What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: SOB) on 7 Apr 2005 13:48 On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 02:45:07 GMT, Bob <rmoss(a)hvc.rr.com> wrote: >> In a battle of wits, SOB is an unarmed opponent. >SOB thinks he IS a wit. I never said any such thing. I am content to be a troll. Since all the posters on these forums are trolls too, I am in good company. >He is half right. <yawn> -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy, a mechanical model of the Solar System. "Who made this?", asked the atheist. "No one", replied Newton. "But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself", said the atheist. "Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the real thing?", asked Newton.
From: Tim McGaughy on 7 Apr 2005 23:18 Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 20:54:51 -0500, Tim McGaughy <teekem(a)ispwest.com> > wrote: > > >>He is good at trolling, though. > > > That's because I *AM* a troll, Einstein. That's what I said, Sparky.
From: Hector Plasmic on 8 Apr 2005 14:29 >>> Indeed, he is merely using the word "God" in place of "existence." >>> NOP. No useful information contained herein. >> It enables him to both equivocate and obfuscate. >> It also gets in the way of discussion. > If all you hear is noise it's because you are too dull to > understand the concepts being presented. You haven't presented any concepts, Silly Bobby.
From: SOB) on 8 Apr 2005 18:03 On 8 Apr 2005 11:29:34 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: >You haven't presented any concepts Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy, a mechanical model of the Solar System. "Who made this?", asked the atheist. "No one", replied Newton. "But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself", said the atheist. "Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the real thing?", asked Newton.
From: Incubus on 8 Apr 2005 19:08
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: > On 8 Apr 2005 11:29:34 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> > wrote: > > >>You haven't presented any concepts > > > Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion > Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics > Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT > The main argument: > > The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is > mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is > Existence who causes the Universe to exist. > > To understand why the Universe cannot be the source of its own > existence consider what would be the case if it were. For the Universe > to be the source of its own existence, Existence (the act which causes > things to exist) must be part of its Essence. > > Since, by assumption, Existence is part of the Essence of the > Universe, then the Universe must always be the way it is now. After > all, Existence is part of the Essence of the Universe, therefore > Existence forces the Universe to Be what it is forever. IOW, because > the Universe has Existence as part of its Essence, it cannot be > something other than that which it is. > > Therefore, by assumption, the Universe is immutable. But that is not > what we observe. Physicists observe a mutable Universe. Therefore the > Universe cannot have Existence as part of its Essence, and therefore > it cannot be the source of its own existence. Therefore there must be > a Supreme Being whose Essence is Existence and is the source of the > existence of the Universe. > > === > > One of the surest ways to start a big argument in philosophy is for > two people to adopt different Worldviews. According to Webster, the > Worldview (aka " Weltanschauung") is > > Worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world > especially from a specific standpoint > > More specifically the Worldview is the epistemological basis, plus its > supporting ontology, for your rational system. It is the set of axioms > about how you view reality. It should be obvious that if your view of > reality is fundamentally different from my view of reality, we can > never argue our points to one another even though we may adhere to > rational arguments within the framework of our separate systems. > > The two most promiment Worldview can be understood in terms of > "objectivity" and "subjectivity". We call the Worldview that claims > reality is objective by the name Realism. We call the Worldview that > claims reality is subjective by the name Idealism. I do not pretend to > know everything about Worldviews so I am not going to go any further > with this. But I do know enough to point out that certain rational > systems of thought are based on an objective Realist Worldview (eg, > Physics) and some are based on a subjective Idealist Worldview (eg, > Mathematics). > > Physics is based on the Worldview of Objective Realism. There is no > doubt in the mind of the Physicst that electrons actually do exist in > objective reality. If you don't believe that - if you think electrons > are subjective constructs like the tooth fairy, then you will allow > yourself to be hooked up to a high voltage source. After about 1 > millisecond you will decidethat electrons are very real. > > Mathematics is based on the Worldview of Subjective Idealism. There > are no such things as "numbers" in objective reality. There is no such > thing as a circle in objective reality. If you don't agree, then I > will let you connect me to a number or to a circle. I guarantee that > nothing will happen, because numbers, circles and everything in > Mathematics are subjective constructs that reside completely in the > mind of the Mathematician. > > One of the most fundamental axioms of Objective Realism (aka > "Existential Realism") is the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This > is also known as the Authority of the Senses. Something exists in > objective reality precisely because there is something out there that > can affect your senses - like the shock from a high voltage source. > > The Apprehension of Being - the awareness of something out there - is > very primitive. A new born infant puts his hand on a hot stove burner > and immediately becomes aware of "something out there". He does not > know what it is, but he definitely knows it is there. > > This Principle is not found in Mathematics. There is no "thing out > there" in Mathematics. Everything in Mathematics is contained in your > mind, subjectively. So the very first distinction between Objective > Realism and Subjective Idealism is that Realism adopts the Principle > of Apprehension of Being, and Subjective Idealism does not. This is > critical to deciding on which Worldview you must adopt for any > particular rational system. > > Next there is the Principle of Consistency. This is Aristotle's > terminology for the notion of Non-Contradiction. This principle states > that there cannot be both "A" and "Not-A" in existence at the same > time. Either "A" exists or "Not-A" exists. Remember we are talking > about things out there - what we apprehend as Being. Something can > either Be or Not-Be. It cannot both exist and not exist at the same > time. > > The third fundamental principle of Existential Realism is the > Principle of Causality. In Physics we realize that without Causality > there could be no Order. The reason is simple - for you to describe > the Order inherent in something, you must connect the ojects by > Causality. If you merely describe objects without connecting them > Causally, then you cannot describe the Order they exhibit because > there is no heirarchy to provide the disctinctions needed to describe > the Order. > > Try describing an atom without invoking Causality. You will not be > able to talk about the Order inherent in an atom, in which case you > are forced to describe as a glob of amorphous matter. But we know > better than that because we know that an atom is a highly ordered > entity capable of doing very ordered things, like emitting a photon of > very precise wavelength. That can happen only if an atom is Ordered, > and it can be Ordered only if there is Causality with which to create > the Order based on the heirarchy of cause and effect. > > From here we move on to Metaphysics, which is the Science that > explains Being. That is what Aristotle meant by it - the Science of > Existence. But whatever it is, it is critical to realize that it is > based on Physics ("Meta-Physics", after Physics, about Physics) - and > that Physics is based on the Worldview of Existential Realism. > > Assuming that you adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, we can > now present the argument that the Supreme Being exists. In fact we > will also show that the Supreme Being *must* exist or reality would > not exist. > > This argument was first given by Thomas Aquinas in his book on > Metaphysics entitled "On Being and Essence". This argument is not > taken from his religious book entitled "Summa Theologica". The famous > "five-fold ways" from the Summa are religious arguments. The arguments > we give below are based on Existential Metaphysics and not on faith. > > The Universe is mutable. Not only is that intuitively obvious but it > is codified in Physics. Physics is the science which explains how > physical objects can exist at one moment and can cease to exist at > another. That's what is meant by "mutable" in Existential Metaphysics. > > Mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence. The reason > requires some thinking, so either put away whatever is distracting you > and pay close attention - or this will go completely over your head. > > There are several kinds of causes in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Here we > are talking about the "Efficient Cause", the one which is responsible > for an object to exist in an essential way. If I hit a baseball with a > bat, the bat is the efficient cause of the baseball flying thru the > air. > > The baseball cannot spontaneously fly - it does not possess "Flying > Thru The Air" as part of its Essence (its Nature, its Design, its > Internal Construction, its Intrinsic Behavior, etc.). If it did > possess Flying Thru The Air as part of its Essence, then it would > always be Flying Thru The Air - it could never stop Flying Thru The > Air because that is its Nature. > > Therefore in order for the baseball to Fly Thru The Air, some separate > object which possesses the Efficient Cause to make the ball Fly Thru > The Air must act on the ball - like a bat. This relationship between > the bat (Cause) and the ball Flying Thru The Air (Effect) is what we > call Causality. > > The critical point here is to understand that mutable objects cannot > be the source of their own Existence, because if they were, they would > be forced for all time to be the same thing they were when they were > created. > > --- > Consider what it means "To Be". Don't get bogged down in what it means > to be a particular kind of being, just focus on the "Act of Being", > the "Act of Existence". > > One way to do that is to consider what it means not To Be. You as a > person were once non-existent. What was it like? Of course if you did > not exist you did not have an essence therefore you can't consider > what kind of being you were not. You were not any kind of being when > you did not exist. > > OK, now that you have had time to consider Being and NonBeing, do you > get the idea that there must be some kind of entity that has always > existed in order to explain how you and the whole Universe can exist? > You cannot possibly be the cause of your own existence because before > you existed, you did not exist. It would be absurd to claim that a > nonexistent could cause itself to exist. > > But even if you existed for all eternity, you still cannot be the > source of your own existence or else you would always be the same kind > of being that you were for all eternity. You could not die, for > example. You could not grow, for example. But that is not how it works > - you will die one day, you did grow from an embryo to an adult. > Therefore you cannot be the source of your own existence. > > The same kind of reasoning applies to the Universe as a whole. Whether > the Universe came into being at a moment in time or whether it has > always existed, it is a mutable entity and therefore cannot be the > source of its own existence. If it makes a transition to a new state, > which according to Physics it does constantly, how is this new state > going to be if it was not before? How can this new state come into > existence if it had no existence prior to its coming into existence? > --- > > Mutable objects cannot have Existence as part of their Essence. Their > Existence must come from a separate entity, one which is the cause of > their existence. This entity causes mutable objects to exist since > mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence - or else > they would not be mutable. > > The entity that causes mutable objects to exist must itself possess > Existence as its Essence. It is fundamentally different from all other > entities in objective reality. It is the one and only entity that has > Existence as its Essence. If it did not have Existence as part of its > Essence, it would not be able to cause the existence of mutable > objects. > > This entity that causes the existence of mutable objects does not > require a cause of its existence because IT IS EXISTENCE. That's what > is meant by saying that its Essence is Existence. > > No where in this argument have I mentioned anything about this entity > other than that its Essence is Existence, because we need to have an > entity that causes the existence of mutable objects. No where have I > referred to this entity as God or Supreme Being. Therefore I have not > gone in circles, I have not begged any question. > > I started with the Worldview of Existential Realism and a few of its > most fundamental axioms. Then I argued that the mutable objects of > physical reality (the Universe) could not be the cause of their own > existence. Then I argued that some entity must exist that causes these > mutable objects to exist, and that the Essence of this entity must be > Existence itself. This entity is immutable because its Essence is to > Be only one kind of entity, namely Existence. Furthermore, this entity > - called the Supreme Being - *must* exist, or else nothing in reality > would exist. The Supreme Being is known as the Necessary Being. > > No real event in Physics has ever violated Causality because it is > literally built in to the laws of Physics. If Causality were violated, > all of Physics as we know it would be invalid and then we would be in > a lot of trouble because all those predicitions we made using that > invalid Physics would also be invalid. That means the world as we > lived in it was one huge lucky happening. Clearly that is absurd. > > The first man to walk on the Moon or the first man to build a fission > reactor did not accomplish those tasks by blind luck. They were > carefully planned using the accurate predictions of Physics. Those > predictions were valid because it would be absurd to claim things just > happened that way. Therefore Causality is here to stay - there can be > no extension of Physics where Causality is not valid. > > If you want you can claim that the reason the existence of the Supreme > Being is contained in the Worldview of Existential Realism is because > of the Order inherent in the objective world. That Order - Symmetry > -causes objective reality to be a certain kind of reality, one with > the constraints that are imposed by Existential Realism. > > The Principle of Apprehension of Being, the Principle of Consistency > and the Principle of Causality all result in constraints on objective > reality. That's what separates the ordered objective world from the > chaotic subjective world. Things in objective reality are constrained > to behave in an Orderly manner - in a Symmetric manner. It is the > Supreme Being who enforces those laws because they are part of what is > meant by Existence. Existence is Ordered, Symmetric. > > OK, there you have it - the argument for the necessary existence of > the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics. And all it required was > for you to adopt the same Worldview that scientists must adopt to be > productive, such as when they put men on the Moon and build nuclear > reactors without vaporizing half of Chicago in the process. > > === > > Definitions > > realism: Belief that universals exist independently of the particulars > that instantiate them. Realists hold that each general term signifies > a real feature or quality, which is numerically the same in all the > things to which that term applies. > > metaphysics: Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a > comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a > whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and > nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity, > and the world are all metaphysical issues. > > ontology: Branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the > most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist. Thus, the > "ontological commitments" of a philosophical position include both its > explicit assertions and its implicit presuppositions about the > existence of entities, substances, or beings of particular kinds. > > The Four Causes: Causes of all four sorts are necessary elements in > any adequate account of the existence and nature of the thing, > Aristotle believed, since the absence or modification of any one of > them would result in the existence of a thing of some different sort. > Moreover, an explanation that includes all four causes completely > captures the significance and reality of the thing itself. > > The material cause is the basic stuff out of which the thing is made. > The material cause of a house, for example, would include the wood, > metal, glass, and other building materials used in its construction. > All of these things belong in an explanation of the house because it > could not exist unless they were present in its composition. > > The formal cause is the pattern or essence in conformity with which > these materials are assembled. Thus, the formal cause of our exemplary > house would be the sort of thing that is represented on a blueprint of > its design. This, too, is part of the explanation of the house, since > its materials would be only a pile of rubble (or a different house) if > they were not put together in this way. > > The efficient cause is the agent or force immediately responsible for > bringing this matter and that form together in the production of the > thing. Thus, the efficient cause of the house would include the > carpenters, masons, plumbers, and other workers who used these > materials to build the house in accordance with the blueprint for its > construction. Clearly the house would not be what it is without their > contribution. > > The final cause is the end or purpose for which a thing exists, so the > final cause of our house would be to provide shelter for human beings. > This is part of the explanation of the house's existence because it > would never have been built unless someone needed it as a place to > live. None of the above qualifies as a valid argument, knucklehead; It's just meaningless metaphysical speculation with no basis in fact. In other words, plain old sophistry, as Russell points out: The theist idea of Godý, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for Godý) so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as Bertrand Russell points out: "I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." -- Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html "Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian" http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out. <cue the chirping crickets> |