Kantian Logic and scientific theories..

[Max]

I tried searching on this, and couldn't find anything to really help me.

On another board, someone is using the Kantian Categorical Imperative to discredit pretty much all of science, but is focusing on Evolution and the big bang. Here are some of the excerpts from his argument.

A fine reply. But I'm confused how it gets to the heart of the matter. My problem with the theory of evolution is this: If we were to take the theory as a practical logical rule, like, say, the Kantian Categorical Imperative, then we ought to be able to maximize the rule and not compromise the integrity of the logic. Yet, when I consider the consequences of maximizing the theory of evolution (since it is an observation of matter over time, the maximization ought to trace the history, and future, of the universe), we invariably hit a wall because at some point, you cannot continue going back. So something else is at work, in addition to evolution, something that evolution, as a logical theory, can't explain. Why I bring up the Big Bang theory is because, really, it's almost an opposite logical assumption to evolution. Do help! It stumps me every time.

You're an articulate and intelligent guy, and seem to be well versed enough on the subject to know why I noted Kant's approach to logical deduction. I'm not Kantian, but I do agree with him that in order for a logical argument to be universally true, it ought to be something that can be universalized. I don't think that's really absurd at all. I only used his idea as an example of this.

Ultimately, I think God and evolution can co-exist just fine. I just don't think we should be putting as much stock in the theory (or maybe either theory) as we do. There are certainly logical problems with the existence of God, but there's logical problems in the existence of peanut butter, so whatever.

Even when I was an athiest, which I'd been for most of my life, I always found evolution a bit odd. It's really only a very basic explanation for what seems to be a pretty complex process. I mean, it's inherently random, because it's based on mating practice, but also somewhat structured, because weak things are supposed to die. Yet we've got so many anomalies that we shoe-horn into the theory.

Like an egg. Tell me, how is it that mating practices, and battles for strength, simultaneously developed both eggs, and the tooth that creatures in eggs develop specifically for the purpose of breaking the egg? If the egg existed first, nothing would have hatched and the things inside would have died. Yet, if the egg didn't exist, no necessity would have existed for the tooth to develop. That's one of a bajillion of examples.

So, using impirical data, no matter how consistent, doesn't really aid in the cause if the logic of an argument isn't up to snuff. Just ask a phrenologist.

I'm not familiar with Kant, and google searches aren't really helping me find any information to really figure out a response. So any information on Kant would be most welcome =)

[Darth Wong]

General tip: when someone engages in name-dropping, point out that he's engaging in name-dropping and demand that he explain his argument fully.

Kant himself explained his argument fully, as did every other philosopher. It would have been unacceptable for any of them to argue by simply dropping names of other philosophers. So why is it acceptable for your opponent?

[Darth Wong]

As for his specific arguments against evolution, they don't seem particularly difficult to deal with. I don't see how you can't just ignore the name-dropping and refute his specific points.

[Eris]

Umm, I've got an easy one. The categorical imperative was part of moral philosophy (appearing first in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals). Asking it to be a critique of science is just fucking retarded. It's like asking if electrons are good people--it just doesn't make sense.

If you want Kantian philosophy of science, have them read the Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics and then laugh as they try to comprehend it--it's pretty dense going but does address the problems inherent in the foundations of natural science (most notably the Humean challenge to causality). You want to be using his arguments about the transcendental deduction, not the categorical imperative.

Pfft, really people. Imperatives have to do with free-willed behaviour, not causal laws.

[Surlethe]

Don't do his work for him -- have him define this "Kantian Categorical Imperative", tell you how it impinges on the debate, and then debunk his shit. It sounds to me like the heart of his first argument is a strawman -- he's trying to extend evolution to cover everything as some sort of blanket theory of history, when it is no such thing.

It's amazing how people an simply make assertions and expect their opponents to create an argument for the assertion so they can disprove it -- and then their opponents actually do it! Consider, for example, the statement, "The Kantian Categorical Imperative requires that evolution, since it is a logical argument, extend indefinitely into the past; therefore, evolution is nonsensical": the initial claim is not well defined, and he's simply name-dropping and expecting the person rebutting to do all the work and figure out why the Kantian Categorical Imperative requires evolution extend indefinitely into the past. There seems to be something in the human psyche which responds to strongly written statements with or without arguments, which would explain why question begging is so common.

[Dark Hellion]

He is mixing Philosophy with hard science. Philosophic tools are not meant to be used on the same level as science. He's trying to perform surgery with a sledehammer. Philosophy is expressely designed to answer questions that are too abstract to be answered with science, such as what is time (in the metaphysical sense), what defines our morality, how do we own property, or in what way to governments get their powers. Science answers questions like how fast in this particle going, how do plants resperate, etc.
He's basically failed one of the first rules of Philosophy by misusing it on something outside its scope.
The rest is just bullshit based on him being too stupid to understand the basics, thus making some up some complexely worded and damn worthless rebuttal to explain his lack of understanding.

[Max]

As for his specific arguments against evolution, they don't seem particularly difficult to deal with. I don't see how you can't just ignore the name-dropping and refute his specific points.

I'll be able to refute the evolution specific arguments, and if I have trouble I'm sure a quick search on here can flesh things out for me a bit more. I just don't have any knowledge of Kant, so I can't figure out how to respond. I know it's name dropping, but if I point that out he's just going to turn around and do that to me if I point out anything relating to a specifice scientist (einstein, darwin, etc..)

[Surlethe]

I'll be able to refute the evolution specific arguments, and if I have trouble I'm sure a quick search on here can flesh things out for me a bit more. I just don't have any knowledge of Kant, so I can't figure out how to respond. I know it's name dropping, but if I point that out he's just going to turn around and do that to me if I point out anything relating to a specifice scientist (einstein, darwin, etc..)

He may try to do that to you, but he won't be justified if you don't appeal to authority -- i.e., if you don't simply drop their names, but rather explain their arguments, as well.

[Darth Wong]

As for his specific arguments against evolution, they don't seem particularly difficult to deal with. I don't see how you can't just ignore the name-dropping and refute his specific points.

I'll be able to refute the evolution specific arguments, and if I have trouble I'm sure a quick search on here can flesh things out for me a bit more. I just don't have any knowledge of Kant, so I can't figure out how to respond. I know it's name dropping, but if I point that out he's just going to turn around and do that to me if I point out anything relating to a specifice scientist (einstein, darwin, etc..)

As well he should if you can't explain what the idea is. You shouldn't use Einstein as a name-dropping argument any more than he does.

[Il Saggiatore]

This is how I would deal with the first part:

My problem with the theory of evolution is this: If we were to take the theory as a practical logical rule,...

Explain exactly what you mean with "take a scientific theory as a practical logical rule" and we should do it.

[I suspect that he is trying to steer you towards practical logic (logic for the everyday practice, ethics, morality).
If you agree to his "If", you would admit using the Theory of Evolution as a guide for morality. He can then reject Evolution on moral grounds, and not scientific ones, because of things like Social Darwinism.
If this is the case, be sure to point out that the purpose of a scientific theory is to explain how something works (knowledge), not to tell us what to do (morality and ethics).]

...like, say, the Kantian Categorical Imperative, then we ought to be able to maximize the rule and not compromise the integrity of the logic.

Explain what you mean with "maximize the rule" and "compromise the integrity of the logic".

[As others here already said, get him to explain the concepts and ignore his name-dropping, he is just trying to impress you and to waste time looking up Kant. It is up to him to explain himself.]

et, when I consider the consequences of maximizing the theory of evolution (since it is an observation of matter over time, the maximization ought to trace the history, and future, of the universe), we invariably hit a wall because at some point, you cannot continue going back.

What do you mean that we cannot continue going back?
That we cannot apply the Theory of Evolution beyond the origin of life, the origin of the Solar System, of the Universe?

[He might go for the "argument" that Evolution does not explain the origin of life, or of the Solar System, or of the Universe.
If that's the case, point out that Evolution is to be applied to living beings, and application outside that range is unjustified.]

So something else is at work, in addition to evolution, something that evolution, as a logical theory, can't explain.

Where is the evidence?

[I wouldn't be surprised if he came up with "arguments" such as irreducible complexity or "scientists cannot explain this or that".
If so, just point out that our current ignorance does not imply necessarily that Evolution cannot explain it.]

Why I bring up the Big Bang theory is because, really, it's almost an opposite logical assumption to evolution.

Both the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Big Bang are scientific theories supported by the experimental evidence available, but they deal with different classes of phenomena.
Now, explain why you bring up the Big Bang. If you think that is linked to Evolution, then you are sadly mistaken, and obviously don't understand either of these theories.


[The rest of his posts clearly shows that he does not understand Evolution.]

[Patrick Degan]

The whole of it in a nutshell is that Kant can't explain evolution because he's incompetent to do so: Moral arguments are utterly irrelevant to scientific observation.

[kheegster]

From what little I know about Kant's philosophy regarding the dichotomy of external phenomena and the 'nomena' as perceived by an observer, at first glance it appears that this guy is bullshitting.

It's possible that he may be talking about a more obscure part of Kant's philosophy, but in any case the burden is on him to explain what he's on about.

[wolveraptor]

Like an egg. Tell me, how is it that mating practices, and battles for strength, simultaneously developed both eggs, and the tooth that creatures in eggs develop specifically for the purpose of breaking the egg? If the egg existed first, nothing would have hatched and the things inside would have died. Yet, if the egg didn't exist, no necessity would have existed for the tooth to develop. That's one of a bajillion of examples.

All of which are explained by simultaneous evolution. As egg shells grew thicker and more resistant to environmental hardships (necessary qualities as tetrapods moved holistically on to land), only the young with hard protuberances on their snouts survived. Such features are easily explainable by random genetic mutations. Crazier unfrequent phenotypes exist in humans, such as more than five fingers, more than two arms, tails, quadrupedalism, "hare-lips", etc. Naturally, the young that survived bred and passed on that characteristic. This can only cause the frequency of that trait to increase among terrestrial vertebrates.

[Kuroneko]

The injection of Kant is ludicrously silly. Kant's basic principle is that the universalizing maxims (or general principles) of moral actions does not lead to a form of contradiction (self-defeat). This is probably best understood by example--e.g., a promise is an assurance, but if promises were routinely broken everywhere (universally), there would be no such assurance. Thus, breaking a promise is not a moral action in general. But why in the world would someone apply a principle of Kantian morality to a purely descriptive theory like evolution? At best, it demonstrates that evolution is not moral. Well, so what? Even Kant himself admitted that it is not rational to believe that Nature is just or in any sense moral. [*]

[*] Kant held that belief in God is irrational, although he did contend that it is rational to hope that there is a God-as-final-judger for precisely this reason of making the universe ultimately just.

[Gil Hamilton]

I find the last part a bit confusing about Kant.

God-as-Final-Judge typically is philosophically thrown in because without such, immoral action, such as murder, could conceivably go unpunished if the person manages - that is, justice isn't done. With God-as-Final-Judge, it ensures that everyone gets their due, whether they are punished in this life or the next.

Kant admits that isn't rational to believe that Nature is just or fair, but as you say, he says it is rational to hope that God-as-Final-Judge exists to make it fair. From the size of it, it sounds like he's saying "Well, we can't rationally assume that the Universe gives a damn, but it is rational to hope we are wrong about that." I don't see how it is rational to hope when you already admit there isn't a rational reason to think that your hope is true. It seems like wishful thinking that is derived from not wanting to concede that life is unordered and unfair, and thence open that Can of Worms.

[wolveraptor]

Maybe it would be more acceptable if Kant had said, "It is understandable and useful to have the belief that a deity will punish you for your malefactions."

[Kuroneko]

God-as-Final-Judge typically is philosophically thrown in because without such, immoral action, such as murder, could conceivably go unpunished if the person manages - that is, justice isn't done. With God-as-Final-Judge, it ensures that everyone gets their due, whether they are punished in this life or the next.

Yes.

I don't see how it is rational to hope when you already admit there isn't a rational reason to think that your hope is true.

It may be more understandable if you realize that for Kant, morality is a a form of rationality; whether or not it is actually, and whether or it works in the specific way Kant believes it does, are side issues. Thus, if we step back from Kant's morality-is-rationality thesis, all Kant really means is that every moral agent should hope that criminals always get their due, but he admits there is no evidence to believe that this actually occurs.

It seems like wishful thinking that is derived from not wanting to concede that life is unordered and unfair, and thence open that Can of Worms.

Not really. Kant himself, being Christian, might not have conceded such a thing, but as stated the position as stated is perfectly compatible with the case that there is no supernatural enforcer of final justice.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ah, I see and understand. But hoping for something that you don't have a compelling reason is actually will come true sounds like the definition of wishful thinking. And how can wishful thinking ever be considered rational, when it relies on faith?

[Kuroneko]

You're right. Given this discussion, I wonder if Kant's original position was in regards of hoping or wishing... if it is the latter, there is definitely no inconsistency, but the former has a slightly different meaning that would mean your criticism is exactly right. I'm not sure if the fault is Kant's in not making that distinction or mine in not recalling Kant correctly (I'll check on that later), but 'hope' definitely falls prey to your criticism, whereas the 'wish' does not.

Ah, I see and understand. But hoping for something that you don't have a compelling reason is actually will come true sounds like the definition of wishful thinking. And how can wishful thinking ever be considered rational, when it relies on faith?

On the latter interpretation, considering Kant's blurring of rationality and morality that is not present in other conceptions of rationality, it is a moral imperative to wish that criminals get their due simply because (univesalizing the negation, by the aforementioned categorical imperative) moral apathy will lead to an immoral world. Wishful thinking involves actual formation of beliefs; there is no wishful thinking or faith involved here because there is no requirement to believe in any sort of God. People in general are quite capable of having wishes without believing that they are, or ever will be, reality. For example, one may wish to win the lottery without ever believing that one will actually win. If you find this moral requirement of wishing that there is a God-as-final-judger without the requirement of actually beliving so strange, you're not alone--but there is no logical inconsistency in Kant's position (or, if there is, it is not the fault of this particular doctrine, but his larger moral framework).

[Max]

Well, apparently he's not using Kant as a moral argument anymore? I think this just turned into a whole bunch of 'nothing'...my eyes got tired from reading it. I feel like we're just going in circles at this point.

I'm not interested in the moral aspect of Kant's argument at all, when it comes to this topic. Only this: We can use logic and rationality (as two similar but different methods of deduction) to understand the world. Though rational statements don't require absolute truths to function, logical ones do. I hope you don't contest that, at least.

PS, I split the two up as most people do: rational statements tend to get small, and logical statements get big, I guess.

One way of testing a logical rule, such as x2 + y2 = z2, or whatever, is by maximizing it, or universalizing it, or whatever. Imagine the rule applied infinitely, and consider the results.

There's lots of reasons why someone might hate Kant, but there's one reason I like him: at least a little bit, he seemed to think about the world in logical terms. It wasn't just rationality. It was logic. And he wrote a bit about universalizing logical assumptions. I thought by mentioning him, I might let you know where I was going. I didn't intend to make it more confused. Again, sorry.

So my assumptions are these:
1. There are likely some rules, however invisible, guiding reality, and through logic and rationality we can come to understand those rules.
1a. We do this because it's fun, and because it makes things so much easier.
2. We can assume a logical rule, and test it by universalizing it and seeing how the rule sustains itself in reality. (Good: By understanding one grain of sand, we can get a good feel for the entire beach. Bad: Phrenology, or something.)
3. If the logical rule is reasonably applicable, it's probably true.

So, I take the basest logical rule for Evolution to be: something comes from something else. That's pretty simple, but don't confuse that with naivete. I'm just using that as the base logical rule that seems to make the Theory of Evolution work so well.

But by testing the rule, and I just randomly chose to test it by universalizing it, we see the entire universe's logic, don't we? And that's why it's so fascinating, initially. Stars form, comets crash, things spin really really fast, ice melts, et cetera. The Theory of Evolution, which rides on the base theory"something comes from something else" fits into a reasonably acceptable logical rule that we can observe in the universe. And so I agree that it's attractive to believe in, and it fits evidence, and it certainly is true enough.

But at a point, and this is where the Big Bang kind of comes in, the theory that "something comes from something else" ceases to be true.

Are we to believe that there was an infinitely small, infinitely old rock that one day, after getting too small, and too old, burst into a universe? Sure, I can buy that. That theory doesn't bother me. But it doesn't fit with the much nicer logical argument that is clearly "something comes from something else."

Still reading? Sorry how long this is! I just wanna be clearer, since I think that's part of the problem.

So ultimately through universalizing our simple rule, we get this conundrum:

1. Things may go back infinitely, which still doesn't solve anything. That's why I mentioned the goofy fable about the turtles holding up the world. The argument wasn't absurd because it was turtles (well, maybe a little ), it was absurd because the tower of turtles was infitely. I mean seriously, who would believe that? Things always fall into this "and then it was infinite" sort of mantra, which I think it a cop out really. Just kinda cheap.

Or 2. Instead of that, there was at some point only one thing, a first thing. But if that were true, the base that supports the Theory of Evolution, "something comes from something else," ceases to be true.

In both of these possible cases, the base logic behind the argument ceases to function as a rule. And so, as attractive as evolution is as a theory, I don't think it's quite there yet, in describing everything.

-

Phewph! I can't believe how long that is. If anyone actually read all that, don't hate me for stealing so much of your life from you.

-

Now that that's done, I'd like to suggest one possible solution outside of God: We see that galaxies farther from the "centre" of the universe, where ever that is, are moving slower. One possible way to get around the "infinity" problem that plagues the theories that make the universe chug, is to assume that the universe will one day cease to grow, then begin to contract, perhaps going faster and faster, until it is reformed as one hot little ball, at which point the momentum and engery built up will release, thus resulting in a new Big Bang, and a rebirth of the universe.

Perhaps we are but one universe in this string of expansions and contractions, and our "Big Bang" was caused by just such a phenomena.

Still, that doesn't get us any closer to the question of how this material came to exist in the first place (thus still leaving our "something comes from something" theory in the dust), and makes me wonder what's outside the limits of the universe. After all, if it grows and contracts in physical space, what space outside of itself is it occupying?

Sorry, it's just that I really enjoy these sorts of rhetorical problems

[R. U. Serious]

It seems your opponent is using a variant of the so-called Chewbacca-Defense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

[Darth Wong]

Though rational statements don't require absolute truths to function, logical ones do. I hope you don't contest that, at least.

I contest that. Logical statements function regardless of whether their underlying premises are correct. You can make a completely logical deduction from false premises.

One way of testing a logical rule, such as x2 + y2 = z2, or whatever, is by maximizing it, or universalizing it, or whatever. Imagine the rule applied infinitely, and consider the results.

That is strangely worded and difficult to follow. Ask him to demonstrate how this is done with a practical example. For example, ask him to show how one "tests" the logical deductive rule that a property of a set must apply to all members of that set.

So my assumptions are these:
1. There are likely some rules, however invisible, guiding reality, and through logic and rationality we can come to understand those rules.

He forgot empirical observations. You cannot learn anything about the universe through logic alone; you need data to work from.

1a. We do this because it's fun, and because it makes things so much easier.
2. We can assume a logical rule, and test it by universalizing it and seeing how the rule sustains itself in reality. (Good: By understanding one grain of sand, we can get a good feel for the entire beach. Bad: Phrenology, or something.)

So he is saying that generalizing from small sample sizes is a valid test of logic?

3. If the logical rule is reasonably applicable, it's probably true.

Totally incorrect; logical deductive rules must always be true. There is no "probably" when it comes to the rules of logic themselves, although you can have a "probably" in a real-world problem. One can disprove a logical rule by finding a single example which contradicts it.

So, I take the basest logical rule for Evolution to be: something comes from something else. That's pretty simple, but don't confuse that with naivete. I'm just using that as the base logical rule that seems to make the Theory of Evolution work so well.

That's nonsense; mass/energy can change form; that is not the same thing as saying that "something always comes from something else", which is a preposterously worded and childish interpretation of physics (and which is not even the principal concept of evolution anyway).

But by testing the rule, and I just randomly chose to test it by universalizing it, we see the entire universe's logic, don't we? And that's why it's so fascinating, initially. Stars form, comets crash, things spin really really fast, ice melts, et cetera. The Theory of Evolution, which rides on the base theory"something comes from something else" fits into a reasonably acceptable logical rule that we can observe in the universe. And so I agree that it's attractive to believe in, and it fits evidence, and it certainly is true enough.

He actually distills the operation of the universe into "something comes from something else?" He really thinks it's that simple? He's the worst kind of ignoramus; the kind who doesn't even realize how much knowledge there is out there.

But at a point, and this is where the Big Bang kind of comes in, the theory that "something comes from something else" ceases to be true.

That's because it was never true in the first place; the mass/energy in your body changes form; it does not "come from something else". The total amount of mass/energy in the universe has always been fixed.

Are we to believe that there was an infinitely small, infinitely old rock that one day, after getting too small, and too old, burst into a universe?

No, we are to believe that there was a universe which was once much smaller and denser, but contained exactly the same amount of mass/energy that it does now.

Sure, I can buy that. That theory doesn't bother me. But it doesn't fit with the much nicer logical argument that is clearly "something comes from something else."

Except that things don't "come from" other things; that is a clumsy and childish way of interpreting the fact that mass/energy changes form but not total quantity.

1. Things may go back infinitely, which still doesn't solve anything. That's why I mentioned the goofy fable about the turtles holding up the world. The argument wasn't absurd because it was turtles (well, maybe a little ), it was absurd because the tower of turtles was infitely. I mean seriously, who would believe that? Things always fall into this "and then it was infinite" sort of mantra, which I think it a cop out really. Just kinda cheap.

How old is this imbecile? What the fuck kind of logical criticism is "just kinda cheap?" The problem with the turtles holding up the world is that there are numerous physics principles which can be used to show that the scheme can't work, not the fact that it's subjectively "goofy".

Or 2. Instead of that, there was at some point only one thing, a first thing. But if that were true, the base that supports the Theory of Evolution, "something comes from something else," ceases to be true.

Seriously, this guy is an absolute idiot if he thinks that the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory is based on "something comes from something else".

In both of these possible cases, the base logic behind the argument ceases to function as a rule. And so, as attractive as evolution is as a theory, I don't think it's quite there yet, in describing everything.

In all of these cases, he clearly has no scientific comprehension whatsoever, and is clearly out of his league. You are debating with a precocious child: hardly even worth your time except as target practice.

Phewph! I can't believe how long that is. If anyone actually read all that, don't hate me for stealing so much of your life from you.

It's actually not that long at all in terms of real content, because it contains only one real argument: the preposterous false claim that "something comes from something else" is the basis of all science.

Now that that's done, I'd like to suggest one possible solution outside of God: We see that galaxies farther from the "centre" of the universe, where ever that is, are moving slower. One possible way to get around the "infinity" problem that plagues the theories that make the universe chug, is to assume that the universe will one day cease to grow, then begin to contract, perhaps going faster and faster, until it is reformed as one hot little ball, at which point the momentum and engery built up will release, thus resulting in a new Big Bang, and a rebirth of the universe.

That's the old "Big Crunch" theory. Welcome to the previous century.

Still, that doesn't get us any closer to the question of how this material came to exist in the first place (thus still leaving our "something comes from something" theory in the dust), and makes me wonder what's outside the limits of the universe. After all, if it grows and contracts in physical space, what space outside of itself is it occupying?

The fact that he thinks space itself exists in a larger space indicates that he is just inventing terms for the sake of asking about them. There is no reason for the mass/energy to "come to exist" since that presumes it did not exist at one time.

Sorry, it's just that I really enjoy these sorts of rhetorical problems

If only he was intelligent enough to come up with real logical problems instead of rhetorical ones.

[Max]

Isn't his 'argument' just a form of sophistry? Even if I replied to that, what are the chances that he'll back down and not come up with some other off the wall 'argument'? I just don't understand how people can be so utterly...stupid.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't his 'argument' just a form of sophistry? Even if I replied to that, what are the chances that he'll back down and not come up with some other off the wall 'argument'? I just don't understand how people can be so utterly...stupid.

It's quite probable; he clearly has near-zero scientific knowledge, so he's just bluffing and making it up as he goes along. This kind of person is starting from a base of ignorance and dishonesty, so you can expect more of the same as you continue.

I still can't believe that he based his entire argument on the idiotic notion that science is all based on "something comes from something else", as if you could actually find that expression as a law in any physics textbook.

[mr friendly guy]

This guy just seems to throwing words together to try and make himself sound complicated, but his ideas don't make a whole lot of sense.

For example, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between induction and deduction. He also doesn't understand you don't test logical rules against reality, you test scientific hypothesis against reality (again failing to understand the difference between induction and deduction).

Even if we accept his line of reasoning, its based on a strawman that something must come from something else.

I wonder if he thinks that if you can't understand his argument, he wins by default.