[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’d also love to see a response to this:
Does God exist?
Was God caused by something, and if so, by what?
I await both responses.[/quote]
Yes.
No.
Ex nihlio!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’d also love to see a response to this:
Does God exist?
Was God caused by something, and if so, by what?
I await both responses.[/quote]
Yes.
No.[/quote]
I think you will agree, then, that if God exists, it is possible for God to exist. And if God is uncaused and uncontingent, then it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist. Do you?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’d also love to see a response to this:
Does God exist?
Was God caused by something, and if so, by what?
I await both responses.[/quote]
Yes.
No.[/quote]
I think you will agree, then, that if God exists, it is possible for God to exist. And if God is uncaused and uncontingent, then it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist. Do you?[/quote]
I openly admit to believing in the supernatural.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’d like to see a response to this:
Does the universe from nothing theory include the condition that energy was present?
Is energy nothing?[/quote]
Just to be clear on my end: I’m not arguing for a “universe from nothing” model, nor a causal regress, nor anything of the sort. As I think you know, I believe in “God.” I am simply arguing against Pat’s assertion that proofs of God are doubtless, settled, a priori aorund which no controversy exists.
My ultimate contention is this: We don’t know, and it may well be that we are incapable of “truly” knowing, with finite material brains.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’d also love to see a response to this:
Does God exist?
Was God caused by something, and if so, by what?
I await both responses.[/quote]
Yes.
No.[/quote]
I think you will agree, then, that if God exists, it is possible for God to exist. And if God is uncaused and uncontingent, then it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist. Do you?[/quote]
I openly admit to believing in the supernatural. [/quote]
Oh I know. I do too. I’m simply asking, do you agree with the proposition: It is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’d also love to see a response to this:
Does God exist?
Was God caused by something, and if so, by what?
I await both responses.[/quote]
Yes.
No.[/quote]
I think you will agree, then, that if God exists, it is possible for God to exist. And if God is uncaused and uncontingent, then it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist. Do you?[/quote]
I openly admit to believing in the supernatural. [/quote]
Oh I know. I do too. I’m simply asking, do you agree with the proposition: It is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist.[/quote]
Well, outside of nature, yes. Supernaturally.
One of the interview excerpts I posted refers to pre-existing “natural processes” being all that is needed to explain how the universe came into being. Pre-existing? Natural processes? These are in existence, prior? How does that equate to nothingness? If these natural processes were all that is NEEDED, then that’s saying they were needed. They were conditions. To me it seems like a great big fudging on “nothing.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, outside of nature, yes. Supernaturally.
One of the interview excerpts I posted refers to pre-existing “natural processes” being all that is needed to explain how the universe came into being. Pre-existing? Natural processes? These are in existence, prior? How does that equate to nothingness? If these natural processes were all that is NEEDED, then that’s saying they were needed. They were conditions. To me it seems like a great big fudging on “nothing.”
[/quote]
I tend to agree with what you’re saying, without pretending that I “know” anything at this point so far and deep into inquiry. My point is simpler; If God exists, and is uncaused, then it is possible that the uncaused exists–because God does. I am gathering that you agree.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, outside of nature, yes. Supernaturally.
One of the interview excerpts I posted refers to pre-existing “natural processes” being all that is needed to explain how the universe came into being. Pre-existing? Natural processes? These are in existence, prior? How does that equate to nothingness? If these natural processes were all that is NEEDED, then that’s saying they were needed. They were conditions. To me it seems like a great big fudging on “nothing.”
[/quote]
I tend to agree with what you’re saying, without pretending that I “know” anything at this point so far and deep into inquiry. My point is simpler; If God exists, and is uncaused, then it is possible that the uncaused exists–because God does. I am gathering that you agree.
[/quote]
/Shrug
I suppose my own view is that an uncaused-cause would be something prior to/uncaused by natural processes laws, “natural processes,” etc. A supernatural state of being.
If the uncaused-cause is the output of natural-processes, mechanics/laws…Well, those are then necessary conditions. Meaning that the thing is actually dependent. And dependent on prior conditions. So, how is it uncaused, and out of nothing?
Prior existing natural laws.
Laws.
And, anyway, if it is due to laws/mechanics existing prior, then why is it called a happy ACCIDENT? If it’s inevitably going to happen because the necessary laws and mechanics exist, why refer to it as an accident? A rain drop striking the ground on a particular spot isn’t an accident.
Laws/processes/mechanics that exist prior to what they will govern, shape, form, whatever. Laws that don’t actually produce an accident. But a natural outcome (given enough time) of those laws and processes. Meaning, things are going on just as these laws would have it.
I’d be looking for a law-giver independent of the natural order (which is dependent on it), with a plan!
Things I’ve learned.
Nothingness (or, not really) created everything out of nothing. So, miracles exist. And we’re possibly experiencing a false view of reality (eww, remember the faith in reality conversation?) since this universe/reality is a hologram projection of a lower dimension (something like that, I think).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I’ve learned.
Nothingness (or, not really) created everything out of nothing. So, miracles exist. And we’re possibly experiencing a false view of reality (eww, remember the faith in reality conversation?) since this universe/reality is a hologram projection of a lower dimension (something like that, I think).
[/quote]
If this refers to me, I averred none of this.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, outside of nature, yes. Supernaturally.
One of the interview excerpts I posted refers to pre-existing “natural processes” being all that is needed to explain how the universe came into being. Pre-existing? Natural processes? These are in existence, prior? How does that equate to nothingness? If these natural processes were all that is NEEDED, then that’s saying they were needed. They were conditions. To me it seems like a great big fudging on “nothing.”
[/quote]
I tend to agree with what you’re saying, without pretending that I “know” anything at this point so far and deep into inquiry. My point is simpler; If God exists, and is uncaused, then it is possible that the uncaused exists–because God does. I am gathering that you agree.
[/quote]
/Shrug
I suppose my own view is that an uncaused-cause would be something prior to/uncaused by natural processes laws, “natural processes,” etc. A supernatural state of being.
If the uncaused-cause is the output of natural-processes, mechanics/laws…Well, those are then necessary conditions. Meaning that the thing is actually dependent. And dependent on prior conditions. So, how is it uncaused, and out of nothing?
Prior existing natural laws.
Laws.
And, anyway, if it is due to laws/mechanics existing prior, then why is it called a happy ACCIDENT? If it’s inevitably going to happen because the necessary laws and mechanics exist, why refer to it as an accident? A rain drop striking the ground on a particular spot isn’t an accident.
Laws/processes/mechanics that exist prior to what they will govern, shape, form, whatever. Laws that don’t actually produce an accident. But a natural outcome (given enough time) of those laws and processes. Meaning, things are going on just as these laws would have it.
I’d be looking for a law-giver independent of the natural order (which is dependent on it), with a plan!
[/quote]
Again, I know what you’re saying. I’m simply making the point that if God exists as an uncaused cause, then uncaused causes can exist, and the maxim “there can be no uncaused cause” cannot be accepted–because there is one.
But my argument goes deeper than that. “All events have causes” is an assumption. As David Hume was correct in noting, it is an a posteriori, inductive leap of faith. A necessary leap, but a leap, and it will not be proved to be anything other than assumptive. It will be broken into further assumptions, and they into further ones, but it will rest on assumption and on question-begging down to very bottom of the deep.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Things I’ve learned.
Nothingness (or, not really) created everything out of nothing. So, miracles exist. And we’re possibly experiencing a false view of reality (eww, remember the faith in reality conversation?) since this universe/reality is a hologram projection of a lower dimension (something like that, I think).
[/quote]
If this refers to me, I averred none of this.[/quote]
No, no. Refers to me. Just thinking out loud.
Between this, something out of nothing (the miracle), and what we perceive as reality perhaps being some sort of projected hologram (a physics theory talked about here on the board at one point), strange stuff.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.[/quote]
I’m going to cut through everything else to the heart of the matter.
In order to prove that something cannot come from nothing, you have taken that which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist as a premise. This is question-begging.
So: prove the premise: That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist
If it’s not an assumption, it must be capable of being proved. If you cannot or will not prove it–and, preferably, without begging the question–then it is an assumption.[/quote]
So we’re now dealing with nothing and what it is, or rather is not. Well the answer is that it isn’t. Nothing does not exist, literally.
There is no way to describe nothing in that describing nothing, you are describing what is not.
Nothing is the complete absence of existence. It does not exist physically, it does not exist metaphysically. Even by trying to define nothingness, you are doing a disservice to the purity of it because you can only speak in terms of existence and the fact there nothing does not have it. Only trying to understand nothingness isn’t, you do so by expressing things that do exist and show that nothingness posses none of it.
You cannot prove what nothingness is, because it isn’t. It isn’t a vast expanse of emptiness because that is something. It is not a vacuum, because that is something. It isn’t anything because there isn’t.
Nothingness does not exist literally.
What does not exist does not have properties. It does not occupy space, it does not occupy a position in time. That which does not exist cannot cause because it has no properties or capability to do so. It is not zero as that is still something. It cannot actually be an ‘it’. Even attributing a word to ‘it’ violates ‘nothing’ as it has no description or way of being understood because it cannot be understood.
Epistemologically speaking we cannot deal with a lack of existence, we have to understand a lack of existence by using things that exist and understand the opposite.
Nothing cannot be a factor in something because nothing does not exist. Something that does not exist, cannot affect something that does.
A formal understanding of ‘nothing’ is that it isn’t.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, outside of nature, yes. Supernaturally.
One of the interview excerpts I posted refers to pre-existing “natural processes” being all that is needed to explain how the universe came into being. Pre-existing? Natural processes? These are in existence, prior? How does that equate to nothingness? If these natural processes were all that is NEEDED, then that’s saying they were needed. They were conditions. To me it seems like a great big fudging on “nothing.”
[/quote]
I tend to agree with what you’re saying, without pretending that I “know” anything at this point so far and deep into inquiry. My point is simpler; If God exists, and is uncaused, then it is possible that the uncaused exists–because God does. I am gathering that you agree.
[/quote]
/Shrug
I suppose my own view is that an uncaused-cause would be something prior to/uncaused by natural processes laws, “natural processes,” etc. A supernatural state of being.
If the uncaused-cause is the output of natural-processes, mechanics/laws…Well, those are then necessary conditions. Meaning that the thing is actually dependent. And dependent on prior conditions. So, how is it uncaused, and out of nothing?
Prior existing natural laws.
Laws.
And, anyway, if it is due to laws/mechanics existing prior, then why is it called a happy ACCIDENT? If it’s inevitably going to happen because the necessary laws and mechanics exist, why refer to it as an accident? A rain drop striking the ground on a particular spot isn’t an accident.
Laws/processes/mechanics that exist prior to what they will govern, shape, form, whatever. Laws that don’t actually produce an accident. But a natural outcome (given enough time) of those laws and processes. Meaning, things are going on just as these laws would have it.
I’d be looking for a law-giver independent of the natural order (which is dependent on it), with a plan!
[/quote]
Again, I know what you’re saying. I’m simply making the point that if God exists as an uncaused cause, then uncaused causes can exist, and the maxim “there can be no uncaused cause” cannot be accepted–because there is one.
But my argument goes deeper than that. “All events have causes” is an assumption. As David Hume was correct in noting, it is an a posteriori, inductive leap of faith. A necessary leap, but a leap, and it will not be proved to be anything other than assumptive. It will be broken into further assumptions, and they into further ones, but it will rest on assumption and on question-begging down to very bottom of the deep.[/quote]
What Hume was getting at is that in empirical cause and effect relationships, the cause does not necessitate it’s effect. That we cannot know, based on observation that the cause we see and the effect we see can only be correlated, not causal because we don’t know, we cannot isolate the variables in play to the point where we can determine ‘x’ cause ‘y’. We have ‘x’ then ‘y’. And every time there is ‘x’, there is ‘y’. But we cannot say that ‘x’ causes ‘y’. We can only know to degrees of certainty that when there is ‘x’, there will be ‘y’. We can be certain, only to a degree that when you mix vinegar and baking soda, there will be CO2. We don’t know that mixing vinegar and baking soda causes CO2.
Hume was a strict empiricist, and he dealt with everything on those terms.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I’d also love to see a response to this:
Does God exist?
Was God caused by something, and if so, by what?
I await both responses.[/quote]
Yes.
No.[/quote]
I think you will agree, then, that if God exists, it is possible for God to exist. And if God is uncaused and uncontingent, then it is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist. Do you?[/quote]
I openly admit to believing in the supernatural. [/quote]
Oh I know. I do too. I’m simply asking, do you agree with the proposition: It is possible for the uncaused and uncontingent to exist.[/quote]
I do not agree with that proposition, clearly, for aforementioned reasons.
[quote]pat wrote:
I do not agree with that proposition, clearly, for aforementioned reasons. [/quote]
-
Is God uncaused and uncontingent?
-
Does God exist?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nothing has no properties, no mechanism of action, there is a complete lack of existence.
In everyway there can be existence, nothingness lacks.
Nothing does not exist.
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist.
Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.[/quote]
I’m going to cut through everything else to the heart of the matter.
In order to prove that something cannot come from nothing, you have taken that which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist as a premise. This is question-begging.
So: prove the premise: That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist
If it’s not an assumption, it must be capable of being proved. If you cannot or will not prove it–and, preferably, without begging the question–then it is an assumption.[/quote]
So we’re now dealing with nothing and what it is, or rather is not. Well the answer is that it isn’t. Nothing does not exist, literally.
There is no way to describe nothing in that describing nothing, you are describing what is not.
Nothing is the complete absence of existence. It does not exist physically, it does not exist metaphysically. Even by trying to define nothingness, you are doing a disservice to the purity of it because you can only speak in terms of existence and the fact there nothing does not have it. Only trying to understand nothingness isn’t, you do so by expressing things that do exist and show that nothingness posses none of it.
You cannot prove what nothingness is, because it isn’t. It isn’t a vast expanse of emptiness because that is something. It is not a vacuum, because that is something. It isn’t anything because there isn’t.
Nothingness does not exist literally.
What does not exist does not have properties. It does not occupy space, it does not occupy a position in time. That which does not exist cannot cause because it has no properties or capability to do so. It is not zero as that is still something. It cannot actually be an ‘it’. Even attributing a word to ‘it’ violates ‘nothing’ as it has no description or way of being understood because it cannot be understood.
Epistemologically speaking we cannot deal with a lack of existence, we have to understand a lack of existence by using things that exist and understand the opposite.
Nothing cannot be a factor in something because nothing does not exist. Something that does not exist, cannot affect something that does.
A formal understanding of ‘nothing’ is that it isn’t. [/quote]
Since this debate is about whether or not you can formally prove God’s existence without assumption, it would be best if we stick to formal proofs.
I made the point that, in attempting to make a formal argument, you took as a premise (That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist) a restatement of your conclusion (something cannot come from nothing). I made the point that this is fallacious argumentation, and I challenged you therefore to prove the premise:
That which does not exist cannot create, be a factor of or act on something that does exist. If, as you believe, this is not an assumptive maxim, then you will be able to do it formally and without begging the question.
Steroid users go to HELL.
WOLOWOLOWOLO
[quote]pat wrote:
We can only know to degrees of certainty that when there is ‘x’, there will be ‘y’. We can be certain, only to a degree that when you mix vinegar and baking soda, there will be CO2. We don’t know that mixing vinegar and baking soda causes CO2.
[/quote]
What do you mean “degrees of certainty”? Do we know that it will happen, or do we not?
Know that David Hume’s answer is unequivocally no in both Treatise and Enquiry. We assume that it will happen, and nothing more.
Look, you’re dancing round the issue here. Hume argued, correctly, that everything about causality is inductive.