Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God

[Jan Ardena]

It's not about what I want. In this thread, I'm only interested in examining whether the claim that the KCA proves that a God must exist is sustainable. I submit that it is not.

By invoking God in the first premise, then saying ''look it begs the question''.

If your argument is that "God defies logic" then you don't need the KCA. What the KCA is supposed to do is to convince people who care about logic that the existence of God is logically mandated.

Which is does.
If you do not have a working definition of ''God'', like you have one of ''man'' (Socrates), then you can come to no real conclusion as to whether or not it is logically valid.

If you prefer a God that is illogical and which makes no sense in regard to everything else that we know about the world, then I'm not sure why you are at all interested in discussing a supposed logical proof of the existence of God.

If you prefer a God that can be defined as anything, by anyone, regardless of scripture, then I am not sure why you are interested in proving it's non existence through dodgy logic.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion about the existence or otherwise of any God that defies logic and reason.

Then try and comprehend what God is.

The KCA asks us to conclude that God is not a "thing that began to exist", and therefore can be uncaused.

It doesn't ask anything.

It is logical possible for God to be a "thing" that did not begin to exist. In that case, we need to investigate whether the KCA begs the question. An alternative possibility is that God is not a "thing". In that case, the KCA does not allow us to conclude that God is uncaused, because the first premise of the KCA only concerns "things".

With regard ''things'', we have no experience of God.
We comprehend that ''things'' begin to exist, and eventually disappear. We have no other experience of ''things''.
So the first premise cannot possibly include God (defined).

In my opinion, "thing" is a very general term. A "thing" can be an idea, an object, a quality, a feeling, or God.

Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

As far as the KCA goes, I see no good reason to exclude God from the category of "things" mentioned in premise 1.

Then you fail to understand the argument.

Does it matter? How is the scriptural definition of God relevant to the KCA? Do you think that a scriptural definition of God is necessary in order for the KCA to be valid?

It is important to comprehend what God is, in order to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

You'll need to explain why I need to know anything about scripture in order to work out whether the KCA is logically valid or not.

You need to know something about God.

What is your understanding of what a religious deity is, and what is your understand of what God is (if not a religious deity)?

My point is that it is irrelevant. You only need to comprehend what God is.

For what purpose? Aren't we discussing the KCA in this thread?

To comprehend the meaning of God, the conclusion of the KCA.

The KCA is supposed to conjure God up by a pure feat of logic. I say it does not do so. Craig claims it does. What do you think, Jan?

I think it is a good starting point, but it doesn't explain God (other than original cause), so more study on what God is, is required.

Then it is logically open to us to conclude, if we accept the validity of the KCA, that matter/energy caused the universe, and not God.

I'm okay with that. How about you?

I know you'd be okay with that, and I'm okay that you're okay with that. At least it is a start.

Walking you through it yet again would surely be a waste of time. Go back and read the opening post. Try to understand it.

I understand it James. I don't agree that we are talking subsets with regard to the first premise. There certainly is no indication of it. It deals with experience and observation.

Can't you see that the KCA itself is simply a game in which Craig (or whoever) tries to prove the existence of God by constructing an argument that, in one way or another, sneaks the assumption of God's existence in from the start?

Aren't all logical argument constructs?
You've yet to demonstrate how God is being sneaked into the assumption from the start, without forcing it in (preferably).

jan.

 

[PhysBang]

Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

That is one definition. It is not the definition used in the argument.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is one definition. It is not the definition used in the argument.

Not true.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Not true.

Can you provide one iota of evidence that Craig intended "thing" to mean as you suggest rather than merely being an object that one either does not want to, or simply cannot, give a specific name to?
If you can not provide that evidence then your claim that Craig is referring to the more specific definition that you suggest should not be upheld.
I thus suggest you support your claim or use "thing" as understood by everyone else.

 

[PhysBang]

Not true.

jan.

Well, if you are willing to throw out over a century of scholarship in the English language and logic, then I guess you really have abandoned your fellow humans.

 

[Sarkus]

By invoking God in the first premise, then saying ''look it begs the question''.

That is not what is happening, Jan. It is merely the identification of the hidden assumption/premise that God is the only thing that does not exist, and it is this hidden assumption that begs the question.
If this assumption is not there then the conclusion (line 4) is invalid as God would simply be one of any number of things that might not begin to exist, and thus concluding that God is the one that did the causing can not validly follow from lines 1 to 3.
All JamesR is doing is writing down that hidden assumption, but he is not the one invoking it in the first place.

Which is does.

What you really mean is that it convinces you. But JamesR is referring to people who care about logic.

If you do not have a working definition of ''God'', like you have one of ''man'' (Socrates), then you can come to no real conclusion as to whether or not it is logically valid.

Validity is not about the nature of the terms but of the form of the logic, which should hold as true irrespective of the nature of the terms.
E.g. All birds are mammals.
Tom is a bird.
Therefore Tom is a mammal.
This is logically valid.
The fact that you might have an understanding of what birds are, or what mammals are, merely speak to the soundness of the argument, not the validity.

If you prefer a God that can be defined as anything, by anyone, regardless of scripture, then I am not sure why you are interested in proving it's non existence through dodgy logic.

We're still on matters of validity, right? 'Cos if so then the conclusion has to follow the premises,

Then try and comprehend what God is.

For the purpose of assessing the validity of the argument there is no need to.
See my above example: any need to comprehend what a bird or a mammal is to be able to assess the validity?

It doesn't ask anything.

Do you suffer from Asperger's syndrome? You seem to take things very literally and fail to understand what is a fairly normal figure of speech.

With regard ''things'', we have no experience of God.
We comprehend that ''things'' begin to exist, and eventually disappear. We have no other experience of ''things''.
So the first premise cannot possibly include God (defined).

Our experience is irrelevant for purposes of assessing the logical validity of an argument: see my example above.

Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

This is certainly the definition you want to assert but, as Baldeee has raised, where is your evidence that this rather restrictive definition is the one intended in the argument?

Then you fail to understand the argument.

Oh, the irony!

It is important to comprehend what God is, in order to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Not to assess the mere validity of the argument it is not. See above example.

You need to know something about God.

Not to assess the validity you don't: see above example.

My point is that it is irrelevant. You only need to comprehend what God is.

Not to assess the validity you don't: see above example.

To comprehend the meaning of God, the conclusion of the KCA.

No such understanding is required to be able to assess the validity of the argument: see above example.

I think it is a good starting point, but it doesn't explain God (other than original cause), so more study on what God is, is required.

Without wishing to sound repetitive... you don't need to understand God to be able to assess the validity of the argument.

I know you'd be okay with that, and I'm okay that you're okay with that. At least it is a start.

So you admit that it is invalid, from the premises given, to conclude that God was the cause of the universe? If you can't admit this then you're really not okay with him being okay with it.

I understand it James. I don't agree that we are talking subsets with regard to the first premise. There certainly is no indication of it. It deals with experience and observation.

No, it doesn't. It is a matter of language. If you need to qualify something then for purposes of assessing validity you automatically give rise to consideration of what does not fall under that qualification.

Aren't all logical argument constructs?

no, begging the question is where one of the premises alone can give rise to the conclusion. See my above example: it is impossible to reach the conclusion with just one of the premises.

You've yet to demonstrate how God is being sneaked into the assumption from the start, without forcing it in (preferably).

I refer you to my first response in this post, that this is not what is being done.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Validity is not about the nature of the terms but of the form of the logic, which should hold as true irrespective of the nature of the terms.
E.g. All birds are mammals.
Tom is a bird.
Therefore Tom is a mammal.
This is logically valid.
The fact that you might have an understanding of what birds are, or what mammals are, merely speak to the soundness of the argument, not the validity.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, is valid, and unambiguous.
It is a fact that we know of no thing that is not caused, (unless you can enlighten), with certainty.
So to ask if there IS anything other than God which did not begin to exist, is not a valid question (unless you can show otherwise).

We do need to know what birds and mammals are, or what man and mortality are, to make sense of the argument. Otherwise you can speak any gibberish, and say it is a valid argument.

All turds are mammals
Tom is a turd
Therefore Tom is a mammal.

I don't even want to know if you consider that a valid argument, because it doesn't matter.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Well, if you are willing to throw out over a century of scholarship in the English language and logic, then I guess you really have abandoned your fellow humans.

Uh! It is the definition that I used right from the beginning.
Plus, it is what ''thing'' means.

jan.

 

[PhysBang]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, is valid, and unambiguous.

While I agree that it is unambiguous, there are two problems with your statement.

1) Individual statements are not valid, arguments are potentially valid.
2) It is a lie to say that "everything" is "every thing".

 

[Sarkus]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, is valid, and unambiguous.

It is a premise. In and of itself it has no validity.
You claim to understand logic yet every time you post you show that you don't.

It is a fact that we know of no thing that is not caused, (unless you can enlighten), with certainty.
So to ask if there IS anything other than God which did not begin to exist, is not a valid question (unless you can show otherwise).

I am not sure what you mean when you refer to something as "not a valid question". In what sense is it not valid? It seems a legitimate question to ask, to which the answer might be "I don't know" as well as "yes" or "no".
So please explain what you mean by "valid question"?

We do need to know what birds and mammals are, or what man and mortality are, to make sense of the argument. Otherwise you can speak any gibberish, and say it is a valid argument.

Making sense of the premises are not needed to assess the validity of the logic. You can in fact replace all the terms with symbols. So yes, you can speak any gibberish, but as long as it follows a valid logical form then it is a valid argument.
E.g. All squeks are plogs.
Julk is a squek.
Therefore Julk is also a plog.
This is valid - the form is such that there are no instances in which the conclusion can be false if the premises are true.
You can replace all the terms with symbols:
All X are Y
Z is an X
Therefore Z is a Y

You claim to understand logic yet every time you post you show that you don't.
Validity in logic is quite a well defined matter. Your understanding seems lacking. Thus you appear ill-equipped to be responding with anything meaningful to the discussion in hand, at least in as much as it pertains to the validity of the argument.

All turds are mammals
Tom is a turd
Therefore Tom is a mammal.

I don't even want to know if you consider that a valid argument, because it doesn't matter.

It does matter if you want to begin to comprehend what is meant by a logical argument being valid. And yes, that argument is valid.

All you are doing here, Jan, is trying to dismantle criticisms of logically invalidity by using anything but logic. As said, you are demonstrably ill-equipped for the discussion you are embroiled in, and it is clear you have no interest in trying to improve your understanding.

 

[arfa brane]

It seems that, despite efforts to explain what symbolic logic is, some people just can't replace God with a symbol.

 

[wellwisher]

One possible argument for God is physics currently postulates multi-universes. This idea is not new, but was also postulated in ancient time in terms of describing the realms of heaven and earth. These two realms were considered separate and unbridgeable by living humans, similar to multi-universes. In fact, in Old Testament, even the dead could not bridge that gap.

The question is, if the ancients did not have modern science, yet they could come up with a multi-universe theory, that they said was inspired by God, where did this theory come from, since it appears thousands of year before the needed science precedent?

Or why would science copy from the ancient past, seeing those people lived in the superstitious darkness?

 

[Dywyddyr]

This idea is not new, but was also postulated in ancient time in terms of describing the realms of heaven and earth.

You're going to have do more than simply assert that an unsupported claim of Heaven. Earth and Hell is equivalent to a physics theory.

The question is, if the ancients did not have modern science, yet they could come up with a multi-universe theory, that they said was inspired by God, where did this theory come from, since it appears thousands of year before the needed science precedent

It's quite simple: there was (and is) no such theory because there was no evidence and no support. It wasn't a theory by any means.

Or why would science copy from the ancient past

It wouldn't. And hasn't.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

Again, Sarkus has most ably covered the ground that I will cover in this post. But I'll put a few of the same points in my own way.

If you do not have a working definition of ''God'', like you have one of ''man'' (Socrates), then you can come to no real conclusion as to whether or not it is logically valid.

You are wrong. Consider Sarkus's example:

1. All squeks are plogs.
2. Julk is a squek.
3. Therefore Julk is a plog.

I don't need to have a working definition of a squek or a plog or Julk to conclude that this is a logically valid argument.

And while we're at it, let's consider your example, which is crude but instructive:

1. All turds are mammals
2. Tom is a turd
3. Therefore Tom is a mammal.

This is a logically valid argument, for the same reason that Sarkus' argument is a logically valid argument. Notice that they share the same structure.

In the case of your argument, what is a little different is that while you probably have no prior conception of any attributes of a squek, you probably have lots of assumptions about what turds and mammals are supposed to be like. You might validly object that the argument isn't sound, on the basis that turds are not, in fact, mammals. Thus it seems that premise 1 cannot be justified.

Do you understand the difference between soundness and validity yet? Your turd/mammal argument is valid but not sound. For Sarkus' argument, it is valid but we're not equipped to judge whether it is sound.

I think that Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed because it is not sound. But I haven't really discussed that in any depth so far in this thread. What I have been discussing is the objection that not only is the KCA not sound, but it is also not valid. The reason that it is not valid, I have argued, is because its two premises and first conclusion actually reduce to a single statement: Everything other than God has a cause. But that's just an assumption. Nothing has been logically deduced. The KCA begs the question by assuming what it purports to establish.

If you prefer a God that can be defined as anything, by anyone, regardless of scripture, then I am not sure why you are interested in proving it's non existence through dodgy logic.

With reference to the KCA as set out in the opening post, it seems sufficient to define God as an uncaused ultimate cause of the universe. The KCA claims to establish the existence of such an uncaused ultimate cause. Mind you, the religious baggage that is loaded on top of this notion of "ultimate uncaused cause" has to be separately argued - hence Craig's "ontological arguments" that he tacks on to the KCA to try to make his case that his Christian God can be equated with the ultimate uncaused cause.

Then try and comprehend what God is.

It is sufficient for the purposes of the KCA to take the terms "God" and "ultimate uncaused cause of the universe" to be synonymous, as far as I can tell. At least, that's true until we get to step 4, where Craig tries to make the case that this ultimate uncaused cause is actually the Christian God of the bible.

[The KCA] doesn't ask anything.

Sorry. I thought you'd understand what I meant but it appears I need to be more literal with you than I thought I needed to be.

Try: "Those who believe the KCA is valid ask us to conclude that God is not a 'thing that began to exist', and therefore can be uncaused."

Do you understand now?

With regard ''things'', we have no experience of God.
We comprehend that ''things'' begin to exist, and eventually disappear. We have no other experience of ''things''.
So the first premise cannot possibly include God (defined).

Thing: an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.

Recall that the first premise actually says "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

Now, let's consider an example. You are a person. I think you'll agree that you are a living sentient being. Probably you'll agree that you began to exist.

My question to you is: if I were to refer to "everything", would that include you?

Are you part of "everything" - or perhaps part of the mereology called "everything" (we discussed this earlier in the thread, remember)?

"I'm not a thing! I'm a human being!", you object. Then you'd say that the KCA has nothing to say about you, right? "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Well, obviously that says nothing about Jan Ardena, who isn't "everything" and isn't a "thing" at all.

To me, this seems like an unnecessarily tortuous and obtuse reading of the KCA. I'd say that the ordinary understanding of "everything" would include both Jan Ardena and also God (if he exists).

It is important to comprehend what God is, in order to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Only once we get to step 4 of the KCA (see the opening post). Steps 1 through 3 only talk about universes and causes and "everything".

I think [the KCA] is a good starting point, but it doesn't explain God (other than original cause), so more study on what God is, is required.

I'm glad we agree on this much, at least.

It would be nice if we could get you up to speed so you could also understand the point raised about validity and begging the question, but it's looking less and less likely that that's going to happen any time soon.

Then it is logically open to us to conclude, if we accept the validity of the KCA, that matter/energy caused the universe, and not God.

I'm okay with that. How about you?

I know you'd be okay with that, and I'm okay that you're okay with that. At least it is a start.

Then you see that under these conditions the KCA doesn't prove that God is the uncaused cause of the universe. Instead, you say the uncaused cause could be "matter/energy". That's what you're saying, right?

I understand it James. I don't agree that we are talking subsets with regard to the first premise. There certainly is no indication of it.

Question: in your opinion, is there any difference between the terms "everything" and "everything that begins to exist"?

Is one of these terms any more limited than the other, or is the addition of the qualifier "that begins to exist" a superfluous and unnecessary addition?

Do you think that "that begins to exist" indicates a subset of "everything"? If not that, then how exactly do you think it modifies the noun "everything"? Explain.

Aren't all logical argument constructs?

Yes. But not all logical arguments beg the question.*

You've yet to demonstrate how God is being sneaked into the assumption from the start, without forcing it in (preferably).

I demonstrated how this occurs in the opening post, and have done so many times since then.
----

(* Leaving aside for now the point that Yazata made earlier in the thread, which was a good one.)

 

[Syne]

Can't you see that the KCA itself is simply a game in which Craig (or whoever) tries to prove the existence of God by constructing an argument that, in one way or another, sneaks the assumption of God's existence in from the start?

Already addressed. You said that something other than god must be uncaused for the KCA to not be begging the question. I've already provided one, so continuing this argument is disingenuous. I understand that you seem intent on only addressing arguments that claim the KCA as logical proof, but you seem to be conflating the strength of the conclusion between deductive and inductive reasoning (since you seem to be excluding begging the question). See more on this below.*

Aren't all logical argument constructs?
You've yet to demonstrate how God is being sneaked into the assumption from the start, without forcing it in (preferably).

no, begging the question is where one of the premises alone can give rise to the conclusion. See my above example: it is impossible to reach the conclusion with just one of the premises.

Begging the questions is not a formal fallacy, so its existence in a logical argument does not make the argument any less valid. Nowhere in the KCA does a single premise assert the conclusion. If you are trying to claim that begging the question makes an argument invalid, you are wrong. If not, then you are arguing soundness. Don't conflate the two. You and Baldeee seem to be in the practice of swapping validity for soundness whenever you feel you are starting to lose the validity argument. If you think your can readily attack the argument's soundness, you would be better off just proceeding to do that.

You should also be aware that the informal fallacy of begging the question can actually be a necessary feature of an argument, depending on which method of reasoning is employed. See more on this below.*

Yes. But not all logical arguments beg the question.

But if you understand logic, you must admit that some do.* And these can be useful because the transitive law can aid explanatory power (and thus parsimony).

I think it [KCA] is a good starting point, but it doesn't explain God (other than original cause)...

It would be nice if we could get you up to speed so you could also understand the point raised about validity and begging the question...

VALIDITY is NOT effected by the informal fallacy of BEGGING the QUESTION. You keep claiming you are attacking the KCA on validity alone, but begging the question is strictly a matter of soundness. You cannot blame Jan too much for his confusion when you are demonstrating confusion about validity yourself. You, Baldeee, and Sarkus have all, repeatedly, conflated validity and soundness where begging the question is concerned. Now, I don't know if Jan claims the KCA conclusion is proof or merely probable, but it is clear that the method of reasoning needs to be addressed (so people can quit hiding behind conflating the two):


* Craig, himself, has stated that the form of the KCA is a deductive argument, but that its premises may be justify with inductive reasoning.

While the kalam argument itself is a deductive argument, that does not imply that its premisses are not to be supported by inductive evidence.
- http://www.reasonablefaith.org/swinburne-on-the-kalam-cosmological-argument​

So we need to be clear on the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, especially in the strength each infers to its conclusion.

• Inductive reasoning is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. ...the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. ...The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. In this manner, there is the possibility of moving from general statements to individual instance.
  
• Deductive reasoning is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. ...If all premises are true, the terms are clear, and the rules of deductive logic are followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily true. ...In deductive reasoning, a conclusion is reached reductively by applying general rules that hold over the entirety of a closed domain of discourse, narrowing the range under consideration until only the conclusion(s) is left.

As you can see, by inductive reasoning there is no need to exhaustively exclude all possibilities in order to demonstrate a probable conclusion. While deductive reasoning means its conclusion must necessarily be true, it also means you cannot rule out begging the question.

Everything in the conclusion of a valid deductive argument must also be contained in the premises. (There are rules about how these things are arranged, but that is beyond our purposes here.) Therefore all valid deductive reasoning is by its nature actually circular reasoning or "begging the question." That does not mean the conclusion is worthless. (If Johnny rides the bus 96 minutes every morning and 96 minutes every evening, five days a week, and if Johnny sleeps 8 hours every day, then Johnny spends the equivalent of one awake day [16 hours] on the bus every week. The conclusion is entirely contained in the premises, but the conclusion restates those premises in a way which causes us to understand more fully the consequences of riding the bus so much.)
- http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/two_methods_of_reasoning.php​

Even though deductive reasoning requires all the info in the conclusion to be present in the premises, this can be useful in explanatory power. In an inductive argument, explanatory power (and thus parsimony) is part of the argument which supports the probability of its conclusion. While deductive arguments are valid or invalid, inductive arguments are weak or strong. Both are subject to the soundness of premises, and both can take the same form.

 

[Sarkus]

Begging the questions is not a formal fallacy, so its existence in a logical argument does not make the argument any less valid.

Didn't say otherwise in the post you are quoting.

Nowhere in the KCA does a single premise assert the conclusion.

It does if you reveal the hidden assumption as discussed in the OP, as it is this hidden assumption that begs the question.

If you are trying to claim that begging the question makes an argument invalid...

I'm not. The rest of your reply in this regard is thus irrelevant.

Don't conflate the two.

I haven't in the post you're responding to.

You and Baldeee seem to be in the practice of swapping validity for soundness whenever you feel you are starting to lose the validity argument. If you think your can readily attack the argument's soundness, you would be better off just proceeding to do that.

Oh, hysterical, syne. Not only are you trying to deflect from your own failure to understand what a valid argument is, to do so you're using a point that baldeee himself has already raised and I have already accepted, and corrected.
Can I suggest you take the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from others‘, as you may then realise they have aalready removed those specks themselves.

You should also be aware that the informal fallacy of begging the question can actually be a necessary feature of an argument, depending on which method of reasoning is employed. See more on this below.*

An acceptable feature, yes, but not necessary.

As you can see, by inductive reasoning there is no need to exhaustively exclude all possibilities in order to demonstrate a probable conclusion. While deductive reasoning means its conclusion must necessarily be true, it also means you cannot rule out begging the question.

Yet you consistently claimed you understood validity, yet here you are trying to justify your position as being in reference to inductive reasoning. Go figure. But rather than acknowledge your mistake (which was pointed out to you time and time again) and admit your understanding was wrong, you simply try to deflect, and in doing so you display your obnoxious attitude once again (I.e. trying to act as though you are somehow educating, trying to take an intellectually superior position).
As it is I'm yet to be convinced you understand the basics of what validity entails. And your efforts here don't do anything to change that view.

 

[PhysBang]

Everything in the conclusion of a valid deductive argument must also be contained in the premises. (There are rules about how these things are arranged, but that is beyond our purposes here.) Therefore all valid deductive reasoning is by its nature actually circular reasoning or "begging the question."

This is the fallacy of reasoning known as "crazy talk". (Remember, when looking for good education, home schooling is the last place to look.)

Technically, it's equivocation, since the speaker is using a definition of "circular reasoning" that nobody would ever accept and that is completely useless. When people speak of circular reasoning, they speak of arguments that assume the conclusion. While this may be logically correct, it is a failure in terms of argumentation, since such an argument cannot hope to convince an audience that is paying attention.

Even though deductive reasoning requires all the info in the conclusion to be present in the premises, this can be useful in explanatory power.

Sure, it can be useful for an explanation. But explanations are different from arguments.

In an inductive argument, explanatory power (and thus parsimony) is part of the argument which supports the probability of its conclusion.

Parsimony is not necessarily part of explanatory power. Nor is an explanation an argument. We might make an argument that one explanation is better than another, but the explanation is not itself an argument.

 

[iceaura]

Therefore all valid deductive reasoning is by its nature actually circular reasoning or "begging the question."

The following is a valid deductive syllogism (in "Barbara"), written in the normal way with "and" as the conjunction:
All a are b; (major premise)
All b are c; (minor premise)
All a are c. (consequent)

The premises are "assumed", the consequent "deduced" - by definition.

The fact that it is valid means that falsehood of the consequent (if one demonstrates that not all a are c) necessarily falsifies one or more of the premises. That is the value of it, normally - not the discovery of all a being c, which is not made in that way, but the capability it provides of falsifying one or more of the premises by discovering that some a are not c, if one should be so fortunate. One thereby learns something about b, by investigating a and c.

Circular reasoning would involve including the consequent among the premises - "assuming the consequent". Since denial of the consequent then denies a specific premise, one learns nothing about the terms in the other premise, and the chain of reasoning is worthless. In this case, one would learn nothing about b by investigating a and c. This begs any question about b.

 

[Baldeee]

Already addressed. You said that something other than god must be uncaused for the KCA to not be begging the question. I've already provided one, so continuing this argument is disingenuous.

If you have provided one then the argument as presented in the OP is demonstrably invalid.
Recall: (irrespective of what you might think validity to entail) to be a valid conclusion it cannot be false while the premises remain true, and if you provide example other than God of something that can be uncaused then the conclusion (line 4) in the OP is not a valid conclusion.

You and Baldeee seem to be in the practice of swapping validity for soundness whenever you feel you are starting to lose the validity argument.

While Sarkus and I noted previously this very point you now wish to raise as an attack (see post #306 by Sarkus) that begging the question and circular arguments do not in and of themselves make an argument invalid, one is still entitled to show that the argument is invalid unless one is begging the question.
So it boils down to an either/or: either the conclusion is invalid, or the argument begs the question.
That is what JamesR has in essence done.
And if one takes the latter position, that it is valid but simply begs the question, then that will speak not to its soundness but to its worth.
To educate you, as is your ill-judged proclivity: soundness is with regard the veracity of the premises.
A valid circular argument where the premises are true is necessarily sound.
But this does not mean the argument has worth.
To wit: there is a pen upon my desk, therefore there is a pen upon my desk.
The argument is valid (albeit question-begging), and I assure you the premise is true, as therefore must be the conclusion, and thus it is also sound.
But it is worthless as an argument as the conclusion does nothing more than restate the premise.

If you think your can readily attack the argument's soundness, you would be better off just proceeding to do that.

Others already have (Yazata et al), and there doesn't seem much more to add at this stage.
Besides, I haven't finished reviewing the question of validity with those who don't seem to grasp why the conclusion (line 4 as given in the OP) is invalid.

VALIDITY is NOT effected by the informal fallacy of BEGGING the QUESTION. You keep claiming you are attacking the KCA on validity alone, but begging the question is strictly a matter of soundness. You cannot blame Jan too much for his confusion when you are demonstrating confusion about validity yourself. You, Baldeee, and Sarkus have all, repeatedly, conflated validity and soundness where begging the question is concerned.

As far as myself and Sarkus are concerned, this was self-highlighted by Sarkus back in post #306 and since corrected, I believe.
Nice of you to keep up, though.
That said, and to repeat, the matter of question-begging is still a matter of validity with regard the KCA in as much as either the conclusion (as given in line 4) is accepted as invalid OR one accepts that it is made valid by question-begging.
Thus we must still investigate whether there is hidden question-begging or not to be able to assess whether the argument is valid or not.
To clarify: this is not saying that it is invalid if there is question-begging, but that it appears to be invalid if there is NOT question-begging.

As you can see, by inductive reasoning there is no need to exhaustively exclude all possibilities in order to demonstrate a probable conclusion. While deductive reasoning means its conclusion must necessarily be true, it also means you cannot rule out begging the question.
...
While deductive arguments are valid or invalid, inductive arguments are weak or strong. Both are subject to the soundness of premises, and both can take the same form.

I think Sarkus has addressed this point with you, but I shall do so as well to push the point home:
You previously argued that to be a valid conclusion it did not require one to exclude all other possibilities.
Here you are saying (correctly) that it is inductive reasoning that does not require one to exclude all other possibilities.
And yet you go on to claim (again correctly) that it is deductive reasoning that leads to an either valid or invalid conclusion, and inductive to weak or strong.
So by you trying to educate others I hope you have finally educated yourself with regards what constitutes a valid conclusion?
I.e. That a valid argument must exclude all other possibilities, since a valid argument is a deductive one.
And I hope you can now acknowledge your error in this regard?
Or does your misunderstanding yet persist?

 

[Jan Ardena]

1. All turds are mammals
2. Tom is a turd
3. Therefore Tom is a mammal.

This is a logically valid argument, for the same reason that Sarkus' argument is a logically valid argument. Notice that they share the same structure.

I know it is, and so are these...

All that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
The universe has a cause.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.

Recall that the first premise actually says "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

The above arguments don't mention ''Everything''

Now, let's consider an example. You are a person. I think you'll agree that you are a living sentient being. Probably you'll agree that you began to exist.

My question to you is: if I were to refer to "everything", would that include you?

It would include my physical manifestation.

Are you part of "everything" - or perhaps part of the mereology called "everything" (we discussed this earlier in the thread, remember)?

Above.

"I'm not a thing! I'm a human being!", you object. Then you'd say that the KCA has nothing to say about you, right? "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Well, obviously that says nothing about Jan Ardena, who isn't "everything" and isn't a "thing" at all.

Jan Ardena began to exist, but I am not Jan Ardena.

To me, this seems like an unnecessarily tortuous and obtuse reading of the KCA. I'd say that the ordinary understanding of "everything" would include both Jan Ardena and also God (if he exists).

Which is why I maintain that you should try and comprehend what God is.

Only once we get to step 4 of the KCA (see the opening post). Steps 1 through 3 only talk about universes and causes and "everything".

Unfortunately you are overly concerned with ''everything'', losing sight of the point.
The emphasis, and point of the argument deals with ''begin to exist'', the ''everything'' is only seemingly ambiguous if you insist on it. It ends up being a semantic issue, not a logic one.

It would be nice if we could get you up to speed so you could also understand the point raised about validity and begging the question, but it's looking less and less likely that that's going to happen any time soon.

I do comprehend both points.
You just happen to be wrong, but choose not to see it.

Then you see that under these conditions the KCA doesn't prove that God is the uncaused cause of the universe. Instead, you say the uncaused cause could be "matter/energy". That's what you're saying, right?

No, that's what you're saying.

Question: in your opinion, is there any difference between the terms "everything" and "everything that begins to exist"?

The latter informs us of it's nature.

Yes. But not all logical arguments beg the question.*

Neither does the KCA.

I demonstrated how this occurs in the opening post, and have done so many times since then.

That is you choosing to make the word ''everything'' a problem. The reality is that it doesn't.

jan.