JWeinCom said:
And this is what you repeatedly do. Any time someone responds to you, you claim they just didn't understand. I assure you that I, and from what I can tell everyone else, are responding to the best of our understanding. So, maybe you're not being clear. But fine, let's recap. "1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused). 2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further). 3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity. 4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself. 5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself) 6) This necessary being is God." Your deductive argument (labeled as deductive by the source that you referred me to), ends with a conclusion that is not proven, even if we assume the premises are true. How is this not an invalid argument? I'd also like to point out that premise 5 is actually not even a complete thought. You propose an if without following up with a then. So, that actually makes the argument invalid in and of itself, as it is presented. |
The premisse is contingency. Whether or not the end is empirically proven is irrelevant. The form of the argument is deductive, there is nothing formally wrong with the argument.
Premisse 5 stands easily. There does not need to be an "if" statement included. "The chain of cause and effect can not start with a contingent being because a contingent being cannot cause itself. The chan therefore must start with a necessary being".
Problem solved, next.
