Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: software salesperson who wrote (142)	8/4/2005 7:42:50 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 26251

The main ontological argument goes: 1) whatever exists must have a cause of its existence 2) thus, there is either an infinite series of causes or there is a cause which is the cause of itself 3) there can’t be an infinite series of causes 4) therefore, there is a cause which is the cause of itself Sometimes called "the uncaused cause" argument. The form of the argument seems valid to me. Some people might question premises 1 or 3. And as you stated an "uncaused cause" could easily be something very different than the Christian view of God or any other religion's opinion of a devine being or force. 1) we see structure in human artifacts, e.g. watch 2) we see more complicated structure in the universe 3) if the effects are the same, so must be the causes 4) therefore, since artifacts are made by intelligent Man, the universe was made by a super-intelligent being As much as I do believe in God (if not very strongly), I find this argument unconvincing. The key premise, number 3, seems highly questionable to me. Tim

To: software salesperson who wrote (142)	8/5/2005 9:36:15 AM
From: Rarebird	Respond to of 26251

>>The ontological argument and the cosmological argument are two entirely distinct types of argument<< Ultimately, the cosmological argument depends upon the ontological argument for its validity. The cosmological argument demands a necessary cause for the causal chain. It departs from the experience of the world's contingency. That is to say, it departs from the finite. From the contingency of the existent, we reach, through a chain of causes, an absolutely necessary cause. But in this last step, we misapply the causal law, going beyond the nature of possible Knowledge. The cosmological argument relies on experience to infer the existence of a necessary Being in general. However, experience won't inform the properties of such a being. When it comes to this point, the cosmological argument conveniently finds its way out of experience, relying on reason to inform us the predicates such being should possess. Those would be the properties of the real being, the one whose essence existence belongs. But I can only Know existence belongs to its essence through the ontological argument, since that argument has already been refuted by Luther and Kant, the cosmological argument also lacks solid ground.