The battle of evolution vs creationism

[adi2d]

"If we have a chair don't we have to have space?"

Yes, because its made of matter and has mass and takes up space.

"Can there be space without time?"

Not in this universe.

But its important to understand what they know about both space and time. You should really check these out.

Fabric of the Cosmos "the illusion of time"

[youtube]Kbyjjw_oLFk[/youtube]
Nova Fabric of the cosmos The illusion of time full video - YouTube


Fabric of the Cosmos "what is space"

"Space. It separates you from me, one galaxy from the next, and atoms from one another. It is everywhere in the universe. But to most of us, space is nothing, an empty void. Well, it turns out space is not what it seems. From the passenger seat of a New York cab driving near the speed of light, to a pool hall where billiard tables do fantastical things, Brian Greene reveals space as a dynamic fabric that can stretch, twist, warp, and ripple under the influence of gravity."

[youtube]5iZ1-csQFUA[/youtube]
1. What is Space? - YouTube

All this because I left out the sarcasm smily

Sorry

 

[Skwim]

For "no before" or "no after" to exist in the universe it is imperative that absolutely no change occur, which would mean that events even at the subatomic level would not exist. Electrons would not orbit the nucleus of atoms, in effect making the physical world impossible.

For sure not an original observation, but one that should be kept in mind here.

So, can anything be atemporal, exist outside of time? I fail to see how. Even for pure thought, whatever that may be, there is a continuum bounded by befores and afters, denoting the passage of time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well there has been a big problem for him to understand it seems the difference between the terms species and "Kind" he uses based on his personal beliefs.

Well, and you've watched the exact same thing happen with technical terms from modal logic on this thread as well: CotW wants to argue about subjects without properly acquainting himself with them first, and then gets impatient and angry when people insist on using terms and technical concepts (like "necessary truth") accurately. Of course, this is because he is not interested in these subjects in themselves at all, but only insofar as he can cherry-pick them to support his religious beliefs. The results are predictably grotesque.

 

[shawn001]

Adi2d, no worries.

It has to be a lot more work to "cherry-pick" and distort almost if not everything then to just actually accept Nature and how it works from what we know now.

Lets see Nature verses Call of the Wild's beliefs? Who will win? Either way it will be nature.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No one is saying that God is temporal, Monk. The argument is; God was ATEMPORAL before creation, and TEMPORAL after creation. I thought I made that point very clear.

Impossible by definition of the words you are using. There was no "before" the universe was created. So by your logic it is impossible to be atemporal and if you claim god was at some time atemporal it means he did not exist and does not.

Nothing within the universe is atemporal because of the nature of the universe. It is impossible for something to exist like that. The idea that he exists outside the universe dictates that he must be atemporal. ergo there is no god in this universe.

This is according to your logic used to prove he exists.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've already addressed this time and time again. First off, I am not using "before" in a temporal sense. I am using it in the sense of THERE WAS A CASUAL AGENT THAT PRECEDED THE EFFECT IN EXISTENCE...but not existence in TIME. That is key point that needs to be distinguished.

For example..my sister is older than me...she preceded me in existence (in time).

But if I had been sitting in a chair for all eternity and never moved a muscle, just perfectly still..and my sister popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, then my existence preceded her existence (without time).

And I already know that you will try your best offer some refutation that will include temporal relations of some sort, but that will fail...because..

There were no MOMENTS leading to her popping in to existence. So time is just not a factor, but I am still BEFORE her in the sense that my existence preceded hers, just not in time.

If your existence preceded that of your sister before she poped into existence then you were in fact temporal. If you claim you were not temporal then you could not preceded your sister's arrival. Not in any sense of the word.

Also I've explained this to you but just to do it again.

To have a cause something must be temporal. Atemporal beings cannot create cause for cause and effect in a temporal state of being. For cause must have a temporal factor to exist. Without temporal factors there cannot be a "cause".

So either god is atemporal and couldn't cause the universe anyway... or god is temporal which means he couldn't exist outside the universe to "cause" it. Or you can do the switcheroo which states he was atemporal prior to the universe and temporal afterwards. This of course is a self contradicting statement.

So all venues of your logic are faulty.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So either god is atemporal and couldn't cause the universe anyway... or god is temporal which means he couldn't exist outside the universe to "cause" it. Or you can do the switcheroo which states he was atemporal prior to the universe and temporal afterwards. This of course is a self contradicting statement.

Hammer meet nail.

 

[Simurgh]

Isn’t it just so sweet that a certain individual gives you guys a reason to exercise your considerable intellects and gives you something to do on a boring evening? Too bad he can’t actually follow these musings since he does not quite manage to wrap his mind around anything that smacks of rational thought and common sense.:thud:

But anyhow, thanks for all your detailed explanations on the given topic. I appreciate that you take the time to argue a lost cause with eloquence and a sense of humor.

 

[cottage]

It really doesn't matter...because whether you think our universe had a beginning as a result of a natural Pre-Big Bang factor, or if you think the universe as a whole is eternal, the problem of infinity still has its ugly face in there.

Not my argument. I’ve been consistent on this forum in arguing that the universe is uncaused, since that implies no contradiction, and therefore no infinite regression. It is logically possible, whilst all other explanations or beliefs run to absurdities or self-contradiction.

Once you find out what it means to be necessarily true, then the conclusion of the argument is inescapable.

But then why do you keep veering off to other arguments if you believe the MOA is certain? (!)

Then you are thinking of a contingent version of them, but not them.

No, I’m just thinking of a concept.

First off, God was never immutable. He was timeless and changeless before the universe, but that does not mean that he was incapable of change...and the change that he is capable of has absolutely NOTHING to do with his attributes. The attributes that make God a God didn't change at all. He was TIMELESS before the universe, and temporal after the universe...but he is still the same God.

Actually you are quite wrong. Immutability has always been a specific characteristic of God and his unchanging and unchangeable nature is even documented in scripture. And if God is not immutable then that is a weakness, and he is not the same God once he has changed. An immutable God is one that does not change, but is invariable in keeping his supposed covenant promises, and his immutability defines all his attributes. William Lane Craig has been instrumental in discarding immutability in favour of a ‘changeless God’, specifically to address difficulties encountered with a contingent cause. But if God is immutable then by definition his attributes cannot be other than what they are. But if he isn’t, then it is logically possible for him to change or lose any of his omni-characteristics since none are necessary to the concept, except perhaps necessary existence. And if he can downgrade once then he can do so again. Immutability is the very concept that underwrites his being, and yet this has been abandoned, the sole purpose being to justify his creating the world, which itself is nonsensical (a self-sufficient, omnipotent being that needed to create a world of creatures for his comfort and needs).

In order to say "one thing must precede another"...in terms of temporality...then you will have to assume that time is infinite and the past is eternal, which you already agreed with me is an incoherent concept. There is just no way out of it. If we live in a universe where every effect is preceded by a cause, and there was no "first cause", then the past is infinite, so you are right back at the infinity problem, cot

If there was a first cause then one thing existed before the other. So if God has always existed but the world has not, then God was prior to, or preceded, the existence of the world. And that is an expression of time!

Not to mention the fact that you are just flat out wrong. There is a thing called simultaneous causation. If a bowling ball rested on a cushion for ETERNITY and never moved, the ball is the cause of the pressure on the cushion, despite never preceding the cushion or vice versa. In the same way, when the creation of the first cause (the universe) and time was created, this happened simultaneously. One did not precede the other, but it happened at the same time, and this could only happen if there was a causal agent which did not itself exist in time.

Your analogy is misconceived: worldly phenomena and a perishable material object cannot exist eternally. And anyway we’re not speaking of an inanimate object, like a ball on a cushion; according to Craig we’re speaking of ‘intelligence’, a ‘personal being’, and one that must first will something antecedent to it happening. We are speaking of a first or initial cause. And if a timeless God created the existence of causality* that enabled the universe to begin, and the effect occurred in temporality, then creation could not occur simultaneously, for a period of time is self-evidently involved in any cause-effect progression.

* Incoherent! There cannot be a cause of causality! It’s beginning to look as though timelessness is an impossible concept.

I don't get it.

A supposedly self-sufficient God created the world because he had unfulfilled wishes or desires, i.e. to have a relationship with his creation. Absurd and contradictory!

That is similar to St. Anslem version...he made the case that a God that exists in reality is greater than a God that only exists in the mind. But anyhow, cot...Christians believe that God does exist in experience...but you wouldn't accept people's personal experiences...and also, people DID claim that they experienced God...as Jesus is God in the flesh and made his dwelling on earth (John 1:1-14).

I’m aware it’s mildly similar to Anselm’s OA, but in reverse almost. And I would accept that God exists in reality if it were universally assented to in experience and if it were impossible to think otherwise.

So, keep on blocking.

I've given you two possible world examples where no being is ever-present or necessary. And I've also refuted the first premise of Plantinger's formulation, that there is no omnibenevolent being, which you've conceded by acknowledging that evil and suffering is a part of God's plan and that he sends people to hell. Hardly 'blocking' is it?

 

[cottage]

Cot...if the universe didn't have to be here as you admit, then there has to be a reason why it is here, correct? So if you take God out of the equation, you are only left with natural reasons why the universe is here...but to be natural is to be in time...and now you are right back at INFINITY. If the universe is here by a natural cause, then what caused that...and that...and that...and that??? Allll the way back to infinity. But you already admitted that infinity is an absurd concept. There is just no way out of it.

Well, I’m not sure that the universe needs a reason for its existence, but God, a personal being, most certainly does! For the contrary position is that God created the universe for no reason, which is not in the least coherent. And I don’t know why you have this fixation with infinity? My argument has the world beginning uncaused.

I don't know why God allows certain things to occur, but it does not follow that just because we don't know why it happens, that God doesn't have morally sufficient reasons to allow it to happen.

That’s an argument from ignorance, and the contradiction isn’t overturned by reasons, i.e. excuses. (It baffles me why people let Craig get away with that response when he is so quick to castigate others for resorting to the same fallacy)

But that doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. If God existed by his lonesome, and he is omnibenevolent...where is the evil? Do you see any evil around here? Second, as I asked before; are you saying it would have been better for God to program people to only commit acts of goodness?? If would have better for God to do that than to create people with free will? Which is it?

Your argument is that free will has a greater moral worth than the alleviation of pain and suffering, which is a very questionable position. But let’s consider instead the logical aspects, self-evidently God lay under no necessity to create the world, and that being the case it follows that he lay under no necessity to create humans. In which case there would have been no evil and no suffering. And it can’t be argued that we would then be worse off because as non-existent creatures nothing could be to our detriment. So there is a definite intention by God to have evil in the world, even though he was under no logical compunction to do so. And this comes close to malevolence, which is only offset by there also being some goodness in the world. So there is demonstrably no omnibenevolence. But now to move on to your argument, which is specious in supposing there to be only two options in the case of free will: evil and suffering or existing as automatons. In fact there is no logical impediment in God creating a world devoid of evil and suffering, where the inhabitants exist in a fairly harmonious and socially acceptable way. And they could even rise above their basic benign characteristics to aspire to a higher moral standing. Having freedom of the will they could choose to help or support their peers, which would incur gratitude and be advantageous perhaps to all parties, but no suffering or evil would befall anyone were this not to happen. Not only is this logically possible, it is what the human race aspires to achieve but never will because of the way God made the world.

You do realize you are digging a bigger hole for yourself, right? I got one for you; So if you were God, how would you create human beings with FREE WILL and also guarantee that no human being will commit an act of evil based on this free will?

Pleaseeee enlighten me on how you will do it?

I’ve given part of the answer to this question up the page, with examples of what might happen in practice. But here you are asking a specific question, which is precisely the one I must have answered dozens of times on this forum. Evil and suffering isn’t something that exists ‘out there’, independent of God. If nothing exists but what God creates and makes possible, then free will is therefore composed of what God ordains. In other words there is no law or logical necessity that implies that free will must include evil, but God in his questionable wisdom decided that it should include the ability to wreak violence and suffering on his human creation, as well as all the natural evils such as earthquakes, volcanoes, cancers etc. If God is the omnipotent creator then none of these things happened necessarily but purely by his will alone. Clearly then, if evil and suffering have no necessary existence, and if God is omnipotent, then God can grant free will minus such base and nefarious elements; and no logical contradiction is implied by this. And if God were to decree that such things will not happen, then no human would cause another to suffer.

But based on the definition of necessity in the world of philosophy, to be necessary is to be necessary in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS.

But only if the thing is demonstrable, i.e. true, in all possible worlds.

You were given a scenario...one of which a specific being has a necessary existence in all possible worlds. Once this scenario plays out in your mind, "I can conceive of this being not existing in this world"......but the based on the scenario, the being cannot NOT exist in this world!!! You are taking a scenario that started off with necessity and rendering it to contingency.

If you can conceive of this being NOT existing, then this being would not have been necessary in the first place....but the scenario is for the being TO BE NECESSARY.

Sigh! You are missing the point here by a country mile. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘starting from necessity and then being rendered contingent’ or ‘playing things out in my mind’. The argument I gave you is predicated on the question of whether something necessarily exists in a particular state of affairs that cannot be logically denied. My mind is a state of affairs, a possible world. And if no being imposes itself on my mind, then there is a possible world in which the being doesn’t exist. Now I can conceive of any logically possible being (whether or not there is any such being in reality), but when I am not conceiving such a being, real or conceptual, it isn’t present to my mind. Therefore there is a possible world in which there is no necessary and ever-present being. Sorry but it’s self-evident and conclusive!

My goodness!!! To be contingent is to be in TIME and if God doesn't exist thing the whole causal chain is CONTINGENT...so you are right back at infinite regression.

Or to put it even more bluntly...if you negate the existence of God, then regardless how you look at it, you are stuck with the problem of infinity. It isn't going anywhere.

In order go negate this, you have to begin the chain with something that is necessary...something which itself is NOT or WAS not dependent upon anything for its existence.

No way out of this, cot.

With respect you’ve not addressed my argument, but have wandered off to a different matter. And for the umpteenth time, an infinite regress doesn’t figure in my metaphysical model at all, in which the world is uncaused. But I’m sure we’ll come on to that in due course.

Give me an example of this "thing".

The world (no contradiction)

So things can get addressed in real time, point by point.

But why don’t you want others to see or contribute to the debate? Surely that is the whole point of being on a forum? This is enjoyable, so let’s keep it going on here. And it’s much better being able to give considered responses, and at our own convenience, instead of tapping out curt little retorts on messenger, which is a bit nerdy.

 

[Willamena]

Well, I’m not sure that the universe needs a reason for its existence...

Especially as reasons are part and parcel of the universe in question.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You'd still have to breathe and metabolise, things which require motion and time. If every little part of you was perfectly still down to the subatomic level, then you wouldn't be able to think or be conscious (nerve signals cannot travel and neurons cannot fire). Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would prevent a particle from being perfectly still anyway.

Suppose I was a being that didn't need to breath? Then what?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If your existence preceded that of your sister before she poped into existence then you were in fact temporal. If you claim you were not temporal then you could not preceded your sister's arrival. Not in any sense of the word.

Not in the scenario. Nope.

Also I've explained this to you but just to do it again.

To have a cause something must be temporal.

In the scenario, nothing was caused.

Atemporal beings cannot create cause for cause and effect in a temporal state of being. For cause must have a temporal factor to exist. Without temporal factors there cannot be a "cause".

Once again, in the scenario, nothing was caused.

So either god is atemporal and couldn't cause the universe anyway... or god is temporal which means he couldn't exist outside the universe to "cause" it. Or you can do the switcheroo which states he was atemporal prior to the universe and temporal afterwards. This of course is a self contradicting statement.

So all venues of your logic are faulty.

The only thing that is faulty is your understanding of the scenario. Nothing in the scenario suggests that something was cause. Now, if you move to the God scenario, look...I said it at least 100 times already.......God was ATEMPORAL before the universe, and temporal AFTER the universe?

It seems apparent that you (and others) don't understand what that means. He was atemporal (without time) before creation. When he "created" the universe, at that very instance time was created...so the actual event was in time, the first moment of time. No one is saying that God remained temporal after creation or whatever else misrepresentations that you may have.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Impossible by definition of the words you are using. There was no "before" the universe was created. So by your logic it is impossible to be atemporal and if you claim god was at some time atemporal it means he did not exist and does not.

I agree, there was no chronological (before), but there was a causal (before).

Nothing within the universe is atemporal because of the nature of the universe. It is impossible for something to exist like that. The idea that he exists outside the universe dictates that he must be atemporal. ergo there is no god in this universe.

This is according to your logic used to prove he exists.

You apparently just don't get it. God was "not" within the universe"...cmon now. I will keep my responses short and sweet because I haven't seen anyone on here adequately portray or respond to what I said in a way to show me that you understand what is being said.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm not sure this analogy makes any kind of sense whatsoever. For starters, existing in an atemporal state is not the same as existing eternally, as something that can exist for an infinite amount of time (regardless of whether it's conceivable or not) is still existing in time. An eternity is still a measure of time; it is merely an endless sequence - but it is still a sequence.

Philosophers recognize that eternity can also mean "atemporal" or timelessness. It can either mean "endless duration of time" or it can mean "without time/atemporal". So close, but no cigar.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Very true, shawn, Kryptid and immortalflame; but the especially damning part is that, even if we ignore all these problems, the example still does not furnish us with a case of "before but not before in time". Even if we grant that he is somehow atemporal sitting in the chair, the coming into existence of any other object is, of necessity, a temporal event, the occurrence of which establishes temporal relations to anything else considered with respect to it.

Look, the object that came into existence; that was only to demonstrate that something can precede it without being in time. No one said that once the object came into existence that reality remained atemporal. More misunderstandings.

 

[cottage]

No one is saying that God remained temporal after creation or whatever else misrepresentations that you may have.

“The argument is that God was timeless before creation, and temporal after creation. The creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.” Call of the Wild (Post 1051)

 

[cottage]

Especially as reasons are part and parcel of the universe in question.

Ah, yes!

And so is it intelligbble to say we need reasons for having reasons?

Me, I'm not altogether sure that it is.

 

[Parsimony]

Suppose I was a being that didn't need to breath? Then what?

Then the rest of my post would still stand.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Look, the object that came into existence; that was only to demonstrate that something can precede it without being in time.

Except, in your example, you required time to precede your sister.

No one said that once the object came into existence that reality remained atemporal. More misunderstandings.

The only way for you to be able to speak of being before is by introducing temporality into the picture- but then, by introducing ANY sort of change/event/effect, you essentially ruin the example, because you introduce temporality; of course, there's an important lesson here, which is that an atemporal being cannot do anything, and cannot stand in any relations to anything else that does anything or changes in any way since action/change require time.