The Craig/Carroll Debate and the Death of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[wesbaker]

Okay, give me an empirical argument for any of them. Numbers, math, logic, numerical identity through space/time, induction, other minds . . . take your pick. You can't do physics without them, but not one of them can be empirically demonstrated.

For any of what.  I don't know what you're asking.

I gave a list of concepts, ideas, or notions that physics depends on, but which are not themselves empirically verifiable (numbers, math, logic, induction, other minds, numerical identity through space/time, etc). These are all metaphysical notions that fall outside of the domain of physics, and yet physics cannot even get off the ground without them. To say that metaphysics follows after physics is simply confused.

You said that I was just making assertions, most of which were wrong, so now I am asking you to take even one of these notions and show me how it is empirically verified.

[osmosis321]

To say that metaphysics follows after physics is simply confused.

Um...  metaphysics follows physics by definition.  I think it is you who is confused.

[wesbaker]

Osmosis, I read Greek and that simply is not true. "Meta" can mean "after" but it can also mean "beyond" (as in "more fundamental than") depending on the context. Philosophers have never used "metaphysics" to mean "after physics" (show me one metaphysician who uses the word that way). Aristotle himself referred it as "first principles" so he certainly didn't think of the discipline as coming "after" physics.

Besides, I gave you several examples of metaphysical principles that come before physics and you ignored them. Once again, please give me an empirical argument for just one of them.

[osmosis321]

I gave you several examples of metaphysical principles that come before physics and you ignored them. Once again, please give me an empirical argument for just one of them.

Ok I will, but not tonight.  er, that is, this morning.

[richie_fca]

Hoping to hear Osmosis' empirical argument for the metaphysical principle of his liking.

[osmosis321]

Metaphysics is inferred from the physical.  Otherwise, you're just making crap up.  Yes, we think of these things as being "before" physics in certain senses, but that cannot actually be, since physical principles actually come first.

[osmosis321]

Osmosis, I read Greek and that simply is not true.

Etymological fallacy.  The meaning we give to words doesn't necessarily follow the word's development over time.

Metaphysics follows physics.  It goes: observed reality-->physics-->metaphysics.  We don't change our physics when a metaphysical discovery is made, we change it when a physical discovery is made.  Metaphysics is contingent upon all else, not the reverse.

[osmosis321]

Metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If physics was based on metaphysics, we'd be no father ahead than we were 2500 years ago.  I'd be writing an essay on "what's metaphysically possible with earth, wind, fire, water and spirit, and you'd be taking it seriously.

[osmosis321]

Metaphysics did not do nothing during 2500 years.

I'm not saying it did nothing, I'm saying that what it primarily does is catch up with physics.  In the last 2500 years, tell me when metaphysics surpassed physics.  Tell me when ideation surpassed observation..  you can't because it didn't.

Also, it is fallacious to invalidate knowledge because of its age.

It's also fallacious to venerate knowledge because of it's age, and that's why I do neither.  The true test of knowledge is does it stand on it's own merits -  I've never even suggested otherwise.

The most accepted definition of knowledge (even though now considered incomplete) has 2400 years. Syllogism are still a fundamental part of logic, and they have 2300 years.

I'll repeat..  "It's also fallacious to venerate knowledge because of it's age"

Regards.
[/quote]

[OrdinaryClay]

Carroll's argument was simply the re-phrased materialist bald assertion that the universe is all there is and that it's incoherent to ask any question about causation. It's ad hoc. It's arbitrary. It's capricious. I can rephrase it thus "I don't want to think about a cause, therefore until I can come up with something better there is no cause".

As Craig said, it's a taxi cab fallacy.

[osmosis321]

Carroll's argument was simply the re-phrased materialist bald assertion that the universe is all there is and that it's incoherent to ask any question about causation. It's ad hoc. It's arbitrary. It's capricious. I can rephrase it thus "I don't want to think about a cause, therefore until I can come up with something better there is no cause".

As Craig said, it's a taxi cab fallacy.

Craig's just trying to cover up for his own composition fallacy.  As Carroll rightly pointed out, the universe is not part of a larger construct that imposes laws on it.  Even if it were, it would not follow that causality is one of those laws.  If you can't show it, you don't know it, and Craig DEFINITELY cannot show that causality extends beyond the physical universe.

[osmosis321]

I can see you have not understood the information I linked, if you even checked it, otherwise, you would not be asking such a question (which is based on misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the subject matter).

I looked at those links and they didn't even say what you seem to think they say.  They do NOT say that metaphysics precedes physics in any way, in fact they say the opposite.  Even Aristotle understood that you needed to know the physical before you can start talking about the metaphysical.

[osmosis321]

I am done.

Indeed.

If metaphysics doesn't follow science then as I said, I could advance an argument about the five elements and you'd have to take it seriously.

Good to see you realize when you're done.

[osmosis321]

I wish you had an idea how ignorant you appear when you state things like this. I did try to inform you.

Then explain why Aristotle believed his students should understand the physical before attempting the metaphysical.

[osmosis321]

It is on the lyncs, there is a lot information. And I have already explained.

Take care.

No it's not on the links.  I've given you every opportunity to actually make some kind of case and you've declined, and now I'm thinking you've gone with the "I simply am smarter than you and if you can't see it that's your problem" perspective.