The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If the action never began then it never happened.

Well, if a timeless cause is unnecessary, then the past is eternal and time never began, so therefore, it never happened. Right back to infinite regress.

Its about defining what is and what isn't. For there to be such an action as "sitting in a chair" or what have you, temporal existence is required. How does a 1 dimensional creature sit in a chair?

Once again, it was just an analogy. That is not the issue.

The part where you seem to think that we can have a "before" time. Causual or not. You seem to think that there was a "time" where "time" didn't exist. Just because you say 'in this example time doesn't exist" doesn't make it applicable.

What you need to do (and so far have failed to do) is to explain why my analogy doesn't work without using the concept of temporality where it need not be applied. In the analogy there is no time "before" time. You cannot identify a prior point in the analogy, and if time did exist in the analogy, you should be able to identify a prior point. But you can't, can you?

"I have oranges in a bowl sitting on a table. but there is no table. Checkmate atheists" is more or less the amount of coherency within your analogy.
This makes no sense.

That is not even close in comparison with the analogy.

Existence in any way that we know is dependent upon temporal factors.

And this is only true AFTER time began to exist. But we are talking about the origins of time itself, and there ARE no temporal factors in this regard.

In your example you proposed that you existed in a chair and the girl was not there correct? Then at some point the girl was there? Correct? This is impossible and folly if you are without time.

The girl represents the first CHANGE. In the example, I have been sitting in a chair for eternity. I never moved. I am sitting perfectly still. The concept of temporal becoming does not exist.

Now, if a girl POPS in to being by my side, then EVERYTHING becomes temporal. Time began with the existence of the girl, because that is the first change. But there is no temporal "prior" to the girl. There were no moments which lead to the girl popping in to being. So when the girl pops in to being, time began, and I (the person sitting in the chair) went from an atemporal state, to a temporal state.

Now if the argument is that God was in a atemporal state, created the world, but REMAINED in an atemporal state, then you are right, that is quite absurd. But God did not remain atemporal....with the creation of the universe, God BECAME temporal. He is now in time. There is absolutely nothing illogical about this, and you cannot object to this analogy and claim it is irrational without yourself positing infinite regress, which is demonstrably absurd.

There would be no point in which the girl was not there or there would be no point in which she was. Your trying to force cause and effect in a situation in which there can logically be no cause and effect.

Huh?

yes there is. You cannot say something "pops" into existence. You cannot simply say that you exist, then something else exists and there was no temporal factor to differentiate between the two points of existence.

As I said for the third time (and will continue to say as many times as needed), the concept of infinite regression is demonstrably absurd. I can actually demonstrate why the concept is absurd. In order to negate these absurdities, a timeless cause of the universe is necessary. The only way we can have past events which led to the current events of today is for there to have been ONE timeless cause which initiated the entire chain of causation.

Now, if you want to negate the existence of a timeless cause, then you are right back in the absurd land of INFINITE REGRESSION. That isn't going anywhere, because those are the only two options. Either timeless first cause, or infinite regression. If you take away a timeless first cause, you are stuck with infinite regression. But the concept of infinite regression is ABSURD, and absurdities cannot exist in reality. So if it cannot exist in reality, then a timeless cause wins by default. There is nothing illogical about a timeless cause. What you have shown is you just don't get it.

And when I say "you just don't get it", I don't mean it in a sarcastic or arrogant way. The concept can be difficult to grasp, because we are used to things events occuring temporally prior to other events.

But, when it comes to the origin of time and the universe, we cannot look at causation the same way. When I use the analogy such as "Imagine a man sitting in a chair for all eternity, he never moved, etc"...I am purposely setting up the right circumstances which would allow "us" to reach a present moment in time. This is not something that might have happened, or could have happened, this is something that HAD TO HAPPEN necessarily.

I understand it fully. You are the one missing the pieces here. There is no way to say that "causally prior" without meaning temporally prior.

So how many moments were there prior to the girl popping next to me?

Chronologically prior does not exactly mean causally prior. I think that is your major mistake here.

You are the one with the mistakes buddy, not me.

The rest of it is just gibberish and self conflicting statements. At what time did he become temporal?

T0

How was an atemporal being within the universe to create it?

Straw man. That isn't the arguement.

How did he turn temporal without the universe to create the universe if he didn't?

Straw man.

How did he "change" from atemporal to temporal if atemporal cannot experience change?

Who said he can't experience change?

Your simply stating its a problem. Why is it a problem?

Because infinity cannot be traversed.

Why is infinite regression contradictory? (your view on things are obviously contradictory but seeing as the rest of this post is all about the in depth reason of why I shall stick to the other part of this response)

Infinity cannot be traversed, once again.

Except there are no set number of options. There is not simply "option A" and "Option B". We don't "know" what all the options are.

Oh please. There are only two options. Either time is infinite, or it had a beginning. Those are the only two options.

You also have not demonstrated infinite regression to be impossible either. Again why is it so? And why is god excluded from this?

Already answered this.

Except you are wrong because you don't understand what temporal means.

Oh please. As many times as I have used the word, I don't understand what it means all of a sudden? Tell ya what, get back to me when you can show me that you understand why infinite regression is impossible, so I wont have to educate you on why it is.

So much so that even when it is pointed out to you directly by several different people you still don't see it.

So what makes you think that these several people are so right about what they "point" out to me? Or are you just a follower and going only going in the direction of the majority?

 

[outhouse]

You are the one with the mistakes buddy, not me.



So what makes you think that these several people are so right about what they "point" out to me? Or are you just a follower and going only going in the direction of the majority?

Facts

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution


We agree that the following evidence-based facts

about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

A "timeless cause" is incoherent- causation entails being, which entails being conditioned and standing in relations in the world; e.g. standing in various spatial and temporal relations... a "timeless cause" is in the same category as a "married bachelor"- two words which, while meaningful on their own, cannot be conjoined without contradiction.

This thread continues to be an exercise in nonsense and illogical ad hoc fantasies.

 

[Simurgh]

A "timeless cause" is incoherent- causation entails being, which entails being conditioned and standing in relations in the world; e.g. standing in various spatial and temporal relations... a "timeless cause" is in the same category as a "married bachelor"- two words which, while meaningful on their own, cannot be conjoined without contradiction.

This thread continues to be an exercise in nonsense and illogical ad hoc fantasies.

Time to pull up a chair, get some coffee and chocolate and find a worthwhile discourse to engage in. One cannot debate people who are not grounded in the same reality. It's like making sushi out of carrots and pineapples.

 

[cottage]

As long as you can conceive of a MGB, then it must be possible for a MGB to exist. The attributes of this being also reflects the attributes of the being that is indentified in the kalam. To different arguments, same results. That is more than a coincidence.

My argument against the existence of God is in three strands and addresses both of the above.

1. An omnibenevolent being is impossible.

The case made for this is self-evident and undeniable. There is evil and suffering, hence there is no all merciful and omnibenevolent being. The objections made are nothing more than statements offered in mitigation, and cannot therefore overturn the contradiction. And if omnibenevolence forms any part of a proposition that includes this characteristic then it is therefore disproved by the (evidential) impossibility of benevolence.

2. An omnipotent, self-sufficient being, proposed as the cause of the world, is either self-contradictory or a reductio ad absurdum).

It is abundantly clear that God requiring something he does not already have is an immediate contradiction, for by no amount of sophistry can it be argued that the greatest conceivable being is at the same time, or at anytime, not wholly entire or in some way incomplete or in need. It is utterly absurd even to think the purpose of created beings is to gratify the needs or emotional requirements of the Supreme Creator.And the creation of humans so they could experience his love, when the formerly non-existent creatures were in no position to gain or benefit from anything is also quite absurd.

3. The argument from necessity is refuted, to include the ontological (a priori) proof, and causal (inferential) arguments

Necessity applies only to definitions and tautologies. No existential truth follows from tautological propositions alone, but leads only to further tautologies.
It is a necessary truth that something exists, ‘We’, the world, or whatever (anti-sceptical argument), because it would be self-contradictory, i.e. necessarily false, to say nothing exists. But nothing in experience exists necessarily, to include us, the world – or supernatural beings! And note that it is actual existence in this case that proves the proposition’s truth – and not the other way about.

3.1) No necessarily existent being. If it is logically possible that there are no worlds other than this, the actual world, then here would be nothing external to it to be contradicted, and since everything in the actual world can be conceived as non-existent with nothing external or internal to imply a contradiction, then from the possibility of no necessarily existent being it follows that no being is necessarily existent. For if the Being exists in reality, and if experience is part of reality, then the Being must also exist in experience. But this is impossible since everything in experience can be denied since it is contingent; therefore nothing in experience it is necessary, ever-present and eternal. Therefore there is a possible world, the actual world of experience, in which no Being necessarily exists.

3.2) No necessarily existent being. This second argument 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.

 

[Parsimony]

Hmm, you know, perhaps Santa Claus isn't really at the North Pole. He is actually north of the North Pole, except that I'm not using "north" in a directional sense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

He is actually north of the North Pole, except that I'm not using "north" in a directional sense.

:clap

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

A "timeless cause" is incoherent- causation entails being, which entails being conditioned and standing in relations in the world; e.g. standing in various spatial and temporal relations...

Foolishness. How can causation "entails being conditions and standing in relations in the world", when the world began to exist? Makes no sense.

a "timeless cause" is in the same category as a "married bachelor"- two words which, while meaningful on their own, cannot be conjoined without contradiction.

It would only be a contradiction if the cause remained timeless after the event. Since that is not the argument, the above statement is meaningless.

This thread continues to be an exercise in nonsense and illogical ad hoc fantasies.

And it will all stop as soon as you and a few others refrain from posting.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hmm, you know, perhaps Santa Claus isn't really at the North Pole. He is actually north of the North Pole, except that I'm not using "north" in a directional sense.

Hmmm, you know, perhaps the dealer at the casino didn't really physically "hit" me during the game of blackjack. He did actually "hit" me, except he didn't hit me in a physical sense. He kinda just granted my request by giving me more cards.

See how that works? I can play the game too.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There can’t be a ‘How’ if the world is uncaused. ‘How’ explanations must imply a cause, which there isn’t! And the terms ‘Why’ and ‘How’ are without meaning until the world is in existence. Only God, a personal, conscious being needs a cogent reason for creating the universe.

If the universe is uncaused, that would mean that cause & effect chain within it is infinite. But you previously stated that infinity is an absurd concept. Makes no sense.

That's right! There is no necessity in causation.

If God exists, then it is. If God doesn't exist, there isn't.

That’s because you can’t stop yourself from believing that cause is necessary, even though you know it isn’t.

Same answer as above.

But non-existent creatures cannot benefit from God’s love!

Good point.

What! Of course it’s logically impossible! Explain to me how you manage to do that without self-contradiction, because I certainly can’t do it. As Craig himself says ‘from nothing, nothing comes’; it is a contradiction in terms. Creating something out of or from nothing is absurd.

Now now now cot, remember what you told me; You cannot conceive of something that can't be conceived, and I can conceive it, and you can too. And you are right, from nothing, nothing comes....but the universe came FROM something...from God. So that isn't the same thing as popping in to being out of nothingness.

That’s false! God can do whatever is logically possible

1. The notion of time ending implies no contradiction.
2. And if it’s non-contradictory then it is logically possible
3. If it’s logically possible, then an omnipotent God can end time
If God can’t end time then he’s not omnipotent

You've failed to address my point. If time was to "end", there would be time after time, as one could ask "how long has it been sense time came to an end". That is time AFTER TIME, which is contradictory. That is the point that needs to be addressed..

The question concerns ‘omnipotence’, which means there can be no greater power, whereas ‘unimaginably powerful’ (Craig’s most used term), seems to imply that as imperfect creatures we are not able to think outside the boundaries of our minds, but in any case it certainly doesn’t mean power augmented without limit, which must apply to God if he is maximally great.

Umm, cot...if God can't do X, and if you can think of a being that CAN do X, then that being would be God. So if you can think of something that God (as defined in the argument) can't do and you can think of a being that CAN do it, then wouldn't it make that being maximally great? Hmmm.

I have argued several propositions demonstrating God’s supposed existence is contradictory or unintelligible. But when required I also assume God’s existence to demonstrate if-then arguments – I thought you would understand…

Gotcha.

So you are saying in this universe there cannot be a change in the uniformity of nature? And yet you believe a dead body can spring to life after three days, which is a change in the uniformity of nature! So I think you are being rather selective.

Change in the uniformity of nature would still require time, cot.

God isn’t maximally good, as in omnibenevolent or all merciful, and the evidence of that is all around us. And further to that we have such statements as this uttered by Christ: “Whosover speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the woprld to come.” So, it’s “everlasting fire”, no forgiveness for simply daring to speak one’s mind!! Yours is a jealous and vindictive deity.

Of all the sins that one can commit and be forgiven, if one chooses to deliberately commit the ONE sin that can't be forgiven in light of all the other sins that can be forgiven,then that person deserves it, in my opinion.

But experience isn’t necessary! Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction; and ‘Nothing in the empirical world is demonstrable’ implies no contradiction, therefore nothing in the empirical world is demonstrable.

If God exists, then it is.

Entirely irrelevant! Causality is a worldly phenomenon, lacking necessity.

Causality is necessary. If causality is contingent, then what is causality basing its existence on?? CAUSALITY.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Foolishness. How can causation "entails being conditions and standing in relations in the world", when the world began to exist? Makes no sense.

Indeed; causation of the world/the universe/existence itself, including causation, is meaningless- it "makes no sense". Causation, so far as the concept is meaningful or defined, is causation in the world- causation requires existence, requires being, requires being conditioned and standing in relations. Since the world/the universe/existence itself is a necessary condition for causation, causing the world/the universe/existence to come to be is contradictory. In order to cause existence, there must be an antecedent state of existence in which this causation occurs- but then, it is not causation of existence, because existence already existed.

It would only be a contradiction if the cause remained timeless after the event.

Being "timeless prior to X" is word salad, just like "time before time", "north of the north pole", and "married bachelor"- if X is timeless, then X is not prior to anything. If X is prior to anything, then X is not timeless.

Look, you can stamp your foot all you like, but "married bachelor" is simply a contradiction in terms, as is "timeless cause".

And it will all stop as soon as you and a few others refrain from posting.

Of course, this is true, in a sense, albeit misleading- when you stop posting, myself and others will likely stop responding to you; but since you have stopped posting, the nonsense and arbitrarily flailing about will indeed cease.

 

[Parsimony]

Hmmm, you know, perhaps the dealer at the casino didn't really physically "hit" me during the game of blackjack. He did actually "hit" me, except he didn't hit me in a physical sense. He kinda just granted my request by giving me more cards.

See how that works? I can play the game too.

That's because "hit" can have more than one definition. How many definitions does "before" have and how many of those don't have anything to do with time? It makes about as much sense as phrases like "larger than space" or "a piece of iron smaller than an iron atom".

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How many definitions does "before" have and how many of those don't have anything to do with time?

Exactly. None. Being before (but not in time) is precisely like being taller (but not in height)...

 

[Ouroboros]

Exactly. None. Being before (but not in time) is precisely like being taller (but not in height)...

It could be "I'm standing before you in the line in the ice cream shop."

But that would require 3D space.

 

[McBell]

It could be "I'm standing before you in the line in the ice cream shop."

But that would require 3D space.

Standing before someone in line is still a point in time...

 

[idav]

But that would require 3D space.

The fourth demension just doesnt get the respect it derserves.

 

[cottage]

If the universe is uncaused, that would mean that cause & effect chain within it is infinite. But you previously stated that infinity is an absurd concept. Makes no sense.

But of course cause isn’t infinite: if the world is uncaused and hasn’t always existed, then causality, as a part of the world, has only existed since the world has existed.

If God exists, then it is. If God doesn't exist, there isn't.

You are begging the question, and applying a contingent principle to a supposed non-contingent thing. Causality cannot be both contingent and necessary, and we know it isn’t necessary for no contradiction is implied by its denial. Necessity is demonstrated by the law of non-contradiction, not by an appeal to a deity.

Now now now cot, remember what you told me; You cannot conceive of something that can't be conceived, and I can conceive it, and you can too. And you are right, from nothing, nothing comes....but the universe came FROM something...from God. So that isn't the same thing as popping in to being out of nothingness.

No, it is not the same thing. This is what you said: “And on another note...the argument is that God created the universe from nothing.” [my italics] But even God cannot produce something from nothing. And if God is a self-sufficient, maximally great being, then he cannot produce from himself something that is inferior and contradictory to his supreme essence; and in any case creation cannot serve any coherent purpose if God is his own essence and self-sufficient.

You've failed to address my point. If time was to "end", there would be time after time, as one could ask "how long has it been sense time came to an end". That is time AFTER TIME, which is contradictory. That is the point that needs to be addressed..

That explanation is nonsensical. If time ends there is then no time by which it can be measured!

Umm, cot...if God can't do X, and if you can think of a being that CAN do X, then that being would be God. So if you can think of something that God (as defined in the argument) can't do and you can think of a being that CAN do it, then wouldn't it make that being maximally great? Hmmm.

I’ve demonstrated that God (if he exists) is not sufficient in all things, for by creating the world it is shown that he is not endowed with the attributes claimed by believers. And since we are unable to conceive of a self-sufficient, omnipotent being that exists without the world, there cannot therefore be any maximally great being.

Change in the uniformity of nature would still require time, cot.

The cessation of time is a change in the uniformity of nature!

Of all the sins that one can commit and be forgiven, if one chooses to deliberately commit the ONE sin that can't be forgiven in light of all the other sins that can be forgiven,then that person deserves it, in my opinion.

So, it’s burn in hell for eternity…for having the temerity to disbelieve in the Holy Ghost? The contradiction stands unassailed.

If God exists, then it is.

Then, in answer to what I stated, explain how anything in the empirical world is demonstrable?

Causality is necessary. If causality is contingent, then what is causality basing its existence on?? CAUSALITY.

If it isn’t necessary then the question is irrelevant; causality can either exist or not. But you are supposing a cause for causality, which is nonsense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Indeed; causation of the world/the universe/existence itself, including causation, is meaningless- it "makes no sense". Causation, so far as the concept is meaningful or defined, is causation in the world- causation requires existence, requires being, requires being conditioned and standing in relations. Since the world/the universe/existence itself is a necessary condition for causation, causing the world/the universe/existence to come to be is contradictory. In order to cause existence, there must be an antecedent state of existence in which this causation occurs- but then, it is not causation of existence, because existence already existed.

Infinite regression. Ahh, that is why I like the argument against actual infinites, it doesn't matter what complex, technical, or abstract language one uses (as evident above...because it doesn't matter whether you are a philosopher, cosmologist, physicist, or any other scientific disciple...if you negate the existence of a first cause, you are stuck with infinites, and this is demonstrably absurd. It can't happen.

Being "timeless prior to X" is word salad, just like "time before time", "north of the north pole", and "married bachelor"- if X is timeless, then X is not prior to anything. If X is prior to anything, then X is not timeless.

X is not temporally prior to anything. I happen to agree with that. But in the analogy, there is no temporal prior to X, so therefore there is no "time before time". Time does not exist.

And to help demonstrate the analogy, all I have to do is ask you how many moments were there which lead up to the change? You cannot give me an answer, because there WERE no moments prior...so if there were no moments prior, there is no "time before time" since time did not exist. If you think time DID exist, then you should be able to answer the question.

Look, you can stamp your foot all you like, but "married bachelor" is simply a contradiction in terms, as is "timeless cause".

Answer my question please. I don't have to respond to this "married bachelor" stuff, because that is not analogous to the argument.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And to help demonstrate the analogy, all I have to do is ask you how many moments were there which lead up to the change? You cannot give me an answer, because there WERE no moments prior...

Actually, the reason the question cannot be answered is because the question makes no sense.

Case in point: How many moments were there which lead up to lunch time today?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Infinite regression.

No, not necessarily. It does mean that, if there is NOT an infinite regression, there is a brute fact of existence- but existence cannot be caused or created, as that is contradictory.

Ahh, that is why I like the argument against actual infinites, it doesn't matter what complex, technical, or abstract language one uses (as evident above...because it doesn't matter whether you are a philosopher, cosmologist, physicist, or any other scientific disciple...if you negate the existence of a first cause, you are stuck with infinites, and this is demonstrably absurd. It can't happen.

This is moot, since it does not entail an infinite regression, but an infinite regression is not "demonstrably absurd" (unless "absurd" merely means counter-intuitive, rather than contradictory, in which case being "absurd" is no objection) anyways. But since a first cause of existence/the universe/the world is absurd in the sense of being logically false (i.e. self-contradictory), we know that possibility, at least, is ruled out.

X is not temporally prior to anything. I happen to agree with that. But in the analogy, there is no temporal prior to X, so therefore there is no "time before time". Time does not exist.

We've already dispensed with your analogy. What is your obsession with returning to deceased horses to kick them some more?