As you have so eloquently proved it is impossible to imagine a world where anything produces an effect without acting upon something to do so. Therefore Scott is correct. Now if you can just provide more information on the "little trick" then you may show that Scotts logic is flawed, but at the moment you are just engaging in mental masturbation.
Why are you trying to dodge answering the question about the "Little trick", because you have no answer! Stop jumping down random rabbit holes and answer the question. The "Little trick" was your proof that there need not be an X for an effect to take place, but you are unable to explain what the "Little trick" is until you do your "Easily imagined world" is absurd and therefore Scott is correct. So put up or shut up.
That's an awfully big hole you have dug yourself into, would you like a ladder? Taps foot waiting...whistle, looks a nails then at sky, taps foot again.......
"nothing BY DEFINITION cannot do anything" A baseless assertion, I asked for proof, you offer an assertion sans evidence, phooey. "So the fact that something exists now proves something always existed." Does that include the Universe? If not why not, I wand proof, not statements.
"If we can presently add to the number of events in the history of the universe, then it logically did not have an *actual* infinite amount of events prior." We cannot, therefore your proof fails.
This "little thing" seems impossible for you to define, that is two full days and you haven't put any flesh on the bones of your assertion that an entity can act on nothing and produce something. I will make this the final post, I do enjoy a discussion but this one has hit a dead end because you don't understand simple logic.
@TheTomtompiper If an omnipotent being cannot turn nothing into something, then how can nothing turn nothing into something (which Scott`s argument actually asserts)? Nothing *can* turn nothing into something, but an omnipotent being cannot?
Scotts argument is simply his way of covering his ass. Its his way of maintaining his atheism even if the universe literally came into being from nothing. Its pretty funny if you ask me.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost 1, your assertion that there was a beginning is fallacious, there is no evidence that he Universe Began therefore the following false dichotomy that either Everything came from nothing or an eternal force caused it to come from nothing. Even that false dichotomy has an inbuilt fallacy, special pleading, in that it will not allow the Universe to be eternal, but will allow for this force to be eternal.
2. You call the force an "omnipotent being" how do you know this?
@TheTomtompiper Your assertion that there was no beginning is fallacious. Besides, are you even paying attention to this whole debate? Scott GRANTS (for the sake of argument) that the universe began and argues that even if thats the case, its more reasonable to believe nothing can turn nothing into something than to believe a self existent being can turn nothing into something. Why are you backing away from that now? Perhaps you`re starting to realize how retarded his argument is?
@TheTomtompiper "It will not allow the Universe to be eternal"
Ya ... for evidential (scientific and philosophical) reasons.
"but will allow for this force to be eternal"
It is necessarily the case that *something* is eternal. If its not the universe, then its the ultimate cause of the universe (since we can`t posit an infinite regression).
So your accusation of special pleading is entirely false.
@TheTomtompiper Prove that *something* is necessarily eternal? Sure ... nothing BY DEFINITION cannot do anything. So the fact that something exists now proves something always existed.
Prove an actual infinite regression of events is impossible? If we can presently add to the number of events in the history of the universe, then it logically did not have an *actual* infinite amount of events prior.
Prove to me that you exist WITHOUT philosophy. Better yet, prove the physical world exists.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost This is why thanks to people like Bacon we have superseded Philosophy with Science. Science produces results in the real world, it puts food in our mouths, clothes on our back, and allows us to communicate easily over vast distances. I just wish some Scientist could come up with a cure for faith, as in the strong or unshakeable belief in something, without proof or evidence. The God Helmet is a start I suppose, but more research is needed in this field.
@CasperTheMeanieGhost By the way can you shed light on the "little trick" vbfl920 postulates in this video, it is obvious he never thought it through and has been unable to respond to my question. Maybe you can come up with an answer.....
@TheTomtompiper The "little trick"? How about your "little trick" of nothing turning nothing into something? Thats a much more impressive "trick" if you ask me.
Whats that? You deny the universe began? Well, then why are you defending Scott`s argument (which GRANTS that the universe began)?
I don't think that saying "I can imagine it" demonstrates that something is possible or not self-contradictory.
Example: If God is a necessary being, then existence without God is self-contradictory. I can imagine an existence without God, therefore God cannot be necessary?
Would you accept that as a refutation of God? I don't think I would. Nor is it a sufficient refutation to TBS's argument.
No, were referring to logical necessity/possibility in this video. When I say I can imagine a logically possible world, all it means is that there are no contradictions, and it passes the "logic test". I'm not saying it's actualizable.
@vbfl920 I'm not saying it is actualizable either, that wasn't part of my comment. What I was saying is that the ability to imagine a state of affairs does not make that state of affairs logically possible (e.g. not self-contradictory). People can imagine self-contradictory states of affairs. If we couldn't, then we couldn't come up with examples of impossible things.
Again, when I say "I can imagine a world", it's just semantics. What I'm really saying is that I see no contradictions in the concept I am thinking about.
How about you show me that there's a contradiction here:
A cause can produce an effect without having to interact with anything else.
@vbfl920 My argument isn't about semantics, you still seem to be missing it.
Yes, I know that is what you meant by what you said. But what you said implies that a valid way of determining if something is self-contradictory or not is whether you can imagine that scenario or not. The hidden implication being: if it was self-contradictory, then I shouldn't be able to picture it.
I was pointing out that is not a valid method. People can imagine all sorts of things which are self-contradictory.
As for your request: If a cause A can produce an effect C without needing to interact with some other thing B, then there would never be any A, since all A would be C. It is only in the format A+B=C that causation makes sense. Why are there still A? Why are there still B? Why is there nothing but C? Because some A have not interacted with some B.
If A did not require B to produce C, and yet some A had not caused C, then the production of C would be acausal. Thus contradicting A causes C
You're overstating what a causal relationship HAS to be. A cause can merely refer to a necessary or sufficient condition by which an effect exists. It doesn't have to be this explicit interaction like you keep insisting. All there needs to be is a cause, and it's effect. That's it. Let me give you an example:
A wizard says "Shazam!" and an entity appears. What is the wizard acting upon to do this, thin air? Yet, this clearly a cause/effect relationship.
@vbfl920 You make a good point, and I may be overstating what a causal relationship must be. If there is one thing I've learned, it is that what some people take as self-evident, other people certainly don't.
Yet I find it interesting that the example you give here is of another (as far as we know) impossible causal process to illustrate the possibility of the causal process in question. Perhaps the reason why wizards can't do this in the real world is because causality can't work that way?
Well, it may be physically impossible in this world, because of how physics operate, but certainly, that doesn't make it logically impossible. See what I'm saying? We are talking about logic, not physics. A wizard conjuring up an entity only violates the laws of physics. But it's not logically contradictory. We still see a cause and it's effect.
@vbfl920 I get the distinction between physical impossibility and logical impossibility. I was trying to point out that if causation requires A+B=C, then A -> C is also logically contradictory, and I tried to give examples above (apparently my examples were poor). So yeah, my intention was in the right place even if my execution was not.
@vbfl920 This example is perfectly illustrating why your argument fails so hard. If "a wizard says 'Shazam' and an entity appears" this is not at all "clearly a cause/effect relationship". The fact that he said 'Shazam' might not be causally related at all to the rabbit appearing. You claim that it is at least a logical possibility, but this is a hollow assertion without a possible mechanism which connects immaterial causes with material effects at least in principle, which seems unintelligible.
@vbfl920 Well, because correllation does not entail causation. If you have ever been to a magic show, you realized that the "wizards" there say "Shazam" (or whatever) all the time and incredible stuff happens. But you didn't believe that them saying "Shazam" causally makes stuff appear out of thin air. Now, how do you distinguish between such "tricks" and "genuine magic" in order to establish causality? Do you think that an immaterial cause having a material effect is logically possible? How so?
...Uh, please pay closer attention. I'm not referring to "sleight of hand"...I've been referring the entire time to a hypothetical scenario in which magic was a real actuality.
If magic were real, the wizard would be responsible for the appearance of the rabbit.
This IS a causal relationship if there ever was one.
It's *logically* possible for the sheer fact that it's not self-contradictory.
That's all logical possibility refers to. It means that something passes the "logic" test.
There's nothing self- contradictory about a wizard making a rabbit appear. Now, if I said something like, "The wizard DIDNT make the rabbit appear, the wizard DID make the rabbit appear." - THAT would be a self
@vbfl920 I beg to differ. Just because you don't see any obvious logical contradiction does not make it logically possible. Logical impossibility is much easier to spot than logical possibility. You might say that it is conceivable for you that such a world exists, but that doesn't entail logical possibility either, for I can conceive of many illogical state of affairs. Lacking a plausible mechanism your statement remains nothing but a hollow assertion. Not a good basis to build an argument on.
Logical possibility simply refers to something that isnt contradictory. If something isnt contradictory, then its logically possible. Simple as that. I dont need to show a mechanism in order to say something isnt contradictory.
Magic isnt a logical contradiction. Asking me to tell you how it works is irrelevant.
@vbfl920 I see that we are not making progress ... how can you know that an imagined state of affairs does not contain any logical contradiction, if you cannot plausibly describe its core elements? Again, you can simply assert it, but what good is that in an argument, if that is precisely the point in question? You could have saved us a lot of time and simply assert that Scott is wrong period. No logical contradiction here either and equally convincing... Cheers!
@vbfl920 I know you are responding to a claim, but as Tomtompiper has also valiantly tried to explain to you, your response is simply: "No, it's not!". Scott laid out that efficiently causing something requires some form of interaction. If there is nothing to interact with, nothing to affect, there is no possible link between a cause and an effect. And a link seems kind of essential for "cause" to mean anything. WLC did in fact realize this and has come up with a counter. You did not even try.
To me, all that needs to be the case is for something to happen when the cause acts, not something to act upon.
It doesn't seem to be contradictory at all to imagine a world where a being that imagined cats lived. Every time this being imagined a cat, one appears in it's lap. It's not acting upon anything, it's simply an effect that occurs upon this being imagining a cat.
@vbfl920 "It doesn't seem to be contradictory at all to imagine a world where a being that imagined cats lived. Every time this being imagined a cat, one appears in it's lap. It's not acting upon anything, it's simply an effect that occurs upon this being imagining a cat." Again this is logically absurd, unless you can describe the mechanism that occurs to make the cat, which you can't. You need to not only think coherently, but back up what you say, with logic, sadly you appear incapable.
@vbfl920 Using your cat example: How would this being establish causality? What if you came along and told it that in fact its thoughts did not influence, affect or interact with anything, it just happens to be the case that thinking about a cat somehow entails that a cat appears. What if it then concludes that its not the thought that causes the cat to appear, but actually the appearing cat that causes the thought to form? Causation reduced to temporal correlation is not causation.
@vbfl920 The claim is that in order for "cause" to mean anything, it needs to be linked to an effect - this is a logical necessity by definition. Since temporal correlation is insufficient to establish causation, the premise is that some form of interaction needs to link cause and effect - this is a priori self-evident to me. If there is nothing to interact with, there can be no link between cause and effect and thus no causing. This argument is logically valid if interaction really is requried
If EVERY time some being X imagines a cat, and a cat appears as a RESULT.....Im sorry but that is most definitely a causal relationship.
By "link", it seems youre asking me to describe to you how it works, which I dont have to do. Do you realize that nobody knows how the chemical and electrical interactions in your brain cause consciousness? Yet, nobody goes so far to say that the brain doesnt have a causal influence on thoughts, just because we cant tell you how.
@vbfl920 This is getting ridiculous. How would you know that one is the result of the other and that the result is not the cause? If interaction was not required the cause would not even need to be prior to the effect, it could happen after its effect! You are further constantly defeating your own arguments with your analogies. We establish that the brain has causal influence on the mind exactly by interacting with it and seeing the effects. This is exactly what you'd claim we should not do.
To be honest, I think we can GRANT Scott his causal principle, and this wouldnt falsify Creatio Ex Nihilo at all.
In technically theological and philosophical use, Creatio Ex Nihilo expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a *state of non-existence*.
cont..... So no, Creatio ex nihilo does NOT entail that nothing is being affected. It only entails that the effect wasn't pre-existent, made FROM something, or a rearrangement.
God can act upon something, thereby producing an effect that is NOT a rearrangement of the thing acted upon.
Logic doesn't dictate that effects must always be rearrangements.
@vbfl920 Scott showed how by using his hand he could create a fist and then destroy it, but his hand existed before and after the event. your abject failure to describe the form, function and mechanics of the production of your "Little trick" mean that your attempt to refute Scott ended up reinforcing his position. You need to go back to school and learn what constitutes a valid argument and what constitutes blowing smoke out of a bodily orifice.
The A+B=C model is basic physics. It THE fundamental law of the universe. You can give any argument for the existence of a god, but THAT model must stand firm.
@vbfl920 I'm not talking about the metaphysics. I am talking about very basic physics. The stuff you learn as a freshman in high school. Cause and effect, A leads to B which leads to C. Logic is not the same as physics, no. It is however a requirement.
@vbfl920 There is no difference. How is logical necessity any different from physical necessity? I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about reality, the world and universe we live in today. Are you talking about philosophy or something to that nature? I think I am a bit confused. Though,... it would not be the first time... Could you make an analogy?
At 5.14 your imagined entity used A B C, you didn't disprove anything, listen back to yourself and you will see. "One entity" = A it acts upon itself =B to produce the effect "a little trick" =C. You have just validated his logic, the fact that A = B is not important, if I follow instructions in the Bible to pluck out my eyeballs then I am both A and B and I produce the effect C one blind man sitting at a computer. But it seems that some people with two eyes can also be blind.
I don't think we can in fact imagine creation ex nihilo, because I do think TBS's argument holds... you need a cause, something for the cause to act upon and an effect in all causes. However, the first two can be the same entity, which is what we are actually imagining when we think of the possible world where the entity is producing things from nothing - it's actually producing them from itself.
@vbfl920 No I am not watch your own video at 5.05, "and there's nothing else for it to act upon, it just does this thing, it produces an effect" It is logically impossible for an entity to act upon nothing and produce an effect, ergo it must, yes must act upon itself to produce any effect. Your words, not mine, the entity is A+B and the effect is C you have set out to disprove him and failed.
@vbfl920 No, for it to act and have an effect (which is the topic under discussion) it must have something to effect, ergo it can only effect itself. Far from refuting this hypothesis you have contributed a thought experiment that confirms it, congratulatios. Rearrange the words "I have just shot myself in the foot!" to make a coherent sentence /facepalm.
You're begging the question. You keep insisting that a cause needs something to act upon in order to produce an effect, but you give no reason why, you just keep asserting it. Just because you experience something that way, doesn't make it logically necessary. That's derived from physics, not logic.
@vbfl920 Sorry but you are just plain wrong, the fact that you struggle to say what the effect is just shows that you are wrong. If you can descrile this "little trick" and explain how it is performed then I will concede that you are correct , however until then you refuting is flawed and is instead evidence for his case.
@vbfl920 Things have gone awfully quiet? Are you experiencing difficulties fleshing out your argument viz a vie the "little trick" and who does what with what to produce what? So many questions, so few answers. I look forward to hearing a detailed description of the "little trick", but I shan't be holding my breath.
I dont think my argument has anything to do with HOW a cause produces an effect. What my argument is saying is that you can have one single entity that produces an effect without having to act upon anything else to do so - There is nothing contradictory about this.
@vbfl920 So you can't quantify or describe the "Little Trick" Big surprise! By asserting your "Entity" doe not act upon "Anything" (The opposite of anything is... wait for it, I know this, hold on its ...Nothing) is proving his point, not refuting it. The contradiction is that you do not have a clue what you are on about.... Please answer the question, what is the "Little trick" Describe it, flesh it out, or admit defeat.
@vbfl920 It is only contradictory if you rule out it acting on itself in a Universe where all that exists is itself and nothing else, as you have stated. If there is nothing that it can act on except itself and you have ruled out its acting upon itself then you have a huge contradiction. Now please explain how a being in a universe where it is the only thing can produce an effect without acting upon itself. I want a detailed description, none of that "little trick" bullcrap.... detailed!
@vbfl920 I didn't make the rules in this imaginary world, you did, so why can't you understand them?
When you said "We can easily imagine a possible world where there is just one Entity, and it produces an effect, it has this little trick it does and there is nothing else for it to act upon." you set the conditions not me. If as you stated the the Entity is alone in an otherwise empty world then you must state what was effected to produce the effect. There is only one candidate, the Entity.
No, you ARE setting conditions. You're saying X *always* has to act upon something to produce an effect. I'm asking you to give me a reason for this. Otherwise, you are just begging the question.
@vbfl920 I am not setting the conditions, it is your imaginary world and you have control, yet you cannot or will not elaborate on what the "little trick" of effect is, what is effected or how. I am not begging any question, for an effect to take place something has to exist to be effected, you have ruled out the possibility of anything else existing, ergo the only thing left capable of being effected is the Entity, but you rule that out also so your "easily imagined world" is flawed
No, you ARE making conditions and begging the question. You are making the claim and CONDITION that "for an effect to take place, something has to exist to be effected."
Well, why? You give no reason to back up your claim, you just assert it. You essentially, keep asking me to disprove it with some example. Well, I'd like you to prove that your claim is true in the first place, which is the point of my video. We aren't compelled to accept what Scott says.
And what do you mean that the *effect* needs to be affected upon?
Even Scott admits that he doesn't believe that. You can't affect the effect if it hasn't been produced yet! A carpenter isn't affecting a table, he's PRODUCING it. He's affecting the wood and nails. But the wood and nails aren't the EFFECT. They help PRODUCE the effect!!
@vbfl920 Stop making Strawmen and answer the question, harping on against something I never said will not butter any parsnips, we need answers, what is the effect, and what is effected? You have shot yourself in the foot the carpenter needs wood to effect to produce a table, your Deity needs (insert word here) to produce a "little trick" Nothing exists for it to effect, so your world is absurd and contrary to your claim, it is impossible to imagine such a world, unless you are Edward Lear.
@vbfl920 I think it is long past time for you to start giving some answers, or as I suspect admit you have none and admit Scott is correct as your thought experiment has proved.
Nope. Scott is making a claim. You are making a claim. You are attaching specific conditions to causality yet you are not giving us any reason why these conditions MUST be the case.
Until you do, you are begging the question and we can doubt your claims like we can doubt Premise 1 in Scott's argument. Simple as that.
@vbfl920 Yes "simple as that" your World is absurd, you cannot answer any questions about it, you cannot say what the "little trick" is, your response to Scott falls at the first hurdle, as you refuse to defend it. Unless you can refute his argument which you seem incapable of, you really have nothing of worth to say on the subject. All you have done is make a fool of yourself claiming ""We can easily imagine a possible world ." when the fact is you cannot.
@vbfl920 Bottom line is yo claim that creation ex nihilo is a fact and can be proved. You provide a proof for creation ex nihilo "We can easily imagine a possible world where there is just one Entity, and it produces an effect, it has this little trick it does and there is nothing else for it to act upon." So your proof is, I can imagine it, so therefore it is so, claiming that something can produce something from nothing is proof the something can produce something from nothing. /facepalm
@vbfl920 He explained why, and showed that creation ex nilho has never been observed and contradicts every observation we have ever made about the universe. You set out to prove him wrong by saying "We can easily imagine a possible world where there is just one Entity, and it produces an effect, it has this little trick it does and there is nothing else for it to act upon." but this was a statement you have been unable to back up.
@vbfl920 I have asked numerous times now for a viable alternative and you have been unable to produce one, so when you said "We can easily imagine a possible world" you I think you were in error, you seem to be having extreme difficulty coping with the consequences of the constraints you have placed on said world, and have made a claim that is a logical impossibility in your own creation. No wonder you cannot flesh out the bones of your argument, it appears to lack a spine.
Cool video. Glad I subscribed. I agree with what you're saying, and I want to throw something out there. Wouldn't thoughts arising in our minds be a good example for how the causal principle could work without needing a "B"? Well, maybe you could say that ideas don't come fully formed, but our minds "act upon" the component parts of ideas, like letters, or memories. But aren't these ideas in and of themselves? Doesn't this provide the "real world example" that some have been asking for? :)
@Nyarl3 I don't think so. Thoughts are visualizations of brain activity, just like colors are visualizations of electromagnetic waves hitting your retina.
Brain activity however has always a "B". You know, this whole axon-synapse thing...
Great to see you back, John. Fantastic video response. I'm going to make a video reply to Scott about what Dr. Craig is assuming in the kalaam argument, mainly the argument from contingency. I hope he takes the time to see all these videos.
1) I can imagine swimming through the sun naked, but that doesn't make it possible. We can imagine worlds where the A-B-C form of causality isn't the only one, but also you're A-C form. But that doesn't make it possible either.
2) All our models of the world have an empirical basis, causality being one such model where this is glaringly obvious. So once you abandon the empirical A-B-C structure, you necessarily also have to abandon causality. Let me give you an analogy:
Think about human procreation. Empirically we know that we need a man and a woman having sex, the sperm fertilizes the egg, the woman becomes pregnant and eventually gives birth to a child.
So we can deduce that children need parents.
Now you come along and you say: I can imagine a world where we can have a child without having sex, without the sperm fertilizing the egg and without the woman giving birth
At that point however, you can't use the deduction above that children need parents, because this deduction is dependent upon the parents having sex, etc.
Similarly, once you say that you can imagine an effect without something being effected, you can't invoke causality anymore, because it is dependent upon that something being effected.
Ok, when we say that something is *logically* possible, all we are saying is that the idea isn't self contradictory. It passes the "logic test". Doesn't mean that its really happening in reality.
@vbfl920 Sure, but that doesn't tell us much. "Cows are cars" isn't self contradictory either. But by itself it doesn't tell us much. The problems arise once we put things in context. I tried to address that with my second point. You take a law (causality) that is only applicable in a reality like ours and apply it to a different reality.
1: The narrowly logical account of possibility does have its problems, so be a little more careful when talking about whether a statement is possible and/or coherent.
2: Scott will probably answer your claim that you can imagine it by constructing a complicated Rube Goldberg scheme where you are not REALLY imagining a lonely magician creating something from nothing.
3: 6:15, careful there, you begged the question by saying "we can imagine possible worlds".
I guess that was three points. Regarding a real world example, I can easily give a real world example of a causal event that does not have these 3 components: the creation of minds.
When God, our parents, or in the case of epiphenomenalism our bodies, create a mind, these things aren't interacting with something else which becomes the component parts of a mind.
It's not that he's necessarily arguing that cause requires something physical to effect it's that Craig has zero support for his opinion to the contrary. His argument (Craig's) is based on our experience of physical things being effected when he says everything that is caused needs an effect. To state that the universe was caused from nothing out of nothing doesn't follow from his experience argument. You need real world examples for your claim to be anything more than an unsupported assertion.
Well hold on....check out P1 of Scott's syllogism. Scott is making an outright claim in that premise. He's saying that creatio ex nihilo CAN'T happen. In fact, he's building an entire argument around that *claim*.
That's what I'm responding to.
It makes no sense to demand that Craig take responsibility for Scott's claim. Scott needs to demonstrate why creatio ex nihilo can't happen.
Which is why he called his syllogism a "cute little tongue in cheek accessory to his argument". In other words (at the risk of mischaracterizing Scott). His syllogism disproving God is at least no worse than Craig's in support of the existence of God.
It seems Craig is saying something to the effect of "necessity demands this be the case".
It Scott is merely saying "I have never seen this happen before" rather than "this cannot happen" then I don't think his job is done quite yet. However, I don't think he has proved "this cannot happen" yet.
As Scott points out his syllogism wasn't his objection to Craig's argument. It was just a "cute little tongue in cheek accessory to his argument". His point being that Craig's cosmological argument is no better, or not even as well supported as his syllogism.
Mike, Scott *really* argues and believes that his "A, B, and C causal model" is logically necessary, and that it's logically impossible for God to create ex nihilo. Nothing tongue in cheek about that. That's what I am addressing.
@vbfl920 " Scott needs to demonstrate why creatio ex nihilo can't happen.
He hasnt born that burden."
Yes he has born that burden because he claims it is possible. Just like I could claim its possible for me to close my eyes, focus really hard and cause an apple to exist simply by thinking about it. I wouldn't expect you to prove to me how that can't happen simply because you say its impossible. From what you know of the laws of nature, it's impossible and I would need to prove the claim wrong
@TheNakedAtheist Dr. Craig offers other reasons as well to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause, not just our empirical observation of physical things, for example, that it would become inexplicable why not anything and everything come into being uncaused out of nothing. Think about it, if it would be really possible for things to come into existence uncaused out of nothing, why doesn't this happen all the time? TBS doesn't even engage with this reason at all.
@TheNakedAtheist Moreover, TBS's view implies that the universe cannot have any cause at all, for he maintains that if it did have an efficient cause, that cause would have to be a material cause, which he himself thinks is impossible. So in the case with of his A-B-C form of causality, it's not just B that is skipped on TBS' view, but A and B But if he thinks that it possible for A and B to be skipped, then why think complain about B being skipped on the theistic view?
@TheNakedAtheist Indeed the theistic view seems more probable since on TBS' view, A and B could be skipped, whereas the theist only maintain that B can be skipped. For all of these reasons, I think premis 1 of the KCA still stands and Scott has failed to show that premis 1 is less probable then its negation.
Since you're talking about this from a theistic point of view, and I'm a theist as well, I would agree with your idea on the relationship between cause (here mainly God) and effect (here His creation). However, I'm not sure I would say it's logically impossible from a panentheistic or pantheistic pov. This is not to say you're completely incorrect, I'm just not sure you're correct from a diff. pov. ;)
Now that you mention it, even if Scott's (him not me) vera causa argument were correct, I don't think his conclusion would follow. E.g. Even though we can infer entropy here, we can't infer it occurs at every point in an infinite universe.
Maybe he was referring to diff. things when referring to "the material" X is made up of, but that seems to come down to a game of semantics...at least seemingly. I could probably elaborate on these in a video response later. But that's pretty much the cliff notes version.
I had a few problems with what I think to be the argument. First off, he seems to assume materialism, in this case, X is the sum of its parts (atoms). I'm not sure if TBS is a materialist himself, but he would have to prove materialism before making the argument, which I'm not sure can be done right now. My second problem is he says X is not the material it's made up of, but X already exists in the material its made up of. (cont.)
As you have so eloquently proved it is impossible to imagine a world where anything produces an effect without acting upon something to do so. Therefore Scott is correct. Now if you can just provide more information on the "little trick" then you may show that Scotts logic is flawed, but at the moment you are just engaging in mental masturbation.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
The dead hath arisen (lol).
Good to see you makin' vid again, J... hope it spawns vids (plural) now that the stone has been rolled away ;-)
Lator, Gator.
justchemicali 8 months ago
Why are you trying to dodge answering the question about the "Little trick", because you have no answer! Stop jumping down random rabbit holes and answer the question. The "Little trick" was your proof that there need not be an X for an effect to take place, but you are unable to explain what the "Little trick" is until you do your "Easily imagined world" is absurd and therefore Scott is correct. So put up or shut up.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
That's an awfully big hole you have dug yourself into, would you like a ladder? Taps foot waiting...whistle, looks a nails then at sky, taps foot again.......
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
"nothing BY DEFINITION cannot do anything" A baseless assertion, I asked for proof, you offer an assertion sans evidence, phooey. "So the fact that something exists now proves something always existed." Does that include the Universe? If not why not, I wand proof, not statements.
"If we can presently add to the number of events in the history of the universe, then it logically did not have an *actual* infinite amount of events prior." We cannot, therefore your proof fails.
Cont...
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
This "little thing" seems impossible for you to define, that is two full days and you haven't put any flesh on the bones of your assertion that an entity can act on nothing and produce something. I will make this the final post, I do enjoy a discussion but this one has hit a dead end because you don't understand simple logic.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper If an omnipotent being cannot turn nothing into something, then how can nothing turn nothing into something (which Scott`s argument actually asserts)? Nothing *can* turn nothing into something, but an omnipotent being cannot?
Scotts argument is simply his way of covering his ass. Its his way of maintaining his atheism even if the universe literally came into being from nothing. Its pretty funny if you ask me.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost 1, your assertion that there was a beginning is fallacious, there is no evidence that he Universe Began therefore the following false dichotomy that either Everything came from nothing or an eternal force caused it to come from nothing. Even that false dichotomy has an inbuilt fallacy, special pleading, in that it will not allow the Universe to be eternal, but will allow for this force to be eternal.
2. You call the force an "omnipotent being" how do you know this?
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper Your assertion that there was no beginning is fallacious. Besides, are you even paying attention to this whole debate? Scott GRANTS (for the sake of argument) that the universe began and argues that even if thats the case, its more reasonable to believe nothing can turn nothing into something than to believe a self existent being can turn nothing into something. Why are you backing away from that now? Perhaps you`re starting to realize how retarded his argument is?
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper "It will not allow the Universe to be eternal"
Ya ... for evidential (scientific and philosophical) reasons.
"but will allow for this force to be eternal"
It is necessarily the case that *something* is eternal. If its not the universe, then its the ultimate cause of the universe (since we can`t posit an infinite regression).
So your accusation of special pleading is entirely false.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost "for evidential (scientific and philosophical) reasons." Name them and give proof.
"It is necessarily the case that *something* is eternal" Prove it.
"since we can`t posit an infinite regression" Prove it.
"So your accusation of special pleading is entirely false." No it isn't Unless you can prove all of the above, but you won't be able to do that.
Philosophy is a dead field, it cannot make any discoveries, and predictions or give any insight into the world. cont
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper Prove that *something* is necessarily eternal? Sure ... nothing BY DEFINITION cannot do anything. So the fact that something exists now proves something always existed.
Prove an actual infinite regression of events is impossible? If we can presently add to the number of events in the history of the universe, then it logically did not have an *actual* infinite amount of events prior.
Prove to me that you exist WITHOUT philosophy. Better yet, prove the physical world exists.
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CasperTheMeanieGhost "Prove to me that you exist WITHOUT philosophy. Better yet, prove the physical world exists." Hello.
/watch?v=j86bJ3jARUE
I asked for proof and you make baseless statements, you ask for proof, and I have delivered in spades.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost This is why thanks to people like Bacon we have superseded Philosophy with Science. Science produces results in the real world, it puts food in our mouths, clothes on our back, and allows us to communicate easily over vast distances. I just wish some Scientist could come up with a cure for faith, as in the strong or unshakeable belief in something, without proof or evidence. The God Helmet is a start I suppose, but more research is needed in this field.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@CasperTheMeanieGhost By the way can you shed light on the "little trick" vbfl920 postulates in this video, it is obvious he never thought it through and has been unable to respond to my question. Maybe you can come up with an answer.....
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper The "little trick"? How about your "little trick" of nothing turning nothing into something? Thats a much more impressive "trick" if you ask me.
Whats that? You deny the universe began? Well, then why are you defending Scott`s argument (which GRANTS that the universe began)?
CasperTheMeanieGhost 8 months ago
I don't think that saying "I can imagine it" demonstrates that something is possible or not self-contradictory.
Example: If God is a necessary being, then existence without God is self-contradictory. I can imagine an existence without God, therefore God cannot be necessary?
Would you accept that as a refutation of God? I don't think I would. Nor is it a sufficient refutation to TBS's argument.
Theophage 8 months ago
@Theophage
No, were referring to logical necessity/possibility in this video. When I say I can imagine a logically possible world, all it means is that there are no contradictions, and it passes the "logic test". I'm not saying it's actualizable.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I'm not saying it is actualizable either, that wasn't part of my comment. What I was saying is that the ability to imagine a state of affairs does not make that state of affairs logically possible (e.g. not self-contradictory). People can imagine self-contradictory states of affairs. If we couldn't, then we couldn't come up with examples of impossible things.
Theophage 8 months ago
@Theophage
Again, when I say "I can imagine a world", it's just semantics. What I'm really saying is that I see no contradictions in the concept I am thinking about.
How about you show me that there's a contradiction here:
A cause can produce an effect without having to interact with anything else.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 My argument isn't about semantics, you still seem to be missing it.
Yes, I know that is what you meant by what you said. But what you said implies that a valid way of determining if something is self-contradictory or not is whether you can imagine that scenario or not. The hidden implication being: if it was self-contradictory, then I shouldn't be able to picture it.
I was pointing out that is not a valid method. People can imagine all sorts of things which are self-contradictory.
Theophage 8 months ago
As for your request: If a cause A can produce an effect C without needing to interact with some other thing B, then there would never be any A, since all A would be C. It is only in the format A+B=C that causation makes sense. Why are there still A? Why are there still B? Why is there nothing but C? Because some A have not interacted with some B.
If A did not require B to produce C, and yet some A had not caused C, then the production of C would be acausal. Thus contradicting A causes C
Theophage 8 months ago
You're overstating what a causal relationship HAS to be. A cause can merely refer to a necessary or sufficient condition by which an effect exists. It doesn't have to be this explicit interaction like you keep insisting. All there needs to be is a cause, and it's effect. That's it. Let me give you an example:
A wizard says "Shazam!" and an entity appears. What is the wizard acting upon to do this, thin air? Yet, this clearly a cause/effect relationship.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 You make a good point, and I may be overstating what a causal relationship must be. If there is one thing I've learned, it is that what some people take as self-evident, other people certainly don't.
Yet I find it interesting that the example you give here is of another (as far as we know) impossible causal process to illustrate the possibility of the causal process in question. Perhaps the reason why wizards can't do this in the real world is because causality can't work that way?
Theophage 8 months ago
@Theophage
Well, it may be physically impossible in this world, because of how physics operate, but certainly, that doesn't make it logically impossible. See what I'm saying? We are talking about logic, not physics. A wizard conjuring up an entity only violates the laws of physics. But it's not logically contradictory. We still see a cause and it's effect.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I get the distinction between physical impossibility and logical impossibility. I was trying to point out that if causation requires A+B=C, then A -> C is also logically contradictory, and I tried to give examples above (apparently my examples were poor). So yeah, my intention was in the right place even if my execution was not.
Theophage 8 months ago
@vbfl920 This example is perfectly illustrating why your argument fails so hard. If "a wizard says 'Shazam' and an entity appears" this is not at all "clearly a cause/effect relationship". The fact that he said 'Shazam' might not be causally related at all to the rabbit appearing. You claim that it is at least a logical possibility, but this is a hollow assertion without a possible mechanism which connects immaterial causes with material effects at least in principle, which seems unintelligible.
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
I don't understand what you're saying.
If a rabbit appears every single time a wizard says, "Shazam!", how is this NOT a cause/effect relationship?
Either the wizard is responsible for the appearance of the rabbit, or he is not.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Well, because correllation does not entail causation. If you have ever been to a magic show, you realized that the "wizards" there say "Shazam" (or whatever) all the time and incredible stuff happens. But you didn't believe that them saying "Shazam" causally makes stuff appear out of thin air. Now, how do you distinguish between such "tricks" and "genuine magic" in order to establish causality? Do you think that an immaterial cause having a material effect is logically possible? How so?
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
...Uh, please pay closer attention. I'm not referring to "sleight of hand"...I've been referring the entire time to a hypothetical scenario in which magic was a real actuality.
If magic were real, the wizard would be responsible for the appearance of the rabbit.
This IS a causal relationship if there ever was one.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
It's *logically* possible for the sheer fact that it's not self-contradictory.
That's all logical possibility refers to. It means that something passes the "logic" test.
There's nothing self- contradictory about a wizard making a rabbit appear. Now, if I said something like, "The wizard DIDNT make the rabbit appear, the wizard DID make the rabbit appear." - THAT would be a self
contradiction. But nothing like that is going on.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I beg to differ. Just because you don't see any obvious logical contradiction does not make it logically possible. Logical impossibility is much easier to spot than logical possibility. You might say that it is conceivable for you that such a world exists, but that doesn't entail logical possibility either, for I can conceive of many illogical state of affairs. Lacking a plausible mechanism your statement remains nothing but a hollow assertion. Not a good basis to build an argument on.
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
Logical possibility simply refers to something that isnt contradictory. If something isnt contradictory, then its logically possible. Simple as that. I dont need to show a mechanism in order to say something isnt contradictory.
Magic isnt a logical contradiction. Asking me to tell you how it works is irrelevant.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I see that we are not making progress ... how can you know that an imagined state of affairs does not contain any logical contradiction, if you cannot plausibly describe its core elements? Again, you can simply assert it, but what good is that in an argument, if that is precisely the point in question? You could have saved us a lot of time and simply assert that Scott is wrong period. No logical contradiction here either and equally convincing... Cheers!
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
Well, here's what it comes down to. Remember, Scott said this is logically *necessary* : A needs a B to produce C.
All I'm saying is that there is nothing contradictory in removing the middle man. There's nothing contradictory about A producing C all by itself.
Remember, I'm making a response to his claim.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I know you are responding to a claim, but as Tomtompiper has also valiantly tried to explain to you, your response is simply: "No, it's not!". Scott laid out that efficiently causing something requires some form of interaction. If there is nothing to interact with, nothing to affect, there is no possible link between a cause and an effect. And a link seems kind of essential for "cause" to mean anything. WLC did in fact realize this and has come up with a counter. You did not even try.
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
To me, all that needs to be the case is for something to happen when the cause acts, not something to act upon.
It doesn't seem to be contradictory at all to imagine a world where a being that imagined cats lived. Every time this being imagined a cat, one appears in it's lap. It's not acting upon anything, it's simply an effect that occurs upon this being imagining a cat.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 "It doesn't seem to be contradictory at all to imagine a world where a being that imagined cats lived. Every time this being imagined a cat, one appears in it's lap. It's not acting upon anything, it's simply an effect that occurs upon this being imagining a cat." Again this is logically absurd, unless you can describe the mechanism that occurs to make the cat, which you can't. You need to not only think coherently, but back up what you say, with logic, sadly you appear incapable.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Using your cat example: How would this being establish causality? What if you came along and told it that in fact its thoughts did not influence, affect or interact with anything, it just happens to be the case that thinking about a cat somehow entails that a cat appears. What if it then concludes that its not the thought that causes the cat to appear, but actually the appearing cat that causes the thought to form? Causation reduced to temporal correlation is not causation.
TheNameIsUnimportant 7 months ago
Where's the contradiction?
Also, A needing a B to produce a C isn't derived from logic, so how can it be logically necessary?
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 The claim is that in order for "cause" to mean anything, it needs to be linked to an effect - this is a logical necessity by definition. Since temporal correlation is insufficient to establish causation, the premise is that some form of interaction needs to link cause and effect - this is a priori self-evident to me. If there is nothing to interact with, there can be no link between cause and effect and thus no causing. This argument is logically valid if interaction really is requried
TheNameIsUnimportant 8 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
If EVERY time some being X imagines a cat, and a cat appears as a RESULT.....Im sorry but that is most definitely a causal relationship.
By "link", it seems youre asking me to describe to you how it works, which I dont have to do. Do you realize that nobody knows how the chemical and electrical interactions in your brain cause consciousness? Yet, nobody goes so far to say that the brain doesnt have a causal influence on thoughts, just because we cant tell you how.
vbfl920 7 months ago
@vbfl920 This is getting ridiculous. How would you know that one is the result of the other and that the result is not the cause? If interaction was not required the cause would not even need to be prior to the effect, it could happen after its effect! You are further constantly defeating your own arguments with your analogies. We establish that the brain has causal influence on the mind exactly by interacting with it and seeing the effects. This is exactly what you'd claim we should not do.
TheNameIsUnimportant 7 months ago
@TheNameIsUnimportant
To be honest, I think we can GRANT Scott his causal principle, and this wouldnt falsify Creatio Ex Nihilo at all.
In technically theological and philosophical use, Creatio Ex Nihilo expresses the act whereby God brings the entire substance of a thing into existence from a *state of non-existence*.
cont...
vbfl920 7 months ago
cont..... So no, Creatio ex nihilo does NOT entail that nothing is being affected. It only entails that the effect wasn't pre-existent, made FROM something, or a rearrangement.
God can act upon something, thereby producing an effect that is NOT a rearrangement of the thing acted upon.
Logic doesn't dictate that effects must always be rearrangements.
vbfl920 7 months ago
Let me give you an example:
*Physical* (interactions) occur within the brain to produce consciousness (effect)
Yet even though an interaction produced an effect, that effect isnt a REARRANGEMENT of physical matter.
So its at least possible to have an interaction that produces an effect that isnt a rearrangement of anything.
vbfl920 7 months ago
@vbfl920 Scott showed how by using his hand he could create a fist and then destroy it, but his hand existed before and after the event. your abject failure to describe the form, function and mechanics of the production of your "Little trick" mean that your attempt to refute Scott ended up reinforcing his position. You need to go back to school and learn what constitutes a valid argument and what constitutes blowing smoke out of a bodily orifice.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
The A+B=C model is basic physics. It THE fundamental law of the universe. You can give any argument for the existence of a god, but THAT model must stand firm.
skywize 8 months ago
@skywize
Physics aren't the same thing as logic. Scott is arguing that his brand of causality is logically necessary, which is different from physics.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I'm not talking about the metaphysics. I am talking about very basic physics. The stuff you learn as a freshman in high school. Cause and effect, A leads to B which leads to C. Logic is not the same as physics, no. It is however a requirement.
skywize 8 months ago
@skywize
You realize that physical necessity is completely different from logical necessity?
If Scott says X is logically necessary, it makes no sense for you to bring up physics. So, why are you?
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 There is no difference. How is logical necessity any different from physical necessity? I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I'm talking about reality, the world and universe we live in today. Are you talking about philosophy or something to that nature? I think I am a bit confused. Though,... it would not be the first time... Could you make an analogy?
skywize 8 months ago
seems like you are doing nothing more than asserting things here.
infinityand0 8 months ago
At 5.14 your imagined entity used A B C, you didn't disprove anything, listen back to yourself and you will see. "One entity" = A it acts upon itself =B to produce the effect "a little trick" =C. You have just validated his logic, the fact that A = B is not important, if I follow instructions in the Bible to pluck out my eyeballs then I am both A and B and I produce the effect C one blind man sitting at a computer. But it seems that some people with two eyes can also be blind.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
When did I remotely say that the entity "acts upon itself"?
Don't put words in my mouth.
vbfl920 8 months ago
I don't think we can in fact imagine creation ex nihilo, because I do think TBS's argument holds... you need a cause, something for the cause to act upon and an effect in all causes. However, the first two can be the same entity, which is what we are actually imagining when we think of the possible world where the entity is producing things from nothing - it's actually producing them from itself.
Good vid though, nice an thoughtful.
SkepticsClaw 8 months ago
@SkepticsClaw
No, I never said that the cause acts upon itself, so you're putting words in my mouth.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 No I am not watch your own video at 5.05, "and there's nothing else for it to act upon, it just does this thing, it produces an effect" It is logically impossible for an entity to act upon nothing and produce an effect, ergo it must, yes must act upon itself to produce any effect. Your words, not mine, the entity is A+B and the effect is C you have set out to disprove him and failed.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
No, all I said is that there is nothing else for it to act upon. That doesn't mean that it acted UPON itself.
All that's required, is for the entity to ACT.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 No, for it to act and have an effect (which is the topic under discussion) it must have something to effect, ergo it can only effect itself. Far from refuting this hypothesis you have contributed a thought experiment that confirms it, congratulatios. Rearrange the words "I have just shot myself in the foot!" to make a coherent sentence /facepalm.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
You're begging the question. You keep insisting that a cause needs something to act upon in order to produce an effect, but you give no reason why, you just keep asserting it. Just because you experience something that way, doesn't make it logically necessary. That's derived from physics, not logic.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Sorry but you are just plain wrong, the fact that you struggle to say what the effect is just shows that you are wrong. If you can descrile this "little trick" and explain how it is performed then I will concede that you are correct , however until then you refuting is flawed and is instead evidence for his case.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Things have gone awfully quiet? Are you experiencing difficulties fleshing out your argument viz a vie the "little trick" and who does what with what to produce what? So many questions, so few answers. I look forward to hearing a detailed description of the "little trick", but I shan't be holding my breath.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
Its called being busy in the real world.
I dont think my argument has anything to do with HOW a cause produces an effect. What my argument is saying is that you can have one single entity that produces an effect without having to act upon anything else to do so - There is nothing contradictory about this.
Show me the contradiction, or be on your way.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 So you can't quantify or describe the "Little Trick" Big surprise! By asserting your "Entity" doe not act upon "Anything" (The opposite of anything is... wait for it, I know this, hold on its ...Nothing) is proving his point, not refuting it. The contradiction is that you do not have a clue what you are on about.... Please answer the question, what is the "Little trick" Describe it, flesh it out, or admit defeat.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
*carpenter* and *wood and nails* makes a table = two entities
SHOW me how a *single* entity producing an effect is contradictory!
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 It is only contradictory if you rule out it acting on itself in a Universe where all that exists is itself and nothing else, as you have stated. If there is nothing that it can act on except itself and you have ruled out its acting upon itself then you have a huge contradiction. Now please explain how a being in a universe where it is the only thing can produce an effect without acting upon itself. I want a detailed description, none of that "little trick" bullcrap.... detailed!
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
Why exactly does something have to act upon self?
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I didn't make the rules in this imaginary world, you did, so why can't you understand them?
When you said "We can easily imagine a possible world where there is just one Entity, and it produces an effect, it has this little trick it does and there is nothing else for it to act upon." you set the conditions not me. If as you stated the the Entity is alone in an otherwise empty world then you must state what was effected to produce the effect. There is only one candidate, the Entity.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
No, you ARE setting conditions. You're saying X *always* has to act upon something to produce an effect. I'm asking you to give me a reason for this. Otherwise, you are just begging the question.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I am not setting the conditions, it is your imaginary world and you have control, yet you cannot or will not elaborate on what the "little trick" of effect is, what is effected or how. I am not begging any question, for an effect to take place something has to exist to be effected, you have ruled out the possibility of anything else existing, ergo the only thing left capable of being effected is the Entity, but you rule that out also so your "easily imagined world" is flawed
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
No, you ARE making conditions and begging the question. You are making the claim and CONDITION that "for an effect to take place, something has to exist to be effected."
Well, why? You give no reason to back up your claim, you just assert it. You essentially, keep asking me to disprove it with some example. Well, I'd like you to prove that your claim is true in the first place, which is the point of my video. We aren't compelled to accept what Scott says.
vbfl920 8 months ago
Respond to this video...
And what do you mean that the *effect* needs to be affected upon?
Even Scott admits that he doesn't believe that. You can't affect the effect if it hasn't been produced yet! A carpenter isn't affecting a table, he's PRODUCING it. He's affecting the wood and nails. But the wood and nails aren't the EFFECT. They help PRODUCE the effect!!
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Stop making Strawmen and answer the question, harping on against something I never said will not butter any parsnips, we need answers, what is the effect, and what is effected? You have shot yourself in the foot the carpenter needs wood to effect to produce a table, your Deity needs (insert word here) to produce a "little trick" Nothing exists for it to effect, so your world is absurd and contrary to your claim, it is impossible to imagine such a world, unless you are Edward Lear.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
Not strawmanning you. YOU were the one who told me that a cause always needs some X to act upon in order to produce an effect.
Unless you provide us a reason why, you're begging the question.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 OK, if you can't answer the question, maybe I can help out.
The "Little trick" is it
1. The Entity moves something? (Even though there is nothing to move.)
2. The Entity Makes something? (Even though there is nothing to make it from.)
3. The Entity alters the shape of something? (Even though there is nothing to change.)
4. The Entity combines two or more things? (Even though there is nothing to combine.)
There seems to be a pattern forming don't you think?
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Stop constructing your latest Strawman and give some answers, we need answers.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@vbfl920 A wise man once said "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I think you have proved him right.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I think it is long past time for you to start giving some answers, or as I suspect admit you have none and admit Scott is correct as your thought experiment has proved.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
Nope. Scott is making a claim. You are making a claim. You are attaching specific conditions to causality yet you are not giving us any reason why these conditions MUST be the case.
Until you do, you are begging the question and we can doubt your claims like we can doubt Premise 1 in Scott's argument. Simple as that.
Nice talking to you.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Yes "simple as that" your World is absurd, you cannot answer any questions about it, you cannot say what the "little trick" is, your response to Scott falls at the first hurdle, as you refuse to defend it. Unless you can refute his argument which you seem incapable of, you really have nothing of worth to say on the subject. All you have done is make a fool of yourself claiming ""We can easily imagine a possible world ." when the fact is you cannot.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
You havent shown that your conditions for causality MUST be the case. Until you do so, again, you are merely asserting and begging the question.
Thats just how the game of reasoning is played. I didnt make up the rules. Have a good one.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Bottom line is yo claim that creation ex nihilo is a fact and can be proved. You provide a proof for creation ex nihilo "We can easily imagine a possible world where there is just one Entity, and it produces an effect, it has this little trick it does and there is nothing else for it to act upon." So your proof is, I can imagine it, so therefore it is so, claiming that something can produce something from nothing is proof the something can produce something from nothing. /facepalm
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
I never said it was a fact.
Scott said it was logically impossible. Well, why? You can't just assert that, otherwise you're begging the question.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 He explained why, and showed that creation ex nilho has never been observed and contradicts every observation we have ever made about the universe. You set out to prove him wrong by saying "We can easily imagine a possible world where there is just one Entity, and it produces an effect, it has this little trick it does and there is nothing else for it to act upon." but this was a statement you have been unable to back up.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
@TheTomtompiper
You don't seem to understand what's at issue here. Logical necessity ISNT derived from observations, it's derived from logic.
Scott says that its logically necessary that A needs a B to produce a C. Either show that it is, or move along.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 I have asked numerous times now for a viable alternative and you have been unable to produce one, so when you said "We can easily imagine a possible world" you I think you were in error, you seem to be having extreme difficulty coping with the consequences of the constraints you have placed on said world, and have made a claim that is a logical impossibility in your own creation. No wonder you cannot flesh out the bones of your argument, it appears to lack a spine.
TheTomtompiper 8 months ago
Cool video. Glad I subscribed. I agree with what you're saying, and I want to throw something out there. Wouldn't thoughts arising in our minds be a good example for how the causal principle could work without needing a "B"? Well, maybe you could say that ideas don't come fully formed, but our minds "act upon" the component parts of ideas, like letters, or memories. But aren't these ideas in and of themselves? Doesn't this provide the "real world example" that some have been asking for? :)
Nyarl3 8 months ago
@Nyarl3 I don't think so. Thoughts are visualizations of brain activity, just like colors are visualizations of electromagnetic waves hitting your retina.
Brain activity however has always a "B". You know, this whole axon-synapse thing...
thalamay 8 months ago
I want my blackwells pdf john!
WayOfTheBastard 8 months ago
Great to see you back, John. Fantastic video response. I'm going to make a video reply to Scott about what Dr. Craig is assuming in the kalaam argument, mainly the argument from contingency. I hope he takes the time to see all these videos.
BassP86 8 months ago
Dude, you finally made a video??? Glad to see you're doing well, and good video.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
Oh, my gosh. It has been a while that you made a video. How are you?
cguevara12 8 months ago
1) I can imagine swimming through the sun naked, but that doesn't make it possible. We can imagine worlds where the A-B-C form of causality isn't the only one, but also you're A-C form. But that doesn't make it possible either.
2) All our models of the world have an empirical basis, causality being one such model where this is glaringly obvious. So once you abandon the empirical A-B-C structure, you necessarily also have to abandon causality. Let me give you an analogy:
(cont.)
thalamay 8 months ago
@thalamay ...
Think about human procreation. Empirically we know that we need a man and a woman having sex, the sperm fertilizes the egg, the woman becomes pregnant and eventually gives birth to a child.
So we can deduce that children need parents.
Now you come along and you say: I can imagine a world where we can have a child without having sex, without the sperm fertilizing the egg and without the woman giving birth
(cont.)
thalamay 8 months ago
@thalamay ...
At that point however, you can't use the deduction above that children need parents, because this deduction is dependent upon the parents having sex, etc.
Similarly, once you say that you can imagine an effect without something being effected, you can't invoke causality anymore, because it is dependent upon that something being effected.
thalamay 8 months ago
@thalamay
Ok, when we say that something is *logically* possible, all we are saying is that the idea isn't self contradictory. It passes the "logic test". Doesn't mean that its really happening in reality.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 Sure, but that doesn't tell us much. "Cows are cars" isn't self contradictory either. But by itself it doesn't tell us much. The problems arise once we put things in context. I tried to address that with my second point. You take a law (causality) that is only applicable in a reality like ours and apply it to a different reality.
thalamay 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You FINALLY made a video. High five!! ..Is that Pollack in the background?
PaperNun 8 months ago
Comment removed
PaperNun 8 months ago
2 points
1: The narrowly logical account of possibility does have its problems, so be a little more careful when talking about whether a statement is possible and/or coherent.
2: Scott will probably answer your claim that you can imagine it by constructing a complicated Rube Goldberg scheme where you are not REALLY imagining a lonely magician creating something from nothing.
3: 6:15, careful there, you begged the question by saying "we can imagine possible worlds".
migkillertwo 8 months ago
@migkillertwo
I guess that was three points. Regarding a real world example, I can easily give a real world example of a causal event that does not have these 3 components: the creation of minds.
When God, our parents, or in the case of epiphenomenalism our bodies, create a mind, these things aren't interacting with something else which becomes the component parts of a mind.
migkillertwo 8 months ago
It's not that he's necessarily arguing that cause requires something physical to effect it's that Craig has zero support for his opinion to the contrary. His argument (Craig's) is based on our experience of physical things being effected when he says everything that is caused needs an effect. To state that the universe was caused from nothing out of nothing doesn't follow from his experience argument. You need real world examples for your claim to be anything more than an unsupported assertion.
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Well hold on....check out P1 of Scott's syllogism. Scott is making an outright claim in that premise. He's saying that creatio ex nihilo CAN'T happen. In fact, he's building an entire argument around that *claim*.
That's what I'm responding to.
It makes no sense to demand that Craig take responsibility for Scott's claim. Scott needs to demonstrate why creatio ex nihilo can't happen.
He hasnt born that burden.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920
He seems to be making too strong of a claim to support, or at least too strong of a claim given his supporting arguments.
Epydemic2020 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
@Epydemic2020
Which is why he called his syllogism a "cute little tongue in cheek accessory to his argument". In other words (at the risk of mischaracterizing Scott). His syllogism disproving God is at least no worse than Craig's in support of the existence of God.
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
It seems Craig is saying something to the effect of "necessity demands this be the case".
It Scott is merely saying "I have never seen this happen before" rather than "this cannot happen" then I don't think his job is done quite yet. However, I don't think he has proved "this cannot happen" yet.
Epydemic2020 8 months ago
@vbfl920-check out P1 of Scott's syllogism
As Scott points out his syllogism wasn't his objection to Craig's argument. It was just a "cute little tongue in cheek accessory to his argument". His point being that Craig's cosmological argument is no better, or not even as well supported as his syllogism.
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Mike, Scott *really* argues and believes that his "A, B, and C causal model" is logically necessary, and that it's logically impossible for God to create ex nihilo. Nothing tongue in cheek about that. That's what I am addressing.
vbfl920 8 months ago
@vbfl920 " Scott needs to demonstrate why creatio ex nihilo can't happen.
He hasnt born that burden."
Yes he has born that burden because he claims it is possible. Just like I could claim its possible for me to close my eyes, focus really hard and cause an apple to exist simply by thinking about it. I wouldn't expect you to prove to me how that can't happen simply because you say its impossible. From what you know of the laws of nature, it's impossible and I would need to prove the claim wrong
Equinox68 8 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Dr. Craig offers other reasons as well to think that whatever begins to exist has a cause, not just our empirical observation of physical things, for example, that it would become inexplicable why not anything and everything come into being uncaused out of nothing. Think about it, if it would be really possible for things to come into existence uncaused out of nothing, why doesn't this happen all the time? TBS doesn't even engage with this reason at all.
GGDFan777 8 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Moreover, TBS's view implies that the universe cannot have any cause at all, for he maintains that if it did have an efficient cause, that cause would have to be a material cause, which he himself thinks is impossible. So in the case with of his A-B-C form of causality, it's not just B that is skipped on TBS' view, but A and B But if he thinks that it possible for A and B to be skipped, then why think complain about B being skipped on the theistic view?
GGDFan777 8 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Indeed the theistic view seems more probable since on TBS' view, A and B could be skipped, whereas the theist only maintain that B can be skipped. For all of these reasons, I think premis 1 of the KCA still stands and Scott has failed to show that premis 1 is less probable then its negation.
GGDFan777 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 8 months ago
It's also ironic how you say how God created something is arbitrary, yet your intro from a year ago says "Nothing is arbitrary." ;)
jcrebel18 8 months ago
Since you're talking about this from a theistic point of view, and I'm a theist as well, I would agree with your idea on the relationship between cause (here mainly God) and effect (here His creation). However, I'm not sure I would say it's logically impossible from a panentheistic or pantheistic pov. This is not to say you're completely incorrect, I'm just not sure you're correct from a diff. pov. ;)
jcrebel18 8 months ago
Your back :)
95TurboSol 8 months ago
@AnglicanApologist72
I'm surprised too. ;)
jcrebel18 8 months ago
Now that you mention it, even if Scott's (him not me) vera causa argument were correct, I don't think his conclusion would follow. E.g. Even though we can infer entropy here, we can't infer it occurs at every point in an infinite universe.
jcrebel18 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Maybe he was referring to diff. things when referring to "the material" X is made up of, but that seems to come down to a game of semantics...at least seemingly. I could probably elaborate on these in a video response later. But that's pretty much the cliff notes version.
jcrebel18 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I had a few problems with what I think to be the argument. First off, he seems to assume materialism, in this case, X is the sum of its parts (atoms). I'm not sure if TBS is a materialist himself, but he would have to prove materialism before making the argument, which I'm not sure can be done right now. My second problem is he says X is not the material it's made up of, but X already exists in the material its made up of. (cont.)
jcrebel18 8 months ago