General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 7231 times

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« on: November 16, 2016, 04:07:57 pm »
Quote from: Atheist
Quote from: Bertuzzi
This is Craig's latest version:

(1) If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The beginning of the universe has a cause.

Well, if that's the chosen form of the argument you'd like me to debunk, so be it.

The short version:

A. In order for premise 2 to be remotely sound, premise 1 would be unsound.
B. In order for premise 1 to be remotely sound, premise 2 would be unsound.
C. In order for both premises to be remotely sound, an equivocation is committed.


The longer version:

Concerning A.:

Based on current human understanding, the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point.  In order for premise 2 to be somewhat sound (read as probably more likely true than false), it would have to read "(2) The universe had a prime temporal point."  In order for the syllogism to be valid, it would have to be reworded as follows:

(1) If the universe had a prime temporal point, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.

Unfortunately, upon doing this, (1) becomes pure speculation and is less likely to be true than its previous form of "If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause." which is itself very controversial.  A syllogism with a premise that has not been established as true (as opposed to just more likely true than false) cannot be said to yield a true conclusion.

Concerning B.:

Premise 1 is basically a version of the PSR.  It's pretty uncontroversial to say that something which changed from a state of not existing to a state of existing, had a cause for that change.  Other meanings are far more controversial, but that one is pretty obvious and what is meant by (1) in the argument.  That meaning makes the first premise pretty uncontroversial, so we can rewrite premise 1 as the following:

(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.

In order to have a valid syllogism with that premise, the argument would have to be rewritten as follows:

(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.

Unfortunately, upon doing this, (2) becomes pure speculation and beyond the current abilities of humans to figure out.  Humans are still incapable of piercing the Planck time to figure out if (2) is even a coherent statement.  Humans are completely incapable of demonstrating that (2) is true or false.  For it to be sound, it must be demonstrably true.  It doesn't meet that criteria, and therefore unsound.

Concerning C.:

From B. above, we have a relatively uncontroversial version of (1), so I'll address that first.  Going from a state of not existing to a state of existing, is beginning to exist.  (1) can be rewritten as "(1) If the universe began to exist, then the universe's existence had a cause."  Under that meaning of "began to exist" (1) is easily accepted as being sound.

From A. above, we have a relatively uncontroversial version of (2), so I'll address that now.  Having a prime temporal point can referred to as beginning to exist.  (2) can be rewritten as "(2) The universe began to exist."  Under that meaning of "began to exist" (2) is easily accepted as being sound.

When we put the "new" versions of (1) and (2) together, we get the following syllogism:

(1) If the universe began to exist, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.

As you can see we're left with the original syllogism.  It even makes use of uncontroversial versions of both (1) and (2).  Unfortunately, it uses two different meanings of the phrase "began to exist".  This is the fallacy of equivocation.  If we rewrite the syllogism using the uncontroversial meanings, we're left with:

(1) If the universe sent from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the universe's existence had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The universe's existence had a cause.

With this version, using the uncontroversial versions of the two premises, you can clearly see that the syllogism is invalid.

When people agree to premise 1, they are agreeing that something going from a state of not existing to a state of existing had a cause.  When people (that are adequately informed) agree to premise 2, they are agreeing that the universe had a prime temporal point, not that it went from a state of not existing to a state of existing.  That's the equivocation that can allow two true premises to lead to a false conclusion.  The problem is sloppy language allowing for the equivocation.

*edited because I forgot to capitalize Planck.  Sorry Max


I tend to disagree that "the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point."

And if correct it is false  that the KCA is equivalent to the following rewording:

Quote
(1) If the universe had a prime temporal point, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.

What´s the argument for the conclusion that  "the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point." ?

A Ball, a baby both had a beginning  but they do not seem to prima facie have a prime (1st?) temporal
point

This appears to be a clear missrepresentation of the 1st premise of the Kalam "(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause." and thus B fails.

Can you show the equivalence between

(1a) If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause.

(1b) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.

Beyond just saying they are?

The antecedent of  (1b) is an incoherence while (1a) is perfectly understandable 


Additionally, even if your analysis rendering  of those premises was correct, you seem to be arguing that the prior justification or intuitiveness of the original premises is decreased, because, the analysis appears less intuitive or even justified, what´s the argument for this conclusion?




« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 04:15:56 pm by ontologicalme »

1

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2016, 05:42:29 pm »

I tend to disagree that "the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point."

And if correct it is false  that the KCA is equivalent to the following rewording:

Quote
(1) If the universe had a prime temporal point, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.

What´s the argument for the conclusion that  "the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point." ?

Humans are incapable of looking at anything "earlier" than the Planck time.  Everything humans are capable of justifying is from that point, or moment in time if you prefer, onward.  All of the cosmological evidence gathered from the universe by humans suggests that if we could pierce that Planck veil, that it lead to a singularity of spacetime.  That singularity would be the prime temporal (and spacial for that matter) point (or moment if you prefer). 

I suppose my wording was a bit sloppy.  You could say anything you want, but the only way that the universe having a beginning can be justified, is if that beginning is a prime temporal point.  (Or a first moment in time if you prefer that phrasing.)  Even that is stretching the bounds of human understanding, but I'm giving the argument the benefit of the doubt.  All of the evidence points to this initial moment in time, but we still can't prove it.  We're pretty darn sure, but sadly, our physics is still lacking.

If I were a really picky person, I could simply point out that humans are incapable of verifying premise 2 so it cannot be used.  As it turns out, I happen to think that premise 2 is likely to be true, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and am willing to discuss it.

Quote
A Ball, a baby both had a beginning  but they do not seem to prima facie have a prime (1st?) temporal [/size] point

Yea, babies and balls have a beginning under a different meaning of the word.  Enter Equivocation Stage Left.

If you're talking about that kind of beginning, then premise 1 is fine, but premise 2 is more likely false than true.  The universe almost certainly did not have a beginning in the way that babies and balls have a beginning.  Otherwise, we need to start making distinctions about what you mean by the word "universe" because it is being used in reference to a part of a greater whole, rather than the greater whole itself.

Quote
This appears to be a clear missrepresentation of the 1st premise of the Kalam "(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause." and thus B fails.

Can you show the equivalence between

(1a) If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause.

(1b) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.

Beyond just saying they are?

The antecedent of  (1b) is an incoherence while (1a) is perfectly understandable 

Sure I can.  When you talk about babies beginning to exist, you're talking about something that didn't exist, and then existed.  The second before conception (or whenever it is that you consider the baby to become a baby) the baby didn't exist, but the second after, it did exist.  That's a transition from a state of not existing (prior to conception) to a state of existing (after conception).

A ball is the same.  It starts out as just leather (football anyone?) and then once the last stitch is made it is a ball.  It goes from not being a ball, to being a ball.

Lightning is also the same.  There is no lightning between the tree and a cloud, and then the electrons do their thing and suddenly, the lightning exists.  It doesn't exist, and then it does exist.

A table is again, the same.  It's just pieces until that last piece is put on, and then it's a table.  It went from not being a table to being a table.

It's that transition that marks something beginning to exist, in every case that humans are capable of experiencing.   In that way, premise 1 makes sense.  "Every transition has a cause" is what premise 1 means.  Under that meaning, P1 is easy to accept.  Under other meanings, it becomes more and more controversial.

Because "began to exist" is the marker for a transition from not existing to existing, "If the universe began to exist" means "If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing".  They are identical in meaning and therefore equivalent.  When you start looking deeper into what "If the universe began to exist" means, you see that it isn't as perfectly understandable as you might think.

If you don't understand what it means for something to not exist (be in a state of not existing), and then exist (be in a state of existing), then you are ill equipped to have this conversation.  You do know what it means right?

Quote
Additionally, even if your analysis rendering  of those premises was correct, you seem to be arguing that the prior justification or intuitiveness of the original premises is decreased, because, the analysis appears less intuitive or even justified, what´s the argument for this conclusion?
[/size]

I'm not making that argument, nor am I asserting that conclusion.

You could have simply put this in the original thread.  Why start a new thread?
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

2

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2016, 06:23:20 pm »

I tend to disagree that "the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point."

And if correct it is false  that the KCA is equivalent to the following rewording:

Quote
(1) If the universe had a prime temporal point, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.
(2) The universe had a prime temporal point.
(3) The beginning of the universe had a cause.

What´s the argument for the conclusion that  "the only way in which the universe can be said to have "began to exist" is in that it likely had a prime temporal point." ?

Humans are incapable of looking at anything "earlier" than the Planck time.  Everything humans are capable of justifying is from that point, or moment in time if you prefer, onward.  All of the cosmological evidence gathered from the universe by humans suggests that if we could pierce that Planck veil, that it lead to a singularity of spacetime.  That singularity would be the prime temporal (and spacial for that matter) point (or moment if you prefer). 

I suppose my wording was a bit sloppy.  You could say anything you want, but the only way that the universe having a beginning can be justified, is if that beginning is a prime temporal point.  (Or a first moment in time if you prefer that phrasing.)  Even that is stretching the bounds of human understanding, but I'm giving the argument the benefit of the doubt.  All of the evidence points to this initial moment in time, but we still can't prove it.  We're pretty darn sure, but sadly, our physics is still lacking.

If I were a really picky person, I could simply point out that humans are incapable of verifying premise 2 so it cannot be used.  As it turns out, I happen to think that premise 2 is likely to be true, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt and am willing to discuss it.

Quote
A Ball, a baby both had a beginning  but they do not seem to prima facie have a prime (1st?) temporal [/size] point

Yea, babies and balls have a beginning under a different meaning of the word.  Enter Equivocation Stage Left.

If you're talking about that kind of beginning, then premise 1 is fine, but premise 2 is more likely false than true.  The universe almost certainly did not have a beginning in the way that babies and balls have a beginning.  Otherwise, we need to start making distinctions about what you mean by the word "universe" because it is being used in reference to a part of a greater whole, rather than the greater whole itself.

Quote
This appears to be a clear missrepresentation of the 1st premise of the Kalam "(1) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause." and thus B fails.

Can you show the equivalence between

(1a) If the universe began to exist, then its beginning has a cause.

(1b) If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing, then the beginning of the universe had a cause.

Beyond just saying they are?

The antecedent of  (1b) is an incoherence while (1a) is perfectly understandable 

Sure I can.  When you talk about babies beginning to exist, you're talking about something that didn't exist, and then existed.  The second before conception (or whenever it is that you consider the baby to become a baby) the baby didn't exist, but the second after, it did exist.  That's a transition from a state of not existing (prior to conception) to a state of existing (after conception).

A ball is the same.  It starts out as just leather (football anyone?) and then once the last stitch is made it is a ball.  It goes from not being a ball, to being a ball.

Lightning is also the same.  There is no lightning between the tree and a cloud, and then the electrons do their thing and suddenly, the lightning exists.  It doesn't exist, and then it does exist.

A table is again, the same.  It's just pieces until that last piece is put on, and then it's a table.  It went from not being a table to being a table.

It's that transition that marks something beginning to exist, in every case that humans are capable of experiencing.   In that way, premise 1 makes sense.  "Every transition has a cause" is what premise 1 means.  Under that meaning, P1 is easy to accept.  Under other meanings, it becomes more and more controversial.

Because "began to exist" is the marker for a transition from not existing to existing, "If the universe began to exist" means "If the universe went from a state of not existing to a state of existing".  They are identical in meaning and therefore equivalent.  When you start looking deeper into what "If the universe began to exist" means, you see that it isn't as perfectly understandable as you might think.

If you don't understand what it means for something to not exist (be in a state of not existing), and then exist (be in a state of existing), then you are ill equipped to have this conversation.  You do know what it means right?

Quote
Additionally, even if your analysis rendering  of those premises was correct, you seem to be arguing that the prior justification or intuitiveness of the original premises is decreased, because, the analysis appears less intuitive or even justified, what´s the argument for this conclusion?
[/size]

I'm not making that argument, nor am I asserting that conclusion.

You could have simply put this in the original thread.  Why start a new thread?

(Note: I am pressuming we are allowing for the A-theory of time to be true, for the sake of argument).

Ok, we agree that the evidence we have points to a beginning of the universe (we have premise 2)

Ok, If I get you correctly,  what you were really saying is that to say that the universe  "began to exist" is that it had a 1st moment in time (a moment does not have to be a point, but fine).

Providing an analysis of being to exist does not impugne on the epistemic status of a premise using the term.
You say that you are not arguing for that, so, your analysis of begin to exist does not pose a problem for the 1st premise (that retains its original intuitiveness and epistemic status).

It´s the 1st time that  I hear about different kinds of beginning to exist. What different ways are there of beginning to exist?

If I say x began to exist and y began to exist, aren´t we talking about x and y being part of the extension of the same "began to exist" predicate? there is no equivocation.

Providing an analysis of being to exist does not impugne on the epistemic status of a premise using the term.
You say that you are not arguing for that, so, your analysis of beging to exist does not pose a problem for the 1st premise.

So, that´s premise 1 and 2 , the objections fail.

Thanks for commenting.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2016, 06:47:28 pm by ontologicalme »

3

lucious

  • ***
  • 4655 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2016, 07:10:55 pm »
Ail is not free to merely reinsert his own rewordings or recapitulations of key terms.


You have to use the terms as Craig defines them, otherwise you are merely making a strawman.

4

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2016, 07:17:52 pm »
Ail is not free to merely reinsert his own rewordings or recapitulations of key terms.


You have to use the terms as Craig defines them, otherwise you are merely making a strawman.

Craig does not define "begins to exist".

He gives an analysis.

5

lucious

  • ***
  • 4655 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #5 on: November 16, 2016, 07:57:14 pm »
Ail is not free to merely reinsert his own rewordings or recapitulations of key terms.


You have to use the terms as Craig defines them, otherwise you are merely making a strawman.

Craig does not define "begins to exist".

He gives an analysis.

He kind of does both, at least in the Blackwell.

He first says "by begins to exist, I mean, comes into being"

And then, he gives the analysans.


This analysans has been subsituted by Ail for his own one--but his own analysans is problematic.

Ail unfortunately leaves his own too ambiguous. What does it mean to have a prime temporal point? This is a pitfall that Craig himself advises to avoid. By insisting on something like this, this may commit us to the reality of points which is an unnecessary and unlikely ontological commitment--I don't believe in the reality of points.

It's not how the locution 'begins to exist' is understood by Craig. Begins to exist doesn't necessitate a beginning point.

6

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #6 on: November 16, 2016, 08:11:50 pm »

(Note: I am pressuming we are allowing for the A-theory of time to be true, for the sake of argument).

Ok, we agree that the evidence we have points to a beginning of the universe (we have premise 2)

Slow your roll snowball.  We agree that the evidence we have points to a first moment in time.  That's one form of a beginning.  In that sense, and only in that sense, can we say that the universe has a beginning.  The evidence doesn't show that the universe had a beginning in the way that babies and balls and lightning have a beginning, which is how people commonly use the phrase.

Quote
Ok, If I get you correctly,  what you were really saying is that to say that the universe  "began to exist" is that it had a 1st moment in time (a moment does not have to be a point, but fine).

Yep.  I'm fine with calling it a first moment in time instead of a temporal point. 

Quote
Providing an analysis of being to exist does not impugne on the epistemic status of a premise using the term.
You say that you are not arguing for that, so, your analysis of begin to exist does not pose a problem for the 1st premise (that retains its original intuitiveness and epistemic status).

What it does is show that "begin to exist" doesn't have a single meaning.  Depending on the meaning of that phrase, that premise can be obviously true, or extremely controversial.  The universe having a first moment in time doesn't mean that it had a cause; it just means that it had a first moment.  The universe transitioning from one form to another (like how babies, balls, and lightning begin to exist) would obviously have a cause.

Quote
It´s the 1st time that  I hear about different kinds of beginning to exist. What different ways are there of beginning to exist?

At least two.  I can differentiate between those two, and you seem to be able to as well.  Perhaps there are more.  Can you think of any other ways in which that phrase can reasonably be used?

Quote
If I say x began to exist and y began to exist, aren´t we talking about x and y being part of the extension of the same "began to exist" predicate? there is no equivocation.

We might be talking about X and Y being associated with the same predicate.  We might not.  If you understand what an equivocation is, then you understand that simply using the same predicate doesn't mean that there is no equivocation.

Quote
Providing an analysis of being to exist does not impugne on the epistemic status of a premise using the term.
You say that you are not arguing for that, so, your analysis of beging to exist does not pose a problem for the 1st premise.

Yea, it does.  It shows that "begin to exist" in the first premise doesn't mean the same thing that it means in the second.  That's a problem.

Quote
So, that´s premise 1 and 2 , the objections fail.

Thanks for commenting.

No, they don't fail.  Try reading them again and understanding them better.  Pointing out an equivocation is fatal to the argument.  In order to rebut the objection, you would need to show that there is no equivocation being used.  I've taken that into consideration by showing that using the same meaning of "begins to exist" in both premises renders at least one of them false, or extremely controversial. 
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

7

lucious

  • ***
  • 4655 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #7 on: November 16, 2016, 08:50:40 pm »
Why do you keep insisting on there being an equivocation?


Craig uses the terms unequivocally in both premises.

Begins to exist is analysed as:

i)X begins at T, and there is no time prior to T at which X exists.

ii)t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any time t*<t at which x existed by an interval of non-zero duration.

iii)There is no state of affairs in the real world where X exists timelessly.

iv)X's existence at T is a tensed fact.


I think it is correct to say that "having a beginning" is conceptually and analytically different from "begins to exist". The argument though, is about begins to exist.




The key difference here, often unappreciated (I hashed this out with CT at length), is that one adopts a tenseless theory of time, the other a tensed. The fact the beginning of existence is a tensed fact, is why something comes into being, as opposed to being just past finite.

8

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #8 on: November 16, 2016, 09:04:52 pm »
A definition is an statement about the meaning of something.

A reductive analysis is an statement about the structure or elements of (that) something.

Fine, Craig says that he uses  "begin to exist" as synonim to " "come into being"

But his further analysis  ( x begins to exist or comes into being iff such and such ) is a reductive analysis and not a definition.

The meaning of something is not the same as the analysis of that something ( even though obviously related) argumnts are run , primarily, on the former, and the later needs to be shown  and accepted as a correct analysis, to even begin to play any part.


And still , it is an error not to understand that <<a reductive analysis, if adequate, should not necessarily preserve the same epistemic status  involved in the analysandum>>

And to  think that all metaphysically necessary, synthetic truths , grasped by one´s intuition should have the same self-evidence and obviousness.


« Last Edit: November 17, 2016, 02:45:01 am by ontologicalme »

9

lucious

  • ***
  • 4655 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #9 on: November 16, 2016, 09:09:19 pm »

A definition is an statement about the meaning of something.

A reductive analysis is an statement about the structure or elements of (that) something.

Fine, Craig says that he uses  "begin to exist" as synonim to " "come into being"

But his further analysis  ( x begins to exist or comes into being iff such and such ) is a reductive analysis and not a definition.

The meaning of something is not the same as the analysis of that something ( even though obviously related) argumnts are run , primarily, on the former, and the later needs to be shown  and accepted as a correct analysis, to even begin to play any part.


And still , it is an error to think that "a reductive analysis, if adequate, should preserve the same epistemic status  involved in the analysandum"

And to  think that all metaphysically necessary, synthetic truths , grasped by one´s intuition should have the same self-evidence and obviousness.


Don't see any disagreement here. I agree with what you're saying, and think Ails counter-argument is rather fruitless as he is not using the terms as Craig understands them--and Craig keeps his analysis consistent.


Crash Tests major gripe with the premise was the same one you identify here, and I responded similarly to him. He maintained that the analysis was inadequate because the everyman would not be able to give such a detailed account.

I maintained that a philosophical analysis in no way required the intuitive warrant of the original locution-in fact, such an analysis can be a complicated and controversial affair with perhaps no analysis that was universally agreed upon. For all we know, the premise could simply be an unanalysable conceptual primitive susceptible to no further breakdown. This doesn't affect the warrant of the original premise, though.

10

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2016, 09:09:49 pm »

(Note: I am pressuming we are allowing for the A-theory of time to be true, for the sake of argument).

Ok, we agree that the evidence we have points to a beginning of the universe (we have premise 2)

Slow your roll snowball.  We agree that the evidence we have points to a first moment in time.  That's one form of a beginning.  In that sense, and only in that sense, can we say that the universe has a beginning.  The evidence doesn't show that the universe had a beginning in the way that babies and balls and lightning have a beginning, which is how people commonly use the phrase.

Quote
Ok, If I get you correctly,  what you were really saying is that to say that the universe  "began to exist" is that it had a 1st moment in time (a moment does not have to be a point, but fine).

Yep.  I'm fine with calling it a first moment in time instead of a temporal point. 

Quote
Providing an analysis of being to exist does not impugne on the epistemic status of a premise using the term.
You say that you are not arguing for that, so, your analysis of begin to exist does not pose a problem for the 1st premise (that retains its original intuitiveness and epistemic status).

What it does is show that "begin to exist" doesn't have a single meaning.  Depending on the meaning of that phrase, that premise can be obviously true, or extremely controversial.  The universe having a first moment in time doesn't mean that it had a cause; it just means that it had a first moment.  The universe transitioning from one form to another (like how babies, balls, and lightning begin to exist) would obviously have a cause.

Quote
It´s the 1st time that  I hear about different kinds of beginning to exist. What different ways are there of beginning to exist?

At least two.  I can differentiate between those two, and you seem to be able to as well.  Perhaps there are more.  Can you think of any other ways in which that phrase can reasonably be used?

Quote
If I say x began to exist and y began to exist, aren´t we talking about x and y being part of the extension of the same "began to exist" predicate? there is no equivocation.

We might be talking about X and Y being associated with the same predicate.  We might not.  If you understand what an equivocation is, then you understand that simply using the same predicate doesn't mean that there is no equivocation.

Quote
Providing an analysis of being to exist does not impugne on the epistemic status of a premise using the term.
You say that you are not arguing for that, so, your analysis of beging to exist does not pose a problem for the 1st premise.

Yea, it does.  It shows that "begin to exist" in the first premise doesn't mean the same thing that it means in the second.  That's a problem.

Quote
So, that´s premise 1 and 2 , the objections fail.

Thanks for commenting.

No, they don't fail.  Try reading them again and understanding them better.  Pointing out an equivocation is fatal to the argument.  In order to rebut the objection, you would need to show that there is no equivocation being used.  I've taken that into consideration by showing that using the same meaning of "begins to exist" in both premises renders at least one of them false, or extremely controversial.

You are conflating meaning with reductive analysis.

Meaning is the connection (function, rule, etc...) between context and the proposition expressed in that context.

Analysis is a detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.

Logical arguments are based on the truth values of propositions (expressed), IOW, on the meaning of the statements.

Any good enough user of the language understands the meaning of "Begins to exist", with out any further analysis, and thus the trust of the argument.


It´s not that there are diverse meaning of beginning to exist, it is that you are trying to analyse the expression diefferent from Craig and purporting your analysis is its meaning, which is an equivocation. But, as explained, neither analysis is fundamental to the argument´s justification.

And thus the rest does not follow.

11

ParaclitosLogos

  • ***
  • 4902 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2016, 09:10:54 pm »

A definition is an statement about the meaning of something.

A reductive analysis is an statement about the structure or elements of (that) something.

Fine, Craig says that he uses  "begin to exist" as synonim to " "come into being"

But his further analysis  ( x begins to exist or comes into being iff such and such ) is a reductive analysis and not a definition.

The meaning of something is not the same as the analysis of that something ( even though obviously related) argumnts are run , primarily, on the former, and the later needs to be shown  and accepted as a correct analysis, to even begin to play any part.


And still , it is an error to think that "a reductive analysis, if adequate, should preserve the same epistemic status  involved in the analysandum"

And to  think that all metaphysically necessary, synthetic truths , grasped by one´s intuition should have the same self-evidence and obviousness.


Don't see any disagreement here. I agree with what you're saying, and think Ails counter-argument is rather fruitless as he is not using the terms as Craig understands them--and Craig keeps his analysis consistent.


Crash Tests major gripe with the premise was the same one you identify here, and I responded similarly to him. He maintained that the analysis was inadequate because the everyman would not be able to give such a detailed account.

I maintained that a philosophical analysis in no way required the intuitive warrant of the original locution-in fact, such an analysis can be a complicated and controversial affair with perhaps no analysis that was universally agreed upon. For all we know, the premise could simply be an unanalysable conceptual primitive susceptible to no further breakdown. This doesn't affect the warrant of the original premise, though.

That´s as close as I have seen anyone on RF come to agree, yes, I think we mostly agree.

12

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2016, 09:22:43 pm »
Why do you keep insisting on there being an equivocation?

Because there is one.

Quote
Craig uses the terms unequivocally in both premises.

Begins to exist is analysed as:

i)X begins at T, and there is no time prior to T at which X exists.

ii)t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any time t*<t at which x existed by an interval of non-zero duration.

iii)There is no state of affairs in the real world where X exists timelessly.

iv)X's existence at T is a tensed fact.

That's interesting.  "X begins at T and there is no time prior to T at which X exists."  What is that saying?  It's saying that something begins to exist, iff it exists at some time, but never existed prior to that time.  The phrase "there is no time prior to T at which X exists" is devoid of meaning when X is time.  It is incoherent to try and speak of time prior to time.  His definition of "begins to exist" is devoid of meaning when considering time as it is laid out in your post.

If that's the definition of "begins to exist" you'd like me to use, then that definition does not apply to the universe, rendering P2 false because the universe is incapable of beginning to exist by definition.

Bear in mind, that he doesn't define it in that way in his Objections So Dumb I Couldn't Think Of Them Myself video that you directed me to, where you claimed he addressed my objections.  FYI, he didn't address any of them.

Quote
I think it is correct to say that "having a beginning" is conceptually and analytically different from "begins to exist". The argument though, is about begins to exist.

Are you sure you want to make that claim?  If so, then modern science suggests that the universe had a beginning to its existence, but did not begin to exist.  That would make P2 false, again.

Quote
The key difference here, often unappreciated (I hashed this out with CT at length), is that one adopts a tenseless theory of time, the other a tensed. The fact the beginning of existence is a tensed fact, is why something comes into being, as opposed to being just past finite.

There is no evidence of any kind to show that the beginning of time (and therefore existence) is a tensed fact.  You're just making things up now.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

13

Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2016, 09:29:35 pm »
You are conflating meaning with reductive analysis.

Meaning is the connection (function, rule, etc...) between context and the proposition expressed in that context.

Analysis is a detailed examination of the elements or structure of something.

Logical arguments are based on the truth values of propositions (expressed), IOW, on the meaning of the statements.

Any good enough user of the language understands the meaning of "Begins to exist", with out any further analysis, and thus the trust of the argument.

You're assuming that there is only one meaning of that phrase.  That simply is not the case.

Quote
It´s not that there are diverse meaning of beginning to exist, it is that you are trying to analyse the expression diefferent from Craig and purporting your analysis is its meaning, which is an equivocation. But, as explained, neither analysis is fundamental to the argument´s justification.

And thus the rest does not follow.

Yes, there is in fact more than one meaning of that phrase, as I have demonstrated by performing the analysis.  I'm pointing out different meanings (functions, rules, connections, etc...) and using the analysis as a tool to do so.  I am not confusing a meaning with an analysis.
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11

14

lucious

  • ***
  • 4655 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: AiL and the KCA , let´s try again.
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2016, 09:31:39 pm »
So, what is your alternative, and superior, analysis?

In what way does the current analysis fail?