Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cause and effect
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 33 (22881)
11-15-2002 2:34 PM


it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it
how does it pertain to the forum 'big bang and cosmology'? it will, eventually
1) that which begins to exist has a cause
2) i began to exist
therefore, i have a cause
1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)... the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value, only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe... but at the moment i'm only interested in the premise itself, not how it pertains to some subject that, if affirmed, would lead one into a trap of her own devising...
is the first premise so intuitively true that to deny it would be to deny all inductive reasoning based on a person's experience? is it a metaphysical truth that seems prima facie reasonable?.. is it in fact true that ex nihilo nil, or is it instead true that from nothing, nothing comes?
anything that begins to exist does so because of:
a) itself,
b) someone(thing) else or,
c) nothing
self-causation being impossible, we're left with b) or c)... ontologically speaking, the potential for something to exist, or the grounds for actualization, can't be rooted in mere potentialities... if that were true, the cause of anything existing would rest in its very potential to exist... that leaves b), but if *that's* the case: that which begins to exist has a cause
this simple syllogism can even lead into other subjects, such as does an actual infinite exist? at the very least it gives those who like to think an opportunity to do so

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John, posted 11-15-2002 5:19 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-16-2002 2:36 AM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 33 (22890)
11-15-2002 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-15-2002 2:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it
Elsewhere, one of the more prolific posters on this forum has taken a stand, though you fail to realize it. The problem is that you do not like tht stand, as it screws up your preformatted argument as outlined by you later in the thread.
quote:
1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)... the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value
I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?
quote:
only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe...
Actually, not vague at all, though perhaps over your head.
quote:
but at the moment i'm only interested in the premise itself, not how it pertains to some subject that, if affirmed, would lead one into a trap of her own devising...
hmmmm..... Let's see. Do parallel lines converge? Its a simple question. A yes or no will suffice, and then we can move on. I'm only interested in the truth value of the statement, not in how it applies to this or that. Please don't introduce extraneous comments. Focus only on the premise itself. Take a stand. Show some backbone! Which is it? Yes? Or no?
quote:
is the first premise so intuitively true that to deny it would be to deny all inductive reasoning based on a person's experience?
Well, you have mixed intuition with inductive reasoning. Which is it? Intuitively true or is it a conclusion based on a person's experience and inductive reasoning? You see, 'intuitive truth' is normally synonymous with a priori and is typically invoked when one has nothing else upon which to stand.
quote:
is it a metaphysical truth that seems prima facie reasonable?
hmmm... prima facie? That means 'at first look' does it not? AKA... superficially! That's funny. Who cares what its superficial appearance is? Oh, sorry, I guess you do. We butt heads because you refuse to go beneath the surface.
quote:
is it in fact true that ex nihilo nil, or is it instead true that from nothing, nothing comes?
Want I should flip a coin? Perhaps that will make more of an impression than the answers to this question you've been given repeatedly.
quote:
a) itself,
b) someone(thing) else or,
c) nothing

Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.
quote:
self-causation being impossible
Well that's begging the question isn't it?
quote:
if that were true, the cause of anything existing would rest in its very potential to exist...
Well that's begging the question isn't it?
quote:
that leaves b), but if *that's* the case: that which begins to exist has a cause
Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.
quote:
this simple syllogism can even lead into other subjects, such as does an actual infinite exist?
How about just answering my question about parallel lines? Enquiring minds want to know.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-15-2002 2:34 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by forgiven, posted 11-15-2002 6:28 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 33 (22894)
11-15-2002 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John
11-15-2002 5:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
it seems very hard to get some people to take a stand on certain things, so i thought i'd try a new thread... elsewhere i set out (on my way to a point almost forgotten) to get one of the more prolific posters here to at least take a stand.. so far he has managed to dodge the issue... but this thread will be for those who have some idea of what they believe, and aren't afraid to voice it
Elsewhere, one of the more prolific posters on this forum has taken a stand, though you fail to realize it. The problem is that you do not like tht stand, as it screws up your preformatted argument as outlined by you later in the thread.[/quote]
well hi john, fancy meeting you here... no, you never said anywhere whether or not you agreed with either of the premises, and that's all that was in question... now if i'm wrong and you *did* say one way or the other, i'm sure you can quote for me your reply
quote:
quote:
1) is under discussion elsewhere (if you can call it discussion)... the only objection i've seen to it thus far has nothing to do with its truth value
I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?
no need to apologize... of course not, john... we even had another poster talk about a dog named rover, remember? i corrected the syllogism into a valid argument, but the validity (or soundness) didn't address the truth value of his first premise
quote:
quote:
only vague remarks about how it can't apply to certain things, such as the universe...
Actually, not vague at all, though perhaps over your head.
some things are way over my head, but thus far nothing you've posted has reached that elevation...
quote:
quote:
but at the moment i'm only interested in the premise itself, not how it pertains to some subject that, if affirmed, would lead one into a trap of her own devising...
hmmmm..... Let's see. Do parallel lines converge? Its a simple question. A yes or no will suffice, and then we can move on. I'm only interested in the truth value of the statement, not in how it applies to this or that. Please don't introduce extraneous comments. Focus only on the premise itself. Take a stand. Show some backbone! Which is it? Yes? Or no?
the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it... a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion... but it is interesting that you demand an answer to something when you yourself seem sadly lacking in the ability or willingness to do the same...
quote:
quote:
is the first premise so intuitively true that to deny it would be to deny all inductive reasoning based on a person's experience?
Well, you have mixed intuition with inductive reasoning. Which is it? Intuitively true or is it a conclusion based on a person's experience and inductive reasoning? You see, 'intuitive truth' is normally synonymous with a priori and is typically invoked when one has nothing else upon which to stand.
from whence comes inductive reasoning, john?
quote:
quote:
is it a metaphysical truth that seems prima facie reasonable?
hmmm... prima facie? That means 'at first look' does it not? AKA... superficially! That's funny. Who cares what its superficial appearance is? Oh, sorry, I guess you do. We butt heads because you refuse to go beneath the surface.
on it's face, on the face of it, meaning obvious...
quote:
quote:
is it in fact true that ex nihilo nil, or is it instead true that from nothing, nothing comes?
Want I should flip a coin? Perhaps that will make more of an impression than the answers to this question you've been given repeatedly.
looks like i'll have to challenge you to a debate on the subject, john...
quote:
quote:
a) itself,
b) someone(thing) else or,
c) nothing

Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.
LOL... finally i think you may have given a little more than seems wise... so for those of us interested, why not form an argument that shows an effect (any effect) that has no cause... we'll see how it turns out
quote:
quote:
self-causation being impossible
Well that's begging the question isn't it?
unless you wish to show how it *is* possible? care to take the gambit? no, i didn't think so
quote:
quote:
if that were true, the cause of anything existing would rest in its very potential to exist...
Well that's begging the question isn't it?
quote:
that leaves b), but if *that's* the case: that which begins to exist has a cause
Not if there is NO CAUSALITY.
see the above... [quote]
quote:
this simple syllogism can even lead into other subjects, such as does an actual infinite exist?
How about just answering my question about parallel lines? Enquiring minds want to know.[/B][/QUOTE]
as i said, put it into a logical format and we'll see what we have... once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied... check again the first post in this thread... see if you can use reason to refute either premise... else leave it to someone else

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John, posted 11-15-2002 5:19 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John, posted 11-15-2002 10:24 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 33 (22899)
11-15-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven
11-15-2002 6:28 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B]I'm sorry, conditions for validity have nothing to do with its truth value?[/quote]
no need to apologize... of course not, john... [/b][/quote]
LOL......
quote:
some things are way over my head, but thus far nothing you've posted has reached that elevation...
You haven't even understood what I've posted.
quote:
hmmmm..... Let's see. Do parallel lines converge? Its a simple question. A yes or no will suffice, and then we can move on. I'm only interested in the truth value of the statement, not in how it applies to this or that. Please don't introduce extraneous comments. Focus only on the premise itself. Take a stand. Show some backbone! Which is it? Yes? Or no?
quote:
the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it...
What is your hang-up with syllogisms? Just finish a freshma Phil. class and think you've picked up some deep insight into logic?
quote:
a statement out of the air, with no minor premise attached and no conclusion reached, is beneath this discussion...
umm... it is a simple question. Why are you avoiding it?
quote:
but it is interesting that you demand an answer to something when you yourself seem sadly lacking in the ability or willingness to do the same...
What are you afraid of? Can't take a stand? Not willing to commit to an answer? It isn't a hard question. Do parallel lines converge?
quote:
from whence comes inductive reasoning, john?
hmmm... gee, from experience essentially. Now what does this have to do with intuition?
quote:
on it's face, on the face of it, meaning obvious...
Obvious, of course, meaning true? You have got to be joking. What is obvious is that you will not answer a simple question about parallel lines. Instead of anwering this VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, you bring in extraneous stuff about syllogisms, and minor premises and conclusions. It is a simple question. I didn't bring up anything about arguments, logic... I asked a simple question. Do parallel lines converge?
quote:
LOL... finally i think you may have given a little more than seems wise...
Actually, I think you are finally getting the point.
quote:
so for those of us interested, why not form an argument that shows an effect (any effect) that has no cause... we'll see how it turns out
LOL.....
You can bitch and cry and moan about logic and syllogisms until your fingers bleed, the fact remains that there are conditions under which causality as we know it DOES NOT APPLY. Those conditions exist at the singularity at the center of black holes and, of course, at the singularity of the BB. The BB singularity is the one of particular importance to the origin of the universe.
And lets not forget quantum physics, which make a mess of causality in its own right.
quote:
as i said, put it into a logical format and we'll see what we have...
Logical format????? DO PARALLEL LINES CONVERGE? It is a simple question. What format do you want? You seem to be unable to take a stand. Why is it so hard? All I want is a yes or a no? Which is it? Do parallel lines converge?
quote:
once again a failure to even address the post to which you replied...
You've got to be joking?
quote:
check again the first post in this thread... see if you can use reason to refute either premise... else leave it to someone else
LOL....
Funny thing is that I haven't made up anything I've posted to you. This stuff was all worked out by the best and brightest in physics and cosmology. In essense, I am just the messenger.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by forgiven, posted 11-15-2002 6:28 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:38 AM John has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 5 of 33 (22912)
11-16-2002 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-15-2002 2:34 PM


[B][QUOTE] 1) that which begins to exist has a cause
2) i began to exist
therefore, i have a cause
[/B][/QUOTE]
Nice attempt at a valid syllogism. First a bit of advice - if you want to frame this kind of argument you need to be much more careful with your terms. At the moment it is too casual. For example, I could claim that "I began to exist" does not mean that "I" is a thing of the same category as "that which begins to exist" because of the difference in tense: I might say that the first premise applies only to things which begin to exist after I began to exist. And indeed, if "I" were the God of traditional western Christianity, that would be true, wouldn't it? Was God the subject of your syllogism?
Now, for the casual reader, a word of caution. Note the very careful language of the first clause "that which begins to exist." Not "all that exists." There is an important difference. Forgiven talks of a trap she is trying to avoid. The trap is the following ...
all that exists has a cause
God exists
therefore God has a cause
and next thing you know we are asking who made God, which I suspect Forgiven wants to avoid.
The first premise "that which begins to exist has a cause" begs an important question - a strange omission if Forgiven is attempting to discuss ontology. The missing question is "are there things which begin to exist?" It may seem like a strange, even bizarre, question, but it is a fundamental assumption of the first premise and deserves consideration. What does it mean to "begin to exist"? Does existence actually have a beginning and an end? Do all things which begin to exist, do so in the same manner?
Take the following example. The hole in my canvas shoe exists. But when did it begin to exist? Can a hole in woven fabric be said to begin to exist - the fabric is all holes, after all.
My point is that there may be things which exist at some times and not at others, but of which we may find it very difficult to say when or even that they begin to exist. This is especially true of things composed of other things - like walls made of bricks, or human beings made of cells, cells made of molecules, molecules made of atoms made of subatomic particles made of ...? What "things" are we talking of when we talk of things that begin to exist? Do all things that begin to exist, begin to exist in the same way? If not, are there ways in which some things that begin to exist have a cause and others do not.
But Forgiven has some more to say about it ...[B][QUOTE] anything that begins to exist does so because of:
a) itself,
b) someone(thing) else or,
c) nothing
self-causation being impossible, we're left with b) or c)[/B][/QUOTE]
Now hang on a minute, there's something very odd going on here ... Why does she propose (a) if it is impossible? Why not include examples such as "(d) because 1+1=7"? Possibly because it is not impossible?
But it gets worse, especially if you're Forgiven and attempting to appear logical and methodical. Look at that little word "because." It explicitly requires causation: "be" ... "cause." Now, if I were Forgiven and had made such an elementary mistake, I would be tempted to say that I included the possibility of no causality in option (c) - but I would then be required to make an argument that being caused by nothing is the same as having no cause. I wonder if she could pull that one off - I think it is possible, but the slip up does not give me confidence.[b][quote]... ontologically speaking,[/b][/quote]
That always sounds impressive. Let me through - I'm a philosopher![b][quote]the potential for something to exist, or the grounds for actualization, can't be rooted in mere potentialities...[/b][/quote]
Oh they are "mere" potentialities are they? Strange how a word with "potent" in its root has to be qualified with "mere" - notice how the language makes the argument seem reasonable. How can they be grounds for actualization, when they are "mere" potentialities? I think I will call them "potent ontological requisites" - maybe that sounds better, but its just as meaningless.
Now, do you remember her first premise? Let me remind you ...[B][QUOTE]that which begins to exist has a cause[/B][/QUOTE]
What does it mean that something "begins to exist"? Clearly the implication is temporal - there is a time when the thing does not exist and a later time when it does.
But what is a "potentiality"? It again is a temporal term. At one point in time the thing has has not yet fulfilled its potential, but it could fulfill it at a later time. See what's going on here? "Things that begin to exist" and "things which have the potential to exist" are the same.
And then her next phrase ...[b][quote]the grounds of actualization.[/b][/quote]
Now by "grounds of", she couldn't mean "cause" could she? Looks like it to me.
So she is attempting to bolster her premise that "all things which begin to exist have a cause" by referring even to their "potential" to exist in causal terms. There is no logic or philosophy going on here - just shuffling of synonyms.
Let's get back to temporal terms - terms about time. If there are things which come into existence at the earliest point of time, they can have no "potentiality" to exist. Nor can they have a temporal cause, nor can they "begin" to exist, because there is not point in time before which they do not exist. So they are not things which "begin to exist."
Now, can we say of things that are composed of other things, that they "begin to exist" in an manner ontologically equivalent to the manner in which things not composed of other things would "begin to exist"? I suspect not. My body does not "begin to exist" in that way - as it is composed of many things which preexisted.
So, three points need to be made:
the first premise need not include "all things";
it is not demonstrably true even of the subset of "things that begin to exist";
the second premise is unsound in itself if "I" am composed of other things, and could be unrelated to the first.
Oh well - nice try. No coconut.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-15-2002 2:34 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:18 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 33 (22926)
11-16-2002 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mister Pamboli
11-16-2002 2:36 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[B][B][QUOTE] 1) that which begins to exist has a cause
2) i began to exist
therefore, i have a cause
[/B][/QUOTE]
Nice attempt at a valid syllogism. First a bit of advice - if you want to frame this kind of argument you need to be much more careful with your terms. At the moment it is too casual. For example, I could claim that "I began to exist" does not mean that "I" is a thing of the same category as "that which begins to exist" because of the difference in tense: I might say that the first premise applies only to things which begin to exist after I began to exist. And indeed, if "I" were the God of traditional western Christianity, that would be true, wouldn't it? Was God the subject of your syllogism? [/quote]
at least this is an attempt to stay on the topic of the thread, and as such is a welcome addition... i'll attempt to address each "point"
first of all, we see an attempt to invalidate a categorical syllogism on the basis of a change in tense between the first and second premises.. is this warranted? well, for a categorical syllogism to be valid it must adhere to 6 rules:
1) there must be exactly three unambiguous categorical terms
-does pamboli mean to say that one of the three terms is ambiguous? it appears so... evidently he thinks the "I" in the minor premise and conclusion is part of a subset not included in "that which begins to exist"... i suppose he wants me to offer proofs that i began to exist or that i'm a "that"... if his objection is to the use of the word "that" instead of something such as "everything," then he's objecting on semantical grounds...
but to avoid his having to make the nonsensical argument that the "I" is not of the set "that which begins to exist," and to avoid his seeming problem with semantics, i'll be glad to substitute 'anything' for 'that which'... i'll even switch the premises around if it makes it easier for him to understand..
(i) i began to exist
(ii) anything that begins to exist has a cause
therefore, i have a cause
i sincerely hope i'm not asked to prove that i'm a "thing" (no ad hominems please)
-pamboli says "I might say that the first premise applies only to things which begin to exist after I began to exist. And indeed, if "I" were the God of traditional western Christianity, that would be true, wouldn't it?"
yes, one might say that... one might say anything one wants, people do that all the time, but redefining the terms at ones whim doesn't lend itself to rational discourse ... as for his question regarding God, the answer is no... christianity (at least no sect of which i'm aware) doesn't say that God began to exist, so he's raised a rather flimsy straw man here (more of these follow)...
2) the middle term must be distributed in at least one premise
-the middle term is the predicate of premise one and subject of premise two, therefore distributed in both...
3) any term distributed in the conclusion must also be distributed in its premise
4) at least one premise must be affirmative
5)if either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be negative
6) if both premises are universal, then the conclusion must also be universal
-no comment is necessary on the last four, the entire syllogism is universally affirmative... yes, it was somewhat a waste of time having to show the validity of an obviously valid syllogism, but if it avoids artificial and ungrounded objections i guess it was worth it...
quote:
Now, for the casual reader, a word of caution. Note the very careful language of the first clause "that which begins to exist." Not "all that exists." There is an important difference. Forgiven talks of a trap she is trying to avoid. The trap is the following ...
all that exists has a cause
God exists
therefore God has a cause
and next thing you know we are asking who made God, which I suspect Forgiven wants to avoid.
this one is hard to follow.. the objection appears to be that you casual readers are being hoodwinked by allowing me to form an argument of my choosing, rather than one of pamboli's choosing... yes, i'm a sly one alright... he caught me writing what i chose to write rather than what he might want me to write, and to make matters worse he caught me writing it in "very careful language"... drat, eh?
quote:
The first premise "that which begins to exist has a cause" begs an important question - a strange omission if Forgiven is attempting to discuss ontology. The missing question is "are there things which begin to exist?" It may seem like a strange, even bizarre, question, but it is a fundamental assumption of the first premise and deserves consideration. What does it mean to "begin to exist"? Does existence actually have a beginning and an end? Do all things which begin to exist, do so in the same manner?
whether or not all things which begin to exist do so in the same manner is irrelevant... another straw man... regardless of the manner, the question concerns causation... for you casual readers (sorry, couldn't resist), any objection to an argument that has nothing to do with the terms of the argument is the straw man fallacy... you'll see a lot more of that, i'm sure... as for pamboli's question on the definition of "begin to exist," i'll let him define the term his way... and yes it is a strange, even bizarre, question... i seriously doubt others are having the difficulty he seems to be having with understanding the words...
as for premise the first begging the question, that's the very question we're examining... if pamboli thinks it begs the question, one would suppose he disagrees with the premise... in that case, all he should do in this thread is attempt to show us all (even you casual readers) why the premise is false... then maybe we can get somewhere...
quote:
Take the following example. The hole in my canvas shoe exists. But when did it begin to exist? Can a hole in woven fabric be said to begin to exist - the fabric is all holes, after all.
ahhh our old friend S.M. again... strange, isn't it? *when* it began to exist isn't at question (yet)... the fact of its existence and whether or not that existence had a cause is what (i thought) we're discussing...
quote:
My point is that there may be things which exist at some times and not at others, but of which we may find it very difficult to say when or even that they begin to exist.
there may be any number of things on any number of subjects... instead of making blanket statements with nothing to back them up, the casual reader might want to see some examples of those things pamboli says "may" exist..
quote:
This is especially true of things composed of other things - like walls made of bricks, or human beings made of cells, cells made of molecules, molecules made of atoms made of subatomic particles made of ...? What "things" are we talking of when we talk of things that begin to exist? Do all things that begin to exist, begin to exist in the same way? If not, are there ways in which some things that begin to exist have a cause and others do not.
whew!! this is simply absurd... ok, take pamboli's brick wall... the question is, did it have a cause? he appears to be saying that the wall can't serve as an example of something which begins to exist because he can't reduce the complexity of its parts... if pamboli wants to get into the subject of irreducible complexity i'll be glad to do that... but the question here is, does a brick wall have a cause for its existence, not when it began to exist nor when its individual parts began to exist... his last statement is simply a bald assertion made with no attempt at proof...
quote:
But Forgiven has some more to say about it ...[B][QUOTE] anything that begins to exist does so because of:
a) itself,
b) someone(thing) else or,
c) nothing
self-causation being impossible, we're left with b) or c)[/B][/QUOTE]
Now hang on a minute, there's something very odd going on here ... Why does she propose (a) if it is impossible? Why not include examples such as "(d) because 1+1=7"? Possibly because it is not impossible?
i think even the casual reader knows why... it was an attempt to include all possible causes for "that which begins to exist"... had i left it off, someone would have said, "you left off self-causation, your reasoning is flawed!!!!"
quote:
But it gets worse, especially if you're Forgiven and attempting to appear logical and methodical. Look at that little word "because." It explicitly requires causation: "be" ... "cause." Now, if I were Forgiven and had made such an elementary mistake, I would be tempted to say that I included the possibility of no causality in option (c) - but I would then be required to make an argument that being caused by nothing is the same as having no cause. I wonder if she could pull that one off - I think it is possible, but the slip up does not give me confidence.
well at least pamboli credits me with the appearance of being reasonable and methodical... no, i included (c) for the very good reason that some believe ex nihilo nil...
quote:
[b][quote]... ontologically speaking,[/b][/quote]
That always sounds impressive. Let me through - I'm a philosopher![b][quote]the potential for something to exist, or the grounds for actualization, can't be rooted in mere potentialities...[/b][/quote]

sigh... i won't get into ad hominem grappling... besides, i don't know the discipline from which pamboli gets his expertise, it isn't readily evident from this post...
quote:
Oh they are "mere" potentialities are they? Strange how a word with "potent" in its root has to be qualified with "mere" - notice how the language makes the argument seem reasonable. How can they be grounds for actualization, when they are "mere" potentialities? I think I will call them "potent ontological requisites" - maybe that sounds better, but its just as meaningless.
yes you casual readers, note particularly how the language makes an (by implication) unreasonable argument seem reasonable... language is important, the words we use are important... i have the feeling that you casual readers are having less trouble with this than some not-so-casual ones... but, for those who are, let's use the example of the transporter from 'star trek'.. you know, the "beam me up scotty" thingy...
does such a device have the potential to exist? who knows? the point is, my statement above simply says that the potential for this device to exist can't be the cause of its existence *when and if* it begins to exist... see? wasn't hard, was it?... ergo, "mere" potentialities can't account for the actualization of the entity else the potentially infinite set of all things possible must be included...
quote:
Now, do you remember her first premise? Let me remind you ...[B][QUOTE]that which begins to exist has a cause[/B][/QUOTE]
What does it mean that something "begins to exist"? Clearly the implication is temporal - there is a time when the thing does not exist and a later time when it does.
now we're back to defining the terms.. whether or not the implication is temporal, we're left with the premise itself.. if pamboli has an argument he wants to put forth that challenges the truth value of the premise, i suggest he put it forth...
quote:
But what is a "potentiality"? It again is a temporal term. At one point in time the thing has has not yet fulfilled its potential, but it could fulfill it at a later time. See what's going on here? "Things that begin to exist" and "things which have the potential to exist" are the same.
another assertion, to wit: "things which have the potential to exist will begin to exist"... if they're the same thing, show us... as for "potentiality" being temporal... who cares? before we can run we walk... we haven't even gotten to time and the universe, we aren't dealing (in this thread) with anything other than the two premises above...
quote:
And then her next phrase ...[b][quote]the grounds of actualization.[/b][/quote]
Now by "grounds of", she couldn't mean "cause" could she? Looks like it to me.
So she is attempting to bolster her premise that "all things which begin to exist have a cause" by referring even to their "potential" to exist in causal terms. There is no logic or philosophy going on here - just shuffling of synonyms.
let's put the whole phrase together, again for the benefit of those casual readers whom pamboli is so diligently protecting from my sly, well-worded, reasonable-appearing arguments...
"..the potential for something to exist, or the grounds for actualization, can't be rooted in mere potentialities... if that were true, the cause of anything existing would rest in its very potential to exist... that leaves b), but if *that's* the case: that which begins to exist has a cause.."
i made a statement above and pamboli is free to challenge its truth value, however it seems that to do so would require more than simply asserting no logic or philosophy...
quote:
Let's get back to temporal terms - terms about time. If there are things which come into existence at the earliest point of time, they can have no "potentiality" to exist. Nor can they have a temporal cause, nor can they "begin" to exist, because there is not point in time before which they do not exist. So they are not things which "begin to exist."
please note, casual reader, pamboli wants to "get back" to temporal terms, even tho such terms are of his devising... things that come into existence (pamboli uses "the earliest point of time") can "have no potentiality to exist.." and further, "Nor can they have a temporal cause, nor can they begin" to exist.."... why? "because there is not (sic) point in time before which they do not exist. So they are not things which begin to exist."
now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence? pamboli's explanation, the "point in time" one, begs the very question... he's saying, "space/time didn't exist and since they didn't exist they had no potential to exist"... this assertion needs something more, methinks... if a thing has no potential to exist (NO potential), it wouldn't exist... yet, it does exist
can you unravel that? if not, you aren't the casual reader pamboli is attempting to protect.. you need no protection... despite all my attempts, it seems pamboli wants to jump from "I" in the premise to "the universe" before he's ready...
quote:
Now, can we say of things that are composed of other things, that they "begin to exist" in an manner ontologically equivalent to the manner in which things not composed of other things would "begin to exist"? I suspect not. My body does not "begin to exist" in that way - as it is composed of many things which preexisted.
sprinkled thruout you'll see pamboli use phrases such as "I suspect not." ... however, that's insufficient... i'd like pamboli to show all of us how something composed of other things (such as his brick wall) can not begin to exist because of its complexity... either a particular brick wall exists or it doesn't... if it doesn't, why discuss whether or not it either began to exist or had a cause for its existence? if it does, it either began to exist or always existed... the materials used to form the wall don't matter, unless pamboli wishes to get into the irreducibly complex argument... but that merely pushes the syllogism back, using each individual component of this brick wall instead of the wall itself.. [quote] So, three points need to be made:
the first premise need not include "all things";
it is not demonstrably true even of the subset of "things that begin to exist";
the second premise is unsound in itself if "I" am composed of other things, and could be unrelated to the first.
Oh well - nice try. No coconut.[/B]
the first premise includes all things that begin to exist, which it clearly states... we'll leave it to you to show how it need NOT include all things when it expressly states that it does... again, words have meanings... "that which begins to exist" is clear in its meaning, but to make it clearer i substituted "everything"... so there's no further semantic war on the subject, 'everything' includes all, excludes none (in this context) of the things that begin to exist...
pamboli says the second premise is "unsound".. why? because "I" am composed of other things.. so? whatever "things" i'm composed of, i either exist or i don't... if i do exist, i either began to exist or i've always existed... if i began to exist, i assert i wasn't uncaused... that is all... it might help for pamboli to look into the meanings of 'sound' and 'unsound' and in 'valid' and 'invalid' as those words apply to this subject...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-16-2002 2:36 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John, posted 11-16-2002 12:28 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 13 by Mister Pamboli, posted 11-16-2002 3:13 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 33 (22928)
11-16-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by John
11-15-2002 10:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
the moment you write a valid syllogism, i'll answer it...
What is your hang-up with syllogisms? Just finish a freshma Phil. class and think you've picked up some deep insight into logic?
john, in another thread you resorted to ad hominems... i called you on it then and you used the "he did it to me first" excuse... i haven't attacked you personally, i believe it harms both the discussion and the one doing the attacking... please make an attempt in the future to address the subject and not make uncalled for personal remarks
quote:
What are you afraid of? Can't take a stand? Not willing to commit to an answer? It isn't a hard question. Do parallel lines converge?
umm.. i'll say, given perfect measuring devices, no... how's that? look john, an answer... your turn.. and you never did show us, or quote for us, the reply you made to my question... does it exist or does it not? if it does, simply point us to it, or better yet post it here...
quote:
quote:
from whence comes inductive reasoning, john?
hmmm... gee, from experience essentially. Now what does this have to do with intuition?
induction
"in an inductive argument, the truth of the premises merely makes it probable that the conclusion is true, this probability coming from individual or group experience"...
intuition
"Non-inferential awareness of abstract objects or concrete truths, held to be part of individual or group experience either concious or subconcious. Plato held that intuition is a superior faculty, and Spinoza supposed that intuition is the highest sort of human knowledge"
there ya go... inductive reasoning is based wholly or in part on experience... intuition can be based wholly or in part on subconcious awareness of experiences... [quote]
quote:
check again the first post in this thread... see if you can use reason to refute either premise... else leave it to someone else
LOL....
Funny thing is that I haven't made up anything I've posted to you. This stuff was all worked out by the best and brightest in physics and cosmology. In essense, I am just the messenger.
[/B][/QUOTE]
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate on my premises?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John, posted 11-15-2002 10:24 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-16-2002 12:49 PM forgiven has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 33 (22929)
11-16-2002 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by forgiven
11-16-2002 11:18 AM


ah.... yet another post full of you not getting it.....
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
at least this is an attempt to stay on the topic of the thread, and as such is a welcome addition... i'll attempt to address each "point"
You arrogance is really getting on my nerves. Everything I have posted to you has been directly related to the topic of the thread.
quote:
but to avoid his having to make the nonsensical argument
You seem to be of the opinion that you are the only one here with a grasp of logic. That is far from the truth, though you stubbornly refuse to see it.
quote:
i'll even switch the premises around if it makes it easier for him to understand..
arrogant arrogant arrogant...
quote:
(i) i began to exist
(ii) anything that begins to exist has a cause
therefore, i have a cause

Funny, you've moved the premises but have the problem. The problem is with the phrasing "that begins to exist"
quote:
yes, one might say that... one might say anything one wants, people do that all the time, but redefining the terms at ones whim doesn't lend itself to rational discourse
No. Obviously we should all accept the terms as you define them. Again, are you serious?
quote:
... as for his question regarding God, the answer is no... christianity (at least no sect of which i'm aware) doesn't say that God began to exist, so he's raised a rather flimsy straw man here (more of these follow)...
Wow... you missed that one as well. Mister P was addressing your phrasing of the premise. You choose "that which begins to exist" rather than "that which exists" specifically, as I suspect as well, to avoid this problem.
Skipping the logic lesson....
quote:
this one is hard to follow..
LOL......
quote:
the objection appears to be that you casual readers are being hoodwinked by allowing me to form an argument of my choosing, rather than one of pamboli's choosing...
He suspects that you formulated the argument to avoid a very prickly problem involving the existence of God. Yes, you can formulate any argument you wish. BUT WE CAN CRITICISE THE PREMISES. You seem to be missing that part. Did they not teach you that in Logic 101?
quote:
whether or not all things which begin to exist do so in the same manner is irrelevant...
Hardly. If things begin to exist in different manners it means that your argument suffers from oversimplification.
quote:
any objection to an argument that has nothing to do with the terms of the argument is the straw man fallacy...
You so very over-rate your grasp of logic.
quote:
as for premise the first begging the question, that's the very question we're examining...
uh-huh....?
quote:
if pamboli thinks it begs the question, one would suppose he disagrees with the premise... in that case, all he should do in this thread is attempt to show us all (even you casual readers) why the premise is false... then maybe we can get somewhere...
It isn't so much false as it is an overgeneralization. In other words, you can't know that it is true.
Lets talk about deductive logic for a second. It seems to be an obsession of yours. Deductive logic is all subtractive. That is you derive a subset of a whole. This works just fine when you can actually observe the whole--- for example, all the marbles on the table. When you get to set which you cannot observe, you find that you must over-generalize. Logically, you crash and burn right there. Unless you can demonstrate that you have in fact observed every single case of things-coming-into-being and can therefore claim the truth of your first premise.
quote:
instead of making blanket statements with nothing to back them up
That is rich... you mean blanket statements like 'all things which come to exist have a cause'?
quote:
"you left off self-causation, your reasoning is flawed!!!!"
This is the least of your problems actually.
quote:
sigh... i won't get into ad hominem grappling...
Self-reflection is a virtue you appear to lack.
quote:
besides, i don't know the discipline from which pamboli gets his expertise, it isn't readily evident from this post...

Irrelevant.
quote:
language is important, the words we use are important...
Yes, because it can lead to great confusion, as in your case.
quote:
whether or not the implication is temporal, we're left with the premise itself..
NO WE ARE NOT. The premise does not exist as some kind or platonic form. You are claiming that the premise is primary. We are claiming that it isn't, that it implies, requires and assumes other premises.
quote:
to time and the universe
Sorry, but we have. You introduce both in your first premise, though you do not realize it.
quote:
please note, casual reader, pamboli wants to "get back" to temporal terms, even tho such terms are of his devising...
Such terms as you are desperately trying to keep out of the debate as they break your preformatted argument.
quote:
things that come into existence
Do you really maintain that such a statement does NOT imply time?
quote:
now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence?
This is a logic game. Do you consider "potential existence" to be some form of real thing? If so, you are contradicting yourself. If "potential existence" is some form of real thing, then it can be the source of a things comng into being.
quote:
space/time didn't exist and since they didn't exist they had no potential to exist"... this assertion needs something more, methinks... if a thing has no potential to exist (NO potential), it wouldn't exist... yet, it does exist
You are treating potential existence as if it were some form of real thing. Make up your mind(s).
quote:
sprinkled thruout you'll see pamboli use phrases such as "I suspect not."
Pot calling the kettle black...
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:18 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 3:07 PM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 33 (22930)
11-16-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by forgiven
11-16-2002 11:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
umm.. i'll say, given perfect measuring devices
You can't add conditions. I said nothing about the state of measuring devises.
quote:
no... how's that?
How's that? It is wrong. You assume a Euclidean geometry, which I did not specify. There are non-euclidean geometries within which parallel lines do converge and others wherein such lines diverge.
Now, if you had answered "yes" you would have been wrong as well. Parallel lines do not converge within a Euclidean geometric system. The answer depends upon unstated conditions.
This is the position you have been attempting to force me into. You have been insisting that I give you a 'straight' answer but the answer depends upon unstated conditions. Your 'straight' answer is wrong no matter how you answer, unless you specify the conditions, and this you have not allowed me. When I have tried to specify those conditions, you have accused me of not answering the question and, in fact, have been quite abrasive about it.
quote:
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate on my premises?
I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:38 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 2:03 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 33 (22931)
11-16-2002 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
11-16-2002 12:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
[B]
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
umm.. i'll say, given perfect measuring devices
You can't add conditions. I said nothing about the state of measuring devises.
quote:
no... how's that?
How's that? It is wrong. You assume a Euclidean geometry, which I did not specify. There are non-euclidean geometries within which parallel lines do converge and others wherein such lines diverge. [/quote]
john, in this post and the one i'll address next, goes to great lengths criticizing the reasoning i use, yet time after time he makes bald assertions such as "it is wrong" without proofs... you asked a question, i answered it... it's *your* question, if you don't like my answer prove it wrong
quote:
Now, if you had answered "yes" you would have been wrong as well. Parallel lines do not converge within a Euclidean geometric system. The answer depends upon unstated conditions.
then perhaps your question is at fault... you simply asked, i simply answered... if you want a simple answer to a question that depends on conditions stated or unstated, say so
quote:
This is the position you have been attempting to force me into. You have been insisting that I give you a 'straight' answer but the answer depends upon unstated conditions. Your 'straight' answer is wrong no matter how you answer, unless you specify the conditions, and this you have not allowed me. When I have tried to specify those conditions, you have accused me of not answering the question and, in fact, have been quite abrasive about it.
i take issue with this.. any honest person reading your posts will notice the numerous times you resort to ad hominems, name-calling, and character judgements, yet you call me abrasive... and when called on it, you refuse to even acknowledge it...
i started a brand new thread in the hopes of getting someone to keep to that subject... i haven't attempted to force you into any position at all... [quote]
quote:
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate on my premises?
I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.
[/B]
at the risk of being called another name, that's wise of you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 11-16-2002 12:49 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 11-16-2002 2:17 PM forgiven has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 33 (22932)
11-16-2002 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by forgiven
11-16-2002 2:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:

then perhaps your question is at fault... you simply asked, i simply answered... if you want a simple answer to a question that depends on conditions stated or unstated, say so

Well, what do you know?
This is what I and others have been telling you all along about YOUR question. Do you now acknowledge that? Nope.
You want a simple answer to a question that depends upon conditions not stated yet refuse to state the conditions or allow anyone else to state those condition. Really, it is the height of absurdity. Yet, I'm sure you will continue.
[quote][b]i take issue with this... [quote][b]
Thought you might.
quote:
i haven't attempted to force you into any position at all...

Any honest person reading the thread will know that is not true.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 2:03 PM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 33 (22933)
11-16-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
11-16-2002 12:28 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:
[B]ah.... yet another post full of you not getting it.....[/quote]
yet another typical ad hominem attack of the kind john seems to rely on
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
at least this is an attempt to stay on the topic of the thread, and as such is a welcome addition... i'll attempt to address each "point"
You arrogance is really getting on my nerves. Everything I have posted to you has been directly related to the topic of the thread.
now i'm arrogant.. but it's said in such a way as to imply that arrogance in and of itself is only unacceptable if it gets on john's nerves
quote:
quote:
but to avoid his having to make the nonsensical argument
You seem to be of the opinion that you are the only one here with a grasp of logic. That is far from the truth, though you stubbornly refuse to see it.
john uses his intuition to state my opinion on a subject, but i've neither stated nor implied that to which he refers... another assertion base entirely upon his opinion...
quote:
quote:
i'll even switch the premises around if it makes it easier for him to understand..
arrogant arrogant arrogant...
as if one name wasn't enough, it needs to be entered in triplicate... presumeably so nobody misses the remark
quote:
quote:
yes, one might say that... one might say anything one wants, people do that all the time, but redefining the terms at ones whim doesn't lend itself to rational discourse
No. Obviously we should all accept the terms as you define them. Again, are you serious?
the phrase to which john objects is "that which begins to exist"... he seems to say here that he has a problem with my definition of that term, which is, by the way, the total of all things that begin to exist... here's a suggestion... john could take the subject of the first premise, the subject of the second premise, and the middle term of each and assign his own definitions.. that seems to be fair, who could possibly object? since we seem to have a lot of semantic problems, here're my definitions.. we'll look at john's and compare them:
that which begins to exist - the total of all things that begin to exist, i.e. all things that haven't always existed
i - everything that goes into making me who i am
has a cause - simply, is not uncaused
quote:
quote:
... as for his question regarding God, the answer is no... christianity (at least no sect of which i'm aware) doesn't say that God began to exist, so he's raised a rather flimsy straw man here (more of these follow)...
Wow... you missed that one as well. Mister P was addressing your phrasing of the premise. You choose "that which begins to exist" rather than "that which exists" specifically, as I suspect as well, to avoid this problem.
here john 'suspects' or opines a motive with, again, only his opinion to back it up... the premises i put forth happen to be the ones i chose, that's true.. perhaps in the future, before beginning a thread on any subject, i should ask john to phrase my premises for me
quote:
Skipping the logic lesson....
obviously
quote:
quote:
this one is hard to follow..
LOL......
quote:
the objection appears to be that you casual readers are being hoodwinked by allowing me to form an argument of my choosing, rather than one of pamboli's choosing...
He suspects that you formulated the argument to avoid a very prickly problem involving the existence of God. Yes, you can formulate any argument you wish. BUT WE CAN CRITICISE THE PREMISES. You seem to be missing that part. Did they not teach you that in Logic 101?
john again speaks for pamboli, and ends the paragraph with yet another ad hominem... it's a tactic that hasn't gone unnoticed by discerning readers, i'm sure... of course premises can be criticized, but not on the grounds that the phraseology is objectionable... one instead needs to put forth valid arguments as to the truth value of the premises as a whole or the terms of each...
quote:
quote:
whether or not all things which begin to exist do so in the same manner is irrelevant...
Hardly. If things begin to exist in different manners it means that your argument suffers from oversimplification.
john seems to be saying here that everything that begins to exist only includes everything that begins to exist in the same manner... for example, my premise would be ok for a ford f-150 pickup but not for a dell dimension 8800... anyone reading this knows that 'everything that begins to exist' includes, by definition, all things that haven't always existed... what those things are is irrelevant to this discussion, although i had hopes some of them would become relevant...
quote:
quote:
any objection to an argument that has nothing to do with the terms of the argument is the straw man fallacy...
You so very over-rate your grasp of logic.
i almost didn't include this in john's long list of ad hominem remarks
quote:
quote:
if pamboli thinks it begs the question, one would suppose he disagrees with the premise... in that case, all he should do in this thread is attempt to show us all (even you casual readers) why the premise is false... then maybe we can get somewhere...
It isn't so much false as it is an overgeneralization. In other words, you can't know that it is true.
here john almost got there... the argument is sound and valid... he states that i can't "know" the premise is true... inductively and intuitively it is true.. if he wishes to show it isn't, the path is clear.. simply form an argument for something that began to exist and show how it is uncaused.. it isn't enough merely to assert that a thing is false, build a case for its falsity
quote:
Lets talk about deductive logic for a second. It seems to be an obsession of yours. Deductive logic is all subtractive. That is you derive a subset of a whole. This works just fine when you can actually observe the whole--- for example, all the marbles on the table. When you get to set which you cannot observe, you find that you must over-generalize. Logically, you crash and burn right there. Unless you can demonstrate that you have in fact observed every single case of things-coming-into-being and can therefore claim the truth of your first premise.
and here john appears to be saying that most, if not all, categorical syllogisms have crashed and burned... by this logic, some of the greatest thinkers of all time have wasted many years of their lives... note also that i'm perfectly willing to expand on the premises set forth, yet john has to be willing to expand on his arguments also... having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen
quote:
quote:
instead of making blanket statements with nothing to back them up
That is rich... you mean blanket statements like 'all things which come to exist have a cause'?
here john nearly states my premise... if he wishes to challenge it all he need do is set forth an argument utilizing something that began to exist and show the validity of it not having a cause... that would be the logical way to continue
quote:
quote:
sigh... i won't get into ad hominem grappling...
Self-reflection is a virtue you appear to lack.
even when commenting on my supposed ad hominems he can't refrain from lauching yet another of his own... i don't recall having personally attacked anyone, but if i have i sincerely apologize.. perhaps john can help refresh my memory
quote:
quote:
whether or not the implication is temporal, we're left with the premise itself..
NO WE ARE NOT. The premise does not exist as some kind or platonic form. You are claiming that the premise is primary. We are claiming that it isn't, that it implies, requires and assumes other premises.
then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed
quote:
quote:
to time and the universe
Sorry, but we have. You introduce both in your first premise, though you do not realize it.
john asserts that i did something and didn't realize i did it... perhaps he's reading into it something that he wants to be there and is intent upon seeing it there even tho it isn't?
quote:
quote:
please note, casual reader, pamboli wants to "get back" to temporal terms, even tho such terms are of his devising...
Such terms as you are desperately trying to keep out of the debate as they break your preformatted argument.
and here we finally arrive at the admission against which he's argued from the start.. one can't have it both ways.. if i'm "desparately" trying to keep terms out of the argument, is it possible they aren't there? yet just above he says they *are* there, that i introduced them (albeit unknowingly) by the mere fact of starting this thread.. questions of temporality can be addressed in their proper time (a little pun)... but a logical argument is built premise upon premise, one doesn't rephrase ones premises at the whim of those who don't like them...
quote:
quote:
now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence?
This is a logic game. Do you consider "potential existence" to be some form of real thing? If so, you are contradicting yourself. If "potential existence" is some form of real thing, then it can be the source of a things comng into being.
yet another bald assertion by john... here he equates the potentiality of a thing that doesn't exist (hasn't begun to exist) with something that did begin to exist.. his use of the word "source" is confusing.. if by it he means "cause," his statement would read, "that which has the potential to exist is the cause of things that begin to exist"... this seems absurd, but maybe he can offer an argument for it
quote:
quote:
space/time didn't exist and since they didn't exist they had no potential to exist"... this assertion needs something more, methinks... if a thing has no potential to exist (NO potential), it wouldn't exist... yet, it does exist
You are treating potential existence as if it were some form of real thing. Make up your mind(s).
this is simply mind-boggling... john appears to be saying (as way of example), "the transporter in star trek can potentially exist, however since it has this potential it already exists"... if this isn't what he's saying, maybe he can clarify it
quote:
quote:
sprinkled thruout you'll see pamboli use phrases such as "I suspect not."
Pot calling the kettle black...
ahhh the old pot and kettle fallacy... well worded, yes, and adds much to the discussion
[/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 11-16-2002 12:28 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by John, posted 11-16-2002 5:44 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 29 by RedVento, posted 11-19-2002 3:20 PM forgiven has replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 13 of 33 (22934)
11-16-2002 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by forgiven
11-16-2002 11:18 AM


Great reply. Thanks "forgiven" - you've made my day! I love this stuff.[b][quote]does pamboli mean to say that one of the three terms is ambiguous?[/b][/quote]
I think all the terms are ambiguous![b][quote]i suppose he wants me to offer proofs that i began to exist[/b][/quote]
yes I do - but not in the casual way you suggest. I want you to show that "things that begin to exist" all must do so in the same way - otherwise "I" might not be part of the category of the first clause. Here's a simple example.
I have a cow which will give birth to calf. The calf will be killed and skinned. Its skin will be made into leather. The leather will be cut into shapes. The shapes will be sewn into a shoe. When does the shoe "begin to exist?" Now, does the "I" in your second clause begin to exist in this way? Can you compare your beginning to exist, with all other things which begin to exist. Though you later deride my brick wall example, you still show the same error. Consider if it is only true that "those things which are composed of preexisting things have a cause." This is the issue you have to disambiguate.
Now I am not saying that this proposition is true or false, just that it is entirely relevant to your first clause. The category of the first clause therefore seems to me quite ambiguous, and the inclusion of "I" in that category poorly defended.[b][quote]-pamboli says "I might say that the first premise applies only to things which begin to exist after I began to exist. And indeed, if "I" were the God of traditional western Christianity, that would be true, wouldn't it?"
yes, one might say that... one might say anything one wants, people do that all the time, but redefining the terms at ones whim doesn't lend itself to rational discourse ... as for his question regarding God, the answer is no... christianity (at least no sect of which i'm aware) doesn't say that God began to exist, so he's raised a rather flimsy straw man here (more of these follow)...[/b][/quote]
Touche, and nicely done. But it rather misses the point, which is that the temporal difference between the clauses ambiguates their relationship.[b][quote]it was somewhat a waste of time having to show the validity of an obviously valid syllogism, but if it avoids artificial and ungrounded objections i guess it was worth it...[/b][/quote]
Always worth it - the syllogism is very nearly valid, except only for the ambiguity of its terms which adjusting the tenses would achieve. Then its just a question of tackling the premises - the main thrust of the discussion, no?[B][QUOTE]he caught me writing what i chose to write rather than what he might want me to write, and to make matters worse he caught me writing it in "very careful language"... drat, eh?[/B][/QUOTE]
Hee hee. Naughty of me, huh? But actually, I was just ensuring that casual readers didn't fall into the trap of assuming "all that begins to exist" is even more universal than it might at first seem. Forgiveable, no?[b][quote]whether or not all things which begin to exist do so in the same manner is irrelevant... another straw man...[/b][/quote]
I hope I have shown that it is very relevant indeed.[b][quote]as for pamboli's question on the definition of "begin to exist," i'll let him define the term his way...[/b][/quote]
Ok. How about "those things which, not being composed of pre-existing things, begin to exist." I could tighten that up a bit, but the language should be clear enough without being technical, and besides it's Saturday morning and I have a hangover [b][quote]as for premise the first begging the question, that's the very question we're examining... [/b][/quote]
So if an answer to the question we are examining is used as a premise in a syllogism in the examination, that is a very nice definition of "begging the question", no?[b][quote]ahhh our old friend S.M. again... strange, isn't it? *when* it began to exist isn't at question (yet)... the fact of its existence and whether or not that existence had a cause is what (i thought) we're discussing...[/b][/quote]
Oh dear oh dear. Nice wriggle, but what a mess to get into. You are not deriving the conclusion of a cause from "the fact of its existence" but from the its "beginning to exist" - which you correctly identify here as differnet things. Are you changing your premisses half way through the discussion? Tut tut tut ... [b][quote]there may be any number of things on any number of subjects... instead of making blanket statements with nothing to back them up, the casual reader might want to see some examples of those things pamboli says "may" exist.. [/b][/quote]
I thought we discussing a categorical syllogism - not an empirical observation. Your own straw man, I think.[b][quote]sigh... i won't get into ad hominem grappling... besides, i don't know the discipline from which pamboli gets his expertise, it isn't readily evident from this post...[/b][/quote]
Nice personal dig while eschewing personal digs. By the way, I would have thought that someone attempting to be careful in their logic would be more careful in their language. The casual use of "ad hominem" as a term for general disparagement of an opponent is to be regretted. An "ad hominem" argument is one which attempts to show the truth or falsity of a proposition - I was not doing that, only making a little fun of you.[b][quote]i have the feeling that you casual readers are having less trouble with this than some not-so-casual ones...[/b][/quote]
That, indeed, seems to be your reason for using ambiguity and biased language - to help them along.[b][quote]now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence? pamboli's explanation, the "point in time" one, begs the very question... he's saying, "space/time didn't exist and since they didn't exist they had no potential to exist"... [/b][/quote]
No I'm not saying that. I am saying that "potential" being a temporal term cannot apply to things existing co-extensively with time. That's all really - but it's a huge hole in your argument.[b][quote]sprinkled thruout you'll see pamboli use phrases such as "I suspect not." ... however, that's insufficient...[/b][/quote]
Indeed I use such phrases. I do give my grounds for their use elsewhere in the discussion.[b][quote]i'd like pamboli to show all of us how something composed of other things (such as his brick wall) can not begin to exist because of its complexity... either a particular brick wall exists or it doesn't... if it doesn't, why discuss whether or not it either began to exist or had a cause for its existence?[/b][/quote]
I deal with this elsewhere. My argument is simply that there are things which "begin to exist" in different ways. It's very straightforward, really. It is, after all, one of the hottest issues in moral philosophy and the philosophy of mind, and of categories, when an "I" can be said to exist.
BTW, I don't understand your reference to irreducible complexity. Better for another thread, perhaps?[b][quote]the first premise includes all things that begin to exist, which it clearly states... we'll leave it to you to show how it need NOT include all things when it expressly states that it does... [/b][/quote]
So, you are now saying that "all things" are "things that begin to exist" - but that was the very point I made at the beginning, that if "all things begin to exist" you assume that God has a cause. However, I think you didn't mean to say exactly what you said here, did you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 11:18 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 7:38 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 33 (22944)
11-16-2002 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by forgiven
11-16-2002 3:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
but it's said in such a way as to imply that arrogance in and of itself is only unacceptable if it gets on john's nerves
hmmm....
quote:
john uses his intuition to state my opinion on a subject, but i've neither stated nor implied that to which he refers... another assertion base entirely upon his opinion...
Couldn't have said it better myself. So just change the the first word to 'forgiven'.
quote:
john uses his intuition to state my opinion on a subject
Actually, this would be my stating the impression I get from your behavior. This is not the same thing as stating your opinion for you. Remember, words are important.
quote:
the phrase to which john objects is "that which begins to exist"...
Actually, just clarifying what MisterP said.
quote:
john could take the subject of the first premise, the subject of the second premise, and the middle term of each and assign his own definitions.. that seems to be fair, who could possibly object?
Apparently, you object, since this is precisely what I have been doing since the beginning.
quote:
here john 'suspects' or opines a motive with, again, only his opinion to back it up...
Wow, that is a damning insight since it is precisely what I said.
quote:
the premises i put forth happen to be the ones i chose, that's true.. perhaps in the future, before beginning a thread on any subject, i should ask john to phrase my premises for me

You may phrase your premises any way you like. I never said otherwise. HOWEVER, we get to criticise those premises. You seem to have a serious problem with this. Tough.
quote:
obviously
... coming from someone who has managed to miss the last hundred years of physics and cosmology and the last 2.5 thousand years of logic and metaphysics, this is very painful.
quote:
i almost didn't include this in john's long list of ad hominem remarks
I appreciate the inclusion.
quote:
john again speaks for pamboli
Actually, just restated. The point was hard to miss, though you managed. If I am off base, MrP will correct me.
quote:
of course premises can be criticized
Then what, exactly, is your problem?
quote:
one instead needs to put forth valid arguments as to the truth value of the premises as a whole or the terms of each...
This has been done numerous times. Remember that stuff about the conditions of causality, and the universe, and time? All the stuff that you discount as not being relevant?
quote:
here john almost got there... the argument is sound and valid... he states that i can't "know" the premise is true... inductively and intuitively it is true..
I'm sorry, what? I have to prove your unsupported statement wrong? That is laughable.
quote:
if he wishes to show it isn't, the path is clear.. simply form an argument for something that began to exist and show how it is uncaused..
Wow. We are right back to where this all began, yet again. To do this I must assume causality. To build an argument involving causality-- to build an argument AT ALL, I must assume causality. THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION AND IT ALWAYS WILL BE.
quote:
and here john appears to be saying that most, if not all, categorical syllogisms have crashed and burned...
I hate to break it to you....
This isn't news to logicians. It is old information actually.
quote:
by this logic, some of the greatest thinkers of all time have wasted many years of their lives...
That is a distinct possiblity. Every system rests ultimately upon unproveable assumptions.
quote:
note also that i'm perfectly willing to expand on the premises set forth, yet john has to be willing to expand on his arguments also...
Been trying.... been trying really really hard...... but everything I say is judged slipperly sidestepping.
quote:
having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen
Did I refuse this?
[quote][b]here john nearly states my premise... if he wishes to challenge it all he need do is set forth an argument utilizing something that began to exist and show the validity of it not having a cause... that would be the logical way to continue
Still not getting it.
quote:
even when commenting on my supposed ad hominems he can't refrain from lauching yet another of his own...
Yep... I figure if i make you mad enough the steam might soften that hard head.
quote:
i don't recall having personally attacked anyone, but if i have i sincerely apologize.. perhaps john can help refresh my memory

Try re-reading every post to me after about the third one, and lets not leave out the other participants who've now left the debate.
quote:
then it should be easy for john to argue against the premise on its own merits, or lack of same, without resorting to the many fallacies that have been committed
When everything not to your liking is written off as not on topic, slippery, and irrelevant, this is not possible. I have addressed your premise.
quote:
john asserts that i did something and didn't realize i did it...
I am asserting that your premise implies time and space. This is a valid comment.
quote:
perhaps he's reading into it something that he wants to be there and is intent upon seeing it there even tho it isn't?
Subtract time, and what do you have of causality? Subtract space?
quote:
and here we finally arrive at the admission against which he's argued from the start.. one can't have it both ways.. if i'm "desparately" trying to keep terms out of the argument, is it possible they aren't there?
Yes, that follows....
quote:
yet just above he says they *are* there, that i introduced them (albeit unknowingly)
Gee.... it happens. In fact, it is favorite pastime of philosophers.
quote:
by the mere fact of starting this thread.. questions of temporality can be addressed in their proper time (a little pun)...
You first premise implies temporality. Causality requires it. Right from the get-go is the proper time.
quote:
yet another bald assertion by john...
Note: questions are not assertions.
quote:
here he equates the potentiality of a thing that doesn't exist (hasn't begun to exist) with something that did begin to exist..
Why are we talking about me in the third person?
And actually, it appears to me to be you who is making this equivalency. Notice the question marks in my paragraph? In English, those imply that the statement is a question. You see, here I was asking for clarification of your position. I guess that is too much to ask.
quote:
his use of the word "source" is confusing..
Well... hmmm... you seem to have gotten it. Must not be that confusing. But again, you are confusing my asking for clarification with my stating my opinion/belief. You see, this is part of that whole debate process, where you say something then I think about it and reply with my thoughts on the matter. In this case, I responded with what seems to me to be the implications of some of your statements. Now would be your turn to respond to my response.
quote:
if by it he means "cause," his statement would read, "that which has the potential to exist is the cause of things that begin to exist"... this seems absurd, but maybe he can offer an argument for it

See this:
quote:
now how is it possible that something can come into existence (begin to exist) when there was no potential for that existence?
If potential is treated as some sort of real thing, this becomes a distinct possibility. If it isn't some sort of real thing, I fail to see the point. Its just a word game.
quote:
this is simply mind-boggling... john appears to be saying (as way of example), "the transporter in star trek can potentially exist, however since it has this potential it already exists"... if this isn't what he's saying, maybe he can clarify it
Notice that it all hinges upon your answer to the question posed. Still looking for clarification here.
quote:
ahhh the old pot and kettle fallacy... well worded, yes, and adds much to the discussion

Fallacy? For it to be fallacious it must first be an argument. This would instead be an accusation.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 3:07 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by forgiven, posted 11-16-2002 6:29 PM John has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 33 (22945)
11-16-2002 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by John
11-16-2002 5:44 PM


[QUOTE]
quote:
forgiven: i almost didn't include this in john's long list of ad hominem remarks
quote:
John:
I appreciate the inclusion.
quote:
forgiven: even when commenting on my supposed ad hominems he can't refrain from lauching yet another of his own...
quote:
John:
Yep... I figure if i make you mad enough the steam might soften that hard head.
those remarks are very sad, and take away any credibility you may have had... you can't make me mad, but you can and have shown others the caliber of your arguments, and the weapons you rely on...
quote:
forgiven: i don't recall having personally attacked anyone, but if i have i sincerely apologize.. perhaps john can help refresh my memory

quote:
John:
Try re-reading every post to me after about the third one, and lets not leave out the other participants who've now left the debate.
if you have any, post them... i've already stated that if i've made negative personal remarks i'm unaware of them, and i'll be glad to apologize for anything i've said that impunes your character or intelligence...
when two people are trying to have a reasonable, rational discussion, and one resorts to name calling (and especially when that one has whined about others doing the same to him), it shows an inability to have a mature discourse... and it also shows why the following is true
quote:
forgiven: having refused the offer of a formal (moderated, hopefully) debate, that isn't likely to happen
quote:
John:
Did I refuse this?
quote:
forgiven:
so i take it you don't wish to engage in a formal debate of my premises?
quote:
John:
I have given up on the idea that such a thing is possible.
is that a refusal?
in a formal debate, with rules and moderators, logical fallacies will be brought out by an objective third party... ad hominems are weapons you seem to be fond of, so it comes as no surprise that you'd refuse...
there seems no use in continuing a discussion in which i'm subject to name calling and in which the barest modicum of courtesy is shown to ones opponent...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by John, posted 11-16-2002 5:44 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by John, posted 11-16-2002 7:28 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 19 by John, posted 11-16-2002 8:21 PM forgiven has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024