Yes, and my argument is that must involve something happening, something changing (something other than no universe->universe)
the process of god creating the universe is the cause
You keep asking the question you've already answered.
What is the change then? Yes, god creating the universe is the thing that happens that leads to the universe occurring, but the whole premise of this creatio ex nihilo is that there is no interaction, so how does anything happen? The coherent way of describing the process of the cause is with interacting elements. That gives us change, gives us something happening.
While I don't personally agree with Highroller on the existence of god, I do agree with him on the backbone of this back-and-forth. Assuming for the sake of argument that god created the universe from nothing
If you assume that it works and makes sense, that is begging the question. The whole claim is that it doesn't make sense. It's not 'this thing that works, how did it happen', it's 'how could this thing happen at all, what does it even mean'.
I don't want to get into the argument on the abstract details of causality; I posted my position on the subject way back on page 1. So far as we understand the physics, time came into existence simultaneously with space, and you can't have one without the other. Additionally, causality is a temporal relationship. Thus, without time (which wouldn't exist in a void of nothingness), talking about causality is also meaningless. That doesn't make it incoherent, it just leaves it outside the realm of our experience.
What is the change then? Yes, god creating the universe is the thing that happens that leads to the universe occurring, but the whole premise of this creatio ex nihilo is that there is no interaction, so how does anything happen? The coherent way of describing the process of the cause is with interacting elements.
No, as I have stated since the start of this thread, that is not a requirement. That is something you have presumed to be a requirement.
There is no requirement that God must interact with anything to produce an effect. You're saying he must, but you have never justified this. There's nothing in the definition of "causality" that requires this, or the definition of the word "influence," or the definition of the word "effect." There is no basis whatsoever to presume that God must interact with an already existing thing to produce existence. Indeed, this very idea is fundamentally illogical, because it presumes existence must exist in order that existence may be produced.
There is no reason to think that, for example, God could not simply will the universe into being merely by choosing that the universe should exist. God possesses such power.
You must demonstrate that such a thing is logically incoherent. Not "we don't know how this occurred or could occur," which is not what logically incoherent means, but that it is logically incoherent.
I think I've kept up with both sides here but in case I didn't I'm starting with my understanding
Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first.
Only God exists--->God preforms some incomprehensible action---->The Universe now exists
If I've understood correctly, you believe that creatio ex nihilo is illogical because we don't know/can't explain what God's incomprehensible action was or because for some reason God's incomprehensible action couldn't have taken place because nothing existed. Neither of these seem to make sense and if your position is something completely different please explain better so I can better understand.
We could just say "God created the universe and it didn't involve causality or fall under our current sense of logic."
That seems like it completely resolves this argument, without quibbling about the definitions (irritating) or trying to make an argument that is not predicated on definitions (impossible).
If I've understood correctly, you believe that creatio ex nihilo is illogical because we don't know/can't explain what God's incomprehensible action was or because for some reason God's incomprehensible action couldn't have taken place because nothing existed. Neither of these seem to make sense and if your position is something completely different please explain better so I can better understand.
We could just say "God created the universe and it didn't involve causality or fall under our current sense of logic."
What? No, you can't say something caused something and then say it doesn't involve causality. To say anything caused anything is to invoke cause and effect. Causality is cause and effect.
Nor can you say that something does not fall under logic. Logic is a prerequisite to be able to say anything intelligible about anything. If you can say that something occurs outside logic, then you open the door to anything. You can say that "God is not God," or that "God is a cheeseburger" or that "a cheeseburger is the universe," or, "a cheeseburger is the universe, but not God," or, "a cheeseburger is God, but not the universe," or, "a cheeseburger is neither the universe, nor God, nor a cheeseburger," or "the street sign dogs crinkled ravenous diagonally," or "goihgoirhuhu eoghoihue uhgou," and all of those will make exactly the same amount of sense, which is no sense, because nothing can make sense anymore because there's no logic.
So there's no discarding logic. There are some things you can't find a middle ground for, and logic is not something you can go 50-50 on.
We could just say "God created the universe and it didn't involve causality or fall under our current sense of logic."
What? No, you can't say something caused something and then say it doesn't involve causality. To say anything caused anything is to invoke cause and effect. Causality is cause and effect.
Nor can you say that something does not fall under logic. Logic is a prerequisite to be able to say anything intelligible about anything. If you can say that something occurs outside logic, then you open the door to anything. You can say that "God is not God," or that "God is a cheeseburger" or that "a cheeseburger is the universe," or, "a cheeseburger is the universe, but not God," or, "a cheeseburger is God, but not the universe," or, "a cheeseburger is neither the universe, nor God, nor a cheeseburger," or "the street sign dogs crinkled ravenous diagonally," or "goihgoirhuhu eoghoihue uhgou," and all of those will make exactly the same amount of sense, which is no sense, because nothing can make sense anymore because there's no logic.
So there's no discarding logic. There are some things you can't find a middle ground for, and logic is not something you can go 50-50 on.
I agree with you on the causality aspect, though one could say that God didn't cause the universe to exist. Maybe God just created the concept, then that concept sprang into existence. It's not really causal, then... Uggh. I hate that argument myself too.
Discarding logic in the manner I suggested is a little more viable. Our current sense of logic is not necessarily complete.
I'm trying to write a novel that involves Quantum Mysticism heavily: would be curious if anyone in this thread is familiar with it. I would actively love to hear more interpretations.
My novelistic take is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle--and the unprovable, string-like nature of reality-- is a feature, not a bug, of existence. That is the physical manifestation of free will: the paradoxical, yet true and observable hallmarks of our universe can be read as elastic bands of uncertainty that allow a curve of free will in various likelihood: chaos theory from there takes that tiny uncertainty and balloons it to the near-infinite range of possibility.
I'm not sure if I literally 'believe' this but I do like its simplicity and beauty. Combines scientific impossibility as proving some higher power. Please, please let me know if this sounds cool to you or you have thoughts/edits/disagreements to add.
I agree with you on the causality aspect, though one could say that God didn't cause the universe to exist. Maybe God just created the concept, then that concept sprang into existence. It's not really causal, then...
"No, officer, I didn't cause the rock to fall on him. I merely pushed the rock. Gravity caused the rock to fall on him. Man, gravity, there's going to a warrant out for your arrest..."
Doesn't work, does it?
Discarding logic in the manner I suggested is a little more viable. Our current sense of logic is not necessarily complete.
What are you talking about?
Our understanding of the universe is by no means complete, no. But you cannot discard logic. To discard logic makes knowledge impossible, and makes it impossible to say anything intelligible, because nothing can be intelligible without logic.
Either something has a logical explanation or it does not. If it does, then it has one regardless of whether or not humans know or understand it. The OP is saying that it is illogical that God could create the universe ex nihilo. Meaning the fundamental concept is illogical. But he's done nothing to demonstrate why this would be.
I agree with you on the causality aspect, though one could say that God didn't cause the universe to exist. Maybe God just created the concept, then that concept sprang into existence. It's not really causal, then...
"No, officer, I didn't cause the rock to fall on him. I merely pushed the rock. Gravity caused the rock to fall on him. Man, gravity, there's going to a warrant out for your arrest..."
Discarding logic in the manner I suggested is a little more viable. Our current sense of logic is not necessarily complete.
What are you talking about?
Our understanding of the universe is by no means complete, no. But you cannot discard logic. To discard logic makes knowledge impossible, and makes it impossible to say anything intelligible, because nothing can be intelligible without logic.
Either something has a logical explanation or it does not. If it does, then it has one regardless of whether or not humans know or understand it. The OP is saying that it is illogical that God could create the universe ex nihilo. Meaning the fundamental concept is illogical. But he's done nothing to demonstrate why this would be.
My point is that it could be logical in a manner that we don't understand.
I agree with you though, that DJK has yet to prove that Creatio ex Nihilo is illogical.
My point is that it could be logical in a manner that we don't understand.
I agree with you though, that DJK has yet to prove that Creatio ex Nihilo is illogical.
That's precisely it. DJK hasn't proven his assertion that it's logically incoherent, and his entire argument hinges on this assertion. Barring this, his argument collapses.
To the best of my understanding, DJK's argument seems to be - or at least became - that in the causal chain, we have God deciding to create a universe -> God creating the universe -> Universe.
So, we have God deciding to create the universe, God exerting his will to create the universe, and then universe. I think DJK's confusion is in what, precisely, that second step involves. Because the second step is vague. It's "God does something to create the universe," but what precisely does he do, exactly? Ok, God decides he's going to create the universe, so he's going to exert his will to create the universe to make the universe a reality, and so he does... What, exactly? Ok, "God decides he's going to create the universe," and then he carries out that decision. Great. But what does carrying out that decision mean exactly? What does God do to carry out his will for the universe to be created? The whole point of this scenario is that nothing exists. So it's not like he has anything to influence or affect. So what does he do, exactly? He must do something, or else it cannot be said that he does anything, and if he does nothing, then no action is taking place.
The problem with this argument is it presumes God's will to require any such intermediary steps, that God could not simply will a particular effect to occur without any intermediary steps or interactions, or in this case, that God could not simply will the universe to come into being. THAT'S where I believe DJK was consistently thrown off.
Because the way human beings and most sentient things work is that they cannot create an outcome merely by will alone (unless the outcome involves willing something). However, God can accomplish things merely by willing them. That's part-and-parcel with the very notion of God. So the answer is there is no need for any such intermediary step, any such interaction to occur, before God does something. God can accomplish things merely by willing them to be so.
You keep asking the question you've already answered.
What is the change then? Yes, god creating the universe is the thing that happens that leads to the universe occurring, but the whole premise of this creatio ex nihilo is that there is no interaction, so how does anything happen? The coherent way of describing the process of the cause is with interacting elements. That gives us change, gives us something happening.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
There is no requirement that God must interact with anything to produce an effect. You're saying he must, but you have never justified this. There's nothing in the definition of "causality" that requires this, or the definition of the word "influence," or the definition of the word "effect." There is no basis whatsoever to presume that God must interact with an already existing thing to produce existence. Indeed, this very idea is fundamentally illogical, because it presumes existence must exist in order that existence may be produced.
There is no reason to think that, for example, God could not simply will the universe into being merely by choosing that the universe should exist. God possesses such power.
You must demonstrate that such a thing is logically incoherent. Not "we don't know how this occurred or could occur," which is not what logically incoherent means, but that it is logically incoherent.
So for a causal event we need
So for creatio ex nihilo we have
If I've understood correctly, you believe that creatio ex nihilo is illogical because we don't know/can't explain what God's incomprehensible action was or because for some reason God's incomprehensible action couldn't have taken place because nothing existed. Neither of these seem to make sense and if your position is something completely different please explain better so I can better understand.
That seems like it completely resolves this argument, without quibbling about the definitions (irritating) or trying to make an argument that is not predicated on definitions (impossible).
What? No, you can't say something caused something and then say it doesn't involve causality. To say anything caused anything is to invoke cause and effect. Causality is cause and effect.
Nor can you say that something does not fall under logic. Logic is a prerequisite to be able to say anything intelligible about anything. If you can say that something occurs outside logic, then you open the door to anything. You can say that "God is not God," or that "God is a cheeseburger" or that "a cheeseburger is the universe," or, "a cheeseburger is the universe, but not God," or, "a cheeseburger is God, but not the universe," or, "a cheeseburger is neither the universe, nor God, nor a cheeseburger," or "the street sign dogs crinkled ravenous diagonally," or "goihgoirhuhu eoghoihue uhgou," and all of those will make exactly the same amount of sense, which is no sense, because nothing can make sense anymore because there's no logic.
So there's no discarding logic. There are some things you can't find a middle ground for, and logic is not something you can go 50-50 on.
I agree with you on the causality aspect, though one could say that God didn't cause the universe to exist. Maybe God just created the concept, then that concept sprang into existence. It's not really causal, then... Uggh. I hate that argument myself too.
Discarding logic in the manner I suggested is a little more viable. Our current sense of logic is not necessarily complete.
My novelistic take is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle--and the unprovable, string-like nature of reality-- is a feature, not a bug, of existence. That is the physical manifestation of free will: the paradoxical, yet true and observable hallmarks of our universe can be read as elastic bands of uncertainty that allow a curve of free will in various likelihood: chaos theory from there takes that tiny uncertainty and balloons it to the near-infinite range of possibility.
I'm not sure if I literally 'believe' this but I do like its simplicity and beauty. Combines scientific impossibility as proving some higher power. Please, please let me know if this sounds cool to you or you have thoughts/edits/disagreements to add.
Doesn't work, does it?
What are you talking about?
Our understanding of the universe is by no means complete, no. But you cannot discard logic. To discard logic makes knowledge impossible, and makes it impossible to say anything intelligible, because nothing can be intelligible without logic.
Either something has a logical explanation or it does not. If it does, then it has one regardless of whether or not humans know or understand it. The OP is saying that it is illogical that God could create the universe ex nihilo. Meaning the fundamental concept is illogical. But he's done nothing to demonstrate why this would be.
A little different, but okay.
My point is that it could be logical in a manner that we don't understand.
I agree with you though, that DJK has yet to prove that Creatio ex Nihilo is illogical.
To the best of my understanding, DJK's argument seems to be - or at least became - that in the causal chain, we have God deciding to create a universe -> God creating the universe -> Universe.
So, we have God deciding to create the universe, God exerting his will to create the universe, and then universe. I think DJK's confusion is in what, precisely, that second step involves. Because the second step is vague. It's "God does something to create the universe," but what precisely does he do, exactly? Ok, God decides he's going to create the universe, so he's going to exert his will to create the universe to make the universe a reality, and so he does... What, exactly? Ok, "God decides he's going to create the universe," and then he carries out that decision. Great. But what does carrying out that decision mean exactly? What does God do to carry out his will for the universe to be created? The whole point of this scenario is that nothing exists. So it's not like he has anything to influence or affect. So what does he do, exactly? He must do something, or else it cannot be said that he does anything, and if he does nothing, then no action is taking place.
The problem with this argument is it presumes God's will to require any such intermediary steps, that God could not simply will a particular effect to occur without any intermediary steps or interactions, or in this case, that God could not simply will the universe to come into being. THAT'S where I believe DJK was consistently thrown off.
Because the way human beings and most sentient things work is that they cannot create an outcome merely by will alone (unless the outcome involves willing something). However, God can accomplish things merely by willing them. That's part-and-parcel with the very notion of God. So the answer is there is no need for any such intermediary step, any such interaction to occur, before God does something. God can accomplish things merely by willing them to be so.