An honest answer for a newbie, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

I think what John is getting at is that in order for A to have a cause, that cause needs to exist BEFORE A in time. When we get to extremes, such as the beginning of the universe, time does not exist therefore there is no BEFORE for the cause to exist in. That is why when is important; it is tied into the cause/effect question no matter how it is phrazed. Cause/effect can't exists (or happen) without a when.------------------
compmage[This message has been edited by compmage, 11-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest...

---

I am sorry that you do not understand but I cannot force you to think outside of your trick question.

quote:

---

it goes without saying that if a premise is false so is the conclusion

---

Actually you are a bit confused here as well. False premises do not make the conclusion false. The premises can be wrong and the conclusion still be true. Like this:The earth is rubber
Rubber is sentient
Therefore, John lives on earth.See. Bad premises. Invalid argument, but the conclusion is nonetheless true.False premises mean that the conclusion is unsupported by the argument, not that the conclusion is false in any absolute sense.

quote:

---

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

You, of course, forgot to mention the conditions of causality which I have been trying to explain to you.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Lol, Ive been following this conversation and I havent honestly seen this type of slippery answers to that question before.Lets look at the question again.
Forgiven has put the question in its simplest form, a) do you believe that the big bang was consisted out of ordinary materia or energy.
:yes.
b)Hasent every observable materia or energy had a cause.(even the casimir effect wich is caused by "space-time").
:yes.
c)I must then state that the first cause has had to be made by a being that stands above all physical laws ,whom is the prime-mover, the only uncaused being.
:No, at the beginning there was no "space", therefore no "time" therefore your theory stays false.Well, if I could imagine to picture the first cause in my head, and then imagine stepping into that picture.
What is to stop me from standing next to that very first cause, a wall with a zero volume?, nothingness?, well, I dont mind that, I will just hold my breath and cut through that "thin" wall and step into that nothingness thus prove you wrong,beacuse where I am standing there is a space, thus there is time thus ive pointed out out your fallacy with your theory of an infinite regress.Im standing in it and you tell me, what is stopping me from standing right beside the original cause? Sincerely Delshad[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-14-2002]

^look up^ Sincerely Delshad[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-14-2002]

quote:

---

ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

---

Hi Forgiven,At present, the universe is many, many orders of magnitude greater than a Planck length (1.6 * 10^-35 m).But it was not always thus.I guess John's point is that some premises do not readily yield to vulgar oversimplifications as "yes" or "no". What if I were to ask you "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no? Kind regards
PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
Forgiven has put the question in its simplest form, a) do you believe that the big bang was consisted out of ordinary materia or energy.
:yes.

---

I don't remember this question having ever been posed. Secondly, the answer you give is your answer, not mine. What exactly is 'ordinary materia or energy'?

quote:

---

b)Hasent every observable materia or energy had a cause.(even the casimir effect wich is caused by "space-time").
:yes.

---

You are absolutely right, Delshad. What forgiven and now you seem to be missing is that NO ONE has ever observed conditions anywhere near those of the BB. Everything we think we know about time and causality gets thoroughly screwed. Why is this hard to understand?You are applying ideas which are dependent upon the EXISTING STRUCTURE of SPACETIME to the origin of spacetime.

quote:

---

c)I must then state that the first cause has had to be made by a being that stands above all physical laws ,whom is the prime-mover, the only uncaused being.
:No, at the beginning there was no "space", therefore no "time" therefore your theory stays false.

---

LOL.....You understand the concept when you are talking about God but garble it otherwise. That is funny.That there was no space and no time at the beginning is exactly my POINT. How exactly does that falsify itself?Well, if I could imagine to picture the first cause in my head, and then imagine stepping into that picture.
What is to stop me from standing next to that very first cause, a wall with a zero volume?, nothingness?, well, I dont mind that, I will just hold my breath and cut through that "thin" wall and step into that nothingness thus prove you wrong,beacuse where I am standing there is a space, thus there is time thus ive pointed out out your fallacy with your theory of an infinite regress.Im standing in it and you tell me, what is stopping me from standing right beside the original cause? Sincerely Delshad[This message has been edited by Delshad, 11-14-2002][/B][/QUOTE]------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

​

I think what John is getting at is that in order for A to have a cause, that cause needs to exist BEFORE A in time. When we get to extremes, such as the beginning of the universe, time does not exist therefore there is no BEFORE for the cause to exist in. That is why when is important; it is tied into the cause/effect question no matter how it is phrazed. Cause/effect can't exists (or happen) without a when.

---

i'll touch on this more when i reply to john, but it doesn't matter... see, we're talking about the structure of a valid argument and whether or not the premises are true... all i asked was whether or not john believed the premises were true... that's all i want to know... see, it has nothing to do with the universe at the moment... my syllogism from the previous post purposely left out the syllogism, simply to get john on record as to the premises, but he seems timid..

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yet another non-reply, neither simple nor complicated nor honest nor dishonest...

---

​

I am sorry that you do not understand but I cannot force you to think outside of your trick question.[/quote]

​

*** trick question? heheh.. the 1st premise is one that has been used time and time again by some of the best minds in philosophy... i formed a valid syllogism and asked you whether or not you agreed with either or both premises... why are you so afraid to answer it? here it is again

​

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause
(ii) john began to exist
therefore, john has a cause

​

now then, forget the universe for a moment, concentrate on that argument.. is it valid? yes, of course it is... do you agree with the premises? why not just say yay or nay, john?

quote:

---

quote:

---

it goes without saying that if a premise is false so is the conclusion

---

​

Actually you are a bit confused here as well. False premises do not make the conclusion false. The premises can be wrong and the conclusion still be true. Like this:

​

The earth is rubber
Rubber is sentient
Therefore, John lives on earth.

​

See. Bad premises. Invalid argument, but the conclusion is nonetheless true.

​

False premises mean that the conclusion is unsupported by the argument, not that the conclusion is false in any absolute sense.

---

​

*** sigh... i guess i should have added the words "in a valid argument," but i assumed that was understood

​

[quote]

quote:

---

(i) that which begins to exist has a cause

​

(ii) john (he of the non-answers to whom i write) began to exist

​

therefore, john had a cause

---

​

You, of course, forgot to mention the conditions of causality which I have been trying to explain to you.[/B]

---

[/quote]john, the conditions of causality have nothing whatsoever to do with the syllogism nor your refusal to answer... for some reason you seem to think there's a trick here when there isn't... but i can't make you answer...all i've done is use accepted standards of logic to ask a very basic question, and your refusal should give pause to most thinking people, should make them wonder why you're so intent on dodging the issue

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:

quote:

---

ok, that's fine... in that case, the universe either is or isn't on a scale greater than a planck length.. all i kept asking john was whether or not he affirmed or denied a certain premise.. it seems very difficult to get an answer to that question, which makes me wonder why

---

​

Hi Forgiven,

​

At present, the universe is many, many orders of magnitude greater than a Planck length (1.6 * 10^-35 m).

​

But it was not always thus.

​

I guess John's point is that some premises do not readily yield to vulgar oversimplifications as "yes" or "no". What if I were to ask you "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" Yes or no?

​

Kind regards
PE

---

hi pe... ask me that question, but put it in the form of a valid syllogism and ask if i agree with the premises... you have my word i'll answer you and not dodge it... how can a syllogism be a "vulgar oversimplification?"

Hi forgiven,Just a note on what might be the problem here (I could be wrong). It appears you have constructed an unsound argument. Consider the following:1. All dogs have fleas.
2. Rover has fleas.
3. Therefore Rover is a dog.The above is quite obviously unsound because premise one is false - not all dogs have fleas. The same applies to your syllogism: P1: "That which begins to exist has a cause" is false - you are assuming the consequent. The premise has NOT been shown to be true in all cases. Therefore your question is invalid. Hope that clarifies things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi forgiven,

​

Just a note on what might be the problem here (I could be wrong). It appears you have constructed an unsound argument. Consider the following:

​

1. All dogs have fleas.
2. Rover has fleas.
3. Therefore Rover is a dog.

​

The above is quite obviously unsound because premise one is false - not all dogs have fleas. The same applies to your syllogism: P1: "That which begins to exist has a cause" is false - you are assuming the consequent. The premise has NOT been shown to be true in all cases. Therefore your question is invalid. Hope that clarifies things.

---

Quetzal, I think you are correct. However, in your example, even assuming premise 1 and 2, your conclusion is unsupported. Premise 1 should read "All and only dogs have fleas." ------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
Hi forgiven,

​

Just a note on what might be the problem here (I could be wrong). It appears you have constructed an unsound argument. Consider the following:

​

1. All dogs have fleas.
2. Rover has fleas.
3. Therefore Rover is a dog.

​

The above is quite obviously unsound because premise one is false - not all dogs have fleas. The same applies to your syllogism: P1: "That which begins to exist has a cause" is false - you are assuming the consequent. The premise has NOT been shown to be true in all cases. Therefore your question is invalid. Hope that clarifies things.

---

hi quetzal... my argument is both sound and valid... yours is neither, because your conclusion doesn't contain the predicate of the first premise, only the subject of the 2nd... the subject of your 2nd premise (rover) has the predicate of the 1st (fleas) instead of the middle term (dogs)... since your premises are both universal affirmatives, to be valid it would read:(i) all dogs have fleas
(ii) rover is a dog
therefore rover has fleasthe form of a valid syllogism must be (if, as in yours and mine, the premises are universal affirmatives):(i)M -> P
(ii) S -> M
conclusion: S -> Pother moods are of course possible, but not with arguments of the type you posed... as to mine affirming the consequent, no it doesn't... the premise itself might be true or it might be false, but it assumes nothing... which is the whole point

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
hi quetzal... my argument is both sound and valid...

---

Your argument is a deductive argument. You are subtracting out a subset of the whole. This is fine. The problem is with the definition of the whole, which is premise #1. In premise #1 you define the set of things-which-begin-to-exist. It is this premise that is the subject of criticism. Maybe that hasn't been clear to you?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
hi quetzal... my argument is both sound and valid...

---

​

Your argument is a deductive argument. You are subtracting out a subset of the whole. This is fine. The problem is with the definition of the whole, which is premise #1. In premise #1 you define the set of things-which-begin-to-exist. It is this premise that is the subject of criticism. Maybe that hasn't been clear to you?

---

what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
what's clear is your reluctance to answer simple and straightforward questions... when you say the major premise is the subject of criticism, can i (at long last) take it to mean you do *not* agree with it?... or will you again refuse to go on record as to your thoughts?

​

---

My thoughts have been on record since my first reply to you. Sadly, they do not fit into the box you have constructed.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com