Godlessness and choice

[bhsmte]

Since fallacies only apply to arguments, and my criticizing your debating methods isn't tied to an argument, I committed no fallacy.



Yes, 100% certainty is an impossibility for almost every proposition.



Of course it's a proposition. When saying "Something cannot come from nothing" you're implying that nothing is a possible state of affairs, lest the sentence be incoherent.

Show how this "nothing" is a possible state of affairs.

That was my question and a very legitimate one. He refused to answer.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Wrong.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device. A red herring might be intentionally used or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

Instead of addressing what I wrote about the suitability of a comparative criterion for assesing the epistemic status of a premise in an argument, you started talking about me knowing how to use Google and about having Dr. Craig's website bookmarked. I could have gotten my information from Dr. Seuss' Cat in the Hat. It is simply irrelevant.

Now if you took issue with my debating methods, as you call it (I had no idea this was even a debate so this is news to me) then you should have said so clearly and I would have responded by asking you what exactly the problem was.

As it stands the fact that we are even discussing this is simply reinforcing my point that we are off topic.

We are discussing what criterion to use when assessing the epistemic status of a premise. And no, this is not a debate.

You realize that the problem with parroting websites instead of having your own opinions is that you can appear, as you often do, of not actually understanding what you're typing...

Logical fallacies only apply to arguments.

Well, since an essential property of a proposition is its ability to be either true or false, you're wrong again.

The word "nothing" is incapable of being true or false and thus fails to bear the chief characteristic which distinguishes propositions from non propositions.

I'm really hoping that you're intentionally being difficult here instead of just being plain ridiculous.

I'll write this as simply as I can for you:

For me to accept the proposition "Something cannot come from nothing" as being a coherent proposition, you first have to show that "nothing" is a possible state of affairs.

Show that "nothing" is a possible state of affairs.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That was my question and a very legitimate one. He refused to answer.

He's not going to sufficiently respond to me either.

 

[bhsmte]

He's not going to sufficiently respond to me either.

I know.

 

[super animator]

I don't recall reading anything from science sources that the universe was once nothing.

 

[quatona]

I just look at the evidence that the person gives for thinking the premise is true. I then ask if there is any evidence for the premise's negation. Explanatory scope and power, degree of adhocness, accordance with accepted beliefs, fit to the data, and other things I use to adjudicate between the premise and its negation.

Sounds sufficiently general, vague and subjective for anyone to agree. (I used to be under the impression, though, that determining "likelihood" was more a matter of statistical comparisons and probability calculations - and thus doesn´t allow any conclusions on a particular given case.)

Anyway - so let´s see the evidence for your premise (and by "evidence" I hope you didn´t mean mere sophistry and word plays).

 

[anonymous person]

I don't recall reading anything from science sources that the universe was once nothing.

Me neither.

 

[anonymous person]

You realize that the problem with parroting websites instead of having your own opinions is that you can appear, as you often do, of not actually understanding what you're typing...

Logical fallacies only apply to arguments.

And you introduced a red herring when I began arguing that you yourself appealed to a comparative criterion for assesing the epistemic status of a premise in an argument. You diverted, whether intentionally or not, attention away from the argument I was making and onto another argument, totally unrelated to mine, namely that the terms I was using led you to the conclusion that I knew how to use Google and that I had someone's website bookmarked.

Please refrain from doing this.

Funny thing is, I used neither Google nor Dr. Craig's website. So your red herring wasn't even an accurate one.
-2

I'm really hoping that you're intentionally being difficult here instead of just being plain ridiculous.

I'll write this as simply as I can for you:

For me to accept the proposition "Something cannot come from nothing" as being a coherent proposition, you first have to show that "nothing" is a possible state of affairs.

Show that "nothing" is a possible state of affairs.

Well, this is a departure from your earlier contention that the word "nothing" was a proposition. You were adamant that it was. Now you refer to the premise as the proposition, which it is.

Secondly, "nothing" is not a possible state of affairs. Nothing, as I use the word, simply signifies "no thing" or "not anything".

Existence is an essential property of an efficient cause, being that which brings about an effect.

So..

1. An effect (e) owes its being an effect to some efficient cause (c) which caused it to be.

The above is an explication of the causal principle.

Now this seems obviously true. I'm certain of it in fact.

Maybe you're not. But if you think it more likely to be true than its negation, you should hold it to be true, at least until some defeater is presented for it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And you introduced a red herring when I began arguing that you yourself appealed to a comparative criterion for assesing the epistemic status of a premise in an argument. You diverted, whether intentionally or not, attention away from the argument I was making and onto another argument, totally unrelated to mine, namely that the terms I was using led you to the conclusion that I knew how to use Google and that I had someone's website bookmarked.

Please refrain from doing this.

Funny thing is, I used neither Google nor Dr. Craig's website. So your red herring wasn't even an accurate one.

Lol. I doubt anyone else thought I "diverted attention away from the argument" you were making. But I can see how it might have troubled you, which might have caused you to think that...

Anyway... once again... fallacies apply to arguments. Since the statement in question was just me being snarky and questioning where your information comes from, and not an argument at all, no fallacy applies to it. It's not a red herring and it's certainly not an ad hominem attack, which would be the proper fallacy to apply if what I had said was an argument.

Which is wasn't.

Moving on...

Well, this is a departure from your earlier contention that the word "nothing" was a proposition. You were adamant that it was. Now you refer to the premise as the proposition, which it is.

Sigh...

What I originally said was:

'Demonstrate that "nothing" is even a coherent proposition in this context.'

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with English would have understood that I'm referring to the proposition of an existent nothing. Everyone else seemed to get this but you...

Secondly, "nothing" is not a possible state of affairs. Nothing, as I use the word, simply signifies "no thing" or "not anything".

Finally, we're getting somewhere...

So if there can be no existent state of "nothing", then the phrase "Something cannot come from nothing" is an incoherent statement. You might as well replace the word "nothing" with "a square circle" or "a married bachelor".

So are you really sure that you want to assign a truth statement to an incoherent premise?

 

[bhsmte]

Me neither.

And, what does that tell you?

 

[quatona]

A

Existence is an essential property of an efficient cause,

Existence is not a property - that´s nonsense and leads to all sorts of fallacies.

An effect (e) owes its being an effect to some efficient cause (c) which caused it to be.

Yes, we call something an "effect" when we assume it to have a cause, and vice versa.
So, before we accept the necessity to look for a cause, we would have to establish that it is an "effect".
The above is an explication of the causal principle.

But if you think it more likely to be true than its negation,

It isn´t "likely" to be true, it´s true by definition of the terms used (minus the redundant "efficient" - which you only smuggled in there in order to prepare the nonsensical part of the coming argument).
So I think "If something has been established to be an effect, it has a cause". (Funny thing is that we typically establish that something is an effect by means of establishing that it has a cause. Thus, beware of circular reasoning.)

you should hold it to be true, at least until some defeater is presented for it.

No, there are many propositions that are more "likely" (i.e. statistically, by way of probability) to be true than their negation - yet we should not hold them to be true.[/quote]

 

[anonymous person]

Existence is not a property - that´s nonsense and leads to all sorts of fallacies.

A cause must exist in order to produce an effect. Call it a necessary condition if you have misgivings with the term "essential property".

A cause must, at the very least, exist in order to produce an effect.

It isn´t "likely" to be true, it´s true by definition of the terms used (minus the redundant "efficient" - which you only smuggled in there in order to prepare the nonsensical part of the coming argument).
So I think "If something has been established to be an effect, it has a cause". (Funny thing is that we typically establish that something is an effect by means of establishing that it has a cause. Thus, beware of circular reasoning.)

The word "efficient" designates the type of cause. Aristotle distinguished between different types of causes, remember?

No, there are many propositions that are more "likely" (i.e. statistically, by way of probability) to be true than their negation - yet we should not hold them to be true.

[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand my point. I am not arguing that a proposition's truth or falsity is determined by it having a greater probability of being true than its negation.

Rather, I am arguing for a comparative criterion for assessing the epistemic status of a premise in an argument. IOW, I am arguing for a criterion, that if satisfied, would warrant us in holding the premise to be true.

 

[quatona]

A cause must exist in order to produce an effect.

Yes, sure. If something doesn´t have a cause, we won´t call it an effect.

You misunderstand my point. I am not arguing that a proposition's truth or falsity is determined by it having a greater probability of being true than its negation.

That´s what "likelihood" means, though.

Rather, I am arguing for a comparative criterion for assessing the epistemic status of a premise in an argument. IOW, I am arguing for a criterion, that if satisfied, would warrant us in holding the premise to be true.

Then present this criterion. If it isn´t "likelihood" (as your "more likely to be true" implied) - what is it?

 

[anonymous person]

Lol. I doubt anyone else thought I "diverted attention away from the argument" you were making. But I can see how it might have troubled you, which might have caused you to think that...

Anyway... once again... fallacies apply to arguments. Since the statement in question was just me being snarky and questioning where your information comes from, and not an argument at all, no fallacy applies to it. It's not a red herring and it's certainly not an ad hominem attack, which would be the proper fallacy to apply if what I had said was an argument.

Which is wasn't.

Moving on...



Sigh...

What I originally said was:

'Demonstrate that "nothing" is even a coherent proposition in this context.'

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with English would have understood that I'm referring to the proposition of an existent nothing. Everyone else seemed to get this but you...



Finally, we're getting somewhere...

So if there can be no existent state of "nothing", then the phrase "Something cannot come from nothing" is an incoherent statement. You might as well replace the word "nothing" with "a square circle" or "a married bachelor".

So are you really sure that you want to assign a truth statement to an incoherent premise?

I see you're having trouble with the word "nothing" even though you yourself, I am certain, have used the word before.

So let me rephrase my premise to alleviate this confusion.

1. A cause must exist in order to produce an effect.

Do you agree?

 

[anonymous person]

Yes, sure. If something doesn´t have a cause, we won´t call it an effect.


That´s what "likelihood" means, though.


Then present this criterion. If it isn´t "likelihood" (as your "more likely to be true" implied) - what is it?

The criterion has already been presented.

"More plausible than its negation"
"More likely to be true than its opposite"
"More plausible than the denial of the premise"

You can word the content of the proposition in various ways, the criterion remains the same.

 

[quatona]

The criterion has already been presented.

"More plausible than its negation"
"More likely to be true than its opposite"
"More plausible than the denial of the premise"

You can word the content of the proposition in various ways, the criterion remains the same.

No, "more likely" and "more plausible" are not the same.
But whatever - I have been asking for the criteria for likelihood and/or plausibility in a given context. Unless your "criteria" are supposed to come down to "that which makes more sense to me personally" (which would actually put us at square one), you have to come up with your method of calculating likelihood or measuring plausibility. Until then, pretty much everyone can generally agree on these general propositions even though they´d disagree with the way you go about it.
(Then again, and as mentioned before, I don´t agree that a greater likelihood suggests that should accept it as true.)

 

[anonymous person]

No, "more likely" and "more plausible" are not the same.
But whatever - I have been asking for the criteria for likelihood and/or plausibility in a given context. Unless your "criteria" are supposed to come down to "that which makes more sense to me personally" (which would actually put us at square one), you have to come up with your method of calculating likelihood or measuring plausibility. Until then, pretty much everyone can generally agree on these general propositions even though they´d disagree with the way you go about it.
(Then again, and as mentioned before, I don´t agree that a greater likelihood suggests that should accept it as true.)

I don't use probability calcului when determining the plausibility or likelihood of a proposition being true or of an event occurring in my day to day life. I never have in fact.

In general I give the benefit of the doubt to the one making a claim unless I have a good reason to doubt it. I do this because I would want someone to do the same for me. Being charitable always has been to my benefit.

Now if some proposition is presented to me, and I have cause to question it, I take the time to investigate it if I can and then determine based on the preponderance of the evidence for and against, what is more likely to be true.

It's not practical or necessary for me in my life, to use elaborate probability calculi in making the decisions I make.

How do you assess probabilities in your day to day life?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I see you're having trouble with the word "nothing" even though you yourself, I am certain, have used the word before.

So let me rephrase my premise to alleviate this confusion.

1. A cause must exist in order to produce an effect.

Do you agree?

So when backed into a corner your tactic is to change the wording in the discussion. It's intellectually dishonest, and anyone can see that. And I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.

Answer this first and we'll get to the cause/effect discussion:

You yourself say that there can be no possible existent state of "nothing" (the idea itself being nonsensical), which makes the statement "Something cannot come from nothing" incoherent. You might as well replace the word "nothing" with "a square circle" or "a married bachelor".

Do you believe that this incoherent statement has the truth value of true?

 

[quatona]

Now if some proposition is presented to me, and I have cause to question it, I take the time to investigate it if I can and then determine based on the preponderance of the evidence for and against, what is more likely to be true.

I was asking you for the criteria. You keep being circularly general and vague.

How do you assess probabilities in your day to day life?

Other than calculable, stastitical probabilities - not at all. And even then, I don´t conclude from probablities on truth.

Now, has the topic changed from propositions about the origin of everything to events in my day to day life? Tss.

 

[anonymous person]

So when backed into a corner your tactic is to change the wording in the discussion. It's intellectually dishonest, and anyone can see that. And I'm not going to let you off the hook that easily.

Answer this first and we'll get to the cause/effect discussion:

You yourself say that there can be no possible existent state of "nothing" (the idea itself being nonsensical), which makes the statement "Something cannot come from nothing" incoherent. You might as well replace the word "nothing" with "a square circle" or "a married bachelor".

Do you believe that this incoherent statement has the truth value of true?

It's not incoherent to me, nor has any textbook I've ever read which discussed Parmenides' response against the theory of change proposed by earlier natural philosophers ever mentioned his principle ex nihilo nihil fit as being incoherent. I reason that this is because none of the authors, nor myself, share your views as to what criteria a proposition must meet in order to be coherent.

The principle simply implies that nothing can arise without a cause .

I can think of several propositions right off the top of my head that are coherent and meaningful even though the proposition contains a subject whose existence is logically impossible.

1. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists.

This proposition is meaningful and coherent and true.

2. There is no possible world in which a square circle exists.

So I think you need to distinguish between logical possibility, coherence, and possible states of affairs.

Your confusion lies in misunderstanding how I am using the term "nothing".

I am using it the way you would use it if you were to say

"nothing about your argument is persuasive"

Or

"when he opened his wallet and looked inside, he found nothing in it"

It is used in the above as a universal negation, not as some sort of thing which posessess the property of nothingness.