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.
It wasn't a definition. That's what I have just been explaining, yet you insist that it is, when it isn't. It was poorly worded because it does sound like that is what it is, but that's why I have reworded to be more clear that it is not.
Look, if you're going to tell me I don't know my own argument, the least you could do is more than repeatedly say I'm giving a definition.
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?
that I'm arguing that causality by definition requires a external object of influence (I'm not).
that was me trying establishing an implication
P1 is based on the implications of the idea of causality, not the definition of causality itself.
I am not saying by direct application of the definition of causality, that causing something to exist to exist ex nihilo is logically incoherent
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.
The line of reasoning is, as I have already said many times, about what the causal agent does.
What implications does an 'agent or efficacy' have in the context of our understanding of existence? What ways do we have of coherently describing the workings of an 'agent or efficacy' in that context?
THAT is the point, as I have been trying to explain. It is not definitional.
It wasn't a definition. That's what I have just been explaining, yet you insist that it is, when it isn't. It was poorly worded because it does sound like that is what it is, but that's why I have reworded to be more clear that it is not.
Look, if you're going to tell me I don't know my own argument, the least you could do is more than repeatedly say I'm giving a definition.
I'm saying you're giving a wrong definition.
The problem is you do not know what the word causality means. As I predicted, it is page 4, and I am still trying to explain to you why you're getting the definition of causality wrong.
So let's address what you actually argued:
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.
As we've demonstrated, this is not what causality actually means. Once 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 once again, what is required for casuality to be fulfilled is an initial state, a second state, and a process that makes the second state result from the first.
The problem with your argument comes from you adding an extraneous requirement, that there is something from the first state that needs to be affected in order to produce the second state. As is demonstrated, this is not the case, because there is nothing from the definition of causality that indicates this.
And that's the whole problem, because you post things like this:
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
And they are completely invalid statements. They are completely invalid statements because, for the umpteenth time, nothing in the definition of causality requires this to be true, and your entire premise is rooted in the idea that causality and creatio ex nihilo are contradictory, which they are not.
So if these statements have no root in what causality actually means, then what are they rooted in? Answer: your own erroneous presumptions about causality, and yet you are still defending them.
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
The effect is creating the universe. It is not required that anything other than God exist initially for God to create the universe. Again, there is nothing in the definition of causality that requires there be something existing in the initial state to be affected to create the secondary state. It is logically possible that God created something out of nothing. The only reason you are declaring this to be a problem is because of your erroneous assumptions about what "causality" entails.
It would be like someone arguing that it is illogical for a bird to be called an owl because it is not lime green. We know this is absurd, for there is nothing in the definition of an owl that requires it to be lime green, and there are no lime green owls. This person has no basis for his argument except for an erroneous presumption that owls must be lime green.
It wasn't a definition. That's what I have just been explaining, yet you insist that it is, when it isn't. It was poorly worded because it does sound like that is what it is, but that's why I have reworded to be more clear that it is not.
Look, if you're going to tell me I don't know my own argument, the least you could do is more than repeatedly say I'm giving a definition.
First of all, you've been changing your argument because you don't want to admit that it's wrong, which has resulted in gems like you saying you aren't arguing that something is logically incoherent and then that it actually is logically incorherent.
Or that I've been trying to reword my argument so that you actually address what I'm trying to say but instead you continue to tell me what I'm arguing instead. You didn't even both to do more than just repeat your claim that I'm giving you a definition and not trying to establish an implication. You didn't quote or respond to what I described specifically as my point- you ignored it. I'm sorry but I'm going to accept your claim if all you are going to is tell it to me and ignore everything I have to say expect to do so?
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
And they are completely invalid statements. They are completely invalid statements because, for the umpteenth time, nothing in the definition of causality requires this to be true, and your entire premise is rooted in the idea that causality and creatio ex nihilo are contradictory, which they are not.
For the umpteenth time, that is not my goddamn argument and telling me that is over and over again is a waste of both our times.
I accept your provided definition, I am not nor have ever been questioning it.
It would be like someone arguing that it is illogical for a bird to be called an owl because it is not lime green. We know this is absurd, for there is nothing in the definition of an owl that requires it to be lime green, and there are no lime green owls.
See that last bit, 'and there are no lime green owls', where you acknowledge something can be true of a thing without being part of the definition of that thing?
That.
Then do you acknowledge that your argument has no basis?
You are arguing this:
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
Except why does there need to be anything to apply it to?
The effect is God creating the universe. There does not need to exist anything prior to that. There does not need to be anything affected. That's the whole point. God's creating the universe out of nothing. That's what creatio ex nihilo means. You've even said as much! You yourself have said this, so it's obvious you understand this concept.
Right, so where did you get this idea that there needs to be an affected thing, when the whole point is the creation of something from nothing?
Your entire argument rests on how causality is contradictory to the idea of creatio ex nihilo, and therein results logical inconsistency. Except, given the definition of causality, that's not the case, because the definition of causality does not contradict this. So you didn't get it from the definition of causality. So wherein does the contradiction come from?
As far as I can tell, the contradiction came from this:
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.
Except, as I've said before, that's not what causality means. Nor is it something implied by the definition of causality, because there's nothing about the definition of causality that implies this either.
It it is actually is a presumption on your part. You presume that there must be an affected thing. This is your misunderstanding.
Thus, much like the person who is arguing that something can't be an owl because it is not lime green, you are arguing out of a misunderstanding, an erroneous presumption of what something means, and then you are defending this presumption as evidence when it is not evidence, but error.
Then do you acknowledge that your argument has no basis?
You are arguing this:
P2. Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
Except why does there need to be anything to apply it to?
The effect is God creating the universe. There does not need to exist anything prior to that. There does not need to be anything affected. That's the whole point. God's creating the universe out of nothing. That's what creatio ex nihilo means. You've even said as much! You yourself have said this, so it's obvious you understand this concept.
Right, so where did you get this idea that there needs to be an affected thing, when the whole point is the creation of something from nothing?
Your entire argument rests on how causality is contradictory to the idea of creatio ex nihilo, and therein results logical inconsistency. Except, given the definition of causality, that's not the case, because the definition of causality does not contradict this. So you didn't get it from the definition of causality. So wherein does the contradiction come from?
As far as I can tell, the contradiction came from this:
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.
Except, as I've said before, that's not what causality means. Nor is it something implied by the definition of causality, because there's nothing about the definition of causality that implies this either.
It it is actually is a presumption on your part. You presume that there must be an affected thing. This is your misunderstanding.
Thus, much like the person who is arguing that something can't be an owl because it is not lime green, you are arguing out of a misunderstanding, an erroneous presumption of what something means, and then you are defending this presumption as evidence when it is not evidence, but error.
I have already answered the questions you provide here repeatedly.
See that last bit, 'and there are no lime green owls', where you acknowledge something can be true of a thing without being part of the definition of that thing?
That.
What implications does an 'agent or efficacy' have in the context of our understanding of existence? What ways do we have of coherently describing the workings of an 'agent or efficacy' in that context?
The line of reasoning is, as I have already said many times, about what the causal agent does
I am arguing we have no coherent way of analysing that event. The question is about how influence is applied
Since you seem to be a fan of quoting modern physics, I'll quote relativity to support this point. Action is defined relatively. Even the act of accelerating, which does not require any specific point of reference, still needs spacetime itself as a reference, it simply doesn't mean anything otherwise. What does it mean to perform an action with no external reference?
The point of what I was saying is that in causing something to exist ex nihilo, what is the subject of influence? I was eliminating the answer to that question as the thing that is produced. I am not arguing causing something to exist ex nihilo would require the thing that is produced to be the subject of influence, I am arguing what else could it be? I am arguing there is no way of applying influence in the first place.
At least you aren't just telling me I'm providing a definition.
At least you aren't just telling me I'm providing a definition.
I was never just telling you that you were providing a definition.
I have been, since page 1, saying you've fundamentally misunderstood what causality is, and that is why your entire argument of logical inconsistency is invalid, something you have yet to actually address.
The reason why I was making posts saying, "No, you're providing a definition and it's wrong," is because you stopped defending your original argument in your original post, and instead backtracked to try to make it appear like you didn't completely misunderstand what causality meant. But, of course, you do, and that is why we're still here.
So no, I have been providing substantive posts. When you refuse to acknowledge them and fail to provide any substantive rebuttal, the fault is not mine, the fault is yours.
As to your quotes, none of that "answers" anything. It's just you continuing to talk about how owls can't be owls unless they're lime green. You're just running around in the same circles.
The point of what I was saying is that in causing something to exist ex nihilo, what is the subject of influence? I was eliminating the answer to that question as the thing that is produced. I am not arguing causing something to exist ex nihilo would require the thing that is produced to be the subject of influence, I am arguing what else could it be?
NOTHING! That's the whole point of creatio ex nihilo!
I am arguing there is no way of applying influence in the first place.
I know! And your argument is wrong! How is that so hard for you to get?
Once again, that's what creatio ex nihilo means. God creates the universe from nothing. This is God applying influence. You are trying to argue that this cannot be causality because there was no creation for God to affect in order that he could create Creation, which belies not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the word causality, but also is the entire freaking point behind creatio ex nihilo.
Now stop dancing around this issue and answer the question: do you acknowledge that your original argument is invalid? Yes or no?
Because the fact of the matter is that your basis for arguing the original argument, that logical incompatibility is created as a result of creatio ex nihilo and causality being contradictory, is false. It is false because there is nothing about causality that contradicts creatio ex nihilo. Therefore, your original conclusion has no basis due to its backing being a baseless argument.
And since I know you're going to say, "Well you're just saying that you've invalidated my arguments, but you never did," somehow ignoring everything that happened in the last four pages, let me post it again:
1. 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.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
This is wrong because P1 has an erroneous definition of causality. Causality does not, in fact, refer to the above, in that there is nothing that says that causality requires an "affected." That is a condition you added in, a presumption on your part that does not actually exist.
Since the actual definition of causality has no contradiction with creatio ex nihilo, C1 fails as well, and the argument collapses.
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
P2 is obviously false because God creating the universe is an application of an effect. You are saying that God has nothing to apply it to, but God needs nothing to apply it to. God created the universe. That's an effect. You're saying there was nothing to affect prior to God creating the effect that would result in the effect. The response to this is, "Duh, that's the whole point of creatio ex nihilo." It's also totally irrelevant because there's nothing logically incoherent about that.
Once again, there is no requirement for there to be an affected. Harping on and on about how this makes things logically incoherent does not make it so, and your arguments that it is have been proven invalid.
A better analogy would be a person saying that the person he's looking at cannot possibly be a human being because said person is not wearing a shirt. There's no requirement for a human being to be wearing a shirt to qualify as a human being. Likewise, there is no such requirement for there to be an affected thing that existed prior to the effect in order for there to be an effect.
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).
If a misunderstanding not being my fault made the misunderstanding true, well, I would not spend so much time on online message boards. I would be the best Wall Street trader ever, and I’d be taking over the world soon.
Are we debating the merits of creationism, or are we just debating who is right and wrong about what so and so said?
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 feel like we’re going to be stuck endlessly circling around definitions here. This statement at the end, once again, is predicated on your definition of “nothing”. There’s a difference between what you and I are each claiming that the ex nihilo apologists are saying preceded the Universe:
You: “God”, then “nothing” as null set, empty set, etc
Me: “God”, then “nothing” as that which doesn’t pertain to “God” (granted, very circular definition)
What my previous post was intended to show is that my “nothing” is no less nothing than yours. That is because what constitutes “God” in this argument is not defined by any extrinsic properties. There is nothing that you can “take out of God” in order for “God” to “create the universe out of himself”. The character of something being “God” is not finite in such a way that you can add something or take out something in such a way that you don’t have “God” anymore.
As in the “heap” example, no number of grains being added/subtracted causes something to cease to be a “heap”, except it does if you can express what constitutes a “heap” in finite terms. Craig in his Kalam argument used the example of guests going in and out of a Hotel (much more at length, much better read).
Or, Highroller’s example of a human creating a baby is fine. You pointed out that a human baby is created out of a gamete. Your point holds because a gamete is a distinct, physical aspect of a human being. You can take away gametes from a human until what you have doesn’t meet the definition of “human” being used here (as that which can create a baby). A human being is finite, so any physically discrete thing will do disprove that, and that’s the point.
Now the key here, imagine something named “God” with property “blank”, such that taking out no amount of “blank” will cause “God” to cease to be “God”. This “blank” is nothing. If it were the opposite of nothing, say "something", then taking out enough of it would alter the character of God. So, it's nothing. But this "causation" here is stating that in doing this act of “taking out” this "nothing", what you have is the Universe. If you sense a contradiction here, that’s because it's exactly what the Kalam argument is saying. That because everything we know of is finite and discreet, everything has to have a beginning, except necessarily one thing, “God”, that couldn’t possibly be finite and discreet, and which albeit very circularly, preceded all things that are finite and discrete, including his own attributes. There is nothing to distinguish from within "God" as that which God created the Universe, because there is nothing, by definition, to be distinguished about "God" to begin with.
P1 Mormons don't think god came from nothing.
P2 Everything in south park is true.
P3 In Season 4 Episode 10 we learned the correct answer was mormon.
C1 God did not create it out of 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.
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'.
The Big Bang is far from proven, and it's directly contradictory to the Genesis creation model. It's not even complete. Every time they come up with a theory to answer a problem, it makes even more problems...like a Hydra. If you'd like to discuss this, I'm more than willing to via PM (a thread would get too messy and heated), but back to your main point...
If you assume that nothing can exist outside of our universe, then it's implausible that God created the universe. However, there is no scientific evidence to lead to that conclusion. As I've said, just because we don't understand something, doesn't make it incoherent. Is dark matter incoherent with the universe? No, we just don't know how it works. It is completely plausible that a God, fully outside of universe, could create it according to different rules (or even no rules, if His power is truly infinite).
The Big Bang is far from proven, and it's directly contradictory to the Genesis creation model. It's not even complete. Every time they come up with a theory to answer a problem, it makes even more problems...like a Hydra. If you'd like to discuss this, I'm more than willing to via PM (a thread would get too messy and heated), but back to your main point...
The Big Bang is not a model explaining where the universe came from, it's a model explaining how the universe works after the singularity. It's similar to how the theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't attempt to explain abiogenesis, only the diversity of life after life exists.
At least you aren't just telling me I'm providing a definition.
I was never just telling you that you were providing a definition.
I have been, since page 1, saying you've fundamentally misunderstood what causality is, and that is why your entire argument of logical inconsistency is invalid, something you have yet to actually address.
I have addressed every point you've made against P1. Feel free to repeat at any time points you think unaddressed and I will address them.
The reason why I was making posts saying, "No, you're providing a definition and it's wrong," is because you stopped defending your original argument in your original post, and instead backtracked to try to make it appear like you didn't completely misunderstand what causality meant. But, of course, you do, and that is why we're still here.
My argument is the same as it always has been, I have simply reworded it for clarity. If by 'your argument' you mean the wording, not my intention, then this is just not relevant because I have already replaced the wording. If you mean my intention, then I find this point to be dishonest, to suggest you know my intention better than I do when all you have is my written word.
As to your quotes, none of that "answers" anything. It's just you continuing to talk about how owls can't be owls unless they're lime green. You're just running around in the same circles.
Because I have yet to hear any real response by you to the key question of this whole debate as the main point of my entire argument by far- which is about the nature of a causal influence. You seem to have spent this whole time talking about what causality itself is, but that point is not under contention. Feel free to quote any instance where you think you have engaged meaningfully with this question, and I'll credit you for that.
The point of what I was saying is that in causing something to exist ex nihilo, what is the subject of influence? I was eliminating the answer to that question as the thing that is produced. I am not arguing causing something to exist ex nihilo would require the thing that is produced to be the subject of influence, I am arguing what else could it be?
NOTHING! That's the whole point of creatio ex nihilo!
Exactly. And what implications does that have when we think about what a causal influence means?
I am arguing there is no way of applying influence in the first place.
I know! And your argument is wrong! How is that so hard for you to get?
Once again, that's what creatio ex nihilo means. God creates the universe from nothing. This is God applying influence. You are trying to argue that this cannot be causality because there was no creation for God to affect in order that he could create Creation, which belies not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the word causality, but also is the entire freaking point behind creatio ex nihilo.
It being the 'entire freaking point' is why the argument is about 'the entire freaking' concept of causing something to exist ex nihilo.
Your response here to the question seems to be begging the question by assuming causing something to exist ex nihilo as an idea is sensible and using that to justify that there is a clear influence.
It seems to me, at least, there at only two ultimate points you could make to contradict this statement- influence doesn't need to be applied to a thing, or there is a thing to which influence can be applied in causing something to exist ex nihilo.
The second position seems indefensible, so it seems to me the focus here should really be about whether a causal influence needs to be applied to a thing. That singular question.
Now stop dancing around this issue and answer the question: do you acknowledge that your original argument is invalid? Yes or no?
If you mean the wording, yes basically, as far as invalid applies to wording. If you mean intention, then no, I stand by my original argument.
Because the fact of the matter is that your basis for arguing the original argument, that logical incompatibility is created as a result of creatio ex nihilo and causality being contradictory, is false. It is false because there is nothing about causality that contradicts creatio ex nihilo. Therefore, your original conclusion has no basis due to its backing being a baseless argument.
Would be a point if the definition of causality and the concept of causing something to exist ex nihilo being contradictory was my argument. It is not.
My argument is not based upon the nature of causality itself but rather about the influence required by that definition, related, but not the same. The argument also is not about a contradiction. If you'll notice, the second premise is about whatever causing something to exist ex nihilo can coherently meet a criterion, not whether it is contradictory to that criterion.
1. 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.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
This is wrong because P1 has an erroneous definition of causality.
Guess what? It's not a definition. Not going to say this again.
Also, stop addressing this formulation of the argument.
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
P2 is obviously false because God creating the universe is an application of an effect. You are saying that God has nothing to apply it to, but God needs nothing to apply it to. God created the universe. That's an effect. You're saying there was nothing to affect prior to God creating the effect that would result in the effect. The response to this is, "Duh, that's the whole point of creatio ex nihilo." It's also totally irrelevant because there's nothing logically incoherent about that.
I have gone to lengths to argue exactly why there is something incoherent about that and not in any capacity to do with the definition of causality or creatio ex nihilo.
The argument is essentially that meaningful actions require some form of interaction, with some other form of thing- force, particle, state of potential, spacetime, whatever. The single most important argument for this point is that change means nothing without an external reference- and any real distinction of parts is sufficient for this- and actions are about change. This is supported by our understanding in science.
A better analogy would be a person saying that the person he's looking at cannot possibly be a human being because said person is not wearing a shirt. There's no requirement for a human being to be wearing a shirt to qualify as a human being. Likewise, there is no such requirement for there to be an affected thing that existed prior to the effect in order for there to be an effect.
Here's an analogy for my argument then- there's no requirement in the definition of animal (multicellular, motile eukaryote) for animals to be more complex than bacteria, yet because of what multicellular, motile and eukaryote mean in the context of life as we know it, they are.
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).
If a misunderstanding not being my fault made the misunderstanding true, well, I would not spend so much time on online message boards. I would be the best Wall Street trader ever, and I’d be taking over the world soon.
Are we debating the merits of creationism, or are we just debating who is right and wrong about what so and so said?
More the later than the former. This is not a general discussion, this is about a specific idea. We can only talk so much about implications without getting off topic, there are other threads for broader discussion.
I feel like we’re going to be stuck endlessly circling around definitions here. This statement at the end, once again, is predicated on your definition of “nothing”. There’s a difference between what you and I are each claiming that the ex nihilo apologists are saying preceded the Universe:
You: “God”, then “nothing” as null set, empty set, etc
Me: “God”, then “nothing” as that which doesn’t pertain to “God” (granted, very circular definition)
What my previous post was intended to show is that my “nothing” is no less nothing than yours. That is because what constitutes “God” in this argument is not defined by any extrinsic properties. There is nothing that you can “take out of God” in order for “God” to “create the universe out of himself”. The character of something being “God” is not finite in such a way that you can add something or take out something in such a way that you don’t have “God” anymore.
As in the “heap” example, no number of grains being added/subtracted causes something to cease to be a “heap”, except it does if you can express what constitutes a “heap” in finite terms. Craig in his Kalam argument used the example of guests going in and out of a Hotel (much more at length, much better read).
Or, Highroller’s example of a human creating a baby is fine. You pointed out that a human baby is created out of a gamete. Your point holds because a gamete is a distinct, physical aspect of a human being. You can take away gametes from a human until what you have doesn’t meet the definition of “human” being used here (as that which can create a baby). A human being is finite, so any physically discrete thing will do disprove that, and that’s the point.
Now the key here, imagine something named “God” with property “blank”, such that taking out no amount of “blank” will cause “God” to cease to be “God”. This “blank” is nothing. If it were the opposite of nothing, say "something", then taking out enough of it would alter the character of God. So, it's nothing.
Couldn't this supposed nothing just be something incidental about god and not inherent? A house is still a house if you change the wallpaper, that doesn't say anything about the substantiveness of wallpaper in-and-of-itself. Does the wallpaper adhering to the wall contibute causing something ex nihilo?
In general, I would argue simply there is no way of objectively determining if some things are somehow less-of-a-thing other than if they are no thing at all.
Exactly. And what implications does that have when we think about what a causal influence means?
*Sigh*
It being the 'entire freaking point' is why the argument is about 'the entire freaking' concept of causing something to exist ex nihilo.
Your response here to the question seems to be begging the question by assuming causing something to exist ex nihilo as an idea is sensible and using that to justify that there is a clear influence.
There is. God creating a universe would be an example of influence.
1.
the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.
Seems to work, doesn't it?
It seems to me, at least, there at only two ultimate points you could make to contradict this statement- influence doesn't need to be applied to a thing
See above.
It's still the same problem, your insistence that there must be something to be in existence in order for God to apply any kind of influence (which is not actually true but you try convincing you of that, I've been quoting the dictionary for four pages with no success).
I have gone to lengths to argue exactly why there is something incoherent about that
Trust me, I know. I don't know why when dictionary definitions buffet you each time, but you still manage to keep missing the point each time.
The argument is essentially that meaningful actions require some form of interaction with some other form of thing- force, particle, state of potential, spacetime, whatever.
Yes, I understand that is your argument. I do actually understand what you are arguing. The problem is not that I don't understand your argument. The problem is a very simple question, "Do they?"
"Actions require some form of interaction..." Do they really? What do you base this on? You tried making it a condition of causality, but the definition of the word "causality" does not require this. You tried making a condition of influence, but the definition of the word "influence" does not require this. You tried making it a condition of having an effect, but the definition of the word "effect" does not require this.
You claim this is some sort of implication. Is it? Or is it an unfound, baseless assumption on your part?
The single most important argument for this point is that change means nothing without an external reference- and any real distinction of parts is sufficient for this- and actions are about change. This is supported by our understanding in science.
Universe does not exist -> universe exists. No change? Really?
Here's an analogy for my argument then- there's no requirement in the definition of animal (multicellular, motile eukaryote) for animals to be more complex than bacteria
Umm, yes there is. Bacteria are single-cellular organisms. That's what multicellular means. It's rooted in the definitions of words. Contrast to your argument, which is not at all rooted in the definitions of words.
I like as an analogy someone insisting on a human being needing to be wearing a shirt in order to be classified as a human. That person is applying an extraneous condition to the definition of "human being" that is not actually found in the definition of "human being" and has no basis.
Exactly. And what implications does that have when we think about what a causal influence means?
*Sigh*
It being the 'entire freaking point' is why the argument is about 'the entire freaking' concept of causing something to exist ex nihilo.
Your response here to the question seems to be begging the question by assuming causing something to exist ex nihilo as an idea is sensible and using that to justify that there is a clear influence.
There is. God creating a universe would be an example of influence.
1.
the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.
Seems to work, doesn't it?
And what action occurs?
It seems to me, at least, there at only two ultimate points you could make to contradict this statement- influence doesn't need to be applied to a thing
See above.
It's still the same problem, your insistence that there must be something to be in existence in order for God to apply any kind of influence (which is not actually true but you try convincing you of that, I've been quoting the dictionary for four pages with no success).
My argument is not based on direct applications of dictionary definitions.
The argument is essentially that meaningful actions require some form of interaction with some other form of thing- force, particle, state of potential, spacetime, whatever.
Yes, I understand that is your argument. I do actually understand what you are arguing. The problem is not that I don't understand your argument. The problem is a very simple question, "Do they?"
"Actions require some form of interaction..." Do they really? What do you base this on? You tried making it a condition of causality, but the definition of the word "causality" does not require this. You tried making a condition of influence, but the definition of the word "influence" does not require this. You tried making it a condition of having an effect, but the definition of the word "effect" does not require this.
You claim this is some sort of implication. Is it? Or is it an unfound, baseless assumption on your part?
Firstly, you have just misrepresented me again by claiming I was making a condition of causality. It was always an implication based on the causal action.
And secondly, if all the reasoning you are going to run through is 'do the definitions of these words require this?' then you are not genuinely engaging with the argument. It's not about the definitions, I keep telling you this yet you consistently use it as the basis of almost everything you say in response.
The argument is about what meaningful descriptions we can give to a causal influence. Not what the words themselves mean, but what does such a thing look like, how does it work?
The single most important argument for this point is that change means nothing without an external reference- and any real distinction of parts is sufficient for this- and actions are about change. This is supported by our understanding in science.
Universe does not exist -> universe exists. No change? Really?
God is the only thing in the existence -> God is the only thing in existence. No change. There is no time that passes, no position that can change, no structure that can reshape. All of such things would involve the interaction of different elements. So how does the universe come of this?
Here's an analogy for my argument then- there's no requirement in the definition of animal (multicellular, motile eukaryote) for animals to be more complex than bacteria
Umm, yes there is. Bacteria are single-cellular organisms. That's what multicellular means. It's rooted in the definitions of words. Contrast to your argument, which is not at all rooted in the definitions of words.
'Single celled' does not mean 'more complex than multicellular', 'multicellular' does not mean 'more complex than single celled'. It's not in the definitions at all. There is no reason a single cell has to be less complex than multiple cells, there is no reason having membrane bound organelles has to be more complex than not having them. All of these things only imply greater complexity of the animal because of how in life as we know it, cells work, membranes work and motility works. Concepts mean certain things in reality than are not required by their definitions, because the set of what that concept applies to is usually not comprised only of things that exist.
My argument is not based on direct applications of dictionary definitions.
Your argument is not based on anything factual apparently.
Firstly, you have just misrepresented me again by claiming I was making a condition of causality. It was always an implication based on the causal action.
And secondly, if all the reasoning you are going to run through is 'do the definitions of these words require this?' then you are not genuinely engaging with the argument. It's not about the definitions
Then what is it about? Every time I knock your argument down by pointing out how baseless it is you can only come back with a statement saying I'm not engaging the argument on its basis. Which, technically true, but only because it has no basis whatsoever.
God is the only thing in the existence -> God is the only thing in existence.
Except now there's a universe.
No change.
Universe. Try again.
So how does the universe come of this?
Creatio ex nihilo.
'multicellular' does not mean 'more complex than single celled'.
It does, actually.
All of these things only imply greater complexity of the animal
No, they are true by definition. Complexity means "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated." So yes, multicellular organisms are more complex by definition of the word complex.
Your analogy fails because unlike in this instance, your argument has no basis in the meaning of words. Not just the dictionary definitions of words, but in their actual meaning. There is no basis for anything you are saying rooted in the meaning of any word you have used whatsoever. There is absolute basis in saying that multicellular organisms are more complex than single-celled ones.
Again, your argument is akin to saying that a human being is not a human being unless he wears a shirt. It is an argument that is baseless and is made out of obvious ignorance of what the words and concepts you're talking about mean at all.
If you believe this analogy is incorrect, kindly demonstrate anything whatsoever to justify your argument about logical consistency. You will no doubt say that you've already stated this, except I've knocked down your "arguments" consistently every single time, because they are as insubstantial as rings of smoke.
Firstly, you have just misrepresented me again by claiming I was making a condition of causality. It was always an implication based on the causal action.
And secondly, if all the reasoning you are going to run through is 'do the definitions of these words require this?' then you are not genuinely engaging with the argument. It's not about the definitions
Then what is it about? For ****'s sake, every time I knock your argument down by pointing out how baseless it is you can only come back with a statement saying I'm not engaging the argument on its basis. Which, technically true, but only because it has no basis whatsoever.
Oh yeah, I am definitely shifting my argument by telling you the exact same damn thing that it's not about definitions. You say you understand my argument, but yet you seem incapable of moving beyond definitions despite how I keep telling you they aren't the point.
God is the only thing in the existence -> God is the only thing in existence.
Except now there's a universe.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MAKE THAT SO? HOW DOES THAT CHANGE HAPPEN? Is causality not about a change (the causal action) inducing another change (the effect)?
No change.
Universe. Try again.
We are talking about how the action of causing something to exist in creatio ex nihilo could work, not what the overall process is.
multicellular' does not mean 'more complex than single celled'.
It does, actually.
Multicellular- being made of multiple cells.
Nope, I don't see it.
Having multiple cells is only more complex than having one if you assume the single cell is not much more complex than any of the multiple cells- only if you ignore all the other properties that a thing has. Having simple properties does not necessitate a simple thing- that would be a blatant fallacy of composition.
All of these things only imply greater complexity of the animal
No, they are true by definition. Complexity means "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated." So yes, multicellular organisms are more complex by definition of the word complex.
Only when you take into account how cells work in life as we know it.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MAKE THAT SO? HOW DOES THAT CHANGE HAPPEN?
I have no idea. I'm not God. I wasn't there when the universe was created.
Not knowing how something happens, however, is not the same thing as saying something is logically incoherent. "I don't comprehend this" is not the same thing as "this is illogical." Seems you're conflating the two.
Is causality not about a change (the causal action) inducing another change (the effect)?
No, it's about a process resulting in a change from one state to another. In this case, the process is God creating the universe, which creates a change from the initial state (no universe) to the second state (universe). Once again, you're working off of an erroneous assumption of what causality involves.
You REALLY need to start paying attention to what words mean, dude.
Multicellular- being made of multiple cells.
Nope, I don't see it.
It's by definition more complex than a single-celled organism, by virtue of the definition of the word "complex."
See, you're just grabbing at straws to try to defend yourself, but you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Having multiple cells is only more complex than having one if you assume the single cell is not much more complex than any of the multiple cells-
No, you don't have to assume anything. You just need to look up the definition of complexity and apply it. See, knowing what words mean makes life so much easier.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MAKE THAT SO? HOW DOES THAT CHANGE HAPPEN?
I have no idea. I'm not God. I wasn't there when the universe was created.
Not knowing how something happens, however, is not the same thing as saying something is logically incoherent. "I don't comprehend this" is not the same thing as "this is illogical." Seems you're conflating the two.
It is incoherent if there is no logical way of answering that question. That's the argument- that there is no logical way of producing a causal influence without some form of interaction, that interaction is the only logical way of describing causality in existence as we know it.
Is causality not about a change (the causal action) inducing another change (the effect)?
No, it's about a process resulting in a change from one state to another. In this case, the process is God creating the universe, which creates a change from the initial state (no universe) to the second state (universe). Once again, you're working off of an erroneous assumption of what causality involves.
You REALLY need to start paying attention to what words mean, dude.
What is the process? What is the 'agent or efficacy'? Does that not imply a change? Otherwise, what connects the the cause and the effect at all, if the cause isn't involved in any change?
Multicellular- being made of multiple cells.
Nope, I don't see it.
It's by definition more complex than a single-celled organism, by virtue of the definition of the word "complex."
See, you're just grabbing at straws to try to defend yourself, but you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole
Fallacy of composition- simple elements does not mean simple thing. Having a single cell is only one property of any bacteria.
Small bricks don't make a small wall. A type of wall defined by having small bricks isn't by definition smaller than a type of wall defined as having large bricks, because walls have other properties.
Having multiple cells is only more complex than having one if you assume the single cell is not much more complex than any of the multiple cells-
No, you don't have to assume anything. You just need to look up the definition of complexity and apply it. See, knowing what words mean makes life so much easier.
It is incoherent if there is no logical way of answering that question.
"There is no logical way of answering that question" =/= "I don't know the answer to that question."
That's the difference. Not knowing how something works does not mean there is no logical way it could work. It just means we don't know.
For example: We don't know how the big bang happened. It doesn't mean there's no logical answer. We believe there is a logical answer. We just don't know what it is.
That's the argument- that there is no logical way of producing a causal influence without some form of interaction
I know that's your argument. It's also a completely baseless argument, and is the most nonsensical thing in that entire chain. The idea that existence is required for existence to occur (THAT is an example of an implication, by the way) is absurd.
What is the process?
Creatio ex nihilo.
What is the 'agent or efficacy'?
Causality.
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.
Fallacy of composition- simple elements does not mean simple thing. Having a single cell is only one property of any bacteria.
So let me follow this. You first use the claim that a bacteria is less complex than a multi-celled organism as an analogy to demonstrate implication vs. definition. I then, correctly, counter that this isn't an example of implication but a matter of the definition of the word "complexity" when applied to the situation. You realize you can't win there, but you really need to prove yourself right on something, so now you're going to counter by saying that I'm committing a fallacy in my argument that multi-celled organisms are more complex than single-celled organisms by virtue of cell count? YOU were the one who proposed that argument!
It is incoherent if there is no logical way of answering that question.
"There is no logical way of answering that question" =/= "I don't know the answer to that question."
I'm not arguing we don't know the logical answer to the question,
That's the argument- that there is no logical way of producing a causal influence without some form of interaction
I know that's your argument. It's also a completely baseless argument, and is the most nonsensical thing in that entire chain. The idea that existence is required for existence to occur (THAT is an example of an implication, by the way) is absurd.
How can you perform an action without change? What you expect me to believe is that from a changeless things can arise because that state does something, still without any change. How can something changeless create change?
The idea is that something can only coherently come from nothing if it doesn't occur causally at all and this also says nothing about timeless existence. This argument does not imply existence is required for existence to occur.
Fallacy of composition- simple elements does not mean simple thing. Having a single cell is only one property of any bacteria.
No So let me follow this. You first use the claim that a bacteria is less complex than a multi-celled organism as an analogy to demonstrate implication vs. definition. I then, correctly, counter that this isn't an example of implication but a matter of the definition of the word "complexity" when applied to the situation. You realize you can't win there, but you really need to prove yourself right on something, so now you're going to counter by saying that I'm committing a fallacy in my argument that multi-celled organisms are more complex than single-celled organisms by virtue of cell count? YOU were the one who proposed that argument!
And you were the one who didn't understand it and just misrepresented it!
The point of the analogy is about WHY we can say bacteria are simpler than animals. And it is not because of the definitions because having some traits that are simpler than some traits from another thing does not necessitate being simpler than that other thing. It is because of how various implications to do with those traits.
Also the way you consistently tell me what I am doing including bold accusations of me being deceptive is dishonest (especially when you just throw them in there wherever without backing them up), quite uncharitable and frequently you are just wrong with these claims. I ask you to stop, otherwise, I am only going to be give you as much respect and understanding as you give me.
I'm not arguing we don't know the logical answer to the question,
I'm aware. But saying, "Aha! You don't know how God created the universe, therefore it's logically incoherent," is fallacious because one does not prove the other. I have no idea how God creating a universe creatio ex nihilo would work. I have no idea how God doing anything would work.
Honestly? I don't actually know how the leaves changing color in fall works. Apparently the change in season signals the trees to stop producing chlorophyll, which means the normal green color of leaves transitions to red and yellow due to the presence of other substances such as glucose, but how does that work? I have no idea. Doesn't mean there's no logically coherent answer for it, it just means I don't know what it is.
How can you perform an action without change?
Well, technically one could perform an action and just keep performing that action forever, and one would be changeless and yet still doing something, in which case one is still acting. Not the case in this scenario, but answering your question.
Pertaining to our scenario, an action is doing something. God creating the universe is doing something.
What you expect me to believe is that from a changeless things can arise because that state does something, still without any change. How can something changeless create change? The idea is that something can only coherently come from nothing if it doesn't occur causally at all and this also says nothing about timeless existence.
God is not acting to create the universe -> God acts to create the universe. Change.
This argument does not imply existence is required for existence to occur.
THAT argument doesn't, no, because you omitted the part that does. What's the part you omitted?
That's the argument- that there is no logical way of producing a causal influence without some form of interaction
Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
Ahh, right, the idea that there needs to be an interaction. That there needs to be something to apply it to. That's the part that implies the necessity for existence to already have existed.
So yes, when you remove that part, then the implication isn't there. But then it becomes a different argument.
And you were the one who didn't understand it and just misrepresented it!
No, and this is the thing you need to learn: when I point out the absurdity in your argument, it does not mean I'm misrepresenting your argument. Misrepresenting means I'm giving a false or misleading account of it. But, maybe, just maybe, the argument didn't hold water and I'm just pointing out the absurdity.
The point of the analogy is about WHY we can say bacteria are simpler than animals. And it is not because of the definitions
Yes, it is. It is because of the meanings of the words "simple" and "complex."
Also the way you consistently tell me what I am doing including bold accusations of me being deceptive is dishonest
No, I'm being quite honest. You started this thread with a question, asking people to find things that are wrong with your argument. But when the flaws are pointed out to you, you don't want to listen. You are way more interested in defending yourself from the idea that you are wrong than you are interested in understanding the flaws in your argument.
I'm not arguing we don't know the logical answer to the question,
I'm aware. But saying, "Aha! You don't know how God created the universe, therefore it's logically incoherent," is fallacious because one does not prove the other. I have no idea how God creating a universe creatio ex nihilo would work. I have no idea how God doing anything would work.
Honestly? I don't actually know how the leaves changing color in fall works. Apparently the change in season signals the trees to stop producing chlorophyll, which means the normal green color of leaves transitions to red and yellow due to the presence of other substances such as glucose, but how does that work? I have no idea. Doesn't mean there's no logically coherent answer for it, it just means I don't know what it is.
My argument is not 'you don't know how'.
How can you perform an action without change?
Well, technically one could perform an action and just keep performing that action forever,
An action itself requires change, action can only be meaningfully described in terms of some dynamic.
Pertaining to our scenario, an action is doing something. God creating the universe is doing something.
You are describing the action only in terms of the result. That does not answer the question of how god could perform the action that creates the universe without any change in the first place.
What you expect me to believe is that from a changeless things can arise because that state does something, still without any change. How can something changeless create change? The idea is that something can only coherently come from nothing if it doesn't occur causally at all and this also says nothing about timeless existence.
God is not acting to create the universe -> God acts to create the universe. Change.
And again, you fail to show a clear understanding of the point despite your claims otherwise. I should not have to repeat this, but causality requires some connection between the cause and effect, which means something has to happen as well as the effect occurring which links the cause to the effect. If there is no change, nothing has happened, and therefore it cannot be coherently said that the cause has actually done anything to produce an effect.
That's the argument- that there is no logical way of producing a causal influence without some form of interaction
Causing something to exist ex nihilo has no coherent way of applying an effect because there is nothing to apply it to
Ahh, right, the idea that there needs to be an interaction. That there needs to be something to apply it to. That's the part that implies the necessity for existence to already have existed.
CAUSING SOMETHING TO EXIST appears notably in both arguments. Both arguments also only talk about things COMING INTO EXISTENCE. That means this argument does not go against an acausal origin from nothing, nor does it say anything about things existing timelessly (i.e. never coming into existence in the first place). I did not exclude anything. You just failed to show a clear understanding, again.
And you were the one who didn't understand it and just misrepresented it!
No, and this is the thing you need to learn: when I point out the absurdity in your argument, it does not mean I'm misrepresenting your argument.
No, you are misrepresenting my argument when you say things that are blatantly contradictory to what I have actually said, as you have done repeatedly.
The point of the analogy is about WHY we can say bacteria are simpler than animals. And it is not because of the definitions
Yes, it is. It is because of the meanings of the words "simple" and "complex."
No, the definitions of the words are relevant, because it is not because of them- and that is because the definitions of bacteria and animal do not describe the complexity of individual bacteria and animals. The conclusion requires real world observations unrelated to any specific definition.
Also the way you consistently tell me what I am doing including bold accusations of me being deceptive is dishonest
No, I'm being quite honest.
Saying I am lying with absolutely no effort to support the claim and with inherent irrelevance to the accuracy of the argument as an ad hominem attack, is not an honest argumentative tactic. It is a deceptive and misleading one. I will not stand for that.
But when the flaws are pointed out to you, you don't want to listen. You are way more interested in defending yourself from the idea that you are wrong than you are interested in understanding the flaws in your argument.
And so you claim. And what are you doing about this? Being condescending and uncharitable. That is exactly what not to do to resolve a debate.
An action itself requires change, action can only be meaningfully described in terms of some dynamic.
God created the universe. That's a change.
You are describing the action only in terms of the result. That does not answer the question of how god could perform the action that creates the universe without any change in the first place.
There is a change. Universe exists. Didn't before. Change.
And again, you fail to show a clear understanding of the point despite your claims otherwise. I should not have to repeat this, but causality requires some connection between the cause and effect, which means something has to happen as well as the effect occurring which links the cause to the effect.
No, dude, causality IS the connection between the cause and the effect. Reread the definition.
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.
Causality IS the connection.
No, the definitions of the words are relevant, because it is not because of them- and that is because the definitions of bacteria and animal do not describe the complexity of individual bacteria and animals.
... Yes, and the definition of the word "red" does not contain any mention of shirts. However, "The shirt is red," does not require any sort of assumption, now does it? No, it requires merely an understanding of the definition of the word "red," and to apply that definition. That's how words work.
Now let that be the last that is said of this asinine tangent.
It wasn't a definition. That's what I have just been explaining, yet you insist that it is, when it isn't. It was poorly worded because it does sound like that is what it is, but that's why I have reworded to be more clear that it is not.
Look, if you're going to tell me I don't know my own argument, the least you could do is more than repeatedly say I'm giving a definition.
What implications does an 'agent or efficacy' have in the context of our understanding of existence? What ways do we have of coherently describing the workings of an 'agent or efficacy' in that context?
THAT is the point, as I have been trying to explain. It is not definitional.
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
The problem is you do not know what the word causality means. As I predicted, it is page 4, and I am still trying to explain to you why you're getting the definition of causality wrong.
So let's address what you actually argued:
As we've demonstrated, this is not what causality actually means. Once again:
So once again, what is required for casuality to be fulfilled is an initial state, a second state, and a process that makes the second state result from the first.
The problem with your argument comes from you adding an extraneous requirement, that there is something from the first state that needs to be affected in order to produce the second state. As is demonstrated, this is not the case, because there is nothing from the definition of causality that indicates this.
And that's the whole problem, because you post things like this:
And they are completely invalid statements. They are completely invalid statements because, for the umpteenth time, nothing in the definition of causality requires this to be true, and your entire premise is rooted in the idea that causality and creatio ex nihilo are contradictory, which they are not.
So if these statements have no root in what causality actually means, then what are they rooted in? Answer: your own erroneous presumptions about causality, and yet you are still defending them.
The effect is creating the universe. It is not required that anything other than God exist initially for God to create the universe. Again, there is nothing in the definition of causality that requires there be something existing in the initial state to be affected to create the secondary state. It is logically possible that God created something out of nothing. The only reason you are declaring this to be a problem is because of your erroneous assumptions about what "causality" entails.
It would be like someone arguing that it is illogical for a bird to be called an owl because it is not lime green. We know this is absurd, for there is nothing in the definition of an owl that requires it to be lime green, and there are no lime green owls. This person has no basis for his argument except for an erroneous presumption that owls must be lime green.
Or that I've been trying to reword my argument so that you actually address what I'm trying to say but instead you continue to tell me what I'm arguing instead. You didn't even both to do more than just repeat your claim that I'm giving you a definition and not trying to establish an implication. You didn't quote or respond to what I described specifically as my point- you ignored it. I'm sorry but I'm going to accept your claim if all you are going to is tell it to me and ignore everything I have to say expect to do so?
For the umpteenth time, that is not my goddamn argument and telling me that is over and over again is a waste of both our times.
I accept your provided definition, I am not nor have ever been questioning it.
See that last bit, 'and there are no lime green owls', where you acknowledge something can be true of a thing without being part of the definition of that thing?
That.
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
You are arguing this:
Except why does there need to be anything to apply it to?
The effect is God creating the universe. There does not need to exist anything prior to that. There does not need to be anything affected. That's the whole point. God's creating the universe out of nothing. That's what creatio ex nihilo means. You've even said as much! You yourself have said this, so it's obvious you understand this concept.
Right, so where did you get this idea that there needs to be an affected thing, when the whole point is the creation of something from nothing?
Your entire argument rests on how causality is contradictory to the idea of creatio ex nihilo, and therein results logical inconsistency. Except, given the definition of causality, that's not the case, because the definition of causality does not contradict this. So you didn't get it from the definition of causality. So wherein does the contradiction come from?
As far as I can tell, the contradiction came from this:
Except, as I've said before, that's not what causality means. Nor is it something implied by the definition of causality, because there's nothing about the definition of causality that implies this either.
It it is actually is a presumption on your part. You presume that there must be an affected thing. This is your misunderstanding.
Thus, much like the person who is arguing that something can't be an owl because it is not lime green, you are arguing out of a misunderstanding, an erroneous presumption of what something means, and then you are defending this presumption as evidence when it is not evidence, but error.
I have already answered the questions you provide here repeatedly.
At least you aren't just telling me I'm providing a definition.
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 been, since page 1, saying you've fundamentally misunderstood what causality is, and that is why your entire argument of logical inconsistency is invalid, something you have yet to actually address.
The reason why I was making posts saying, "No, you're providing a definition and it's wrong," is because you stopped defending your original argument in your original post, and instead backtracked to try to make it appear like you didn't completely misunderstand what causality meant. But, of course, you do, and that is why we're still here.
So no, I have been providing substantive posts. When you refuse to acknowledge them and fail to provide any substantive rebuttal, the fault is not mine, the fault is yours.
As to your quotes, none of that "answers" anything. It's just you continuing to talk about how owls can't be owls unless they're lime green. You're just running around in the same circles.
NOTHING! That's the whole point of creatio ex nihilo!
I know! And your argument is wrong! How is that so hard for you to get?
Once again, that's what creatio ex nihilo means. God creates the universe from nothing. This is God applying influence. You are trying to argue that this cannot be causality because there was no creation for God to affect in order that he could create Creation, which belies not only a fundamental misunderstanding of the word causality, but also is the entire freaking point behind creatio ex nihilo.
Now stop dancing around this issue and answer the question: do you acknowledge that your original argument is invalid? Yes or no?
Because the fact of the matter is that your basis for arguing the original argument, that logical incompatibility is created as a result of creatio ex nihilo and causality being contradictory, is false. It is false because there is nothing about causality that contradicts creatio ex nihilo. Therefore, your original conclusion has no basis due to its backing being a baseless argument.
And since I know you're going to say, "Well you're just saying that you've invalidated my arguments, but you never did," somehow ignoring everything that happened in the last four pages, let me post it again:
This is wrong because P1 has an erroneous definition of causality. Causality does not, in fact, refer to the above, in that there is nothing that says that causality requires an "affected." That is a condition you added in, a presumption on your part that does not actually exist.
Since the actual definition of causality has no contradiction with creatio ex nihilo, C1 fails as well, and the argument collapses.
P2 is obviously false because God creating the universe is an application of an effect. You are saying that God has nothing to apply it to, but God needs nothing to apply it to. God created the universe. That's an effect. You're saying there was nothing to affect prior to God creating the effect that would result in the effect. The response to this is, "Duh, that's the whole point of creatio ex nihilo." It's also totally irrelevant because there's nothing logically incoherent about that.
Once again, there is no requirement for there to be an affected. Harping on and on about how this makes things logically incoherent does not make it so, and your arguments that it is have been proven invalid.
A better analogy would be a person saying that the person he's looking at cannot possibly be a human being because said person is not wearing a shirt. There's no requirement for a human being to be wearing a shirt to qualify as a human being. Likewise, there is no such requirement for there to be an affected thing that existed prior to the effect in order for there to be an effect.
If a misunderstanding not being my fault made the misunderstanding true, well, I would not spend so much time on online message boards. I would be the best Wall Street trader ever, and I’d be taking over the world soon.
Are we debating the merits of creationism, or are we just debating who is right and wrong about what so and so said?
I feel like we’re going to be stuck endlessly circling around definitions here. This statement at the end, once again, is predicated on your definition of “nothing”. There’s a difference between what you and I are each claiming that the ex nihilo apologists are saying preceded the Universe:
You: “God”, then “nothing” as null set, empty set, etc
Me: “God”, then “nothing” as that which doesn’t pertain to “God” (granted, very circular definition)
What my previous post was intended to show is that my “nothing” is no less nothing than yours. That is because what constitutes “God” in this argument is not defined by any extrinsic properties. There is nothing that you can “take out of God” in order for “God” to “create the universe out of himself”. The character of something being “God” is not finite in such a way that you can add something or take out something in such a way that you don’t have “God” anymore.
As in the “heap” example, no number of grains being added/subtracted causes something to cease to be a “heap”, except it does if you can express what constitutes a “heap” in finite terms. Craig in his Kalam argument used the example of guests going in and out of a Hotel (much more at length, much better read).
Or, Highroller’s example of a human creating a baby is fine. You pointed out that a human baby is created out of a gamete. Your point holds because a gamete is a distinct, physical aspect of a human being. You can take away gametes from a human until what you have doesn’t meet the definition of “human” being used here (as that which can create a baby). A human being is finite, so any physically discrete thing will do disprove that, and that’s the point.
Now the key here, imagine something named “God” with property “blank”, such that taking out no amount of “blank” will cause “God” to cease to be “God”. This “blank” is nothing. If it were the opposite of nothing, say "something", then taking out enough of it would alter the character of God. So, it's nothing. But this "causation" here is stating that in doing this act of “taking out” this "nothing", what you have is the Universe. If you sense a contradiction here, that’s because it's exactly what the Kalam argument is saying. That because everything we know of is finite and discreet, everything has to have a beginning, except necessarily one thing, “God”, that couldn’t possibly be finite and discreet, and which albeit very circularly, preceded all things that are finite and discrete, including his own attributes. There is nothing to distinguish from within "God" as that which God created the Universe, because there is nothing, by definition, to be distinguished about "God" to begin with.
Any more clear?
P2 Everything in south park is true.
P3 In Season 4 Episode 10 we learned the correct answer was mormon.
C1 God did not create it out of nothing.
Am I doing it right ?
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
The Big Bang is far from proven, and it's directly contradictory to the Genesis creation model. It's not even complete. Every time they come up with a theory to answer a problem, it makes even more problems...like a Hydra. If you'd like to discuss this, I'm more than willing to via PM (a thread would get too messy and heated), but back to your main point...
If you assume that nothing can exist outside of our universe, then it's implausible that God created the universe. However, there is no scientific evidence to lead to that conclusion. As I've said, just because we don't understand something, doesn't make it incoherent. Is dark matter incoherent with the universe? No, we just don't know how it works. It is completely plausible that a God, fully outside of universe, could create it according to different rules (or even no rules, if His power is truly infinite).
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I have addressed every point you've made against P1. Feel free to repeat at any time points you think unaddressed and I will address them.
My argument is the same as it always has been, I have simply reworded it for clarity. If by 'your argument' you mean the wording, not my intention, then this is just not relevant because I have already replaced the wording. If you mean my intention, then I find this point to be dishonest, to suggest you know my intention better than I do when all you have is my written word.
Because I have yet to hear any real response by you to the key question of this whole debate as the main point of my entire argument by far- which is about the nature of a causal influence. You seem to have spent this whole time talking about what causality itself is, but that point is not under contention. Feel free to quote any instance where you think you have engaged meaningfully with this question, and I'll credit you for that.
Exactly. And what implications does that have when we think about what a causal influence means?
It being the 'entire freaking point' is why the argument is about 'the entire freaking' concept of causing something to exist ex nihilo.
Your response here to the question seems to be begging the question by assuming causing something to exist ex nihilo as an idea is sensible and using that to justify that there is a clear influence.
It seems to me, at least, there at only two ultimate points you could make to contradict this statement- influence doesn't need to be applied to a thing, or there is a thing to which influence can be applied in causing something to exist ex nihilo.
The second position seems indefensible, so it seems to me the focus here should really be about whether a causal influence needs to be applied to a thing. That singular question.
If you mean the wording, yes basically, as far as invalid applies to wording. If you mean intention, then no, I stand by my original argument.
Would be a point if the definition of causality and the concept of causing something to exist ex nihilo being contradictory was my argument. It is not.
My argument is not based upon the nature of causality itself but rather about the influence required by that definition, related, but not the same. The argument also is not about a contradiction. If you'll notice, the second premise is about whatever causing something to exist ex nihilo can coherently meet a criterion, not whether it is contradictory to that criterion.
Guess what? It's not a definition. Not going to say this again.
Also, stop addressing this formulation of the argument.
I have gone to lengths to argue exactly why there is something incoherent about that and not in any capacity to do with the definition of causality or creatio ex nihilo.
The argument is essentially that meaningful actions require some form of interaction, with some other form of thing- force, particle, state of potential, spacetime, whatever. The single most important argument for this point is that change means nothing without an external reference- and any real distinction of parts is sufficient for this- and actions are about change. This is supported by our understanding in science.
Here's an analogy for my argument then- there's no requirement in the definition of animal (multicellular, motile eukaryote) for animals to be more complex than bacteria, yet because of what multicellular, motile and eukaryote mean in the context of life as we know it, they are.
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
More the later than the former. This is not a general discussion, this is about a specific idea. We can only talk so much about implications without getting off topic, there are other threads for broader discussion.
Couldn't this supposed nothing just be something incidental about god and not inherent? A house is still a house if you change the wallpaper, that doesn't say anything about the substantiveness of wallpaper in-and-of-itself. Does the wallpaper adhering to the wall contibute causing something ex nihilo?
In general, I would argue simply there is no way of objectively determining if some things are somehow less-of-a-thing other than if they are no thing at all.
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
There is. God creating a universe would be an example of influence.
Seems to work, doesn't it?
See above.
It's still the same problem, your insistence that there must be something to be in existence in order for God to apply any kind of influence (which is not actually true but you try convincing you of that, I've been quoting the dictionary for four pages with no success).
Trust me, I know. I don't know why when dictionary definitions buffet you each time, but you still manage to keep missing the point each time.
Yes, I understand that is your argument. I do actually understand what you are arguing. The problem is not that I don't understand your argument. The problem is a very simple question, "Do they?"
"Actions require some form of interaction..." Do they really? What do you base this on? You tried making it a condition of causality, but the definition of the word "causality" does not require this. You tried making a condition of influence, but the definition of the word "influence" does not require this. You tried making it a condition of having an effect, but the definition of the word "effect" does not require this.
You claim this is some sort of implication. Is it? Or is it an unfound, baseless assumption on your part?
Universe does not exist -> universe exists. No change? Really?
Umm, yes there is. Bacteria are single-cellular organisms. That's what multicellular means. It's rooted in the definitions of words. Contrast to your argument, which is not at all rooted in the definitions of words.
I like as an analogy someone insisting on a human being needing to be wearing a shirt in order to be classified as a human. That person is applying an extraneous condition to the definition of "human being" that is not actually found in the definition of "human being" and has no basis.
And what action occurs?
My argument is not based on direct applications of dictionary definitions.
Firstly, you have just misrepresented me again by claiming I was making a condition of causality. It was always an implication based on the causal action.
And secondly, if all the reasoning you are going to run through is 'do the definitions of these words require this?' then you are not genuinely engaging with the argument. It's not about the definitions, I keep telling you this yet you consistently use it as the basis of almost everything you say in response.
The argument is about what meaningful descriptions we can give to a causal influence. Not what the words themselves mean, but what does such a thing look like, how does it work?
God is the only thing in the existence -> God is the only thing in existence. No change. There is no time that passes, no position that can change, no structure that can reshape. All of such things would involve the interaction of different elements. So how does the universe come of this?
'Single celled' does not mean 'more complex than multicellular', 'multicellular' does not mean 'more complex than single celled'. It's not in the definitions at all. There is no reason a single cell has to be less complex than multiple cells, there is no reason having membrane bound organelles has to be more complex than not having them. All of these things only imply greater complexity of the animal because of how in life as we know it, cells work, membranes work and motility works. Concepts mean certain things in reality than are not required by their definitions, because the set of what that concept applies to is usually not comprised only of things that exist.
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
Your argument is not based on anything factual apparently.
Then what is it about? Every time I knock your argument down by pointing out how baseless it is you can only come back with a statement saying I'm not engaging the argument on its basis. Which, technically true, but only because it has no basis whatsoever.
Except now there's a universe.
Universe. Try again.
Creatio ex nihilo.
It does, actually.
No, they are true by definition. Complexity means "the state or quality of being intricate or complicated." So yes, multicellular organisms are more complex by definition of the word complex.
Your analogy fails because unlike in this instance, your argument has no basis in the meaning of words. Not just the dictionary definitions of words, but in their actual meaning. There is no basis for anything you are saying rooted in the meaning of any word you have used whatsoever. There is absolute basis in saying that multicellular organisms are more complex than single-celled ones.
Again, your argument is akin to saying that a human being is not a human being unless he wears a shirt. It is an argument that is baseless and is made out of obvious ignorance of what the words and concepts you're talking about mean at all.
If you believe this analogy is incorrect, kindly demonstrate anything whatsoever to justify your argument about logical consistency. You will no doubt say that you've already stated this, except I've knocked down your "arguments" consistently every single time, because they are as insubstantial as rings of smoke.
Oh yeah, I am definitely shifting my argument by telling you the exact same damn thing that it's not about definitions. You say you understand my argument, but yet you seem incapable of moving beyond definitions despite how I keep telling you they aren't the point.
WHAT HAPPENS TO MAKE THAT SO? HOW DOES THAT CHANGE HAPPEN? Is causality not about a change (the causal action) inducing another change (the effect)?
We are talking about how the action of causing something to exist in creatio ex nihilo could work, not what the overall process is.
Multicellular- being made of multiple cells.
Nope, I don't see it.
Having multiple cells is only more complex than having one if you assume the single cell is not much more complex than any of the multiple cells- only if you ignore all the other properties that a thing has. Having simple properties does not necessitate a simple thing- that would be a blatant fallacy of composition.
Only when you take into account how cells work in life as we know it.
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
Not knowing how something happens, however, is not the same thing as saying something is logically incoherent. "I don't comprehend this" is not the same thing as "this is illogical." Seems you're conflating the two.
No, it's about a process resulting in a change from one state to another. In this case, the process is God creating the universe, which creates a change from the initial state (no universe) to the second state (universe). Once again, you're working off of an erroneous assumption of what causality involves.
You REALLY need to start paying attention to what words mean, dude.
It's by definition more complex than a single-celled organism, by virtue of the definition of the word "complex."
See, you're just grabbing at straws to try to defend yourself, but you're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
No, you don't have to assume anything. You just need to look up the definition of complexity and apply it. See, knowing what words mean makes life so much easier.
It is incoherent if there is no logical way of answering that question. That's the argument- that there is no logical way of producing a causal influence without some form of interaction, that interaction is the only logical way of describing causality in existence as we know it.
What is the process? What is the 'agent or efficacy'? Does that not imply a change? Otherwise, what connects the the cause and the effect at all, if the cause isn't involved in any change?
Fallacy of composition- simple elements does not mean simple thing. Having a single cell is only one property of any bacteria.
Small bricks don't make a small wall. A type of wall defined by having small bricks isn't by definition smaller than a type of wall defined as having large bricks, because walls have other properties.
Again, fallacy of composition.
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
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
That's the difference. Not knowing how something works does not mean there is no logical way it could work. It just means we don't know.
For example: We don't know how the big bang happened. It doesn't mean there's no logical answer. We believe there is a logical answer. We just don't know what it is.
I know that's your argument. It's also a completely baseless argument, and is the most nonsensical thing in that entire chain. The idea that existence is required for existence to occur (THAT is an example of an implication, by the way) is absurd.
Creatio ex nihilo.
Causality.
So let me follow this. You first use the claim that a bacteria is less complex than a multi-celled organism as an analogy to demonstrate implication vs. definition. I then, correctly, counter that this isn't an example of implication but a matter of the definition of the word "complexity" when applied to the situation. You realize you can't win there, but you really need to prove yourself right on something, so now you're going to counter by saying that I'm committing a fallacy in my argument that multi-celled organisms are more complex than single-celled organisms by virtue of cell count? YOU were the one who proposed that argument!
Dude, you're basically a Dilbert comic at this point. Just let it go.
I'm not arguing we don't know the logical answer to the question,
How can you perform an action without change? What you expect me to believe is that from a changeless things can arise because that state does something, still without any change. How can something changeless create change?
The idea is that something can only coherently come from nothing if it doesn't occur causally at all and this also says nothing about timeless existence. This argument does not imply existence is required for existence to occur.
And you were the one who didn't understand it and just misrepresented it!
The point of the analogy is about WHY we can say bacteria are simpler than animals. And it is not because of the definitions because having some traits that are simpler than some traits from another thing does not necessitate being simpler than that other thing. It is because of how various implications to do with those traits.
Also the way you consistently tell me what I am doing including bold accusations of me being deceptive is dishonest (especially when you just throw them in there wherever without backing them up), quite uncharitable and frequently you are just wrong with these claims. I ask you to stop, otherwise, I am only going to be give you as much respect and understanding as you give me.
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
Honestly? I don't actually know how the leaves changing color in fall works. Apparently the change in season signals the trees to stop producing chlorophyll, which means the normal green color of leaves transitions to red and yellow due to the presence of other substances such as glucose, but how does that work? I have no idea. Doesn't mean there's no logically coherent answer for it, it just means I don't know what it is.
Well, technically one could perform an action and just keep performing that action forever, and one would be changeless and yet still doing something, in which case one is still acting. Not the case in this scenario, but answering your question.
Pertaining to our scenario, an action is doing something. God creating the universe is doing something.
God is not acting to create the universe -> God acts to create the universe. Change.
THAT argument doesn't, no, because you omitted the part that does. What's the part you omitted?
Ahh, right, the idea that there needs to be an interaction. That there needs to be something to apply it to. That's the part that implies the necessity for existence to already have existed.
So yes, when you remove that part, then the implication isn't there. But then it becomes a different argument.
No, and this is the thing you need to learn: when I point out the absurdity in your argument, it does not mean I'm misrepresenting your argument. Misrepresenting means I'm giving a false or misleading account of it. But, maybe, just maybe, the argument didn't hold water and I'm just pointing out the absurdity.
Yes, it is. It is because of the meanings of the words "simple" and "complex."
No, I'm being quite honest. You started this thread with a question, asking people to find things that are wrong with your argument. But when the flaws are pointed out to you, you don't want to listen. You are way more interested in defending yourself from the idea that you are wrong than you are interested in understanding the flaws in your argument.
My argument is not 'you don't know how'.
An action itself requires change, action can only be meaningfully described in terms of some dynamic.
You are describing the action only in terms of the result. That does not answer the question of how god could perform the action that creates the universe without any change in the first place.
And again, you fail to show a clear understanding of the point despite your claims otherwise. I should not have to repeat this, but causality requires some connection between the cause and effect, which means something has to happen as well as the effect occurring which links the cause to the effect. If there is no change, nothing has happened, and therefore it cannot be coherently said that the cause has actually done anything to produce an effect.
CAUSING SOMETHING TO EXIST appears notably in both arguments. Both arguments also only talk about things COMING INTO EXISTENCE. That means this argument does not go against an acausal origin from nothing, nor does it say anything about things existing timelessly (i.e. never coming into existence in the first place). I did not exclude anything. You just failed to show a clear understanding, again.
No, you are misrepresenting my argument when you say things that are blatantly contradictory to what I have actually said, as you have done repeatedly.
No, the definitions of the words are relevant, because it is not because of them- and that is because the definitions of bacteria and animal do not describe the complexity of individual bacteria and animals. The conclusion requires real world observations unrelated to any specific definition.
Saying I am lying with absolutely no effort to support the claim and with inherent irrelevance to the accuracy of the argument as an ad hominem attack, is not an honest argumentative tactic. It is a deceptive and misleading one. I will not stand for that.
And so you claim. And what are you doing about this? Being condescending and uncharitable. That is exactly what not to do to resolve a debate.
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
There is a change. Universe exists. Didn't before. Change.
No, dude, causality IS the connection between the cause and the effect. Reread the definition.
Causality IS the connection.
... Yes, and the definition of the word "red" does not contain any mention of shirts. However, "The shirt is red," does not require any sort of assumption, now does it? No, it requires merely an understanding of the definition of the word "red," and to apply that definition. That's how words work.
Now let that be the last that is said of this asinine tangent.