I am saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent, the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality. In other words, I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction, I am saying it doesn't make sense.
Uhh, no.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
So let's break down what's wrong with what you just said.
1. "the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality." Wrong, you appeal to the definition of causality in P1. It's central to your argument, and the fact that your argument breaks down due to your incorrect definition of causality is something I've been pointing out to you.
2. "I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction" This is exactly what you are saying. That is the very basis of C1.
P1 is based on the implications of the idea of causality, not the definition of causality itself.
I've read through most of this thread, but not completely. However, I'm rather disappointed that OP hasn't addressed Lithl's comment about the temporal relationship required for "causality." Because space-time didn't exist prior to God's creation of this universe, causality as we understand it didn't exist. You're also assuming that God is bound by our puny, human logic. The entire idea that a God who exists completely outside our space-time is bound by our rules of logic and laws of physics is nonsensical. If God was bound by our laws of physics, the yes, it would be logically incoherent, but we know this to not be the case. If it was the case, He couldn't create the universe anyway, because He couldn't exist outside that which binds Him (our universe), and therefore wouldn't even be God.
I would like to add that as a Christian myself, I'm very sad that Highroller is antagonizing OP. He's not serving a meaningful purpose by doing so.
I've read through most of this thread, but not completely. However, I'm rather disappointed that OP hasn't addressed Lithl's comment about the temporal relationship required for "causality." Because space-time didn't exist prior to God's creation of this universe, causality as we understand it didn't exist. You're also assuming that God is bound by our puny, human logic. The entire idea that a God who exists completely outside our space-time is bound by our rules of logic and laws of physics is nonsensical. If God was bound by our laws of physics, the yes, it would be logically incoherent, but we know this to not be the case. If it was the case, He couldn't create the universe anyway, because He couldn't exist outside that which binds Him (our universe), and therefore wouldn't even be God.
That supports my argument. The whole point of the argument is to say that god causing the universe to exist from nothing cannot be understood as we know as causality (note that doesn't hit the level of actual impossibility). It's not to say god couldn't have created the universe- notice premise 3. If the claim is god created the universe in some weird way we can't understand or created it from some state of potential or somesuch, then this argument is irrelevant. This is, more than anything, a counter point against certain arguments I here, certainly not an attempt to disprove the idea of god.
By trying to say that it's logically incoherent, you're trying to apply our understanding to something far beyond it. It's like trying to say, "isn't Japanese logically incoherent based on English language rules?" You're trying to apply rules for subject A to subject B when there's no basis. Your initial assumption that you even can apply them is incorrect.
Any argument is dependant on the definitions of the bloody words you are using. This is not a distinguishing feature of this argument, it is a feature of all arguments.
Um, what? Maybe you want to rethink that?
Logic definitely was not invented along with the invention of language by humankind. Rather, language was invented to describe logic, and other things like it. Words are signs of things, not the things themselves. And they are shown repeatedly to do a less than perfect job at it. Case in point, there are a host of informal logical fallacies that arise specifically because of the imperfection of language (Equivocation, Sorties fallacy, argument on etymology, intentionality fallacy, referential fallacy, etc)
Point being, the ability of language to articulate a concept so that it is mutually understood by speaker and listener is no indication that this mutually understood thing actually exists. It’s not representative of reality, it’s just a concept expressed by a word. This character of “nothing” as it pertains to the origin of the universe might be of a different character than what is understood by the word.
This is a strict philosophical argument, so it is not inappropriate that I am using a strict philosophical definition of nothing. To go back to a point I made earlier, if virtual nothingness is considered true nothingness, that is working against the whole point of distinguishing creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia in the first place. There is a very important distinction to be made here with true nothing.
So as here, I agree that your distinction of “true nothing” is important to the argument. That’s exactly what I’m saying. You’re setting forth that definition as being “the empty set”, proof by assertion. Then, you’re going on to prove/disprove a whole host of things about the actual universe based on the assertion.
But, who gets to define “true nothing”? You can define it for your purposes, provided you confine the argument to your own definition. But if you’re extending it to things like the Kalam Ontological Argument, which you point out that others are making, then it’s going to be up to them to define this “true nothing”.
In fact, William Lane Craig (who you cited) goes on for hundreds of pages about particle physics, mathematics, relativity, cosmic singularity theory, all in support of the premise that everything is finite. It’s with that understanding, not yours, that he defines this “true nothing” that you’re talking about as it relates to the Kalam argument. And even in the end, he makes the reservation that his claims are only in persuasion, not proof, and concedes plausibility to other claims. Simply stated, transfinite models can’t be used to prove all things are finite, since they implicitly rely on that being the case in order to make any logical sense.
Consider that the side you're claiming to refute has offered all of that mountain of evidence only in persuasion of what’s being discussed, and all you’ve done is asserted your definition of terms. And you’re arguing in proof. Not persuasive.
I've read through most of this thread, but not completely. However, I'm rather disappointed that OP hasn't addressed Lithl's comment about the temporal relationship required for "causality." Because space-time didn't exist prior to God's creation of this universe, causality as we understand it didn't exist. You're also assuming that God is bound by our puny, human logic. The entire idea that a God who exists completely outside our space-time is bound by our rules of logic and laws of physics is nonsensical. If God was bound by our laws of physics, the yes, it would be logically incoherent, but we know this to not be the case. If it was the case, He couldn't create the universe anyway, because He couldn't exist outside that which binds Him (our universe), and therefore wouldn't even be God.
That supports my argument. The whole point of the argument is to say that god causing the universe to exist from nothing cannot be understood as we know as causality (note that doesn't hit the level of actual impossibility). It's not to say god couldn't have created the universe- notice premise 3. If the claim is god created the universe in some weird way we can't understand or created it from some state of potential or somesuch, then this argument is irrelevant. This is, more than anything, a counter point against certain arguments I here, certainly not an attempt to disprove the idea of god.
So the entire point of this argument was to say "God creating the universe from nothing is logically incoherent from the perspective of our current-day rules of logic, if Creatio ex Nihilo is logically incoherent." Am I getting this right? I'm not sure how this is a surprising and thought-provoking conclusion. But okay. Sure. If God created the universe, the creation did not necessarily follow our current-day rules of logic.
Also, Jusstice, whether or not this is indeed the argument that DJK intended, please try to stay on topic.
By trying to say that it's logically incoherent, you're trying to apply our understanding to something far beyond it. It's like trying to say, "isn't Japanese logically incoherent based on English language rules?" You're trying to apply rules for subject A to subject B when there's no basis. Your initial assumption that you even can apply them is incorrect.
Not according to others I have heard. If you think god is beyond our understanding, that is your opinion, but some people think that we can to at least some significant extent.
Any argument is dependant on the definitions of the bloody words you are using. This is not a distinguishing feature of this argument, it is a feature of all arguments.
Um, what? Maybe you want to rethink that?
Logic definitely was not invented along with the invention of language by humankind. Rather, language was invented to describe logic, and other things like it. Words are signs of things, not the things themselves. And they are shown repeatedly to do a less than perfect job at it. Case in point, there are a host of informal logical fallacies that arise specifically because of the imperfection of language (Equivocation, Sorties fallacy, argument on etymology, intentionality fallacy, referential fallacy, etc)
Point being, the ability of language to articulate a concept so that it is mutually understood by speaker and listener is no indication that this mutually understood
thing actually exists
Yes, but the whole point of a definition is to attempt to describe the thing you are trying to describe. Yes, the definition you use isn't always what you mean, but that doesn't mean your argument is based on that definition. The other person cannot see inside your head to see what you mean. If you are using the wrong definition for what you mean, you change it, and if the other person is using the wrong definition (as with equivocation) you correct them on that. Definitions are the bridge between meaning and word. A discussion about any term is dependant on the definition of that term as to what the meaning is. There is no other pathway.
Quote from DJK3654 »
This is a strict philosophical argument, so it is not inappropriate that I am using a strict philosophical definition of nothing. To go back to a point I made earlier, if virtual nothingness is considered true nothingness, that is working against the whole point of distinguishing creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia in the first place. There is a very important distinction to be made here with true nothing.
So as here, I agree that your distinction of “true nothing” is important to the argument. That’s exactly what I’m saying. You’re setting forth that definition as being “the empty set”, proof by assertion. Then, you’re going on to prove/disprove a whole host of things about the actual universe based on the assertion.
Definitions are arbitrary. There is no truly meaningful connection between any word and it's meaning other than that is the meaning. Significance is practical. If you don't accept the definition that just means the words change. The point stands on its own. If you don't accept "nothing' to mean, when used strictly, 'no thing', then I'll call it something else and nothing of much substance has changed. If you would like to argue that no significant number of people exist that premise 3 applies to because those who agree with the phrase don't use nothing to mean no thing, then fine, I'll say those people probably need to be more strict with their language so people can actually know what they mean if not the most straightfoward definition of nothing. If nothing does not mean no thing, what does it mean? What objective standard could we use to determine it?
In fact, William Lane Craig (who you cited) goes on for hundreds of pages about particle physics, mathematics, relativity, cosmic singularity theory, all in support of the premise that everything is finite. It’s with that understanding, not yours, that he defines this “true nothing” that you’re talking about as it relates to the Kalam argument. And even in the end, he makes the reservation that his claims are only in persuasion, not proof, and concedes plausibility to other claims. Simply stated, transfinite models can’t be used to prove all things are finite, since they implicitly rely on that being the case in order to make any logical sense.
Consider that the side you're claiming to refute has offered all of that mountain of evidence only in persuasion of what’s being discussed, and all you’ve done is asserted your definition of terms. And you’re arguing in proof. Not persuasive.
My argument isn't much of a proof, it's based on assumptions taken to be reasonable and practical that most people accept for those reasons. This is only about the sensibility of an idea, not the absolute truth of it.
Also, the complexity of WLC's arguments say nothing of their validity or soundness. Note that WLC's argument has a central syllogism, as does mine. Neither represent the entirety of the argument.
P1 is based on the implications of the idea of causality, not the definition of causality itself.
Now you're just trying to backpedal because you don't want to admit that you're wrong.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect.
No, this is clearly you trying to give a definition of the word causality. As demonstrated, the definition is erroneous.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
You are then trying to take that erroneous definition and prove that it is contradictory to the definition of creatio ex nihilo.
Except, your definition of causality is wrong. And the correct definition of causality is not contradictory to the definition of creatio ex nihilo. Therefore, P1 is invalid, and in turn C1 is invalid.
Thus, your question:
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
P1 is based on the implications of the idea of causality, not the definition of causality itself.
Now you're just trying to backpedal because you don't want to admit that you're wrong.
No. That was my position all along.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect.
No, this is clearly you trying to give a definition of the word causality. As demonstrated, the definition is erroneous.
That was not me not trying to give a definition, that was me trying establishing an implication, contextualizing the definition in terms of other points of understanding, if you will. It could have been better worded, which is why I have rephrased the argument in responses since.
By trying to say that it's logically incoherent, you're trying to apply our understanding to something far beyond it. It's like trying to say, "isn't Japanese logically incoherent based on English language rules?" You're trying to apply rules for subject A to subject B when there's no basis. Your initial assumption that you even can apply them is incorrect.
Not according to others I have heard. If you think god is beyond our understanding, that is your opinion, but some people think that we can to at least some significant extent.
I should've been more specific. Yes, to a meaningful extent, we can understand specific aspects of God. But we are finite beings. This is not in question (nor should it be). A finite being, almost by definition, cannot ever fully understand an infinite God. Our brains are far too small. It's not my opinion, it's simple physics: a finite object cannot carry infinite information. But I like it that way. I heard a Christian apologist say something to the effect of, "any God that I could understand with my 3-pound brain wouldn't be worth worshipping."
Yes, but the whole point of a definition is to attempt to describe the thing you are trying to describe. Yes, the definition you use isn't always what you mean, but that doesn't mean your argument is based on that definition. The other person cannot see inside your head to see what you mean. If you are using the wrong definition for what you mean, you change it, and if the other person is using the wrong definition (as with equivocation) you correct them on that. Definitions are the bridge between meaning and word. A discussion about any term is dependant on the definition of that term as to what the meaning is. There is no other pathway.
Agreed entirely. Lots and lots of volume in dialectic debate is taken up deciding on just what is in the mind of the person putting forward the argument, and then redefining terms when an inconsistency is found. As in, everything written by Plato, ever.
But, the original post started out along the lines of… “The Kalam Cosmological Argument/Creatio ex Nihilo is ‘logically incoherent’, because nothing is nothing, nihilo is nihilo.” If you advance your own argument, you can use your definition of nihilo/nothing. If someone else advances an argument, it uses their definition. But you are using your definition to repurpose someone else’s argument, refute that repurposed argument, then claim that the original argument is refuted. That is the literal definition of “Strawman fallacy”.
(And yes, this might be the first time that the internet says that something is a Strawman, and it actually is.)
Definitions are arbitrary. There is no truly meaningful connection between any word and it's meaning other than that is the meaning. Significance is practical. If you don't accept the definition that just means the words change. The point stands on its own. If you don't accept "nothing' to mean, when used strictly, 'no thing', then I'll call it something else and nothing of much substance has changed. If you would like to argue that no significant number of people exist that premise 3 applies to because those who agree with the phrase don't use nothing to mean no thing, then fine, I'll say those people probably need to be more strict with their language so people can actually know what they mean if not the most straightfoward definition of nothing. If nothing does not mean no thing, what does it mean? What objective standard could we use to determine it?
I think you’re on the right track here. There is endless, endless discussion on what actually existed before the creation of the Universe. Theists might call that “God”. Physics theorists might call it a “Quantum Singularity”. The premise that it is literally “no thing” or “empty set” is one argumentative position, but it’s not to be inferred by someone’s use of the word “nothing” or “nihilo”, particularly when they are stating directly in their argument what it is that created the Universe.
Specifically, the Kalam Cosmological Argument that you brought up offers mountains of persuasive evidence on the idea of “finitism”, specifically that the Universe is finite. Things being finite, they must have a beginning, and therefore something must have existed prior to that beginning in order for it to be distinguished as a beginning. The fact of there being a beginning means that there was something before it. So, these Theists are not arguing on the idea of “nothing”, based on the dictionary definition. They are arguing that only supernatural things (e.g. God) could precede the Universe.
My argument isn't much of a proof, it's based on assumptions taken to be reasonable and practical that most people accept for those reasons. This is only about the sensibility of an idea, not the absolute truth of it.
Also, the complexity of WLC's arguments say nothing of their validity or soundness. Note that WLC's argument has a central syllogism, as does mine. Neither represent the entirety of the argument.
Well, I’m not saying that those arguments must be true because of how much was written on it. What I am saying is that WLC concedes plausibility to the opposing position, based on the fact that mathematical and logical models which are finite can’t prove the idea of “finitism”, since that would involve circular reasoning. And it’s because the argument is offered in persuasion that evidence from such a variety of different places is marshalled to support it.
Maybe you are conceding the same point that this “nothing” has to be defined, but I’m not seeing that here. I’m hearing you say that something can’t be created from “nothing”, because of how you define nothing in the dictionary. That sounds like a proof. Even if you are arguing in persuasion, what you are essentially saying then is that because we have a word called “nothing”, and everyone can be made to mutually understand this “nothing”, we must refer to this “nothing” in arguing what preceded the Universe. That amounts to what you claim is reasonable, sensible, and practical here. The bare fact that we can all understand a word.
So as I said above, it’s just not persuasive. You’re just arguing for the empiricism of words here, not ontology.
Yes, but the whole point of a definition is to attempt to describe the thing you are trying to describe. Yes, the definition you use isn't always what you mean, but that doesn't mean your argument is based on that definition. The other person cannot see inside your head to see what you mean. If you are using the wrong definition for what you mean, you change it, and if the other person is using the wrong definition (as with equivocation) you correct them on that. Definitions are the bridge between meaning and word. A discussion about any term is dependant on the definition of that term as to what the meaning is. There is no other pathway.
Agreed entirely. Lots and lots of volume in dialectic debate is taken up deciding on just what is in the mind of the person putting forward the argument, and then redefining terms when an inconsistency is found. As in, everything written by Plato, ever.
But, the original post started out along the lines of… “The Kalam Cosmological Argument/Creatio ex Nihilo is ‘logically incoherent’, because nothing is nothing, nihilo is nihilo.” If you advance your own argument, you can use your definition of nihilo/nothing. If someone else advances an argument, it uses their definition. But you are using your definition to repurpose someone else’s argument, refute that repurposed argument, then claim that the original argument is refuted. That is the literal definition of “Strawman fallacy”.
(And yes, this might be the first time that the internet says that something is a Strawman, and it actually is.)
First of all, it's not really a strawman to argue a point based on what you think the definitions of thew words they used are. Yes, it may not be what they meant, but you are being true to what they said.
Secondly, if I remember correctly, Craig, to continue with this same example, does use nothing to mean no thing- I don't think god existed alongside anything else in his opinion, nor did god create the universe out of himself.
But also, Craig is not the point of this argument, merely a good example because he's well known and influential in this field. If it turns out that for whatever reason it doesn't work for him, that doesn't mean there aren't other to which it does. This is not by any means meant to be refutation of Christianity or theism in general.
Definitions are arbitrary. There is no truly meaningful connection between any word and it's meaning other than that is the meaning. Significance is practical. If you don't accept the definition that just means the words change. The point stands on its own. If you don't accept "nothing' to mean, when used strictly, 'no thing', then I'll call it something else and nothing of much substance has changed. If you would like to argue that no significant number of people exist that premise 3 applies to because those who agree with the phrase don't use nothing to mean no thing, then fine, I'll say those people probably need to be more strict with their language so people can actually know what they mean if not the most straightfoward definition of nothing. If nothing does not mean no thing, what does it mean? What objective standard could we use to determine it?
I think you’re on the right track here. There is endless, endless discussion on what actually existed before the creation of the Universe. Theists might call that “God”. Physics theorists might call it a “Quantum Singularity”. The premise that it is literally “no thing” or “empty set” is one argumentative position, but it’s not to be inferred by someone’s use of the word “nothing” or “nihilo”, particularly when they are stating directly in their argument what it is that created the Universe.
Specifically, the Kalam Cosmological Argument that you brought up offers mountains of persuasive evidence on the idea of “finitism”, specifically that the Universe is finite. Things being finite, they must have a beginning, and therefore something must have existed prior to that beginning in order for it to be distinguished as a beginning. The fact of there being a beginning means that there was something before it. So, these Theists are not arguing on the idea of “nothing”, based on the dictionary definition. They are arguing that only supernatural things (e.g. God) could precede the Universe.
God existing does not mean nothing doesn't apply here, because the nothing refers to what god makes the universe out of- i.e. he doesn't make the universe out of anything. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is not dependent on whether nothing exists.
My argument isn't much of a proof, it's based on assumptions taken to be reasonable and practical that most people accept for those reasons. This is only about the sensibility of an idea, not the absolute truth of it.
Also, the complexity of WLC's arguments say nothing of their validity or soundness. Note that WLC's argument has a central syllogism, as does mine. Neither represent the entirety of the argument.
Well, I’m not saying that those arguments must be true because of how much was written on it. What I am saying is that WLC concedes plausibility to the opposing position, based on the fact that mathematical and logical models which are finite can’t prove the idea of “finitism”, since that would involve circular reasoning. And it’s because the argument is offered in persuasion that evidence from such a variety of different places is marshalled to support it.
Maybe you are conceding the same point that this “nothing” has to be defined, but I’m not seeing that here. I’m hearing you say that something can’t be created from “nothing”, because of how you define nothing in the dictionary. That sounds like a proof. Even if you are arguing in persuasion, what you are essentially saying then is that because we have a word called “nothing”, and everyone can be made to mutually understand this “nothing”, we must refer to this “nothing” in arguing what preceded the Universe. That amounts to what you claim is reasonable, sensible, and practical here. The bare fact that we can all understand a word.
So as I said above, it’s just not persuasive. You’re just arguing for the empiricism of words here, not ontology.
I'm not claiming it is impossible for something to be caused to exist from nothing, I am claiming we have no coherent way of describing that- that in terms of our understanding of things, it is incoherent. This argument is not purely definitional- the central question is 'how does one apply influence to create something when you aren't creating it out of anything?' One could argue, HR_19 has been, that god is beyond our understanding in at least some major ways, but that's an important conclusion for other arguments sake.
[quote from="Jusstice »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/religion/755344-causality-and-god?comment=63"]First of all, it's not really a strawman to argue a point based on what you think the definitions of thew words they used are. Yes, it may not be what they meant, but you are being true to what they said.
Well, you are getting close to fallacy of intentionality here then. How is it that you know what they said? Well, you use your definitions for the words and make your own argument. Again, imperfection of language.
I hardly think that all of the thinkers the argument is attributed to believed that they were wasting their time, because the bare dictionary definition of the word “nothing” was perfectly apt to describe what they were saying. The reason they went on for hundreds of pages each one is because it’s extremely difficult to define what preceded the Universe.
Secondly, if I remember correctly, Craig, to continue with this same example, does use nothing to mean no thing- I don't think god existed alongside anything else in his opinion, nor did god create the universe out of himself.
God existing does not mean nothing doesn't apply here, because the nothing refers to what god makes the universe out of- i.e. he doesn't make the universe out of anything. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is not dependent on whether nothing exists.
Ok, the question is what God made the universe "out of”? If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying something is necessary alongside God in order to be acted upon (affected element in your OP). Making that assertion does imply some sort of infinite regression. For something to be caused, two things are necessary - both a causal agent and an effected agent. So, effectively there could be no state with simply a causal agent, there have to always be two things.
But, how do you differentiate between what these Theists are arguing constitutes God, and what this argument would have as God, plus this thing that is acted on to create the universe? Is there any meaningful distinction?
See sorties paradox. It’s also called “paradox of the heap”, where what constitutes a “heap” of sand is said not to depend on one grain, so it’s possible to keep taking away grains until you have 0 and still have a “heap”. When an intrinsic property is said to depend on extrinsic things, the paradox results. If there’s anything to be concluded from it, it’s the idea that logical absurdities automatically result when finite models are used to prove something that is altogether not quantitative. This is a true issue that various mathematical models (logic models without intervals, multiple infinities, fuzzy logic, etc) have tried to solve, with little practical success.
Point is, being “God”, a “causal agent”, or “affected element” is an intrinsic property. It does not depend on how much of something you have. It’s not clear how little is needed to be that thing, or how much is so much that it would stop being that thing. It’s transfinite. It has no point of reference. You can’t conclude that it’s not there, or that it is there, by measuring it against some reference.
So as I pointed out before, it’s in the very definition of what’s being argued. These Theists, albeit very circularly, are defining as “God” whatever existed before the creation of the Universe (whether one thing, two things, or *smirk* a Trinity of things). Adding one element to the margin, this “affected element”, doesn’t do anything to change the character of that thing. It’s included in the definition.
What’s being pointed out by arguments like the Kalam argument is that everything is finite, except the one thing that cannot possibly be due to infinite regression, and that thing is “God”. No other element or point of reference required.
[quote from="Jusstice »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/religion/755344-causality-and-god?comment=63"]First of all, it's not really a strawman to argue a point based on what you think the definitions of thew words they used are. Yes, it may not be what they meant, but you are being true to what they said.
Well, you are getting close to fallacy of intentionality here then. How is it that you know what they said? Well, you use your definitions for the words and make your own argument. Again, imperfection of language.
I hardly think that all of the thinkers the argument is attributed to believed that they were wasting their time, because the bare dictionary definition of the word “nothing” was perfectly apt to describe what they were saying. The reason they went on for hundreds of pages each one is because it’s extremely difficult to define what preceded the Universe.
</blockquote>
If they described something as nothing, then my response will be predicated on my understanding of that word. If they meant something different to that understanding, that's not really my fault unless my understanding of nothing is somehow unreasonable (not that is necessarily theirs either).
Secondly, if I remember correctly, Craig, to continue with this same example, does use nothing to mean no thing- I don't think god existed alongside anything else in his opinion, nor did god create the universe out of himself.
God existing does not mean nothing doesn't apply here, because the nothing refers to what god makes the universe out of- i.e. he doesn't make the universe out of anything. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is not dependent on whether nothing exists.
Ok, the question is what God made the universe "out of”? If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying something is necessary alongside God in order to be acted upon (affected element in your OP). Making that assertion does imply some sort of infinite regression. For something to be caused, two things are necessary - both a causal agent and an effected agent. So, effectively there could be no state with simply a causal agent, there have to always be two things.
Yes. I think it's quite easy to imagine that there always was certain things in existence because those things are part of the nature of existence as we know. Could be as simple as a state of potential and a force to act upon it- voila, things happen in a coherently describable way.
But, how do you differentiate between what these Theists are arguing constitutes God, and what this argument would have as God, plus this thing that is acted on to create the universe? Is there any meaningful distinction?
See sorties paradox. It’s also called “paradox of the heap”, where what constitutes a “heap” of sand is said not to depend on one grain, so it’s possible to keep taking away grains until you have 0 and still have a “heap”. When an intrinsic property is said to depend on extrinsic things, the paradox results. If there’s anything to be concluded from it, it’s the idea that logical absurdities automatically result when finite models are used to prove something that is altogether not quantitative. This is a true issue that various mathematical models (logic models without intervals, multiple infinities, fuzzy logic, etc) have tried to solve, with little practical success.
Point is, being “God”, a “causal agent”, or “affected element” is an intrinsic property. It does not depend on how much of something you have. It’s not clear how little is needed to be that thing, or how much is so much that it would stop being that thing. It’s transfinite. It has no point of reference. You can’t conclude that it’s not there, or that it is there, by measuring it against some reference.
So as I pointed out before, it’s in the very definition of what’s being argued. These Theists, albeit very circularly, are defining as “God” whatever existed before the creation of the Universe (whether one thing, two things, or *smirk* a Trinity of things). Adding one element to the margin, this “affected element”, doesn’t do anything to change the character of that thing. It’s included in the definition.
What’s being pointed out by arguments like the Kalam argument is that everything is finite, except the one thing that cannot possibly be due to infinite regression, and that thing is “God”. No other element or point of reference required.
It doesn't matter how you distinguish wholes and parts, any form of interaction is sufficient, any change observable from any point of reference, any point of difference. If you can draw a line between things, then something interactive is going on.
If god created the universe from himself, then he didn't create it from nothing.
I'm not claiming it is impossible for something to be caused to exist from nothing, I am claiming we have no coherent way of describing that- that in terms of our understanding of things, it is incoherent. This argument is not purely definitional- the central question is 'how does one apply influence to create something when you aren't creating it out of anything?' One could argue, HR_19 has been, that god is beyond our understanding in at least some major ways, but that's an important conclusion for other arguments sake.
Just because we don't yet have a coherent way of explaining it, doesn't make it incoherent automatically. And God being beyond our understanding is the basis for my reasoning that we cannot call it incoherent. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's incoherent. But what you've said has shown me what I suspected all along: you're looking for an excuse to call it incoherent. You want to be able to apply some negative term to it to justify your lack of belief in the event. But as it's been, in my opinion, rather clearly said, you cannot apply human logic to something beyond our understanding. Even the idea of creatio ex nihilo is outside our understanding. We can conceptualize such an event, as we can with things like the idea of infinity, but we cannot fully fathom it. Another good example of applying incorrect rules is if I ask, "what is 10 minus 5?" If I say it's 3, you may say that's logically incoherent. But once you understand that I'm using octal instead of decimal, then you understand it's perfectly coherent, and if anyone said 5, I could call that incoherent. While one may call it incoherent because it seems that way from a limited perspective, it isn't incoherent once understood.
This is clear. It is perfectly coherent, we just don't know why or how.
I'm not claiming it is impossible for something to be caused to exist from nothing, I am claiming we have no coherent way of describing that- that in terms of our understanding of things, it is incoherent. This argument is not purely definitional- the central question is 'how does one apply influence to create something when you aren't creating it out of anything?' One could argue, HR_19 has been, that god is beyond our understanding in at least some major ways, but that's an important conclusion for other arguments sake.
Just because we don't yet have a coherent way of explaining it, doesn't make it incoherent automatically. And God being beyond our understanding is the basis for my reasoning that we cannot call it incoherent. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's incoherent. But what you've said has shown me what I suspected all along: you're looking for an excuse to call it incoherent. You want to be able to apply some negative term to it to justify your lack of belief in the event. But as it's been, in my opinion, rather clearly said, you cannot apply human logic to something beyond our understanding. Even the idea of creatio ex nihilo is outside our understanding. We can conceptualize such an event, as we can with things like the idea of infinity, but we cannot fully fathom it. Another good example of applying incorrect rules is if I ask, "what is 10 minus 5?" If I say it's 3, you may say that's logically incoherent. But once you understand that I'm using octal instead of decimal, then you understand it's perfectly coherent, and if anyone said 5, I could call that incoherent. While one may call it incoherent because it seems that way from a limited perspective, it isn't incoherent once understood.
This is clear. It is perfectly coherent, we just don't know why or how.
Being coherent or not is always going to be relative, I'm speaking, as in general I do, from the basis of a practical understanding of things, not an absolute theoretical one, because the former is, well, practical. The ultimate point of this is about plausibility or believability and establishing the nature of the claims of theism.
[Word] "refers to" [definition] is not you defining terms? Really?
that was me trying establishing an implication
No, you weren't trying to establish an implication. There is no such implication. Going by the actual definition of causality, there is no implication like anything you're talking about in P1, because there's nothing from the definition of causality that would imply that.
What we are dealing with is not an implication, but an assumption. You assumed the definition of causality meant something it did not, and that lead you to make conclusions which were false.
Again, there is nothing from the actual definition of causality that makes it incompatible with creatio ex nihilo. You cannot arrive at such a conclusion unless you use your false definition of causality as opposed to the actual one.
Now, let me ask you this: are you willing to concede that your original argument in the first post of this thread is wrong? Because your past two responses to me have had nothing to do with defending your original argument and everything to do with you trying to backpedal in order to save face by making it seem like you didn't get the definition of the word causality wrong. If there's something left to discuss, that would be one thing, but if it's just going to be more attempts at saving face from you from here on out, then I think it's safe to declare this discussion over.
I'm not claiming it is impossible for something to be caused to exist from nothing, I am claiming we have no coherent way of describing that- that in terms of our understanding of things, it is incoherent. This argument is not purely definitional- the central question is 'how does one apply influence to create something when you aren't creating it out of anything?' One could argue, HR_19 has been, that god is beyond our understanding in at least some major ways, but that's an important conclusion for other arguments sake.
Just because we don't yet have a coherent way of explaining it, doesn't make it incoherent automatically. And God being beyond our understanding is the basis for my reasoning that we cannot call it incoherent. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's incoherent. But what you've said has shown me what I suspected all along: you're looking for an excuse to call it incoherent. You want to be able to apply some negative term to it to justify your lack of belief in the event. But as it's been, in my opinion, rather clearly said, you cannot apply human logic to something beyond our understanding. Even the idea of creatio ex nihilo is outside our understanding. We can conceptualize such an event, as we can with things like the idea of infinity, but we cannot fully fathom it. Another good example of applying incorrect rules is if I ask, "what is 10 minus 5?" If I say it's 3, you may say that's logically incoherent. But once you understand that I'm using octal instead of decimal, then you understand it's perfectly coherent, and if anyone said 5, I could call that incoherent. While one may call it incoherent because it seems that way from a limited perspective, it isn't incoherent once understood.
This is clear. It is perfectly coherent, we just don't know why or how.
Being coherent or not is always going to be relative, I'm speaking, as in general I do, from the basis of a practical understanding of things, not an absolute theoretical one, because the former is, well, practical. The ultimate point of this is about plausibility or believability and establishing the nature of the claims of theism.
Well, there are two main competing theories about the origins of the universe. The Big Bang, which basically says, "in the beginning, there was nothing. Then, it exploded." Or creationism, which says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." One of those doesn't actually defy any known laws of physics. The other is pure nonsense. It's up to you to choose which to believe.
You're trying to make a blanket proof, that the idea of creationism is incoherent, but in fact it makes more sense than the big bang theory. Furthermore, as I'll reiterate, a lack of understanding doesn't necessitate incoherence. This seems to be a basic concept you're not getting. It's quite obvious that you want to try to define creatio ex nihilo within the confines of our universe, just so that you can call it incoherent in an effort to find an excuse to not believe it. Why are you looking so hard to find an excuse to not believe in God?
[Word] "refers to" [definition] is not you defining terms? Really?
I already acknowledged it was poorly worded. I have presented reworded arguments since, as I said in the post you just responded to.
Notably:
P1. Causality requires an affect to be applied
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
C1. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is logically incoherent
that was me trying establishing an implication
No, you weren't trying to establish an implication. There is no such implication. Going by the actual definition of causality, there is no implication like anything you're talking about in P1, because there's nothing from the definition of causality that would imply that.
Then address the dozen posts I've made justifying that point and tell me why they are wrong because so far all I've gotten is you telling me that I am arguing spacetime is required (I'm not), that unspecified and uncited observations in quantum physics prove me wrong, that I am arguing that the thing to be created has to be influenced (something I raised only for the purpose of me to specifically reject it as a possible explanation) or that I'm arguing that causality by definition requires a external object of influence (I'm not).
I explained quite early on what premise 1 is about.
I've given you a premise conclusion form, so tell me what premise you object or how exactly you think whatever one of the conclusions doesn't follow from the premises.
Simple:
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect.
That definition is invalid. "Causality refers to 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." The idea that the end result of the second state must have existed prior to the cause is invalid, and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of what the word "cause" means.
An 'affected' is not in ANY sense the same thing as 'the affect', it cannot be, or else there is no change. Premise 1 is meant to establish that in order to have some process, some action, there needs to be something that is being influenced by something else.
The line of reasoning is, as I have already said many times, about what the causal agent does.
I'm not claiming it is impossible for something to be caused to exist from nothing, I am claiming we have no coherent way of describing that- that in terms of our understanding of things, it is incoherent. This argument is not purely definitional- the central question is 'how does one apply influence to create something when you aren't creating it out of anything?' One could argue, HR_19 has been, that god is beyond our understanding in at least some major ways, but that's an important conclusion for other arguments sake.
Just because we don't yet have a coherent way of explaining it, doesn't make it incoherent automatically. And God being beyond our understanding is the basis for my reasoning that we cannot call it incoherent. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's incoherent. But what you've said has shown me what I suspected all along: you're looking for an excuse to call it incoherent. You want to be able to apply some negative term to it to justify your lack of belief in the event. But as it's been, in my opinion, rather clearly said, you cannot apply human logic to something beyond our understanding. Even the idea of creatio ex nihilo is outside our understanding. We can conceptualize such an event, as we can with things like the idea of infinity, but we cannot fully fathom it. Another good example of applying incorrect rules is if I ask, "what is 10 minus 5?" If I say it's 3, you may say that's logically incoherent. But once you understand that I'm using octal instead of decimal, then you understand it's perfectly coherent, and if anyone said 5, I could call that incoherent. While one may call it incoherent because it seems that way from a limited perspective, it isn't incoherent once understood.
This is clear. It is perfectly coherent, we just don't know why or how.
Being coherent or not is always going to be relative, I'm speaking, as in general I do, from the basis of a practical understanding of things, not an absolute theoretical one, because the former is, well, practical. The ultimate point of this is about plausibility or believability and establishing the nature of the claims of theism.
Well, there are two main competing theories about the origins of the universe. The Big Bang, which basically says, "in the beginning, there was nothing. Then, it exploded." Or creationism, which says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." One of those doesn't actually defy any known laws of physics. The other is pure nonsense. It's up to you to choose which to believe.
You're trying to make a blanket proof, that the idea of creationism is incoherent, but in fact it makes more sense than the big bang theory.
Wait, wait, wait, WHAT?
The big bang theory is about as proven as the scientific method allows for an unobserved event, and it isn't inconsistent with Christianity. Are you saying it's wrong? Let's not get to far into that though.
Furthermore, as I'll reiterate, a lack of understanding doesn't necessitate incoherence. This seems to be a basic concept you're not getting. It's quite obvious that you want to try to define creatio ex nihilo within the confines of our universe, just so that you can call it incoherent in an effort to find an excuse to not believe it. Why are you looking so hard to find an excuse to not believe in God?
This doesn't seem to address my previous response to you in any meaningful way. I'll repeat- the ultimate point of this is about plausibility or believability and establishing the nature of the claims of theism. This argument is not trying to refute god, it doesn't and I will never claim it does. Rhe responses to this argument that either god didn't create the universe ex nihilo or god did it in a way we can't (yet at least) understand are both entirely valid and in fact address the criticism in it's entirety because the argument is hinged around P3. That is to say, hence 'establishing the nature of the claims of theism'.
No, not poorly worded, incorrect. It was incorrect. It wasn't a "poorly worded" definition. It was an incorrect definition. You just went on a whole rant on the importance of definitions.
P1. Causality requires an affect to be applied
Effect. An effect to be applied.
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
And this is still ridiculous because that's not what causality means.
You're still getting the definition of causality wrong. And what does causality mean again?
Quote from Wikipedia »
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.
So that's perfectly in line with causality. Thus, there is no logical incoherency.
Let me break that down again: causality is the agency that connects the process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), in which the second state is dependent on and stems from the first. So there needs to be an initial state, a cause, and the second state which is the effect.
Cause: God creating the universe.
Initial state: No universe.
Second state: Universe.
The conditions for causality have been fulfilled. Therefore there is no logical consistency.
There is only logical inconsistency if you set conditions on causality that are not actually part of its definition, which is precisely what you are doing and have been doing this entire time.
Then address the dozen posts I've made justifying that point and tell me why they are wrong
I've already done so! I did so on page one of this thread! You don't understand what the definition of the word causality means, as evidenced by you getting it wrong in P1, and your entire argument falls apart because you're trying to claim that there's a contradiction between the definitions of causality and creatio ex nihilo, except there isn't. The only contradiction that exists is between your presumed definition of causality and creatio ex nihilo, except your definition is wrong.
I've explained that to you on every page of this thread. I would imagine I'm going to have to explain this to you again on page 4 of this thread should it get there. Now, would you care to actually acknowledge this?
An 'affected' is not in ANY sense the same thing as 'the affect', it cannot be, or else there is no change. Premise 1 is meant to establish that in order to have some process, some action, there needs to be something that is being influenced by something else.
P1 is based on the implications of the idea of causality, not the definition of causality itself.
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
I would like to add that as a Christian myself, I'm very sad that Highroller is antagonizing OP. He's not serving a meaningful purpose by doing so.
That supports my argument. The whole point of the argument is to say that god causing the universe to exist from nothing cannot be understood as we know as causality (note that doesn't hit the level of actual impossibility). It's not to say god couldn't have created the universe- notice premise 3. If the claim is god created the universe in some weird way we can't understand or created it from some state of potential or somesuch, then this argument is irrelevant. This is, more than anything, a counter point against certain arguments I here, certainly not an attempt to disprove the idea of god.
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
Um, what? Maybe you want to rethink that?
Logic definitely was not invented along with the invention of language by humankind. Rather, language was invented to describe logic, and other things like it. Words are signs of things, not the things themselves. And they are shown repeatedly to do a less than perfect job at it. Case in point, there are a host of informal logical fallacies that arise specifically because of the imperfection of language (Equivocation, Sorties fallacy, argument on etymology, intentionality fallacy, referential fallacy, etc)
Point being, the ability of language to articulate a concept so that it is mutually understood by speaker and listener is no indication that this mutually understood thing actually exists. It’s not representative of reality, it’s just a concept expressed by a word. This character of “nothing” as it pertains to the origin of the universe might be of a different character than what is understood by the word.
So as here, I agree that your distinction of “true nothing” is important to the argument. That’s exactly what I’m saying. You’re setting forth that definition as being “the empty set”, proof by assertion. Then, you’re going on to prove/disprove a whole host of things about the actual universe based on the assertion.
But, who gets to define “true nothing”? You can define it for your purposes, provided you confine the argument to your own definition. But if you’re extending it to things like the Kalam Ontological Argument, which you point out that others are making, then it’s going to be up to them to define this “true nothing”.
In fact, William Lane Craig (who you cited) goes on for hundreds of pages about particle physics, mathematics, relativity, cosmic singularity theory, all in support of the premise that everything is finite. It’s with that understanding, not yours, that he defines this “true nothing” that you’re talking about as it relates to the Kalam argument. And even in the end, he makes the reservation that his claims are only in persuasion, not proof, and concedes plausibility to other claims. Simply stated, transfinite models can’t be used to prove all things are finite, since they implicitly rely on that being the case in order to make any logical sense.
Consider that the side you're claiming to refute has offered all of that mountain of evidence only in persuasion of what’s being discussed, and all you’ve done is asserted your definition of terms. And you’re arguing in proof. Not persuasive.
So the entire point of this argument was to say "God creating the universe from nothing is logically incoherent from the perspective of our current-day rules of logic, if Creatio ex Nihilo is logically incoherent." Am I getting this right? I'm not sure how this is a surprising and thought-provoking conclusion. But okay. Sure. If God created the universe, the creation did not necessarily follow our current-day rules of logic.
Also, Jusstice, whether or not this is indeed the argument that DJK intended, please try to stay on topic.
Not according to others I have heard. If you think god is beyond our understanding, that is your opinion, but some people think that we can to at least some significant extent.
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
Leaving this here and backing away slowly.
https://www.cubecobra.com/cube/list/p420
Yes, but the whole point of a definition is to attempt to describe the thing you are trying to describe. Yes, the definition you use isn't always what you mean, but that doesn't mean your argument is based on that definition. The other person cannot see inside your head to see what you mean. If you are using the wrong definition for what you mean, you change it, and if the other person is using the wrong definition (as with equivocation) you correct them on that. Definitions are the bridge between meaning and word. A discussion about any term is dependant on the definition of that term as to what the meaning is. There is no other pathway.
Definitions are arbitrary. There is no truly meaningful connection between any word and it's meaning other than that is the meaning. Significance is practical. If you don't accept the definition that just means the words change. The point stands on its own. If you don't accept "nothing' to mean, when used strictly, 'no thing', then I'll call it something else and nothing of much substance has changed. If you would like to argue that no significant number of people exist that premise 3 applies to because those who agree with the phrase don't use nothing to mean no thing, then fine, I'll say those people probably need to be more strict with their language so people can actually know what they mean if not the most straightfoward definition of nothing. If nothing does not mean no thing, what does it mean? What objective standard could we use to determine it?
My argument isn't much of a proof, it's based on assumptions taken to be reasonable and practical that most people accept for those reasons. This is only about the sensibility of an idea, not the absolute truth of it.
Also, the complexity of WLC's arguments say nothing of their validity or soundness. Note that WLC's argument has a central syllogism, as does mine. Neither represent the entirety of the argument.
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
No, this is clearly you trying to give a definition of the word causality. As demonstrated, the definition is erroneous.
You are then trying to take that erroneous definition and prove that it is contradictory to the definition of creatio ex nihilo.
Except, your definition of causality is wrong. And the correct definition of causality is not contradictory to the definition of creatio ex nihilo. Therefore, P1 is invalid, and in turn C1 is invalid.
Thus, your question:
is answered, and the answer is yes.
No. That was my position all along.
That was not me not trying to give a definition, that was me trying establishing an implication, contextualizing the definition in terms of other points of understanding, if you will. It could have been better worded, which is why I have rephrased the argument in responses since.
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
I should've been more specific. Yes, to a meaningful extent, we can understand specific aspects of God. But we are finite beings. This is not in question (nor should it be). A finite being, almost by definition, cannot ever fully understand an infinite God. Our brains are far too small. It's not my opinion, it's simple physics: a finite object cannot carry infinite information. But I like it that way. I heard a Christian apologist say something to the effect of, "any God that I could understand with my 3-pound brain wouldn't be worth worshipping."
Agreed entirely. Lots and lots of volume in dialectic debate is taken up deciding on just what is in the mind of the person putting forward the argument, and then redefining terms when an inconsistency is found. As in, everything written by Plato, ever.
But, the original post started out along the lines of… “The Kalam Cosmological Argument/Creatio ex Nihilo is ‘logically incoherent’, because nothing is nothing, nihilo is nihilo.” If you advance your own argument, you can use your definition of nihilo/nothing. If someone else advances an argument, it uses their definition. But you are using your definition to repurpose someone else’s argument, refute that repurposed argument, then claim that the original argument is refuted. That is the literal definition of “Strawman fallacy”.
(And yes, this might be the first time that the internet says that something is a Strawman, and it actually is.)
I think you’re on the right track here. There is endless, endless discussion on what actually existed before the creation of the Universe. Theists might call that “God”. Physics theorists might call it a “Quantum Singularity”. The premise that it is literally “no thing” or “empty set” is one argumentative position, but it’s not to be inferred by someone’s use of the word “nothing” or “nihilo”, particularly when they are stating directly in their argument what it is that created the Universe.
Specifically, the Kalam Cosmological Argument that you brought up offers mountains of persuasive evidence on the idea of “finitism”, specifically that the Universe is finite. Things being finite, they must have a beginning, and therefore something must have existed prior to that beginning in order for it to be distinguished as a beginning. The fact of there being a beginning means that there was something before it. So, these Theists are not arguing on the idea of “nothing”, based on the dictionary definition. They are arguing that only supernatural things (e.g. God) could precede the Universe.
Well, I’m not saying that those arguments must be true because of how much was written on it. What I am saying is that WLC concedes plausibility to the opposing position, based on the fact that mathematical and logical models which are finite can’t prove the idea of “finitism”, since that would involve circular reasoning. And it’s because the argument is offered in persuasion that evidence from such a variety of different places is marshalled to support it.
Maybe you are conceding the same point that this “nothing” has to be defined, but I’m not seeing that here. I’m hearing you say that something can’t be created from “nothing”, because of how you define nothing in the dictionary. That sounds like a proof. Even if you are arguing in persuasion, what you are essentially saying then is that because we have a word called “nothing”, and everyone can be made to mutually understand this “nothing”, we must refer to this “nothing” in arguing what preceded the Universe. That amounts to what you claim is reasonable, sensible, and practical here. The bare fact that we can all understand a word.
So as I said above, it’s just not persuasive. You’re just arguing for the empiricism of words here, not ontology.
First of all, it's not really a strawman to argue a point based on what you think the definitions of thew words they used are. Yes, it may not be what they meant, but you are being true to what they said.
Secondly, if I remember correctly, Craig, to continue with this same example, does use nothing to mean no thing- I don't think god existed alongside anything else in his opinion, nor did god create the universe out of himself.
But also, Craig is not the point of this argument, merely a good example because he's well known and influential in this field. If it turns out that for whatever reason it doesn't work for him, that doesn't mean there aren't other to which it does. This is not by any means meant to be refutation of Christianity or theism in general.
God existing does not mean nothing doesn't apply here, because the nothing refers to what god makes the universe out of- i.e. he doesn't make the universe out of anything. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is not dependent on whether nothing exists.
I'm not claiming it is impossible for something to be caused to exist from nothing, I am claiming we have no coherent way of describing that- that in terms of our understanding of things, it is incoherent. This argument is not purely definitional- the central question is 'how does one apply influence to create something when you aren't creating it out of anything?' One could argue, HR_19 has been, that god is beyond our understanding in at least some major ways, but that's an important conclusion for other arguments sake.
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
Well, you are getting close to fallacy of intentionality here then. How is it that you know what they said? Well, you use your definitions for the words and make your own argument. Again, imperfection of language.
I hardly think that all of the thinkers the argument is attributed to believed that they were wasting their time, because the bare dictionary definition of the word “nothing” was perfectly apt to describe what they were saying. The reason they went on for hundreds of pages each one is because it’s extremely difficult to define what preceded the Universe.
Ok, the question is what God made the universe "out of”? If I’m understanding correctly, you’re saying something is necessary alongside God in order to be acted upon (affected element in your OP). Making that assertion does imply some sort of infinite regression. For something to be caused, two things are necessary - both a causal agent and an effected agent. So, effectively there could be no state with simply a causal agent, there have to always be two things.
But, how do you differentiate between what these Theists are arguing constitutes God, and what this argument would have as God, plus this thing that is acted on to create the universe? Is there any meaningful distinction?
See sorties paradox. It’s also called “paradox of the heap”, where what constitutes a “heap” of sand is said not to depend on one grain, so it’s possible to keep taking away grains until you have 0 and still have a “heap”. When an intrinsic property is said to depend on extrinsic things, the paradox results. If there’s anything to be concluded from it, it’s the idea that logical absurdities automatically result when finite models are used to prove something that is altogether not quantitative. This is a true issue that various mathematical models (logic models without intervals, multiple infinities, fuzzy logic, etc) have tried to solve, with little practical success.
Point is, being “God”, a “causal agent”, or “affected element” is an intrinsic property. It does not depend on how much of something you have. It’s not clear how little is needed to be that thing, or how much is so much that it would stop being that thing. It’s transfinite. It has no point of reference. You can’t conclude that it’s not there, or that it is there, by measuring it against some reference.
So as I pointed out before, it’s in the very definition of what’s being argued. These Theists, albeit very circularly, are defining as “God” whatever existed before the creation of the Universe (whether one thing, two things, or *smirk* a Trinity of things). Adding one element to the margin, this “affected element”, doesn’t do anything to change the character of that thing. It’s included in the definition.
What’s being pointed out by arguments like the Kalam argument is that everything is finite, except the one thing that cannot possibly be due to infinite regression, and that thing is “God”. No other element or point of reference required.
If they described something as nothing, then my response will be predicated on my understanding of that word. If they meant something different to that understanding, that's not really my fault unless my understanding of nothing is somehow unreasonable (not that is necessarily theirs either).
Yes. I think it's quite easy to imagine that there always was certain things in existence because those things are part of the nature of existence as we know. Could be as simple as a state of potential and a force to act upon it- voila, things happen in a coherently describable way.
It doesn't matter how you distinguish wholes and parts, any form of interaction is sufficient, any change observable from any point of reference, any point of difference. If you can draw a line between things, then something interactive is going on.
If god created the universe from himself, then he didn't create it from nothing.
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
I have yet to see a Theist who will split hairs over this and insist that it was from nothing, including not from God's self.
Ok, and I have.
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
Just because we don't yet have a coherent way of explaining it, doesn't make it incoherent automatically. And God being beyond our understanding is the basis for my reasoning that we cannot call it incoherent. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't mean it's incoherent. But what you've said has shown me what I suspected all along: you're looking for an excuse to call it incoherent. You want to be able to apply some negative term to it to justify your lack of belief in the event. But as it's been, in my opinion, rather clearly said, you cannot apply human logic to something beyond our understanding. Even the idea of creatio ex nihilo is outside our understanding. We can conceptualize such an event, as we can with things like the idea of infinity, but we cannot fully fathom it. Another good example of applying incorrect rules is if I ask, "what is 10 minus 5?" If I say it's 3, you may say that's logically incoherent. But once you understand that I'm using octal instead of decimal, then you understand it's perfectly coherent, and if anyone said 5, I could call that incoherent. While one may call it incoherent because it seems that way from a limited perspective, it isn't incoherent once understood.
This is clear. It is perfectly coherent, we just don't know why or how.
Being coherent or not is always going to be relative, I'm speaking, as in general I do, from the basis of a practical understanding of things, not an absolute theoretical one, because the former is, well, practical. The ultimate point of this is about plausibility or believability and establishing the nature of the claims of theism.
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
[Word] "refers to" [definition] is not you defining terms? Really?
No, you weren't trying to establish an implication. There is no such implication. Going by the actual definition of causality, there is no implication like anything you're talking about in P1, because there's nothing from the definition of causality that would imply that.
What we are dealing with is not an implication, but an assumption. You assumed the definition of causality meant something it did not, and that lead you to make conclusions which were false.
Again, there is nothing from the actual definition of causality that makes it incompatible with creatio ex nihilo. You cannot arrive at such a conclusion unless you use your false definition of causality as opposed to the actual one.
Now, let me ask you this: are you willing to concede that your original argument in the first post of this thread is wrong? Because your past two responses to me have had nothing to do with defending your original argument and everything to do with you trying to backpedal in order to save face by making it seem like you didn't get the definition of the word causality wrong. If there's something left to discuss, that would be one thing, but if it's just going to be more attempts at saving face from you from here on out, then I think it's safe to declare this discussion over.
Well, there are two main competing theories about the origins of the universe. The Big Bang, which basically says, "in the beginning, there was nothing. Then, it exploded." Or creationism, which says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." One of those doesn't actually defy any known laws of physics. The other is pure nonsense. It's up to you to choose which to believe.
You're trying to make a blanket proof, that the idea of creationism is incoherent, but in fact it makes more sense than the big bang theory. Furthermore, as I'll reiterate, a lack of understanding doesn't necessitate incoherence. This seems to be a basic concept you're not getting. It's quite obvious that you want to try to define creatio ex nihilo within the confines of our universe, just so that you can call it incoherent in an effort to find an excuse to not believe it. Why are you looking so hard to find an excuse to not believe in God?
I already acknowledged it was poorly worded. I have presented reworded arguments since, as I said in the post you just responded to.
Notably:
Then address the dozen posts I've made justifying that point and tell me why they are wrong because so far all I've gotten is you telling me that I am arguing spacetime is required (I'm not), that unspecified and uncited observations in quantum physics prove me wrong, that I am arguing that the thing to be created has to be influenced (something I raised only for the purpose of me to specifically reject it as a possible explanation) or that I'm arguing that causality by definition requires a external object of influence (I'm not).
I explained quite early on what premise 1 is about.
The line of reasoning is, as I have already said many times, about what the causal agent does.
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
Wait, wait, wait, WHAT?
The big bang theory is about as proven as the scientific method allows for an unobserved event, and it isn't inconsistent with Christianity. Are you saying it's wrong? Let's not get to far into that though.
This doesn't seem to address my previous response to you in any meaningful way. I'll repeat- the ultimate point of this is about plausibility or believability and establishing the nature of the claims of theism. This argument is not trying to refute god, it doesn't and I will never claim it does. Rhe responses to this argument that either god didn't create the universe ex nihilo or god did it in a way we can't (yet at least) understand are both entirely valid and in fact address the criticism in it's entirety because the argument is hinged around P3. That is to say, hence 'establishing the nature of the claims of theism'.
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
Effect. An effect to be applied.
And this is still ridiculous because that's not what causality means.
You're still getting the definition of causality wrong. And what does causality mean again?
So that's perfectly in line with causality. Thus, there is no logical incoherency.
Let me break that down again: causality is the agency that connects the process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), in which the second state is dependent on and stems from the first. So there needs to be an initial state, a cause, and the second state which is the effect.
Cause: God creating the universe.
Initial state: No universe.
Second state: Universe.
The conditions for causality have been fulfilled. Therefore there is no logical consistency.
There is only logical inconsistency if you set conditions on causality that are not actually part of its definition, which is precisely what you are doing and have been doing this entire time.
I've already done so! I did so on page one of this thread! You don't understand what the definition of the word causality means, as evidenced by you getting it wrong in P1, and your entire argument falls apart because you're trying to claim that there's a contradiction between the definitions of causality and creatio ex nihilo, except there isn't. The only contradiction that exists is between your presumed definition of causality and creatio ex nihilo, except your definition is wrong.
I've explained that to you on every page of this thread. I would imagine I'm going to have to explain this to you again on page 4 of this thread should it get there. Now, would you care to actually acknowledge this?
And that premise is wrong.