E
Elioenai26
Guest
Most recently? You started speculating about the nature of the cause on the first page of this thread and you haven't stopped since, except to remind us that we aren't allowed to deal with that segment of your argument. Now in your "most recently" comment you are framing it as though we are trying to derail the thread when all we are doing is responding to your claims!
I have stated this before, and I will state it again:
1. Dualism is not pertinent in any manner to the veracity of premises (i) and (ii).
2. Dualism, may be pertient, when a conceptual analysis of the cause inferred by the conclusion of the argument commences.
3. To ask that we discuss dualism in depth here at this point in this thread while it is evident that you still have problems with premise (i) and premise (ii), is an attempt to derail the thread, introduce red herrings and strawmen, and this with regards to a concept that the argument is simply not dependent upon.
Furthermore, the two premises and the conclusion have been dealt with multiple times. As I keep pointing out, you are wrongfully assuming that the idea of a beginning implies theism and that the only way to maintain atheism is to deny that the universe had a beginning some finite time ago.
The fact that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily imply theism. The crux of the matter is that the KCA brings us to a conclusion that has the potential to have theistic implications.
We are not offering scientific evidence for God. Rather, we supply scientific evidence that can support a premiss in an argument leading to a conclusion having theological significance.
Theist or atheist, what one is does not matter one whit when they are presented with the KCA. It is a logically sound argument whose premises can be defended and shown to be more plausibly true than their opposite, and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic. The conclusion of the argument requires a cause of the universe. The best explanation from the pool of live options is not that the universe somehow "self-created" itself, or that it is eternal, or that it is part of an actual larger multiverse ensemble, or that it spontaneously popped into existence out of a quantum vacuum. All of the preceding are more science fiction, or wishful thinking, than science.
The most logical, rational explanation for the data we have is that the universe was created at some point in the finite past ex nihilo. There are several other arguments that supplement this conclusion, namely the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the contingency argument. The theisitic implications here are unavoidable if accepted. Alas, many are not willing to accept them, and so continue on in their naturalistic presuppositions to seek an explanation that does not invoke the transcendant. One must ask themselves: "Why they would doggedly hold to their view in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves it is wrong?"
Only you can be the judge of that.
Several objections have been raised to your use of the word "cause" in the argument. For one, you have taken the word out of its familiar context and applied it to some entity that is radically unlike any other known cause and that possesses none of the properties that would mark it as an entity that is able to cause anything. You've leveraged the meaning of the word, but ignored the context in which finds its meaning for the sake of your argument. In other words, you are assuming that the causal principle applies to things that are unlike any of the things it actually does apply to.
I shall refer you to posts # 377, #529 and #530. In them, I treated these same questions of yours.
Again in post #583 I elaborated and responded to the same question.
Another objection is that your argument suffers from the fallacy of composition. You are assuming that the properties of the parts must apply to the whole. However, there is some asymmetry to your assumption. You assume the property of causality applies to the whole, but not the properties of materiality or occupying a particular space in a particular time.
The fallacy of composition is reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that property.
No where have I or any other proponent of the KCA ever argued the following:
1. If every part of a thing has a certain property, then the whole thing has that property.
2. Every part of the universe has a cause
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
This would be committing the fallacy of composition, which as you can see, I never have.
What I have maintained is that we have three good reasons why we should take premise (i) as true. They are as follows:
1. First, its rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic.
2. If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then its inexplicable why just anything and everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing.
3. Third, premise (i) is constantly confirmed and never falsified in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.
If something can not come into being from nothing without a cause, then why is it that you want to maintain that it is only the universe that can pop into being from nothing without a cause? What makes nothing so discriminatory? There cannot be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness has no properties! Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there is nothing to constrain! If the causal principle is not universally binding and applicable to all of reality as you seem to want to maintain, then why don't things like bicycles, and cars, and people, and couches just pop into existence?
Do you really think that it is possible, for say, a Koala Bear, to just pop into existence on your dining room table?
When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you've got the intelligent efficient cause the (magician), and the effect (the rabbit)!
What you seem to want to maintain is that something more infinitely complex than a rabbit could just spontaneously pop into existence without any causal conditions whatsoever!!!
------------------------------------
Therefore, it is clear that the objection of a fallacy of composition is merely a strawman of your own construction.
This is where you invoke dualism to rip reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction. This division of existence began on the first page of this thread, and has been an ongoing discussion ever since.
If the previous strawman was not enough, you have sought to construct an even bigger one here!
First a couple of comments:
1. Dualism in this context refers to Cartesian Dualism in the philosophy of mind which states that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. (Wikipedia)
2. The ongoing discussion of this thread has been the KCA, not dualism. In fact, a letter from Dr. Goetz was used by me only in response to a person's unsubstantiated assertion that a mind is not immaterial. This was to support the assertion that mind is not necessarily reducible to a materialistic understanding.
3. This charge of imagined "division" of yours is a pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the KCA; for no where in this thread have I attempted to "divide reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction"! All of the semantical gymnastics are really just the straw stuffing of this strawman you have tried to construct in order to tear down. It is not working.
For a while you were even confident that dualism saved and strengthened your argument. But ever since The Engineer and Davian responded to this, your confidence has markedly diminished, and you now demand that we no longer address one of the most fundamental assumptions of your argument.
Once again, this is another instance of strawman argumentation. Dualism has nothing to do with the KCA at all! I simply alluded to it to lend credibility to the assertion that mind is not necessarily reducible to pure matter.
In light of the above, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to examine why you hold to your beliefs the way you do. It seems to me that you are a man of great faith after all! One who has great faith in his naturalism.
Upvote
0