I want to quickly address an issue I see (a lot of) on the internet. This issue is in regards to the accusation of one committing a 'logical fallacy' in their reasoning/argument.
I even see people making up their own logical fallacies and then claiming that their interlocutor has committed this (made up) fallacy: thus, their interlocutor is presenting a logically fallacious line of reasoning/argument (according to the accusation).
Let me first address the difference between:
Formal logical fallacies.
&...
Informal (or better yet, 'non-formal') logical fallacies.
Let us start with a Formal Fallacy. These are based on the (logical) structure/validity of an argument; they are not based on the content of the premises in an argument.
Let me give a deductive argument for an example:
P1: Socrates is a man.
P2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
There are two ways to test this deductive argument above for validity.
The first way to check this argument above is based on the logical validity of its form. That is to say, if we grant both the premises as true, does the conclusion logically/necessarily follow from those premises being true (or is there another logically possible conclusion, even if we grant the premises as true)? If the conclusion does necessarily follow from the premises --granting the premises as true-- then the argument is a 'valid' argument (regardless of whether the premises are true or not. The argument is valid in form). And indeed, this argument above is a logically valid argument.
The second way to check an argument is based on the soundness of its premises. That is to say, are the premises more likely true than their negations/opposites (negations/opposites being: 'Socrates is not a man,' and/or 'Not all men are mortal.'). If the premises are believed/shown to be more likely true than their negations/opposites, then the argument is a 'sound' argument.
Formal Logical Fallacies are based on the first way (above) we check an argument: that is we check the logical validity of its form. For example, if we grant that all the premises are true for an argument (X), but yet the conclusion of argument (X) does not necessarily follow from the premises (because we can think of another logically possible alternative conclusion), then argument (X) would commit some type of Formal Logical Fallacy.
For example, take a look at this argument below:
P1: My math teacher is a professional at math.
P2: My math teacher told me (X) equals '100.'
Conclusion: Therefore (X) equals 100.
Now this argument above is not 'valid' in form. That is to say, even if both the premises were true the conclusion would still not necessarily follow (as it could be the case the teacher [being a human] made a mistaken; so there exists another possible conclusion other than the one given). So this argument above commits the formal logical fallacy of 'appeal to authority (which really is wrapped in the 'Appeal to probability' formal logical fallacy).'
Notice that formal logical fallacies are not concerned with the probability of the premise being true (for example we all probably agree that since the math teacher is an expert, she is very likely to be correct, and that more so than any ametuer mathematician), they are only concerned with whether the argument is logically necessary from the premises (granted as true) to the conclusion.
Now let us look at informal logical fallacies...
...these are controversial among philosophers, as they are loosely defined and ambiguous. But generally, an informal logical fallacy is meant to be based on the content of an argument rather than the structure of the argument.
But really, they come down to pointing out the bad reasoning of an individual who is not actually addressing the argument in question correctly (so it is not a fallacy in terms of the argument, but a fallacy in terms of the persons misunderstanding of addressing the actual argument rationally).
Let us look at some examples of Informal Logical Fallacies:
(1) Ad Hominem: this is when an interlocutor does not address the argument but addresses the person presenting the argument instead. For example, saying something like 'That argument can not be correct, because that person who presented it is annoying.'
(2) Straw Man: this is when an interlocutor attacks an argument which is not actually the argument you presented; yet acts as if they interacted and refuted the argument you presented.
(3) Red Herring: this is when an interlocutor makes a point which has no bearing on the actual specifics of the argument you presented (even though they may be related), yet drags the argument in question into that issue.
ETC...
P.S. I am a Christian Theist and I have already created two other 'debate topics' on this site. I am unfortunately short on time (due to many responsibilities) and can not answer all questions. However, I am working on my biggest piece for this site, the subject is: How a person can have a rationally justified belief in God in the absence of any inferential arguments/reasons for that belief.
So keep yours open for that one, if the topic triggers your interest.
Attachments
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
No disagreement over this. Though I will clarify that a sound argument is both valid and true. You can make an invalid argument with true premises and a true conclusion.
A) all cats are mammals
B) my cat has fur
C) therefore all mammals have fur
All are true and yet the argument is invalid because the conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premises.
You can also have a valid argument that leads to a false conclusion.
A) all diamonds are rocks
B) all rocks are blue
C) therefore all diamonds are blue
Obviously not true, but it is valid in its structure.
Sound means to be both true(or most likely true) and valid. Such as the Socrates is mortal example in the OP.
Just thought I'd add that clarification. :)
Hello bro.
I have heard soundness used by professional philosophers to merely emphasize the validity of premises and not the form of the argument (so maybe common usage is different), but either way we both agree on the actual point of the issue :)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Hopefully that link works.
"A) all cats are mammals
B) my cat has fur
C) therefore all mammals have fur"
A very good example of the limitations of inductive reasoning as well. AJ777 might consider this and his use of the cosmological argument. Though I somehow think he has little interest in honestly discussing the cosmological argument or the ontological argument, or the teleological argument, he just keeps asserting they're valid, but refuses to engage with any refutations.
@Sheldon: I hope he uses the ontological or teleological argument for the existence of god. Both are easily refuted. Teleology: the study of the innate purpose of things... If the universe was purposes for the existence of humans why is 99.99% of it a highly irradiated vaccuum? Of the remaining; matter; why is 99.99%of it contained within nuclear furnaces and black holes where nothing can live? Of the remaining planets why are so many outside the habitable zone of a stars, void of oxygen, water, atmospheric conditions, proper axial tilt, eccentricity of orbit, substrate et cetera? You get the point.
Inductive reasoning does have its limitations, but without deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning in conjunction it's difficult to come to conclusions that reflect reality.
I agree wholeheartedly. What I find hilarious about the of inductive reasoning in the kalam argument is that apologists don't see the irony of what such reasoning would mean when used to examine miracles. That aside of course the argument attempts create a rule that everything that begins to exist has a cause, but then fails to state that these are in every instance we observe natural causes that occur in the material universe, and so the argument immediately breaks the rule it just created to assume a supernatural cause, and that it occurred when the material universe did not exist.
Then Lane Craig throws in a some special pleading to define his deity into existence, and tacks it on the end of an already fallacious argument, and AJ777 finds this compelling. At least he claims to, I have grave doubts he's properly examined any refutations of these arguments, and he certainly seems to become reticent when anyone presents them on here.
It's entirely special pleading. "Everything needs a cause... Except for god. " why not say:"everything needs a cause, except the universe" the cosmological argument is both their strongest and weakest argument. Weakest because it does not avoid the infinite regress it sets out to avoid. And strongest because it's the only one, when presented right, that can even make an opponent say:"I don't know" of course I gave the briefest possible explanation and refutation for the sake of brevity, but I could tear it apart from top to bottom. Anyway, I asuume we agree on this.
Aposteriori Unum you seem quite reasonable, however, when it comes to the Kalam argument it is like you just throw all that reason straight out of the window bro.
I do not have time to address what is being said here, but I will make a couple of quick points (then I have to cook dinner for my family lol).
You state:
// It's entirely special pleading. "Everything needs a cause... Except for god. " why not say:"everything needs a cause, except the universe" //
That is a complete straw man. The premise is "everything which BEGINS TO EXIST needs a cause." It is not, " "Everything needs a cause," as you state.
Also notice what is implicitly hidden in the premise (I will state it again):
P1: Everything which begins to exist has a cause (implicitly this means something exists which is eternal - i.e. had no beginning).
This argument below was widely accepted by all atheist and Theist philosophers:
P1: From nothing, nothing comes.
P2: Something exists.
Conclusion: therefore, something is eternal (with out beginning).
Now, atheist philosophers use to say the universe was the eternal something; however, there were two good philosophical arguments for why a finite universe is more probable and no good philosophical arguments to support an infinite universe as more probable. But in recent history the science of cosmology has favored models which hold the universe as being finite in nature.
-----SIDE NOTE-----
As I say, believe in God is belief about the nature of Ultimate Reality; that is Personal instead of Impersonal. So the argument for an Impersonal Ultimate Reality (i.e. atheism) looked something like this (below) as a deductive/inferential argument:
P1: The universe is Ultimate Reality.
P2: The universe is Impersonal.
Conclusion: Therefore Ultimate Reality is Impersonal (i.e. atheism is true).
However, there are no good reasons to support premise 1 as more likely true than false (that I have come across - check my last post on the three ways to prove a proposition, at the end I post a debate on this very point).
-----
I will ask you what I asked Sheldon: have you actually read any of the academic work done on the Kalam argument (WLC did his Phd on it which was tested by his peers); including the book he co-authored with professional atheist philosopher Quinton Smith?
"P1: Everything which begins to exist has a cause (implicitly this means something exists which is eternal - i.e. had no beginning)."
Firstly all those causes we observe are natural, secondly none of the phenomena we observe that had those natural causes started to exist outside of the physical universe, lastly no, none of this implies an eternal cause, that's pure assumption and the argument is supposed to be evidence for the very thing your assuming in order to prop up your argument, so it's circular.
"P1: Everything which begins to exist has a cause (implicitly this means something exists which is eternal - i.e. had no beginning)."
No it doesn't, again this is just pure assumption, and again if something can exist without a cause then the argument is contradicting itself, and simply defining a deity into existence by calling it 'eternal', using the definition of something you can't evidence in an argument for it's existence is of course the very definition of circular reasoning, and as has been stated it's also special pleading.
"This argument below was widely accepted by all atheist and Theist philosophers:
P1: From nothing, nothing comes."
No it isn't, for a start it's an unfalsifiable claim, so there is no way to test it, or falsify it EVEN IF IT IS FALSE" thus it fallacious reasoning. Define nothing, and then explain how you can test your claim?
"P2: Something exists.
Conclusion: therefore, something is eternal (with out beginning)."
Nice bald assertion, but why bother with argument if you're simply going to make assumptions and assert them?
"But in recent history the science of cosmology has favored models which hold the universe as being finite in nature."
This sin;t correct, since nature only exists because the universe exists. The fact the universe is finite does not mean there was nothing prior to this, but we don't know what that may have been, and "goddidit with magic" has no explanatory powers so tells us nothing, I might as easily claim pixies did it, and define them as eternal, transcendent and omnipotent. Special pleading isn't as impressive as you seem to think, neither is circular reasoning.
Sorry but your definition of "ultimate reality" was nonsensical.
"I will ask you what I asked Sheldon: have you actually read any of the academic work done on the Kalam argument"
Ad hominem, if our lack of credentials bothers you then explain why the objections and refutations are wrong. Lane Craig is biased, as are all people who use faith to prop up their arguments for their beliefs. The fact that laymen can expose the fallacious reasoning here says it all.
Aposteriori Unum & Sheldon...
I have a bit of spare time so I am going to do a quick overview of the Kalam cosmological argument; so that if you guys want to argue against it, you can at least do it rationally.
So the Kalam is a deductive argument. Let me state its premises (this is the first and key part of the argument):
P.1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
P.2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
Now, the logical form of that argument is valid (that is to say if the premises are true the conclusion logically and necessarily follows). So the question then is, how much more likely are the premises at being true than their negations/opposite.
If you want to address the argument as fallacious you have to identity which premise is false and give reasons why.
I will now do a quick review of each premise...
----------PREMISE 1----------
Firstly, notice what is implicitly hidden in this premise: if we add the position that something exists (which premise 2 does) then this premise implicitly states that something exists with out beginning. Aposteriori Unum stated why can't that be the universe, this premise does not negate that position; it is premise 2 which negates it.
Secondly, based on the logical law of excluded middle you have this proposition and its negation/opposite. So you have (X) and (-X). That is:
(X) Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
VS
(-X) Not everything which begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
Now, if someone wants to say that the likelihood of each being true is 50/50, they will have to knock down all of Dr Craig's arguments which he uses to support (X); however, If someone wants to say (-X) is more likely true they will also have to give positive arguments for (-X).
Sheldon made some silly argument about this premise being applied to the supernatural. This premise is about all of reality (all plains of it), thus it goes down to the fundamental nature of reality itself (i.e. Ultimate Reality). Indeed, that is one of Dr Craig's arguments to support this premise, that the law of causality is a metaphysical principle.
So this argument he makes to support this premise (he has many, you will have to find them all and address all of them to successfully show this premise is wanting) is that causality is just as metaphysically necessary as the laws of logic, rules of rational inference, mathematics etc...
That is to say there is no possible world (modal logical talk for a way reality could be) in which the laws of logic, rules of rational inference and mathematics don't exist (this includes the law of causality); these are not contingent, but rather metaphysically necessary.
A quick argument to show this. The laws of logic being necessary mean they are grounded in ultimate reality itself and that ultimate reality is therefore necessary. If the law of causality did not exist then that means Ultimate Reality itself popped into existence out of nothing (that there was no reality before this); but that means the laws of logic popped into existence and these laws are therefore not necessary; that means actual reality could of popped into existence with no laws of logic (so in that reality it would be both true and false that it exists etc... since the laws of logic don't exist and there can be no actual true statements). This becomes totally unintelligible and as far from possible as one can get (since the widest possibility we have is logical possibility, and this is not even logically possible let alone likely).
I had to write the above out super quick as my child is screaming lol (bless him), so it is probably messy but yo get my point.
----------PREMISE 2----------
Firstly, based on the logical law of excluded middle you have this proposition and its negation/opposite. So you have (X) and (-X). That is:
(X) The universe began to exist.
VS
(-X) The universe did not begin to exist.
Now, if someone wants to say that the likelihood of each being true is 50/50, they will have to knock down all of Dr Craig's arguments which he uses to support (X); however, If someone wants to say (-X) is more likely true they will also have to give positive arguments for (-X).
Dr Craig offers two philosophical arguments to support (X) as true and states the best and most likely (contemporary) model of cosmology we have supports the universe being finite in nature instead of infinite. Also, there are no good philosophical arguments to support the universe being more likely infinite in nature (that I know of).
-----SUMMARY------
So guys, if you are going to call this argument out as fallacious, be clear and state which premise is false (and why its opposite is more likely true) while giving refutations of the actual arguments Dr Craig makes to support each premise as true.
One: I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was fallacious, I said it was weak.
Two: I let language slide because I was talking to someone I believe knows the argument.
Back to one: why do I say Kalam is weak? Because we can agree that everything that begins to exist has a cause and we can agree that the universe began to exist and therefore has a cause. The conclusion in the Kalam Cosmological argument however says: "and this cause we call god. " unless you use a different version where you stop at : "the universe had a cause" great. So it did. What does that tell us about what the cause was? Nothing. I call it weak as an argument for the existence of god because "god"does not necessarily follow from the premises. There could have been other causes. I called ot strong as well. I called it strong because if you then ask:" what was the cause? " I would rightfully say:"I don't know. " make sense? I don't have time right now or I'd explain in detail.
Aposteriori Unum
You are missing the second part of the argument it seems. I will write you out a rough version of it...
----------2ND PART OF THE ARGUMENT----------
Now there are two sources which support the universe being caused by God (a Personal Ultimate Reality) rather than an Impersonal Ultimate Reality. They are:
(1) Science: The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves any universe in the past would have to have a beginning.
(2) Philosophy: It is rationally evident that whatever caused the universe can not have the same ontology as the universe (that means be the same, or have the same nature), or it too would have a beginning, and we would have an issue of infinite regression.
So the cause of the universe must be:
(1) Space-less: as the universe is spacial.
(2) Immaterial: as the the universe is material.
(3) Timeless: as the universe is time bound.
Well at first glance this looks a lot like classical Theism.
So here are the reasons why based off of this that the universe was caused by God (a Personal Ultimate Reality) rather than an Impersonal Ultimate Reality:
(Reason 1): If atheism were true it would most likely be Naturalistic atheism, and if Theism were true it would most likely be that of classical Theism.
A space-less, immaterial and timeless Ultimate Reality is not compatible with naturalistic atheism (and as naturalistic atheism is most likely the correct atheism, if atheism were true) therefore atheism is more likely false; and a space-less, immaterial and timeless Ultimate Reality is the most likely of metaphysics if Theism were true (and this is the belief of classical Theism through history), therefore based on this, Theism is far more likely than atheism to be true in regards to the nature of Ultimate Reality which caused the universe.
(Reason 2): Based on what we know, in philosophy there are only two candidates which are argued as potentially being immaterial. They are:
(A) Abstract objects (like numbers).
(B) Minds.
Well based on the available candidates, abstract objects are causally mute, therefore it must be a mind which is the cause of the universe (from the possible list).
(Reason 3):
>Why Must the Cause of the Universe Be Personal and Not Impersonal?<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y
>Three Reasons Why the Cause of the Universe Must Be Personal<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO3mryntXwo
>Why Must The Creator Of The Universe Be A Personal Being?<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh4icr6QFYE
>How Do You Know the Cause of the Universe is God?<
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD6Ci0KK9DQ
>SOME QUOTES<
"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
- Sir Arthur Eddington, an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician of the early 20th century who did his greatest work in astrophysics. He was also a philosopher of science and a popularizer of science. He is famous for his work concerning the theory of relativity. Eddington wrote a number of articles that announced and explained Einstein's theory of general relativity to the English-speaking world.
"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
- Robert Jastrow, an American astronomer and planetary physicist. He was a leading NASA scientist.
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
- Arno Penzias, an American physicist, who was awarded, together with Robert Woodrow Wilson, the 1978 Nobel laureate in physics, for having discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation.
For a funny last video on this subject, please click on the link below :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go6m-KNUmG4
That is a comon claim of creationists that just isn't accurate.
What would be accurate then?
The conclusion (and what was shown) is that the known laws of physics are not capable of modelling the universe before a certain time ( a boundary where gravity and quantum effects are both important, remember we had this discussion already?). This has long been believed; but it was typically just presented as hand waving argument; the paper in question provided a much more formal argument with the same conclusion.
Okay, well this is where I must reject the premises that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. If something exists outside of space how do you know of it? If something is immaterial how do you demonstrate its existence in a material world? And if something is timeless; existing outside of time and therefore for no time, then it can be said to not exist now, in the past or ever in the future. This is the wall at the end of the cosmological argument. How do you get from: "the universe must have had a cause" to "that cause is god"? (Or some nebulous being that defies the laws of physics)
And...Minds are an emegent property of brains as far as we know. And brains arr material. They exist in space and time. The absence of evidence for a mind existing outside of a brain is stark.such that I would count that as evidence of absence until we have examples.
[sarcasm]You don't have to, you just postulate it, then call anyone who expresses skepticism in your postulate an idiot. Isn't that how philosophy works?[/sarcasm]
All kidding aside; that is how it seems to work around here.
Why do you reject that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial? It seems perfectly logical to deduce that the cause of the universe must be outside of the universe. Since the universe is composed of space, time and matter, then the cause of such must exist outside of those things.
An analogy I can think of is Mark Zuckerburg getting the idea of Facebook thru a Facebook message. Or the construction plans of the Empire State Building being made inside the empire state building.
No more that the Empire State Building was planned on mars. If something is without time matter and space it couldn't interact with our space time.
The chair I'm sitting on is composed of space, time and matter. Does that mean the cause of such must exist outside of those things?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you use classical logic to made deductions about non-classical systems?
@Aposteriori Unum...
You say:
"I must reject the premises that the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial."
Well, since you accept there is cause to the universe that means you have to accept that the cause is spacial, material and time bound; problem is this is just another universe which would itself need a cause (which the theorem also confirms as well as it rationally being the case), so you will end up with the irrational position of infinite regression.
How do you get around the infinite regress problem?
See, there is no rational problem on my side, at most a struggle to conceptualize (but that is true of many things we postulate but have good reason to believe exist based on inference from what know. For example, multiple dimensions, parallel universes, string theory, the holographic principle etc...). And that seems to be your only argument against my side really, conceptualization, yet your position suffers from an actual irrational circumstance (where as it is hardly surprising that whatever started the universe would be hard to conceptualize, since our experiences are based within the universe. So it is odd you are only limiting yourself to a cause of the universe which can be easily conceptualized, since if the cause of universe could be easily conceptualized the most likely scenario is this is not actually the cause of the universe).
You said:
"If something exists outside of space how do you know of it?"
Firstly, I obviously know of it by rational inference (since that is the argument itself). Secondly, we postulate belief in all sorts of things like this (from rational inference via what we do know) all the time, for example multiple dimensions, parallel universes, certain Quantum Mechanical processes, string theory, space-time boundaries, abstract mathematical objects etc....
This is not even an argument to reject something existing outside of space, it is a question; which is obviously answered by the fact I have already given inferential reason for why to believe it (so the answer is we know it inferentially via what we already know).
You say:
"If something is immaterial how do you demonstrate its existence in a material world?"
I don't need to demonstrate its existence, this is not an argument. All I need is good reason to believe it exists. I can not demonstrate induction --that tomorrow will be like today-- but I have good reason to believe that it will be etc...
You said:
"And if something is timeless; existing outside of time and therefore for no time, then it can be said to not exist now, in the past or ever in the future."
This is a bad understanding of the academic work done on time, specifically concerning this subject. I can not get into it, as it will take too long to explain.
You said:
"This is the wall at the end of the cosmological argument. How do you get from: "the universe must have had a cause" to "that cause is god"? (Or some nebulous being that defies the laws of physics)"
Pretty easily, the cause can not have the same nature as the universe (also check all my arguments, that answers this very question). Therefore if the universe is natural then the cause is supernatural, if the universe is spacial then the cause is space-less etc...
The logic is pretty obvious, the universe by its nature needs a cause, therefore the initial cause of such a nature can not have the same nature or it too would need a cause (and on and on you would go).
Let me ask you this question: If the universe by its nature needs a cause, why are you only willing to postulate a cause that has the same nature as the universe (nothing I gave you is logically impossible, at the most its physically impossible, but hey, we are explaining the very beginning of physics itself so this is a non-issue. It would be stupid to postulate how physics itself began by constructing a cause based on physics - you are in a self refuting position)?
You then say some stuff about the mind and give a physicalist picture which I reject, but I do not want to get into (the point was, that the mind in philosophy and abstract objects are the only things we know which have the potential to be immaterial).
I did not bring up the Kalam, I was just addressing some bad arguments against it :) so to be honest I don't want to get dragged into a debate on it.
I am currently working on my next article for this page, so I am probably going to focus anymore of my spare time on that rather than the Kalam :)
Read the last paragraph first.
Let me explain the actual problem. It's not that I make a gnostic claim that the cause of the universe is physical or temporal or whatever. It's not that you made a mistake presenting (defending) the argument or that I don't understand it.
The problem is that It is, in fact a special pleading. I know you said it isn't, but really it is. Everything that began to exist has a cause. Okay so everything... That should include god. But in the argument it doesn't include god. Why? Because god has been defined in such a way that "he did not begin to exist, but always existed" so it doesn't apply to the one thing you are trying to prove exists with the argument in the first place. I said: why not say the same thing about the universe then? But my position as the the cause is, I don't know. I don't know that the universe didn't always exist, what caused it to exist or if there even needs to be a cause. Either everything means everything or it's special pleading. Your side is the gnostic one. Somehow you know. Somehow you know the properties of god.
But of course he can have whatever properties you need to have to make an argument for his existence. The conclusion depends on the definition of the thing that it attempts to prove exists. It's circular in that way.
What if I did agree that the universe had a cause? It is a giant leap to go from a cause to that cause was a thinking agent.
I realize that the argument is contingent upon other arguments, but it is also contingent upon assumptions. Post it later. Break it down from beginning to end the way you think it should be. Present it your way and I'll respond to that... Because right now I'm talking about how I've heard it laid out by other people. Then we'll either restart this argument(not this one, but about kalam) or we'll agree. Maybe your version is different.
"P.1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
P.2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning."
Premise 1 is incorrect as I have said repeatedly. Since everything we observe that begins to exist has done so in a material physical universe, and the cause has been a physical natural cause. We have no way currently of knowing if the law of cause and effect applied prior to the existence of the universe. The argument simply assumes the universe needed a cause.
P2 is also flawed, since time itself did not exists as prior to the physical universe, So the universe didn't being in the sense the argument is amusing here.
"Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.""
This is logically fallacious because the premises are flawed, but even if it were true it doesn't demonstrate the cause needs to be a deity, as lane Craig and you have argued, using special pleading to define your deity in such a way as to allow you to contradict your first premise. again this could be used to claim the existence of anything by simply defining it into existence.
"If you want to address the argument as fallacious you have to identity which premise is false and give reasons why."
I've done so repeatedly, and said why each time, and I have done so here again.
@Sheldon...
Wow, that is some terrible reasoning against the Kalam cosmological argument there bro (just terrible). After I write my main piece I might do one on the Kalam since this clearly needs clearing up (I am busy however with computer science studies and family, so it may take me a while to get to it).
May I ask, have you actually read any of the academic work done on the Kalam argument (WLC did his Phd on it which was tested by his peers); including the book he co-authored with professional atheist philosopher Quinton Smith?
http://crossexamined.org/11-objections-kalam-cosmological-argument/
https://www.scientificexploration.org/forum/the-kalam-cosmological-argum...
http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2012/09/refuting-william-lane-craig-kal...
Still waiting for you to prove your (modified) claim:
Are you telling me you don't think there is a possible reason some one could have for believing (-A) which is rationally valid (for example, that I can not have good reason to believe the prime minister is a grown women, therefore negating (A) as rationally valid)?
Unless you are holding to some kind of rational skeptic epistemology (in which nothing can be proven) there is no issue here.
Honestly, you seem to have no idea about epistemology and I just don't want to waste my time chasing someone down rabbit holes on something so silly (you would have to hold the position that no one is rationally justified to believe the prime minister is not a six year old girl [including you having that belief yourself], and if you hold that position you are clearly irrational and I honestly don't want to waste my time with irrational people; the fact you think you have a good point here actually makes me shake my head in disbelief).
Let me ask you this, between these two propositions below...
(A) The current president of America is a six year old girl.
VS
(-A) The current president of America is NOT a six year old girl.
...which do you believe is more likely true (or are you 50/50 in your belief)? Also if you believe one is more likely true, what are your REASONS and do you think your REASONS are RATIONALLY JUSTIFIED (to hold that belief as more likely true)?
Now you have modified your example a 2nd time.
You have already distanced yourself from A; it seems you are now quietly distancing yourself from B.
For goodness sake,my friend I am embarrassed for you that something so simple and obvious is such a big issue.
OK, here is the evidence for (-A): that the prime minister is not a six year old girl lol:
https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/prime-minister
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/13/theresa-mays-first-year-as-uk-prime-mini...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/world/europe/uk-theresa-may-britain.html
The reasons I believe (-A):
Firstly, multiple independent news outlets report Teresa May as prime minister. So based on way (2: absence of evidence) if she was a six year old girl they would very likely report it; therefore it is more rational to believe she is not.
Secondly, my visual experience is rationally justified in the absence of a defeater (because these are beliefs formed in proper basicality - go check a foundationalist theory of knowledge/justification) and that tells me she is well past six years old.
Thirdly, the chance of a six year old girl alluding all the adults in parliament and becoming prime minister is very low.
Fourthly, one of the links I posted is from an a official UK government site which lists the prime minister and her age (and this site is more likely to be true than false).
ETC....
Now, if you want to look a complete plonker you can say they are not rationally justified reasons to believe (-A) over (A); however, that would be a positive knowledge statement and you would have to show why that is (you would have to give a better model of epistemology than foundationalism and then show how within this better model all my evidences/reasons would not be rationally justified - GOOD LUCK lol).
Also, are you claiming:
(1) That there can exist no possible reason for belief in (-A), or
(2) That there can exist no possible rationally justified reason for belief in (-A)?
Great, you provided evidence that not A is more likely than A. Now I am just waiting for you to prove it (you said you could).
Pages