In a similar vein a realist might say that it is uncovering the hidden reality of nature that animates science. But this stance naturally undermines itself, once science replaces the apparent reality of everyday life (or older theory) with deeper scientific reality, and transfers its realist commitments to the latter, the same doubt arises about the latter as it raises about the former. Indeed, scientists are trained not to take appearances at face value and seek ever deeper explanations. Cao and Schweber give an interesting account of how this dynamic plays out in modern physics in Conceptual Foundations and the Philosophical Aspects of Renormalization Theory:"the recent developments support a pluralism in theoretical ontology, an antifoundationalism in epistemology and an antireductionism in methodology. These implications are in sharp contrast with the neo-Platonism implicit in the traditional pursuit of quantum field theorists... which assumed that, through rational (mainly mathematical) human activities, one could arrive at an ultimate stable theory of everything." (see especially pp.73-77).
Anti-realism in ontology goes hand in hand with instrumentalism in epistemology, and a different understanding of the goals of science. They are empirical adequacy, and more remotely practical success of applications, rather than a search for hidden reality. This may strike a realist as lowly and demeaning of science, but that again is appeal to emotions, and mechanics too once "corrupted the good of geometry", according to Plato, for it "uses bodies needing much vulgar manual labor". There is no being right or wrong about goals, they are not matters of fact. This is one reason why the dispute is perennial. Anti-realism and instrumentalism take the scientific method itself at face value, and view the ontologies it produces only as tools. Anti-realism takes an agnostic position on reality of theoretical entities, and the idealism/materialism dispute in particular, and questions if one can even make sense of "mind-independent" (as opposed to just not mind-determined) reality. Unlike realism it is a stable position, starting at anti-realism one is anchored there, whereas starting at realism one has to resist being led away from it. And it has as much faith in science as does realism, but on its own terms.
ITT /his/ proves it's paralyzed by a lack of understanding of basic logical concepts
>>890629
I can't find much wrong with it.
Of course it doesn't mean the cause had agency i.e. a God.
>>891056
What definition of God are you working with? Is it the same as Craig's?
>>891051
kill yourself you cancerous mega-faggot
( ( A = ~A ) * top ) *top
>>890739
I really don't see the "obvious absurdity" of mereological nihilism upon which his argument relies. Consciousness (and thus a perception of being) could arise out of ways in which matter and energy are arranged.
All three of them are wrong.
First off, in the first premise, you can't assume that, because causality is a human concept, and therefore potentially fallible. There may very well be objects that began to exist without any cause. Some people will argue that on a very small scale, this happens all the time
The second premise is false because it's completely unknown at this point. You probably thought that the Big Bang theory 'proves' that the universe had a beginning, but the Big Bang theory doesn't describe the beginning of the universe. You can argue that the word 'beginning' shouldn't even be used in this context, because there was no time before the Big Bang
The conclusion is also wrong. Even if we grand you the first two premises (which, like I just explained, we don't have to), you're still drawing this conclusion based on a limited amount of information, based on your limited amount of experience. You could even observe this and you still wouldn't be able to draw this conclusion, at least not absolutely, since your experience is limited and always will be
>>891061
Any you like.
>>891153
>All three of them are wrong.
but there are only two premises
>ctrl + f
>It is a valid but not sound argument
>0 results
This is literally philosophy 101, 2 classes in. Y'all got fuckin baited by a retard.
>>891159
I'm sorry, what I should have said was 'Both the premises and the conclusion drawn from them are wrong'
>>891164
Eh? Lots of people have implicitly argued that it's not sound by denying the arguments premises.
>>891175
That's the thing. You don't even have to argue about the premises. It's affirming a disjunct. Standard logical error of philosophy. Nothing more needs to be said.
Instead of the everything having a cause. Ideologically, there were , very few, simple things with causes.
>the pencil
>the paintbrush
>the caves
>fire
>symbols
Some of my ideas choose as man-made causes. Others I think were 'natural selection'
>>891183
What do you mean by 'affirming a disjunct' in this case?
>>891187
>Some of my ideas choose as man-made causes.
But even those usually come about completely unintended and by accident. Innovation and invention is often just the result of bad copies that do something the originals never intended to do. There's a very nice article on this written by Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/16/creation-myth
>>891183
intriguing
>>891214
>http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/05/16/creation-myth
What I meant to imply is that there was a need for simple machines and, especially, the fine arts indeed need their presence.
We wouldn't have the pyramids without ramps and pullys. Simple machinery might be part of being human.
red herring, or do we want to prove OP wrong?
>The universe has a "cause".
>Therefore the biblical God exists and Jesus was his son and your soul will go to hell if you sin according to this specific translation unless you join this exact type of church and do these weekly rituals
>>891264
Where has somebody said that all of that follows from OP's argument?
>>890629
You can contest that the universe had a beginning or that the not all beginnings have a cause.
Quantum mechanics supports the latter notion, saying some happenings are fundamentally indeterminate, while relativism advances that causality is inescapable and also that there is something like a beginning to the universe.
Quantum and relativism are the two mainstream views of physics and both have been very productive, but they can't be reconciled.
It does seem like the universe started expanding from a hot dense body, but what came before is hard to say.
>>891270
Plenty of cultists on this very website. Are you new here?
"If"
There's not really a flaw in it. But it doesn't imply much. A cause need not be a willing entity. Atomic decay has a cause, this cause is likely not sapient.
>>891270
That's basically the only purpose anyone uses this style of argument for.
>>891270
Oh come on. How many people are actual Deists these days? This sort of thing is used by cult members to try and bolster their belief that they'll live forever in magicland thanks to a flying carpenter.
>>890629
I agree with the argument. I disagree it implies that therefore a magic man poofed the universe into existence.
>>891300
Thank you.
"The reasonable man aportions his beliefs according to the evidence". Even if the argument is fully sound, that does not prove any of the supposed truths the argument bears out.
>the argument doesn't prove the existence of the thing that it isn't intended to prove!!!!111
>>891373
But that's what it is used to prove by the person who invented it. Besides, premise one doesn't really apply given things that come into existence are already there in a different form before they were made to exist in another way... people who do metaphysics don't use "beginning to exist" when talking about the cause of somethings existence any longer.
>>891373
Philosophers are the kinds of people who have dishonest intentions anyway, you need to nip them in the bud otherwise they take your allowance of a single point for a free reign to invent whatever else they can dream up.
These days its better to be dismissive then give away the whole shebang.
>>891417
>Philosophers are the kinds of people who have dishonest intentions anyway
Not all philosophers are Plato, anon.
>cause and effect
>>891014
>The argument is invalid
LOL just LOL
>>890629
If ass, then ass.
Ass.
Therefore ass.
>>891312
Why do you hate fun?
>>891183
Can you explain this? I'm no philosopher, but after glancing at wikipedia, affirming the disjunct refers to statements of the type:
A or B: A --> !B.
whereas this is:
If A --> B, A --> B.
the statement can be flipped around a bit so that it's:
The universe began to exist or the universe doesn't have a cause --> the universe began to exist --> the universe has a cause.
But this isn't a fallacy if you assume that the intersection between the statements is AnB = {/0}, which the first statement does(which needs more thorough argument imho), but that's what people talk about when they're arguing about the premise. I don't see a way to make it into affirming the disjunct without first invalidating the premise.
>>891811
accidentally left off a bit: if I assume the intersection between two sets is the empty set, AnB = {}, then if A --> !B is totally valid. If I have the set of Reptiles R and the set of mammals M then it's simple to see that: A or M, x is A, x is !M is a valid statement.
>>891811
Basically, he's talking shit. The argument doesn't even feature a disjunction. Ignore him.
The form of the argument is absolutely fine, the only way the conclusion can be rejected is with a rejection of a premise.
>>890629
Does there necessarily have to be a premise that is false? The cause of the universe is unknowable, at least to human beings, because we are components of the universe itself and have a perspective limited by both time and space. Human beings have little to no insight into a thing that would be considered eternal and infinite, and to many, divine.
>>890629
The argument is valid, but it isn't sound
>>891033
Virtual particles.
>A necessary object if you will, as opposed to a contingent one.
>pic related
>>890629
The universe didn't begin.
