Why not? It answered your question directly.
I asked who or what the car is in the analogy, along with the repair shop.
Upvote
0
Why not? It answered your question directly.
Ah. Well, ex nihilo isn’t illogical.
Causality requires a material and efficient cause. Creatio ex nihilo, if it is possible, would occur for no reason and with no cause, and could not be an event in causality.
Right. He is basically just asserting that anything which comes into existence requires a material cause. The only reasoning seems to be, "I've never seen creatio ex nihilo and I don't even understand how it would work!"
Of course Christians don't claim to have seen creatio ex nihilo themselves, nor do they claim to have an understanding of how it works. Christians don't claim to be God, after all.
The charge that it is a logical or analytical contradiction doesn't go very far, precisely because the metaphysics of causation are not so well defined to exclude such activity as impossible, particularly when it comes to God. You already pointed this out. It is not controversial that God can do things which do not occur naturally, and it is obvious that not everything which does not occur naturally is logically impossible. Creatio ex nihilo doesn't occur naturally, but God can do it. End of story.
Obviously it doesn’t require material. Or even our understanding.Causality requires a material and efficient cause. Creatio ex nihilo, if it is possible, would occur for no reason and with no cause, and could not be an event in causality.
That’s not relevant. The point was that forgiveness costs.I asked who or what the car is in the analogy, along with the repair shop.
Basically. I am glad other folks have seen through it as well. The OP is simply claiming as a truth what he needs to prove, and his only "proof" is that he has never seen something before. The rest of his "argument" is simply semantics and word-play to cloud the matter.
If God acted on nothing, what did he do?
Looking around it pleased God to create out of nothing.
Yes, I know."Out of" is motion...
If you don't think there needs to be a material cause for causality, can't there also be causality with no efficient cause? If not, why not? If so, then your God serves no purpose in creation. The whole universe can literally come out of nothing.
To be totally honest, I feel like I'm in over my head here. I don't know the subject matter of causality all that well. But it seems to me that if you're saying I might come up with a logical framework, and that the burden is on me to do so, you haven't really made a case. If you can't explain why it's impossible without any input from me, then your argument falls flat. I tell you what, talk to me like I'm 9. I won't hold any barbs or sarcasm against you as long as you make a sincere attempt at explaining why it's logically contradictory.
Exactly. Maybe I'm just not up to snuff on my four causes, but why does there have to be a material cause? Is this conception of causality the only possible conception? If so, why?
See, you keep saying "not well-defined", and then asking me to define it. Is it impossible to define, or can you simply not think of a way to define it?
Because it looks like it simply isn't defined, not that it is poorly defined, or impossible to define. So I'll just say it now, I personally can't think of a way to define it either. What does that mean? I don't know and you don't know, so what conclusion should our ignorance lead us to?
"Out of"
Obviously it doesn’t require material. Or even our understanding.
But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
— Psalm 115:3
Looking around it pleased God to create out of nothing.
That’s not relevant. The point was that forgiveness costs.
Prepositions are not nouns.
That’s fine. Bottom line, there is a living Savior who, because He died and rose again, is sufficient to save you and indeed each and every person who comes to Him in faith. There is fullness of grace in Christ crucified. And you, too, may find salvation in His name.Not sure how that is supposed to be helpful.
Half of the key elements in your analogy don't map onto anything at all. That makes it a poor analogy.
The question is whether God actually solves the problem of existence. He doesn't.
I agree with all of this. If this is your point, I'm on board. I think I would need to accept that causality is as you've defined it in all contexts to agree there's a contradiction though. I can't do that though because I'm not sure causality works that way outside of my everyday human experience. Once we get out to the origins of the universe, and the depths of the quantum level, I don't think the Four Causes are going to make much sense.If you don't think there needs to be a material cause for causality, can't there also be causality with no efficient cause? If not, why not? If so, then your God serves no purpose in creation. The whole universe can literally come out of nothing.
I haven’t attempted to prove the existence of God in this thread, but someone might need to disprove the possibility you suggest, depending on whatever argument he used.If you don't think there needs to be a material cause for causality, can't there also be causality with no efficient cause? If not, why not? If so, then your God serves no purpose in creation. The whole universe can literally come out of nothing.