Evidence

[Thief]

That doesn't say anything. You are speaking of a singularity as defined by theories in science and you are saying they are wrong. Why are they wrong? Where did they to wrong in their math? What is actually a singularity? Is it a thing, a concept...is it a glob like you have made the claim?

Answering in abstract does not reveal much. Are you answering that way because you feel I am trying to challenge you? I simply want to know what is a singularity. I have definitions from science but you are saying they are wrong, that they do not know what they are talking about.

I want to know what it actually is. Have you studied one? Where do they exist? How do they come into an existence? And what can they do?

I have no objection to science....it leads the way.
Apparently you don't want to follow.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have no objection to science....it leads the way.
Apparently you don't want to follow.

I am asking questions, and you are giving answers I now ask for clarity and you say I refuse to follow.

So I ask again, what do you know about singularities? How are they generates? What's the math that you have used? Do only one exist? Are they more? How does it come to be?

 

[Thief]

I am asking questions, and you are giving answers I now ask for clarity and you say I refuse to follow.

So I ask again, what do you know about singularities? How are they generates? What's the math that you have used? Do only one exist? Are they more? How does it come to be?

To be answered with a question....
Which came first?.....Spirit?.....or substance?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

To be answered with a question....
Which came first?.....Spirit?.....or substance?

What I would ask is what is spirit?

 

[Thief]

What I would ask is what is spirit?

Indeed!

You are!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Indeed!

You are!

So are chimpanzees, dolphins, crows, and elephants spirits?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But throughout you’ve gone blindly on without grasping the essence of my arguments while making assumptions about what you think they should address. If you were to follow what I’ve been saying you’d have seen there isn’t an ‘infinity problem’.

I don't even recall you even remotely addressing the darn thing, much less refuting it in any way.

I asked you to demonstrate the necessity in causation and you’ve not done so. And the reason you can’t is because the Kalam makes inferences from a features found in the contingent world, and thus necessity can never be demonstrable.

I don't even know what you mean by "necessity in causation", but what I do know is that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause. That I do know.

…which is precisely the case I’m making.

Then everything in space and time owes its existence to something beyond space and time.

Nothing caused the world. (How many times do I have to say this?) I’m rejecting causation as a necessary principle, along with the mantra that ‘everything that begins to exist is in want of a cause for its existence’, remember? There is no necessary connection between a cause and its effect, and any event and its supposed cause can be entirely distinct and separable.

You are saying nothing caused the world, yet you admit that it is contingent. Two contradictory viewpoints, so I won't even attempt to address further. I refuse to be entertained by irrationality.

In order to maintain the fun aspect the tone is important with these debates.

The fun is the fact that I am giving you and a couple others a intellectual beat down. :yes:

 

[cottage]

I don't even know what you mean by "necessity in causation", but what I do know is that everything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause. That I do know.

Without wishing to sound discourteous it’s been apparent for quite a few posts that you have no idea what I’ve been talking about, as your statement above makes clear. But take heart, because I’m an extremely patient bloke.

Then everything in space and time owes its existence to something beyond space and time.

Pick one of the following, or all three if you prefer:
1) Pure speculation.
2) A belief!
3) Metaphysical hypothesis.

You are saying nothing caused the world, yet you admit that it is contingent. Two contradictory viewpoints, so I won't even attempt to address further. I refuse to be entertained by irrationality.

To clarify I should point out that I don’t mean the world was caused by nothing; I mean the world is uncaused.
And I’m using the term ‘contingency’ as in not necessary. And that is entirely consistent with the arguments I’ve given and the views that I’ve expressed. I do not use the term to imply that one thing is dependent upon some other thing, of course not, because that is the very notion that I’m challenging.

The fun is the fact that I am giving you and a couple others a intellectual beat down. :yes:

I think you mean ‘an intellectual beat down.’


But anyway, as long as you’re enjoying yourself…

 

[cottage]

I don't even recall you even remotely addressing the darn thing, much less refuting it in any way.

I don't even know what you mean by "necessity in causation",

Allow me to explain:

While we are unable to conceive of an actual state of prior nothingness we can nevertheless hypothesize to think of this possible world as once not existing without self-contradiction. Now, it may be asked, since we must accept that the world actuality exists does that not entail that it must have sprung into existence from nothing? The question can only be asked because of what we understand as the phenomenon of cause and effect, a phenomenon that is without logical necessity, and yet there is no logical impediment in conceiving of a thing existing where before there was nothing, contrary to the belief we have that one event must always answer to another as its cause. Take Newton’s law of motion ‘Every action has an equal and opposite reaction,’ this will only be true of the last instance and its truth is found only in experience for the contrary of every factual thing is just as possible as the former proposition and an instance of an action not having an equal and opposite reaction implies no contradiction.

So if we cannot demonstrate that one thing is the cause of another then how are we to propose an external creative source to explain the world’s existence, since that presupposes God based on inferences from the empirical world and concludes what the argument has already assumed, which is that all worlds (God included) must have the properties existent in this world, an argument that is clearly self-contradictory? Causation cannot be both necessary and contingent, and God, if he is the Supreme Being, self-evidently cannot be dependent upon a contingent principle. And thus with no demonstrable law of causation no objection can be made to the impossibility of a thing being the cause of itself since that argument and the very concept of causation itself, is rejected; and for the same reason the objection that a thing cannot come from nothing is also made irrelevant.

But it might be argued that, even though there is no necessity in cause, the fact of the causal process still needs to be accounted for within the contingent world. But this simply returns us once again to the foregoing. Any two events are logically distinct and separable regardless of any assumed association formed through inductive reasoning, and thus there is no necessary connection. No antecedent, external cause is required for a series of causes and their effects and the entire series itself must end with the demise of the contingent world in which the finite nature of existence is manifested. But if we reject the idea of a prior nothingness and propose a pre-existing cause of the world then the laws of thought apply to that cause just as they apply to the world, but that leads to an absurdity since not only will the First Cause be dependent upon the world and its contingent features but also upon the logical laws that enable their denial.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is hardly right- of omnipotence entailed omniscience, the problem of evil would be redundant.

No because you can't have free will without the possibility of evil.

But omnipotence consists in the capacity to enact states of affairs, not a capacity for knowledge.

Actually, omnipotence would imply both. If a being is omnipotence, it should be able to do anything that is logically possible, and I fail to see how omniscience is not a logical possibility for a omnipotent being. If there is something that a omnipotent being cannot do that is logically coherent/possible, then the being cannot be said to be ominipotent.

In any case, you're missing the point, which is that we can simply stipulate that a LMGB is maximally great, except in some respect which we can choose.

The question is whether or not such a being can exist necessarily, and I already gave reasons why this can't be the case.

Again, missing the point. You can't switch the definition halfway through the argument- this is what "ad hoc" means, and it should be obvious why it is illicit.

I didn't switch any definition. What are you talking about here?

Well, it may be "irrational" meaning implausible- but that's fine. All we need is for it to not be logically contradictory, which it isn't (or if it is, then the MGB is too).

But it is logically contradictory. I am going by what YOU said. You said a LMGB has all the omni's EXCEPT omniscient. So we can negate ominscience right off the bat, which only leaves the other three.

If such a being lacks the power of omniscience, then this being can't be omnipotent, because how can such a being be all-powerful if all-knowledge is not within its power?? So it can't be omnipotent.

So if this being isn't omnipotent, it can't be used to explain the existence of a contingent world, because only a omnipotent being can create a universe from nothing, as it can't get any more powerful than that. So if a LMGB doesn't have the power to create the universe from nothing...and the universe exist, this being cannot transcend the actual world because if science cannot explain why the universe exist, and a LMGB cannot explain why the universe exist, then we can only postulate a MGB as the cause, because a MGB DOES have the power to create a universe from nothing. So this would render a LMGB as very much unnecessary.

Watching someone try to condescend when they're woefully out of their depth is sort of like watching a drunk person mess their pants without realizing it... I'm going to pretend you didn't say this, out of charity.

:beach:

This isn't my position. I'm saying that IF we grant this inference (which is not allowed in many systems of modal logic), then it follows that an arbitrarily infinite amount of LGMB's exist necessarily, and that the MGB is not the MGB- a contradiction.

If you can find logical incoherency based on the concept, a LGMB cannot exist. If you don't have the "power" to know everything, then you cannot be omnipotent. There is no way a being with finite power and finite knowledge can create the universe from nothing....and if the universe cannot be created, then there is no way for such a being's presence to be felt in a universe that it doesn't have the power to create.

Like I said, your argument is facing a fork and either option you take is ultimately fatal.

I feel sorry for you for thinking that a LGMB would be a good response to the argument.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think you mean ‘an intellectual beat down.’

If I said it, I must of meant it. I have a habit of meaning what I say.

But anyway, as long as you’re enjoying yourself…

Like a fat rat at a cheese factory.

 

[outhouse]

To be answered with a question....
Which came first?.....Spirit?.....or substance?

Substance.

And you don't have a credible answer, nor ever provided a credible answer to overthrow the status quo.

You cannot even define spirit with a credible answer.

 

[idav]

The fun is the fact that I am giving you and a couple others a intellectual beat down. :yes:

Now thats funny.
:biglaugh:

 

[Thief]

Substance.

And you don't have a credible answer, nor ever provided a credible answer to overthrow the status quo.

You cannot even define spirit with a credible answer.

Nay.
An object at rest will remain at rest....until Something moves it.

I say that Something created substance.....and moves it.

Let there be light.

 

[Thief]

So are chimpanzees, dolphins, crows, and elephants spirits?

Picture heaven without animal forms.

Oh that's right....the bible is filled with such notion.

And what form shall you assume after your last breath?

Expecting to remain human?

 

[cottage]

No because you can't have free will without the possibility of evil.

That is certainly false. Not only is a world without evil logically possible, but your assertion implies that God lies under some necessity to create evil, which is plainly self-contradictory.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Note previous post.

Nothng in science ever indicated that the singularity was our creation. Science does not claim to know. Religion has claimed to know and they have made a claim with zero evidence.

Science does not back the idea of a god no matter how much you want it to.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No because you can't have free will without the possibility of evil.

Irrelevant.

The question is whether or not such a being can exist necessarily, and I already gave reasons why this can't be the case.

You've certainly tried, but if we roll back the thread, your "reasons" were unacceptable and ad hoc. If it is possible that a MGB exist necessarily, then by the same token it is possible that a slightly less than MGB exist necessarily.

Can't have your cake and eat it too I'm afraid.

But it is logically contradictory...

If such a being lacks the power of omniscience, then this being can't be omnipotent, because how can such a being be all-powerful if all-knowledge is not within its power?? So it can't be omnipotent.

Because omniscience and omnipotence are distinct.

So if this being isn't omnipotent, it can't be used to explain the existence of a contingent world, because only a omnipotent being can create a universe from nothing, as it can't get any more powerful than that.

That's fine, it doesn't need to. All it needs to be is possibly necessary, like the MGB, which it is- or if it isn't, you've yet to provide any convincing reasons why it isn't.

(So far no contradiction)

So if a LMGB doesn't have the power to create the universe from nothing...and the universe exist, this being cannot transcend the actual world because if science cannot explain why the universe exist, and a LMGB cannot explain why the universe exist, then we can only postulate a MGB as the cause, because a MGB DOES have the power to create a universe from nothing. So this would render a LMGB as very much unnecessary.

Irrelevant.

If you can find logical incoherency based on the concept, a LGMB cannot exist.p

There is no logical incoherency- no contradiction has been shown in the notion of a LGMB (as opposed to the MGB, which I showed would entail mutually exclusive- contradictory- properties)

If you don't have the "power" to know everything, then you cannot be omnipotent. There is no way a being with finite power and finite knowledge can create the universe from nothing....and if the universe cannot be created, then there is no way for such a being's presence to be felt in a universe that it doesn't have the power to create.

Also irrelevant.

I feel sorry for you for thinking that a LGMB would be a good response to the argument.

It's an absolutely fatal objection to the argument- but only one of several. Perhaps if we continue at this you'll get to understand why.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is certainly false. Not only is a world without evil logically possible

No one said a world without evil was impossible, what do you think heaven will be all about? I am saying it is impossible to have a world rid of evil if you have people that exercise their free will. You can't gaurantee people will make the right choices 100% of the time.

but your assertion implies that God lies under some necessity to create evil, which is plainly self-contradictory.

Evil is nothing but the lack of holiness. In order for humans to have free will, that is the freedom to act in holy-like manners.....and the freedom to act in evil-like manners. There is a necessity for evil if free will is part of the package deal.

 

[outhouse]

Nay.
An object at rest will remain at rest....until Something moves it.

I say that Something created substance.....and moves it.

Let there be light.

false and it is not even comprehensible to reality :slap: