Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5730
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Byblos » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:54 am

I go through both his arguments in painstaking detail, offering rebuttals step by step, showing him where he is wrong, formatting and properly quoting it for easy reference. And what do I get in return? This incoherent mess, both in substance and format. :shakehead: '

It is like a child who is taking a tantrum when told he must share his toy with other children. He keeps insisting it's not fair, it's not fair. But when the teacher points out that sharing is what fairness is all about, he sticks his fingers in his ears and cries out 'it's not fair, it's not fair'.

This person has no interest in a fair discussion, does not properly respond to posts, let alone bother to read them. I mean, how many times did I and others actually show him that Aquinas denies using temporal infinite regress in his arguments? And yet, Mr. "professor" keeps insisting that he does. 'It's no fair, it's no fair'.

And even after admitting that his PSR argument fails, he still does not have the intellectual honesty to admit its implication of an absolute necessity.

I have no reason to believe this person will ever engage in an honest discussion. I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish, i.e. prove the PSR, and answer his fallacious arguments against Aquinas.

Let his own words convict him, I will not waste another second of my time on him any more. I am done with this fraud.


trulyenlightened wrote: Only WHAT I say is what is important. I do not claim to be all-knowing, so spare me your demeaning and personal attacks. I don't claim that what I say is the absolute truth. I only claim that what I say is consistent with what I observe and understand. So far you have done absolutely nothing to change that understanding. Is your only motive here to discredit, demean, and dismiss anything that I say? Do you believe that others may need your protection? There is a word to describe people who think like that. I have never been stalked and harassed for presenting intellectual and logical consistencies before. It takes more than just arrogance, insecurity, and a fragile ego, to appoint oneself as the chosen one to show me the errors of my way. There are many words to describe this kind of mindset, and none would mean being "intellectually honest". I could very well be wrong about any philosophical semantical mumbo jumbo that comes out of my mouth. Could you? That is where we are different. Hence, the constant avoidance, referrals, blatant misrepresentations, and logical fallacies, seems only to shift the burden of proof and save face. Yours is an argument that is entirely predicated on the fact that no one can prove a negative. No one can ever disprove that an immovable mover, uncaused cause, unactualized actualizer, etc., exists. Anymore than they can prove that they do exist. But NOT being able to prove that something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that something in fact does exist by default. The burden of proof is on you.

Can't I simply stipulate that I mostly agree with the principles of PSR? I avoid metaphysical and philosophical arguments, because there are no clear correct or incorrect arguments. It seems to be just endless defining, redefining of definition as they apply to words. It is a self-serving exercise in semantics, that seem to give an unwarranted perception of unnecessary complexity and importance to an argument. It seems to be a self-serving mental indulgence to confirm any preconceptual presuppositional bias. Fortunately, I have no preconceptions of PSR. I am not saying that there is no such thing as contingent facts(truth). Or, that contingent facts can't be anything otherwise than what they are. I'm saying that necessary facts(truths) can't be used to prove contingent facts, because necessary facts can't be anything other than what they are. Not only could there be more than just one necessary fact describing a single cause, but to determine which necessary cause resulted in the event would be impossible. I also agree with causality as well. All things are caused by something else. Nothing can cause itself. To me it is irrelevant what label you want to affix to the types of causation or facts. I also agree that PSR is fundamental in its use in the scientific method. Regarding your syllogism, we are talking about deductive logic. Your conclusion should be deduced from your premises. If not your premises are wrong. Therefore,

If A, B, and C are true(obtained), then I am sitting.
A, B, and C ARE true(obtained)
Therefore, I am sitting

By stating that you are not sitting, you contradict your deduction. Since you didn't define what A, B, and C were, how did you concluded that you are not sitting? Therefore, your premises and conclusion is false. I think I know what you are trying to say, using suppositions and assumptions, but you are just saying it so badly. The physical laws that govern our Universe can't be ignored, or replaced with gap-filling self-serving subjective logic. All explanations of physical or contingent causes, must obey these natural laws. No causal object or thing in the physical Universe, can possess zero entropy, zero energy, zero motion, or zero momentum, no matter what argument you wish to present. Even if an object or cause like this did exist, it could not exist in this Universe, let alone effect anything in this Universe. PSR is merely a logical series of proofs to justify causality, and possibly that the Universe had a beginning. Again, I have no problems with that.

AQUINAS

Let me put this in my own words, to avoid your silly distractions, avoidance, and to focus on anything other than the points I raised. I have said repeatedly that I only wish to talk about science to those that are interested in science. Or, to try and understand how science supports, or is supported by any religious belief. I am not a theologian or a philosopher. I generally stick to the things that I consider practical and useful. How do you know that, "The new atheist movement has sparked a renewed interest in natural philosophy, natural theology and classical theism for a reason"? Was there an old Atheist movement that with no interest in Philosophy, Theism, or Theology? Why would an Atheist expect to find answers in Theism? Any philosophy that can explain everything, explains nothing. It may be true that many atheist are concerned by the rationale of having Christian belief, becoming a part of the science curriculum, in the early education of our finest minds. They might be concerned about a violation of the separation of church and state, guaranteed by the Constitution. Other than simply asserting that I am mistaken, are you suggesting that God is NOT exempt from the premises asserted in the argument? Why is this NOT an argument from ignorance, and special pleading? Other than you simply asserting that it isn't? I'll ask again, "How do any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism"? Other than posting distractions, please answer the question?

I agree that by the definition of a God, there can be only ONE God. But there isn't is there? In fact there are 8-12,000 Gods who have been worshipped throughout recorded history. And, their worshipers felt the same way about their God(s), as you feel about your God. Do you know what was the best explanation I heard to account for this phenomenon? "They'll all find out that we are right and they are wrong, once they die". Maybe you can do better? "The unmoved mover, uncaused cause, non-contingent absolute necessity, unactualized actualizer is, by definition, absolutely unique whose essence IS his existence are identical and who is susbtistent existence itself that fails to not have existed nor to not exist". And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, you surprise me. You make up the assumption, that if two Gods exist, "then there must be some distinguishing feature that one has and the other lacks". How on earth could you know this, and aren't you ignoring the definition of a God. If a God is ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL, how could there exist a second God that is also ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL? Remember your God is a jealous God, considering what he did to the Egyptian Gods. That makes as much sense as your assertion that weaker Gods have distinguishing attributes. If your made-up, "doctrine of divine simplicity", is exampled by "God did it all", then I agree that it is the ultimate in simplicity. Unfortunately, there is no where else to go from there, in regards to complexity. Since you claim that I am WRONG, please tell me how the argument distinguishes between, Zeus, Allah, Athena, Baku, or the Christian God? Since you can't, how am I wrong? Never mind, this will also be avoided as irrelevant.

You are correct I am not here to talk about religion and beliefs. Reason and logic are irrelevant, and not required in all matters of faith. Let me ask, did Aquinas state that there can't be an infinite regression of causality? Yes or No? Secondly, how does he, or you for that matter, know for certain that this is true? Why can't there exist a cause for all events regressing back towards infinity? Please no more "if you don't understand, I can't help you". Or, "Just another straw man argument". Since you're not pointing out the specific straw man, you are nothing more than a broken record of empty assertions. If we consider the infinite number of events necessary for you to lift and drop a pen, why not an infinite number of events for the birth of the Universe, and the Origin of Life? Never mind, I don't expect an answer.

Since you stated at the beginning that you would be addressing only what you consider as being relevant, the cherry-picking has begun. You explain nothing, you simply bark, bluff and blunder, and then try to bully your assertions down my throat. How does any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism? They don't, without the assistance of a few subjective additions and conditions. Why does any unmoved mover, or uncaused causer have to be YOUR specific God? They don't, regardless of the imaginary and impossible attributes you label as being indicative of only your God? Why is any God exempt from the natural laws in Nature(special pleading)? How do you know this, and what evidence backs this up? "The actual argument, not this silly straw man version, actually terminates with an UNMOVED mover, UNCAUSED cause, UNACTUALIZED actualizer. In other words, it is the necessary conclusion of the argument, not some arbitrary assertion". What is amazing, is that you can't see how flawed your own logic is. Necessary for whom? Maybe only for those that disagree with you?

Anyone can make up anything they like. It may intuitively make perfect sense, and may even be logically sound. But this doesn't mean that it is true. All that I am saying, is that if you want to believe that this self-serving logic is sound and supports your belief, then that is none of my business. But from a scientific perspective it is unfalsifiable, fallacious, and unsound, no matter how many times you tell me that I just don't understand it. Don
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6078
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Philip » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:46 pm

TrulyE: If there IS a God, I would certainly want to know him. I have a lot of questions.


Don, my response to your statement above was to challenge you to seek Him - even if merely done as an experiment with no expectations of an answer - and I spoke to that a bit. But I didn't see a response as to whether you are willing to do that. Because if you are sincere in really wanting to know if the God of the Bible exists, that's an enormously important route to finding out. I can attest to many who've discovered God with that step!

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:28 am

So you answer to my question is that NO, something that is contingent on something else to exist CAN't cause itself to exist, correct?

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 6078
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Philip » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:51 am

Paul: So you answer to my question is that NO, something that is contingent on something else to exist CAN't cause itself to exist, correct?


It's sad that this even has to be a question. While we know of NOTHING in existence that isn't contingent, those desperate to assert this universe and reality aren't necessarily, ultimately, contingent, do so without any observations that would indicate this to be possible. And whenever they suggest things that supposedly aren't necessarily contingent, they typically resort to describing already-existing things and processes. Or they blather on pointlessly about evolution. But they never are able to point to evidence that prove ANY non-contingent things that exist.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:06 am

PaulSacramento wrote:So you answer to my question is that NO, something that is contingent on something else to exist CAN't cause itself to exist, correct?


Your question was, "Please explain how something contingent ( something that is caused by something else to come into existence) can have as itself, the cause for it's own existence? The most obvious answer is, IT CAN'T. Virtual particles interact with the different quantum fields all the time, to create matter, light, and energy. They are one of an infinite number of contingent causes for the creation of matter(something). Whatever they create, they also become a part of it. To answer your question, YES, ALL things that are themselves contingent, are also contingent on something else. Nothing in our reality(excluding things that transcend reality, logic, math, etc.), can create itself, by itself. Any more than a Baby can conceive of itself by itself. And YES, anything that is contingent on something else, theoretically could have an infinite number of causes, before it is created. Therefore, CORRECT!

I have no idea what this has to do with my claiming that necessary facts can't be used to explain contingent facts, or explains not addressing any of the reasons I gave? It does not address my claim of circular reasoning, regarding Aquinas's dismissal of infinite regression(temporal or some other made up term). What does this also have to do with the my claim, that his arguments do not prove that a God MUST exist(not PROBABLY), or that IT is the Christian God(Theism)? Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:21 am

One step at a time since you don't seem the grasp what Aquinas is ACTUALLY saying but are confusing it with what you THINK he is saying.
The first step is to understand that a contingent thing is dependent on something else to cause it to exist BUT also to continue existing, do you agree with that?

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:27 am

Byblos wrote:I go through both his arguments in painstaking detail, offering rebuttals step by step, showing him where he is wrong, formatting and properly quoting it for easy reference. And what do I get in return? This incoherent mess, both in substance and format. :shakehead: '

It is like a child who is taking a tantrum when told he must share his toy with other children. He keeps insisting it's not fair, it's not fair. But when the teacher points out that sharing is what fairness is all about, he sticks his fingers in his ears and cries out 'it's not fair, it's not fair'.

This person has no interest in a fair discussion, does not properly respond to posts, let alone bother to read them. I mean, how many times did I and others actually show him that Aquinas denies using temporal infinite regress in his arguments? And yet, Mr. "professor" keeps insisting that he does. 'It's no fair, it's no fair'.

And even after admitting that his PSR argument fails, he still does not have the intellectual honesty to admit its implication of an absolute necessity.

I have no reason to believe this person will ever engage in an honest discussion. I have accomplished what I set out to accomplish, i.e. prove the PSR, and answer his fallacious arguments against Aquinas.

Let his own words convict him, I will not waste another second of my time on him any more. I am done with this fraud.


trulyenlightened wrote: Only WHAT I say is what is important. I do not claim to be all-knowing, so spare me your demeaning and personal attacks. I don't claim that what I say is the absolute truth. I only claim that what I say is consistent with what I observe and understand. So far you have done absolutely nothing to change that understanding. Is your only motive here to discredit, demean, and dismiss anything that I say? Do you believe that others may need your protection? There is a word to describe people who think like that. I have never been stalked and harassed for presenting intellectual and logical consistencies before. It takes more than just arrogance, insecurity, and a fragile ego, to appoint oneself as the chosen one to show me the errors of my way. There are many words to describe this kind of mindset, and none would mean being "intellectually honest". I could very well be wrong about any philosophical semantical mumbo jumbo that comes out of my mouth. Could you? That is where we are different. Hence, the constant avoidance, referrals, blatant misrepresentations, and logical fallacies, seems only to shift the burden of proof and save face. Yours is an argument that is entirely predicated on the fact that no one can prove a negative. No one can ever disprove that an immovable mover, uncaused cause, unactualized actualizer, etc., exists. Anymore than they can prove that they do exist. But NOT being able to prove that something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that something in fact does exist by default. The burden of proof is on you.

Can't I simply stipulate that I mostly agree with the principles of PSR? I avoid metaphysical and philosophical arguments, because there are no clear correct or incorrect arguments. It seems to be just endless defining, redefining of definition as they apply to words. It is a self-serving exercise in semantics, that seem to give an unwarranted perception of unnecessary complexity and importance to an argument. It seems to be a self-serving mental indulgence to confirm any preconceptual presuppositional bias. Fortunately, I have no preconceptions of PSR. I am not saying that there is no such thing as contingent facts(truth). Or, that contingent facts can't be anything otherwise than what they are. I'm saying that necessary facts(truths) can't be used to prove contingent facts, because necessary facts can't be anything other than what they are. Not only could there be more than just one necessary fact describing a single cause, but to determine which necessary cause resulted in the event would be impossible. I also agree with causality as well. All things are caused by something else. Nothing can cause itself. To me it is irrelevant what label you want to affix to the types of causation or facts. I also agree that PSR is fundamental in its use in the scientific method. Regarding your syllogism, we are talking about deductive logic. Your conclusion should be deduced from your premises. If not your premises are wrong. Therefore,

If A, B, and C are true(obtained), then I am sitting.
A, B, and C ARE true(obtained)
Therefore, I am sitting

By stating that you are not sitting, you contradict your deduction. Since you didn't define what A, B, and C were, how did you concluded that you are not sitting? Therefore, your premises and conclusion is false. I think I know what you are trying to say, using suppositions and assumptions, but you are just saying it so badly. The physical laws that govern our Universe can't be ignored, or replaced with gap-filling self-serving subjective logic. All explanations of physical or contingent causes, must obey these natural laws. No causal object or thing in the physical Universe, can possess zero entropy, zero energy, zero motion, or zero momentum, no matter what argument you wish to present. Even if an object or cause like this did exist, it could not exist in this Universe, let alone effect anything in this Universe. PSR is merely a logical series of proofs to justify causality, and possibly that the Universe had a beginning. Again, I have no problems with that.

AQUINAS

Let me put this in my own words, to avoid your silly distractions, avoidance, and to focus on anything other than the points I raised. I have said repeatedly that I only wish to talk about science to those that are interested in science. Or, to try and understand how science supports, or is supported by any religious belief. I am not a theologian or a philosopher. I generally stick to the things that I consider practical and useful. How do you know that, "The new atheist movement has sparked a renewed interest in natural philosophy, natural theology and classical theism for a reason"? Was there an old Atheist movement that with no interest in Philosophy, Theism, or Theology? Why would an Atheist expect to find answers in Theism? Any philosophy that can explain everything, explains nothing. It may be true that many atheist are concerned by the rationale of having Christian belief, becoming a part of the science curriculum, in the early education of our finest minds. They might be concerned about a violation of the separation of church and state, guaranteed by the Constitution. Other than simply asserting that I am mistaken, are you suggesting that God is NOT exempt from the premises asserted in the argument? Why is this NOT an argument from ignorance, and special pleading? Other than you simply asserting that it isn't? I'll ask again, "How do any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism"? Other than posting distractions, please answer the question?

I agree that by the definition of a God, there can be only ONE God. But there isn't is there? In fact there are 8-12,000 Gods who have been worshipped throughout recorded history. And, their worshipers felt the same way about their God(s), as you feel about your God. Do you know what was the best explanation I heard to account for this phenomenon? "They'll all find out that we are right and they are wrong, once they die". Maybe you can do better? "The unmoved mover, uncaused cause, non-contingent absolute necessity, unactualized actualizer is, by definition, absolutely unique whose essence IS his existence are identical and who is susbtistent existence itself that fails to not have existed nor to not exist". And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, you surprise me. You make up the assumption, that if two Gods exist, "then there must be some distinguishing feature that one has and the other lacks". How on earth could you know this, and aren't you ignoring the definition of a God. If a God is ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL, how could there exist a second God that is also ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL? Remember your God is a jealous God, considering what he did to the Egyptian Gods. That makes as much sense as your assertion that weaker Gods have distinguishing attributes. If your made-up, "doctrine of divine simplicity", is exampled by "God did it all", then I agree that it is the ultimate in simplicity. Unfortunately, there is no where else to go from there, in regards to complexity. Since you claim that I am WRONG, please tell me how the argument distinguishes between, Zeus, Allah, Athena, Baku, or the Christian God? Since you can't, how am I wrong? Never mind, this will also be avoided as irrelevant.

You are correct I am not here to talk about religion and beliefs. Reason and logic are irrelevant, and not required in all matters of faith. Let me ask, did Aquinas state that there can't be an infinite regression of causality? Yes or No? Secondly, how does he, or you for that matter, know for certain that this is true? Why can't there exist a cause for all events regressing back towards infinity? Please no more "if you don't understand, I can't help you". Or, "Just another straw man argument". Since you're not pointing out the specific straw man, you are nothing more than a broken record of empty assertions. If we consider the infinite number of events necessary for you to lift and drop a pen, why not an infinite number of events for the birth of the Universe, and the Origin of Life? Never mind, I don't expect an answer.

Since you stated at the beginning that you would be addressing only what you consider as being relevant, the cherry-picking has begun. You explain nothing, you simply bark, bluff and blunder, and then try to bully your assertions down my throat. How does any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism? They don't, without the assistance of a few subjective additions and conditions. Why does any unmoved mover, or uncaused causer have to be YOUR specific God? They don't, regardless of the imaginary and impossible attributes you label as being indicative of only your God? Why is any God exempt from the natural laws in Nature(special pleading)? How do you know this, and what evidence backs this up? "The actual argument, not this silly straw man version, actually terminates with an UNMOVED mover, UNCAUSED cause, UNACTUALIZED actualizer. In other words, it is the necessary conclusion of the argument, not some arbitrary assertion". What is amazing, is that you can't see how flawed your own logic is. Necessary for whom? Maybe only for those that disagree with you?

Anyone can make up anything they like. It may intuitively make perfect sense, and may even be logically sound. But this doesn't mean that it is true. All that I am saying, is that if you want to believe that this self-serving logic is sound and supports your belief, then that is none of my business. But from a scientific perspective it is unfalsifiable, fallacious, and unsound, no matter how many times you tell me that I just don't understand it. Don



Not the most graceful of swan songs, but thank you anyway. I'm afraid you are truly a truth unto yourself(I heard that somewhere), if you think for a moment that you have in any way, brought a rational, logical, coherent, or even an intuitive argument to the table, then you are also delusional. You have painstakingly explained nothing, except just how deep the rabbit hole goes. What you have done is try to defended the indefensible, rationalize the irrational, avoid the unavoidable, falsify the unfalsifiable, and ignore the blatantly obvious. All in a desperate attempt to save face, and draw attention away from the fact that your arguments are not grounded in science at all. Since I am right in my concerns, all you CAN do is insult and demean, chuck hissy fits, huff n' puff, and bluff and blunder, just to prevent exposing just how little you do know about the subject.

But in case I have misjudged you, let me ask the same questions you avoided in your painstaking, step-by-step, response to my questions. Let's see what happens this time? Will you avoid them again with insults, misdirections, excuses, answering questions with questions, straw man, referral, or simply state that I just don't understand again? If my students fail to understand what I teach, then it is MY fault, not theirs. But I guess that only applies within an academic environment. Right? Anyway, let's find out how far you will go to avoid being exposed.

1. From your syllogism, how did you deduce from your premises(propositions) that you are NOT sitting?

2. Where does Aquinas state that an unmoved mover",an "uncaused cause", an "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a
pinnacle of perfection, is the Christian God, and not the Aboriginal God Bamapana(trickster) , or the Japanese God
Fukurokuju(wealth and happiness)?

3. Aquinas claims that if all things have a cause, then there must have been an uncaused cause. If there was no uncaused
cause, then nothing could be caused. How is this not circular reasoning?

4. Why can't infinite regression of causes exist, since it exist for everything else?

5. Why is God exempt from the basic premises of Aquinas's argument?

6. Why can't necessary facts explain contingent facts?

7. What is the difference between temporal infinite regression, and infinite regression?

So make me understand where my logic is flawed, minus the avoidance and insults. Just the facts jack! Here is your chance to demonstrate why my argument is a failure, and explain what you mean by, "its implication of an absolute necessity". Does this mean that God is only IMPLIED as an absolute necessity in his argument? Or are you just changing the goal post again? The only thing that I agree with, is that I wouldn't want you to waste your time anymore either.

Anyway, if I don't hear from you again, "Merry Christmas", and all the best mate. Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:39 pm

I think that I get the issue here.
The issue is that Aquinas is calling this thing that is pure actuality and the sustainer of all "God".
Of course he call call it "Bill".
Aquinas says.." and this WE call God".
He says this because he is making a defense of the Christian faith of course and this is the FIRST part of understanding our faith. That there is a God and God has these attributes.
God is the name/title/term given to that which is:
All powerful
All knowing
Eternal ( Has always existed)
Ever present and so forth.

That which has these attributes we call God, much like that which is a rational mammal with all the attributes of humanity is called "human".


The other issue is, of course this one that has been stated a MILLION times:
Aquinas claims that if all things have a cause, then there must have been an uncaused cause. If there was no uncaused
cause, then nothing could be caused. How is this not circular reasoning?

Aquinas does NOT and NEVER has claimed that ALL things have a cause !
That alone has been repeated ad nausem and the simple fact that YOU keep saying that means that you are either ignoring that or don't understand it, no matter how many times it has been said.
I think you are simply intellectually dishonest.

For the last time, ever:
Aquinas does NOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause.
He says that things that are caused by something else, have a cause and that cause can NOT be themselves.
Period.

Enough already with this thread.
It is quite clear and obvious that Mr. "trulyenlightend" is not only nothing of the sort BUT is here to simply be argumentative.
Enough.

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5730
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby Byblos » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:29 pm

trulyenlightened wrote:let's find out how far you will go to avoid being exposed.


:pound:

trulyenlightened wrote:1. From your syllogism, how did you deduce from your premises(propositions) that you are NOT sitting?


byblos wrote:(1) If A, B, and C obtain, then I cannot fail to be sitting
(2) A, B, and C obtain,
(3) Therefore, I am sitting
(4) But I am not sitting
But then (1) is contradicted


You missed the whole point (did you even read the rest?) (4) is not a conclusion to the syllogism, (3) is. (4) is to illustrate that, on your formulation of the PSR, what you call a necessary fact can be contradicted and still remain a necessary fact for it is only necessary by supposition. The whole point of (4) is to prove that even on your version of the PSR that everything is necessary and there are no contingent facts, they are necessary by supposition only, which still explains nothing unless grounded in an absolute necessity.

I further clarified that contingents facts, like abstract objects, ideas, propositions, and so forth, do not stand in causal relations to anything and, therefore do not stand in need of an explanation.

In other words, what I have repeatedly shown and you keep denying that I have shown is:

1) Your argument fails on your version of the PSR because if all things are necessary, they are so by supposition only and are still in need of an explanation in the form of an absolute necessity

and

2) On my version of the PSR, your argument in relation to necessary truths and contingent facts, fails because contingent facts require no explanations.

In other words, your arguments fail every step of the way.



trulyenlightened wrote: 2. Where does Aquinas state that an unmoved mover",an "uncaused cause", an "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a
pinnacle of perfection, is the Christian God, and not the Aboriginal God Bamapana(trickster) , or the Japanese God
Fukurokuju(wealth and happiness)?


Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God are metaphysical in nature and, therefore, universal. Aquinas never set out to prove the existence of the Biblical God. It just so happens that the God deduced from his arguments and from reason alone perfectly aligns with the Biblical God.

If the aboriginal God or the Japanese God or the Muslim God is described as timeless, incorporial, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, who is subsistent existence itself and whose essence is identical with his existence, then he would be the same God as proven by Aquinas. But if there are people and cultures who worship a lesser god then they are idolaters and history is full of those.

trulyenlightened wrote: 3. Aquinas claims that if all things have a cause, then there must have been an uncaused cause. If there was no uncaused
cause, then nothing could be caused. How is this not circular reasoning?


Straw man. Aquinas neither claimed all things have a cause nor did he claim an infinite series of temporal causes is impossible. Aquinas uses essentially ordered causal series, in the here and now. His arguments have absolutely nothing to do with time, evolution, the origin of the universe, the multi-verse, or the mother quantum field.

I have repeated this at least half a dozen times but you keep insisting Aquinas is arguing against a temporal infinite regress.

trulyenlightened wrote: 4. Why can't infinite regression of causes exist, since it exist for everything else?


It can. And Aquinas acknowledged it, so much so that he made it a point to instruct his student to NEVER use it lest they are laughed at if it were proven.

I have repeated this at least half a dozen times but you keep insisting Aquinas is arguing against a temporal infinite regress.

trulyenlightened wrote: 5. Why is God exempt from the basic premises of Aquinas's argument?


The uncaused cause or unactualized actualizer is the conclusion to a set of premises, not an arbitrary claim. To state that an uncaused cause is caused is tantamount to stating something is NOT what it is (familar?). It is a violation of the law of contradiction and, therefore, nonsensical.

trulyenlightened wrote: 6. Why can't necessary facts explain contingent facts?


Because contingent facts, like abstract ideas, do not stand in causal relations to anything. I've repeated this a number of times.

trulyenlightened wrote: 7. What is the difference between temporal infinite regression, and infinite regression?


Nothing, the way you stated them. But that has nothing to do with Aquinas' arguments and it is proof positive that you've read not a single word I typed. Go back and re-read all my posts then come back with questions. I'll be more than happy to reconsider my stance and explain it to you.

trulyenlightened wrote: So make me understand where my logic is flawed, minus the avoidance and insults. Just the facts jack! Here is your chance to demonstrate why my argument is a failure, and explain what you mean by, "its implication of an absolute necessity". Does this mean that God is only IMPLIED as an absolute necessity in his argument? Or are you just changing the goal post again? The only thing that I agree with, is that I wouldn't want you to waste your time anymore either.


Done.

trulyenlightened wrote: Anyway, if I don't hear from you again, "Merry Christmas", and all the best mate. Don


You too. May the Good Lord bring you and your family joy and good graces. (I sincerely mean that).
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:40 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:I think that I get the issue here.
The issue is that Aquinas is calling this thing that is pure actuality and the sustainer of all "God".
Of course he call call it "Bill".
Aquinas says.." and this WE call God".
He says this because he is making a defense of the Christian faith of course and this is the FIRST part of understanding our faith. That there is a God and God has these attributes.
God is the name/title/term given to that which is:
All powerful
All knowing
Eternal ( Has always existed)
Ever present and so forth.

That which has these attributes we call God, much like that which is a rational mammal with all the attributes of humanity is called "human".


The other issue is, of course this one that has been stated a MILLION times:
Aquinas claims that if all things have a cause, then there must have been an uncaused cause. If there was no uncaused
cause, then nothing could be caused. How is this not circular reasoning?

Aquinas does NOT and NEVER has claimed that ALL things have a cause !
That alone has been repeated ad nausem and the simple fact that YOU keep saying that means that you are either ignoring that or don't understand it, no matter how many times it has been said.
I think you are simply intellectually dishonest.

For the last time, ever:
Aquinas does NOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause.
He says that things that are caused by something else, have a cause and that cause can NOT be themselves.
Period.

Enough already with this thread.
It is quite clear and obvious that Mr. "trulyenlightend" is not only nothing of the sort BUT is here to simply be argumentative.
Enough.


So what Aquinas equates as an immovable mover, or an uncaused cause, is only arbitrarily labeled as "God". It is only a, "name/title/term given to that which is: All powerful All knowing Eternal(Has always existed) Ever present and so forth". I get it! But why a theistic or personal God? Why not a single particle, or a single event in time? Or, why not resulting from an infinite number of a random natural possibilities? Or more simply, "I just don't know"? Your "rational mammal" equivocation analogy is silly, since there are many "human" attributes that we share with other mammals. Yet we do not call these "rational mammals" human, do we? Attributing these superlatives to a God, is the cultural and evolutionary extension of our evolved language, and allows us to cope with and understand the permanency of death. It is only our human condition that allows us to give human attribute to any Deity. This gives the Deity a more human-like and personable quality. It also provides us with comfort and emotional stability, knowing that something exists out there that is far greater than the sum total of the collective attributes of all of humanity. I'm not saying that this is impossible, I'm just saying that there's no objective evidence that supports this cultural behavior. But this behavior is consistent with, and found in all cultures in the world. Just coincidence maybe?

"Aquinas does NOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause.He says that things that are caused by something else, have a cause and that cause can NOT be themselves. Period". Since we know that there is nothing(no thing) that can cause itself, then it must be caused by something else. This is a simple logical deduction, and an obvious tautology. Can you think of something that does not have a cause(s)? Or, maybe even something that can cause itself? I didn't think so! Therefore, Aquinas IS saying that EVERYTHING does have a cause. Now who is being intellectually dishonest, trying to misrepresent what Aquinas was saying?

If you are going to address my questions, I expect you to be honest, polite, and sincere. If not, there are many other threads that you can pass off your ostentatious style of pseudo-sophistry, as your own brand of self-serving truths. You will not get that kind leniency on my thread. If you want a honesty and logical discourse, then you are always welcome. If you only want to hear the words, "yes, you are right", then please, there are many other suitable threads for you to choose from. What is also very clear and obvious, is that the last thing you are here for is honesty and truth. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:33 am

Byblos wrote:
trulyenlightened wrote:let's find out how far you will go to avoid being exposed.


:pound:

trulyenlightened wrote:1. From your syllogism, how did you deduce from your premises(propositions) that you are NOT sitting?


byblos wrote:(1) If A, B, and C obtain, then I cannot fail to be sitting
(2) A, B, and C obtain,
(3) Therefore, I am sitting
(4) But I am not sitting
But then (1) is contradicted


You missed the whole point (did you even read the rest?) (4) is not a conclusion to the syllogism, (3) is. (4) is to illustrate that, on your formulation of the PSR, what you call a necessary fact can be contradicted and still remain a necessary fact for it is only necessary by supposition. The whole point of (4) is to prove that even on your version of the PSR that everything is necessary and there are no contingent facts, they are necessary by supposition only, which still explains nothing unless grounded in an absolute necessity.

I further clarified that contingents facts, like abstract objects, ideas, propositions, and so forth, do not stand in causal relations to anything and, therefore do not stand in need of an explanation.

In other words, what I have repeatedly shown and you keep denying that I have shown is:

1) Your argument fails on your version of the PSR because if all things are necessary, they are so by supposition only and are still in need of an explanation in the form of an absolute necessity

and

2) On my version of the PSR, your argument in relation to necessary truths and contingent facts, fails because contingent facts require no explanations.

In other words, your arguments fail every step of the way.



trulyenlightened wrote: 2. Where does Aquinas state that an unmoved mover",an "uncaused cause", an "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a
pinnacle of perfection, is the Christian God, and not the Aboriginal God Bamapana(trickster) , or the Japanese God
Fukurokuju(wealth and happiness)?


Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God are metaphysical in nature and, therefore, universal. Aquinas never set out to prove the existence of the Biblical God. It just so happens that the God deduced from his arguments and from reason alone perfectly aligns with the Biblical God.

If the aboriginal God or the Japanese God or the Muslim God is described as timeless, incorporial, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, who is subsistent existence itself and whose essence is identical with his existence, then he would be the same God as proven by Aquinas. But if there are people and cultures who worship a lesser god then they are idolaters and history is full of those.

trulyenlightened wrote: 3. Aquinas claims that if all things have a cause, then there must have been an uncaused cause. If there was no uncaused
cause, then nothing could be caused. How is this not circular reasoning?


Straw man. Aquinas neither claimed all things have a cause nor did he claim an infinite series of temporal causes is impossible. Aquinas uses essentially ordered causal series, in the here and now. His arguments have absolutely nothing to do with time, evolution, the origin of the universe, the multi-verse, or the mother quantum field.

I have repeated this at least half a dozen times but you keep insisting Aquinas is arguing against a temporal infinite regress.

trulyenlightened wrote: 4. Why can't infinite regression of causes exist, since it exist for everything else?


It can. And Aquinas acknowledged it, so much so that he made it a point to instruct his student to NEVER use it lest they are laughed at if it were proven.

I have repeated this at least half a dozen times but you keep insisting Aquinas is arguing against a temporal infinite regress.

trulyenlightened wrote: 5. Why is God exempt from the basic premises of Aquinas's argument?


The uncaused cause or unactualized actualizer is the conclusion to a set of premises, not an arbitrary claim. To state that an uncaused cause is caused is tantamount to stating something is NOT what it is (familar?). It is a violation of the law of contradiction and, therefore, nonsensical.

trulyenlightened wrote: 6. Why can't necessary facts explain contingent facts?


Because contingent facts, like abstract ideas, do not stand in causal relations to anything. I've repeated this a number of times.

trulyenlightened wrote: 7. What is the difference between temporal infinite regression, and infinite regression?


Nothing, the way you stated them. But that has nothing to do with Aquinas' arguments and it is proof positive that you've read not a single word I typed. Go back and re-read all my posts then come back with questions. I'll be more than happy to reconsider my stance and explain it to you.

trulyenlightened wrote: So make me understand where my logic is flawed, minus the avoidance and insults. Just the facts jack! Here is your chance to demonstrate why my argument is a failure, and explain what you mean by, "its implication of an absolute necessity". Does this mean that God is only IMPLIED as an absolute necessity in his argument? Or are you just changing the goal post again? The only thing that I agree with, is that I wouldn't want you to waste your time anymore either.


Done.

trulyenlightened wrote: Anyway, if I don't hear from you again, "Merry Christmas", and all the best mate. Don


You too. May the Good Lord bring you and your family joy and good graces. (I sincerely mean that).


Since you failed to explain what A, B, and C was, it's hard to suppose correctly what they might be. This might have been done deliberately, or from design. Either way once you claim that A, B, and C are true(obtained), then the only conclusion to follow is that someone IS sitting. Since you did not explain whether or not your variable were contingent or necessary facts, or what the variables stand for. I can't make an accurate assessment, without knowing if you know the difference. So you are free to deduce anything you want. But if this is a true syllogism, the only deduction would be that someone is sitting. My statement was that necessary facts(logic, math, anything that does not require our presence to exist, things that are by definition exists, etc.), cannot be used to explain contingent things. Is this an example of a false syllogism, or is it consistent with a tautology? Someone "not sitting" is certainly not necessary by supposition, it is simply non-sequitur, contradictory, and inconsistent. All fallacious. I never stated that, "because if all things are necessary, they are so by supposition only and are still in need of an explanation in the form of an absolute necessity" Why must you make up crap, and keep straw manning me? I have agreed that necessary and contingent thing both exists. I have even explained their differences to you. So are you saying that it is because of your straw man, that my argument fails at every step? With that I agree.

Now you are claiming that, "Aquinas's argument for the existence of God are metaphysical in nature and, therefore, universal. Aquinas never set out to prove the existence of the Biblical God". After reading this I almost thought we were in agreement. But then you stated that, "the God deduced from his arguments and from reason alone perfectly aligns with the Biblical God. We are back where we started from. How does an unmoved mover, and an uncaused causer, by reason alone perfectly aligns with the Christian Biblical God? No direct connection was stated, only your unsupported assertion. Then you claim that any God with the same superlatives as your God, is in fact the same God. You also claim that this is proven by Aquinas's argument. You then make the claim that there exist "lesser Gods", and those that worship lesser gods, "are idolaters and history is full of those". Is there any facts to suggest that it is YOU that is the idolater, and they are the true believers? In other words how does his argument prove that you are right and they are wrong? Can you see the "slippery slope" that you are going down?

Let me see if I understand your argument against circular reasoning in Aquinas's argument NOT to use an infinite regression of causes. You stated that, "Aquinas uses essentially ordered causal series, in the here and now. I have no idea what this equivocation nonsense means. Let me try again. Aquinas claims that we would not exist unless there was a cause, therefore there must have been a cause. Without a cause we would not exist. I can't be much clearer than this, without the use of illustrations. So please address my circular reasoning concerns. I then asked, "why can't an infinite regress exist"? And you replied, "It can. And Aquinas acknowledged it, so much so that he made it a point to instruct his student to NEVER use it lest they are laughed at if it were proven". Is this what you would expect from someone who is being intellectually honest? I'm not interested if Aquinas is arguing against infinite regress or temporal infinite regress, which you state are both the same thing. So, stop straw manning me.

My question was why is God exempt from having a cause? Your self-serving response was, "an uncaused cause is caused is tantamount to stating something is NOT what it is". Another unsupported assertion, that accepts the fact that what is, is just what it is. More distracting circular reasoning. So without evidence you simply play the semantics game of distraction. Rationalizing God as not having a cause because it would be contradictory and nonsensical, is a very poor attempt to avoid the special pleading fallacy. What special quality of a God, would exclusively exclude Him from obeying the laws of nature? And, how can that exclusion be demonstrated?

Some contingent facts can be abstract ideas, and others are not. Some contingent facts have nothing to do with the cause, but then they wouldn't be contingent in the first place. I don't see any relevance in your statement. It is obvious that you are not interested in my concerns, or maybe find it difficult to address them. So it might be best that you maintain the perception of knowledge, rather than strive to acquire actual knowledge. Don

trulyenlightened
Established Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:21 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Location: Qld. Australia

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby trulyenlightened » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:37 am

PaulSacramento wrote:One step at a time since you don't seem the grasp what Aquinas is ACTUALLY saying but are confusing it with what you THINK he is saying.
The first step is to understand that a contingent thing is dependent on something else to cause it to exist BUT also to continue existing, do you agree with that?


NO! Don

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:38 am

trulyenlightened wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:One step at a time since you don't seem the grasp what Aquinas is ACTUALLY saying but are confusing it with what you THINK he is saying.
The first step is to understand that a contingent thing is dependent on something else to cause it to exist BUT also to continue existing, do you agree with that?


NO! Don


Please demonstrate even ONE thing that co,mes into being that is it's own cause of existence.
Not a thing theorized but one that actually exists.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 8151
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

Postby PaulSacramento » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:41 am

"Aquinas does NOT say that EVERYTHING has a cause.He says that things that are caused by something else, have a cause and that cause can NOT be themselves. Period". Since we know that there is nothing(no thing) that can cause itself, then it must be caused by something else. This is a simple logical deduction, and an obvious tautology. Can you think of something that does not have a cause(s)? Or, maybe even something that can cause itself? I didn't think so! Therefore, Aquinas IS saying that EVERYTHING does have a cause. Now who is being intellectually dishonest, trying to misrepresent what Aquinas was saying?


Wow, so because you don't have an argument to counter what Aquinas ACTUALLY says you decide that he says something else ??

Dude, that is seriously messed up and demonstrates your lack of integrity.

I am done with you and this thread.


Return to “God and Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest