Who won?

[Interest12345]

Definition of what word? Are you even sure about that, or was that a rhetorical move to avoid actually giving an argument? Remember, it's your objection, you need to shoulder the burden and argue for it. Not just assert it.


At any rate, pointing at a dictionary won't be of much help. Often times, it is philosophy who unpacks and explores the actual content of locutions like these.

Definition of the word "cause". All of our experience and interactions in day to day life tell us that causes precede their effects in time, and this is an obvious observational fact. There is no such thing as simultaneous causation, and I think Dr. Craig has failed at showing such a thing exists. I have seen several people thoroughly debunk this claim. To summarize why it is a bogus idea, let's take his ball on the cushion example. In order for this example to work, he must invoke a past eternity, the very thing he is arguing against in his KCA. The idea of a simultaneous cause cannot reasonably be defended.

It's funny how I give you argument after argument, yet you keep asking "Where's the argument? Give me an argument?"

[lucious]

No, there is no argument. You just acted as if temporality is implicit in the definition of the word 'cause', which it is not.

There is no argument here, you just keep mocking the idea of simultaneous causation. From the proposition "There is no time before the universe" the inference "Therefore, there is no cause of the universe" does not follow.

[Interest12345]

So I guess you're just going to ignore my arguments, like someone holding his hands over his ears who doesn't want to listen. I hesitate to repeat what I've said, since I don't see the point, but I will anyways, this time in bold print. Here's the argument, again: All of our experience and interactions in day to day life tell us that causes precede their effects in time, and this is an obvious observational fact.
How is this not an argument? It most certainly is. Tell me how this doesn't constitute an argument.

[lucious]

I said before that there is no valid inference from the first proposition to the second.

Typing one sentence in caps isn't actually an argument. You need....well....an argument. Premises leading to a conclusion.

[Interest12345]

I have given you the argument, and you have obviously just chosen to ignore it and claim that it doesn't exist.

Pretending it's not there isn't going to make it go away.

[lucious]

It doesn't draw an inference from the proposition "There is no time before the BB/quantum singularity" to "Therefore, there is no cause of the universe"

There is a missing premise there.

[Interest12345]

*Sigh...If you really need me to do this for you, I will. It should have been obvious, but since you need me to write it out for you so you can see it in plain sight, here it is:

1. Causes always precede their effects in time
2. Therefore, causes require time in order to exist
3. There was no time prior to the Big Bang
4. Therefore, there was no cause to the Big Bang

If premise 1 is true, statement 2 logically and necessarily follows from 1. If premise 3 is true, than statement 4 follows from both 2 and 3.

You should be able to make these logical connections automatically in your head, without needing it to be written down as a formalized step-by-step argument format. Keep in mind that just because an argument isn't formalized, it doesn't mean the argument doesn't exist.

[lucious]

Premise 1 is not supported by any argument except for the statement that we always observe causes prior to their effects. This is not necessarily true, but even so it does little to demonstrate that a causal relationship is necessarily a temporal relationship.

[Interest12345]

So now you accept that the argument does exist, but you deny premise 1. So long as you can see that IF premise 1 is true the rest follow, then you do in fact admit that there is an argument. Ok, so why did you keep insisting that there was no argument? You might not agree with it or you might not like it, but there certainly was a logical argument in place. I understand you have a disagreement over premise 1, and that's fine. But to say that Carroll didn't give an argument is just wrong. You disagreeing with one of the premises of the argument doesn't mean that the argument doesn't exist.

[Lion IRC]

Yes, lucious.
Interest12345 is correct.

Just because premiss one is simply an assertion, (plausible or otherwise,) doesnt invalidate the argument per se.
Nor does it mean there is no argument.

For you or I to claim the opposite of premiss one as part of a counter-argument would also be no less of an argument.

It really all boils down which premiss is more or less plausible/debatable.

[Interest12345]

Right. Just like the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is really just an assertion. There is no actual argument to defend the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

[Lion IRC]

Likewise, any negation of that Kalam premiss would itself be simply another premiss. (Self-asserting.)

...nothing that begins to exist has a cause
...some things spontaneously happen with no cause
...things can magically pop into existence
...rocks often begin to move without any prior cause
...cause and effect are one and the same thing
...etc. etc.

[lucious]

That's not true about p1. Craig offers several arguments for p1.

Besides, the denial of p1 is so radical the burden is also on the detractor. He needs an argument too.

What I said is that there is a missing premise there. One cannot directly infer that there is no cause of the BB singularity just from knowing there is no moment before it.

We've at least now seen something of an inductive argument but I've also responded to that as well.

[Interest12345]

Besides, the denial of p1 is so radical the burden is also on the detractor. He needs an argument too.

That's exactly how I feel about the denial of the premise "Causes always precede their effects in time".

[richlite]

I watched the debate today and as a pastor I would have to honestly say that NEITHER side really "won" the debate. The reason for my position is that both sides stated that they were arguing from "the data" and yet no data was actually presented before a crowd that for the most part didn't have a clue about what the actual "the data" either side is referring to! I love astronomy and reading about cosmological theories of universes and multiverses but I have learned not to put too much stock in them either way. Why? Because all they have to work with is someone else's "equations" and unproven "data." Even the distance to known stars are debatable so how can you develop accurate theories with such corrupt "data." Take the most recent case of Pluto. A century ago it was believed that a planet beyond Neptune had to exist... but how big? Scientific equations said it had to be fairly big, at least as big as Earth. Then when it was found by Tombaugh they had to "downsize" Pluto. Then as time went by even that "data" was found to be flawed, and Pluto got smaller and smaller! Were we to believe that Pluto was now that size and no longer a matter of argument? Well, And when we finally got the probe to Pluto, what do we find? Our "data" was wrong and our "equations" were screwed up along with it! Surprise! Pluto is smaller than our Moon! So my point is this: to argue from the position of "the data" (by either side of this argument) when not presenting "the data" is to leave each side with nothing to stand on before people who have to guess what that "data" is. Dr. Craig's position that "the data" and the theories tend to support the belief in the existence of a Creator God is "plausible." But it really wasn't worth arguing about with this professor who believed "the data" was on his side (though he admitted that his own theory wasn't 'the answer'.)