[Replying to The Tanager in post #139]
The first 3 premises of what I am arguing truly are:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning
2. The universe (i.e., all spatio-temporal matter/energy) began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
So, if you want to disagree with me, you have to disagree with those premises, not the ones you offered as what I’m arguing.
No. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.
In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.
You are correct that the non-natural nature of this cause isn’t in the first 3 premises. It does come prior to arguments for the personal nature of that cause, but for some reason in my head I formulated that as coming in the first 3 premises. That was wrong. However, it’s still not an assumption, but logical analysis. The cause of all natural things logically cannot be natural itself because self-causation is logically impossible.
No - as I pointed out, the material causation of functional forms is not "self caused" just because it was caused by the Uncaused.
The cause of the Uncaused material forming into any temporal universe is logically possible (as I have shown in many posts here in this message board, including those in this thread) if there is no distinction made between the mind and the matter. Since there is no necessity to treat mind as "non-physical", the distinction is fictional, and thus any logic derived from that path, has come about through a fictional assumption rather than from fact, and as such, only appears logical once the changes in the premises are made/once the premises are added to.
As to your explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural, you are just explaining what your conclusion is, not explaining the reasoning that gets one to that conclusion.
What "explanation of why uncaused things must themselves be natural"? Why make a comment about what I supposedly explained is simply a conclusion without explanation as to why the conclusion was made? Why not use the "quote" function provided to show the reader what it is you are otherwise simply implying I am doing/have done?
As to your explanation of why natural things can’t have non-natural effects (or vice versa), your reasoning simply isn’t good. Your statement that human beings have no non-natural effects, even if true, doesn’t prove this because there could be non-human natural things that could have non-natural effects.
My statement is true. If you believe my argument isn't true, on what basis and what counter-argument do you base your critique on? There cannot be a basis for prioritizing an unknown non-human natural thing which "could" have "non natural effects", because - as was pointed out - human beings are a sufficient example of that which is part of the universe (natural) and what they produce naturally from natural resources without ever having to resort to being enabled doing such "because of Santa's little helpers" or any such other thing which "could" have happened.
Even if we accept that "God and the Angels" are mythological metaphor for Aliens, (Extraterrestrial not extra-natural/supernatural) we still have to assume the natural logic that whatever amazing evidence they could show us, would necessarily have to be considered natural/naturally devised or otherwise prove that they are not.
Therefore, until such evidence for the existence of a supernatural First Cause is shown, it is logical to assume that the Uncaused First Cause, is natural, and everything which derives from said source is also natural.
Now, of course, this isn’t an argument for natural things definitely being able to have non-natural effects (or vice versa), but that doesn’t mean the default is that they don’t.
Yes it does. That is exactly what it means. The default has to be that the Uncaused Cause has to be Primarily Natural. Fundamentally so. The Primary Natural Source of all else that is (also) natural, even if such creations are only temporary.
One might argue that since a temporal universe is - by its nature - temporary and "therefore" "natural" and from this premise declare that this means the Uncaused Cause is therefore "supernatural" (because it is eternal) such reasoning is cart before the horse and thus not logical.
Even that one argues that a temporal creation must be referred to as a "natural creation" in order to then declare that a supernatural creator must have created it, one has to avoid admitting the referring to an temporal thing as "natural" is misplaced/illogical because the better argument is that IF the Uncaused is Natural (and it must be since it has always existed) THEN anything the
Uncaused creates that which is temporal (not eternal) would at least first have to be seen (in comparison) as "unnatural or non natural", so there is still no requirement to conjure any fictional concept as "super" natural and claim it is the logical conclusion which flows from the 3 premises being discussed.
To shift the burden on your opponent to prove your view wrong is just that: shifting the burden, which is fallacious reasoning. You have claimed that the effect must be the same ‘stuff’ as the cause. Support that positive claim.
I have not shifted any burden as I am simply pointing out how supernaturalists have superimposed their fictional beliefs onto the premises. I am proving through logic that my view is correct in relation to the premises and it is up to you to critique what I offer with the same requirement re burden for your own reasoning.
If you cannot or will not do so, then just say so. There is no need for you to fallaciously argue that I am expecting you to prove my view wrong when in actuality, the burden is on you to show - in comparison - why your view is right and if you cannot do so - then just say so.
I have shown that my view is better than the view of supernaturalists. Therefore there is no burden on you to show it for me, but to show logically that your view is the better and the one which should be accepted.
SOURCE
The Tanager wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 8:39 pm
William wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 7:38 pmPremise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?
Clarification needed. By "universe" the form of the Kalam I'm defending means all of the spatio-temporal matter/energy that has ever existed in whatever forms and cycles it has gone through. So, are you talking about that second premise or a different meaning to 'universe'?
While science has provided valuable insights into the evolution and dynamics of the universe, it has not definitively established whether matter and energy, in and of themselves, had an absolute "beginning" in the conventional sense. The scientific narrative often focuses on the observable history of the universe, starting from the Planck time after the Big Bang, but it doesn't necessarily extend to a clear understanding of what occurred before that epoch.
Since it has not been established that matter and energy are temporal but only that it has been established that "the universe" commonly means "The temporal objects which are manifested through the existence of matter and energy", I am possibly speaking of a different meaning to "the universe" than you are, and if so - we will be required to account for and determine from that which understanding best fits with what is meant by "the universe" as per the current evidence available to us.
Re that, what I am saying is that "The Universe" may not exclude matter and energy and may include those as eternal aspects, which would effectively mean that "The Universe" did not "begin to exist" but only the current manifestations themselves - and it is the temporal things which began to exist, but these do not altogether make up "The Universe" or we can agree that "The Universe" only refers to what is temporal and is known to have had a beginning, rather than what is eternal and since we do not know whether matter and energy are temporal or eternal, we would have to agree to exclude these.
Thus I would have to say that I disagree with the idea/conventional assumption that there is even such a thing as "spatio-temporal matter/energy".
Furthermore, it is clear that the Kalam "meaning of "The Universe" re premise 2 requires updating in order to align with what is actually known rather than what is presumed.
The Tanager wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 5:47 pm
William wrote: ↑Sat Dec 16, 2023 4:18 pmNo. As I pointed out, while you claim you are auguring from those particular premises, you have had to change the wording.
In changing the wording, you have changed the premises and are now arguing from those changed premises.
You changed the wording, not me. You can discuss things with a straw tanager or me. Let me know if you want to do both sides of the conversation or if you want me to partake. If you want me to continue to partake, then there are many misunderstandings we need to clear up. That won’t happen by responding directly to everything you’ve said all at once, like we have often tried to do. We’ve got to go one step at a time or I won’t waste our time out of respect for us both.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?
[
Replying to The Tanager in post #143]
You changed the wording, not me.
The wording I am saying that you changed is where you argued "No, it builds on the first 3 premises, where one has shown that the cause of the
natural universe..."
The original premise does not refer to the universe as "the natural universe". It only refers to the universe as "the universe" and this is what I have been since pointing out/critiquing.
Because of your argument, instead of arguing re the original three premises, you are arguing re another set of (strawman) premises so in order for your argument to look logical, the premises would have to read;
1. Whatever
naturally begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The
natural universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the
natural universe has a
supernatural cause of its beginning.
All this because your supernatural beliefs force you to add the word "natural" to the word "universe" not because I changed the wording. You - Tanager - clearly did.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?
Agreed.
Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Agree, disagree, or need clarification before you answer?