The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Parsimony]

Just to play Devil's advocate, infinite regression and a first cause aren't the only possible options. A third option would be a closed loop of time where the beginning and the end are one and the same, like driving around a race track. I personally think a first cause makes the most sense, but I wouldn't say it is the only possible explanation.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Just to play Devil's advocate, infinite regression and a first cause aren't the only possible options. A third option would be a closed loop of time where the beginning and the end are one and the same, like driving around a race track. I personally think a first cause makes the most sense, but I wouldn't say it is the only possible explanation.

Circular time huh? Either way the cause must precede the effect and there is still a sense of "before". First cause makes the most sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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?

That can be easily done. How many seconds are there in between 13.7 billion years and today?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, not necessarily. It does mean that, if there is NOT an infinite regression, there is a brute fact of existence

Nonsensical. If there isn't a first cause, then there were an infinite amount of hours, seconds, days, centuries which had to be traversed in order to reach today. That isn't going anywhere no matter how much you try to downplay the matter.

- but existence cannot be caused or created, as that is contradictory.

I agree, which is exactly why God's existence is necessary...and why a necessary cause is the only game in town that can get the job done.

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.

It may not be counter-intuitive, but it is absurd nonetheless.

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.

I don't think you nor anyone on here has demonstrated how a first cause existence is absurd. Actually, I still would like an answer to the question...if the chain which lead to your birth (or my birth) is infinite, how would we reach the point of birth? If you can explain to me how infinity can be traversed, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

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

Have you really?

 

[McBell]

Have you really?

Yes, they have.
Quite a few times in various ways.

your denial of the fact does not alter it.

 

[McBell]

That can be easily done. How many seconds are there in between 13.7 billion years and today?

Why do you need the number of seconds when you have the number of years?
Why not do the math for yourself?

365
*13,700,000,000
---------------
5,000,500,000,000 - days
* 24
---------------
120,012,000,000,000 - hours
* 60
---------------
7,200,720,000,000,000 - minutes
* 60
---------------
432,043,200,000,000,000 - seconds​

Now, how many moments were there?
Seeing as that is the point you missed...

 

[Parsimony]

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.

What about lying? If Got can't lie, but I can conceive of a being that can lie, such as myself, does that make me God?

Hebrews 6:18

"that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us."

 

[McBell]

I don't think you nor anyone on here has demonstrated how a first cause existence is absurd.

Who said a first cause was absurd?

Actually, I still would like an answer to the question...if there were the chain which lead to your birth (or my birth) is infinite, how would we reach the point of birth? If you can explain to me how infinity can be traversed, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

How many moments old are you?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

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.

I still don't get it.

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.

Causality is necessary, regardless of whether God exists or not. And whether or not the universe is necessary would depend on whether God exists. If God exists, then it is necessary, if God doesn't exist, then the universe ISN'T necessary, but contingent.

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.

When I said "from nothing" I mean that there was no (pre-existing) material. Obviously, the creation came from God, but it wasn't from pre-existing material.

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.

I am trying to figure out how was the creation "inferior and contradictory to his supreme essence". You lost me right there.

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

Ok so be kind and explain to me what would it mean for time to cease existing? How would that work? Even if all motion stopped, time would exist...so what does it mean to end time? If God ended time, what would that mean?

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.

Hey man, if that will make you sleep good tonight...thinking that you demonstrated how and why God isn't sufficient in all things, more power to ya

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

Apparently, atheism must of have existed for a longggg time.

Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart "there is no God".

And as far as those that claim there is no evidence for God's existence ...

Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

And it is no coincidence that it states "..being understood from what has been made", because apologists use arguments based on what has been made, such as the kalam and the argument from design...and even the argument from consciousness.

The scripture is clear, man is without excuse.

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

Second law of thermydynamics is demonstrable.

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.

My argument is; it IS necessary. If there is an argument against the necessity of causation, then I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Who said a first cause was absurd?

All of those that are arguing against the existence of a first cause, perhaps?

How many moments old are you?

Well, I don't know how many moments old I am, but I can determine how many seconds old I am. So...lets do the math...

Ok, so I have lived on this earth approx 8830080000 seconds, and counting

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What about lying? If Got can't lie, but I can conceive of a being that can lie, such as myself, does that make me God?

Hebrews 6:18

"that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us."

No. :beach:

 

[Parsimony]

No. :beach:

Then you admit that your statement of "if God can't do X, and if you can think of a being that CAN do X, then that being would be God" is wrong.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nonsensical.

You are really good at ignoring things you don't like to hear. I see that LegionOnamaMoi's (fairly diplomatic, under the circumstances) attempt to show you that the mere fact that you don't understand or like something, and want to call it "nonsensical" or "absurd" or whatever, doesn't hold any water whatsoever as a counter-argument has been conveniently forgotten. In any case, as a reminder- simply calling something "nonsense", because you either don't understand or don't want to understand, is not a rebuttal.

If there isn't a first cause, then there were an infinite amount of hours, seconds, days, centuries which had to be traversed in order to reach today.

K.

I agree, which is exactly why God's existence is necessary...and why a necessary cause is the only game in town that can get the job done.

Not only have those arguments you have tried to reproduce here for any "necessary" existence failed to show there is any such thing, but analysis of the notion itself shows it to be a non-starter; there is no existence that is logically necessary- if something can exist, it can not exist, the only logical necessity is conditional necessity, that which attaches to the consequent of an "if, then" proposition.

It may not be counter-intuitive, but it is absurd nonetheless.

That it is counter-intuitive is the best that anyone (Craig, Thomas, etc etc) has ever showed; but being counter-intuitive is not the same as being absurd- it is not logically contradictory. This is essentially WLC doublespeak; in logic, an argument is "absurd" iff it is self-contradictory, but colloquially we will talk about something being "absurd" if it is merely weird , or counter-intuitive. Craig shows that infinities are weird, and then expects this to count as a logical reductio ad absurdum; unfortunately, he is merely equivocating, he has not shown them to be absurd in the logical sense, i.e. self-contradictory. But then, nobody is going to deny that infinities are going to be weird or counter-intuitive; who would expect otherwise?

I don't think you nor anyone on here has demonstrated how a first cause existence is absurd.

Kicking the dead horse some more. Causing the universe/the world/existence is an undefined concept; causation, so far as we understand the term at all, entails being conditioned, standing in relations, and having worldly properties- but these cannot exist prior to the creation of the universe/the world/existence. Thus, causing the universe or existence to come to be requires such a cause to have properties it can only have if the universe or existence already exists in the first place. This is a contradiction.

Actually, I still would like an answer to the question...if there were the chain which lead to your birth (or my birth) is infinite, how would we reach the point of birth? If you can explain to me how infinity can be traversed, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

You've had this explained to you already by someone probably able to give the explanation better than I (Legion), so I'm not sure what the point of this would be. If you couldn't understand his explanation, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.

Have you really?

Yep.

 

[McBell]

All of those that are arguing against the existence of a first cause, perhaps?

Who is arguing that?

Seems to me the actual argument is that you have not demonstrated a first cause is required.

I mean, you keep repeating that a first cause is required, but you refuse to support your claim.

Well, I don't know how many moments old I am, ...

Why not?

 

[ArtieE]

Nonsensical. If there isn't a first cause, then there were an infinite amount of hours, seconds, days, centuries which had to be traversed in order to reach today.

How ridiculous. If "there were an infinite amount of hours, seconds, days, centuries" up to today this is what we call time. What is doing the "traversing" through your hours and days? A second time? Perhaps you think your "second time" is a little minute who runs along the "first time" minutes like a man running on a road?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That can be easily done. How many seconds are there in between 13.7 billion years and today?

How many moments are there in a second?

 

[ArtieE]

How many moments are there in a second?

A moment is 10 to the power of −43 seconds.

 

[Simurgh]

...and i still don't see why a god is necessary for anything...

then again, someone who is so lost in his argument from ignorance that he is confused when moments of nothingness meet split seconds of whateverness just doesn't make a cogent discussion partner.

CotW is confusing himself since he cannot even keep track of all that nonsense he thinks proves that his god is a necessity for existence, or space, or everyone's favorite: KINDS.

Isn't it time to put that particular "baby" to bed? maybe even smother it by ignoring it.

 

[cottage]

I still don't get it.

Oh I think you do, really.

Causality is necessary, regardless of whether God exists or not. And whether or not the universe is necessary would depend on whether God exists. If God exists, then it is necessary, if God doesn't exist, then the universe ISN'T necessary, but contingent.

Oh for heaven’s sake! If you’re presuming to argue causally to God from necessity then you first need to demonstrate that cause is necessary, which cannot be done. In any conceivable situation where object A is said to be the cause of object B the contrary is possible with no contradiction, and so cannot be necessary. And it is patently false to say the universe is necessary since there is no contradiction in conceiving every particle of matter to be annihilated and every form to be changed (Hume).

When I said "from nothing" I mean that there was no (pre-existing) material. Obviously, the creation came from God, but it wasn't from pre-existing material.

But classical theism argues that God created the world ex nihilo, and it doesn’t qualify the statement by saying it wasn’t created ex materia but came from God, and in any case if God is the Supreme Being and reality itself then God cannot produce something from himself that is not-God. See examples below.

I am trying to figure out how was the creation "inferior and contradictory to his supreme essence". You lost me right there.

Well, creation is everything that the Supreme Being by definition is not, and is composed of accidents, degradation, imperfection, confusion, ignorance and of course finitude.

Ok so be kind and explain to me what would it mean for time to cease existing? How would that work? Even if all motion stopped, time would exist...so what does it mean to end time? If God ended time, what would that mean?

Simply put it means everything is stopped; no movement or change in form or matter. Freeze-frame I suppose you could call it?

Hey man, if that will make you sleep good tonight...thinking that you demonstrated how and why God isn't sufficient in all things, more power to ya

I believe I shall sleep well regardless. Indeed, I am able to think conceptually of a Supreme Being that is sufficient in all things, but the reality would only obtain logically if there were no material world and created beings to contradict and undermine that concept.

And it is no coincidence that it states "..being understood from what has been made", because apologists use arguments based on what has been made, such as the kalam and the argument from design...and even the argument from consciousness.

The scripture is clear, man is without excuse.

But how does any of the above overturn the contradiction? How do we conclude that God is omnibenevolent from Psalm 14:1?

Second law of thermydynamics is demonstrable.

Er…no! It isn’t. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a contingent principle.

My argument is; it IS necessary. If there is an argument against the necessity of causation, then I haven't seen it yet.

Causality is a worldly phenomenon, and is only explicable in those terms, for example: force A causes movement in object B. But on another occasion it is logically possible that the same force applied to that same object, and under the same conditions, will have a completely different effect – or no effect at all. So if causality is necessary for God then God is contingent upon a worldly phenomenon and cannot on those terms be the Supreme Creator.

 

[Thief]

Except for cause and effect......science can't play here.
I wish it could.

There are 'points' that are very much to the realm of science.
Chapter Two of Genesis has all the earmarks of an experiment.

And the singularity is one of my favored notions.
With Spirit first.