A Meta-analysis

[Prismatic]

prismatic,

I don't think you're getting a whole lot out of saying one claim is 'empirical' and the other is 'non-empirical'. Who says those kinds of conclusions don't mix.

What about
A. A color is a property determined by wavelengths.
B. There are wavelengths.
C. Therefore there are colors.

That first premise is a definitional - or metaphysical, if you like - claim. But it combines synthetically to imply a truth about the world.

It actually reminds me of the way some people argue for universals. They say 'This table is red' and 'This fire engine is red', Therefore there is a property known as 'red'. Of course, that's a nonempricial conclusion that follows from empirical premises. So I think the idea that conclusions and premises all need to be of one type just isn't true.

Btw, I said  'transcendental' and 'empirical' do not mix.
I did not say non-empirical.
A logical which is non-empirical can combine with the empirical.
But whatever is empirical has to be verified by empirical justifications.
What is purely logical will remain logical, i.e. a thought entity or thought-object.

WLC relate his transcendental cause to having theistic significance.
This can only meant it will be ultimately referred to God.
God is presupposed to be non-empirical, Perfect and Omni-whatever.
As such, from a meta-POV, the 'transcendental' as qualified above cannot mixed with the Scientific 'empirical'.

Now, if WLC were to qualify the 'transcendental' do not has any theistic significance and he assure us he will never relate this 'transcendental cause' to God at all for this argument, then I will not complain as above.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

prismatic,

I don't think you're getting a whole lot out of saying one claim is 'empirical' and the other is 'non-empirical'. Who says those kinds of conclusions don't mix.

What about
A. A color is a property determined by wavelengths.
B. There are wavelengths.
C. Therefore there are colors.

That first premise is a definitional - or metaphysical, if you like - claim. But it combines synthetically to imply a truth about the world.

It actually reminds me of the way some people argue for universals. They say 'This table is red' and 'This fire engine is red', Therefore there is a property known as 'red'. Of course, that's a nonempricial conclusion that follows from empirical premises. So I think the idea that conclusions and premises all need to be of one type just isn't true.

Btw, I said  'transcendental' and 'empirical' do not mix.
I did not say non-empirical.
A logical which is non-empirical can combine with the empirical.
But whatever is empirical has to be verified by empirical justifications.
What is purely logical will remain logical, i.e. a thought entity or thought-object.

WLC relate his transcendental cause to having theistic significance.
This can only meant it will be ultimately referred to God.
God is presupposed to be non-empirical, Perfect and Omni-whatever.
As such, from a meta-POV, the 'transcendental' as qualified above cannot mixed with the Scientific 'empirical'.

Now, if WLC were to qualify the 'transcendental' do not has any theistic significance and he assure us he will never relate this 'transcendental cause' to God at all for this argument, then I will not complain as above.

Now I see. You just refuse to accept God by any means? As I have said before: Your objection doesn't work because the cause does not have to have theistic significance until later when one uses other arguments. If you are complaining that our evidence does not give us a basis for believing the God of the Bible exists, you're right, but the argument does not aspire to do such things.

[Prismatic]

Now I see. You just refuse to accept God by any means? As I have said before: Your objection doesn't work because the cause does not have to have theistic significance until later when one uses other arguments. If you are complaining that our evidence does not give us a basis for believing the God of the Bible exists, you're right, but the argument does not aspire to do such things.

It was WLC who stated and associated this argument to other philosophical conclusions that has theistic significance.
This theistic direction is implied when Carroll compared the difference between theism and Science in the later part of his first response.

Note this OP is a meta-analysis.
It is obvious from the whole context that the debate aspired to link to the existence of God.
This why I infer the 'transcendental cause' (non-empirical) in P1 has to be associated with theistic.
The term 'transcendental' is very significant in this case, one just cannot gloss it over.
This will 'cut the chase.'

Otherwise as it really has happened, the debate ended with WLC and Carroll talking pass each other because the terms in the premises of WLC's argument were used vaguely and ambiguously.

I object as I know with a high confidence level, God is illusory and any attempt to justify God as real by using empirical evidence directly by inference or via analogy  is a lost cause.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

Now I see. You just refuse to accept God by any means? As I have said before: Your objection doesn't work because the cause does not have to have theistic significance until later when one uses other arguments. If you are complaining that our evidence does not give us a basis for believing the God of the Bible exists, you're right, but the argument does not aspire to do such things.

It was WLC who stated and associated this argument to other philosophical conclusions that has theistic significance.
This theistic direction is implied when Carroll compared the difference between theism and Science in the later part of his first response.

Note this OP is a meta-analysis.
It is obvious from the whole context that the debate aspired to link to the existence of God.
This why I infer the 'transcendental cause' (non-empirical) in P1 has to be associated with theistic.
The term 'transcendental' is very significant in this case, one just cannot gloss it over.
This will 'cut the chase.'

Otherwise as it really has happened, the debate ended with WLC and Carroll talking pass each other because the terms in the premises of WLC's argument were used vaguely and ambiguously.

I object as I know with a high confidence level, God is illusory and any attempt to justify God as real by using empirical evidence directly by inference or via analogy  is a lost cause.

Whatever WLC does is trivial to the validity of the argument. Now that I'm about to catch you in your bais and disingenuity, don't reneg from your argument in your next post.

You are saying that since Dr. Craig uses the argument in support of God, then therefore the argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. That's nonsensical. The KCA is a   part of a cumulative case for God; it does not evoke God on its own. The premises of the KCA only serve to show that there is something beyond the martial world. After we know that, then we can use other arguments to figure out what that being is like. You said yourself that "an argument can contain the non empirical with the empirical," therefore you should have no quarrel with the KCA.

Regarding your last portion, when I joined this forum I expected to get away from unsophisticated morons prowling on the Internet seeking those whom they may troll, and join a friendly community. You have called my beliefs illusory twice. A third time would cause me to think you were merely asserting your subjective analysis rather than participating in a rational discussion, and merit me in using some unfriendly rhetoric.

God bless

[Prismatic]

Regarding your last portion, when I joined this forum I expected to get away from unsophisticated morons prowling on the Internet seeking those whom they may troll, and join a friendly community. You have called my beliefs illusory twice. A third time would cause me to think you were merely asserting your subjective analysis rather than participating in a rational discussion, and merit me in using some unfriendly rhetoric.
God bless

Resorting to indirect insults and threats of "unfriendly rhetoric" expose your inherent existential dilemma is festering and about to erupt, with potential to destroy rational discussion. I am not surprise and I would expect SOME theists to resort to such behaviors.

My hypothesis is, a belief in God is grounded on an illusion with a subliminal psychological basis.
It is very complex to give a full justification in a forum like this.

I had presented (elsewhere in this forum) the following syllogism as a framework.

All three transcendental ideas are illusions
God is a transcendental idea
God is an illusion.

My arguments and justifications of the above main premises are sourced from Kant and elsewhere.

Here is a clue.
In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR), the critical third part is 'targeted' at God as an illusion when taken in the theistic sense.
As extraction of of that section (Smith's translation)

I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS
SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC
SECOND DIVISION: TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC
[A293]
INTRODUCTION   
I. TRANSCENDENTAL ILLUSION

WE have already entitled Dialectic-in-General a Logic of Illusion.

Since you have thrown in indirect insults and threats, I am stopping this discussion with you to prevent it from going ablaze.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

Regarding your last portion, when I joined this forum I expected to get away from unsophisticated morons prowling on the Internet seeking those whom they may troll, and join a friendly community. You have called my beliefs illusory twice. A third time would cause me to think you were merely asserting your subjective analysis rather than participating in a rational discussion, and merit me in using some unfriendly rhetoric.
God bless

Resorting to indirect insults and threats of "unfriendly rhetoric" expose your inherent existential dilemma is festering and about to erupt, with potential to destroy rational discussion. I am not surprise and I would expect SOME theists to resort to such behaviors.

My hypothesis is, a belief in God is grounded on an illusion with a subliminal psychological basis.
It is very complex to give a full justification in a forum like this.

I had presented (elsewhere in this forum) the following syllogism as a framework.

All three transcendental ideas are illusions
God is a transcendental idea
God is an illusion.

My arguments and justifications of the above main premises are sourced from Kant and elsewhere.

Here is a clue.
In Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (CPR), the critical third part is 'targeted' at God as an illusion when taken in the theistic sense.
As extraction of of that section (Smith's translation)

I. TRANSCENDENTAL DOCTRINE OF ELEMENTS
SECOND PART. TRANSCENDENTAL LOGIC
SECOND DIVISION: TRANSCENDENTAL DIALECTIC
[A293]
INTRODUCTION   
I. TRANSCENDENTAL ILLUSION

WE have already entitled Dialectic-in-General a Logic of Illusion.

Since you have thrown in indirect insults and threats, I am stopping this discussion with you to prevent it from going ablaze.

I'm sorry you think I indirectly insulted you. I was trying to display whom I was beginning to think you were but was not entirely sure. I thought you were just asserting instead of having reasons to think what you think. I admit I was wrong is aiming you had no reasons. As long as you have reasons, I'm fine. Needless to say, I have no existential dilemma. Even if your objection succeeded, I have other arguments I adhere to.

In regards to Kant's CPR, I'm familiar with what he is saying. The thing is: No one knows what his position is,  kind of like I'm confused on what your position towards this argument is. At one time he is saying that all metaphysical conclusions in regards to transcendental claims are based in illusory. But it's important to note that he does not mean the men who draw a conclusion are irrational; he actually believes them to be rational! He is saying that these illusions are based in pure reason itself and, thus, inescapably prevalent in even the wisest of men. Note his popular statement, "These are not sophistifations men, but of Pure Reason itself"

At other time, though, he says that the same transcendental conclusions we are bound to draw, are necessary to morality and empirical justification of the World. 

Now you would have to explain to me what your version of his arguments is because I think that he fails in supporting his assertion that transcendental conclusions are "illusions" part of the nature of reason.

I'll read what you respond with.

God bless

[Prismatic]

I'm sorry you think I indirectly insulted you.

Btw, below is an impulsive indirect insult which has roots in the existential dilemma.

Regarding your last portion, when I joined this forum I expected to get away from unsophisticated morons prowling on the Internet seeking those whom they may troll, and join a friendly community.

I have spent thousands of hours on Kant, so I know what I am talking about. Besides my views are supported by a convergence of eclectic knowledge from all relevant faculties in the world.

I will give you a pass, it is not worth the hassle and I know leopards don't change their spots easily.

[dcherchenko]

Resources for the skeptic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U2ckOQmtYe1jM2hz8glymF49gf1Ft5-9QxRrT4wlYiI/edit

[osmosis321]

Resources for the skeptic

Isn't there a rule about spamming the forum?

[osmosis321]

certain things we observe depend on the transcendental in order to rationally make sense.

No they don't.  Nothing we observe depends on the "transcendental" in order to make sense.

For example, the intentionality of objects (that objects can be about something) can't be proven on a naturalistic framework.

Uhm...  what?  Objects being "about" something.  Ok, in my mind or yours, sure.  But not objectively.  Intentionality is a state of mind.

When looking at the beginning of the universe from nothing, we are by the very nature of the argument looking for a transcendental cause.

What we look for and what is, are two different things.

Empirical evidence can't answer the question

This may be true;  however, making shit up doesn't answer any questions either.

Rather than explore the question further, you seem content with narrowing the goal posts to suit a naturalistic framework.

Yeah, narrowing the goal posts to something that can be justified with evidence, rather than simply making up whatever seems to make sense to you at the time..  such an evil endeavor..

[Rob Heusdens]

OK, I have heard the first presentation of the two debaters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I

Rather than discussing the empirical based scientific theories, here is a meta-analysis of the debate.

WLC main theme:
Contemporary cosmological evidence support theological neutral premises in philosophical arguments for conclusions that has theistic significance.

Even before WLC present his argument his main proposition already indicates the potential for the fallacy of equivocation in his overall argument.
1. Contemporary cosmological evidence is empirically based on the Scientific Method.
2. Theistic propositions are a priori and transcendental, i.e. non-empirical.
1 to 2 is like oil is to water.

WLC introduced the Kalam argument as one of his main argument;
1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

Note WLC did not define "transcendental" which in philosophy, generally refer to the a priori and non-empirical.
(this is where the sophistry [ok unintentional] slides in]
WLC proposed the cosmological evidence support the plausibility of premise 2 thus the conclusion.

Here is how the fallacy of equivocation is reflected in his Kalam argument;
1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence. (This transcendentally based, thus non-empirical)
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause (non-empirical) which brought the universe into existence (empirical).

Ok.

So, let us get to this.

You were born. You did not exist eternally. Neither are you a self-caused or eternal entity.

Something must have brought you into this world.

A transcendent cause?

Now. Go check a good biology book.

Now the universe. Let us for the sake of argument use the word OBSERVABLE universe, because that is clearer and prevents confusion. There is or at least might be a lot more universe then we see.

So it is said the universe has a beginning.

Correct to some extend.

But also that begin is not a begin in or from nothing or transendental, but just physical. Physical causes that have physical effects.

Check for example this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hADOY0TzLic

[Rick Dawkins]

!2. Theistic propositions are a priori and transcendental, i.e. non-empirical."

no, it is a brute fact that- the best  theory of the cause and or the effect of the cause, and that being the unviverse, was and is transcendent.

If it wasnt transendant , we wouldnt be discussing it atm, because it would already to known ,so simple really, and u try and argue with pathetic childlike mind ,fallacies, you, and other pretend scholars who are atheists.


tranˈsɛnd(ə)nt,trɑːn-/
adjective
adjective: transcendent

    1.
    beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience.
    "the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"
        surpassing the ordinary; exceptional.
     
    2.
    (in scholastic philosophy) higher than or not included in any of Aristotle's ten categories.

prior knowledge of Gods and supposed creation by gods or God doesnt change it, it merely soloidifies the best model, that being the big bang"<

and you do know that all cutting edge science,  and or learning  or so called non indoctrinating learning is attempting to push the transendent boundaries of so called knowledge.

Therefore,  its an utter joke , and a total farce to try and assisinate "transedents " usage and invalidate aruements and prove points, in that way.

[Rick Dawkins]

OK, I have heard the first presentation of the two debaters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I

Rather than discussing the empirical based scientific theories, here is a meta-analysis of the debate.

WLC main theme:
Contemporary cosmological evidence support theological neutral premises in philosophical arguments for conclusions that has theistic significance.

Even before WLC present his argument his main proposition already indicates the potential for the fallacy of equivocation in his overall argument.
1. Contemporary cosmological evidence is empirically based on the Scientific Method.
2. Theistic propositions are a priori and transcendental, i.e. non-empirical.
1 to 2 is like oil is to water.

WLC introduced the Kalam argument as one of his main argument;
1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

Note WLC did not define "transcendental" which in philosophy, generally refer to the a priori and non-empirical.
(this is where the sophistry [ok unintentional] slides in]
WLC proposed the cosmological evidence support the plausibility of premise 2 thus the conclusion.

Here is how the fallacy of equivocation is reflected in his Kalam argument;
1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence. (This transcendentally based, thus non-empirical)
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause (non-empirical) which brought the universe into existence (empirical).

Ok.

So, let us get to this.

You were born. You did not exist eternally. Neither are you a self-caused or eternal entity.

Something must have brought you into this world.

A transcendent cause?

Now. Go check a good biology book.

Now the universe. Let us for the sake of argument use the word OBSERVABLE universe, because that is clearer and prevents confusion. There is or at least might be a lot more universe then we see.

So it is said the universe has a beginning.

Correct to some extend.

But also that begin is not a begin in or from nothing or transendental, but just physical. Physical causes that have physical effects.

Check for example this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hADOY0TzLic

""""""""But also that begin is not a begin in or from nothing or transendental, but just physical. Physical causes that have physical effects.""""""""
--------------------
I didnt watch the example but the words you use are misleading, if something is not known with human means it is by defintion transdent, surely?.

The universe transeds humans understanding, not to say that it always will transend hunamanities collective understanding given time.

So therefore the universe is a transendant entity.

[demosthenes]

Empirically all circles has flaws, no perfect circles exists empirically.
Can I then use this to prove that transcendental perfect circles does not exist?

TP1: a perfect circle is a circle.
TP2: a perfect circle has no flaws
EP: all circles have flaws
(T) conclusion: a perfect circle is a contradiction.

no, it is bad logic, because an empirical premise does not extend to a transcendental premise always. Some might, but it is something you would have to prove in each case...