Is there a difference between tautologically and logically incoherent?
A tautology is the logical construction where you are simply saying the same thing twice - A, therefore A. It’s considered a fault in argumentative style, because you are not arriving at any new conclusions. That’s the difference.
As here with Creatio ex nihilo, it depends on how you define “creatio” and “nihilo”. If you define “nihilo” as literally an empty set, then “creatio” is not within the set of “nihilo”. It’s an empty set. So, it will be true that no single thing is in it, no matter what that is, cause, effect, affected object, what have you. But that is only because you’ve defined “nihilo” as the empty set.
The argument is nothing, therefore nothing. That’s a tautology.
Firstly, I'm only talking about causing something to exist ex nihilo, not acausal creatio ex nihilo. Not all scientific theories about origins are causal.
So, “nihilo” excludes things that are “causal”, but could include things that are “acausal”?
Again, it’s asserting the bare premise of your definition of “nihilo”, and it ends up being a tautology. If you define it as containing “acausal” things, or naturalistic things, then that is your definition. A Theist might say it includes some things that are “causal”, specifically God. But neither side is offering any support of that premise, only making the bare assertion.
I'm not sure what that even means, causality isn't a statement about reality.
Causality becomes a statement about reality when you assert that all things have causes.
Your definition, bolded for emphasis: “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.”
The premise that all effects have causes is an assertion, and would need support.
Sure, so that's an alternate account of how god 'made' the world. That's very much a valid response for any theist to take, the important thing is that it seems many hold to the idea of causing it to exist ex nihilo.
Well by the definition of “nihilo” you seem to be arguing, no Theist actually believes it. No person believes that there are any elements in an empty set, by definition.
What these Theists seem to me to be actually saying is that this “nihilo” can be defined, albeit very circularly, as that which existed before all causes that are not “God”. So now with causal agents in existence that are not “God”, there is no more “nihilo”, and that event in time is/was creation.
The problem with this line of discussion and others like it (the 747 gambit by Dawkins, etc) is that people think they are arguing Theism against “not-Theism”, or Theism against Science, or what have you. What’s actually being argued is the ontological premise of Theism versus Naturalism. Not-Theism is not its own argumentative position. It's just failure to hold the position of Theism. It doesn't lend itself for any platform of argument, whatsoever. You're just saying that you're not taking someone else's position.
And so by asserting the premise of Naturalism in support of the conclusion of Naturalism, what you have is either the fallacy of begging the question, or a tautology as above. But Naturalism is actually an affirmative claim. You’re saying that everything has a cause, those things that are not Natural are “acausal”, or whatever you want to use. It’s one big exercise in question begging.
Is there a difference between tautologically and logically incoherent?
A tautology is the logical construction where you are simply saying the same thing twice - A, therefore A. It’s considered a fault in argumentative style, because you are not arriving at any new conclusions. That’s the difference.
As here with Creatio ex nihilo, it depends on how you define “creatio” and “nihilo”. If you define “nihilo” as literally an empty set, then “creatio” is not within the set of “nihilo”. It’s an empty set. So, it will be true that no single thing is in it, no matter what that is, cause, effect, affected object, what have you. But that is only because you’ve defined “nihilo” as the empty set.
The argument is nothing, therefore nothing. That’s a tautology.
Nihilo is by definition an empty set, it is nothingness. That's what it means.
Firstly, I'm only talking about causing something to exist ex nihilo, not acausal creatio ex nihilo. Not all scientific theories about origins are causal.
So, “nihilo” excludes things that are “causal”, but could include things that are “acausal”?
Again, it’s asserting the bare premise of your definition of “nihilo”, and it ends up being a tautology. If you define it as containing “acausal” things, or naturalistic things, then that is your definition. A Theist might say it includes some things that are “causal”, specifically God. But neither side is offering any support of that premise, only making the bare assertion.
Nihilo means nothingness. That is all it means. Creatio ex nihilo means something coming into existence from nothing. These are uncontroversial definitions.
My clarification was not on the meaning of creatio ex nihilo but that I'm only taking about it as a causal event.
I'm not sure what that even means, causality isn't a statement about reality.
Causality becomes a statement about reality when you assert that all things have causes.
Your definition, bolded for emphasis: “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.”
The premise that all effects have causes is an assertion, and would need support.
You have misread my statements. The whole quoted section is talking only about what the nature of causality is. The implication is 'in order for an effect to be produced (in a causal event), there must...'.
This argument makes no statements about reality. It is based on abstract reasoning and definitions.
Sure, so that's an alternate account of how god 'made' the world. That's very much a valid response for any theist to take, the important thing is that it seems many hold to the idea of causing it to exist ex nihilo.
Well by the definition of “nihilo” you seem to be arguing, no Theist actually believes it. No person believes that there are any elements in an empty set, by definition.
The only definition of 'nihilo' I am using is 'nothingness'. William Lane Craig, to continue my key example, has extensively argued that God created the universe ex nihilo, and argues that Christians are committed to the idea of god creating the universe in this way. See anything he has written about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And he's not alone in this view.
What these Theists seem to me to be actually saying is that this “nihilo” can be defined, albeit very circularly, as that which existed before all causes that are not “God”.
Nihilo means nothingness. There is no reason to redefine it.
The problem with this line of discussion and others like it (the 747 gambit by Dawkins, etc) is that people think they are arguing Theism against “not-Theism”, or Theism against Science, or what have you. What’s actually being argued is the ontological premise of Theism versus Naturalism. Not-Theism is not its own argumentative position. It's just failure to hold the position of Theism. It doesn't lend itself for any platform of argument, whatsoever. You're just saying that you're not taking someone else's position.
The pure negative position is absolutely a viable position in debate, and is argued by taking the exterior position that the opponent cannot make their case.
And so by asserting the premise of Naturalism in support of the conclusion of Naturalism, what you have is either the fallacy of begging the question, or a tautology as above. But Naturalism is actually an affirmative claim. You’re saying that everything has a cause, those things that are not Natural are “acausal”, or whatever you want to use. It’s one big exercise in question begging.
To repeat, "This argument makes no statements about reality. It is based on general reasoning and definitions".
Construct any statement about reality you think this argument makes and I will tell you that it's not a premise. I have only three premises and they are that causality requires an affected element in order to have a causal influence, that creatio ex nihilo cannot have an affected element, and that if god created the universe it was creatio ex nihilo. The third premise is rhetorical.
Nihilo is by definition an empty set, it is nothingness. That's what it means.
As has already come up in this thread, especially when it comes to cosmology, there is more than one definition of "nothing", and not all of them are something resembling "empty set".
Nihilo is by definition an empty set, it is nothingness. That's what it means.
As has already come up in this thread, especially when it comes to cosmology, there is more than one definition of "nothing", and not all of them are something resembling "empty set".
Creatio ex nihilo is a philosophical term, so in general I think it refers to a pure nothing. The distinction between it and creatio ex materia doesn't as much sense otherwise. Regardless, a pure nothing is what I am talking about here.
Never mind, I read that first post closer again...
Creatio ex nihilo is not logically incoherent, but creatio ex nihilo as a cause is tautologically incoherent.
I'm talking about it as a cause.
Is there a difference between tautologically and logically incoherent?
Jusstice explained it pretty well. That said, I thought your argument was that Creatio ex Nihilo - literally "creation from nothing" as a cause would be tautologically incoherent. Creatio ex Nihilo would be Nothingness -> Something, which isn't necessarily problematic, where as this would be Creatio ex Nihilo -> Something, the latter of which wouldn't make sense. Come to think of it, why are you arguing this? I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, though this means that the argument in the original post is flawed...
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
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.
To reword (Argument I):
P1. Take Causality. Casual Agent + Affected -> Effect
P2. Nothing->Something (Creatio ex Nihilo) violates P1.
C1. Creatio ex Nihilo -> Something is logically incoherent.
P3. If God created the universe, it was Creatio ex Nihilo.
C2. It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
C2 does not follow from C1.
If you instead want C1 to be (Argument II):
C1. Creatio ex Nihilo is logically incoherent.
That's okay, but you have to prove that.
What you CAN say without further proof is (Argument III):
P1. Take Causality.
P2. Creatio ex Nihilo violates Causality.
C1. If Causality applies, then Creatio ex Nihilo is logically incoherent, because of P2.
P3. If God caused the universe to exist, it was Creatio ex Nihilo.
C2. (From C1, P3) If Casuality applies, it is logically incoherent to claim God caused the universe to exist.
Are you trying for Argument I, which clearly doesn't work, Argument II, which you have yet to prove, or Argument III, which, as far as I can tell, has no problems? Or are you trying for something else?
Sure, so that's an alternate account of how god 'made' the world. That's very much a valid response for any theist to take, the important thing is that it seems many hold to the idea of causing it to exist ex nihilo.
Well by the definition of “nihilo” you seem to be arguing, no Theist actually believes it. No person believes that there are any elements in an empty set, by definition.
What these Theists seem to me to be actually saying is that this “nihilo” can be defined, albeit very circularly, as that which existed before all causes that are not “God”. So now with causal agents in existence that are not “God”, there is no more “nihilo”, and that event in time is/was creation.
I don't know... I'm not a Theist. But as far as I can tell, few scientists believe that Creatio ex Nihilo actually applies to the Big Bang, on a philosophical level like DJK is claiming to argue, or a practical level either.
Never mind, I read that first post closer again...
Creatio ex nihilo is not logically incoherent, but creatio ex nihilo as a cause is tautologically incoherent.
I'm talking about it as a cause.
Is there a difference between tautologically and logically incoherent?
Jusstice explained it pretty well. That said, I thought your argument was that Creatio ex Nihilo - literally "creation from nothing" as a cause would be tautologically incoherent. Creatio ex Nihilo would be Nothingness -> Something, which isn't necessarily problematic, where as this would be Creatio ex Nihilo -> Something, the latter of which wouldn't make sense. Come to think of it, why are you arguing this? I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, though this means that the argument in the original post is flawed...
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
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.
To reword (Argument I):
P1. Take Causality. Casual Agent + Affected -> Effect
P2. Nothing->Something (Creatio ex Nihilo) violates P1.
C1. Creatio ex Nihilo -> Something is logically incoherent.
P3. If God created the universe, it was Creatio ex Nihilo.
C2. It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
C2 does not follow from C1.
Creatio ex nihilo by definition means producing something, 'Creatio ex nihilo -> a result' is tautological. C1 here IS my C1, it follows.
I'll reword it as well so it's clear.
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
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
So this seems to be argument II, essentially. My problems (so far) here are:
1. What if causality is not universal?
2. Could not God be both the causal agent and the affected? Essentially, the universe is created by God using itself to make it.
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
So this seems to be argument II, essentially. My problems (so far) here are:
1. What if causality is not universal?
What does that mean?
2. Could not God be both the causal agent and the affected? Essentially, the universe is created by God using itself to make it.
For starters, if god is making the universe from himself, then he is not making it ex nihilo.
But also, how would that work? Remember, there is no space or time yet, so there's not even a relative frame to speak of. Would an internal interaction not be between different aspects of gods existence or at least require time to change? How can it be coherently said that an entity performs an action without any external reference whatsoever?
My first post in this thread would be an example. Causality is temporal, and so without time we have no causality. Creatio ex Nihilo would therefore not be beholden to causality (as time wouldn't exist).
Not what I argued.
The point I was making was that you can't affect the effect, it is the result of the effecting.
That's what "cause" means, dude. The thing or mechanism or process that brings about the effect. To attack this is to attack the definition of causality.
This means then that we have eliminated one of the ways causing something to exist ex nihilo could be argued to occur- by influencing the thing into existence.
Again, same deal as saying we can't beget children. The children didn't exist yet!
It's equally absurd, because both are presuming that the caused state had to exist initially in order for it to be caused. Again, you do not understand the very definition behind causality.
I don't think you really do know my argument because you keep misrepresenting it
I'm not misrepresenting it. I'm presenting it clearly. The fact that you don't like what you see is the whole point.
It is self evidently true. Nothing is not capable of doing anything, because what is capable of doing things has defined positive properties and is therefore not nothing.
Quantum physics has demonstrated that vacuum is capable of producing particles. So no, you are begging the question. Demonstrate that out of nothing, nothing can come. Science will not back you up.
But moreover, from a Christian standpoint, your statement is a non-sequitur. Whether or not nothing is capable of anything (it is) is besides the point. God is capable of many things, and we are talking about what God is capable of.
So not only does your argument contradict science, the study of observable phenomena, it fails to even address the Christian position you supposedly seek to debunk. Your argument is a mess.
I never claimed as much, and none of my premises are based on that, so I don't need to. This argument does say anything about what caused the universe or whether it was caused at all. I'm afraid that deflection won't work.
You don't get it.
If science contradicts you, which it does, how can you possibly say your argument holds any validity?
So if science says something came of nothing, and you're saying this is impossible, then you are arguing that the very universe that you are a part of is impossible. How does the overwhelming lack of logic from this statement not hit you? How do you not look around you and say, "Oh, maybe my argument might have some problem, given that my very existence contradicts my own argument?"
Firstly, I'm only talking about causing something to exist ex nihilo, not acausal creatio ex nihilo.
What the hell does that even mean?
Regardless, it is your onus to prove that there was something coming from nothing causally
Again, quantum physics states that something comes from nothing.
And while I am at it, I am not actually saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is impossible, I am saying it is logically incoherent.
It isn't logically incoherent, it just contradicts your logic. And that's the point. When you're arguing that it cannot logically happen after it already happened, the problem is your logic. That's how you know your argument is wrong.
Quantum physics has demonstrated that vacuum is capable of producing particles. So no, you are begging the question. Demonstrate that out of nothing, nothing can come. Science will not back you up.
No, quantum physics has demonstrated that particles might spontaneously arise from a false vacuum, a space-time membrane with a nonzero energy state. There is still a dimensional space within which those particles appear, and there is still a progression of time over which those particles appear and vanish. This is not the "nothing" that other people in this thread are referring to. They mean a complete lack of space and time altogether, which as far as we can tell, doesn't count as a state of existence at all, since there is no context in which anything can exist. Please research the terms you are using to make your argument with before you just throw them out there and say "Huzah! Science! I win!"
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
No, quantum physics has demonstrated that particles might spontaneously arise from a false vacuum, a space-time membrane with a nonzero energy state. There is still a dimensional space within which those particles appear, and there is still a progression of time over which those particles appear and vanish. This is not the "nothing" that other people in this thread are referring to. They mean a complete lack of space and time altogether, which as far as we can tell, doesn't count as a state of existence at all, since there is no context in which anything can exist. Please research the terms you are using to make your argument with before you just throw them out there and say "Huzah! Science! I win!"
Alright, I'll concede this point.
It does not change the fact that the first part of my argument remains correct. The OP's argument is predicated on the absurd notion that the universe could not be caused because the only way the universe could be caused is if the universe existed prior to it being caused. This is illogical.
Not what I argued.
The point I was making was that you can't affect the effect, it is the result of the effecting.
That's what "cause" means, dude. The thing or mechanism or process that brings about the effect. To attack this is to attack the definition of causality.
The process brings about the effect, it does not affect the effect itself, the effect is the result of the affect affecting something else, that something usually being some affected thing which becomes the effect. If the effect was the thing which is affected directly, then there would be no change, it's just effect -> the effect again.
For example, a baby is the (eventual) effect which results from the affect of gametic fusion onto the gametes. Note that it is the gametes, not the baby, which is influenced. The baby does not exist until after the causal influencing has taken place. It is not the subject of influence, it is the result.
This means then that we have eliminated one of the ways causing something to exist ex nihilo could be argued to occur- by influencing the thing into existence.
Again, same deal as saying we can't beget children. The children didn't exist yet!
It's equally absurd, because both are presuming that the caused state had to exist initially in order for it to be caused. Again, you do not understand the very definition behind causality.
The children didn't exist yet, BUT SOMETHING ELSE DID AND THAT SOMETHING ELSE WAS THE THING BEING INFLUENCED TO PRODUCE THE CHILDREN. Is this clear enough for you? 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.
I don't think you really do know my argument because you keep misrepresenting it
I'm not misrepresenting it. I'm presenting it clearly. The fact that you don't like what you see is the whole point.
Of course you don't think you are misrepresenting, otherwise you wouldn't be, unless you are doing it intentionally. I don't care whether you think you are misrepresenting it. As far as I am concerned you are, and I am not going to be convinced otherwise simply because you disagree.
It is self evidently true. Nothing is not capable of doing anything, because what is capable of doing things has defined positive properties and is therefore not nothing.
Quantum physics has demonstrated that vacuum is capable of producing particles. So no, you are begging the question. Demonstrate that out of nothing, nothing can come. Science will not back you up.
But moreover, from a Christian standpoint, your statement is a non-sequitur. Whether or not nothing is capable of anything (it is) is besides the point. God is capable of many things, and we are talking about what God is capable of.
So not only does your argument contradict science, the study of observable phenomena, it fails to even address the Christian position you supposedly seek to debunk. Your argument is a mess.
By my definition, at the very least, if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing. Period. Because, again, nothing cannot have positive properties. Nothing has every negative property, that is what makes it nothing- it has no form of existence and cannot interact with other things in existence because it does not exist. Actions are things of existence, nothing is the exact opposite- it is nonexistence itself. How can a nonexistent thing influence existence? If something influences existence, it exists.
Your quantum physics argument is flawed, but you appear to have given up on that, or at least I am hoping you have.
In answer to your Christianity argument, it is not simply about what god is capable of, because god in order to create something has to interact with something, anything, or else there is no reference for action. 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?
I never claimed as much, and none of my premises are based on that, so I don't need to. This argument does say anything about what caused the universe or whether it was caused at all. I'm afraid that deflection won't work.
You don't get it.
If science contradicts you, which it does, how can you possibly say your argument holds any validity?
So if science says something came of nothing, and you're saying this is impossible, then you are arguing that the very universe that you are a part of is impossible. How does the overwhelming lack of logic from this statement not hit you? How do you not look around you and say, "Oh, maybe my argument might have some problem, given that my very existence contradicts my own argument?"
Oh look, you misrepresented my argument again. To repeat, I am not talking about impossibility. This is about logical incoherency. Similar, but different.
If you want to make the point we have observed things I am saying are logically incoherent, then you have to make that point. Telling me it's true is not an argument.
Firstly, I'm only talking about causing something to exist ex nihilo, not acausal creatio ex nihilo.
What the hell does that even mean?
Creatio ex nihilo: creation out of nothing
That doesn't have to mean causing something to exist out of nothing. It could be that, without cause, something is created out of nothing. It depends on how you define create.
Regardless, it is your onus to prove that there was something coming from nothing causally
Again, quantum physics states that something comes from nothing.
Did you comprehend the sentence you just responded to? I am astounded.
Prove your statement or I will not care.
By my definition, at the very least, if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing. Period. Because, again, nothing cannot have positive properties. Nothing has every negative property, that is what makes it nothing- it has no form of existence and cannot interact with other things in existence because it does not exist. Actions are things of existence, nothing is the exact opposite- it is nonexistence itself. How can a nonexistent thing influence existence? If something influences existence, it exists.
And yet hypotheses in modern cosmology include not just matter being produced from true nothingness, but the laws which cause that process to occur being produced from true nothingness, as well.
By my definition, at the very least, if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing. Period. Because, again, nothing cannot have positive properties. Nothing has every negative property, that is what makes it nothing- it has no form of existence and cannot interact with other things in existence because it does not exist. Actions are things of existence, nothing is the exact opposite- it is nonexistence itself. How can a nonexistent thing influence existence? If something influences existence, it exists.
And yet hypotheses in modern cosmology include not just matter being produced from true nothingness, but the laws which cause that process to occur being produced from true nothingness, as well.
First of all, keyword hypotheses.
Second of all, citation required.
Third of all, this argument only relates to causal creatio ex nihilo, if what you are talking about isn't causal or has not been specificed to be causal, it is not a counterpoint.
Citation already mentioned in a previous post of mine in this thread.
As far as my point goes, "nothingness is capable of producing something" contradicts your "if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing".
Nihilo means nothingness. That is all it means. Creatio ex nihilo means something coming into existence from nothing. These are uncontroversial definitions.
By my definition, at the very least, if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing. Period. Because, again, nothing cannot have positive properties. Nothing has every negative property, that is what makes it nothing- it has no form of existence and cannot interact with other things in existence because it does not exist. Actions are things of existence, nothing is the exact opposite- it is nonexistence itself. How can a nonexistent thing influence existence? If something influences existence, it exists.
Now, there is torturing words, and there is strapping words to a wooden table like Mel Gibson until they yell - “Freedom!”
From what you’re saying, your entire argument is based on the dictionary definition of the word “nihilo”. The only reason you’re arguing that the Universe can’t be created from “nothing” is because of how you define “nothing”. That’s all. Even if we all bend our cognitive understanding to the limitations of the words in the English language, how can you believe that this is a persuasive indication of anything actually related to the origin of the Universe? I am sure that whatever happened there, the forces at play have more bearing on cosmic truth than the board of lexicologists at Mirriam-Webster’s.
Also FYI, even the Wikipedia available version of the arguments you claim Theists are making don’t rely whatsoever on the character of this state of “nihilo”. Wikipedia – “Stating that the mathematical conventions stipulated to ensure the logical consistency of transfinite arithmetic have no ontological force, Craig believes that finitism is most plausibly true.”
So, strawman? Tautology? Begging the question? Whatever this line of argument comes down to, it’s just not persuasive.
The process brings about the effect, it does not affect the effect itself, the effect is the result of the affect affecting something else, that something usually being some affected thing which becomes the effect. If the effect was the thing which is affected directly, then there would be no change, it's just effect -> the effect again.
For example, a baby is the (eventual) effect which results from the affect of gametic fusion onto the gametes. Note that it is the gametes, not the baby, which is influenced. The baby does not exist until after the causal influencing has taken place. It is not the subject of influence, it is the result.
Once again, the problem is you do not understand the definition of the word "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.
So in this case, the initial state is no universe existing and God deciding to create the universe. The second state is a universe existing. Is this second state related to the first? Indeed, the second state came from the first, and the cause is noted to be God creating the universe.
Does this fulfill the definition of causality? Yes, it does. We have an agency that connects one state with a second state which came from the first as a result of the causal agent or process.
What you are trying to argue is that the universe had to exist prior to the universe being caused to exist, because without the universe already existing, there would be no way the universe could be caused. Which is absurd, and also does not demonstrate an understanding of causality.
Now, I think the reason you are doing this is because, in like every other question of causality, the universe is present. So you're assuming that the universe is somehow required for causality to happen. But that's akin to someone saying the Earth is a required element to take place. Yes, I'm sure the majority of events that human beings investigate the cause of happen in the vicinity of Earth, but it is not a required element for causality, and indeed, how the Earth was caused to be is a subject that cosmology inquires into.
Likewise, in almost all questions except the creation of space-time itself, space-time exists, so you have inferred that space-time is required. But it's not required for causality in the definition of causality, and indeed, the study of what caused space-time is a question that cosmology inquires into.
So yes, it is the same thing as saying that a baby could not exist because the baby didn't exist prior to the baby being caused to exist. The idea that space-time could not be caused because there was no space-time and space-time needed to already exist before space-time could exist makes no sense.
Citation already mentioned in a previous post of mine in this thread.
As far as my point goes, "nothingness is capable of producing something" contradicts your "if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing".
Something coming into existence where there was nothing does not necessarily mean the nothing produced that something.
The process brings about the effect, it does not affect the effect itself, the effect is the result of the affect affecting something else, that something usually being some affected thing which becomes the effect. If the effect was the thing which is affected directly, then there would be no change, it's just effect -> the effect again.
For example, a baby is the (eventual) effect which results from the affect of gametic fusion onto the gametes. Note that it is the gametes, not the baby, which is influenced. The baby does not exist until after the causal influencing has taken place. It is not the subject of influence, it is the result.
Once again, the problem is you do not understand the definition of the word "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.
So in this case, the initial state is no universe existing and God deciding to create the universe. The second state is a universe existing. Is this second state related to the first? Indeed, the second state came from the first, and the cause is noted to be God creating the universe.
Does this fulfill the definition of causality? Yes, it does. We have an agency that connects one state with a second state which came from the first as a result of the causal agent or process.
That point is ignorant of my argument and does not address the question. I am not saying by direct application of the definition of causality, that causing something to exist to exist ex nihilo is logically incoherent, I am arguing we have no coherent way of analysing that event. The question is about how influence is applied as I have said several times in one way or another already.
What you are trying to argue is that the universe had to exist prior to the universe being caused to exist, because without the universe already existing, there would be no way the universe could be caused. Which is absurd, and also does not demonstrate an understanding of causality.
Almost there with actually talking about my argument, but you miss out that the presence of the universe is not what I am arguing is necessary. What I am arguing is necessary is a logical way of applying causal influence. It's about what the causal agent is doing.
So yes, it is the same thing as saying that a baby could not exist because the baby didn't exist prior to the baby being caused to exist. The idea that space-time could not be caused because there was no space-time and space-time needed to already exist before space-time could exist makes no sense
Would be a fair point if spacetime needs to exist is what I am arguing.
Nihilo means nothingness. That is all it means. Creatio ex nihilo means something coming into existence from nothing. These are uncontroversial definitions.
By my definition, at the very least, if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing. Period. Because, again, nothing cannot have positive properties. Nothing has every negative property, that is what makes it nothing- it has no form of existence and cannot interact with other things in existence because it does not exist. Actions are things of existence, nothing is the exact opposite- it is nonexistence itself. How can a nonexistent thing influence existence? If something influences existence, it exists.
Now, there is torturing words, and there is strapping words to a wooden table like Mel Gibson until they yell - “Freedom!”
From what you’re saying, your entire argument is based on the dictionary definition of the word “nihilo”. The only reason you’re arguing that the Universe can’t be created from “nothing” is because of how you define “nothing”. That’s all.
Any argument is dependant on the definitions of the bloody words you are using. This is not a distinguishing feature of this argument, it is a feature of all arguments.
This is a strict philosophical argument, so it is not inappropriate that I am using a strict philosophical definition of nothing. To go back to a point I made earlier, if virtual nothingness is considered true nothingness, that is working against the whole point of distinguishing creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia in the first place. There is a very important distinction to be made here with true nothing.
That point is ignorant of my argument and does not address the question. I am not saying by direct application of the definition of causality, that causing something to exist to exist ex nihilo is logically incoherent
That point is ignorant of my argument and does not address the question. I am not saying by direct application of the definition of causality, that causing something to exist to exist ex nihilo is logically incoherent
I am not actually saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is impossible, I am saying it is logically incoherent.
So, about that...
I am saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent, the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality. In other words, I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction, I am saying it doesn't make sense.
I am saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent, the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality. In other words, I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction, I am saying it doesn't make sense.
Uhh, no.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
So let's break down what's wrong with what you just said.
1. "the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality." Wrong, you appeal to the definition of causality in P1. It's central to your argument, and the fact that your argument breaks down due to your incorrect definition of causality is something I've been pointing out to you.
2. "I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction" This is exactly what you are saying. That is the very basis of C1.
One is more specific to its text?
I think talking about it as a cause wasn't obvious to multiple people.
Also, I think if we throw logical coherence or impossibility out the window, we may be screwed either way.
A tautology is the logical construction where you are simply saying the same thing twice - A, therefore A. It’s considered a fault in argumentative style, because you are not arriving at any new conclusions. That’s the difference.
As here with Creatio ex nihilo, it depends on how you define “creatio” and “nihilo”. If you define “nihilo” as literally an empty set, then “creatio” is not within the set of “nihilo”. It’s an empty set. So, it will be true that no single thing is in it, no matter what that is, cause, effect, affected object, what have you. But that is only because you’ve defined “nihilo” as the empty set.
The argument is nothing, therefore nothing. That’s a tautology.
So, “nihilo” excludes things that are “causal”, but could include things that are “acausal”?
Again, it’s asserting the bare premise of your definition of “nihilo”, and it ends up being a tautology. If you define it as containing “acausal” things, or naturalistic things, then that is your definition. A Theist might say it includes some things that are “causal”, specifically God. But neither side is offering any support of that premise, only making the bare assertion.
Causality becomes a statement about reality when you assert that all things have causes.
Your definition, bolded for emphasis: “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.”
The premise that all effects have causes is an assertion, and would need support.
Well by the definition of “nihilo” you seem to be arguing, no Theist actually believes it. No person believes that there are any elements in an empty set, by definition.
What these Theists seem to me to be actually saying is that this “nihilo” can be defined, albeit very circularly, as that which existed before all causes that are not “God”. So now with causal agents in existence that are not “God”, there is no more “nihilo”, and that event in time is/was creation.
The problem with this line of discussion and others like it (the 747 gambit by Dawkins, etc) is that people think they are arguing Theism against “not-Theism”, or Theism against Science, or what have you. What’s actually being argued is the ontological premise of Theism versus Naturalism. Not-Theism is not its own argumentative position. It's just failure to hold the position of Theism. It doesn't lend itself for any platform of argument, whatsoever. You're just saying that you're not taking someone else's position.
And so by asserting the premise of Naturalism in support of the conclusion of Naturalism, what you have is either the fallacy of begging the question, or a tautology as above. But Naturalism is actually an affirmative claim. You’re saying that everything has a cause, those things that are not Natural are “acausal”, or whatever you want to use. It’s one big exercise in question begging.
Nihilo is by definition an empty set, it is nothingness. That's what it means.
Nihilo means nothingness. That is all it means. Creatio ex nihilo means something coming into existence from nothing. These are uncontroversial definitions.
My clarification was not on the meaning of creatio ex nihilo but that I'm only taking about it as a causal event.
You have misread my statements. The whole quoted section is talking only about what the nature of causality is. The implication is 'in order for an effect to be produced (in a causal event), there must...'.
This argument makes no statements about reality. It is based on abstract reasoning and definitions.
The only definition of 'nihilo' I am using is 'nothingness'. William Lane Craig, to continue my key example, has extensively argued that God created the universe ex nihilo, and argues that Christians are committed to the idea of god creating the universe in this way. See anything he has written about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And he's not alone in this view.
Nihilo means nothingness. There is no reason to redefine it.
The pure negative position is absolutely a viable position in debate, and is argued by taking the exterior position that the opponent cannot make their case.
To repeat, "This argument makes no statements about reality. It is based on general reasoning and definitions".
Construct any statement about reality you think this argument makes and I will tell you that it's not a premise. I have only three premises and they are that causality requires an affected element in order to have a causal influence, that creatio ex nihilo cannot have an affected element, and that if god created the universe it was creatio ex nihilo. The third premise is rhetorical.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Creatio ex nihilo is a philosophical term, so in general I think it refers to a pure nothing. The distinction between it and creatio ex materia doesn't as much sense otherwise. Regardless, a pure nothing is what I am talking about here.
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
Jusstice explained it pretty well. That said, I thought your argument was that Creatio ex Nihilo - literally "creation from nothing" as a cause would be tautologically incoherent. Creatio ex Nihilo would be Nothingness -> Something, which isn't necessarily problematic, where as this would be Creatio ex Nihilo -> Something, the latter of which wouldn't make sense. Come to think of it, why are you arguing this? I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, though this means that the argument in the original post is flawed...
To reword (Argument I):
C2 does not follow from C1.
If you instead want C1 to be (Argument II):
That's okay, but you have to prove that.
What you CAN say without further proof is (Argument III):
Are you trying for Argument I, which clearly doesn't work, Argument II, which you have yet to prove, or Argument III, which, as far as I can tell, has no problems? Or are you trying for something else?
I don't know... I'm not a Theist. But as far as I can tell, few scientists believe that Creatio ex Nihilo actually applies to the Big Bang, on a philosophical level like DJK is claiming to argue, or a practical level either.
Creatio ex nihilo by definition means producing something, 'Creatio ex nihilo -> a result' is tautological. C1 here IS my C1, it follows.
I'll reword it as well so it's clear.
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
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
So this seems to be argument II, essentially. My problems (so far) here are:
1. What if causality is not universal?
2. Could not God be both the causal agent and the affected? Essentially, the universe is created by God using itself to make it.
What does that mean?
For starters, if god is making the universe from himself, then he is not making it ex nihilo.
But also, how would that work? Remember, there is no space or time yet, so there's not even a relative frame to speak of. Would an internal interaction not be between different aspects of gods existence or at least require time to change? How can it be coherently said that an entity performs an action without any external reference whatsoever?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Again, same deal as saying we can't beget children. The children didn't exist yet!
It's equally absurd, because both are presuming that the caused state had to exist initially in order for it to be caused. Again, you do not understand the very definition behind causality.
I'm not misrepresenting it. I'm presenting it clearly. The fact that you don't like what you see is the whole point.
Quantum physics has demonstrated that vacuum is capable of producing particles. So no, you are begging the question. Demonstrate that out of nothing, nothing can come. Science will not back you up.
But moreover, from a Christian standpoint, your statement is a non-sequitur. Whether or not nothing is capable of anything (it is) is besides the point. God is capable of many things, and we are talking about what God is capable of.
So not only does your argument contradict science, the study of observable phenomena, it fails to even address the Christian position you supposedly seek to debunk. Your argument is a mess.
You don't get it.
If science contradicts you, which it does, how can you possibly say your argument holds any validity?
So if science says something came of nothing, and you're saying this is impossible, then you are arguing that the very universe that you are a part of is impossible. How does the overwhelming lack of logic from this statement not hit you? How do you not look around you and say, "Oh, maybe my argument might have some problem, given that my very existence contradicts my own argument?"
What the hell does that even mean?
Again, quantum physics states that something comes from nothing.
It isn't logically incoherent, it just contradicts your logic. And that's the point. When you're arguing that it cannot logically happen after it already happened, the problem is your logic. That's how you know your argument is wrong.
No, quantum physics has demonstrated that particles might spontaneously arise from a false vacuum, a space-time membrane with a nonzero energy state. There is still a dimensional space within which those particles appear, and there is still a progression of time over which those particles appear and vanish. This is not the "nothing" that other people in this thread are referring to. They mean a complete lack of space and time altogether, which as far as we can tell, doesn't count as a state of existence at all, since there is no context in which anything can exist. Please research the terms you are using to make your argument with before you just throw them out there and say "Huzah! Science! I win!"
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
It does not change the fact that the first part of my argument remains correct. The OP's argument is predicated on the absurd notion that the universe could not be caused because the only way the universe could be caused is if the universe existed prior to it being caused. This is illogical.
The process brings about the effect, it does not affect the effect itself, the effect is the result of the affect affecting something else, that something usually being some affected thing which becomes the effect. If the effect was the thing which is affected directly, then there would be no change, it's just effect -> the effect again.
For example, a baby is the (eventual) effect which results from the affect of gametic fusion onto the gametes. Note that it is the gametes, not the baby, which is influenced. The baby does not exist until after the causal influencing has taken place. It is not the subject of influence, it is the result.
The children didn't exist yet, BUT SOMETHING ELSE DID AND THAT SOMETHING ELSE WAS THE THING BEING INFLUENCED TO PRODUCE THE CHILDREN. Is this clear enough for you? 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.
Of course you don't think you are misrepresenting, otherwise you wouldn't be, unless you are doing it intentionally. I don't care whether you think you are misrepresenting it. As far as I am concerned you are, and I am not going to be convinced otherwise simply because you disagree.
By my definition, at the very least, if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing. Period. Because, again, nothing cannot have positive properties. Nothing has every negative property, that is what makes it nothing- it has no form of existence and cannot interact with other things in existence because it does not exist. Actions are things of existence, nothing is the exact opposite- it is nonexistence itself. How can a nonexistent thing influence existence? If something influences existence, it exists.
Your quantum physics argument is flawed, but you appear to have given up on that, or at least I am hoping you have.
In answer to your Christianity argument, it is not simply about what god is capable of, because god in order to create something has to interact with something, anything, or else there is no reference for action. 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?
Oh look, you misrepresented my argument again. To repeat, I am not talking about impossibility. This is about logical incoherency. Similar, but different.
If you want to make the point we have observed things I am saying are logically incoherent, then you have to make that point. Telling me it's true is not an argument.
Creatio ex nihilo: creation out of nothing
That doesn't have to mean causing something to exist out of nothing. It could be that, without cause, something is created out of nothing. It depends on how you define create.
Did you comprehend the sentence you just responded to? I am astounded.
Prove your statement or I will not care.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
First of all, keyword hypotheses.
Second of all, citation required.
Third of all, this argument only relates to causal creatio ex nihilo, if what you are talking about isn't causal or has not been specificed to be causal, it is not a counterpoint.
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
As far as my point goes, "nothingness is capable of producing something" contradicts your "if something is capable of doing things, it is not nothing".
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Now, there is torturing words, and there is strapping words to a wooden table like Mel Gibson until they yell - “Freedom!”
From what you’re saying, your entire argument is based on the dictionary definition of the word “nihilo”. The only reason you’re arguing that the Universe can’t be created from “nothing” is because of how you define “nothing”. That’s all. Even if we all bend our cognitive understanding to the limitations of the words in the English language, how can you believe that this is a persuasive indication of anything actually related to the origin of the Universe? I am sure that whatever happened there, the forces at play have more bearing on cosmic truth than the board of lexicologists at Mirriam-Webster’s.
Also FYI, even the Wikipedia available version of the arguments you claim Theists are making don’t rely whatsoever on the character of this state of “nihilo”. Wikipedia – “Stating that the mathematical conventions stipulated to ensure the logical consistency of transfinite arithmetic have no ontological force, Craig believes that finitism is most plausibly true.”
So, strawman? Tautology? Begging the question? Whatever this line of argument comes down to, it’s just not persuasive.
Once again, the problem is you do not understand the definition of the word "causality."
So in this case, the initial state is no universe existing and God deciding to create the universe. The second state is a universe existing. Is this second state related to the first? Indeed, the second state came from the first, and the cause is noted to be God creating the universe.
Does this fulfill the definition of causality? Yes, it does. We have an agency that connects one state with a second state which came from the first as a result of the causal agent or process.
What you are trying to argue is that the universe had to exist prior to the universe being caused to exist, because without the universe already existing, there would be no way the universe could be caused. Which is absurd, and also does not demonstrate an understanding of causality.
Now, I think the reason you are doing this is because, in like every other question of causality, the universe is present. So you're assuming that the universe is somehow required for causality to happen. But that's akin to someone saying the Earth is a required element to take place. Yes, I'm sure the majority of events that human beings investigate the cause of happen in the vicinity of Earth, but it is not a required element for causality, and indeed, how the Earth was caused to be is a subject that cosmology inquires into.
Likewise, in almost all questions except the creation of space-time itself, space-time exists, so you have inferred that space-time is required. But it's not required for causality in the definition of causality, and indeed, the study of what caused space-time is a question that cosmology inquires into.
So yes, it is the same thing as saying that a baby could not exist because the baby didn't exist prior to the baby being caused to exist. The idea that space-time could not be caused because there was no space-time and space-time needed to already exist before space-time could exist makes no sense.
Something coming into existence where there was nothing does not necessarily mean the nothing produced that something.
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
That point is ignorant of my argument and does not address the question. I am not saying by direct application of the definition of causality, that causing something to exist to exist ex nihilo is logically incoherent, I am arguing we have no coherent way of analysing that event. The question is about how influence is applied as I have said several times in one way or another already.
Almost there with actually talking about my argument, but you miss out that the presence of the universe is not what I am arguing is necessary. What I am arguing is necessary is a logical way of applying causal influence. It's about what the causal agent is doing.
Would be a fair point if spacetime needs to exist is what I am arguing.
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
Any argument is dependant on the definitions of the bloody words you are using. This is not a distinguishing feature of this argument, it is a feature of all arguments.
This is a strict philosophical argument, so it is not inappropriate that I am using a strict philosophical definition of nothing. To go back to a point I made earlier, if virtual nothingness is considered true nothingness, that is working against the whole point of distinguishing creatio ex nihilo from creatio ex materia in the first place. There is a very important distinction to be made here with true nothing.
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
So, about that...
I am saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent, the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality. In other words, I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction, I am saying it doesn't make sense.
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
So let's break down what's wrong with what you just said.
1. "the point was I am not saying this is so because of direct application of the definition of causality." Wrong, you appeal to the definition of causality in P1. It's central to your argument, and the fact that your argument breaks down due to your incorrect definition of causality is something I've been pointing out to you.
2. "I am not saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is a contradiction" This is exactly what you are saying. That is the very basis of C1.