The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

Thanks Pro for posting the final round. Preface: - Pro has not disputed my Opening Argument, & all my case went largely uncontested throughout the debate. Thus, all my points are valid. - Pro had the burden of proof to establish that the CA in all its forms is risible, as in it provokes laughter. The resolution is certainly not about the soundness of the CA, or its reliability ; it is about its faculty to provoke laughter. - For instance, Pro had to show that the CA has sarcastic elements, or ironic forms, or some wordplay in such a way that it’s comical . . . some combination of things that will make his case stronger, without resorting to logical fallacies & appeal to emotions,to also convince us how the CA is really an object of laughter. - Finally, Pro had the bop to convincingly show that this was the case for CA in all its forms. So far, Pro has argued against some form of KCA (WLC’s formula), & dropped Avicenna’s formula, for he admitted that his contentions are not related to Avicenna’s CA (“This is not exactly what Avicenna said”), & also Gale-Pruss’ [1] formula, among others. Case: - Since Pro has dropped all the argument in my case, that by claiming they are inaccurate, without providing any reasons why that is the case. Therefore, I shall repeat my opening argument as a reminder: “Pro’s entire case is logical fallacies compiled together to make a fallacious argument seems legitimate, while in fact it invalid, for: 1. It is not really related to the Resolution. 2. It is not really representative of any of the elements of the Resolution: not the CA, not its varieties, & not its alleged comicality.” Rebuttals: It is of interest to note the following paragraph: In medieval philosophy, it was not assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts an assumption of existential import.It behoves the intelligent reader to follow the link to "existential import" to understand what Wikipedia is telling you. - First of all, the wikipedia page doesn't reference said proposition, thus we can not really verify whether or not medieval philosophy had such a stance, which is dubious [2]. - Second of all, either way, Pro does not make any point of why he brought up this contention, ‘the intelligent reader’ is left wondering what is the purpose of such contention, & how it’s related to the resolution! - Third of all, the issue of “existential import” doesn’t apply to the KCA (if that was Pro’s intention), as it has a basis in reality: > Everything that begins has a cause. => The existential import here lies in the way we observe the world, that is Causality, a well established concept in both philosophy & science [3]. > An example of a statement not bearing an existential import is: “Every eagle is a mammal”, & we know no eagle is a mammal. Let me repeat myself again: when I was a Christian, the cosmological argument completely convinced me. It is a sublimely clever magic trick, but it's basically just a reinforcer for existing belief. If you already believe in God, the cosmological argument seems to make sense. However, it is just a well disguised form of special pleading.If you seek to split things into two categories (the caused and the uncaused) then you must provide sufficient reason or evidence to support this distinction. To fail to do so is to be special pleading. - First of all, as stated previously: “the principle of identity (the most fundamental law of Logic) intellectually partitions the Universe into exactly two parts: "self" and "other", it creates a dichotomy wherein the two parts are "mutually exclusive" and "jointly exhaustive” [4]. That’s an axiomatic law, providing sufficient reason to believe in it, means presupposing it in the first place, hence the axiomatic nature. - Second of all, contrary to what Pro has stated, & suite literally, assuming there is an exception in making the above distinction is, by definition, special pleading. Basically, Pro is identifying “special pleading” with its exact opposite. - That been said, this: “All things are either caused or not caused” does not necessarily imply this: “Some things are caused, & some things are uncaused”. => That’s for the CA to determine, & so far as it has an existential import, either through inductive causality, or sufficient causality, or from contingency, it is a valid argument. Otherwise, it may be deemed unsound, which as stated in previous rounds, & repeated again & again, says nothing about wether or not the argument is risible. Even if an argument is unsound, that does not make it automatically risible, for unsound =/= risible. Now, I don't think that it's necessary to defend every cry of logical fallacy that my opponent makes. Suffice to say that I do not think the accusations are correct or appropriate; - Pro, again, attempts to refute my counter-arguments with bare assertions, giving no reason to believe what he says, & no basis for me (Con) to counter. however, I'll answer one thing my opponent says This is the KCA: Everything that begins to exist has a cause The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. - The rest is an implication of the KCA proposed by WLC, not necessarily inferred by it. No, sorry: Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God. - The KCA defines God as the Cause of the Universe, as its structure clearly implies. Adding new attributes to this notion of God necessitate proofs each time a new attribute is added. WLC adds a number of attributes to the First Cause inferred from the KCA, it’s his bop to support these super-additions. - Either way, this is a red herring fallacy, as it had nothing to do with the resolution. But even in this first step we see the distinction between caused and uncaused forming (without sufficient justification). What does it mean to say that something is "uncaused"? Does that even make sense? What things do we ascribe this property to? Just God? I don't for one second say that it's not logically possible for God to be uncaused - but what I do say is that the CA simply fails to demonstrate that. - Pro has yet to show us how the CA fails. & in that case (or otherwise), how is it risible. A burden of proof he entirely failed to uphold. The CA is, in all its forms, a logical fallacy in fancy dress. It's pretty cool in many ways, and it does appear, sometimes, to hold water... but, like all good magic tricks, if we look hard enough we spot the illusion and the correct response at this time is to be, like a child, delighted with the sheer magic of the illusion. It's a surprise, like a magic trick or a joke. It's funny! - This is a series of bare assertions, where Pro relies on appeal to emotion to make his case, & we are not compelled to believe anything Pro says without proof, after all, the entire bop lies on him. If he thinks it’s funny, then why should we?! Conclusion: - Pro has not contested any of my primary arguments. He is, therefore, guilty of misrepresenting the resolution, misrepresenting the CA, & also discarding the many forms of the CA. Three points, already sufficient to negate Pro’s bop entirely. - Pro has only precipitated the erroneous nature of his entire argument, one round after the other, by relying, intentionally or unintentionally, on fallacies to desperately prove his case. In which he failed, for he did not, not once, provide a proper argument for why the CA, in at least of its forms, is the object of laughter, let alone in all its forms. - Pro has also showed a serious lack of understanding of the philosophical constructs & ramifications, which makes his judgements on the subject all the more questionable. - Pro has thus failed, hopelessly, to carry his BOF, & on top of that failed to negate my case. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...