1.) An appeal to infinite regress is never a conclusive reason for explaining anything, because it doesn't actually answer anything.[1] If it ever did, then regression itself would necessarily cease.[2] [ . . . ]
[1] Why couldn't an event be the cause of and thus the explanation for the next event ?
[2] Why is that ?
Paulomycin 1 said:
2.) Infinite regress is not sound, because an infinite regress of causes would never reach the present day. Nor would it even reach the moment of the Big Bang.
Why would an eternal cycle of events not be able to reach the present day ?
Moreover, the fallacy of composition doesn't claim infinite regress.
Paulomycin 1 said:
3.) Hume's "meta" relies on a wholly non-empirical observation from an abstract supra-natural perspective located completely outside the universe in-order to critique causality within the universe. "The phrase "within the universe" is stated from an outsider's POV, or "God's eye view."[3] [ . . . ]
What is Hume's “meta” ?
[3] You are mistaken. I am confident Hume or anyone describing that fallacy, was inside the universe. Morever, the truth of the claim “Simply because causality occurs
within the universe” is independent from the perspective.
Paulomycin 1 said:
4.) If the other laws of logic apply to claims such as "universe," (i.e. law of identity) then Hume cannot special-plead law of causality as inapplicable to any extent. Moreover, he cannot apply fallacy of composition to defeat a law of logic itself. He's essentially trying to apply reason to defeat reason. <-- what the. . .???
As far as I know Hume didn't claim the law of causality does not apply to the universe. The wise position to take is one of ignorance. Maybe the universe was caused or maybe it wasn't. As the fallacy of composition shows, we can't rely on the causality within the universe to draw conclusions about causality of the universe.
What law of logic was Hume disputing according to you ?
Paulomycin 1 said:
7.) Fallacy of composition is an erroneous assumption,[4] while cause itself is a deductive absolute instead.[5] While cause can often be misattributed, a confirmed cause is not an assumption. Scientifically speaking, if Steady State theory has been falsified, and Big Bang is more likely a confirmed fact, then attributing fallacy of composition to it would itself be an unscientific claim.[6]
[4] No, it is not. It is an erroneous line of reasoning or a reasoning error.
[5] Before arguing about cause, you should give a proper definition of it.
[6] No, it wouldn't. You can argue that the Big Bang is evidence that the universe has a beginning. The fallacy of composition does not dispute that.
Paulomycin 14 to durangodawood said:
Okay, let's simplify it for you:
David Hume was the key influence of the entire Scottish Enlightenment. Without Hume, Locke's rudimentary Empiricism would exist, but not the era of Enlightenment itself.
No enlightenment philosophy = no atheism.[7] Get it? Hume's Empiricism is a sine qua non of atheism, without which it would not exist.
If Hume is successfully deconstructed, then Thomism remains true.[8] Therefore, God necessarily exists and has never been disproven otherwise.
[7] Are you claiming that without David Hume, everyone would still believe in God ?
[8] That is a non-sequitur. That particular arguments against a creator god are unsound, would not prove Thomism. So, David Hume's arguments being garbage would not prevent Thomas Aquinas' arguments from being garbage too.
Paulomycin 20 said:
durangodawood said:
Im not sure in what sense opinions about highly disputed arguments count as "knowledge". Seems they are second rate compared to empirical data.
The argument itslef is bivalent deduction, therefore math, therefore real knowledge. And precise knowledge at that. Empirical data is always math-dependent. <--That's the actual hierarchy.
What is bivalent deduction ?
An argument is knowledge if and only if it is believed. If it is then it could be true or false knowledge, depending on whether it is a sound or unsound argument.