The pretension of "reason" on the part of atheists has always struck me as banal, childish, and just plain weird. There is probably a very good commentary on it somewhere, but does anyone else feel the same way?
may I recommend the smithy.com as well? It is thorough a website on Scotism (named after blessed Duns Scotus) and Saint Bonaventure.
League of reason, please. usually people insecure of their ability to reason well would feel the need to trumpet their reasonableness . It is as bad as the "brights."
Considering the eligibility of the LoR requires no formal education, and only the mongrel horde cry of non-censorship (I might also add that they NEVER provide an argument for the normativity of free speech! Indeed they never could under scientism).
Further, the Prosblogion has been recognized, rewarded, requires an actual degree and has some of the most prestigious philosophers in academia today active there-- I not only prefer the Pb over the LoR but pity whichever deranged minds that don't.
One possible explanation for gravity is that invisible non-material angels hold everything down. Of course this could be a possible explanation for gravity, but no one would believe it to be true since no one has any reason to believe in anything non-material.
Many things either cannot be reduced to material entities or are wholly independent of them, examples would include: numbers, abstractions, values, essences, laws of logic, all laws of normativity and the truth of propositions.
In these ways, materialism as an explanation of the world is not only insufficient and absurd but downright self-refuting for you relied on much of the above to assert this.
Well, the labels exist in the same sense that if you put together some letters you get a word. But that sort of existence is not what mereological nihilism is getting at.
@drcraigvideos Unsurprisingly this is coming from a mentally doomed person. Who cares what mentally doomed kid thinks. Anybody smell some hypocrisy??? .
@theowarner LOL! It's not hard arguing that you'd have to be a mental screw up when it comes to people like you theo. After all, you said that square circles existed. But the fact that you had RRG's account suspended proves that you're a pansy.
What's your point? I don't believe they've ever made the claim to be the philosophical light of the world you theists claim to be and if they did they would at least be right in regards to the facts of the known world and universe. Naive and un-argued? Why mischaracterize like that, is that all you got, mischaracterizations and presuppositions of them being philosophers?
i tend to lean with the skeptics of the KCA. the sort of causality we see in the physical world is that of transformations of matter - what this leads to, if anything, is that there existed an arrangement of matter that never began to exist.
Remember that if this is the case, then matter must have a number of characteristics consistent with that eternality/necessity. Some of which would be: matter must be irreducible, unchanging, without any ontologically prior beings/states and cannot be dependent on other things in order to be. It seems rather plainly that matter fails all of these beginning criteria. The hypothesis of matter being necessary from the start also fails on just about every theory of cosmogony one could postulate.
Yes, but mereological nihilism isn't attempting to develop a cosmogonic theory. It terms of Kalam, all if can do is disable the inductive history of the first premise, assuming it is developed inductively. Craig never really clears that up especially he continues to refer to the argument as deductive. One wonders if he knows the difference.
Nothing I said has anything to do with nihilism as a theory of mereology, or the Kalam argument; nor should you expect it to, I'm a Thomist. My statement about the theories of the universes' origin was regarding the fact that the prevailing ones do not posit matter as basic and so act as evidence against matter's candidacy for self-existence/necessary being. In this way, materialism, naturalism are the resulting dominoes that fall into falsity-- not nihilism, though it may be undercut there-by.
Do you have a solid source that you would recommend that discusses those specifics on the characteristics of matter and its relation to cosmogoy more thoroughly?
but didn't Aquinas suggest that a thing could even exist forever (never beginning to exist) while being contingent and not necessary? i'd reply (my response to your objection might come off as annoyingly redundant) that it is possible, while it of course means that there is no explanation that could be given of the physical world.
Aquinas taught that there can be a contingent being that has has been sustained from eternity. Though if a being is contingent, it is dependent in a real unavoidable way on this latter sustenance/actualization in order to exist. Thus, the world could be such a being, and in proving that the world has certain contingent properties is to show it to be not necessary.
A contingent being (per above) has to be actualized by another; thus, no contingent world is without a necessary being if it exists.
Thus the idea of a world which has been contingent from eternity having no external actualization is a liken-to a contradiction in terms, and Aquinas blatantly teaches this.
The point on cosmogony is different: if matter cannot even begin to be shown eternal then there is no sense in having the other conversations. The second matter is preceded/caused it is ipso-facto not self-existent and therefore requires actualization from another. It seems such is the case with prevailing cosmogony.
Fair enough. As long as we actually are delving into what that cause is (and how it works*, and why it exists**), rather than merely declaring it to be Old Testament Yahweh and washing our hands of it.
*note1= "Magic" is not an acceptable answer.
**note2="For his own Glorification" is a super duper not-acceptable answer.
"We haven't been talking about 'everything'. We're talking about the material universe."
Fine. But the moment someone else brings up gods, spirits, souls, angels, devils and afterlives....those things become part of 'Everything' and have to be explained.
Either we stick to materialism...which can be scientifically tested and empirically proved....
Or we enter the realms of metaphysics and suddenly Theories of 'Everything' become no more reliable than tarot cards and tea-leaves.
>"real scientists do not make discoveries based on their religious views"
Fine...tell THAT to the Discovery Institute....Oh, wait...there aren't any real scientists there. Also: I noticed the failed attempt at a No True Scotsman.
You, Frank, don't get to unilaterally declare who is and isn't a Real Scientist.
They have doctorate programs, and peer-reviewed journals to test for that.
Now. Answer my question. "What scientific discoveries arise directly from Creationism?"
Do not efficient causes have to exist prior to the outcome?
Tbh i don't want to get too far down this line because I firmly believe that the origin of the universe needs to be explainable in something firmer than an abstract philosophical understanding and even if you find something we can call a 'cause' that fulfills the requirement of avoiding the requirement for prior existence (such as an infinitely old ball causing a depression on an infinitely old cushion) it doesn't...
....really seem to be the kind of 'cause' we are talking about but leaves one feeling like you've just been hit with an effective but utterly contrived analogy!!
I admit that I haven't really checked out their website or know fully in depth their intentions, based on what I know (again, this could change later), I think this idea is really just an excuse to promote their irrational form of atheism.
Thanks for the link to prosblogion. Really cool site. :)
"I don't think an efficient cause is necessarily a temporally bounded cause"
Than what we have learnt is where we disagree. Not that i am denying it, you understand, simpy asserting that it seems about as counterintuitive as things get as far as i am concerned (it is getting very late and will have to leave this convo soon)
But all the terms we use to discuss God's actions (there you go I am doing it myself 'actions') are temporal. I would suggest to you in all honesty (the same honesty with which I say that atheists have no decent answer to any of this) that we have neither the vocabulary nor the intuition (nor the science in its absence) to even conceive of atemporal existence let alone comment on its viability.
And yes, before you ask, what existence means to a photon baffles me!
Theowarner, this will probably the last post I'll make
Your described onltology leads to absurd conclusions. For in your view, the universe does not exist, for it is the composition of everything within spacetime. In fact, nothing exists! for even "matter" is a broad term that is the composition of all concrete things. Even the smallest, most basic particle that make up everything dont exist, for it is composed of 2 halves, which are composed of parts.... ad infinitum. Your ontology simplyfails
I dub it the Sophomore League. It is a twisted effort to promote the religion of atheism yet I bet it works good for the YTatheist. Set up the straw man and then knock it down... Tear down all arguments without any epistemic burden of your own. I understand the reasoning behind this new Church of the absurd. I have love for these people and wish they could see reason. Yet I fear that reason did not get them to the place that they are and reason may not be able to get them out.
Promoting non-censorship does not mean you're promoting rationality, especially when all you do is assert your unargued biases as infallible truths of science.
To say nothing begins to exist is to say that you existed in the Jurassic Period. Common answer the atheists poses is that the atoms that make you up always existed, but that is equating your atoms to you.
To those familiar with philosophy, it's a mistake that should not be made. It blatantly shows that they are not familiar with Aristotle's 4 causes. LoR should just stick with evolutionary biology and stay out of philosophy (or they'll follow Dawkins' footsteps).
I am well aware of Aristotle's four causes. And I think it's lucid to say that the atoms that compose my body existed during the Jurassic. And I am not my atoms. I am a composition of my atoms. That composition is not a thing, but that composition became usefully labeled as Theo a few decades ago. I see problem with any of that.
But If composition is not a thing, then the term thing cannot be associated with most "things". For even the different atoms are mere compositions of protons, neutrons and electrons. Even those particles are made of quarks, etc... Such metaphysical view is not embraced by philosophers, for it becaomes problematic. To say that a composition is not a thing is to change the definition of thing. I don't think such ontology is considered by scholars, since its only use is to avoid KCA
No, what it does is challenge the assumption that "thingness" is an actual property of what we've been calling "things."
I mean... let's take a sandcastle. What thingness does it have that the sand does not?Is it created and destroyed in a meaningful way? Is more far to say that the thing that was created belongs to entirely different order than the creation of the sand? And do we mean sand? Or just matter? Does the problem get fix by saying "composition"?
@theowarner But what you are saying is that neither sandcastle nor sand is a thing. If we agree with Aristotle's ontology (many philosophers do), all those things are "things". The existence of A's material cause does not But what you are saying is that neither sandcastle nor sand is a thing. If we agree with Aristotle's ontology (many philosophers do), all those things are "things". The existence of A's material cause does not negate the existence of A.
@theowarner To say nothing began to exist is to say everything that exists have always existed. To defend this nonsensical preposition, one must argue that objects are not things. In fact, nothing is, except for the smallest particle that makesup everything. To argue this is to adopt an ontology that almost no philosophers would . There is no reason to adopt such view (except to deny the premise 1 of KCA). I think it just shows the lengths one would go to reject a theistic argument
@theowarner but that would mean you don't exist. How am I having a dialogue with a nonexistent being?
The problem is that it seems incoherent. Also, had KCA never formulated, no one would adopt such view. It's just an incoherent view that one would only adopt if he/she wants to avoid KCA's conclusion
The argument you two guys appear to be having seems, to my ears at least, to be largely semantic - using the term 'thing' to define two very different classes of existence.
This is what i don't understand: you both clearly have different definitions you are using; are both aware that you are using different definitions and yet it seems to make no difference. Clearly when people use the term to criticise the Kalam they are using Theo's type of definition but so what?
I think the terms used in the argument deliberately conflates the two meanings or usages. Clearly creating a thing out of nothing pre-existent is a very different kettle of fish to rearranging that which pre-exists (although imo the fact we are talking about atemporal creation renders the whole argument meaningless, or at least so far outside that which we can comprehend or relate to as to throw every single aspect of it into doubt) you know this, I know this and Craig knows this
Why is the difference at all relavent? Even if the most elementary particles (quarks & electrons) that make up my body have existed since the big bang and have probably constituted other objects (possibly even other persons), it is still an example of a thing (my body) beginning to exist, and every thing observed to have begun to exist was caused by something else to begin to exist.
So this whole out-of-hand dismissal of essentialism and unspoken assumption of nominalism...
...is a giant red herring. All things observed to have begun to exist had a cause, so we can induce that, necessarily, all things which begin to exist have a cause. This is one of the strongest inductive inferences we could ever make.
1) Bake me two cakes. The first cake you can bake me out of pre-existent 'stuff' but the second cake you have to bake me out of nothing. You bring me those cakes and i will concede to you that there is no substantial difference.
2) Your 'strong inductive inference' involves a temporal process (creation) in a temporal environment for every single example you have. Every one. Creation outside of time is like a fish out of water and your healthily sized pool of ....
...observations amount to watching fish swimming around in a tank and inferring exactly the same piscine behaviour were they outside the tank on the grounds that you have been watching the tank for such a very very long time.
a) Is time a thing which one can step into and out of?
b) The "fish out of water" example is, well, ridiculous to say the least. The inductive inference between "a fish swims in water" and "a fish swims in the air" isn't merely invalid, but the premise is false. We know that air and water are different things, everybody knows this, even small children know this....
...BUT, what if there were a person who observed a fish swimming in a tank? Suppose further that this person really is ignorant of the fact that water and air have any different properties at all. Would he be justified to infer that if you take the fish out of water, the fish will exhibit the same behavior outside the tank as inside the tank?
P1: If all observed X are Y, it follows inductively that all X, necessarily, are Y
????eh????
P1: If all observed 'fish' are 'swimming', it follows inductively that all 'fish', necessarily, are 'swimming'.
hmm, that doesn't work
P1: If all observed "things which begin to exist" are "caused things", it follows inductively that all "things which begin to exist", necessarily, are "caused things"
P1: If all observed planets are smaller than 1.5 times the size of jupiter, it follows inductively that all planets, necessarily, are smaller than 1.5 times the size of Jupiter.
Now assuming my data is up to date and we haven't yet observed a larger planet than that by your logic it means that no planet can be larger than that.
"Even though all Observed X are known to be made of pre-existent particles, all observed X STILL began to exist"
You see my real problem with this is that it is not clear that an agent can create something from nothing any more than something could simply pop into existence from nothing without a cause - we have exactly zero examples of both.
Yes I am vaguely familiar with his four causes.... and his four (or is it five) elements, tbh I hadn't realised that Aristotle was the final word but do carry on.
I don't really know how to reply to this because you haven't really said very much other than (and bear in mind I have absolutely no philosophy training or study) that God somehow has the end result 'locked in' to Him. maybe you can elaborate but I don't really see how that helps.
He would be justified in expecting the same behaviour, which I believe is the answer you were hoping for. Similarly, if you are as ignorant as this man, and cannot see that getting rid of time might just have a few implications on temporal phenomena then i grant you that you would be justified in your arguments.
"Okay, why are inferences between temporal events and "timeless events" not valid? "
I can't say for definite they are not but it seems counterintuitive. I mean let us consider a spatial concept such as a 'walk': could you have a walk without at least one spatial dimension? Maybe, but it seems a far bigger stretch than to assume otherwise imo and i can think of nothing harder to conceptualise...but I can think of things just as hard to conceptualise and one of those things....
is the idea of doing something in the absence of time in which to do it. Unless you want an external temporality then God is no older than the universe and did not exist before the universe to cause the universe because there was no 'before'. Ofc you can base your life on some sophistic philosophical workaround but if you do then good luck to you - i just hope the tide doesn't come in on your argument!
"I'm about to pose an argument, but I want to ask, is it possible for a thing like, say, a cup or any other object to exist outside of time?"
I will be honest with you, i don't know.
"Is time a thing which you can step into and out of, or are all things necessarily temporal? "
This is all feeling such a cop-out on my part but, again, I don't know. My feeling is that you could not 'step in and out' of time but that is not to say that things are necessarily temporal.
1) Well the 'fuck what' is that it renders all our experiences upon which your impressive arsenal of induction is based upon on very shaky ground, that is the 'fuck what' because your examples are all of a type which is very different to what is under discussion.
Are you going to defend that proposition? I've clearly explainedwhy we can still infer from our experience of things coming to be having causes that the Universe has a cause. *All* things which we have "directly" seen come to be had a cause. The Universe came to be, therefore the universe must have had a cause. They are in two different categories, of course, BUT THEY ARE STILL IN ONE CATEGORY!
@migkillertwo 1. "There is a difference... so the fuck what?
To illustrate that when the Kalam argument is brought up WLC equivocates creation of matter itself with arrangement of matter into things! That's always been the fuck what! You know that's the fuck what! And you ignore it like it is nothing! THAT'S THE FUCK WHAT!
Once again, this response is nothing more than an unspoken ASSUMPTION of nominalism and an out-of-hand dismissal of essentialism. Do you have any reason to assume nominalism or to reject essentialism?
@migkillertwo Are you saying that essentialism says that creation from nothing is the same as arranging stuff into a composition and that only nominalism says that they are different?
@migkillertwo But do they say that things coming to be out of nothing go through fundamentally the same process with the same laws of causality as things coming to be out of other things?
Don't use that word "fundamental". It just traps us in language games
Anyway, do they go through the same process? Well yes, they go through the process of coming-to-be. There are different categories of coming-to-be sure, but they're both instances of becoming.
@migkillertwo And I don't think we can be sure that the process is the same. Does that make me a non-essentialist nominalist, and only a non-essentialist nominalist?
@migkillertwo But one involves a state of nothingness, which is not entirely philosophically understood, and never empirically studied. I think this is an important distinction.
@migkillertwo I think you're refusing to see nuance, that compositions made of what came before by well understood processes and rules, do not necessarily apply the same rules to compositions which arise from nothing.
@kamijk why not? we have one category of events, things coming to be, and all observed instances of things coming to be have causes. Ergo we can induce that all things which come to be have a cause. Why does it matter that there are differences between cosmogeny and everyday experience? Could I not apply this same sort of skepticism to future instances of coming to be? Think about it, you may say "well all past observations of temporal becoming had causes", but I can say "those are...
...different, they are instances of temporal becoming in all years besides 2011. We have never seen temporal becoming in 2011, so we have no reason to think that all instances of temporal becoming in 2011 will have causes"
So, the only way you're going to be able to salvage this beloved talking point of creation ex nihilo vs. creation ex materia is to abandon induction altogether.
@migkillertwo I think the sticking point is that I think that causality is attached to changes of matter and energy of which creation ex material is a specific process. You think it is a property of creation and changes of matter and energy within the universe. It seems odd to apply it to a type of creation that is not a change of matter and energy.
"causality is attached to changes of matter and energy"
and interesting sentiment, but I think that you would be hard-pressed to defend it given that most things aren't reducible to their constituent parts. If things are caused and they're not reducible to their constituent parts, then causality isn't necessarily linked to changes in matter or energy. Furthermore, we intuit causality not when we encounter any change in matter or energy, but when we encounter any event.
It wouldn't be. I think this is a question we can say very little about and i don't think atheists have a very strong hand on this one (it is about as strong as a deists imo).
Like I say, i don't even know if it means anything to talk about a 'cause' unless we postulate a pre-existent temporality which then takes us onto other arguments entirely.
Thanks I appreciate your honesty and reflection. Well, it's not as though we have very little to say about this. There's really only two things we could say about a thing beginning to exist ex nihilo. It was either caused or it wasn't. This isn't a high stakes crap shoot with multiple outcomes, especially considering what we experience in reality. There are only two options here. The question is *which* is more plausible?
4) Specifically for an atemporal realm and the creation of time itself something that may not fit into these categories that i cannot readily (or perhaps even possibly) conceive of (how about that for hedging my bets!!).
I accept that the first three do. However, grant me a few seconds of your thought processes for number 4. It may be that causality outside of time is possible but if it is not (which i lean towards based on my heavily biased ape understanding) then whilst you may wish to assert anything else as simply 'uncaused' what i am suggesting is that there could be something else that we are neither linguistically nor mentally cut out to describe but which would not follow our conception of...
...causality but would not be as 'out the blue' or unrelated to anything else as what we would usually mentally conjure up when we thing of something being 'uncaused'.
I hope that makes sense - though feel free to discard it (point 4, i mean), it certainly does me no favours arguing from an atheistic perspective to keep it in :)
What i always fail to understand, along these lines, is why it is fair to posit a super-intelligent omnipotent sentient entity who is concerned I am not masturbating as the original uncaused phenomena but for some reason a greater stretch to propose a blind mechanistic process?
"And the *best* explanation you have for *all* of this to come about is....processes? "
Possibly. Inflationary cosmology and the modern evolutionary synthesis are both workable models for arriving at the present state of our world, from humbler origins, via mechanistic means. What you are doing is invoking something requiring far more of an explanation in place of something else. What next? Do away with gravity for invisible goblins with pieces of string?
What I'm asking you is whether the processes *alone* are the final explanation for *all* of these great things that have taken place.... things like you and I.
Can processes *alone* bring about things so great and profound?
certainly in terms of the complexity of life and the wonders of life on earth then, yes, I am absolutely satisfied that mechanistic processes can account for it - in fact even if there is a deity my expectation would be that life on earth arose and evolved without deistic intervention. With regards to the origin of the universe i wouldn't like to say. A mechanistic process seems the simpler explanation and i don't really think there is THAT much to explain, rather that what....
...there is to explain is exceedingly hard to do so. As Dennett said in reply to WLC that what we DO know is that whatever the explanation for the origin of the universe is, god or no, it will be mind-boggling - there are simply no mundane solutions to the problem.
but no, I am not especially anti deistic explanations for the origin of the universe, i just think they are a bit of a stab in the dark usually made for abrahamic theistic reasons rather than balance of probabilities.
I didn't say there was no explanation for the origin of the universe (up to where BB cosmology kicks in), what i said was that all the explanations sound somewhat unconvincing and none of them have even a single shred of evidence going for them.
What does it *mean* for us to even be here, is what I'm trying get you to reflect on.
What does it mean for stuff to come to life?
Why you are comfortable with mere processes being the explanation for this, goes beyond me...why you aren't suspicious of *any* of this taking place makes me wonder.
I don't know. Though i very much doubt you would be able to tell me when 'non-life' became life if you were to observe all the steps involved, just a gradual series of increasingly complex replicators culminating, ultimately in DNA.
i don't really know what you are expecting me to say tbh. I take it you do not accept evolutionary theory or naturalistic abiogenesis?
...but when you say 'aren't i suspicious', i mean suspicious of what? you haven't explained to me the level of deistic involvement you deem necessary and on what grounds.
So you are saying that it is just too improbable to entertain a sentience existing due to naturalistic means and yet your explanation requires a sentience far more extraordinary than all life on earth put together.... that is just *there*
"A collection of atoms came to life. A collection of atoms writes Shakespearean sonnets, ponders it's place in the universe, and flies to the moon."
And also explain that in due course all those sonnets and musing will be lost in a big crunch, big rip or heat death. As Hitchens loves to say 'some design!'
>"How about crafting a hypothesis for the ultimate beginning of *caused* things?"
A Hypothesis about the "Beginning of Everything" would include caused and "uncaused" things (even if those things were caused intentionally or not.)
It's wonderful how you can give this "God" character any trait you want -- by fiat -- as long as it can turn a simple question into a weird, unanswerable riddle.
So, no...it does the exact opposite of "clarifying."
Oh, really? I'd love for you to show me something tangible and objectively real which has no beginning. Bonus points if I don't have to believe in it first in order to see it.
>"So I'm crafting a hypothesis to explain *only* those things which began to exist."
Excellent. When you have your hypothesis ready for peer review, let me know.
I missed this one "Why can't we postulate God as the pre-existent state of affairs...."
Well, you can if you also wish to postulate a pre-existent timeframe in which to pre-exist but then the 'nothingness' you wish to lay at the door of science starts to slowly melt away.
I'm not sure what the problem with doing that would be...
When a theist says God created ex nihilio, we aren't saying *nothing* before this existed. That would be a flying inconsitency, since God *mustve* existed first in order to create the universe.
All we are saying is physical reality, which previously did not exist in any way, shape, or form, came into existence.
Ex nihilio refers to physical reality only, not God and whatever ontogical state of affairs He governs.
I realise you are not saying nothing existed (though you realise you cannot say 'before this' as you do, 'existed first' because you are playing fast and loose with atemporality again) but what you are saying is that God created something out of nothing, which is exactly my point: we have as many examples of something creating something out of nothing as we have examples of nothing creating something out of nothing (zero in each case).
How does my argument crumble by me allowing God to take temporal actions? Just because at some point God acted to cause X, does it follow then that God is temporal Himself?
And it's irrelevant to say that we have no examples of creatio ex nihilio...that doesn't mean that it did not happen, or that it's impossible. That's a non sequitor.
Your argument doesn't crumble but if you allow for an external temporality then we have some other factors come into play which theists usually say are problems for materialists (infinite regresses etc) and you also allow me to invoke external spatial dimensions, pre-existent energy etc. in other words, whilst you solve your problem you also solve mine!
"It can still most certainly be true whether we have examples of it or not.
Do we *any* examples of it or not"
Now I agree it could but then so could the counter (nothing creating something from nothing or a blind mechanistic process creating something from nothing or) or the start of our universe very well might only be the start of our local time and space.
The pretension of "reason" on the part of atheists has always struck me as banal, childish, and just plain weird. There is probably a very good commentary on it somewhere, but does anyone else feel the same way?
BalladoftheWindfish 1 year ago
may I recommend the smithy.com as well? It is thorough a website on Scotism (named after blessed Duns Scotus) and Saint Bonaventure.
League of reason, please. usually people insecure of their ability to reason well would feel the need to trumpet their reasonableness . It is as bad as the "brights."
Neoscotist 1 year ago
Definitely.
Theologica37 1 year ago
Since you don't think much of the league of reason perhaps you might want to get on there with them? Have a little chat you know.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
The laws of logic are eternal as are numbers. Since they are immaterial.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
make more videos
iToyRobot 1 year ago
Hehe, sorry Robot I've been really busy. I'm planning some stuff. What sort of stuff were you looking for?
Theologica37 1 year ago
@Theologica37 honestly, ANYTHING would be good
iToyRobot 1 year ago
@Theologica37 I suspect that you would not be eligible to join the League of Reason. So be content with Prosblogion.
Ebal the Atheist.
ebaltrace 1 year ago
Considering the eligibility of the LoR requires no formal education, and only the mongrel horde cry of non-censorship (I might also add that they NEVER provide an argument for the normativity of free speech! Indeed they never could under scientism).
Further, the Prosblogion has been recognized, rewarded, requires an actual degree and has some of the most prestigious philosophers in academia today active there-- I not only prefer the Pb over the LoR but pity whichever deranged minds that don't.
Theologica37 1 year ago 3
One possible explanation for gravity is that invisible non-material angels hold everything down. Of course this could be a possible explanation for gravity, but no one would believe it to be true since no one has any reason to believe in anything non-material.
willie661 1 year ago
Many things either cannot be reduced to material entities or are wholly independent of them, examples would include: numbers, abstractions, values, essences, laws of logic, all laws of normativity and the truth of propositions.
In these ways, materialism as an explanation of the world is not only insufficient and absurd but downright self-refuting for you relied on much of the above to assert this.
Rest with this: materialist worldviews are false.
Theologica37 1 year ago 4
@jrsbarker
Well, the labels exist in the same sense that if you put together some letters you get a word. But that sort of existence is not what mereological nihilism is getting at.
theowarner 1 year ago
I think when you have people like theowarner and andromedaswake and Th1sWasATruimph in your group, you're mentally doomed!
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos Unsurprisingly this is coming from a mentally doomed person. Who cares what mentally doomed kid thinks. Anybody smell some hypocrisy??? .
pobanmanu 1 year ago
@drcraigvideos
You couldn't argue that point, could you? Let's just remember: you don't argue.
I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong. I hold my ground when I'm right.
You don't do either.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner LOL! It's not hard arguing that you'd have to be a mental screw up when it comes to people like you theo. After all, you said that square circles existed. But the fact that you had RRG's account suspended proves that you're a pansy.
drcraigvideos 1 year ago
Keep up the good work. We need more theological response to such evil teaching.
WinstonChurchill 1 year ago
What's your point? I don't believe they've ever made the claim to be the philosophical light of the world you theists claim to be and if they did they would at least be right in regards to the facts of the known world and universe. Naive and un-argued? Why mischaracterize like that, is that all you got, mischaracterizations and presuppositions of them being philosophers?
DiwataMan 1 year ago
What do you have against local purpose?
Oh, and I'm not a leader of the League of Reason...
antybu86 1 year ago
That's just an outright error on my part, I'll add an annotation. I was under the impression that you were a mod of the discussions.
Theologica37 1 year ago
@Theologica37 Well, I was on the panel of the most recent show.
antybu86 1 year ago
I get it that you are not a fan of the league of reason. Why?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@jrsbarker
i tend to lean with the skeptics of the KCA. the sort of causality we see in the physical world is that of transformations of matter - what this leads to, if anything, is that there existed an arrangement of matter that never began to exist.
legodesi 1 year ago
Remember that if this is the case, then matter must have a number of characteristics consistent with that eternality/necessity. Some of which would be: matter must be irreducible, unchanging, without any ontologically prior beings/states and cannot be dependent on other things in order to be. It seems rather plainly that matter fails all of these beginning criteria. The hypothesis of matter being necessary from the start also fails on just about every theory of cosmogony one could postulate.
Theologica37 1 year ago
@Theologica37
Yes, but mereological nihilism isn't attempting to develop a cosmogonic theory. It terms of Kalam, all if can do is disable the inductive history of the first premise, assuming it is developed inductively. Craig never really clears that up especially he continues to refer to the argument as deductive. One wonders if he knows the difference.
theowarner 1 year ago
Nothing I said has anything to do with nihilism as a theory of mereology, or the Kalam argument; nor should you expect it to, I'm a Thomist. My statement about the theories of the universes' origin was regarding the fact that the prevailing ones do not posit matter as basic and so act as evidence against matter's candidacy for self-existence/necessary being. In this way, materialism, naturalism are the resulting dominoes that fall into falsity-- not nihilism, though it may be undercut there-by.
Theologica37 1 year ago
@Theologica37
Do you have a solid source that you would recommend that discusses those specifics on the characteristics of matter and its relation to cosmogoy more thoroughly?
jemerson85 1 year ago
@jemerson85
*cosmogony
jemerson85 1 year ago
@Theologica37
but didn't Aquinas suggest that a thing could even exist forever (never beginning to exist) while being contingent and not necessary? i'd reply (my response to your objection might come off as annoyingly redundant) that it is possible, while it of course means that there is no explanation that could be given of the physical world.
legodesi 1 year ago
Aquinas taught that there can be a contingent being that has has been sustained from eternity. Though if a being is contingent, it is dependent in a real unavoidable way on this latter sustenance/actualization in order to exist. Thus, the world could be such a being, and in proving that the world has certain contingent properties is to show it to be not necessary.
A contingent being (per above) has to be actualized by another; thus, no contingent world is without a necessary being if it exists.
Theologica37 1 year ago
@Theologica37
i had hoped to see this reasoning fleshed out in the essay on Oderberg essay.
"Though if a being is contingent, it is dependent in a real unavoidable way on this latter"
can this be proven?
legodesi 1 year ago
Sure. I ran out of room though-- I sent you a PM.
Theologica37 1 year ago
cont
Thus the idea of a world which has been contingent from eternity having no external actualization is a liken-to a contradiction in terms, and Aquinas blatantly teaches this.
The point on cosmogony is different: if matter cannot even begin to be shown eternal then there is no sense in having the other conversations. The second matter is preceded/caused it is ipso-facto not self-existent and therefore requires actualization from another. It seems such is the case with prevailing cosmogony.
Theologica37 1 year ago
@blitzel3
Irony of ironies. I was about 30 seconds away from shutting down the laptop. It's 10pm where I am now and sleep is fast approaching.
KThnxBye...
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@blitzel3
Fair enough. As long as we actually are delving into what that cause is (and how it works*, and why it exists**), rather than merely declaring it to be Old Testament Yahweh and washing our hands of it.
*note1= "Magic" is not an acceptable answer.
**note2="For his own Glorification" is a super duper not-acceptable answer.
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@blitzel3
"We haven't been talking about 'everything'. We're talking about the material universe."
Fine. But the moment someone else brings up gods, spirits, souls, angels, devils and afterlives....those things become part of 'Everything' and have to be explained.
Either we stick to materialism...which can be scientifically tested and empirically proved....
Or we enter the realms of metaphysics and suddenly Theories of 'Everything' become no more reliable than tarot cards and tea-leaves.
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@FranksVoice
>"real scientists do not make discoveries based on their religious views"
Fine...tell THAT to the Discovery Institute....Oh, wait...there aren't any real scientists there. Also: I noticed the failed attempt at a No True Scotsman.
You, Frank, don't get to unilaterally declare who is and isn't a Real Scientist.
They have doctorate programs, and peer-reviewed journals to test for that.
Now. Answer my question. "What scientific discoveries arise directly from Creationism?"
LordCustos3 1 year ago
Thanks for the suggestion.
owchywawa 1 year ago
@FranksVoice
Well, then, Frank....let's see your Reason in action:
Answer this question: "What scientific discoveries arise directly from Creationism?"
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@blitzel3
Do not efficient causes have to exist prior to the outcome?
Tbh i don't want to get too far down this line because I firmly believe that the origin of the universe needs to be explainable in something firmer than an abstract philosophical understanding and even if you find something we can call a 'cause' that fulfills the requirement of avoiding the requirement for prior existence (such as an infinitely old ball causing a depression on an infinitely old cushion) it doesn't...
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
....really seem to be the kind of 'cause' we are talking about but leaves one feeling like you've just been hit with an effective but utterly contrived analogy!!
noelplum99 1 year ago
I admit that I haven't really checked out their website or know fully in depth their intentions, based on what I know (again, this could change later), I think this idea is really just an excuse to promote their irrational form of atheism.
Thanks for the link to prosblogion. Really cool site. :)
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
@blitzel3
"I don't think an efficient cause is necessarily a temporally bounded cause"
Than what we have learnt is where we disagree. Not that i am denying it, you understand, simpy asserting that it seems about as counterintuitive as things get as far as i am concerned (it is getting very late and will have to leave this convo soon)
noelplum99 1 year ago
@blitzel3
But all the terms we use to discuss God's actions (there you go I am doing it myself 'actions') are temporal. I would suggest to you in all honesty (the same honesty with which I say that atheists have no decent answer to any of this) that we have neither the vocabulary nor the intuition (nor the science in its absence) to even conceive of atemporal existence let alone comment on its viability.
And yes, before you ask, what existence means to a photon baffles me!
noelplum99 1 year ago
@blitzel3
"The eternity of God is not a temporal time frame, but one we merely understand through the idea of infinite time."
wah, now you have lost me, are you suggesting an 'atemporal time frame'????
what does that even mean, other than things are getting pretty desperate?
noelplum99 1 year ago
Theowarner, this will probably the last post I'll make
Your described onltology leads to absurd conclusions. For in your view, the universe does not exist, for it is the composition of everything within spacetime. In fact, nothing exists! for even "matter" is a broad term that is the composition of all concrete things. Even the smallest, most basic particle that make up everything dont exist, for it is composed of 2 halves, which are composed of parts.... ad infinitum. Your ontology simplyfails
ubi2002 1 year ago
More like the League of Derps :P
sarevor 1 year ago
i read one or two articles by the LOR. i prefer reading LOTR instead.
legodesi 1 year ago 2
Amen.
SetonsH4ll 1 year ago
I dub it the Sophomore League. It is a twisted effort to promote the religion of atheism yet I bet it works good for the YTatheist. Set up the straw man and then knock it down... Tear down all arguments without any epistemic burden of your own. I understand the reasoning behind this new Church of the absurd. I have love for these people and wish they could see reason. Yet I fear that reason did not get them to the place that they are and reason may not be able to get them out.
rusty2029 1 year ago
the league of reason? wow, naturalism at its best
TheEcumenator 1 year ago
@blitzel3 Thank you for clarifying his view. But such onltology is still untenable.
ubi2002 1 year ago
Promoting non-censorship does not mean you're promoting rationality, especially when all you do is assert your unargued biases as infallible truths of science.
SetonsH4ll 1 year ago
@SetonsH4ll
No one except you seems to be proceeding from the assumption that promoting non-censorship means the promotion of rationality.
Which unargued biases would you like to talk about?
theowarner 1 year ago
Comment removed
askirojadu 1 year ago
What is a "positively equivocated adjective"?
theowarner 1 year ago
I wish you could engage in the conversation because that's actually what the League of Reason, of which I'm a member, is about.
For example... why is absurd to say "nothing begins to exist"?
And what is the objective reasoning? Where does it come from? Is there an argument here that you could share?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Objective
1. Free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. Based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
4. Philosophy existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception
steam0001 1 year ago
@theowarner
Reasoning
1. Logical thinking: the use of logical thinking in order to find results or draw conclusions
2. Argument: an argument or other example of logical thinking (example) Her reasoning was based on the available facts.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
steam0001 1 year ago
@steam0001
That was really helpful, thanks.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
To say nothing begins to exist is to say that you existed in the Jurassic Period. Common answer the atheists poses is that the atoms that make you up always existed, but that is equating your atoms to you.
To those familiar with philosophy, it's a mistake that should not be made. It blatantly shows that they are not familiar with Aristotle's 4 causes. LoR should just stick with evolutionary biology and stay out of philosophy (or they'll follow Dawkins' footsteps).
ubi2002 1 year ago
@ubi2002
I am well aware of Aristotle's four causes. And I think it's lucid to say that the atoms that compose my body existed during the Jurassic. And I am not my atoms. I am a composition of my atoms. That composition is not a thing, but that composition became usefully labeled as Theo a few decades ago. I see problem with any of that.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
But If composition is not a thing, then the term thing cannot be associated with most "things". For even the different atoms are mere compositions of protons, neutrons and electrons. Even those particles are made of quarks, etc... Such metaphysical view is not embraced by philosophers, for it becaomes problematic. To say that a composition is not a thing is to change the definition of thing. I don't think such ontology is considered by scholars, since its only use is to avoid KCA
ubi2002 1 year ago
@ubi2002
No, what it does is challenge the assumption that "thingness" is an actual property of what we've been calling "things."
I mean... let's take a sandcastle. What thingness does it have that the sand does not?Is it created and destroyed in a meaningful way? Is more far to say that the thing that was created belongs to entirely different order than the creation of the sand? And do we mean sand? Or just matter? Does the problem get fix by saying "composition"?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner But what you are saying is that neither sandcastle nor sand is a thing. If we agree with Aristotle's ontology (many philosophers do), all those things are "things". The existence of A's material cause does not But what you are saying is that neither sandcastle nor sand is a thing. If we agree with Aristotle's ontology (many philosophers do), all those things are "things". The existence of A's material cause does not negate the existence of A.
ubi2002 1 year ago
@ubi2002
You tell me... aside from matter, what is thingness?
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
thingness is to exist, "to be".
ubi2002 1 year ago
@theowarner
Do *only* things exist then?
BTW what is the universal definition of "thing"?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
On both counts, i have no answer.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner
Okie dokie.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@theowarner To say nothing began to exist is to say everything that exists have always existed. To defend this nonsensical preposition, one must argue that objects are not things. In fact, nothing is, except for the smallest particle that makesup everything. To argue this is to adopt an ontology that almost no philosophers would . There is no reason to adopt such view (except to deny the premise 1 of KCA). I think it just shows the lengths one would go to reject a theistic argument
ubi2002 1 year ago
@ubi2002
That the view is unpopular or contradicts KCA are, of course, irrelvant.
Yes, it would deny that things exist. Only the matter.
theowarner 1 year ago
@theowarner but that would mean you don't exist. How am I having a dialogue with a nonexistent being?
The problem is that it seems incoherent. Also, had KCA never formulated, no one would adopt such view. It's just an incoherent view that one would only adopt if he/she wants to avoid KCA's conclusion
ubi2002 1 year ago
@ubi2002
The argument you two guys appear to be having seems, to my ears at least, to be largely semantic - using the term 'thing' to define two very different classes of existence.
This is what i don't understand: you both clearly have different definitions you are using; are both aware that you are using different definitions and yet it seems to make no difference. Clearly when people use the term to criticise the Kalam they are using Theo's type of definition but so what?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99 But to critisize the argument, you have to use the terms used in the argument in the meaning used in the argument.
ubi2002 1 year ago
@ubi2002
I think the terms used in the argument deliberately conflates the two meanings or usages. Clearly creating a thing out of nothing pre-existent is a very different kettle of fish to rearranging that which pre-exists (although imo the fact we are talking about atemporal creation renders the whole argument meaningless, or at least so far outside that which we can comprehend or relate to as to throw every single aspect of it into doubt) you know this, I know this and Craig knows this
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Why is the difference at all relavent? Even if the most elementary particles (quarks & electrons) that make up my body have existed since the big bang and have probably constituted other objects (possibly even other persons), it is still an example of a thing (my body) beginning to exist, and every thing observed to have begun to exist was caused by something else to begin to exist.
So this whole out-of-hand dismissal of essentialism and unspoken assumption of nominalism...
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...is a giant red herring. All things observed to have begun to exist had a cause, so we can induce that, necessarily, all things which begin to exist have a cause. This is one of the strongest inductive inferences we could ever make.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
two points:
1) Bake me two cakes. The first cake you can bake me out of pre-existent 'stuff' but the second cake you have to bake me out of nothing. You bring me those cakes and i will concede to you that there is no substantial difference.
2) Your 'strong inductive inference' involves a temporal process (creation) in a temporal environment for every single example you have. Every one. Creation outside of time is like a fish out of water and your healthily sized pool of ....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...observations amount to watching fish swimming around in a tank and inferring exactly the same piscine behaviour were they outside the tank on the grounds that you have been watching the tank for such a very very long time.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
1) There is a difference...so the fuck what?
2)
a) Is time a thing which one can step into and out of?
b) The "fish out of water" example is, well, ridiculous to say the least. The inductive inference between "a fish swims in water" and "a fish swims in the air" isn't merely invalid, but the premise is false. We know that air and water are different things, everybody knows this, even small children know this....
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...BUT, what if there were a person who observed a fish swimming in a tank? Suppose further that this person really is ignorant of the fact that water and air have any different properties at all. Would he be justified to infer that if you take the fish out of water, the fish will exhibit the same behavior outside the tank as inside the tank?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
The argument I am giving is very simple, replace "X" with "things which begin to exist" and "Y" with "caused things"
P1: If all observed X are Y, it follows inductively that all X, necessarily, are Y
P2: All observed X are Y
P3: The Universe is X
C: Therefore, the Universe is Y
Even though all Observed X are known to be made of pre-existent particles, all observed X STILL began to exist.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@migkillertwo
P1: If all observed X are Y, it follows inductively that all X, necessarily, are Y
????eh????
P1: If all observed 'fish' are 'swimming', it follows inductively that all 'fish', necessarily, are 'swimming'.
hmm, that doesn't work
P1: If all observed "things which begin to exist" are "caused things", it follows inductively that all "things which begin to exist", necessarily, are "caused things"
Nope, that isn't working for me either.
noelplum99 1 year ago
That little analogy is cute, but again the other premise would be false simply because not all observed fish are swimming *duh*
migkillertwo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@migkillertwo
ok, so you want one you cannot say 'duh' to:
P1: If all observed planets are smaller than 1.5 times the size of jupiter, it follows inductively that all planets, necessarily, are smaller than 1.5 times the size of Jupiter.
Now assuming my data is up to date and we haven't yet observed a larger planet than that by your logic it means that no planet can be larger than that.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
"Even though all Observed X are known to be made of pre-existent particles, all observed X STILL began to exist"
You see my real problem with this is that it is not clear that an agent can create something from nothing any more than something could simply pop into existence from nothing without a cause - we have exactly zero examples of both.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Why thank you for shifting the argument onto something completely different.
Are you aware of Aristotle's 4 causes?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
Sorry if I have shifted that argument.
Yes I am vaguely familiar with his four causes.... and his four (or is it five) elements, tbh I hadn't realised that Aristotle was the final word but do carry on.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
well here we have a cause in the case of God, we have a teleological cause
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
I don't really know how to reply to this because you haven't really said very much other than (and bear in mind I have absolutely no philosophy training or study) that God somehow has the end result 'locked in' to Him. maybe you can elaborate but I don't really see how that helps.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
He would be justified in expecting the same behaviour, which I believe is the answer you were hoping for. Similarly, if you are as ignorant as this man, and cannot see that getting rid of time might just have a few implications on temporal phenomena then i grant you that you would be justified in your arguments.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Okay, why are inferences between temporal events and "timeless events" not valid?
I'm about to pose an argument, but I want to ask, is it possible for a thing like, say, a cup or any other object to exist outside of time?
You didn't answer my first question BTW; Is time a thing which you can step into and out of, or are all things necessarily temporal?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
"Okay, why are inferences between temporal events and "timeless events" not valid? "
I can't say for definite they are not but it seems counterintuitive. I mean let us consider a spatial concept such as a 'walk': could you have a walk without at least one spatial dimension? Maybe, but it seems a far bigger stretch than to assume otherwise imo and i can think of nothing harder to conceptualise...but I can think of things just as hard to conceptualise and one of those things....
noelplum99 1 year ago
is the idea of doing something in the absence of time in which to do it. Unless you want an external temporality then God is no older than the universe and did not exist before the universe to cause the universe because there was no 'before'. Ofc you can base your life on some sophistic philosophical workaround but if you do then good luck to you - i just hope the tide doesn't come in on your argument!
noelplum99 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
"I'm about to pose an argument, but I want to ask, is it possible for a thing like, say, a cup or any other object to exist outside of time?"
I will be honest with you, i don't know.
"Is time a thing which you can step into and out of, or are all things necessarily temporal? "
This is all feeling such a cop-out on my part but, again, I don't know. My feeling is that you could not 'step in and out' of time but that is not to say that things are necessarily temporal.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@migkillertwo
1) Well the 'fuck what' is that it renders all our experiences upon which your impressive arsenal of induction is based upon on very shaky ground, that is the 'fuck what' because your examples are all of a type which is very different to what is under discussion.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Are you going to defend that proposition? I've clearly explainedwhy we can still infer from our experience of things coming to be having causes that the Universe has a cause. *All* things which we have "directly" seen come to be had a cause. The Universe came to be, therefore the universe must have had a cause. They are in two different categories, of course, BUT THEY ARE STILL IN ONE CATEGORY!
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo 1. "There is a difference... so the fuck what?
To illustrate that when the Kalam argument is brought up WLC equivocates creation of matter itself with arrangement of matter into things! That's always been the fuck what! You know that's the fuck what! And you ignore it like it is nothing! THAT'S THE FUCK WHAT!
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk
Once again, this response is nothing more than an unspoken ASSUMPTION of nominalism and an out-of-hand dismissal of essentialism. Do you have any reason to assume nominalism or to reject essentialism?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Are you saying that essentialism says that creation from nothing is the same as arranging stuff into a composition and that only nominalism says that they are different?
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk
essentialists say that there are things which come to be
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo But do they say that things coming to be out of nothing go through fundamentally the same process with the same laws of causality as things coming to be out of other things?
kamijk 1 year ago
Don't use that word "fundamental". It just traps us in language games
Anyway, do they go through the same process? Well yes, they go through the process of coming-to-be. There are different categories of coming-to-be sure, but they're both instances of becoming.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo And I don't think we can be sure that the process is the same. Does that make me a non-essentialist nominalist, and only a non-essentialist nominalist?
kamijk 1 year ago
"I dont think we can be sure that the process is the same"
Why not? They're both instances of coming-to-be
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo But one involves a state of nothingness, which is not entirely philosophically understood, and never empirically studied. I think this is an important distinction.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk
Why does that matter? They are still in the same category. You're just digging up a red herring
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo I think you're refusing to see nuance, that compositions made of what came before by well understood processes and rules, do not necessarily apply the same rules to compositions which arise from nothing.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk why not? we have one category of events, things coming to be, and all observed instances of things coming to be have causes. Ergo we can induce that all things which come to be have a cause. Why does it matter that there are differences between cosmogeny and everyday experience? Could I not apply this same sort of skepticism to future instances of coming to be? Think about it, you may say "well all past observations of temporal becoming had causes", but I can say "those are...
migkillertwo 1 year ago
...different, they are instances of temporal becoming in all years besides 2011. We have never seen temporal becoming in 2011, so we have no reason to think that all instances of temporal becoming in 2011 will have causes"
So, the only way you're going to be able to salvage this beloved talking point of creation ex nihilo vs. creation ex materia is to abandon induction altogether.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo I think the sticking point is that I think that causality is attached to changes of matter and energy of which creation ex material is a specific process. You think it is a property of creation and changes of matter and energy within the universe. It seems odd to apply it to a type of creation that is not a change of matter and energy.
kamijk 1 year ago
"causality is attached to changes of matter and energy"
and interesting sentiment, but I think that you would be hard-pressed to defend it given that most things aren't reducible to their constituent parts. If things are caused and they're not reducible to their constituent parts, then causality isn't necessarily linked to changes in matter or energy. Furthermore, we intuit causality not when we encounter any change in matter or energy, but when we encounter any event.
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo What are events without a change in matter or energy?
kamijk 1 year ago
they're the actualization of properties. Is an event in our mind an event?
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo Of course, our brain is a constant consumer of a lot of energy. Probably why having such a big one only caught on once.
kamijk 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Mr. Plum, *if* something truly began to exist ex nihilo, why would it be *more* plausible to assume that it wasn't caused, rather than assume it was?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
It wouldn't be. I think this is a question we can say very little about and i don't think atheists have a very strong hand on this one (it is about as strong as a deists imo).
Like I say, i don't even know if it means anything to talk about a 'cause' unless we postulate a pre-existent temporality which then takes us onto other arguments entirely.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Thanks I appreciate your honesty and reflection. Well, it's not as though we have very little to say about this. There's really only two things we could say about a thing beginning to exist ex nihilo. It was either caused or it wasn't. This isn't a high stakes crap shoot with multiple outcomes, especially considering what we experience in reality. There are only two options here. The question is *which* is more plausible?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I would suggest three options:
1) Uncaused
2) Caused by a sentience
3) Caused by a process/non-sentient phenomena
...ok four options:
4) Specifically for an atemporal realm and the creation of time itself something that may not fit into these categories that i cannot readily (or perhaps even possibly) conceive of (how about that for hedging my bets!!).
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Everything you mentioned falls into "caused" / "uncaused" category.
Either those things were the cause for the universe, or the universe was uncaused.
Two options only, which is what I've been saying.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I accept that the first three do. However, grant me a few seconds of your thought processes for number 4. It may be that causality outside of time is possible but if it is not (which i lean towards based on my heavily biased ape understanding) then whilst you may wish to assert anything else as simply 'uncaused' what i am suggesting is that there could be something else that we are neither linguistically nor mentally cut out to describe but which would not follow our conception of...
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...causality but would not be as 'out the blue' or unrelated to anything else as what we would usually mentally conjure up when we thing of something being 'uncaused'.
I hope that makes sense - though feel free to discard it (point 4, i mean), it certainly does me no favours arguing from an atheistic perspective to keep it in :)
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
As to your second half...
Why can't we postulate God as the pre-existent state of affairs to help complete the cause/effect relationship of the universe and it's cause?
Why wouldn't this work?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
If you were to try to craft a Hypothesis about the "Beginning of Everything", you can't use God as a cause....because he's part of 'Everything'.
When someone asks "...but Who Created God?" it's not a trick question to trip up the Creationist....it's an actual query.
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@LordCustos3
How about crafting a hypothesis for the ultimate beginning of *caused* things?
God is not caused. In this scenario, God would be the necessary brute fact.
Does this help to clarify?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
What i always fail to understand, along these lines, is why it is fair to posit a super-intelligent omnipotent sentient entity who is concerned I am not masturbating as the original uncaused phenomena but for some reason a greater stretch to propose a blind mechanistic process?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Because there is something monumentally extraordinary to explain.
A collection of atoms came to life. A collection of atoms writes Shakespearean sonnets, ponders it's place in the universe, and flies to the moon.
This is almost unbelievabe.
And the *best* explanation you have for *all* of this to come about is....processes?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Missed this as well:
"And the *best* explanation you have for *all* of this to come about is....processes? "
Possibly. Inflationary cosmology and the modern evolutionary synthesis are both workable models for arriving at the present state of our world, from humbler origins, via mechanistic means. What you are doing is invoking something requiring far more of an explanation in place of something else. What next? Do away with gravity for invisible goblins with pieces of string?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
That's not what I mean.
What I'm asking you is whether the processes *alone* are the final explanation for *all* of these great things that have taken place.... things like you and I.
Can processes *alone* bring about things so great and profound?
That's what im asking you..
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
certainly in terms of the complexity of life and the wonders of life on earth then, yes, I am absolutely satisfied that mechanistic processes can account for it - in fact even if there is a deity my expectation would be that life on earth arose and evolved without deistic intervention. With regards to the origin of the universe i wouldn't like to say. A mechanistic process seems the simpler explanation and i don't really think there is THAT much to explain, rather that what....
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...there is to explain is exceedingly hard to do so. As Dennett said in reply to WLC that what we DO know is that whatever the explanation for the origin of the universe is, god or no, it will be mind-boggling - there are simply no mundane solutions to the problem.
but no, I am not especially anti deistic explanations for the origin of the universe, i just think they are a bit of a stab in the dark usually made for abrahamic theistic reasons rather than balance of probabilities.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
So ultimately, you think there is no explanation for universes and matter coming to life?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I didn't say there was no explanation for the origin of the universe (up to where BB cosmology kicks in), what i said was that all the explanations sound somewhat unconvincing and none of them have even a single shred of evidence going for them.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
I'm asking if you think all of this is explained by processes that have no explanation..
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Possibly.
You think it is explained by a sentient being who cares whether i am masturbating who has no explanation?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
You think there is nothing odd about any of this happening, you and I and the rest of YouTube sitting here having this conversation...?
Just processes right?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Yes. Don't you think it odd that an omniscient, omnipotent agent would fuck about with all of this?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
I'm saying the circumstances are too odd to just be the case, or for this to be the result of *just* some processes.
No way, this is too crazy us even being here.
It definitely arouses my suspicions. I'm wondering why it doesn't do that to the atheist.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
So if we weren't here you would feel differently?
;)
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
What does it *mean* for us to even be here, is what I'm trying get you to reflect on.
What does it mean for stuff to come to life?
Why you are comfortable with mere processes being the explanation for this, goes beyond me...why you aren't suspicious of *any* of this taking place makes me wonder.
*Just* processes?
No way man.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
"What does it mean for stuff to come to life? "
I don't know. Though i very much doubt you would be able to tell me when 'non-life' became life if you were to observe all the steps involved, just a gradual series of increasingly complex replicators culminating, ultimately in DNA.
i don't really know what you are expecting me to say tbh. I take it you do not accept evolutionary theory or naturalistic abiogenesis?
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...but when you say 'aren't i suspicious', i mean suspicious of what? you haven't explained to me the level of deistic involvement you deem necessary and on what grounds.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
Supsicious of such monumental things happening with no real explanation.
The only explanation you offer is mechanistic. I think more meaningful things are going on here than just processes.
vbfl920 1 year ago
Comment removed
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
The fact is, we *are* here.
This is such a monumental event. I don't take it for granted at all...
Just processes brought all of this about? I'm way more suspicious than that...this is too extraordinary for just processes...
Sorry to sound like a broken record. Just trying my best to find the most accurate articulation I can find...
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
So you are saying that it is just too improbable to entertain a sentience existing due to naturalistic means and yet your explanation requires a sentience far more extraordinary than all life on earth put together.... that is just *there*
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
I'm saying that since extraordinary things have occurred, we should be looking for an extraordinary explanation for them, not just processes.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I don't know which are the things you think are too extraordinary to have a naturalistic explanation, though.
anyway, let's leave it here, i don't think this is really getting us anywhere anymore.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@vbfl920
"A collection of atoms came to life. A collection of atoms writes Shakespearean sonnets, ponders it's place in the universe, and flies to the moon."
And also explain that in due course all those sonnets and musing will be lost in a big crunch, big rip or heat death. As Hitchens loves to say 'some design!'
noelplum99 1 year ago
@vbfl920
>"How about crafting a hypothesis for the ultimate beginning of *caused* things?"
A Hypothesis about the "Beginning of Everything" would include caused and "uncaused" things (even if those things were caused intentionally or not.)
It's wonderful how you can give this "God" character any trait you want -- by fiat -- as long as it can turn a simple question into a weird, unanswerable riddle.
So, no...it does the exact opposite of "clarifying."
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@LordCustos3
I *just* told you that I am crafting a hypothesis on things which begin to exist.
I am *not* crafting a hypothesis on everything, only things that begin to exist.
Read much?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@LordCustos3
Not everything has a beginning.
So I'm crafting a hypothesis to explain *only* those things which began to exist.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Surely, unless there is an external temporality, then , by definition, everything has a beginning as long as we agree that time had a beginning?
noelplum99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbfl920
>"Not everything has a beginning."
Oh, really? I'd love for you to show me something tangible and objectively real which has no beginning. Bonus points if I don't have to believe in it first in order to see it.
>"So I'm crafting a hypothesis to explain *only* those things which began to exist."
Excellent. When you have your hypothesis ready for peer review, let me know.
LordCustos3 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I missed this one "Why can't we postulate God as the pre-existent state of affairs...."
Well, you can if you also wish to postulate a pre-existent timeframe in which to pre-exist but then the 'nothingness' you wish to lay at the door of science starts to slowly melt away.
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
I'm not sure what the problem with doing that would be...
When a theist says God created ex nihilio, we aren't saying *nothing* before this existed. That would be a flying inconsitency, since God *mustve* existed first in order to create the universe.
All we are saying is physical reality, which previously did not exist in any way, shape, or form, came into existence.
Ex nihilio refers to physical reality only, not God and whatever ontogical state of affairs He governs.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
I realise you are not saying nothing existed (though you realise you cannot say 'before this' as you do, 'existed first' because you are playing fast and loose with atemporality again) but what you are saying is that God created something out of nothing, which is exactly my point: we have as many examples of something creating something out of nothing as we have examples of nothing creating something out of nothing (zero in each case).
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
How does my argument crumble by me allowing God to take temporal actions? Just because at some point God acted to cause X, does it follow then that God is temporal Himself?
And it's irrelevant to say that we have no examples of creatio ex nihilio...that doesn't mean that it did not happen, or that it's impossible. That's a non sequitor.
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920
Your argument doesn't crumble but if you allow for an external temporality then we have some other factors come into play which theists usually say are problems for materialists (infinite regresses etc) and you also allow me to invoke external spatial dimensions, pre-existent energy etc. in other words, whilst you solve your problem you also solve mine!
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
It can still most certainly be true whether we have examples of it or not.
Do we *any* examples of DNA forming abiogenically?
No.
But many people still postulate that at some point it happened.
(I believe it was a miracle, but that's neither here nor there)
vbfl920 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vbfl920
"It can still most certainly be true whether we have examples of it or not.
Do we *any* examples of it or not"
Now I agree it could but then so could the counter (nothing creating something from nothing or a blind mechanistic process creating something from nothing or) or the start of our universe very well might only be the start of our local time and space.
noelplum99 1 year ago