Any of you faggots want to give another go at refuting the KCA today? (hint: it's still not the fallacy of composition)
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.
All you have to do is prove that P1 or P2 is less probable than the opposite or that P3 doesn't follow logically from P1 and P2.
Other urls found in this thread:
archived.moe
arxiv.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
First off, we have absolutely no reason to believe premise one is true. The form of coming into existence that you're speaking of, matter and energy literally popping into reality, only happens on a subatomic scale, and as far we can tell, randomly.
Second, we don't know if the universe, matter and energy as whole, has always existed or only began to exist 13.5 billion years ago.
It could be we're in an endless cycle of singularity and Big Bang, and the whole cycle had no beginning.
So, now that I've demonstrated P1 and P2 are unfounded, P3 does not follow.
>LOGically
Err... we already did this, and it was the fallacy of composition.
archived.moe
...
you know who's an expert on big bag theory...? stephen hawking! he sits in a chair all day thinking about space and stuff.
>we still can't get over skin colours and genders
yeah, nah mate, we're not smart enough and it's onna be a while
even if we stumbled on the truth, would we have any idea what to do with it? wouldn't we just use it to separate and segregate people more?
but if I have to disprove pt 1,
I would side with the argument that OP is a fag and has been sucking dicks that come from literally nowhere for literally no reason, ergo not everything that exists has a cause
sic semper tyrannis, round-earther
Pretty good try user. Thanks for throwing your hat in.
>we have absolutely no reason to believe premise one is true.
Really? Despite that, it is constantly confirmed by both experience and science. It's simple inductive reasoning.
>Second, we don't know if the universe, matter and energy as whole, has always existed or only began
According to the evidence we have. We can ascertain that the universe began. Alexander Vilenkin (speaking on the BGV) goes on to say: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
>P3 does not follow.
Gosh. It really must follow.
>Err... we already did this, and it was the fallacy of composition.
Nope. It's still not.
The KCA doesn't argue that because every part of the universe has a cause the universe has a cause. But instead:
1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
2. If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing. But we don't see any such thing ever happening. Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
3. Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning not an argument from composition. To deny inductive reasoning is to deny science.
>you know who's an expert on big bag theory...? stephen hawking!
Stephen Hawking said it well, "All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted."
Read the thread. It was and still is.
>Something cannot come from nothing.
Justify this premise.
>If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
Rejecting a premise does not imply that you accept the negation.
>If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing.
That does not follow
>Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
It's on you to show that it cannot.
>Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one.
Common experience is of parts of the universe. Argument from composition.
We've already been over this user. Going over ground we've already gone over won't change anything.
cool I like the evidence
>confirmed by both experience and science
When was the last time you saw matter and energy get created or completely annihilated on a macroscopic scale? Cause if you can show that, go claim your Nobel prize.
Also, all that our current model of cosmology says is that from a singularity, the universe formed. Not nothing. The law of conservation of mass and energy is never violated.
>We've already been over this user. Going over ground we've already gone over won't change anything.
Yeah... it seems that you still don't understand. Please read this to see if it clear to you:
The KCA doesn't argue that because every part of the universe has a cause the universe has a cause. But instead:
1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
2. If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing. But we don't see any such thing ever happening. Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
3. Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning not an argument from composition. To deny inductive reasoning is to deny science.
All you did was copy-paste, my reply remains the same.
Read the thread. It was and still is.
>Something cannot come from nothing.
Justify this premise.
>If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
Rejecting a premise does not imply that you accept the negation.
>If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing.
That does not follow
>Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
It's on you to show that it cannot.
>Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one.
Common experience is of parts of the universe. Argument from composition.
We've already been over this user. Going over ground we've already gone over won't change anything.
>Also, all that our current model of cosmology says is that from a singularity, the universe formed. Not nothing. The law of conservation of mass and energy is never violated.
Interesting. The BGV Theorem states that every universe that is expanding has a beginning. It's a proof.
>All you did was copy-paste, my reply remains the same.
And you are still not correct. The KCA doesn't argue that because every part of the universe has a cause the universe has a cause.
You still haven't addressed my first point.
Correct. The KCA itself doesn't. The attempt to justify P1 does. All things we've already gone over in the previous thread.
how many universes are there
>The attempt to justify P1 does.
P1 does assume that because every part of the universe has a cause the universe has a cause
Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning not an argument from composition. To deny inductive reasoning is to deny science.
A composition fallacy would go like this: The elephant weighs a lot so the elephant's trunk weighs a lot.
Induction goes like this: Every time you eat peanuts, your throat sweels up and you can't breath. So, you are allergic to peanuts.
If P1 is an argument from composition, then induction is useless.
>how many universes are there
We only have evidence for one. But the argument would still apply no matter how many you have.
>P1 does assume that because every part of the universe has a cause the universe has a cause
Argument from composition. Ta-da.
>A composition fallacy would go like this: The elephant weighs a lot so the elephant's trunk weighs a lot.
That would be a division fallacy actually.
because they are all expanding?
It's real easy to solve. Many scientiest like Hawking and Krause have been trying to prove that something can come from nothing. They haven't gotten there.
I doubt you will. But give it a go. I look forward to reading your work.
Maybe you will get it if you read it one more time:
Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning not an argument from composition. To deny inductive reasoning is to deny science.
It isn't necessary for me to solve anything. I'm not making a claim. You are.
Also, I just ignored what you said about science and inductive reasoning as it doesn't apply, but if you're actually curious then what we can say using inductive reasoning is that since every part of the universe that we observe has a cause, every other part of the universe probably has a cause. That's as far as you can go.
See
Premise 1 is false. Due to quantum fluctuations, energy can happen ex nihilo.
>because they are all expanding?
You can read the BGV here:
arxiv.org
Premise 1 is in fact, false.
en.wikipedia.org
"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge."
Browne, Malcolm W. (1990-08-21). "New Direction in Physics: Back in Time". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-22. "According to quantum theory, the vacuum contains neither matter nor energy, but it does contain fluctuations, transitions between something and nothing in which potential existence can be transformed into real existence by the addition of energy.(Energy and matter are equivalent, since all matter ultimately consists of packets of energy.) Thus, the vacuum's totally empty space is actually a seething turmoil of creation and annihilation, of which to the ordinary world appears calm because the scale of fluctuations in the vacuum is tiny and the fluctuations tend to cancel each other out. Even though they appear calm, they are in a state of restlessness, looking for compatible matter or fluctuations."
>It isn't necessary for me to solve anything. I'm not making a claim. You are.
Sure you are. You claim that something can come from nothing. I say something can't come from nothing. I say there is plenty of evidence for my claim.
All you have to do is show that something can come from nothing. Problem solved.
>You claim that something can come from nothing
Where did I make such a claim?
>Premise 1 is false. Due to quantum fluctuations, energy can happen ex nihilo.
P1 cannot be negated by quantum fluctuations. Quantum fluctuations do not occur in nothing. They occure in a rich wash of quantum energy.
That assumes quantum effects was not created after the big bang. Not in evidence.
On the other hand we don't know shit about "time" before the big bang so maybe things happened without reason all the "time".
("time" as time was probably created @ BB)
>en.wikipedia.org
Sorry. You still haven't got there. Quantum_fluctuation don't happen in nothing.
No? They occur in literally empty space. Read the thing again. No molecules or energy has to be present for quantum fluctuations.
>Where did I make such a claim?
Oh.... then I'm glad we agree.
I am demonstrating that something can in fact arise ex nihilo.
see
>No? They occur in literally empty space. Read the thing again. No molecules or energy has to be present for quantum fluctuations.
No they don't. Sorry.
That I haven't made a claim and thus the burden of proof is entirely on you? Good.
Yes they do. Read the article.
>I am demonstrating that something can in fact arise ex nihilo.
"There are at least ten different physical interpretations of the equations of quantum mechanics, and they’re all empirically equivalent, they’re mathematically consistent, and no one knows which, if any of them, is the correct physical interpretation. I’m inclined to agree with philosophers of science who think of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation [which includes uncaused events] as really just quite unintelligible, and I’m therefore more inclined to some sort of deterministic theory of quantum mechanics…. It remains a matter of deep debate as to how to understand it."
>That I haven't made a claim and thus the burden of proof is entirely on you? Good.
Maybe you will give up the silliness.
P1 of the KCA doesn't argue that because every part of the universe has a cause the universe has a cause. But instead:
1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
2. If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing. But we don't see any such thing ever happening. Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
3. Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one. Premise one is never falsified by any science. This is inductive reasoning not an argument from composition. To deny inductive reasoning is to deny science.
>You claim that something can come from nothing
What silliness?
Read the thread. It was and still is.
>Something cannot come from nothing.
Justify this premise.
>If you deny premise one then you must believe that at some point in the past that the universe just appeared.
Rejecting a premise does not imply that you accept the negation.
>If the universe can come into being from nothing, then anything at all can come into being from nothing.
That does not follow
>Why is it that only universe can come into existence from nothing?
It's on you to show that it cannot.
>Common experience and scientific evidence constantly affirm premise one.
Common experience is of parts of the universe. Argument from composition.
We've already been over this user. Going over ground we've already gone over won't change anything.
Woops, copied the wrong thing.
>You claim that something can come from nothing
should be
>Maybe you will give up the silliness.
>>Something cannot come from nothing.
Constantly affirmed by experience and scientific evidence. It is a reasonable view until you can show a defeater.
>Rejecting a premise does not imply that you accept the negation.
Until there is a defeater that is no good reason to believe the opposite is true.
>That does not follow
Why not? So only universes can come from nothing?
>It's on you to show that it cannot.
Yep. Everything that has a cause has a beginning. All you have to do is provide a defeater. Should be easy.
>Common experience is of parts of the universe. Argument from composition.
Induction not composition.
You do realize this is one of the worst argument and no serious philosopher has ever waged this argument.
>Constantly affirmed by experience and scientific evidence.
We have no examples of nothing from which to draw conclusions.
>Until there is a defeater that is no good reason to believe the opposite is true.
Until there is good reason to believe the premise, there is no good reason to accept the premise.
>Why not?
Invalid structure. Conclusion does not follow from the premise.
>So only universes can come from nothing?
Who knows?
>Everything that has a cause has a beginning.
Prove it.
>All you have to do is provide a defeater.
You are making the claim. It's on you to justify it.
>Induction not composition.
We can use induction to get from "all observed parts of the universe have a cause" to "all parts of the universe probably have a cause". Attempting to get from "all parts of the universe probably have a cause" to "the universe has a cause" is a fallacy of composition.
>You do realize this is one of the worst argument
Prove it.
>no serious philosopher has ever waged this argument.
Ad hominem.