I’m a little surprised that the OP is being taken so seriously, and I hope you’ll see why at the end of this post.
I’ll critique the argument in terms of its form, and its content.
Form:
“A deductive argument is an argument where it is intended that it be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.” - Cook, Roy T.* A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic*. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2009. p. 81.
Since MindoverMatter2 (MM2 from now on) intends his argument to be such that it’s impossible for his premises to be true and the conclusion false, his argument is deductive.
Now, deductive arguments are either valid or invalid. They’re valid if their conclusion(s) can be derived from the premises by rules of inference. This occurs naturally when the argument’s structure is a valid argument form like Modus Ponens, or Modus Tollens, etc.
I’ve translated MM2’s argument into several logics with the same result: the argument certainly isn’t valid. For example, this is what it looks like in propositional logic:
- O
- P & => ~I & C
- R & ~V
The above is
literally gibberish. It can’t even translate meaningfully. So, on the grounds of the form of his argument alone, I think we should all abandon any confidence in the argument. (it’s not meaningful)
In case I’m accused of being pedantic, if we can’t clearly see the intended implication relationship between the premises and the conclusion, then we can’t tell if the premises afford good reason to accept the conclusion. It certainly isn’t pedantic: it’s necessary.
He can’t offer the argument as inductive either since he thinks it’s impossible for his premises to be false.
Content:
1. Out of nothing comes nothing..
(1) is ambiguous because MM2 thinks that out of nothing, God created everything. So, he’ll need to clarify that unless he’s down with (1) precluding creatio ex nihilo. If I might be so bold, I’m sure his clarification will reduce to the variation of Kalam’s first premise: “nothing begins to exist without being caused to.”
In that case, MM2’s (1) is subject to alllll the objections and responses that shroud Kalam’s first premise. We’ve all taken our stands on that, and I doubt any of us could say something the other hasn’t already heard, so if MM2’s (1) reduces to Kalam’s (1), we should treat MM2’s (1) just exactly as we do Kalam’s.
2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
(2) is highly ambiguous as well. Especially because MM2 thinks the latter statement of (2) is a derivation of the former, otherwise I can’t make any sense of the “therefore” locution in (2). But, obviously the latter cannot be deduced from the former by any rule of inference. It shouldn’t be included in a premise, and MM2 says (2) is a premise in (3).
Further, the phrase “potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality” can mean a number of things. What does it mean for something to
infinitely precede another?
In an infinite series of whatever, there is no first memeber, so it doesn’t make sense to say there is a member of that series which is infinitely remote from another member of that series. All members are finitely extended (causally, spatially, temporally etc.) from each other. What’s infinite is the amount of members, not their relations to each other.
3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.
(3) interests me most because MM2 says here that there
has to be an infinite reality. Yet,
here, he practically says that infinity cannot be real. Now, he might respond here and say “I was talking about quantity there, I’m not so doing in (3).” But, then it’s his burden to explain what infinity means in relation to God if not anything in a quantitative sense.
Conclusion:
The argument is, logically speaking, gibberish. The premises are really ambiguous, and as far as I can tell (2) is false.
To run with his Checkmate reference, the argument (as stated) is analogous to showing up to a darts tournament in scuba gear, armed only with Uno cards, and shouting ‘Checkmate in 3!’ Can you really blame the dart players for wondering?
I recommend the following to MM2:
amazon.com/Introduction-Non-Classical-Logic-Introductions-Philosophy/dp/0521854334/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322663179&sr=8-1
amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Harry-J-Gensler/dp/0415996511/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
If this stuff seems a bit weak sauce, check out:
amazon.com/Logic-Philosophy-Theodore-Sider/dp/0199575584/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322663239&sr=1-2
Or if you’re not into modern logic, and prefer an aristotelian approach:
amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-3-1e-Platonic-Questions/dp/1587318083/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322663267&sr=1-1
In any case, logic will revolutionize your argumentation.
Therefore my argument stands unrefuted.
