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.
Stop deflecting. This is about what god can do in order to create the universe. My argument is god would need to be involve in some change in order to produce the other change of the universe. Change cannot be coherently be described as caused by a changeless state. Change from a changeless state is uncaused.
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.
Causality describes the connection, it is a category of things based on the role they play. Causality itself is not the connection, because it is not a tangible thing, it can't do anything. The connection is necessarily some materially involved thing or process because otherwise it is a bunch of meaningless crap.
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.
What you just said is basically exactly what I just said immediately after what you just quoted.
"The conclusion requires real world observations unrelated to any specific definition."
Notice how neither shirt nor red describe a red shirt. A connection has been made by observation or logical application beyond simply mashing words together. Assumptions come into this because I'm a philosophical skeptic, so that kind of connection I won't make as an absolute.
So I have to ask whether you actually read that part.
The point we have gotten to here is that things can be true not simply because of direct applications of the definitions of words, but involving general reasoning and observation to draw out implications about the concepts described by the words. And that is the kind of reasoning behind my argument.
I'm not deflecting a damn thing. You're saying an action requires change. Guess what results from God creating the universe?
A universe! One that didn't previously exist before! That's a change!
This is about what god can do in order to create the universe.
Creatio ex nihilo. We've been over this.
My argument is god would need to be involve in some change in order to produce the other change of the universe.
Creatio ex nihilo. That would be the "cause."
Causality describes the connection
No. Causality IS the connection between the cause and the effect. It is not describing the connection, it IS the connection. I'm going to add a bolded emphasis this time, hopefully you'll get it.
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.
What you just said is basically exactly what I just said
The point we have gotten to here is that things can be true not simply because of direct applications of the definitions of words
Except I was arguing it was because of the direct applications of the definitions of words, wasn't it? So the answer is no, what you are saying is precisely the opposite of what I have said.
As I said before, this ends any further discussion of this tangent. It is a waste of time to engage with you on this topic, so I will no longer do so. I would suggest you spend your time focusing on the main discussion.
Stop deflecting. This is about what god can do in order to create the universe.
He's omnipotent. He can do anything.
Absolute omnipotence is a well known paradox, and if god is beyond logic, then this argument has already done it's job.
Causality describes the connection
No. Causality IS the connection between the cause and the effect. It is not describing the connection, it IS the connection. I'm going to add a bolded emphasis this time, hopefully you'll get it.
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.
But I'm not optimistic you will, as I've been posting this definition over and over again for four pages and you're still not bothering to try to comprehend it.
Causality is cannot itself connect things. What actually connects every causal event is something tangible. Causality refers to a set of such tangible things, it is not one of them. It has no capacity to do anything, tangible things do. Such an answer is not specific enough to be truly valid. Answering 'causality' as the connection between a cause and effect is like answering how a wall was painted with 'using paint'. It seems pretty clear the actual answer is you don't know.
I contend the answer is through interaction in a sequence of change- that is the only coherent way things can be tangibly connected. And my argument for this is, to repeat, that for something to create some impetus for change, that impetus also requires change, or else nothing has happened. And this nothing happening cannot be considered a tangible connection because it is by it's nature an intangible event, it is the lack of tangible events. Again, this still leaves us with timelessness and acausal origins as the source for the first change, so it doesn't preclude any logical way of existence occuring, the only thing this argument goes against is the idea that causality can come into existence from nothing.
The point we have gotten to here is that things can be true not simply because of direct applications of the definitions of words
No, that is precisely the opposite of what I have said.
That was I why I was using the analogy. I was hoping that was enough.
Alright, prove the statement that I am human based on direct applications of definitions. You can't, because you have to rely on observations or broader reasoning to connect the terms together into the statement, you need context in terms of how the world works logically or materially. It's not just 'X means Y and Y means Z, therefore X means Z'.
Im pretty sure "god is beyond logic" is the stance every person who believes this takes and is exactly why the entire thread is a waste of time. Thier stance is simple - He is god he doesn't have to play by ANY rules he needs no chemical X to make the powerpuff girls because hes god.
Im pretty sure "god is beyond logic" is the stance every person who believes this takes and is exactly why the entire thread is a waste of time. Thier stance is simple - He is god he doesn't have to play by ANY rules he needs no chemical X to make the powerpuff girls because hes god.
But that's an important point to establish about with regards to what things is god beyond logic. 'God is beyond logic' could just be referring to his decision making, but if it's the answer to this argument, it establishes logic also doesn't apply to god creating the universe. That is quite important given a bunch of theistic arguments make reference to god creating the universe as being somehow necessary or the best explanation- because if logic doesn't apply to god creating the universe, that throws some serious shade on it being the necessary or best explanation. It also means logic does not absolutely apply to the working of the universe, and is therefore sufficient grounds if believed to question the exact validity of logic in practice generally.
Conversely, if one argues that logic applies to god's workings and that he created the universe either from himself or from some state of potential, then this suggests that god's act of creating the universe was in some sense a material thing, and that god himself exists at least partially in some form of material state, and this affects our expectation of material evidence.
That's why I think this specific argument warrants it's own thread.
I'm not deflecting a damn thing. You're saying an action requires change. Guess what results
And there you go. 'Results'. We aren't talking about the results, we are talking about the process that brings about those results. I am saying that the process is a change because a process consists of something happening. I contend that 'nothing happens -> thing occurs' cannot be considered causality because causality is about tangible connections, and nothing happening is an intangible event because it is the lack of tangible events. I contend that causality is 'something happens -> something else happens', that influence is applied to some external referential.
This is about what god can do in order to create the universe.
Creatio ex nihilo. We've been over this.
And I have been over why that's not an answer. 'God did an action that created an effect' (which is what your answer means) is not an answer to 'how can god perform an action in order to create an effect?'.
Causality describes the connection
No. Causality IS the connection between the cause and the effect. It is not describing the connection, it IS the connection.
As I said in my previous response:
What actually connects every causal event is something tangible. Causality refers to a set of such tangible things, it is not one of them. It has no capacity to do anything, tangible things do. Such an answer is not specific enough to be truly valid. Answering 'causality' as the connection between a cause and effect is like answering how a wall was painted with 'using paint'. It seems pretty clear the actual answer is you don't know.
Which is to say, in other words, that the question is about what form the supposed causality, that links god and universe coming into existence, takes. Simply explaining the link as causality is not a sufficient account to say that there is a coherent explanation.
What you just said is basically exactly what I just said
The point we have gotten to here is that things can be true not simply because of direct applications of the definitions of words
Except I was arguing it was because of the direct applications of the definitions of words, wasn't it? So the answer is no, what you are saying is precisely the opposite of what I have said.
The way you just used those two quotes is very misleading. What it looks like is that I said the second quote was something you basically said, but that's not what I said. What I said was 'what you just said is basically exactly what I just said immediately after what you just quoted'.
And the 'what you just quoted' in question here is "The conclusion requires real world observations unrelated to any specific definition". What you responded to this with was to use an example of a claim ('the shirt is red') which can only be justified with reference to real world observations (observations of said shirt), which is exactly what I just described.
And there you go. 'Results'. We aren't talking about the results, we are talking about the process that brings about those results.
God creating the universe.
I am saying that the process is a change because a process consists of something happening.
God creating the universe.
I contend that 'nothing happens -> thing occurs' cannot be considered causality because causality is about tangible connections, and nothing happening is an intangible event because it is the lack of tangible events. I contend that causality is 'something happens -> something else happens', that influence is applied to some external referential.
God created the universe, thus there is a universe.
And I have been over why that's not an answer. 'God did an action that created an effect' (which is what your answer means) is not an answer to 'how can god perform an action in order to create an effect?'.
And there you go. 'Results'. We aren't talking about the results, we are talking about the process that brings about those results.
God creating the universe.
Yes, and what is that process of making the universe? It's not causality if god doesn't do anything, and the universe just comes into existence, no? God has to do something to make that coming into existence happen. If the universe is created because god did it, then what did god do?
And I have been over why that's not an answer. 'God did an action that created an effect' (which is what your answer means) is not an answer to 'how can god perform an action in order to create an effect?'.
What's the problem?
Because the whole point is to question whether god could have performed an action that created an effect without interaction. I am asking how and you are telling me what. I know what, I am asking how.
To go to my previous analogy, if someone wants to know how you could possibly paint a wall, 'using paint' is not an answer. The question is about what process could be used to apply the paint, that paint would be used in that process is included in the question. We can answer the question of how we can paint a wall because we have tangible processes that we can refer to that can apply paint to a wall- all they all involve doing tangible things which involves change which involves interaction. My argument is equivalent to asking how you can paint a wall without doing anything to apply the paint.
BTW, I am going to update my initial post to reflect the refinements I've made in the wording.
EDIT: And here it is
Revised formulation (P1 has been split into two premises for clarity)
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
P2. A tangible process can only coherently consist of some tangible change (implication)
P3. Causing something to exist ex nihilo involves no tangible change connecting cause and effect (implication)
C1. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent
P4. If god caused the universe to exist, it was done ex nihilo (rhetorical assumption)
C2. The claim that god caused the universe to exist is incoherent
Yes, and what is that process of making the universe? It's not causality if god doesn't do anything, and the universe just comes into existence, no? God has to do something to make that coming into existence happen. If the universe is created because god did it, then what did god do?
I don't know. I'm not well-versed in the creation of universes from nothing. But the point is that God acted in a manner that did. Exactly how that works is not something any human being can know, but it is not, as you keep arguing, illogical.
Once again, just because we don't know how something happened does not mean no logical explanation can occur.
Because the whole point is to question whether god could have performed an action that created an effect without interaction.
And the answer to that is yes. God created an action without an interaction.
To go to my previous analogy, if someone wants to know how you could possibly paint a wall, 'using paint' is not an answer.
... Actually that's quite a good answer. It sums it up quite nicely. You paint a wall by applying paint to a wall.
My argument is equivalent to asking how you can paint a wall without doing anything to apply the paint.
Well, you can't. But that's obviously not analogous to this situation. As I've repeatedly said, God created the universe. "Created" is the verb in that sentence. So an analogous scenario would be, "God applies paint to the wall."
You seem to be harping on about how. Not a bad question, but largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how God applies paint to the wall, whether he paints the wall by a paint roller or by paint brush or by throwing a paint can at the wall or even making it rain paint from the sky. The point is he applies paint to the wall. Logically possible, logically coherent, we can speculate as to how but the bottom line is it is perfectly reasonable to say God can apply paint to a wall.
Likewise, it's certainly not a bad question to speculate as to exactly how on Earth creatio ex nihilo works mechanically. I mean, that would be fascinating to know. But how is not really all that relevant to this question, so much as whether or not it's logically possible. As long as it's logically possible, we can conclude that God is capable of doing so, given God being God.
Now, you seem to want to declare this not logically possible. Which is fine if you actually do the leg work. But you just declare that's it's illogical without doing that leg work. Demonstrate that it isn't logically possible. Your attempts at doing so have amounted to attaching clauses to the meanings of words like "causality," "effect," "influence," that don't actually exist.
So what is the basis then?
Revised formulation (P1 has been split into two premises for clarity)
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
Challenge. Demonstrate your reasoning for this to be the case.
First of all, to be clear, do you actually know what tangible means? It means something that can easily be detectable by the senses. There's a lot of things that go on in our universe that are not tangible to the senses. Gravitational fields are intangible. Quarks are intangible. Doesn't mean they're not real. So I'm thinking you probably don't mean tangible.
Second, there is the same implication I've criticized you on, that existence must already exist in order for existence to come into existence. Which is inherently contradictory.
Basically, we're dealing with the same problem as post 1: the presumption that God needs to be interacting with something else in order to prove an effect. As already demonstrated, there is no such requirement, yet you keep harping that there is, and you are still yet to provide any basis for this.
Yes, and what is that process of making the universe? It's not causality if god doesn't do anything, and the universe just comes into existence, no? God has to do something to make that coming into existence happen. If the universe is created because god did it, then what did god do?
I don't know. I'm not well-versed in the creation of universes from nothing. But the point is that God acted in a manner that did.
But did god do something tangible? Because if he did, then something tangible happened, and therefore there should have been a tangible change of some kind.
To be clear, by tangible I mean 'clear and definite; real'.
To go to my previous analogy, if someone wants to know how you could possibly paint a wall, 'using paint' is not an answer.
... Actually that's quite a good answer. It sums it up quite nicely. You paint a wall by applying paint to a wall.
No, it's really not. It's just a restatement of the scenario which is specifically under question. It's not exactly incorrect, it's just not an answer to the actual question of how. Painting a wall is by definition applying paint to a wall, it is an irrelevant tautology. In the same way, yes, if god caused something to exist, he caused it to exist, but that's not saying anything and it's especially not answering the question.
My argument is equivalent to asking how you can paint a wall without doing anything to apply the paint.
Well, you can't. But that's obviously not analogous to this situation. As I've repeatedly said, God created the universe. So an analogous scenario would be, "God applies paint to the wall."
But what is specifically being stated here is that god was not involved in any interaction. Therefore, there was no tangible change connecting the cause (god) to the result (universe is created). Nothing happened, then the universe came into existence because of what happened. That's not logically coherent.
You seem to be harping on about how. Not a bad question, but largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how God applies paint to the wall, whether he paints the wall by a paint roller or by paint brush or by throwing a paint can at the wall or even making it rain paint from the sky. The point is he applies paint to the wall.
The point of the analogy is there is no coherent connection between cause and effect without the cause doing something tangible to create the effect, and doing something tangible involves tangible change and tangible change means some kind of interaction.
Revised formulation (P1 has been split into two premises for clarity)
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
Challenge
What is required to establish a meaningful connection between cause and effect if not a tangible process? If there is no tangible process, nothing tangible has happened, so how can a cause be said to be tangibly responsible for an effect?
This is the same thing you've said before, the implication that existence must exist in order for existence to be created. That is inherently logically contradictory.
The argument only speaks for causal creation from nothing and also does not speak for timeless existence. There is no contradiction to say that existent processes can only occur within existence. It does not suggest that existence could not exist, because that would only be true if things both need to come into existence and things can't come into existence without cause- and accepting those two premises would eliminate causing something to exist ex nihilo as an explanation regardless because no matter whether you can create things without interaction, nonexistent causes can't do anything.
But did god do something tangible? Because if he did, then something tangible happened, and therefore there should have been a tangible change of some kind.
To be clear, by tangible I mean 'clear and definite; real'.
Well, first off, not what the word tangible means. More on that later.
Second, if God does anything it's real. Anything that happens at any time ever is real. What meaningful distinction does that have?
But what is specifically being stated here is that god was not involved in any interaction.
Well, yes. Creatio ex nihilo means there's nothing yet in existence to interact with.
However, as I stated in my reply to your first post in which you argued this and ever since then, the fact that no interaction occurs is irrelevant. It has no relevance, because you are arguing an interaction is required for God to perform an action, but you have no basis to claim that it is.
Therefore, there was no tangible change connecting the cause (god) to the result (universe is created). Nothing happened, then the universe came into existence because of what happened. That's not logically coherent.
No, because God created the universe. The cause is "God created the universe." God created the universe -> universe. Causal link.
The point of the analogy is there is no coherent connection between cause and effect without the cause doing something tangible to create the effect
Ok, it seems you responded while I was editing.
As I've pointed out, tangible is entirely the wrong word. None of this is what tangible actually means. Tangible means "easily perceived by the senses." There are plenty of real things that are intangible. Gravitational fields are intangible. Quantum particles are intangible. You define intangible as "unreal" and tangible as "real," when in fact this is a drastic departure from what those words actually mean. So we cannot proceed further unless you reword your argument, because right now it collapses based on that inappropriate word choice.
But did god do something tangible? Because if he did, then something tangible happened, and therefore there should have been a tangible change of some kind.
To be clear, by tangible I mean 'clear and definite; real'.
Well, first off, not what the word tangible means.
Tangible
ˈtan(d)ʒɪb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
adjective: tangible
1.
perceptible by touch.
"the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was almost tangible"
synonyms: touchable, palpable, tactile, material, physical, real, substantial, corporeal, solid, concrete; More
antonyms: intangible clear and definite; real.
"the emphasis is now on tangible results"
synonyms: real, actual, solid, concrete, substantial, hard, well defined, definite, well documented, clear, clear-cut, distinct, manifest, evident, obvious, striking, indisputable, undoubted, unmistakable, positive, perceptible, verifiable, appreciable, measurable, discernible, intelligible
"organizations want to see tangible benefits from their investment in technology"
antonyms: abstract, theoretical
Second, if God does anything it's real. Anything that happens at any time ever is real. What meaningful distinction does that have?
Tangible means more than just real, it means distinctly real, definitively real. The point is to establish that something actually has to happen and therefore something actually has to change. To be clear that a causal process has to be existent and in some way describable.
Therefore, there was no tangible change connecting the cause (god) to the result (universe is created). Nothing happened, then the universe came into existence because of what happened. That's not logically coherent.
No, because God created the universe. The cause is "God created the universe." God created the universe -> universe. Causal link.
"How could I paint the wall? I painted the wall by painting the wall"
"How could god cause the universe to exist? By causing it to exist"
What meaningful connection is there between god and the universe coming into existence? Is a tangible process not required?
Tangible means more than just real, it means distinctly real, definitively real.
So it's realer than real? What.
Let's just find a new adjective, how about that?
The point is to establish that something actually has to happen and therefore something actually has to change. To be clear that a causal process has to be existent and in some way describable.
God acts to create the universe -> universe. Causal.
What meaningful connection is there between god and the universe coming into existence?
God creates the universe. How many times does this need be said?
God's action is creating the universe. That is the cause. The universe is the effect. The meaningful connection is that the action is the cause that results in the effect, otherwise known as causality.
Is a tangible process not required?
Again, if you're going to define tangible as real, literally anything at all that happens is real. There is no such thing for a process to occur and not be real. Therefore, there is no meaningful distinction provided by the word "tangible." Consider:
Is a process not required?
Is a real process not required?
Any process that occurs is real. Therefore, this meaning of tangible provides nothing.
Second, no. No it is not.
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
No it does not.
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.
How many times do I need to post this definition?
Causality requires merely a cause and an effect. Yes, it requires there to be a connection between them, namely that cause is at least partly responsible for the effect, and that the effect is dependent on the cause, because this connection between them is what causality is.
To cause something so exist, therefore, requires something to come into existence (effect) and some action to have caused it.
Yet again you are butting heads with the term causality. Thankfully you posted "definition" in there so we can have no more evasions claiming this is some sort of "implication."
Tangible means more than just real, it means distinctly real, definitively real.
So it's realer than real? What.
A tangible thing describes a distinct existent entity or process. What this is excludes is something like a perception, viewpoint or ideology that could be considered real, but that has no distinct existence in-and-of-itself.
Let's just find a new adjective, how about that?
Substantial might be one of the best alternatives.
The point is to establish that something actually has to happen and therefore something actually has to change. To be clear that a causal process has to be existent and in some way describable.
God acts to create the universe -> universe. Causal.
God acts to create the universe is the relevant part here. God acting to creating the universe needs to be itself an existent and describable process.
What meaningful connection is there between god and the universe coming into existence?
God creates the universe. How many times does this need be said?
God's action is creating the universe. That is the cause. The universe is the effect. The meaningful connection is that the action is the cause that results in the effect, otherwise known as causality.
"What did you do to paint the wall?" "I painted the wall"
HOW? WHY is god responsible?
Did god not do something, something specific, to create the universe?
Is a tangible process not required?
No it is not.
Ok, is the causal agent (in this case god) not required to perform some process/exercise some kind of agency? That is what the definition you keep citing says, no? The causal agent can't simply do nothing, it has to do something in order to responsible for anything. The causal agent must act to become a cause. Again, 'nothing happens -> effect' is not causality.
Let's look at the definition you provided 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.
Huh, one process that leads to a change in state or another process? Sure seems like 'something happens -> something else happens'. That sounds like a tangible process connecting the causal agent and the effect to me.
Causality requires merely a cause and an effect. Yes, it requires there to be a connection between them, namely that cause is at least partly responsible for the effect, and that the effect is dependent on the cause, because this connection between them is what causality is.
Yes and what tangible form does that connection take? They can't be connected just because 'one caused the other' that is circular, how was the causal agent responsible? I'll tell you how, it's because the causal agent is involved in some tangible process that leads to the effect- that is what causality is, it is about processes. The implication of this is that something has to change involving the causal agent, and this goes on to imply that the causal agent is involved in interaction.
God acts to create the universe is the relevant part here. God acting to creating the universe needs to be itself an existent and describable process.
Existent: Well, it happened. Therefore yeah, existent.
Describable: I just described it.
Done.
HOW? WHY is god responsible?
Because he created the universe. I just said that.
Did god not do something, something specific, to create the universe?
Umm, yeah.
Ok, is the causal agent (in this case god) not required to perform some process/exercise some kind of agency?
Yeah. That'd be the "creating the universe" part we keep talking about.
That is what the definition you keep citing says, no? The causal agent can't simply do nothing, it has to do something in order to responsible for anything. The causal agent must act to become a cause. Again, 'nothing happens -> effect' is not causality.
So, I'm not sure what part you're confused on about this, but to recap, the chain of events is not:
God acts to create the universe is the relevant part here. God acting to creating the universe needs to be itself an existent and describable process.
Existent: Well, it happened. Therefore yeah, existent.
Describable: I just described it.
Done.
'Describe the process of creating the universe' 'God created the universe'
That isn't an answer
Again, you clearly don't know the process, so stop acting like you can answer these questions when you can't.
HOW? WHY is god responsible?
Because he created the universe.
"What did you do to paint the wall?" "I painted the wall"
Do you seriously not get that you aren't answering the question here?
Describing the process only in terms of the agent and the result is specifically what the question is asking you to go beyond.
Did god not do something, something specific, to create the universe?
Umm, yeah.
The stop with the 'Because he created the universe' 'By creating the universe' 'God created the universe' answers then and respond given we are talking about the specific process god used to created the universe.
Ok, is the causal agent (in this case god) not required to perform some process/exercise some kind of agency?
Yeah. That'd be the "creating the universe" part we keep talking about.
Yes, and that would be a process god is involved in that leads to the creation of the universe, no?
Because that's what the definition I gave is talking about. Causal agent is involved in tangible process which leads to- is the cause of- the effect.
That is what the definition you keep citing says, no? The causal agent can't simply do nothing, it has to do something in order to responsible for anything. The causal agent must act to become a cause. Again, 'nothing happens -> effect' is not causality.
So, I'm not sure what part you're confused on about this, but to recap, the chain of events is not:
God does nothing -> Universe
It's:
God creates the universe -> Universe.
Thought I made that clear, guess I didn't.
I know, the point is that 'god creates the universe' is god doing something specific. Something tangible happens involving god which leads to the universe. Problem is, if no interaction occurs, there is no change and nothing tangible happens. And therefore there is no coherent way for the causal agent to be responsible for the effect.
'Describe the process of creating the universe' 'God created the universe'
That isn't an answer
It's more like me saying, "God created the universe," and then you repeatedly asking, "Well, clearly something had to cause the universe! The question is what?" And me just going,
Again, you clearly don't know the process
The process in which God is causally responsible for the effect that is the universe existing? Yes, I do, and it's called, "God's the one who made the universe in the first place." Ergo, cause.
Now, do I know the exact manner in which creatio ex nihilo works? No, of course I don't know how that would work. But that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it would work. What matters is your argument depends on the idea that it is logically incoherent that it would work, which thusfar you've based on nothing at all.
"What did you do to paint the wall?" "I painted the wall"
Do you seriously not get that you aren't answering the question here?
No, an analogous question would be, "How did the paint get on the wall?" "I painted the wall." "HOW ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAINT BEING ON THAT WALL?" "... I painted the wall."
You're inquiring about how the effect in this causal chain came about. What is the cause? As I've pointed out, over and over again, the cause is God created it. So when you ask, "How is God responsible for the universe being caused?", the correct answer is, "Because he is the one who caused it."
I actually am answering the question quite fine. You just keep asking the same question over and over again. The fact that I'm repeating the same answer is precisely because of that.
Describing the process only in terms of the agent and the result is specifically what the question is asking you to go beyond.
No, when you ask how God is responsible for creating the universe, the answer is "God created the universe." Asking what role God plays in the causal chain will net you that answer.
Now if you want to know how exactly God went about doing that, that is a separate question.
Again, we must mind what the words we use actually mean.
Yes, and that would be a process god is involved in that leads to the creation of the universe, no?
Well done.
Because that's what the definition I gave is talking about. Causal agent is involved in tangible process which leads to- is the cause of- the effect.
Right, God creating the universe is that process. You nailed it!
I know, the point is that 'god creates the universe' is god doing something specific.
Correct.
Something tangible happens involving god which leads to the universe.
Challenge. We've already talked about the problem of the word tangent, and here you are using it again.
Problem is, if no interaction occurs,
Challenge. Interaction with what and why is that even necessary in the first place?
there is no change and nothing tangible happens.
Uh, the universe being created begs to differ. That's a huge ******* change.
'Describe the process of creating the universe' 'God created the universe'
That isn't an answer
It's more like me saying, "God created the universe," and then you repeatedly asking, "Well, clearly something had to cause the universe! The question is what?" And me just going,
NO
The question is HOW. What is there not to get? God creating the universe means something happened involving god that lead to the universe. What is that thing that happened involving god? Causing something to exist is not a specific process.
"What did you do to paint the wall?" "I painted the wall"
Do you seriously not get that you aren't answering the question here?
I actually am answering the question quite fine. You just keep asking the same question over and over again. The fact that I'm repeating the same answer is precisely because of that.
No, you aren't answering the question. You answered the question here:
The exact manner in which creatio ex nihilo would work? No, of course I don't know how that would work.
That is an answer to the question. Stop trying to answer the question with anything else.
Describing the process only in terms of the agent and the result is specifically what the question is asking you to go beyond.
No, when you ask how God is responsible for creating the universe, the answer is "God created the universe." Asking what role God plays in the causal chain will net you that answer.
"How can you say that you painted the wall?' "Because I painted the wall"
No, that isn't an answer. I am asking the question of what 'god created the universe' means. I am asking what specifically makes god responsible for the universe's existence. That he created it is a circular answer, because that by definition means he was responsible for it's existence.
Yes, and that would be a process god is involved in that leads to the creation of the universe, no?
Well done.
Ok, so 'Something happens involving god -> universe comes into existence' no?
So how did something happen without change? Remember, something happens, AND the universe comes into existence. There is another part. The cause is itself a process involving the causal agent.
Because that's what the definition I gave is talking about. Causal agent is involved in tangible process which leads to- is the cause of- the effect.
Right, and that is that process. You nailed it!
No.
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.
By your own definition, the cause is a process. God isn't the cause, the process of god creating the universe is the cause. There must a process that occurs which leads to the effect. 'Only god exists -> Universe exists' does not include a process which leads to the universe existing. There must be a 'something happens -> universe occurs'. But if something happened, then what was it that changed? What does 'god created the universe' mean if god creating the universe is not itself a process involving, as processes do, change?
there is no change and nothing tangible happens.
Uh, the universe being created begs to differ. That's a huge ******* change.
'Something happens -> something else happens' not 'nothing happens -> something happens'
The result cannot be the only change. There is a cause and that cause is a process and processes involve change.
While I don't personally agree with Highroller on the existence of god, I do agree with him on the backbone of this back-and-forth. Assuming for the sake of argument that god created the universe from nothing, the process by which he accomplished that task (by the analogy already brought up, the process by which he applies paint to the wall) is presumably the domain-specific action of universe-creation. We can't have a detailed description of what that action entails, because we don't know what all goes into the creation of a universe. The action of universe-creation doesn't do anything except create a universe from nothing. That doesn't mean the action doesn't exist or that it is necessarily incoherent, merely that we do not fully grasp what it is. It is, in essence, a black box. Given the input of {nothing} and hitting its "go" button, it outputs {observable reality}. We don't know the details of the black box's innards, only that the innards exist.
That is an answer to the question. Stop trying to answer the question with anything else.
Except that's totally irrelevant to the thread.
Let's consider the following dialogue:
Person 1: I believe X committed the crime of theft of the crown jewels!
Person 2: Do you know exactly how X committed the crime of the theft of the crown jewels?
Person 1: No, I don't know exactly how he stole them, but -
Person 2: AHA! Then it is logically incoherent to claim that he stole them!
Now the correct response to this is, "No, it's not. Whether or not we know how X stole the crown jewels has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is logically coherent to claim that he did."
"How can you say that you painted the wall?' "Because I painted the wall"
No, that isn't an answer.
Uh, if I painted a wall, I definitely can say I painted the wall. To say otherwise is pure nonsense.
I am asking the question of what 'god created the universe' means.
Quote from Merriam-Webster »
Create
verb cre·ate \krē-ˈāt, ˈkrē-ˌ\
to bring into existence
I am asking what specifically makes god responsible for the universe's existence.
He created it. That's what the word create means.
That he created it is a circular answer, because that by definition means he was responsible for it's existence.
No, it's not a circular answer. It's just a really obvious answer to a really obvious question you keep asking. You're asking what makes God responsible. I'm pointing out how he's the one responsible, because that's what the word responsible means. Why is God responsible? Because he's the one who did it. That's what the word responsible means!
Ok, so 'Something happens involving god -> universe comes into existence' no?
So how did something happen without change?
It didn't. When did I say it did?
Is this another one of your assumptions? Because you've seen where those get you.
By your own definition, the cause is a process. God isn't the cause, the process of god creating the universe is the cause.
Holy crap, you finally got it! This is great!
There must a process that occurs which leads to the effect. 'Only god exists -> Universe exists' does not include a process which leads to the universe existing. There must be a 'something happens -> universe occurs'.
NO! You just, NO! You were there! You had it! You even said it! You said it!
the process of god creating the universe is the cause
There, you said it! You had it! You had it!
But if something happened, then what was it that changed?
I... What... It... How did you... You just said... You said it right there... How did you... How, what, what is... How is that possible? How could you just... You just said it!
What does 'god created the universe' mean if god creating the universe is not itself a process involving, as processes do, change?
What?
How is God creating a universe not a change from God not creating a universe. Is P = not P? Can something be a fluteplayer and not a fluteplayer?
'Something happens -> something else happens' not 'nothing happens -> something happens'
The result cannot be the only change. There is a cause and that cause is a process and processes involve change.
the process of god creating the universe is the cause.
I don't... I don't... I don't freaking know... What. How. What is... How the hell is that even... What is happening?! How do you exhibit knowledge of something, and then forget about it, and then go back to addressing it while still not knowing it despite looking at it, and then ask a question looking right at the answer, then go back to talking about the the thing, then forget about the thing entirely...
While I don't personally agree with Highroller on the existence of god, I do agree with him on the backbone of this back-and-forth. Assuming for the sake of argument that god created the universe from nothing, the process by which he accomplished that task (by the analogy already brought up, the process by which he applies paint to the wall) is presumably the domain-specific action of universe-creation. We can't have a detailed description of what that action entails, because we don't know what all goes into the creation of a universe. The action of universe-creation doesn't do anything except create a universe from nothing. That doesn't mean the action doesn't exist or that it is necessarily incoherent, merely that we do not fully grasp what it is. It is, in essence, a black box. Given the input of {nothing} and hitting its "go" button, it outputs {observable reality}. We don't know the details of the black box's innards, only that the innards exist.
Thank you. Holy crap Lithl, thank you.
Correct, the fact that we do not know how the thing could occur does not mean it is logically incoherent to claim such a thing could occur. The issue is the OP's claim that it is logically incoherent to claim something could occur.
Example:
Person 1: "Christopher Columbus sailed to America"
Person 2: "How did he do that?"
Person 1: "... He said. To America."
Person 2: "That's circular. How exactly did he sail to America?"
Person 1: "Well, I don't know the specific details of exactly how, but-"
Person 2: "Then it is logically incoherent to claim that Christopher Columbus sailed to America!"
The error is obvious. Person 1's inability to explain the specifics of how Christopher Columbus sailed to America does not mean that Columbus sailing to America is logically incoherent. Indeed, it is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the claim of Columbus sailing to America is logically incoherent.
That is an answer to the question. Stop trying to answer the question with anything else.
Except that's totally irrelevant to the thread.
Let's consider the following dialogue:
Person 1: I believe X committed the crime of theft of the crown jewels!
Person 2: Do you know exactly how X committed the crime of the theft of the crown jewels?
Person 1: No, I don't know exactly how he stole them, but -
Person 2: AHA! Then it is logically incoherent to claim that he stole them!
That isn't my claim.
I am not saying it is incoherent to say god created the universe from nothing because you don't know how, I am saying that to coherently describe causality involves certain things that are not present when there is no interaction.
"How can you say that you painted the wall?' "Because I painted the wall"
No, that isn't an answer.
Uh, if I painted a wall, I definitely can say I painted the wall. To say otherwise is pure nonsense.
How can you demonstrate it? Simply answering that you did it is conspiracy theorist level logic. Scientific level logic involves explanation and demonstration of how things work.
I am asking what specifically makes god responsible for the universe's existence.
He created it.
'Created it' means 'responsible for it's existence'. What you are saying is equivalent to 'how did the universe come into existence?' 'It came into existence'. It's not an answer. What makes god responsible? All you are saying is that he is. Why? What connection is their between the causal agent and the effect? It that connection not a process involving change?
That he created it is a circular answer, because that by definition means he was responsible for it's existence.
No, it's not a circular answer.
Yes it is.
Does to create something mean by definition to be responsible for it's existence? It does.
CIRCULAR.
How did he create the universe? That is an equivalent question. What did that process involve?
Ok, so 'Something happens involving god -> universe comes into existence' no?
So how did something happen without change?
It didn't. When did I say it did?
So something changed then?
Ok, how did something change involving god as part of the cause without god being involved in some interaction?
By your own definition, the cause is a process. God isn't the cause, the process of god creating the universe is the cause.
Holy crap, you finally got it! This is great!
PROCESS. PROCESS.
That's what I have been saying all along. Something changes. Something happens. God does something.
T
here must a process that occurs which leads to the effect. 'Only god exists -> Universe exists' does not include a process which leads to the universe existing. There must be a 'something happens -> universe occurs'.
NO! You just, NO! You were there! You had it! You even said it! You said it!
Process= something happens
Cause=process
Effect=change of state or process
Change of state= something happens
Cause->effect
Something happens->something else happens
QED
the process of god creating the universe is the cause
There, you said it! You had it! You had it!
Cause=god creating the universe
Cause=process
Process=something happens
God creating the universe=something happens
What does 'god created the universe' mean if god creating the universe is not itself a process involving, as processes do, change?
What?
How is God creating a universe not a change from God not creating a universe.
Yes, so something changed, no? Something actually changed. But yet, there is no interaction. That does not work.
'Something happens -> something else happens' not 'nothing happens -> something happens'
The result cannot be the only change. There is a cause and that cause is a process and processes involve change.
the process of god creating the universe is the cause.
I don't... I don't... I don't freaking know... What. How. What is... How the hell is that even... What is happening?! How do you exhibit knowledge of something, and then forget about it, and then go back to addressing it while still not knowing it despite looking at it, and then ask a question looking right at the answer, then go back to talking about the the thing, then forget about the thing entirely...
Cause=process
Process=change occurs
Cause->effect
Change occurs->effect
God creates the universe->universe occurs
Change occurs->universe occurs.
God creating the universe must mean that something happens not involving the universe occurring, and if something happens, something changes.
If I paint a wall, the change is not just 'wall without paint->wall with paint'. That is not causality. The change is 'I manipulate paint with paintbrush onto wall->wall is painted'. The cause itself involves change because the cause itself is a PROCESS.
Correct, the fact that we do not know how the thing could occur does not mean it is logically incoherent to claim such a thing could occur.
While I don't personally agree with Highroller on the existence of god, I do agree with him on the backbone of this back-and-forth. Assuming for the sake of argument that god created the universe from nothing
If you assume that it works and makes sense, that is begging the question. The whole claim is that it doesn't make sense. It's not 'this thing that works, how did it happen', it's 'how could this thing happen at all, what does it even mean'.
God creating the universe must mean that something happens not involving the universe occurring,
Right. It's God causing the universe to occur. God creating the universe leads to the universe happening.
and if something happens, something changes.
God creating the universe, versus God not creating the universe. I've explained this.
If I paint a wall, the change is not just 'wall without paint->wall with paint'. That is not causality. The change is 'I manipulate paint with paintbrush onto wall->wall is painted'. The cause itself involves change because the cause itself is a PROCESS.
...
So, what you seem to be saying here is that you think my argument is, "no universe -> universe."
And you are asking what is the process that results from no universe to universe.
Right?
Ooookay.
So, remember how you said this?
the process of god creating the universe is the cause
So, that would be process that connects those two.
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is how on earth you could write that and then immediately forget about it in your next post.
But that isn't my argument.
I don't know what your argument is. I'm almost entirely convinced you don't either.
I'm really at a complete loss here. I've never encountered someone who could write something that seems to understand a particular concept, and then immediately forget about that concept in the following paragraph, and then in the next paragraph, ask how one could possibly explain the concept that he seemed to understand in the first paragraph.
God creating the universe must mean that something happens not involving the universe occurring,
Right. It's God causing the universe to occur. God creating the universe leads to the universe happening.
and if something happens, something changes.
God creating the universe, versus God not creating the universe. I've explained this.
If I paint a wall, the change is not just 'wall without paint->wall with paint'. That is not causality. The change is 'I manipulate paint with paintbrush onto wall->wall is painted'. The cause itself involves change because the cause itself is a PROCESS.
...
So, what you seem to be saying here is that you think my argument is, "no universe -> universe."
And you are asking what is the process that results from no universe to universe.
Right?
Ooookay.
So, remember how you said this?
the process of god creating the universe is the cause
So, that would be process that connects those two.
Yes, and my argument is that must involve something happening, something changing (something other than no universe->universe) and that implies interaction.
Notice how when you paint a wall, you perform a specific process to induce the change 'wall with no paint->painted wall', and that every kind of specific action involves the causal agent being involved in some process, some change, which leads to the effect?
That is what I am arguing is how to coherently describe and analyse causality occurring in real world situations, and that if god simply gets a pass on us being able to make any sense of what his actions even mean, then that his big implications for the arguments about belief his existence.
Stop deflecting. This is about what god can do in order to create the universe. My argument is god would need to be involve in some change in order to produce the other change of the universe. Change cannot be coherently be described as caused by a changeless state. Change from a changeless state is uncaused.
Causality describes the connection, it is a category of things based on the role they play. Causality itself is not the connection, because it is not a tangible thing, it can't do anything. The connection is necessarily some materially involved thing or process because otherwise it is a bunch of meaningless crap.
What you just said is basically exactly what I just said immediately after what you just quoted.
"The conclusion requires real world observations unrelated to any specific definition."
Notice how neither shirt nor red describe a red shirt. A connection has been made by observation or logical application beyond simply mashing words together. Assumptions come into this because I'm a philosophical skeptic, so that kind of connection I won't make as an absolute.
So I have to ask whether you actually read that part.
The point we have gotten to here is that things can be true not simply because of direct applications of the definitions of words, but involving general reasoning and observation to draw out implications about the concepts described by the words. And that is the kind of reasoning behind my argument.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Creatio ex nihilo. We've been over this.
Creatio ex nihilo. That would be the "cause."
No. Causality IS the connection between the cause and the effect. It is not describing the connection, it IS the connection. I'm going to add a bolded emphasis this time, hopefully you'll get it.
Except I was arguing it was because of the direct applications of the definitions of words, wasn't it? So the answer is no, what you are saying is precisely the opposite of what I have said.
As I said before, this ends any further discussion of this tangent. It is a waste of time to engage with you on this topic, so I will no longer do so. I would suggest you spend your time focusing on the main discussion.
Absolute omnipotence is a well known paradox, and if god is beyond logic, then this argument has already done it's job.
Causality is cannot itself connect things. What actually connects every causal event is something tangible. Causality refers to a set of such tangible things, it is not one of them. It has no capacity to do anything, tangible things do. Such an answer is not specific enough to be truly valid. Answering 'causality' as the connection between a cause and effect is like answering how a wall was painted with 'using paint'. It seems pretty clear the actual answer is you don't know.
I contend the answer is through interaction in a sequence of change- that is the only coherent way things can be tangibly connected. And my argument for this is, to repeat, that for something to create some impetus for change, that impetus also requires change, or else nothing has happened. And this nothing happening cannot be considered a tangible connection because it is by it's nature an intangible event, it is the lack of tangible events. Again, this still leaves us with timelessness and acausal origins as the source for the first change, so it doesn't preclude any logical way of existence occuring, the only thing this argument goes against is the idea that causality can come into existence from nothing.
That was I why I was using the analogy. I was hoping that was enough.
Alright, prove the statement that I am human based on direct applications of definitions. You can't, because you have to rely on observations or broader reasoning to connect the terms together into the statement, you need context in terms of how the world works logically or materially. It's not just 'X means Y and Y means Z, therefore X means Z'.
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
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
But that's an important point to establish about with regards to what things is god beyond logic. 'God is beyond logic' could just be referring to his decision making, but if it's the answer to this argument, it establishes logic also doesn't apply to god creating the universe. That is quite important given a bunch of theistic arguments make reference to god creating the universe as being somehow necessary or the best explanation- because if logic doesn't apply to god creating the universe, that throws some serious shade on it being the necessary or best explanation. It also means logic does not absolutely apply to the working of the universe, and is therefore sufficient grounds if believed to question the exact validity of logic in practice generally.
Conversely, if one argues that logic applies to god's workings and that he created the universe either from himself or from some state of potential, then this suggests that god's act of creating the universe was in some sense a material thing, and that god himself exists at least partially in some form of material state, and this affects our expectation of material evidence.
That's why I think this specific argument warrants it's own thread.
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
And there you go. 'Results'. We aren't talking about the results, we are talking about the process that brings about those results. I am saying that the process is a change because a process consists of something happening. I contend that 'nothing happens -> thing occurs' cannot be considered causality because causality is about tangible connections, and nothing happening is an intangible event because it is the lack of tangible events. I contend that causality is 'something happens -> something else happens', that influence is applied to some external referential.
And I have been over why that's not an answer. 'God did an action that created an effect' (which is what your answer means) is not an answer to 'how can god perform an action in order to create an effect?'.
As I said in my previous response:
Which is to say, in other words, that the question is about what form the supposed causality, that links god and universe coming into existence, takes. Simply explaining the link as causality is not a sufficient account to say that there is a coherent explanation.
The way you just used those two quotes is very misleading. What it looks like is that I said the second quote was something you basically said, but that's not what I said. What I said was 'what you just said is basically exactly what I just said immediately after what you just quoted'.
And the 'what you just quoted' in question here is "The conclusion requires real world observations unrelated to any specific definition". What you responded to this with was to use an example of a claim ('the shirt is red') which can only be justified with reference to real world observations (observations of said shirt), which is exactly what I just described.
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
God creating the universe.
God created the universe, thus there is a universe.
What's the problem?
Yes, and what is that process of making the universe? It's not causality if god doesn't do anything, and the universe just comes into existence, no? God has to do something to make that coming into existence happen. If the universe is created because god did it, then what did god do?
Because the whole point is to question whether god could have performed an action that created an effect without interaction. I am asking how and you are telling me what. I know what, I am asking how.
To go to my previous analogy, if someone wants to know how you could possibly paint a wall, 'using paint' is not an answer. The question is about what process could be used to apply the paint, that paint would be used in that process is included in the question. We can answer the question of how we can paint a wall because we have tangible processes that we can refer to that can apply paint to a wall- all they all involve doing tangible things which involves change which involves interaction. My argument is equivalent to asking how you can paint a wall without doing anything to apply the paint.
BTW, I am going to update my initial post to reflect the refinements I've made in the wording.
EDIT: And here it is
Revised formulation (P1 has been split into two premises for clarity)
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
P2. A tangible process can only coherently consist of some tangible change (implication)
P3. Causing something to exist ex nihilo involves no tangible change connecting cause and effect (implication)
C1. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent
P4. If god caused the universe to exist, it was done ex nihilo (rhetorical assumption)
C2. The claim that god caused the universe to exist is 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
Once again, just because we don't know how something happened does not mean no logical explanation can occur.
And the answer to that is yes. God created an action without an interaction.
... Actually that's quite a good answer. It sums it up quite nicely. You paint a wall by applying paint to a wall.
Well, you can't. But that's obviously not analogous to this situation. As I've repeatedly said, God created the universe. "Created" is the verb in that sentence. So an analogous scenario would be, "God applies paint to the wall."
You seem to be harping on about how. Not a bad question, but largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how God applies paint to the wall, whether he paints the wall by a paint roller or by paint brush or by throwing a paint can at the wall or even making it rain paint from the sky. The point is he applies paint to the wall. Logically possible, logically coherent, we can speculate as to how but the bottom line is it is perfectly reasonable to say God can apply paint to a wall.
Likewise, it's certainly not a bad question to speculate as to exactly how on Earth creatio ex nihilo works mechanically. I mean, that would be fascinating to know. But how is not really all that relevant to this question, so much as whether or not it's logically possible. As long as it's logically possible, we can conclude that God is capable of doing so, given God being God.
Now, you seem to want to declare this not logically possible. Which is fine if you actually do the leg work. But you just declare that's it's illogical without doing that leg work. Demonstrate that it isn't logically possible. Your attempts at doing so have amounted to attaching clauses to the meanings of words like "causality," "effect," "influence," that don't actually exist.
So what is the basis then?
Challenge. Demonstrate your reasoning for this to be the case.
First of all, to be clear, do you actually know what tangible means? It means something that can easily be detectable by the senses. There's a lot of things that go on in our universe that are not tangible to the senses. Gravitational fields are intangible. Quarks are intangible. Doesn't mean they're not real. So I'm thinking you probably don't mean tangible.
Second, there is the same implication I've criticized you on, that existence must already exist in order for existence to come into existence. Which is inherently contradictory.
Basically, we're dealing with the same problem as post 1: the presumption that God needs to be interacting with something else in order to prove an effect. As already demonstrated, there is no such requirement, yet you keep harping that there is, and you are still yet to provide any basis for this.
But did god do something tangible? Because if he did, then something tangible happened, and therefore there should have been a tangible change of some kind.
To be clear, by tangible I mean 'clear and definite; real'.
No, it's really not. It's just a restatement of the scenario which is specifically under question. It's not exactly incorrect, it's just not an answer to the actual question of how. Painting a wall is by definition applying paint to a wall, it is an irrelevant tautology. In the same way, yes, if god caused something to exist, he caused it to exist, but that's not saying anything and it's especially not answering the question.
But what is specifically being stated here is that god was not involved in any interaction. Therefore, there was no tangible change connecting the cause (god) to the result (universe is created). Nothing happened, then the universe came into existence because of what happened. That's not logically coherent.
The point of the analogy is there is no coherent connection between cause and effect without the cause doing something tangible to create the effect, and doing something tangible involves tangible change and tangible change means some kind of interaction.
What is required to establish a meaningful connection between cause and effect if not a tangible process? If there is no tangible process, nothing tangible has happened, so how can a cause be said to be tangibly responsible for an effect?
The argument only speaks for causal creation from nothing and also does not speak for timeless existence. There is no contradiction to say that existent processes can only occur within existence. It does not suggest that existence could not exist, because that would only be true if things both need to come into existence and things can't come into existence without cause- and accepting those two premises would eliminate causing something to exist ex nihilo as an explanation regardless because no matter whether you can create things without interaction, nonexistent causes can't do anything.
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
Second, if God does anything it's real. Anything that happens at any time ever is real. What meaningful distinction does that have?
Well, yes. Creatio ex nihilo means there's nothing yet in existence to interact with.
However, as I stated in my reply to your first post in which you argued this and ever since then, the fact that no interaction occurs is irrelevant. It has no relevance, because you are arguing an interaction is required for God to perform an action, but you have no basis to claim that it is.
No, because God created the universe. The cause is "God created the universe." God created the universe -> universe. Causal link.
Ok, it seems you responded while I was editing.
As I've pointed out, tangible is entirely the wrong word. None of this is what tangible actually means. Tangible means "easily perceived by the senses." There are plenty of real things that are intangible. Gravitational fields are intangible. Quantum particles are intangible. You define intangible as "unreal" and tangible as "real," when in fact this is a drastic departure from what those words actually mean. So we cannot proceed further unless you reword your argument, because right now it collapses based on that inappropriate word choice.
Tangible
ˈtan(d)ʒɪb(ə)l/Submit
adjective
adjective: tangible
1.
perceptible by touch.
"the atmosphere of neglect and abandonment was almost tangible"
synonyms: touchable, palpable, tactile, material, physical, real, substantial, corporeal, solid, concrete; More
antonyms: intangible
clear and definite; real.
"the emphasis is now on tangible results"
synonyms: real, actual, solid, concrete, substantial, hard, well defined, definite, well documented, clear, clear-cut, distinct, manifest, evident, obvious, striking, indisputable, undoubted, unmistakable, positive, perceptible, verifiable, appreciable, measurable, discernible, intelligible
"organizations want to see tangible benefits from their investment in technology"
antonyms: abstract, theoretical
Tangible means more than just real, it means distinctly real, definitively real. The point is to establish that something actually has to happen and therefore something actually has to change. To be clear that a causal process has to be existent and in some way describable.
"How could I paint the wall? I painted the wall by painting the wall"
"How could god cause the universe to exist? By causing it to exist"
What meaningful connection is there between god and the universe coming into existence? Is a tangible process not required?
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
Let's just find a new adjective, how about that?
God acts to create the universe -> universe. Causal.
God creates the universe. How many times does this need be said?
God's action is creating the universe. That is the cause. The universe is the effect. The meaningful connection is that the action is the cause that results in the effect, otherwise known as causality.
Again, if you're going to define tangible as real, literally anything at all that happens is real. There is no such thing for a process to occur and not be real. Therefore, there is no meaningful distinction provided by the word "tangible." Consider:
Is a process not required?
Is a real process not required?
Any process that occurs is real. Therefore, this meaning of tangible provides nothing.
Second, no. No it is not.
No it does not.
How many times do I need to post this definition?
Causality requires merely a cause and an effect. Yes, it requires there to be a connection between them, namely that cause is at least partly responsible for the effect, and that the effect is dependent on the cause, because this connection between them is what causality is.
To cause something so exist, therefore, requires something to come into existence (effect) and some action to have caused it.
Yet again you are butting heads with the term causality. Thankfully you posted "definition" in there so we can have no more evasions claiming this is some sort of "implication."
A tangible thing describes a distinct existent entity or process. What this is excludes is something like a perception, viewpoint or ideology that could be considered real, but that has no distinct existence in-and-of-itself.
Substantial might be one of the best alternatives.
God acts to create the universe is the relevant part here. God acting to creating the universe needs to be itself an existent and describable process.
"What did you do to paint the wall?" "I painted the wall"
HOW? WHY is god responsible?
Did god not do something, something specific, to create the universe?
Ok, is the causal agent (in this case god) not required to perform some process/exercise some kind of agency? That is what the definition you keep citing says, no? The causal agent can't simply do nothing, it has to do something in order to responsible for anything. The causal agent must act to become a cause. Again, 'nothing happens -> effect' is not causality.
Let's look at the definition you provided again
Huh, one process that leads to a change in state or another process? Sure seems like 'something happens -> something else happens'. That sounds like a tangible process connecting the causal agent and the effect to me.
Yes and what tangible form does that connection take? They can't be connected just because 'one caused the other' that is circular, how was the causal agent responsible? I'll tell you how, it's because the causal agent is involved in some tangible process that leads to the effect- that is what causality is, it is about processes. The implication of this is that something has to change involving the causal agent, and this goes on to imply that the causal agent is involved in interaction.
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
Describable: I just described it.
Done.
Because he created the universe. I just said that.
Umm, yeah.
Yeah. That'd be the "creating the universe" part we keep talking about.
So, I'm not sure what part you're confused on about this, but to recap, the chain of events is not:
God does nothing -> Universe
It's:
God creates the universe -> Universe.
Thought I made that clear, guess I didn't.
'Describe the process of creating the universe' 'God created the universe'
That isn't an answer
Again, you clearly don't know the process, so stop acting like you can answer these questions when you can't.
"What did you do to paint the wall?" "I painted the wall"
Do you seriously not get that you aren't answering the question here?
Describing the process only in terms of the agent and the result is specifically what the question is asking you to go beyond.
The stop with the 'Because he created the universe' 'By creating the universe' 'God created the universe' answers then and respond given we are talking about the specific process god used to created the universe.
Yes, and that would be a process god is involved in that leads to the creation of the universe, no?
Because that's what the definition I gave is talking about. Causal agent is involved in tangible process which leads to- is the cause of- the effect.
I know, the point is that 'god creates the universe' is god doing something specific. Something tangible happens involving god which leads to the universe. Problem is, if no interaction occurs, there is no change and nothing tangible happens. And therefore there is no coherent way for the causal agent to be responsible for the effect.
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 process in which God is causally responsible for the effect that is the universe existing? Yes, I do, and it's called, "God's the one who made the universe in the first place." Ergo, cause.
Now, do I know the exact manner in which creatio ex nihilo works? No, of course I don't know how that would work. But that's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it would work. What matters is your argument depends on the idea that it is logically incoherent that it would work, which thusfar you've based on nothing at all.
No, an analogous question would be, "How did the paint get on the wall?" "I painted the wall." "HOW ARE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAINT BEING ON THAT WALL?" "... I painted the wall."
You're inquiring about how the effect in this causal chain came about. What is the cause? As I've pointed out, over and over again, the cause is God created it. So when you ask, "How is God responsible for the universe being caused?", the correct answer is, "Because he is the one who caused it."
I actually am answering the question quite fine. You just keep asking the same question over and over again. The fact that I'm repeating the same answer is precisely because of that.
No, when you ask how God is responsible for creating the universe, the answer is "God created the universe." Asking what role God plays in the causal chain will net you that answer.
Now if you want to know how exactly God went about doing that, that is a separate question.
Again, we must mind what the words we use actually mean.
Well done.
Right, God creating the universe is that process. You nailed it!
Correct.
Challenge. We've already talked about the problem of the word tangent, and here you are using it again.
Challenge. Interaction with what and why is that even necessary in the first place?
Uh, the universe being created begs to differ. That's a huge ******* change.
NO
The question is HOW. What is there not to get? God creating the universe means something happened involving god that lead to the universe. What is that thing that happened involving god? Causing something to exist is not a specific process.
No, you aren't answering the question. You answered the question here:
That is an answer to the question. Stop trying to answer the question with anything else.
"How can you say that you painted the wall?' "Because I painted the wall"
No, that isn't an answer. I am asking the question of what 'god created the universe' means. I am asking what specifically makes god responsible for the universe's existence. That he created it is a circular answer, because that by definition means he was responsible for it's existence.
Ok, so 'Something happens involving god -> universe comes into existence' no?
So how did something happen without change? Remember, something happens, AND the universe comes into existence. There is another part. The cause is itself a process involving the causal agent.
No.
By your own definition, the cause is a process. God isn't the cause, the process of god creating the universe is the cause. There must a process that occurs which leads to the effect. 'Only god exists -> Universe exists' does not include a process which leads to the universe existing. There must be a 'something happens -> universe occurs'. But if something happened, then what was it that changed? What does 'god created the universe' mean if god creating the universe is not itself a process involving, as processes do, change?
'Something happens -> something else happens' not 'nothing happens -> something happens'
The result cannot be the only change. There is a cause and that cause is a process and processes involve change.
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
While I don't personally agree with Highroller on the existence of god, I do agree with him on the backbone of this back-and-forth. Assuming for the sake of argument that god created the universe from nothing, the process by which he accomplished that task (by the analogy already brought up, the process by which he applies paint to the wall) is presumably the domain-specific action of universe-creation. We can't have a detailed description of what that action entails, because we don't know what all goes into the creation of a universe. The action of universe-creation doesn't do anything except create a universe from nothing. That doesn't mean the action doesn't exist or that it is necessarily incoherent, merely that we do not fully grasp what it is. It is, in essence, a black box. Given the input of {nothing} and hitting its "go" button, it outputs {observable reality}. We don't know the details of the black box's innards, only that the innards exist.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Let's consider the following dialogue:
Person 1: I believe X committed the crime of theft of the crown jewels!
Person 2: Do you know exactly how X committed the crime of the theft of the crown jewels?
Person 1: No, I don't know exactly how he stole them, but -
Person 2: AHA! Then it is logically incoherent to claim that he stole them!
Now the correct response to this is, "No, it's not. Whether or not we know how X stole the crown jewels has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is logically coherent to claim that he did."
Uh, if I painted a wall, I definitely can say I painted the wall. To say otherwise is pure nonsense.
He created it. That's what the word create means.
No, it's not a circular answer. It's just a really obvious answer to a really obvious question you keep asking. You're asking what makes God responsible. I'm pointing out how he's the one responsible, because that's what the word responsible means. Why is God responsible? Because he's the one who did it. That's what the word responsible means!
It didn't. When did I say it did?
Is this another one of your assumptions? Because you've seen where those get you.
Holy crap, you finally got it! This is great!
NO! You just, NO! You were there! You had it! You even said it! You said it!
There, you said it! You had it! You had it!
I... What... It... How did you... You just said... You said it right there... How did you... How, what, what is... How is that possible? How could you just... You just said it!
What?
How is God creating a universe not a change from God not creating a universe. Is P = not P? Can something be a fluteplayer and not a fluteplayer?
I don't... I don't... I don't freaking know... What. How. What is... How the hell is that even... What is happening?! How do you exhibit knowledge of something, and then forget about it, and then go back to addressing it while still not knowing it despite looking at it, and then ask a question looking right at the answer, then go back to talking about the the thing, then forget about the thing entirely...
How is this even happening?! I am so confused!
Thank you. Holy crap Lithl, thank you.
Correct, the fact that we do not know how the thing could occur does not mean it is logically incoherent to claim such a thing could occur. The issue is the OP's claim that it is logically incoherent to claim something could occur.
Example:
Person 1: "Christopher Columbus sailed to America"
Person 2: "How did he do that?"
Person 1: "... He said. To America."
Person 2: "That's circular. How exactly did he sail to America?"
Person 1: "Well, I don't know the specific details of exactly how, but-"
Person 2: "Then it is logically incoherent to claim that Christopher Columbus sailed to America!"
The error is obvious. Person 1's inability to explain the specifics of how Christopher Columbus sailed to America does not mean that Columbus sailing to America is logically incoherent. Indeed, it is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the claim of Columbus sailing to America is logically incoherent.
That isn't my claim.
I am not saying it is incoherent to say god created the universe from nothing because you don't know how, I am saying that to coherently describe causality involves certain things that are not present when there is no interaction.
How can you demonstrate it? Simply answering that you did it is conspiracy theorist level logic. Scientific level logic involves explanation and demonstration of how things work.
'Created it' means 'responsible for it's existence'. What you are saying is equivalent to 'how did the universe come into existence?' 'It came into existence'. It's not an answer. What makes god responsible? All you are saying is that he is. Why? What connection is their between the causal agent and the effect? It that connection not a process involving change?
Yes it is.
Does to create something mean by definition to be responsible for it's existence? It does.
CIRCULAR.
How did he create the universe? That is an equivalent question. What did that process involve?
So something changed then?
Ok, how did something change involving god as part of the cause without god being involved in some interaction?
PROCESS. PROCESS.
That's what I have been saying all along. Something changes. Something happens. God does something.
Process= something happens
Cause=process
Effect=change of state or process
Change of state= something happens
Cause->effect
Something happens->something else happens
QED
Cause=god creating the universe
Cause=process
Process=something happens
God creating the universe=something happens
Yes, so something changed, no? Something actually changed. But yet, there is no interaction. That does not work.
Cause=process
Process=change occurs
Cause->effect
Change occurs->effect
God creates the universe->universe occurs
Change occurs->universe occurs.
God creating the universe must mean that something happens not involving the universe occurring, and if something happens, something changes.
If I paint a wall, the change is not just 'wall without paint->wall with paint'. That is not causality. The change is 'I manipulate paint with paintbrush onto wall->wall is painted'. The cause itself involves change because the cause itself is a PROCESS.
But that isn't my argument.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If you assume that it works and makes sense, that is begging the question. The whole claim is that it doesn't make sense. It's not 'this thing that works, how did it happen', it's 'how could this thing happen at all, what does it even mean'.
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
God creating the universe, versus God not creating the universe. I've explained this.
...
So, what you seem to be saying here is that you think my argument is, "no universe -> universe."
And you are asking what is the process that results from no universe to universe.
Right?
Ooookay.
So, remember how you said this?
So, that would be process that connects those two.
Now, what I'm trying to figure out is how on earth you could write that and then immediately forget about it in your next post.
I don't know what your argument is. I'm almost entirely convinced you don't either.
I'm really at a complete loss here. I've never encountered someone who could write something that seems to understand a particular concept, and then immediately forget about that concept in the following paragraph, and then in the next paragraph, ask how one could possibly explain the concept that he seemed to understand in the first paragraph.
I truly do not know what to do here.
Yes, and my argument is that must involve something happening, something changing (something other than no universe->universe) and that implies interaction.
Notice how when you paint a wall, you perform a specific process to induce the change 'wall with no paint->painted wall', and that every kind of specific action involves the causal agent being involved in some process, some change, which leads to the effect?
That is what I am arguing is how to coherently describe and analyse causality occurring in real world situations, and that if god simply gets a pass on us being able to make any sense of what his actions even mean, then that his big implications for the arguments about belief his existence.
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