A silver bullet? My response to Scott.

My thoughts on Scott's argument and my first ever video to him!

He's arguing from both inductive empirical experience and logic, so I figured I'd respond from logic as well, and fight on his ground.

Been talking to Scott about this for a LONG time so I came out of hiding.
His argument deserves to be addressed.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• theoretical
• bullshit
• william
• lane
• craig
• causality
• logic
• possibility
• modality
• theism
• atheism

[vbfl920]

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]

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]

@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...

[TheNameIsUnimportant]

@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.

[vbfl920]

@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.

[TheNameIsUnimportant]

@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]

@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

[TheTomtompiper]

@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]

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.

[vbfl920]

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?