And yet you never explain why. Probably because it prevents you from setting petty "gotcha" traps.
I thought it was pretty obvious. You said that nothing is constant, which is a baffling thing to say for sure. There are things which are constant, such as constants. You know, numbers. Or otherwise, if this is not what you meant, then you meant that nothing is a thing, which is also a problem. Because you see, to have properties is what it means to be a thing, and if nothing has the property of being constant, then nothing is a thing. Again, obviously a problem with your logic.
Which then frees you up to propose any absurdity you want.
No, God is clearly something.
Absolutely nothing, which is contrasted from the "something" of God.
^Equivocation. "Act on nothing" can have more than one possible meaning. God did not act on something that's merely labeled "nothing." Rather, God acted without anything, i.e. "nothing."
I did not consider the former as a possibility because nothing is not a thing. I'm suggesting that your belief is that God acted without anything to act on. Then I'm asking what that even means.
One heresy is that God could only create from pre-existing matter. But that wouldn't be omnipotent and it would beg the question of where the pre-existing matter came from.
But how does omnipotence allow him to create from nothing? You've established that omnipotence does not allow one to perform logically absurd tasks. Explain how it is that creatio ex nihilo is not absurd. That is, explain what it is that God is actually doing.
Regardless, it's clear that omnipotence is capable of creating something from nothing,
Huh? It is? How? I must've missed it. Please explain it to me like I'm stupid. Tell me step by step what it is that God is doing. From what I can see, it looks like this:
1. ???
2. Stuff is here now.
From what I can see, a shiny red tricycle appearing out of nothing for no reason and with no cause would be functionally identical and indistinguishable from a scenario where God creates the same object out of nothing.
but something does not spontaneously emerge from "nothing" entirely on its own.
Says you. How do you know this? Because of your self-refuting axiom? You've certainly not verified this empirically.
Omnipotence is the necessary something that creates "ex nihilo."
How? By doing what?
Badgering. Can we do this one question at a time?
Causality is already mixed into this salad.
Omnipotence can.
Pretending to rationally propose squared-circles is always the error of the one proposing squared circles.
And creatio ex nihilo is not like this because...?
See above. The omnipotence paradox was solved a very long time ago. The contradiction is inherent in the question itself.
It was solved by set theory, which you do not comprehend. But I'm not debating the really heavy rock right now. I'm asking how it is that creatio ex nihilo is not in the same category.
^ Motive fallacy. I sincerely don't believe that any atheist is capable of genuine humility. So, "why bother?"
You clearly get a kick out of what you're doing.
If I recall correctly, you reject law of causality as a prescriptive law of logic with real force.
Yeah, category error. It's not a law of logic, but that's not to say it doesn't exist. I don't believe I can hold gravity in my hands, but that doesn't mean I'm rejecting gravity as a concept.
Clearly, the very same "Logos" that the Greeks were searching for. I don't see any problem with an omnipotent command.
Great. Then you'll have no problem explaining how it works.
I don't believe any of these "shotgun" questions are the least bit sincere. I can only conclude this is nothing more than a fishing expedition.
So you don't know then. Got it.
Wrong. There is no material evidence to prove a materialist epistemology.
But you don't use evidence to support first principles, do you? That's the whole Münchhausen trilemma again. You will fall into that quicksand quite easily if you think you're supposed to support first principles, and further, there is certainly no evidence to support your "from nothing" axiom.
Please. Your projecting isn't necessary here. I'm just following the rules. You're trying to break them. In reality, you're the one playing dictator on reality here; not me.
No, you're trying to prescribe rules to reality, even to the point that you don't even care if your axioms are self-refuting or even possible to apply at all.
There already are. And they're unprovable because doubting them leads you into more absurdity. For example, you're essentially saying that "nothing," aka: "zero" is never prescriptive. Tell that to your bank.
Axioms are not "absolutely true". Once again, there's Euclid's parallel postulate. It's just a matter of what system you prefer to work in. Do you know what an axiomatic system is?
At the very least, it applies as a necessary contrast to "something." How do you know there's even something if you don't have any abstract concept to contrast it with? It's like you're insisting on doing math without zero.
That's a strange analogy. Zero is not nothing. Zero is definitely something. In a ring or field, zero is the additive identity, and if you remove zero from these structured sets, then the structure collapses.
One thing I learned from this is I honestly didn't realize it was such an issue with you people.
Well bub, if you think that God somehow acting on nothing to do something and create the universe makes sense, but that the universe either always existing or just popping into existence without a cause doesn't make sense, then you're firing the first shot. Aren't you?
How is this not a red herring?
Because you keep on using that word "axiom." I do not think it means what you think it means.
Upvote
0