To act on nothing is to do something?

[Nihilist Virus]

Not so fast there, Partner!

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

David Glass and Mark McCartney [mathematicians] say Ockham’s razor doesn’t cut it with God.

Appears to be way off topic. Tell me what to ctrl+F if I missed something relevant.

 

[Shimokita]

So to be clear, would you agree that the Kalam Cosmological argument is invalid? Off topic I guess so you don't have to answer.

I am not very familiar with it.

Oh, I see the problem. You're a Platonist.

The material cause for music is air. When you stop acting on the air with musical instruments, the music ceases to exist.

No, it is not. A person can go into outer space, where there is no air, and recite part of Mozart's Requiem in his mind.

My argument is valid because it is a tautology, and yours is invalid because it is not well defined.

Being a tautology does not make an argument valid. The only argument I have made, to my knowledge, is that your assumption may be rejected because you have not proved it.

You're saying that this is false, so you must either determine the error in my reasoning or produce a counter example. You have done neither so you have no grounds to reject my proof.

Your atheist brother already responded to this point.

And I quote: So unless we prove you wrong, you're right?

If that is the case, then "God exists." Prove me wrong.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, you haven't said exactly the same thing twice. This isn't the law of identity. It's more like claiming you said "X - 0 = X + 0". Now you could explain why those are the same thing, you need to do so with your statement.

But I could just reject the law of identity, or ask you to prove the law of identity. Or I could just label what I'm saying as the "law" of causality and declare victory.

You're not really arguing anything here.

This:

That is undeniably an argument from ignorance. And telling me I have to show you one is shifting the burden of proof.

Firstly, you said that I had been committing fallacies, and then when I asked you what fallacies, you pointed to something that occurred after I had already asked that question. So you've still not backed up your claim.

And secondly, I've not committed an argument from ignorance. Exactly how many logical frameworks do you think we need? One suffices, but I'm saying that my argument works in all that we know of. Making my argument more robust is not a fallacy.

You need to prove that acting on nothing is in fact the exact same thing as doing nothing. They're stated differently, so you need to show that they are equivalent, like X + 0 and X - 0.

And you need to prove the law of identity. Nihilism!

I can imagine a magician snapping his fingers and a bouquet of flowers appearing in his hand from nothing. I can't imagine a bouquet of flowers that is both made completely of roses and completely made of tulips. There is an inherent contradiction in the latter, there is not an inherent contradiction in the former. I can conceive of an instance where nothing is acted on but something is done. I can't prove it is possible in physical reality, but that is an entirely different proposition.

You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips... hmm... now who's committing the argument from ignorance?

The inescapable truth is that logic is literally nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. We try our best to align our assumptions with the reality we observe. For some bizarre reason, this has led you to accept the law of contradiction while also rejecting my law of causality, despite both being equally empirically verified.

If you "do nothing" and then flowers appear, and you want to convince me that you've "done nothing and then something happened," I will still be right when I say that *you* didn't cause the flowers to appear since *you* did nothing. Nothing caused them to appear, so all we could say is that they appeared for no reason and with no cause. Causality does not apply. That's not exactly a win for theism, so your play at devil's advocate fails here.

Now that is a fair point. "From nothing, nothing comes" hasn't been proven either. You can certainly use this in any of those "first cause" arguments that intend to prove God's existence. If people are accepting laws of causality, then they have to concede you this point, sure. I do not accept that causality has laws. You have to prove them.

Yeah, thanks, but I was a little off topic.

 

[Moral Orel]

But I could just reject the law of identity, or ask you to prove the law of identity. Or I could just label what I'm saying as the "law" of causality and declare victory.

You're not really arguing anything here.

I think that labelling this as a logical contradiction and declaring victory is exactly what you're doing. I'm willing to concede the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom we both accept, you need to show that acting on nothing and doing something violates it.

Firstly, you said that I had been committing fallacies, and then when I asked you what fallacies, you pointed to something that occurred after I had already asked that question. So you've still not backed up your claim.

And secondly, I've not committed an argument from ignorance. Exactly how many logical frameworks do you think we need? One suffices, but I'm saying that my argument works in all that we know of. Making my argument more robust is not a fallacy.

Okay, fair enough. Go back to when I first made the accusation and look at the parts I quoted, those were the fallacies:

Perhaps you can explain how this is so.

Shifting the Burden of Proof.

And yet my position is even stronger than that, because while we've managed to make some things go up and never come back down, we've never performed an act of causality without acting on something.

Argument from Ignorance.

And you need to prove the law of identity. Nihilism!

No, I'll accept the law of identity as an axiom that we both accept, show that what you're saying can be reduced to it.

You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips... hmm... now who's committing the argument from ignorance?

The inescapable truth is that logic is literally nothing but assumptions, definitions, and the conclusions that follow. We try our best to align our assumptions with the reality we observe. For some bizarre reason, this has led you to accept the law of contradiction while also rejecting my law of causality, despite both being equally empirically verified.

If you "do nothing" and then flowers appear, and you want to convince me that you've "done nothing and then something happened," I will still be right when I say that *you* didn't cause the flowers to appear since *you* did nothing. Nothing caused them to appear, so all we could say is that they appeared for no reason and with no cause. Causality does not apply. That's not exactly a win for theism, so your play at devil's advocate fails here.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I was very careful with my words, they are very precise, and you're not paraphrasing accurately at all. For starters, "a bouquet made both entirely of roses and entirely of tulips" is not the same as "a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips". Can you see the distinction that makes mine contradictory that your paraphrase lacks? I'd rather not go through my own quote piece by piece spelling it all out for you. Take a few minutes, read it again, and try this response one more time, please.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Appears to be way off topic. Tell me what to ctrl+F if I missed something relevant.

No, in this case, I'd rather just do "nothing" and let "something" happen.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am not very familiar with it.

No, it is not. A person can go into outer space, where there is no air, and recite part of Mozart's Requiem in his mind.

Then the material cause is his brain. What's your point?

Being a tautology does not make an argument valid.

Actually, it does.

The only argument I have made, to my knowledge, is that your assumption may be rejected because you have not proved it.

You've told me that causality can occur without an input, and I'm saying that is not a well defined notion.

Your atheist brother already responded to this point.

And I quote: So unless we prove you wrong, you're right?

If that is the case, then "God exists." Prove me wrong.

You misunderstand the difference between a statement and a proof.

If you provide me with a statement, I can reject it on the grounds that it is not proven.

If you provide me with a proof, the burden is then on me to find something wrong with the proof. Someone who is providing a proof has met the burden of proof, so the burden then goes to the other party.

I provided a tautological proof, and tautologies suffice as proofs. It's just a matter of what you accept as an axiom.

But, of course, an axiom can be poorly defined, such as your idea that causality does not require input.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think that labelling this as a logical contradiction and declaring victory is exactly what you're doing.

Pretty much, yes.

I'm willing to concede the Law of Non-Contradiction as an axiom we both accept, you need to show that acting on nothing and doing something violates it.

At this point it just comes down to how we're defining "act on" and "do." The point seems to be self-evident to me. Could you tell me how you define those terms?

Okay, fair enough. Go back to when I first made the accusation and look at the parts I quoted, those were the fallacies:

Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Again, says you. I say I gave a tautology. You say I have to prove what I'm saying. Round and round we go. Just tell me exactly how "act on" and "do" differ in any meaningful way, because the way I see it, it makes no sense to do something without acting on anything. The notion is not well defined.

It's like I'm saying this:

f(x)=5x is well defined, but f( )=5x is not well defined.

And you're saying this:

I don't have to know how f( )=5x works, it is still a well defined concept.

And to spell it out, f is the efficient cause, x is the material cause, and 5x is the effect.

Argument from Ignorance.

OK, fair enough.

No, I'll accept the law of identity as an axiom that we both accept, show that what you're saying can be reduced to it.

Simply define "act on" and "do" and you'll see for yourself. Unless you engineer your definitions to try to "win" here, of course.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I was very careful with my words, they are very precise, and you're not paraphrasing accurately at all. For starters, "a bouquet made both entirely of roses and entirely of tulips" is not the same as "a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips". Can you see the distinction that makes mine contradictory that your paraphrase lacks? I'd rather not go through my own quote piece by piece spelling it all out for you. Take a few minutes, read it again, and try this response one more time, please.

I didn't straw man you. My paraphrasing sufficed.

IF I had said, "I can easily come up with a bouquet made of both roses and tulips - a mixed bouquet!" then I'd be strawmanning you. Perhaps you need to reread what I said:

"You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips... hmm... now who's committing the argument from ignorance?"

OK, let's put in your pointless clarification:

"You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and [entirely] tulips... hmm... now who's committing the argument from ignorance?"

The point is that you are saying that because you cannot conceive of a universe wherein the law of non-contradiction does not apply, then it follows that it must apply. And you're the one appealing to ignorance now, plain and simple. You're doing exactly what you said was a fallacy when I did it. And my paraphrasing didn't change the meaning of what I said.

 

[Moral Orel]

Pretty much, yes.

I'm going to work through the rest of your post, but can you demonstrate that it is a tautology and not just two similar sounding statements? Like I said, you could demonstrate that X + 0 = X - 0. It boils down to the law of identity at some point, but you can reduce it to that without simply saying, "Well, look at it!". Can you do that with your claim? Or do I simply need to look at it and feel they're similar enough like you do?

 

[Moral Orel]

"You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips

That is a perfectly normal way to describe a bouquet. You're seriously telling me that if someone said that to you, it would confuse you and you'd ask, "Wait, is it roses or tulips? It can't be both!".

Okay, I'm going to stop there for a bit. I had a bunch of other stuff written about your response, but I deleted everything else. I had to say my peace on that because it bugs me, but I think I'm starting to get your argument. I was pondering my magician acting on his hand to snap his fingers and producing something ex nihilo and It occurred to me that he was causing nothing to produce something...

That needs some time to stew.

 

[Shimokita]

Then the material cause is his brain. What's your point?



Actually, it does.



You've told me that causality can occur without an input, and I'm saying that is not a well defined notion.



You misunderstand the difference between a statement and a proof.

If you provide me with a statement, I can reject it on the grounds that it is not proven.

If you provide me with a proof, the burden is then on me to find something wrong with the proof. Someone who is providing a proof has met the burden of proof, so the burden then goes to the other party.

I provided a tautological proof, and tautologies suffice as proofs. It's just a matter of what you accept as an axiom.

But, of course, an axiom can be poorly defined, such as your idea that causality does not require input.

No, the material cause is not his brain. The man’s brain cells are not formed into Mozart’s Requiem.

 

[Shimokita]

I’m out of the thread too. Too tired. Good night.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, the material cause is not his brain. The man’s brain cells are not formed into Mozart’s Requiem.

Yes, they are.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm going to work through the rest of your post, but can you demonstrate that it is a tautology and not just two similar sounding statements? Like I said, you could demonstrate that X + 0 = X - 0. It boils down to the law of identity at some point, but you can reduce it to that without simply saying, "Well, look at it!". Can you do that with your claim? Or do I simply need to look at it and feel they're similar enough like you do?

It's not as easy because this is spoken language, which is more casual than the formal language of logic. I was leaving it to you to define the terms.

If I were to define it formally, I'd start with the analogy of the functions which you redacted along with nearly everything I said.

That is a perfectly normal way to describe a bouquet. You're seriously telling me that if someone said that to you, it would confuse you and you'd ask, "Wait, is it roses or tulips? It can't be both!"

I think you misread what was said.

Okay, I'm going to stop there for a bit. I had a bunch of other stuff written about your response, but I deleted everything else. I had to say my peace on that because it bugs me, but I think I'm starting to get your argument.

OK. Are you going to get to the part about how you were committing the fallacy you accused me of? Is that what you mean when you say you're starting to get my argument?

I was pondering my magician acting on his hand to snap his fingers and producing something ex nihilo and It occurred to me that he was causing nothing to produce something...

No, even if the magic was real, he's acting on the universe and causing it to bring forth flowers. He's not "acting on nothing"; to do so - as I assume you understand the phrase - would require that the universe and all other things which exist in any possible way somehow cease to exist.

That needs some time to stew.

Like it or not, I wasn't wrong about my analysis on the bouquet. Just re-read it.

 

[mama2one]

Keeping seeing question "what did God act on?"

answer: Love

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not as easy because this is spoken language, which is more casual than the formal language of logic. I was leaving it to you to define the terms.

If I were to define it formally, I'd start with the analogy of the functions which you redacted along with nearly everything I said.

Relax, man. I said I was going to work through the rest of your post. I didn't cut out the rest because I was trying to dodge it.

At this point it just comes down to how we're defining "act on" and "do." The point seems to be self-evident to me. Could you tell me how you define those terms?

I would define "act" and "do" basically the same way. I think the sticking point is you adding "on" in there. Why does something have to acted on?

Again, says you. I say I gave a tautology. You say I have to prove what I'm saying. Round and round we go. Just tell me exactly how "act on" and "do" differ in any meaningful way, because the way I see it, it makes no sense to do something without acting on anything. The notion is not well defined.

It's like I'm saying this:

f(x)=5x is well defined, but f( )=5x is not well defined.

And you're saying this:

I don't have to know how f( )=5x works, it is still a well defined concept.

And to spell it out, f is the efficient cause, x is the material cause, and 5x is the effect.

But I'm not claiming anything is well defined. I'm claiming that there's no reason to assume something is impossible simply because we haven't defined it well. We're still working on defining quantum physics, which is extremely difficult because it's all so counter-intuitive to everything that we've ever experienced. That doesn't mean that whatever concepts we haven't defined are impossible to define.

I didn't straw man you. My paraphrasing sufficed.

IF I had said, "I can easily come up with a bouquet made of both roses and tulips - a mixed bouquet!" then I'd be strawmanning you. Perhaps you need to reread what I said:

"You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and tulips... hmm... now who's committing the argument from ignorance?"

OK, let's put in your pointless clarification:

"You can't imagine a bouquet made entirely of roses and [entirely] tulips... hmm... now who's committing the argument from ignorance?"

The point is that you are saying that because you cannot conceive of a universe wherein the law of non-contradiction does not apply, then it follows that it must apply. And you're the one appealing to ignorance now, plain and simple. You're doing exactly what you said was a fallacy when I did it. And my paraphrasing didn't change the meaning of what I said.

And after my response to this you added:

I think you misread what was said.

I did not misread. I wrote a sentence that was clearly contradictory, you paraphrased a sentence that was a perfectly normal way to describe a bouquet. You further tried to say that I was trying to prove the Law of Non-Contradiction with my analogy, that isn't right either.

You said that we can't even conceive of something coming about from someone not acting on anything. I made the magician's trick analogy as an attempt to show me conceiving of that, and then I described the bouquet to show something actually inconceivable. I'm not attempting to prove that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true, I was simply agreeing that inconceivable things are violations of it, and my magician isn't unconceivable. It doesn't matter whether the law is true or not for my analogies to be appropriate for your test of contradiction, namely, conceivability.

Now, admittedly, the magician acted on his hand to snap his fingers. But that finger-snap isn't linked to the bouquet the same way that, say, a sculptor's clay is linked to a statue. I think that's the sticking point.

And lastly, like I said, I think I'm starting to get your argument, and it's starting to look more like you're equivocating "no thing" with "nothingness" especially after this next bit:

No, even if the magic was real, he's acting on the universe and causing it to bring forth flowers. He's not "acting on nothing"; to do so - as I assume you understand the phrase - would require that the universe and all other things which exist in any possible way somehow cease to exist.

Why? Why is acting in the universe automatically acting on the universe? Why is it impossible to not act on anything and something still be caused? The bouquet appeared in the universe, why must that mean the universe spawned it, or that some part of the universe transformed into the bouquet?

 

[Shimokita]

Yes, they are.

Nonsense.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Relax, man. I said I was going to work through the rest of your post. I didn't cut out the rest because I was trying to dodge it.


I would define "act" and "do" basically the same way. I think the sticking point is you adding "on" in there. Why does something have to acted on?

Something has to be acted on because there must be a material cause, although that of course has become the point in question for some reason.

But I'm not claiming anything is well defined. I'm claiming that there's no reason to assume something is impossible simply because we haven't defined it well. We're still working on defining quantum physics, which is extremely difficult because it's all so counter-intuitive to everything that we've ever experienced. That doesn't mean that whatever concepts we haven't defined are impossible to define.

Don't mix up empirical science with logic. This is a logical issue we're working through - at least you've certainly been treating it that way. In logic, it is fatal if something is not well-defined. For a simple example, suppose I define n to be the prime number that is divisible by four. Is n well defined? Can we not declare that n does not exist?

Causality, though, is not an object like n. Causality is a function. But functions also need to be well-defined. For example, suppose f(a÷b)=a for all a and nonzero b. Then f(1/2)=1, but f(2/4)=2, so 1=2. The function is not well-defined. Do you suggest we wait around for future generations to figure it out? Is it an appeal to ignorance to say that the function is not well-defined?

And after my response to this you added:

I did not misread. I wrote a sentence that was clearly contradictory, you paraphrased a sentence that was a perfectly normal way to describe a bouquet. You further tried to say that I was trying to prove the Law of Non-Contradiction with my analogy, that isn't right either.

You said that we can't even conceive of something coming about from someone not acting on anything. I made the magician's trick analogy as an attempt to show me conceiving of that, and then I described the bouquet to show something actually inconceivable. I'm not attempting to prove that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true, I was simply agreeing that inconceivable things are violations of it, and my magician isn't unconceivable. It doesn't matter whether the law is true or not for my analogies to be appropriate for your test of contradiction, namely, conceivability.

Now, admittedly, the magician acted on his hand to snap his fingers. But that finger-snap isn't linked to the bouquet the same way that, say, a sculptor's clay is linked to a statue. I think that's the sticking point.

Fingers snapping would be an efficient cause and clay would be a material cause, so no, they're not linked.

Are we done with this analogy though? I really need to see you encode this non-input causality into a logical framework. I do not think you can do it. It's simply not well-defined.

And lastly, like I said, I think I'm starting to get your argument, and it's starting to look more like you're equivocating "no thing" with "nothingness" especially after this next bit:

I'm not equivocating. I'm exposing the fact that Christian theology equivocates in the manner you describe.

I'm absolutely not saying that you can act on nothingness, like it's a thing. That is a Christian notion (although probably not unique to them). Christians generally believe in creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. I've been saying the whole time that acting on nothing is not doing anything at all. I have no idea how you think I'm equivocating.

Why? Why is acting in the universe automatically acting on the universe?

Let's phrase it as acting on something in the universe.

Why is it impossible to not act on anything and something still be caused?

That notion is not well-defined. Causality is a function and all functions require input.

The bouquet appeared in the universe, why must that mean the universe spawned it,

Because that's literally what the word "spawn" means.

or that some part of the universe transformed into the bouquet?

That would be for conservation of matter and energy, but who cares about reality at this point? It's left the building long ago.

 

[Hammster]

Why, then, did Jesus die on the cross? What is the point of that if God is able to forgive us as an act of will?

I’m going to, probably, oversimplify this. Let’s say that I need to borrow a car, and you lend me yours. You tell me that it’s your only car, and you need it for work tomorrow and to be careful. I speed off, drive carelessly through the day, and eventually wreck your car.

While you may be upset, you graciously forgive me and I go my way.

Now, who pays for the repair? You do, because you forgave me. You can’t forgive a debt, and at the same time bill someone for that debt. But it still needs a payment. So forgiveness always costs the forgiven something. It’s not free.

I think we see this in Colossians.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. - Colossians 2:8-15

We (those made alive) were forgiven, but the forgiveness had a cost. And that cost was the cross.

 

[Tone]

Something has to be acted on because there must be a material cause, although that of course has become the point in question for some reason.

"Acted on" is force...so, obviously, there is energy...so...Einstein.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I’m going to, probably, oversimplify this. Let’s say that I need to borrow a car, and you lend me yours. You tell me that it’s your only car, and you need it for work tomorrow and to be careful. I speed off, drive carelessly through the day, and eventually wreck your car.

While you may be upset, you graciously forgive me and I go my way.

Now, who pays for the repair? You do, because you forgave me. You can’t forgive a debt, and at the same time bill someone for that debt. But it still needs a payment. So forgiveness always costs the forgiven something. It’s not free.

I think we see this in Colossians.

8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.
11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. - Colossians 2:8-15

We (those made alive) were forgiven, but the forgiveness had a cost. And that cost was the cross.

That question only applies if you've chosen to define omnipotence such that God can do absolutely anything, even that which is logically impossible. Just keep that in mind. Also, I do not think your analogy maps well onto the situation you're trying to describe.

The person lending the car is God/Jesus. The person borrowing is humanity. The payment is the cross. Who or what is the repair man? Who or what is the car?