Philosophy Now Forum

Ockhams razor proves we live in a highly manipulated reality. . No it doesn't. Ockham's razor is a tool, a principle, not a hard and fast rule that the second something appears more complex than it needs to be, there must be manipulation going on. Plus, the universe may only appear complex to us wh...

As I keep saying, we simply don't know if it is or isn't wrong. It isn't the role of logic to discover whether the premises are right or wrong, logic simply tells you whether an argument is valid or not. I think that this is to misunderstand what logic is. It also helps you to reason your way to wh...

P1) Everything that exists has a cause Just one cause? I think that if we ask for, or point out, a cause, we are making a selection. Perhaps we are drawing attention to a connection that isn't immediately obvious. For example; ' The moon causes the tides '. But we are not saying that it is the only...

Well, yes, there is "everything that exists has a cause" as P1. So now it is a premise in a valid argument, but we're still none the wiser as to it's truth value. Sure. That's what the whole conversation has been about. I'm not actually putting forward an argument to support any particula...

The logic is that everything that exists has a cause. That is a premise, it is not a logical argument. As I said, it may be true, but we don't have the means to find out for now. It was shorthand... P1) Everything that exists has a cause P2) The universe exists C) The universe has a cause. That's t...

I have no idea whether the universe had a cause. As Russell pointed out, there is nothing in logic that rules out the possibility that the universe popped into existence 5 minutes ago, complete with all our memories and, as he put it, the holes in his socks. Krauss believes that there is some etern...

Well, in Euclidean geometry at least, a shape that doesn't have four equal sides joined at corners of ninety degrees, a circle, for example, isn't a square. Again, it is only logically impossible if the premise 'The initial condition of the universe is an effect' obtains. It is not true by definiti...

Whereas your premise 'There must be a first uncaused cause' is unverifiable. Nor can you reach that conclusion from any sound argument that has as a premise 'There cannot be an infinite regress', because that too is unverifiable. It's unverifiable that god (or anyone else) can't create a round squa...

Hobbes' Choice wrote: You can make up any shit you like that does not mean it is meaningful or true.

And you can repeatedly say this and things like this and it doesn't make something untrue....

However, your tone is still insulting and unpleasant, I'm not enjoying this conversation. I'm out.

Our destiny is determined by the influence of constellations is basic astrology, but that doesn't give it any validity outside of astrology. I wouldn't presume to speak for Hobbes Choice, I think the point is that this is a valid argument: Sure, the syllogism he gave is Logically Valid but it's als...

And that is why this whole thread is a croc of shit. "Whatever exists has a cause"- you said that not me. Except the first un-caused cause (a cause that didn't have a cause, a causeless cause, a cause sans cause, the one that wasn't caused......), the crux of the whole conversation. And y...

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument. P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2) God began to exist. C1) Therefore, God had a cause. It seems like you don...

You have not presented the Cosmological Arguement here, as well you know. Because it is a further conclusion about "the cause", which itself invalidated by the argument. P1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2) God began to exist. C1) Therefore, God had a cause. It seems like you don...

Hobbes' Choice wrote: No the argument is circular.

It's not, I think it's that you just still don't understand how the first premise is being used, irrelevant of whether or not it's True.

P 1 is from induction; an unsubstantiated premise. a posteriori. P 2 is unverifiable. Nothing more than an assertion. axiomatic Therefore C1 is not a valid conclusion. Yes, it is a Valid conclusion, but it may not be Sound. Serious question, do you understand what Logical Validity is? The way you'r...