Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    Because seconds still tick by no matter what. It can't be stopped.
    I'm not so sure about that. For example, Einstein has demonstrated that if an object is moving at the speed of light, time actually does stop for it.

    But that's beside the point. Because the question is not whether it can be stopped but whether it has EVER HAD A BEGINNING. We know that time is intimately entangled with space and energy. We know that time and space form a single continuum. I can't see why you would assume that time existed when there was no space.



    An intelligent entity formed it with some substance via some concrete method to create a finished product with some purpose.
    Well TGK, if you assume that a process of creation MUST CONTAIN the above formula then you (in a very circular and self-serving way) do show that a creation can't take place except with the four elements we get from Aristotle.

    But what allows you to assume that? Why couldn't an intelligent entity create the universe FROM NOTHING? (I was tempted to add "and for no purpose" but that would only confuse things).


    Or else its no longer created. Take one of those steps out, and you can't have a created entity.
    Well that's where the issue lies in this debate, isn't it? Let's see then.

    If you take out the potter can a pot be made?
    Of course it can. There are plenty of examples of "pots" forming perfectly naturally, without any "potter's" intervention.


    If you take out clay, can a pot be made? No, for from what would it be made?
    But again, we are talking about God. Why do you suggest that God couldn't create a pot without any clay? Why do you suggest that God couldn't make matter from nothing?



    If you take out clay shaping techniques, can a pot be made? No, for how would an artistically illiterate potter make it?
    But an omnipotent and magical entity like God isn't a skilled potter. He knows magic and he only needs to think the pot into existence. He doesn't have to study technique to become skilled at making pots.


    If we take out the finished pot, can a pot be made? No, we have just removed the finished product from the equation!
    I don't get that one. A finished pot is not required for the making of a pot. It is the final product of the making. You're getting your causation back to front.


    If we take out the purpose can a pot be made? No, for what was the potter's motivation? If there was no motivation then it was formed randomly, making it not created.
    Only if by purpose you mean "intention" (as opposed to actual purpose that the pot is meant to fulfill) and if we assume that "creation" can't mean "accidental" or "incidental" or "by-product" creation by an intelligent entity.



    ...and yet you are sentient. If there is no difference between you and the blended arm, then you are both sentient and insentient. This is logically impossible. Either you're sentient, or you're not.
    You said that my arm is sentient. I agreed for the sake of the argument. And yet we both know that I can chop my arm off and make it into insentient matter and build something from it. That would be true even if I were omnipresent.



    God can't create something from nothing. In order for Him to create something, there must be material. That material must have come from somewhere. If this material was formed, then its particles must have pre-existed it. They they were formed, then their particles must have pre-existed them. Either way, there must have been something for God to exact His creative power on.
    That's a bare assertion. You're not supporting it and I think you should. Why do you say that God can't create something out of nothing?


    Certainly different scientific laws may apply. But if our logical laws don't apply to it, then you create a logical paradox, because in order to say that our laws don't apply, then you're saying that a law of that universe is that our logic doesn't apply, which in and of itself involves using our logic, meaning it does indeed apply in that universe. Our laws either do or do not apply there; there is no in between. But assuming that they don't leads to the conclusion that they do, which is illogical. Besides, if our logical laws don't apply to God, how can we claim to know anything about Him, including that He created from void? That too involves our logic; the Bible should be scrapped. In short, if we say something, another Universe, God, or what have you does not apply to our logic, then we can know nothing about it...including the fact that our logic doesn't apply to it, which is paradoxical.
    You're again confusing logical impossibility with physical impossibility. Creating something out of nothing is logically possible. It's just not physically possible within the laws of physics that we know. But there's no reason to suggest that the laws of physics that we know apply outside of our universe. In fact, by definition, they usually don't. And if we say that God created EVERYTHING, we automatically define "universe" as "everything". Thus, if our "universe" is not the only one then God created ALL THE UNIVERSES that there are and the word "Universe" (in terms of God's creation) applies to them all. Laws of physics are also something that God created. He wasn't subject to them because they are his own creation. At least that's how a Christian (and probably most theists who give it a thought) would think about it.

    And all this is said on the assumption that logic DOES APPLY TO GOD. If it doesn't then you are correct in saying that we can't define God and possibly can't even discuss Him at all with any degree of coherence. But nothing in what I said suggests that logic doesn't apply to God.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I'm not so sure about that. For example, Einstein has demonstrated that if an object is moving at the speed of light, time actually does stop for it.
    It's moving at the speed of light right? Speed is measured in distance over time (meters per second, kilometers per hour, etc). If time stops for it, then its not moving, so you can't say that it's moving at the speed of light, which means time never did stop for it. It's paradoxical.

    But that's beside the point. Because the question is not whether it can be stopped but whether it has EVER HAD A BEGINNING. We know that time is intimately entangled with space and energy. We know that time and space form a single continuum. I can't see why you would assume that time existed when there was no space.
    Because there was a moment when God created the Creation. The moment preceding it, there was no creation. After that, there was. There must have been a passage of time in between, or else we couldn't claim to know that there was a certain point in time that God created. If time didn't exist, then either the Creation never existed, or it always existed, because there couldn't have been a moment when the Creation didn't exist, and a subsequent moment when it did, because "moments" don't exist.

    Well TGK, if you assume that a process of creation MUST CONTAIN the above formula then you (in a very circular and self-serving way) do show that a creation can't take place except with the four elements we get from Aristotle.
    Right. This is really a common sense point.

    But what allows you to assume that? Why couldn't an intelligent entity create the universe FROM NOTHING? (I was tempted to add "and for no purpose" but that would only confuse things).
    Because creation is made of stuff. Where did the stuff come from? If there was nothing, then there was no stuff for God to create the Universe from, meaning the Universe could never have been created.

    Of course it can. There are plenty of examples of "pots" forming perfectly naturally, without any "potter's" intervention.
    Certainly they are formed pots. But they are not created pots. You confuse random formation with purposeful creation

    But again, we are talking about God. Why do you suggest that God couldn't create a pot without any clay? Why do you suggest that God couldn't make matter from nothing?
    Because there's no logical reason to assume so. Simply because you say God can doesn't mean He can, if its logically impossible. All creation must adhere to the four causes. There's no other way. There's no reason to assume that God somehow exempt; everything that's ever been created adheres to the four causes, so I can say that God must do so too. If you say God is exempt, the onus is on you to support it.

    But an omnipotent and magical entity like God isn't a skilled potter. He knows magic and he only needs to think the pot into existence. He doesn't have to study technique to become skilled at making pots.
    You're missing the point. The potter required a creative act of some kind to create a pot. God too required a creative act to create the Universe, even if it was just thinking. If there was no creative act, then either the Universe always existed, or it never did and currently does not. The Bible denies both.

    I don't get that one. A finished pot is not required for the making of a pot. It is the final product of the making. You're getting your causation back to front.
    Without a finished pot, you cannot have a finished pot, meaning you never created a finished pot.

    Only if by purpose you mean "intention" (as opposed to actual purpose that the pot is meant to fulfill) and if we assume that "creation" can't mean "accidental" or "incidental" or "by-product" creation by an intelligent entity.
    Right, there must have been an original intention behind the creation. Even if that intention was never fulfilled, the impetus for creation was still there.

    You said that my arm is sentient. I agreed for the sake of the argument. And yet we both know that I can chop my arm off and make it into insentient matter and build something from it. That would be true even if I were omnipresent.
    If you were omnipresent, then that mangled, insentient arm would still be part of you, making you both sentient and insentient simultaneously.

    That's a bare assertion. You're not supporting it and I think you should. Why do you say that God can't create something out of nothing?
    Why should you assume He can? You have to support this, not me. I say He cant, because everything that's ever been created has had and needs to have the four causes. Like I said in the OP:

    Cause should always precede effect, however, the effect must be pending in the cause. For example, the pot was pending in the clay before the potter created it. The pot-potential was present in the clay. The Bible mentions an efficient cause (Yahweh) but no material cause. It merely says that God created the world from a void wherein nothing existed but Him. How can this be if the effect must always be latent in the cause? Yahweh cannot simply *poof* matter into existence, as there must be something upon which His poofing powers can act. The first thing Yahweh created was light. This would be fine had light particles always existed, thus providing a material cause to be the subject of Yahweh's creative power, which is the efficient cause. The effect (light) would be latent in the cause (particles). However, the Bible says nothing existed before Yahweh created it, thus meaning that there was no material cause. This is illogical.
    Causes always have effect potential. Clay has pot potential. Ink has word potential. Paper has book potential. "Stuff" has Universe potential. Particles have light potential. The Bible says God created light. How could He have created it without some stuff that had light potential? It makes no sense. The "omnipotence" argument does not fit here, for even God is bound by logic.

    You're again confusing logical impossibility with physical impossibility. Creating something out of nothing is logically possible.
    Stuff can be formed on its own, yes. But it can't be created, as that requires a creator.

    It's just not physically possible within the laws of physics that we know. But there's no reason to suggest that the laws of physics that we know apply outside of our universe. In fact, by definition, they usually don't. And if we say that God created EVERYTHING, we automatically define "universe" as "everything". Thus, if our "universe" is not the only one then God created ALL THE UNIVERSES that there are and the word "Universe" (in terms of God's creation) applies to them all. Laws of physics are also something that God created. He wasn't subject to them because they are his own creation. At least that's how a Christian (and probably most theists who give it a thought) would think about it.

    And all this is said on the assumption that logic DOES APPLY TO GOD. If it doesn't then you are correct in saying that we can't define God and possibly can't even discuss Him at all with any degree of coherence. But nothing in what I said suggests that logic doesn't apply to God.
    No, you're talking about the laws of physics, which are indeed the scientific laws I was referring to. God can break as many of those as He wants to. I'm talking about the four causes, which are logical laws. They must apply to God because they are logical laws, and you yourself admit that God must conform to logic.

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    It's moving at the speed of light right? Speed is measured in distance over time (meters per second, kilometers per hour, etc). If time stops for it, then its not moving, so you can't say that it's moving at the speed of light, which means time never did stop for it. It's paradoxical.
    Time stops FOR THAT OBJECT. It doesn't stop for those around it who can actually measure its speed.



    Because there was a moment when God created the Creation. The moment preceding it, there was no creation.
    You're assuming there was a moment preceeding the creation which means you are assuming the existence of time.


    After that, there was. There must have been a passage of time in between, or else we couldn't claim to know that there was a certain point in time that God created.
    If there's no time then there's no point in time at which God creates the universe.


    If time didn't exist, then either the Creation never existed, or it always existed, because there couldn't have been a moment when the Creation didn't exist, and a subsequent moment when it did, because "moments" don't exist.
    But in order to claim that there must have been a moment at which creation didn't exist, you must FIRST ASSUMED that time existed. "Moment" is meaningless unless there exists time.


    Because creation is made of stuff. Where did the stuff come from? If there was nothing, then there was no stuff for God to create the Universe from, meaning the Universe could never have been created.
    Khan, you keep repeating this. And I keep asking you: WHY? Why can't God create the creation out of nothing?



    Certainly they are formed pots. But they are not created pots. You confuse random formation with purposeful creation
    No, I don't. You used the word "made", and not "created". My response was that a pot can be MADE by natural forces without any potter.



    Because there's no logical reason to assume so.
    To the contrary. There's no reason to assume that our laws of nature apply outside of our universe OR that they bind God. Since there's no basis for such an assumption, there's no basis to claim that God MUST HAVE BEEN bound by our laws of nature. Ergo, there's no basis for claiming that God needed to use some pre-existent matter in order to create the Universe.

    In fact, to claim that that was the case is illogical because Universe is defined as ALL MATTER (and some other things too).


    Simply because you say God can doesn't mean He can, if its logically impossible. All creation must adhere to the four causes.
    Khan, THIS IS CIRCULAR. You keep making this BARE ASSERTION. Prove it! Support your claim that all creation must adhere to four causes! That's the VERY POINT IN CONTENTION in our debate here. And you keep repeating it like it's some holy mantra. It's not. Support it.


    There's no other way. There's no reason to assume that God somehow exempt; everything that's ever been created adheres to the four causes, so I can say that God must do so too. If you say God is exempt, the onus is on you to support it.
    But everything that we know to be "created" exists WITHIN our universe and is bound by the laws of nature that we know. And we know those laws of nature because we've observed them. And our observation is LIMITED to things WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. You are attempting to extrapolate them outside our universe and you have no basis for it. Our UNIVERSE by definition includes ALL MATTER, ALL ENERGY, ALL SPACE, ALL TIME AND ALL KNOWN TO US LAWS OF NATURE.


    You're missing the point. The potter required a creative act of some kind to create a pot. God too required a creative act to create the Universe, even if it was just thinking. If there was no creative act, then either the Universe always existed, or it never did and currently does not. The Bible denies both.
    Fine. I wish you had made that clear to start with. But of course it makes no difference. There's no doubt that God used a creating act when creating the creation.


    Without a finished pot, you cannot have a finished pot, meaning you never created a finished pot.
    Again, the wrong way around. The truth is that if you create a finished pot, there will exist a finished pot. The existence of a finished pot is evidence that it has come into existence (unless it has always existed). That's true. But the existence of it is not a prerequisite for its creation. Creation comes first, finished product comes second.



    Right, there must have been an original intention behind the creation. Even if that intention was never fulfilled, the impetus for creation was still there.
    Again, that's not in issue in this thread. I threw it in just to clarify (or the opposite) matters :D



    If you were omnipresent, then that mangled, insentient arm would still be part of you, making you both sentient and insentient simultaneously.
    Clearly that's not the case. It isn't claimed that God IS the Universe. He's quite separate from it. Hence, the meaning of omnipresence that you are trying to use is obviously not the correct meaning. The Bible doesn't make it very clear. It just says that God is everywhere. At the same time there are passages that suggest that God is not IN SUBSTANCE everywhere.

    Does being omnipresent mean that everything is YOU? I don't think so. You could be present THROUGHOUT all matter but without that matter being part of you. Think about it in a spiritual sense.



    Why should you assume He can? You have to support this, not me.
    Because we assume that God is omnipotent and therefore can do anything He wants. But that's not the end of it either. The laws that you are trying to impose on God apply only as part of our universe. We have absolutely no data, no observations, NOTHING AT ALL, to extrapolate them to apply outside of our universe. They are UNIVERSAL laws. That word means a lot but it also provides a limitation; they apply ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. No reason to suggest that they apply any further than that.

    I say He cant, because everything that's ever been created has had and needs to have the four causes.
    Again, that's circular. You say everything that's created needs to have all four causes BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. And because Aristotle said so thousands of years ago. Well, why? Why do you say that everything that is created has to have all four causes? Why do you say this applies to things that are created OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE where we have no data, no calculations, no knowledge at all?

    We KNOW that our universe is expanding and the entire fabric of space and time expands with it. Beyond the universe there is nothing at all that would in any way need to resemble what we know within the universe. Nothing.


    Causes always have effect potential. Clay has pot potential. Ink has word potential. Paper has book potential. "Stuff" has Universe potential. Particles have light potential. The Bible says God created light. How could He have created it without some stuff that had light potential? It makes no sense. The "omnipotence" argument does not fit here, for even God is bound by logic.
    Again, you need to prove that causes ALWAYS have "effect potential".

    Once again, this is based on a very limited (and really outdated and narrow) interpretation of OUR UNIVERSE based on OUR OBSERVATIONS WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. There's nothing (not a single thing) that would allow you to extrapolate this to anything outside our universe.

    Note that the word "potential" in this context is really just a philosophical word that means very little, if anything at all. Clay doesn't have any pot potential. Clay is just a part of the universe that you, under some circumstances, recognise as a pot. Without this perception of yours, there's really no such thing as a pot. It's YOU (and other humans) who have decided to classify parts of the universe in accordance with human conventions, completely arbitrary ones, completely based on OUR uses of things.



    Stuff can be formed on its own, yes. But it can't be created, as that requires a creator.
    By DEFINITION, creation of stuff requires a creator. But it doesn't by definition require STUFF TO MAKE IT FROM. There's nothing in the definition of creation that requires that the creator must have some stuff from which to make other stuff.


    No, you're talking about the laws of physics, which are indeed the scientific laws I was referring to. God can break as many of those as He wants to. I'm talking about the four causes, which are logical laws. They must apply to God because they are logical laws, and you yourself admit that God must conform to logic.
    The four causes are NOT LOGICAL LAWS. They are NATURAL laws, based on OBSERVATION OF NATURE.

    "Mickey Mouse came out of a TV screen and created the Titanic out of nothing" is a logically coherent statement. There's nothing illogical in it. It might break everything we know about physics and nature but it does not breach logic.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    Time stops FOR THAT OBJECT. It doesn't stop for those around it who can actually measure its speed.
    So does it actually stop, or is it relative? That still makes it paradoxical, as I've noted.

    You're assuming there was a moment preceeding the creation which means you are assuming the existence of time.

    If there's no time then there's no point in time at which God creates the universe.

    But in order to claim that there must have been a moment at which creation didn't exist, you must FIRST ASSUMED that time existed. "Moment" is meaningless unless there exists time.
    But how are time and space related? How can you say that before God created the Universe, seconds were not ticking? How can time not exist?

    Khan, you keep repeating this. And I keep asking you: WHY? Why can't God create the creation out of nothing?
    Because creation requires material cause. We decide what is created and what isn't, and we say that created stuff requires material cause. If God made something from nothing, then God didn't create it.

    No, I don't. You used the word "made", and not "created". My response was that a pot can be MADE by natural forces without any potter.
    Okay, then fine. Pots can't be created via random formation, as creation is by definition purposeful; it has a final cause.

    To the contrary. There's no reason to assume that our laws of nature apply outside of our universe OR that they bind God. Since there's no basis for such an assumption, there's no basis to claim that God MUST HAVE BEEN bound by our laws of nature. Ergo, there's no basis for claiming that God needed to use some pre-existent matter in order to create the Universe.

    In fact, to claim that that was the case is illogical because Universe is defined as ALL MATTER (and some other things too).

    Khan, THIS IS CIRCULAR. You keep making this BARE ASSERTION. Prove it! Support your claim that all creation must adhere to four causes! That's the VERY POINT IN CONTENTION in our debate here. And you keep repeating it like it's some holy mantra. It's not. Support it.
    Because its not a natural law, its a logical law. If we call something created, then we are saying it adheres to these four causes.

    But everything that we know to be "created" exists WITHIN our universe and is bound by the laws of nature that we know. And we know those laws of nature because we've observed them. And our observation is LIMITED to things WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. You are attempting to extrapolate them outside our universe and you have no basis for it. Our UNIVERSE by definition includes ALL MATTER, ALL ENERGY, ALL SPACE, ALL TIME AND ALL KNOWN TO US LAWS OF NATURE.
    As above. If we call something created, then it must have the four causes because that's what we mean when we say its been "created."

    Again, the wrong way around. The truth is that if you create a finished pot, there will exist a finished pot. The existence of a finished pot is evidence that it has come into existence (unless it has always existed). That's true. But the existence of it is not a prerequisite for its creation. Creation comes first, finished product comes second.
    Right, so if you take the finished pot itself out of the equation, you don't have a finished pot. You've taken away the formal cause.

    Clearly that's not the case. It isn't claimed that God IS the Universe. He's quite separate from it. Hence, the meaning of omnipresence that you are trying to use is obviously not the correct meaning. The Bible doesn't make it very clear. It just says that God is everywhere. At the same time there are passages that suggest that God is not IN SUBSTANCE everywhere.

    Does being omnipresent mean that everything is YOU? I don't think so. You could be present THROUGHOUT all matter but without that matter being part of you. Think about it in a spiritual sense.
    Yes, it does say that. What we're discussing is the possible Christian objection that God Himself is both material and efficient cause (like Epic creating a steak from his own ass), even though that contradicts the Bible that God created the Universe from void, making it separate from Him.

    Because we assume that God is omnipotent and therefore can do anything He wants. But that's not the end of it either. The laws that you are trying to impose on God apply only as part of our universe. We have absolutely no data, no observations, NOTHING AT ALL, to extrapolate them to apply outside of our universe. They are UNIVERSAL laws. That word means a lot but it also provides a limitation; they apply ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. No reason to suggest that they apply any further than that.

    Again, that's circular. You say everything that's created needs to have all four causes BECAUSE YOU SAY SO. And because Aristotle said so thousands of years ago. Well, why? Why do you say that everything that is created has to have all four causes? Why do you say this applies to things that are created OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE where we have no data, no calculations, no knowledge at all?

    We KNOW that our universe is expanding and the entire fabric of space and time expands with it. Beyond the universe there is nothing at all that would in any way need to resemble what we know within the universe. Nothing.
    Because we are calling that stuff in the other universe "created stuff." And since this is our definition, if follows our logical rules, as we define what is or is not created. And we say "created stuff" must adhere to the four causes.

    Again, you need to prove that causes ALWAYS have "effect potential".
    If causes had no effect potential they wouldn't be able to produce the effect. Effect potential is what allows causes to produce effects.

    Once again, this is based on a very limited (and really outdated and narrow) interpretation of OUR UNIVERSE based on OUR OBSERVATIONS WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. There's nothing (not a single thing) that would allow you to extrapolate this to anything outside our universe.

    Note that the word "potential" in this context is really just a philosophical word that means very little, if anything at all. Clay doesn't have any pot potential. Clay is just a part of the universe that you, under some circumstances, recognise as a pot. Without this perception of yours, there's really no such thing as a pot. It's YOU (and other humans) who have decided to classify parts of the universe in accordance with human conventions, completely arbitrary ones, completely based on OUR uses of things.
    That's fine because creation too is a human concept, follow human rules.

    By DEFINITION, creation of stuff requires a creator. But it doesn't by definition require STUFF TO MAKE IT FROM. There's nothing in the definition of creation that requires that the creator must have some stuff from which to make other stuff.
    If the creator has no stuff to make a finished product, then the product lacks substance (material, ether, spirit, whatever) and therefore doesn't exist.

    The four causes are NOT LOGICAL LAWS. They are NATURAL laws, based on OBSERVATION OF NATURE.

    "Mickey Mouse came out of a TV screen and created the Titanic out of nothing" is a logically coherent statement. There's nothing illogical in it. It might break everything we know about physics and nature but it does not breach logic.
    They can't be natural laws because they aren't natural, as you have said. We call that created stuff as created stuff, but nature doesn't care. We define certain stuff as "created" making it follow our logical rules.

  5. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    So does it actually stop, or is it relative? That still makes it paradoxical, as I've noted.
    ALL TIME is relative. There's no such thing as "objective" time. Time is a function of space. We call it spacetime.

    Suppose you were to go in a very fast spacecraft orbitting the Earth. Your computer onboard would say that you've spent a year there. Your body would appear to have gotten a year older. But when you returned to Earth, you would find that 10 years had passed on earth during the one year that you were flying (if you were flying fast enough).

    And this isn't science fiction or theory. This has been tested and utilised practically. GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted for this effect. If they didn't, their pinpointing of your position using a GPS device would be inaccurate and this inaccuracy would grow every day. From memory, it's something like 7km per day!

    The faster you go, the slower time goes for you. And when you reach the speed of light, time becomes infinitely slow; it stops.

    The reason why it's NOT paradoxical is the following:

    1. Imagine that you drive a car at 100km/h. Another car drives next to you at 80km/h. We'd agree that relative to you, the other car is going at -20km/h. And relative to that car you are going at 20km/h.

    2. But the above doesn't work for C. If you were travelling at the speed of light and someone next to you were also travelling at the speed of light (in the same direction as you are), they would still (even RELATIVE TO YOU) travel at the speed of light.

    This WOULD be paradoxical if time were constant. But it's not.

    I'm trying my best to explain something that I don't fully understand because I'm not a physicist. But what I'm saying is true, it's fully accepted by science (there are no controversies about it at all).

    My entire point here is that time is a function of space and there's no reason to think that time exists at all without space. And space is part of the universe. There's no reason therefore to think that time exists outside of the universe, where there is no space.



    But how are time and space related? How can you say that before God created the Universe, seconds were not ticking? How can time not exist?
    As above. Timespace is a single thing. Time is not separate from space. It's extremely difficult to imagine because we exist within timespace and anything different is simply beyond the bounds of our imagination.



    Because creation requires material cause. We decide what is created and what isn't, and we say that created stuff requires material cause. If God made something from nothing, then God didn't create it.
    Circular. Please support your PREMISE that "creation requires material cause".


    Okay, then fine. Pots can't be created via random formation, as creation is by definition purposeful; it has a final cause.
    Okies. Sorry for this distraction by the way.



    Because its not a natural law, its a logical law. If we call something created, then we are saying it adheres to these four causes.
    You're playing with words here. AND you are giving them YOUR OWN meaning. Why do you say that a god creating something out of nothing is not actually creating it?

    As far as I was aware, the definition of creation didn't go that far at all. It simply meant knowingly making something.


    From dictionary.com:

    to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

    No mention there of pre-exiting materials.

    Cambridge dictionary online:

    create verb ( MAKE ) /kriˈeɪt/ v
    [T] to make something new, especially to invent something


    Again, no suggestion that there must be some material to make it from.


    Webster dictionary online:

    1 : to bring into existence

    Once again, no mention of any preexisting materials as a requirement for creation.


    It seems that the word "create" doesn't import any necessity for preexisting materials.

    So, where do you get this requirement from?


    As above. If we call something created, then it must have the four causes because that's what we mean when we say its been "created."
    And AGAIN I ask you to support that. But you can't rely on our experience of THIS UNIVERSE in this. That's because the laws of our universe do not apply.


    Right, so if you take the finished pot itself out of the equation, you don't have a finished pot. You've taken away the formal cause.
    I didn't say I don't have a finished pot. I said that having a finished pot is not a cause of making a finished pot. It's a result. But fine, we can do away with that one.



    Yes, it does say that. What we're discussing is the possible Christian objection that God Himself is both material and efficient cause (like Epic creating a steak from his own ass), even though that contradicts the Bible that God created the Universe from void, making it separate from Him.
    WHERE does the Bible say that God is the material cause of Creation? Where does it say that he created Creation FROM HIMSELF? I don't think it does. I think it's clear that He created Creation FROM NOTHING.



    Because we are calling that stuff in the other universe "created stuff." And since this is our definition, if follows our logical rules, as we define what is or is not created. And we say "created stuff" must adhere to the four causes.
    Once again, WHY does created stuff have to adhere to the four causes? The word "Creation" doesn't imply that (as above). So where do you get this from?

    Answer: Aristotle. And he's wrong. He's wrong about formal cause (as you have described it, at least). And he's wrong about material cause when it comes to creating the universe. His conclusions are based on observations of things WE create WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. God wasn't within our universe when He created the universe.



    If causes had no effect potential they wouldn't be able to produce the effect. Effect potential is what allows causes to produce effects.
    In other words, if clay can't be made into a pot then clay can't be made into a pot. Fine. But so what?


    That's fine because creation too is a human concept, follow human rules.
    I could argue that the Universe doesn't fall into that category but I won't. It just doesn't matter. Let's let this one go.


    If the creator has no stuff to make a finished product, then the product lacks substance (material, ether, spirit, whatever) and therefore doesn't exist.
    Unless the creator creates the stuff from nothing, just like God did.

    You still need to support your premise that creation necessarily requires materials to make stuff from. Please do support it.

    They can't be natural laws because they aren't natural, as you have said. We call that created stuff as created stuff, but nature doesn't care. We define certain stuff as "created" making it follow our logical rules.
    The universe behaves in certain ways. We've noticed that and found consistencies in it. We call them NATURAL LAWS. There may be many more consistencies that we haven't noticed. They can still be called natural laws, even though we don't know them. In this context, natural laws are basically properties of the universe.

    There's a distinction between a logical proposition and an empirical proposition. Eg:

    1. All cats are dogs
    2. My computer is a cat
    Therefore: My computer is a dog

    The above is a logically correct sentence. But it's not factually correct. Why? Because premises (1) and (2) are factually wrong.

    Take another example:

    1. All humans have two legs
    2. Allo has two legs
    Therefore: Allo is a human

    The above is not logically correct. The conclusion doesn't flow from the premises. But it happens to be factually correct.

    Now, take your position:

    1. There can't be creation without materials
    2. There is creation
    Therefore there must have been materials

    It is logically correct. But it's based on a premise that you haven't supported. Premise (1) is a factual claim. It needs support. If you believe that there exists LOGICAL support for it then please present it. I say it's not capable of being supported by logic alone. I say that the claim is factual. I further say that it's incorrect when applied to things outside our universe.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    ALL TIME is relative. There's no such thing as "objective" time. Time is a function of space. We call it spacetime.

    Suppose you were to go in a very fast spacecraft orbitting the Earth. Your computer onboard would say that you've spent a year there. Your body would appear to have gotten a year older. But when you returned to Earth, you would find that 10 years had passed on earth during the one year that you were flying (if you were flying fast enough).

    And this isn't science fiction or theory. This has been tested and utilised practically. GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted for this effect. If they didn't, their pinpointing of your position using a GPS device would be inaccurate and this inaccuracy would grow every day. From memory, it's something like 7km per day!

    The faster you go, the slower time goes for you. And when you reach the speed of light, time becomes infinitely slow; it stops.

    The reason why it's NOT paradoxical is the following:

    1. Imagine that you drive a car at 100km/h. Another car drives next to you at 80km/h. We'd agree that relative to you, the other car is going at -20km/h. And relative to that car you are going at 20km/h.

    2. But the above doesn't work for C. If you were travelling at the speed of light and someone next to you were also travelling at the speed of light (in the same direction as you are), they would still (even RELATIVE TO YOU) travel at the speed of light.

    This WOULD be paradoxical if time were constant. But it's not.

    I'm trying my best to explain something that I don't fully understand because I'm not a physicist. But what I'm saying is true, it's fully accepted by science (there are no controversies about it at all).

    My entire point here is that time is a function of space and there's no reason to think that time exists at all without space. And space is part of the universe. There's no reason therefore to think that time exists outside of the universe, where there is no space.

    As above. Timespace is a single thing. Time is not separate from space. It's extremely difficult to imagine because we exist within timespace and anything different is simply beyond the bounds of our imagination.
    But the Bible says there was a moment when God created the universe. Is the Bible wrong?

    Circular. Please support your PREMISE that "creation requires material cause".
    Because everything that is created is made from stuff. That stuff is the material cause. The creation is an effect. The creative process is a cause. Cause precedes effect. No cause, no effect. And here, we have the Universe, an effect without a cause. This is illogical.

    You're playing with words here. AND you are giving them YOUR OWN meaning. Why do you say that a god creating something out of nothing is not actually creating it?

    As far as I was aware, the definition of creation didn't go that far at all. It simply meant knowingly making something.


    From dictionary.com:

    to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

    No mention there of pre-exiting materials.

    Cambridge dictionary online:

    create verb ( MAKE ) /kriˈeɪt/ v
    [T] to make something new, especially to invent something


    Again, no suggestion that there must be some material to make it from.


    Webster dictionary online:

    1 : to bring into existence

    Once again, no mention of any preexisting materials as a requirement for creation.


    It seems that the word "create" doesn't import any necessity for preexisting materials.

    So, where do you get this requirement from?
    Because creating something from nothing is illogical. If you pulled something out of nowhere, then it must have existed somewhere before you pulled it out of nowhere, meaning it was already existing. If you created it, then it is made of stuff. Where did this stuff come from? If it didn't exist before, where did the material that comprises it come from? It had to come from somewhere, making it pre-existing material.

    And AGAIN I ask you to support that. But you can't rely on our experience of THIS UNIVERSE in this. That's because the laws of our universe do not apply.
    Sure they don't. But if we call it "created" then it plays by our rules. And we say all created objects have all four causes. We say that cause precedes effect and effect must be latent in the cause. God's creating the Universe, providing efficient cause without material cause means that He's not following the four causes nor is His effect of creation latent in His material cause (since there is none). God must follow logic.

    WHERE does the Bible say that God is the material cause of Creation? Where does it say that he created Creation FROM HIMSELF? I don't think it does. I think it's clear that He created Creation FROM NOTHING.
    Right. The idea that He is both material and efficient cause is a possible objection the illogicality of Him creating without a material cause (ie from void) as some people might say that since before the Creation existed, all that existed was the God, and thus there was no possible option but for Him to create the Creation from Himself.

    Once again, WHY does created stuff have to adhere to the four causes? The word "Creation" doesn't imply that (as above). So where do you get this from?
    Because its logically impossible for it not to.

    Answer: Aristotle. And he's wrong. He's wrong about formal cause (as you have described it, at least).
    If something doesn't have a formal cause, it doesn't exist.

    And he's wrong about material cause when it comes to creating the universe. His conclusions are based on observations of things WE create WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE. God wasn't within our universe when He created the universe.
    If something doesn't have material cause, it doesn't exist either. All that exist must have some material, made of matter, ether, spirit, or otherwise.

    In other words, if clay can't be made into a pot then clay can't be made into a pot. Fine. But so what?
    So...if God had no material cause, then He had no cause with effect potential. If there was no cause with effect potential how could there have been an effect? If God doesn't follow cause and effect, He's not logical.

    Unless the creator creates the stuff from nothing, just like God did.
    Omnipotence doesn't apply to illogical stuff. If God created matter out of nowhere, there was an effect without a cause. In this Universe, or another, God must follow logic.

    You still need to support your premise that creation necessarily requires materials to make stuff from. Please do support it.
    If there's no material how does it exist?

    It is logically correct. But it's based on a premise that you haven't supported. Premise (1) is a factual claim. It needs support. If you believe that there exists LOGICAL support for it then please present it. I say it's not capable of being supported by logic alone. I say that the claim is factual. I further say that it's incorrect when applied to things outside our universe.
    Without material, we can't say it exists. And we define what does or does not exist. And we say if it exists, it must have material of some kind.
    Last edited by The Great Khan; April 26th, 2010 at 07:17 PM.

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    But the Bible says there was a moment when God created the universe. Is the Bible wrong?
    TGK, you KNOW I'm an atheist. What sort of question is this? Is the Bible wrong! OF COURSE it's wrong. But not because of the reasons you give

    Now, let me get back In Character......



    There was indeed a moment when God created the universe. That was the beginning of time. God created the universe and time started ticking. There's no universe and no physical activity "prior" to the creation of the universe. There's no time.


    Because everything that is created is made from stuff. That stuff is the material cause. The creation is an effect. The creative process is a cause. Cause precedes effect. No cause, no effect. And here, we have the Universe, an effect without a cause. This is illogical.
    Right...

    So God's creation required a material cause because every creation requires a material cause.

    But when I ask why every creation requires a material cause, you reply "Because every creation requires a material cause". Do you see a problem here?


    Because creating something from nothing is illogical. If you pulled something out of nowhere, then it must have existed somewhere before you pulled it out of nowhere, meaning it was already existing. If you created it, then it is made of stuff. Where did this stuff come from? If it didn't exist before, where did the material that comprises it come from? It had to come from somewhere, making it pre-existing material.
    Again, unsupported. I'm going to do a formal challenge next time, if you continue like this, buddy.



    Sure they don't. But if we call it "created" then it plays by our rules. And we say all created objects have all four causes.
    No we don't. YOU do.


    We say that cause precedes effect and effect must be latent in the cause. God's creating the Universe, providing efficient cause without material cause means that He's not following the four causes nor is His effect of creation latent in His material cause (since there is none). God must follow logic.
    I've already asked you to demonstrate that this is a question of logic and not of empirical knowledge.

    I again propose the following:

    "Snow White had oral sex with a tree and the tree gave birth to a pink pumpkin who was then magically turned into Stalin".

    The above statement is logically coherent. As is this one:

    "God created the universe out of nothing"

    It's MAGIC, man! It's fine! Magic is not illogical. It only contravenes our knowledge of the laws of nature. But not of logic.


    Right. The idea that He is both material and efficient cause is a possible objection the illogicality of Him creating without a material cause (ie from void) as some people might say that since before the Creation existed, all that existed was the God, and thus there was no possible option but for Him to create the Creation from Himself.
    Only if you first assume that all creation needs a material cause. But that STILL needs support.


    Because its logically impossible for it not to.
    I disagree. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that. There's nothing illogical about creating something out of nothing. It's not a matter of logic! Please stop repeating it. SUPPORT IT instead.



    If something doesn't have a formal cause, it doesn't exist.
    But a "formal cause" is not a cause at all. It's an EFFECT. Unless the way you have been interpreting formal cause is incorrect.



    If something doesn't have material cause, it doesn't exist either. All that exist must have some material, made of matter, ether, spirit, or otherwise.
    Same old unsupported assertion.



    So...if God had no material cause, then He had no cause with effect potential. If there was no cause with effect potential how could there have been an effect? If God doesn't follow cause and effect, He's not logical.
    Cause and effect is not a matter of logic, TGK. It's a matter of physics. And we do know (according to quantum scientists) that things do come into existence willy nilly and seemingly out of nothing, on a sub-particle scale. So there goes our entire knowledge of cause and effect!


    Omnipotence doesn't apply to illogical stuff. If God created matter out of nowhere, there was an effect without a cause. In this Universe, or another, God must follow logic.
    It really seems that you don't understand what logic is. Causes are not a matter of logic. They're a matter of the physical world.

    1. You CAN imagine a world in which houses suddenly come into existence (without any cause), then they turn into fairies and fly away. It's magic, it's weird but it's not illogical. Even though it involves things coming into existence without any cause at all, such a world is imaginable. Magicland.

    2. But you can't imagine a world in which a binary can have both states at the same time. For example, where a lamp is both on and off at the same time. There are only two possible states for the lamp (on and off) and it's logically impossible for it to be both at the same time, even in a magical world. This is the law of the excluded middle (logic).

    3. And you can't imagine a world where every dog is an animal, Fluffy is a dog but he's not an animal. It's illogical.


    If there's no material how does it exist?
    It exists because it has come into existence. It was created out of nothing. It's magic. But God is magical. It's not illogical, only magical.


    Without material, we can't say it exists. And we define what does or does not exist. And we say if it exists, it must have material of some kind.
    But it DOES have material. Ever since it was created, it has material. God created the material from nothing. Because God is magic.
    Last edited by Allocutus; April 27th, 2010 at 05:39 AM.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    There was indeed a moment when God created the universe. That was the beginning of time. God created the universe and time started ticking. There's no universe and no physical activity "prior" to the creation of the universe. There's no time.
    Then how could God create the universe? He had to act at a certain point, and this point was before time existed. But if at one point, the universe (and time) exists, and at a point before that, it didn't, then time must have existed before God created the universe.

    Right...

    So God's creation required a material cause because every creation requires a material cause.

    But when I ask why every creation requires a material cause, you reply "Because every creation requires a material cause". Do you see a problem here?
    Because cause always precedes effect. Always. If not, you get logical paradoxes

    Again, unsupported. I'm going to do a formal challenge next time, if you continue like this, buddy.
    This is support.
    Because creating something from nothing is illogical. If you pulled something out of nowhere, then it must have existed somewhere before you pulled it out of nowhere, meaning it was already existing. If you created it, then it is made of stuff. Where did this stuff come from? If it didn't exist before, where did the material that comprises it come from? It had to come from somewhere, making it pre-existing material.
    No we don't. YOU do.
    It's not just me. Everything we call "created" conforms to Aristotle's four causes. You're really not giving Aristotle enough credit here.

    I've already asked you to demonstrate that this is a question of logic and not of empirical knowledge.

    I again propose the following:

    "Snow White had oral sex with a tree and the tree gave birth to a pink pumpkin who was then magically turned into Stalin".

    The above statement is logically coherent. As is this one:

    "God created the universe out of nothing"

    It's MAGIC, man! It's fine! Magic is not illogical. It only contravenes our knowledge of the laws of nature. But not of logic.
    Didn;t you read what I wrote?

    We say that cause precedes effect and effect must be latent in the cause. God's creating the Universe, providing efficient cause without material cause means that He's not following the four causes nor is His effect of creation latent in His material cause (since there is none). God must follow logic.
    I'm not saying magic is illogical. I'm saying God must follow cause and effect. Which is logical.

    Only if you first assume that all creation needs a material cause. But that STILL needs support.
    Without material cause, there can be no effect, as there is no cause with effect potential. Cause always precedes effect.

    I disagree. And I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that. There's nothing illogical about creating something out of nothing. It's not a matter of logic! Please stop repeating it. SUPPORT IT instead.
    Wait...so I need to support something extremely obvious (that all stuff must be made of stuff) yet you don't need to support this crazy assertion that God created something out of nothing, that He magically poofed stuff into eixstence? Don't you see something wrong with that?

    But a "formal cause" is not a cause at all. It's an EFFECT. Unless the way you have been interpreting formal cause is incorrect.
    Formal cause is the arrangement of its substance. Without some kind of arrangement (even if its random and chaotic) stuff doesn't exist.

    Same old unsupported assertion.
    Stop asking me to support obvious stuff. Everything that exists has to be made of some kind of substance. I draw upon the entire universe for support. If you think something can exist without having substance of some kind, then the burden of proof is on YOU to support that.

    Cause and effect is not a matter of logic, TGK. It's a matter of physics. And we do know (according to quantum scientists) that things do come into existence willy nilly and seemingly out of nothing, on a sub-particle scale. So there goes our entire knowledge of cause and effect!
    There was a cause there; we just don't know what it is. If there is no cause, Allo, then there cannot be effect, as effect is simply modified cause (clay into pot, water to ice, etc.). If there was no cause, then God never created matter, and this universe does not exist.

    It really seems that you don't understand what logic is. Causes are not a matter of logic. They're a matter of the physical world.

    1. You CAN imagine a world in which houses suddenly come into existence (without any cause), then they turn into fairies and fly away. It's magic, it's weird but it's not illogical. Even though it involves things coming into existence without any cause at all, such a world is imaginable. Magicland.
    No, I can't. Nor can you, or anyone else. If we imagine houses coming into existence, turning into fairies, and flying away, we're implying a cause there even if we don't know it.

    2. But you can't imagine a world in which a binary can have both states at the same time. For example, where a lamp is both on and off at the same time. There are only two possible states for the lamp (on and off) and it's logically impossible for it to be both at the same time, even in a magical world. This is the law of the excluded middle (logic).

    3. And you can't imagine a world where every dog is an animal, Fluffy is a dog but he's not an animal. It's illogical.
    Maybe I can. How would you know?

    It exists because it has come into existence. It was created out of nothing. It's magic. But God is magical. It's not illogical, only magical.

    But it DOES have material. Ever since it was created, it has material. God created the material from nothing. Because God is magic.
    Support that magic can allow you to create stuff out of nothing. Simply saying "its magic, it can do that" isn't an answer.

  9. #29
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    Then how could God create the universe? He had to act at a certain point, and this point was before time existed. But if at one point, the universe (and time) exists, and at a point before that, it didn't, then time must have existed before God created the universe.
    No. Because there is no point in time before the existence of the universe. God creates the universe and with it creates time.

    It's like this:

    God -----------> CREATION ---------> Universe and time



    Because cause always precedes effect. Always. If not, you get logical paradoxes
    No you don't. You get contraventions of laws of physics. Nothing to do with logic.




    This is support.



    Quote Originally Posted by your claimed support
    Because creating something from nothing is illogical. If you pulled something out of nowhere, then it must have existed somewhere before you pulled it out of nowhere, meaning it was already existing. If you created it, then it is made of stuff. Where did this stuff come from? If it didn't exist before, where did the material that comprises it come from? It had to come from somewhere, making it pre-existing material.
    No, this is not support. This is PREMISED on the ASSUMPTION that things ALWAYS need material to be created. It's circular.

    I now Challenge to support a claim. you to support that creation always requires pre-existing materials.


    It's not just me. Everything we call "created" conforms to Aristotle's four causes. You're really not giving Aristotle enough credit here.
    You're trying to appeal to "authority". And I put that in quotes for a reason. Aristotle is no authority when it comes to these issues.

    Please support that Aristotle's principles apply to an omnipotent entity like God. This is a formal Challenge to support a claim..



    Didn;t you read what I wrote?

    We say that cause precedes effect and effect must be latent in the cause. God's creating the Universe, providing efficient cause without material cause means that He's not following the four causes nor is His effect of creation latent in His material cause (since there is none). God must follow logic.
    Circular.

    I formally Challenge to support a claim.you to demonstrate that logic prohibits the creation of something out of nothing.

    Note that in the other thread (Trinity) you appear to very well understand the difference between logical impossibility and physical impossibility. Interesting.


    I'm not saying magic is illogical. I'm saying God must follow cause and effect. Which is logical.
    As above, you've been challenge to demonstrate that cause and effect is a law of logic, as opposed to nature.

    I've already given you examples of logically coherent statements that talk about things arising out of nothing, with no cause. You just glossed over them and repeated your bare assertion.


    Without material cause, there can be no effect, as there is no cause with effect potential. Cause always precedes effect.
    Another circular statement. I asked you to support this, NOT TO REPEAT THIS. See the challenges above.


    Wait...so I need to support something extremely obvious (that all stuff must be made of stuff) yet you don't need to support this crazy assertion that God created something out of nothing, that He magically poofed stuff into eixstence? Don't you see something wrong with that?
    1. Correct. You have made a claim that it's illogical for God to create something out of nothing. You have based that claim on an assertion that the four causes apply extra-universally. Since you have made the assertion, it is for you to support. The onus is on you.

    2. Independently of (1) above, I AGAIN say that our "obvious knowledge" that things require material to be created comes from our empirical observations of OUR UNIVERSE. Our universe by definition contains all laws of nature as we know them. It's arguably IMPOSSIBLE to know anything that exists outside our universe. And we certainly don't know AT ALL that ANY of the empirically observed laws and dependencies within our universe at all exist outside our universe. Therefore, it's NOT AT ALL obvious that things outside our universe need pre-existing material to be created.

    3. God is omnipotent by definition. Nothing's impossible for him. That's the god you're talking about in this thread. Therefore, it's OBVIOUS that this version of god can break all natural laws.

    Therefore, I don't have to support anything FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. The burden is squarely on you.



    Formal cause is the arrangement of its substance. Without some kind of arrangement (even if its random and chaotic) stuff doesn't exist.
    I see, so in other words, things that exist exist. That's very helpful. Thanks, Aristotle

    (told you not to trust that guy, he lived thousands of years ago when philosophers busied themselves with proving that the arrow can't fly; we've moved on)


    Stop asking me to support obvious stuff. Everything that exists has to be made of some kind of substance. I draw upon the entire universe for support. If you think something can exist without having substance of some kind, then the burden of proof is on YOU to support that.
    Circular and unsupported. And NOT AT ALL obvious. Refer to my challenges above and my explanation (for the nth time) of the fact that laws of nature as we know them are universal and not EXTRAUNIVERSAL.


    There was a cause there; we just don't know what it is. If there is no cause, Allo, then there cannot be effect, as effect is simply modified cause (clay into pot, water to ice, etc.). If there was no cause, then God never created matter, and this universe does not exist.
    I disagree. Your logic is like this:

    1. Everything has a cause

    2. Therefore things in quantum physics must also have a cause

    But the problem again is your premise. Refer to my challenges above.


    No, I can't. Nor can you, or anyone else. If we imagine houses coming into existence, turning into fairies, and flying away, we're implying a cause there even if we don't know it.
    No, we're not. I'm talking about a world where houses come into existence WITHOUT A CAUSE and then turn into fairies and fly away. Such a world is possible to imagine. It's logically coherent. It only breaches laws of nature as we know them.



    Maybe I can. How would you know?
    Because it's LOGICALLY impossible for a dog to be a dog while not being a dog. The expression contradicts itself. THAT'S logic. But it's not logically impossible for a dog to appear out of nothing and for no reason.

    Let me give you another logically valid statement:

    1. All things that appear out of nothing and without a cause are dogs.

    2. I saw something that appeared out of nothing and without a cause.

    Therefore: what I saw was a dog

    This is PERFECTLY LOGICALLY CORRECT.

    Support that magic can allow you to create stuff out of nothing. Simply saying "its magic, it can do that" isn't an answer.
    Magic by definition is the ability to breach laws of nature. If something breaches laws of nature then we can call it magic. That's what the word means.

    But of course, when I used the word "magic" I was being a little ironic. After all, I WAS talking about a god.

    The point of the matter is that gods are, pretty much by definition, supernatural. They can do things that we might consider impossible. For example, some gods are said to communicate with human spirits. Or to know all the thoughts of every human. Or to exist without ever being detected.


    And this particular god (Yahweh) could create the universe out of nothing. Just another damn thing that we consider impossible.

    But it's not logically impossible. It's only physically impossible. And that's cool! Because ALL "magic", ALL "supernatural" is stuff that we consider physically impossible or inexplicable.

    I look forward to your meeting my challenges.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    But that doesn't change the fact that if God created the Universe from Himself, then since there's no discernible separation between the Creator and the Creation there's no fundamental difference between His being sentient and part of the Creation being non-sentient, which makes no sense. Your ass meat and giving birth example involve distinct separation between the creator and the creation, so the illogicality of one entity being both sentient and non-sentient doesn't apply there, because then you have two discernibly sentient entities.
    I concede. All of the arguments I've thought up to counter have been either lame Christian apologetics/backflipping or march forward even further into heresy than I already have in our discussion and debate. Speaking of our discussion, I have enjoyed it and the challenges I've been presented with and wish the best for both you and Allo (him more, he's on our side this time...sorta ) in the continuing discussion and debate. Cheers!


    Epic
    I AM ODN

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    No. Because there is no point in time before the existence of the universe. God creates the universe and with it creates time.

    It's like this:

    God -----------> CREATION ---------> Universe and time
    But God had to act within time to create.

    No you don't. You get contraventions of laws of physics. Nothing to do with logic.
    But physically, there is no such thing as cause or effect. Nature doesn't care about causes or effects. We call events as causes or effects based on logic.

    No, this is not support. This is PREMISED on the ASSUMPTION that things ALWAYS need material to be created. It's circular.

    I now Challenge to support a claim. you to support that creation always requires pre-existing materials.
    Or else its no longer creation as defined by us. Everything we call creation has pre-existing materials. If God didn't use pre existing materials, then He didn't "create".

    You're trying to appeal to "authority". And I put that in quotes for a reason. Aristotle is no authority when it comes to these issues.

    Please support that Aristotle's principles apply to an omnipotent entity like God. This is a formal Challenge to support a claim..
    I'm not saying these principles are right because Aristotle said so, but because they correspond with reality. Everything we call created adheres to Aristotle's principles. If not, its not created.

    Circular.

    I formally Challenge to support a claim.you to demonstrate that logic prohibits the creation of something out of nothing.

    Note that in the other thread (Trinity) you appear to very well understand the difference between logical impossibility and physical impossibility. Interesting.
    Because then its no longer creation as we define it. Everything we call created has pre-existing material. You think that God is somehow exempt. Even if God can break natural laws, then we don't necessarily have to call what He did as creation if it doesn't pass our litmus test.

    As above, you've been challenge to demonstrate that cause and effect is a law of logic, as opposed to nature.
    There is no such thing as cause or effect in nature. We call events causes and effects as per our logic.

    I've already given you examples of logically coherent statements that talk about things arising out of nothing, with no cause. You just glossed over them and repeated your bare assertion.

    Another circular statement. I asked you to support this, NOT TO REPEAT THIS. See the challenges above.

    Circular and unsupported. And NOT AT ALL obvious. Refer to my challenges above and my explanation (for the nth time) of the fact that laws of nature as we know them are universal and not EXTRAUNIVERSAL.
    ...because its the only logical solution. Even an omnipotent God cannot create something from nothing, because that which His creative power acted upon must have existed already. Or else, on what did He exercise His power?

    1. Correct. You have made a claim that it's illogical for God to create something out of nothing. You have based that claim on an assertion that the four causes apply extra-universally. Since you have made the assertion, it is for you to support. The onus is on you.
    We can't call anything created unless it passes the four causes test.

    2. Independently of (1) above, I AGAIN say that our "obvious knowledge" that things require material to be created comes from our empirical observations of OUR UNIVERSE. Our universe by definition contains all laws of nature as we know them. It's arguably IMPOSSIBLE to know anything that exists outside our universe. And we certainly don't know AT ALL that ANY of the empirically observed laws and dependencies within our universe at all exist outside our universe. Therefore, it's NOT AT ALL obvious that things outside our universe need pre-existing material to be created.
    Where did the stuff that comprises the extra-universal things come from? "Nowhere" is not an answer. If God did something, then He exercised His power. If God exercised His power, there must have been an object upon which He, the subject, acted. Creating something from nothing removes this object, rendering the whole idea illogical.

    3. God is omnipotent by definition. Nothing's impossible for him. That's the god you're talking about in this thread. Therefore, it's OBVIOUS that this version of god can break all natural laws.

    Therefore, I don't have to support anything FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. The burden is squarely on you.
    If God made something from nothing, then God really didn't create it, since it had no material cause.

    I see, so in other words, things that exist exist. That's very helpful. Thanks, Aristotle

    (told you not to trust that guy, he lived thousands of years ago when philosophers busied themselves with proving that the arrow can't fly; we've moved on)
    You're really not giving the guy enough credit. Aristotle's considered one the founders of Western logic for a reason.

    I disagree. Your logic is like this:

    1. Everything has a cause

    2. Therefore things in quantum physics must also have a cause

    But the problem again is your premise. Refer to my challenges above.
    If there aren't causes, stuff can't happen, even extra universally? How do we know? Well, the extra universal God created (cause) the Universe (effect) before the Universe existed. If it was only a natural law that only applied when the Universe existed, how did it apply before the Universe existed?

    No, we're not. I'm talking about a world where houses come into existence WITHOUT A CAUSE and then turn into fairies and fly away. Such a world is possible to imagine. It's logically coherent. It only breaches laws of nature as we know them.
    No, see you're implying a cause there without knowing it. There's a cause, you just don't know what it is. And besides, what makes you think that just because we can imagine something means that it is logically coherent?

    Because it's LOGICALLY impossible for a dog to be a dog while not being a dog. The expression contradicts itself. THAT'S logic. But it's not logically impossible for a dog to appear out of nothing and for no reason.
    What makes you think people can't imagine logically impossible things?

    Let me give you another logically valid statement:

    1. All things that appear out of nothing and without a cause are dogs.

    2. I saw something that appeared out of nothing and without a cause.

    Therefore: what I saw was a dog

    This is PERFECTLY LOGICALLY CORRECT.
    No, it isn't. There must have been some impetus for the random appearance of the dog. If not, then the force, or energy exerted in making the dog appear could not have been exerted.

    Magic by definition is the ability to breach laws of nature. If something breaches laws of nature then we can call it magic. That's what the word means.

    But of course, when I used the word "magic" I was being a little ironic. After all, I WAS talking about a god.

    The point of the matter is that gods are, pretty much by definition, supernatural. They can do things that we might consider impossible. For example, some gods are said to communicate with human spirits. Or to know all the thoughts of every human. Or to exist without ever being detected.


    And this particular god (Yahweh) could create the universe out of nothing. Just another damn thing that we consider impossible.

    But it's not logically impossible. It's only physically impossible. And that's cool! Because ALL "magic", ALL "supernatural" is stuff that we consider physically impossible or inexplicable.

    I look forward to your meeting my challenges.
    Causes have to precede effects. Yahweh Himself is slave to this, as He followed the law of cause and effect before the Universe existed, because His creating the universe followed the law of cause and effect.

  12. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    Thus, Yahweh's creating the world from void is illogical and therefore a false belief.
    Appeal to Authority fallacy. Aristotle is not an authority on supernatural creative ability.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Appeal to Authority fallacy. Aristotle is not an authority on supernatural creative ability.
    I'm not saying he is. I'm saying he's right not because he's a notable philosopher, but because his rules apply to everything we call "created."

  14. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    It's based on the fact that everything created by an intelligent creator must have those four causes.
    Only if one accepts Aristotle as an authority on whether God can create new mass.

    ---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    I'm not saying he is. I'm saying he's right ... because his rules apply to everything we call "created."
    You can't prove that without disproving the belief that God can create mass, Khan.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Only if one accepts Aristotle as an authority on whether God can create new mass.
    If God made mass from nothing, He had no material cause, and therefore, He didn't "create" it, as everything we call created adheres to the four causes.

    You can't prove that without disproving the belief that God can create mass, Khan.
    That's exactly what I'm saying is impossible.

  16. #36
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by The Great Khan View Post
    If God made mass from nothing, He had no material cause, and therefore, He didn't "create" it, as everything we call created adheres to the four causes.
    Semantics and gobbledygook.

    (Khan disagrees) And of course this is in NO way a retaliatory neg for the one I gave you ten minutes ago. No way.
    Last edited by evensaul; April 30th, 2010 at 02:19 PM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Yahweh vs. Aristotle

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Semantics and gobbledygook.
    Read the OP, it will all become clear.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Christianity: The Ungodliness of Yahweh, as Proved by the Idea of a First Creation
    By The Great Khan in forum Religion
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: May 13th, 2010, 10:49 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •