God the middleman

Nihilist Virus · Apr 7, 2021

Paulomycin said:
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.

Paulomycin · Apr 7, 2021

Moral Orel said:
It isn't missing. Follow the link I provided and it will take you directly to the post itself with the post number and time stamp.

Okay, found it. I was quoting Trent Horn from Catholic Answers. So yeah, not my words. Maybe you could have made that observation yourself? So what's so wonderful about infinite regress, again? You people seem to really demand what amounts to Mormon cosmology.

Paulomycin · Apr 7, 2021

@Nihilist Virus

*clearing the blackboard*

Pretty sure your nitpicks will come up later anyway. Or I'll address if necessary. I must admit I've completely lost track of where you're going.

What exactly is your thesis? Again? I've just realized that I've been running on pure suspicion this whole time, and you haven't overtly stated your side here. And machine-gunning a bunch of seemingly random questions does not an argument make. Do you even have a position to begin with, or were you just trying to trip me up on anything you could possibly manage?

Moral Orel · Apr 7, 2021

Moral Orel said:
So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

Paulomycin said:
I did not. Show me the direct quote. Cite the post number. Pretty sick of this "Paulo said" stuff that never happened.

Paulomycin said:
This explanation can’t just be another similar universe or multiverse because this would create an infinite regress of explanations, which can’t explain anything (sort of like an infinite train of boxcars that can’t move an inch without a locomotive).

Paulomycin said:
I was quoting Trent Horn from Catholic Answers. So yeah, not my words. Maybe you could have made that observation yourself?

Okay, so you did say it just like I claimed. And when you claimed that you didn't, that was false.

Paulomycin · Apr 7, 2021

On the off-chance that you're sincerely trying to understand where I'm coming from, I'm just going to make a few points:

Nihilist Virus said:
But how does omnipotence allow him to create from nothing?

^ I'm literally reading this question as, "How does the exact how allow him to create from nothing?"

Nihilist Virus said:
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.

Because you're reading into the assumption that "creatio ex nihilo" is absurd from the perspective of (a secular materialist) Ontological Naturalism, which it obviously is. <-- Please note that I freely admit that in public. Of course it's absurd from that presuppositional viewpoint. But there is far less proof and evidence of ontological naturalism than there is for God. You just can't make up the difference.

Yet from a purely classical Aristotelian logic, it's never absurd. That's the reason why I posted the other thread asking:

Paulomycin said:
During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, where did Hume or Kant ever objectively refute any of the classical logical arguments for God's existence? <-- Don't forget that deductive logic is math-based (bivalent), therefore logic constitutes proof.

Only direct citations with book name, page, and quote(s), please.

(and this isn't just limited to Hume or Kant. Any other philosopher OR SCIENTIST from the 18th, 19th, or 20th century is acceptable too.)

^ This includes Bertrand Russell. Don't think I'm trying to limit you to one or two individuals.

. . .and I got nothing. At least not that I've noticed. Maybe you can point to something? I think you're assuming there had to have been some sort of progress in science or philosophy that I wasn't aware of, and I can pretty confidently say that every "internet professor" worth their credentials is failing to cough up the goods here.

Nihilist Virus said:
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.

Again, I'm literally reading this question as, "How does the exact how allow him to create from nothing?"

1. Omnipotence sovereignly wills.
2. Stuff is here now.

Nihilist Virus said:
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.

No. Not, "For no reason and with no cause." But rather the sovereign reason and purpose of the creator. That is always the case. Some people create simply for the sake of artistic expression alone.

To me, this is like watching some guy on YouTube who decides to make a shiny red tricycle (or an apple pie) from scratch, and then I see you posting on the comment section, "Well, he just did that for no reason and no cause whatsoever." Why can't it be, "Because the YouTube guy simply wanted to create a red tricycle?" Does every content creator on YouTube have to answer to you personally for whatever they endeavor??? And if so, then why?

Nihilist Virus said:
Says you. How do you know this? Because of your self-refuting axiom? You've certainly not verified this empirically.

Because "something creating itself" is a logically absurd proposition. It doesn't have to be verified empirically! <-- Where does this (arbitrary) rule come from? Sometimes I think Moral Orel is right and you people do want to play Calvinball after all.

Nihilist Virus said:
How? By doing what?

^ I'm literally reading this question as, "How does the exact how allow him to create from nothing?"

Nihilist Virus said:
It was solved by set theory, which you do not comprehend.

No, it wasn't. You're just being deliberately vague to give the illusion that you know something I don't. It's not even on the list of proposed solutions, and you're not citing any external sources. Could you please quit with the cheap manipulative head games?

Nihilist Virus said:
You clearly get a kick out of what you're doing.

I'm just being honest.

Nihilist Virus said:
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.

You can't have it both ways. If it exists, then it exists as a (fundamental and undeniable) prescriptive force of the universe. You can't just call "category error" without demonstrating which categories I'm necessarily confined to.

Nihilist Virus said:
Great. Then you'll have no problem explaining how it works.

Yet again, you're demanding how the how. lol.

Nihilist Virus said:
So you don't know then. Got it.

I noticed you neither confirmed nor denied "fishing expedition." How desperate does someone gotta be to get to this level of interrogation?

Nihilist Virus said:
But you don't use evidence to support first principles, do you?

Who says I have to?

Nihilist Virus said:
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.

There are some tautologies that are so formally true, that doubting them leads to an absurdity. So Münchhausen trilemma is only mostly a problem. As-in the trilemma is itself not an absolute. And you can't pretend it's absolute either. Some justifications are their own logical cul-de-sac, and that's a good thing, because it shows us where the bottom is. All demands for further justification are themselves a form of doubt.

For example: Doubt the law of identity. Demand justification for it. You can't do that without doubting your own existence. So then how is the doubt itself even valid if you don't necessarily exist to force doubt upon it?

Moreover, violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation. You can't get around it.

Therefore, law of identity is an inviolate (and prescriptive) law of existence itself. It doesn't need further justification. You can trust it as an absolute truth without being mindlessly dogmatic about it, or drowning in infinite regress.

Nihilist Virus said:
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.

I can take your word for it, but that still doesn't demonstrate what "zero" itself is. Maybe nothing matters more than you assume it does.

Nihilist Virus said:
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?

Really? What about your materialist bootstrapping? Hmm?

Nihilist Virus said:
Because you keep on using that word "axiom." I do not think it means what you think it means.

I double-checked myself numerous times, and you're not objectively refuting me anywhere. So. . .?

Nihilist Virus · Apr 7, 2021

Paulomycin said:
@Nihilist Virus

*clearing the blackboard*

Pretty sure your nitpicks will come up later anyway. Or I'll address if necessary. I must admit I've completely lost track of where you're going.

What exactly is your thesis? Again? I've just realized that I've been running on pure suspicion this whole time, and you haven't overtly stated your side here. And machine-gunning a bunch of seemingly random questions does not an argument make. Do you even have a position to begin with, or were you just trying to trip me up on anything you could possibly manage?

I've made plenty of threads before you arrived. Go ahead and comment on those if you want, but I'm sticking to the topic of this thread.

Paulomycin said:
On the off-chance that you're sincerely trying to understand where I'm coming from, I'm just going to make a few points:

I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from. You don't have a clue what an axiom is, aside from it loosely being "true."

^ I'm literally reading this question as, "How does the exact how allow him to create from nothing?"

Perhaps try reading what was actually written then.

Because you're reading into the assumption that "creatio ex nihilo" is absurd from the perspective of (a secular materialist) Ontological Naturalism, which it obviously is. <-- Please note that I freely admit that in public. Of course it's absurd from that presuppositional viewpoint. But there is far less proof and evidence of ontological naturalism than there is for God. You just can't make up the difference.

People who use the words "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably or in a manner that suggests they're closely related are typically people who don't have a clue what the words actually mean.

Yet from a purely classical Aristotelian logic, it's never absurd. That's the reason why I posted the other thread asking:

Aristotle proposed four causes, one of which is a material cause. A material cause is lacking in creatio ex nihilo, so from a purely classical Aristotelian perspective, your position couldn't be more absurd.

. . .and I got nothing. At least not that I've noticed. Maybe you can point to something? I think you're assuming there had to have been some sort of progress in science or philosophy that I wasn't aware of, and I can pretty confidently say that every "internet professor" worth their credentials is failing to cough up the goods here.

Please don't hijack my thread by impregnating it with one of your threads.

Again, I'm literally reading this question as, "How does the exact how allow him to create from nothing?"

Again, read what was actually written.

1. Omnipotence sovereignly wills.
2. Stuff is here now.

Not too long ago you were gleefully declaring victory at every opportunity because nothing causes nothing. You seem to think that things can only occur via causality. I've repeatedly asked you to define causality, and the closest you've come is referencing Aristotle. Well I've got news for you. Aristotle's causality is four-pronged, and one of these prongs is completely missing in creatio ex nihilo. So whatever God did in the creation event, it was not causal in nature.

No. Not, "For no reason and with no cause." But rather the sovereign reason and purpose of the creator. That is always the case. Some people create simply for the sake of artistic expression alone.

That would be Aristotle's final cause. The material causes is lacking in creatio ex nihilo. Creatio ex nihilo is an absurdity under Aristotle's causality, so you need to explain what you define causality to be.

To me, this is like watching some guy on YouTube who decides to make a shiny red tricycle (or an apple pie) from scratch, and then I see you posting on the comment section, "Well, he just did that for no reason and no cause whatsoever." Why can't it be, "Because the YouTube guy simply wanted to create a red tricycle?" Does every content creator on YouTube have to answer to you personally for whatever they endeavor??? And if so, then why?

Again, you're equivocating terms. I don't care about final causes and never have. I'm talking purely about material causes.

Because "something creating itself" is a logically absurd proposition.

This is a very ignorant statement. If a shiny red tricycle appeared out of nothing, I'm not claiming it would have created itself. It would have to exist in order to do anything, and secondly, it wouldn't be able to do anything if causality doesn't exist.

So you parade around claiming victory when I say that there is no causality if nothing exists, and then you strawman me into oblivion as if I think causes do exist when there is nothing.

If a tricycle appeared out of nothing, it would be for no reason and with no cause. What part of that implies that it is causing itself to exist?

It doesn't have to be verified empirically! <-- Where does this (arbitrary) rule come from? Sometimes I think Moral Orel is right and you people do want to play Calvinball after all.

Your "from nothing" rule is self-refuting, and beyond that, the circumstances in which it could be applicable do not and could not possibly exist. It is true while 1<0. So lacking any logical basis for it, you'd have to turn to empiricism. And that's a strikeout too. Find a way to prove it aside from logic and empiricism.

^ I'm literally reading this question as, "How does the exact how allow him to create from nothing?"

How about you literally read what is literally written down?

No, it wasn't. You're just being deliberately vague to give the illusion that you know something I don't. It's not even on the list of proposed solutions, and you're not citing any external sources. Could you please quit with the cheap manipulative head games?

You yourself showed me the source. I believe it was on Quora. You simply ignored the points made by atheists and quoted the assertions made by your fellow theist.

I'm just being honest.

You can't have it both ways. If it exists, then it exists as a (fundamental and undeniable) prescriptive force of the universe. You can't just call "category error" without demonstrating which categories I'm necessarily confined to.

Causality exists in the universe. On that we agree. So why do you think it exists beyond the universe?

Yet again, you're demanding how the how. lol.

God's creatio ex nihilo is a "bricks without straw" situation. How do you cause something to exist if causality itself does not exist?

You whined when I gave you multiple possible answers, so I'll just repeat my question and leave it as a free response:

What did God act on when he created the universe?

I noticed you neither confirmed nor denied "fishing expedition." How desperate does someone gotta be to get to this level of interrogation?

Who says I have to?

There are some tautologies that are so formally true, that doubting them leads to an absurdity. So Münchhausen trilemma is only mostly a problem. As-in the trilemma is itself not an absolute. And you can't pretend it's absolute either. Some justifications are their own logical cul-de-sac, and that's a good thing, because it shows us where the bottom is. All demands for further justification are themselves a form of doubt.

For example: Doubt the law of identity. Demand justification for it. You can't do that without doubting your own existence. So then how is the doubt itself even valid if you don't necessarily exist to force doubt upon it?

Moreover, violations of the law of identity result in the informal logical fallacy known as equivocation. You can't get around it.

Lol, our own universe rejects the law of identity. Electrons interact with themselves, which is to say they are distinct from themselves.

Your armchair philosophy is trumped by people who do actual science. Every time.

Therefore, law of identity is an inviolate (and prescriptive) law of existence itself. It doesn't need further justification. You can trust it as an absolute truth without being mindlessly dogmatic about it, or drowning in infinite regress.

Ignorant drivel.

I can take your word for it, but that still doesn't demonstrate what "zero" itself is. Maybe nothing matters more than you assume it does.

Well I'd love to explain to you what zero is, but you don't understand what an axiom is, let alone an axiomatic system. But I did say I'd love to explain it, so here we go.

In the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic system, 0=Ø, and Ø is a primitive term. A primitive term is a term that is undefined (this is an unfortunate necessity due to the Münchhausen trilemma). While Ø is technically a primitive term, it is colloquially understood to be the empty set, that is, a set containing nothing.

In the Dedekind-Peano axioms, 0 is a primitive term.

Really? What about your materialist bootstrapping? Hmm?

What about it?

I double-checked myself numerous times, and you're not objectively refuting me anywhere. So. . .?

I'm straight up telling you that you have no idea what an axiom is.

Paulomycin · Apr 7, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
I've made plenty of threads before you arrived.

Which ones? How do I know you were in any way committed to them? Why send me off on a wild goose chase?

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm pretty sure I know where you're coming from. You don't have a clue what an axiom is, aside from it loosely being "true."

That, or you're being deliberately mysterious just to cover for your own lack of understanding.

There are the assumptions built into the proof system (such as those in predicate logic), and then there are the assumptions built into the argument (the axioms). The most common first axiom is "all tautologies are true." <--- Can you doubt that? Sure you can. But what I'm trying to get through to you is that one cannot assume that all doubt is necessarily rational. Demanding proofs for all axioms, tautologies, formal truths, etc. etc. sometimes leads to their own absurdities. Therefore, at least some absolute truths do exist (despite their academic labels).

Nihilist Virus said:
Perhaps try reading what was actually written then.

What was actually written was the "how." Then you come along to demand "how" the how works.

Nihilist Virus said:
People who use the words "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably or in a manner that suggests they're closely related are typically people who don't have a clue what the words actually mean.

I do make the distinction between the two terms though. "Proof is exclusive to math and booze exclusively," is what my professor used to say. Evidence either refers to empirical evidence, or evidence as such you'd see in a court of law, like corroborative evidence.

Nihilist Virus said:
Aristotle proposed four causes, one of which is a material cause. A material cause is lacking in creatio ex nihilo, so from a purely classical Aristotelian perspective, your position couldn't be more absurd.

In traditional Aristotelian philosophical terminology, material is not the same as substance, whereas according to materialist ontology, it is.

I'm not arguing from material cause, but rather Efficient Cause.

Nihilist Virus said:
Please don't hijack my thread by impregnating it with one of your threads.

The point is the question was never answered, and you're continuing to not answer it.

Nihilist Virus said:
Again, read what was actually written.

You're demanding a how for the how.

Nihilist Virus said:
Not too long ago you were gleefully declaring victory at every opportunity because nothing causes nothing. You seem to think that things can only occur via causality. I've repeatedly asked you to define causality, and the closest you've come is referencing Aristotle.

Denying the law of causality is absurd. "Every effect requires a necessary antecedent cause." It was never disproven.

Nihilist Virus said:
Well I've got news for you. Aristotle's causality is four-pronged, and one of these prongs is completely missing in creatio ex nihilo. So whatever God did in the creation event, it was not causal in nature.

Omnipotence is capable of creating sufficient material ex nihilo to perform efficient cause.

*skipping repetitive demands*

Nihilist Virus said:
This is a very ignorant statement. If a shiny red tricycle appeared out of nothing, I'm not claiming it would have created itself.

Then you're begging the question, which is just as bad.

Nihilist Virus said:
It would have to exist in order to do anything, and secondly, it wouldn't be able to do anything if causality doesn't exist.

Utility has nothing to do with this. If someone creates a red tricycle, who are you to judge?

Nihilist Virus said:
So you parade around claiming victory when I say that there is no causality if nothing exists, and then you strawman me into oblivion as if I think causes do exist when there is nothing.

Hm, you certain of that? I don't even recall actually stating that I won. If you're going to accuse me of a strawman, then you have to state your actual position alongside the actual strawman as I stated it.

It's a fact that there is no causality if "nothing" exists, because the claim "nothing exists" is contradictory. "No-thing" is a negative claim. I think you're just mad because you're having more difficulty with the abstract concept of "nothing" than I am.

Nihilist Virus said:
If a tricycle appeared out of nothing, it would be for no reason and with no cause. What part of that implies that it is causing itself to exist?

The "no reason and no cause" part. Wow. That was easy.

Nihilist Virus said:
Your "from nothing" rule is self-refuting,

Prove it. You obviously can't even settle on what "nothing" is, you're so obsessed trying to "get me" that you can't even determine your own position. You can't blindly coast on, "I'm against whatever Paulo is for."

Nihilist Virus said:
and beyond that, the circumstances in which it could be applicable do not and could not possibly exist. It is true while 1<0. So lacking any logical basis for it, you'd have to turn to empiricism. And that's a strikeout too. Find a way to prove it aside from logic and empiricism.

Moving the goalposts much?

Nihilist Virus said:
How about you literally read what is literally written down?

I'm literally reading an ad hoc "how" demanded from a "how."

Nihilist Virus said:
You yourself showed me the source. I believe it was on Quora. You simply ignored the points made by atheists and quoted the assertions made by your fellow theist.

I really don't recall any of the contributors being stamped "theist" or "atheist" respectively.

Nihilist Virus said:
Causality exists in the universe. On that we agree. So why do you think it exists beyond the universe?

Logically. Necessarily. Because the universe itself is finite and begs the question of its own cause.

Nihilist Virus said:
God's creatio ex nihilo is a "bricks without straw" situation. How do you cause something to exist if causality itself does not exist?

Because God's creatio ex nihilo = omnipotence ex nihilo <-- Ergo, bricks without straw

Nihilist Virus said:
What did God act on when he created the universe?

God did not act upon anything outside of His own omnipotence.

Nihilist Virus said:
Lol, our own universe rejects the law of identity. Electrons interact with themselves, which is to say they are distinct from themselves.

Quantum uncertainty does not imply the universe itself is indeterminate. You cannot derive a determinate certainty from indeterminate uncertainties. You're not only giving up on making sense of science, but logic as well.

Nihilist Virus said:
Your armchair philosophy is trumped by people who do actual science. Every time.

More like those faking it.

Nihilist Virus said:
Ignorant drivel.

How do you even justify your existence?

Nihilist Virus said:
Well I'd love to explain to you what zero is, but you don't understand what an axiom is, let alone an axiomatic system. But I did say I'd love to explain it, so here we go.

In the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatic system, 0=Ø, and Ø is a primitive term. A primitive term is a term that is undefined (this is an unfortunate necessity due to the Münchhausen trilemma). While Ø is technically a primitive term, it is colloquially understood to be the empty set, that is, a set containing nothing.

In the Dedekind-Peano axioms, 0 is a primitive term.

That's funny. You defined it without delineating its necessary function, nor application. Dodgy much?

Nihilist Virus said:
What about it?

What about your ranting about Münchhausen trilemma when everything to you is nothing more than dogmatic materialist bootstrapping?

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm straight up telling you that you have no idea what an axiom is.

And you're telegraphing that you don't either.

Paulomycin · Apr 7, 2021

@Nihilist Virus

Per wiki:

An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2]

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question.[3] As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.

The confusion comes from the fact that I'm using axiom in a strong classical philosophy sense, while you're insisting the other definition from modern logic, where axioms are merely assumed as such, and you have no confidence in them. Everything is doubtful (as if doubt itself were a philosophical axiom).

Am I getting warm yet?

Nihilist Virus · Apr 7, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Which ones? How do I know you were in any way committed to them? Why send me off on a wild goose chase?

I'm dealing with this thread. Anything else is a wild goose chase. Have at it.

That, or you're being deliberately mysterious just to cover for your own lack of understanding.

There are the assumptions built into the proof system (such as those in predicate logic), and then there are the assumptions built into the argument (the axioms). The most common first axiom is "all tautologies are true." <--- Can you doubt that? Sure you can. But what I'm trying to get through to you is that one cannot assume that all doubt is necessarily rational.

Sure, a logical system might be a bit odd if tautologies are false or if the law of non-contradiction fails. But that's how the universe operates at its fundamental level. Say hello to Schrödinger's cat.

Demanding proofs for all axioms,

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You don't prove axioms.

tautologies, formal truths, etc. etc. sometimes leads to their own absurdities. Therefore, at least some absolute truths do exist (despite their academic labels).

The "proof" that absolute truth exists is a word game but is based primarily on the law of non-contradiction being true, so it begs the question.

What was actually written was the "how." Then you come along to demand "how" the how works.

More than that, I'm asking why you seem to think that creatio ex nihilo is a reasonable task whereas drawing a square circle is not. You've completely failed to answer.

I do make the distinction between the two terms though. "Proof is exclusive to math and booze exclusively," is what my professor used to say. Evidence either refers to empirical evidence, or evidence as such you'd see in a court of law, like corroborative evidence.

In traditional Aristotelian philosophical terminology, material is not the same as substance, whereas according to materialist ontology, it is.

How does this skirt you all the way to creatio ex nihilo?

I'm not arguing from material cause, but rather Efficient Cause.

You can't have one without the other.

The point is the question was never answered, and you're continuing to not answer it.

Feel free to go declare victory on your own thread.

You're demanding a how for the how.

Denying the law of causality is absurd. "Every effect requires a necessary antecedent cause." It was never disproven.

Duh, of course an effect requires a cause. Who said otherwise? If a shiny red tricycle appears for no reason and with no cause, then it is not an effect.

Omnipotence is capable of creating sufficient material ex nihilo to perform efficient cause.

Because...?

*skipping repetitive demands*

Then you're begging the question, which is just as bad.

Which is why I never stated that something definitively can come from nothing. I don't know.

Utility has nothing to do with this. If someone creates a red tricycle, who are you to judge?

Hm, you certain of that? I don't even recall actually stating that I won. If you're going to accuse me of a strawman, then you have to state your actual position alongside the actual strawman as I stated it.

It's a fact that there is no causality if "nothing" exists, because the claim "nothing exists" is contradictory. "No-thing" is a negative claim. I think you're just mad because you're having more difficulty with the abstract concept of "nothing" than I am.

I'm perfectly fine with the concepts at play here.

The "no reason and no cause" part. Wow. That was easy.

Then perhaps put more effort into it. Let's recap what you just said:

ME: If a tricycle appeared out of nothing, it would be for no reason and with no cause. What part of that implies that it is causing itself to exist?

YOU: The "no reason and no cause" part. Wow. That was easy.

Here's what you're saying. Suppose a tricycle appears out of nothing with no cause. Then there is a cause, which is itself. The reason you believe the cause is itself is because of the part where it says there was "no reason and no cause."

Absolutely bonkers.

Prove it. You obviously can't even settle on what "nothing" is, you're so obsessed trying to "get me" that you can't even determine your own position. You can't blindly coast on, "I'm against whatever Paulo is for."

It's been proven over a dozen times on this thread. You have been repeatedly asked to find a flaw in the proof and you've given two answers, one of which was a "Yes is the new no" and the other was a counterpoint that did not address the proof directly.

Moving the goalposts much?

Lol, I'm moving them closer to you. I'm saying your previous two attempts were a miss, try again.

I'm literally reading an ad hoc "how" demanded from a "how."

I really don't recall any of the contributors being stamped "theist" or "atheist" respectively.

Logically. Necessarily. Because the universe itself is finite and begs the question of its own cause.

The universe is finite? Oh, right, I vaguely recall @doubtingmerle pointing out that you don't understand the difference between the observable universe, the entire universe, and the entirety of all reality. Only one of those is definitively finite. Do you know which one?

Because God's creatio ex nihilo = omnipotence ex nihilo <-- Ergo, bricks without straw

God did not act upon anything outside of His own omnipotence.

So are you saying he acted on himself?

Quantum uncertainty does not imply the universe itself is indeterminate. You cannot derive a determinate certainty from indeterminate uncertainties. You're not only giving up on making sense of science, but logic as well.

Determinate certainty? I'm merely making a negative claim, viz., that your laws of logic are not absolute. Exhibit A, the universe.

More like those faking it.

Are you saying that science is fake?

How do you even justify your existence?

That's funny. You defined it without delineating its necessary function, nor application. Dodgy much?

Neither of those have to do with the definition. Also, I already explained its necessary functions. It is the additive identity and it holds rings and fields together. This has already been stated, and yet you are accusing me of not having stated it. Is the problem that I stated it on the previous post, and not the one you were referring to? Do I need to list all encyclopedic knowledge in every single one of my posts?

What about your ranting about Münchhausen trilemma when everything to you is nothing more than dogmatic materialist bootstrapping?

What about it? What are you trying to do with this question?

And you're telegraphing that you don't either.

Paulomycin said:
@Nihilist Virus

Per wiki:

The confusion comes from the fact that I'm using axiom in a strong classical philosophy sense, while you're insisting the other definition from modern logic, where axioms are merely assumed as such, and you have no confidence in them. Everything is doubtful (as if doubt itself were a philosophical axiom).

Am I getting warm yet?

A distinction without a difference. I don't care how confident philosophers feel about something. Professing themselves to be wise, they became clowns. The universe rips your classical philosophy to pieces.

Paulomycin · Apr 7, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm dealing with this thread. Anything else is a wild goose chase. Have at it.

Oh. Then you admit you don't have any thesis at all in this thread.

Nihilist Virus said:
Sure, a logical system might be a bit odd if tautologies are false or if the law of non-contradiction fails. But that's how the universe operates at its fundamental level. Say hello to Schrödinger's cat.

An indeterminate is not a determinate claim.

Let's start here. . .

Nihilist Virus said:
A distinction without a difference. I don't care how confident philosophers feel about something. Professing themselves to be wise, they became clowns. The universe rips your classical philosophy to pieces.

Great. Now if you can just demonstrate to everyone else exactly when that happened. . .

Nihilist Virus said:
The "proof" that absolute truth exists is a word game but is based primarily on the law of non-contradiction being true, so it begs the question.

So, you claim you have a license to lie? <-- Remember, all lies are founded on at least one logical contradiction. The world is made up of facts; not things.

Nihilist Virus said:
More than that, I'm asking why you seem to think that creatio ex nihilo is a reasonable task whereas drawing a square circle is not. You've completely failed to answer.

Because creatio ex nihilo is absurd without an omnipotent being to do it. See, you're just furiously compartmentalizing, is all.

Nihilist Virus said:
How does this skirt you all the way to creatio ex nihilo?

That wasn't my goal there. It was to prevent you from closing the door altogether and claiming a purely materialist ontology.

Nihilist Virus said:
You can't have one without the other.

Agreed. But you can also have an omnipotent being that is fully capable of spontaneously creating matter. I never claimed it was possible without God. Problem?

Nihilist Virus said:
Feel free to go declare victory on your own thread.

But that's a problem for every other thread.

Nihilist Virus said:
Duh, of course an effect requires a cause. Who said otherwise? If a shiny red tricycle appears for no reason and with no cause, then it is not an effect.

Oh? So you're okay with a law of causality that is an absolute truth? Just checking. "Duh," makes it sound absolute on the level of "water is wet."

Nihilist Virus said:
Because...?

Because. . .omnipotence.

Nihilist Virus said:
Then perhaps put more effort into it. Let's recap what you just said:

ME: If a tricycle appeared out of nothing, it would be for no reason and with no cause. What part of that implies that it is causing itself to exist?

YOU: The "no reason and no cause" part. Wow. That was easy.

Here's what you're saying. Suppose a tricycle appears out of nothing with no cause. Then there is a cause, which is itself. The reason you believe the cause is itself is because of the part where it says there was "no reason and no cause."

Absolutely bonkers.

It was your hypothetical, not mine. If the cause is itself, then you're bootstrapping and circular logic. But if the tricycle appears out of nothing with no cause and no reason, then you're claiming an uncaused effect, which is a contradiction.

Nihilist Virus said:
It's been proven over a dozen times on this thread. You have been repeatedly asked to find a flaw in the proof and you've given two answers, one of which was a "Yes is the new no" and the other was a counterpoint that did not address the proof directly.

If I recall, I consistently chose the second option. Problem?

Nihilist Virus said:
Lol, I'm moving them closer to you. I'm saying your previous two attempts were a miss, try again.

"Find a way to prove it aside from logic and empiricism," isn't making it easier on me at all. It's taking away all the necessary tools and demanding that I perform without logic or evidence. That's totally moving the goalposts fallacy.

Nihilist Virus said:
The universe is finite? Oh, right, I vaguely recall @doubtingmerle pointing out that you don't understand the difference between the observable universe, the entire universe, and the entirety of all reality. Only one of those is definitively finite. Do you know which one?

I recall settling on "the entire universe." The zero point singularity of the Big Bang would naturally include the entire universe.

Nihilist Virus said:
So are you saying he acted on himself?

I prefer, "He acted out of His nature." Which is omnipotence.

Nihilist Virus said:
Determinate certainty? I'm merely making a negative claim, viz., that your laws of logic are not absolute. Exhibit A, the universe.

Again, you cannot make a determinate claim of finality on indeterminate data.

Indeterminate ≠ Determinate

Uncertainty ≠ Certainty

Nihilist Virus said:
Are you saying that science is fake?

People who "do actual science" are not doing anything remotely close to what you imagine they're actually doing IRL. Scientists haven't given up and quit all research just because of uncertainty principle. You're just being melodramatic.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 7, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Oh. Then you admit you don't have any thesis at all in this thread.

An indeterminate is not a determinate claim.

Let's start here. . .

Great. Now if you can just demonstrate to everyone else exactly when that happened. . .

So, you claim you have a license to lie? <-- Remember, all lies are founded on at least one logical contradiction. The world is made up of facts; not things.

Because creatio ex nihilo is absurd without an omnipotent being to do it. See, you're just furiously compartmentalizing, is all.

That wasn't my goal there. It was to prevent you from closing the door altogether and claiming a purely materialist ontology.

Agreed. But you can also have an omnipotent being that is fully capable of spontaneously creating matter. I never claimed it was possible without God. Problem?

But that's a problem for every other thread.

Oh? So you're okay with a law of causality that is an absolute truth? Just checking. "Duh," makes it sound absolute on the level of "water is wet."

I never signed off on any absolute truth.

Because. . .omnipotence.

It was your hypothetical, not mine. If the cause is itself, then you're bootstrapping and circular logic. But if the tricycle appears out of nothing with no cause and no reason, then you're claiming an uncaused effect, which is a contradiction.

Which is why I specifically said it would not be an effect. And of course you cropped that portion of my post out of your response.

If I recall, I consistently chose the second option. Problem?

No problem for me. The problem on your end is that you're failing to grasp the concept. It's like if I said that there is no integer with property X, and then I say, "Suppose n is an even integer" and then I prove n does not have property X; and then I say, "Suppose n is an odd integer" and I prove n does not have property X. And then you come along and say you pick the second one. Not exactly the 200 IQ move you think it is.

"Find a way to prove it aside from logic and empiricism," isn't making it easier on me at all. It's taking away all the necessary tools and demanding that I perform without logic or evidence. That's totally moving the goalposts fallacy.

Prove it any way you want. I don't care. Just actually prove it.

I recall settling on "the entire universe." The zero point singularity of the Big Bang would naturally include the entire universe.

Zero point singularity? Zero what, Newtons of force? Zero Kelvin? Zero what?

Also, you have no way of knowing whether the entire universe is finite or infinite.

I prefer, "He acted out of His nature." Which is omnipotence.

I prefer you explain the mechanics of what he did. Omnipotence is already a dubious, self-refuting, unfalsifiable property. You then want to leverage such a joke into being an explanation for yet another dubious claim, creation out of nothing? This is a lousy movie script, bud. I can tentatively grant you omnipotence but you have to use that to explain, step by step, what God does.

I've got my IKEA box filled with nothing. I've got a hammer and nails. How do I make a chair?

Again, you cannot make a determinate claim of finality on indeterminate data.

Indeterminate ≠ Determinate

Uncertainty ≠ Certainty

You misunderstand. I'm not saying your laws of logic are definitively false. That'd be absurd. I'm just refuting absolute truth.

People who "do actual science" are not doing anything remotely close to what you imagine they're actually doing IRL. Scientists haven't given up and quit all research just because of uncertainty principle. You're just being melodramatic.

Strawman. I never said anything like this. I'm simply saying that your absolute truth, or eternal truth, or self-evident truth, has gotten its teeth knocked out and nose broken by quantum mechanics.

Ed1wolf · Apr 7, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Yes it does and it also fits the dictionary definition of effect that I provided.

Thanks for the optimistic vote!

Ed1wolf · Apr 7, 2021

doubtingmerle said:
ed: It is unlikely because if it was it would already have reached the point of heat death. The larger the universe is, the lower its temperature would be. Measurements of its temperature show that it is unlikely to be infinite in size, it is too warm.

dm: I think what you are saying is that, if the mass of the observable universe was spread to infinity, the observable universe would experience heat death. That is true.

That does not negate my statement, that the actual universe might consist of infinite mass spread out over infinite space, most of which could not possibly be seen by us.

Actually I think it does negate your statement, how could it not from what we know about the universe and its temperature gradient?

ed: Scientists have said that if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.

dm: The key word there is "if".

As I said, we have no way of knowing if the observable universe went back to a singularity, or started at some finite size.

Most of the evidence points in that direction and the majority of cosmologists believe it does.

ed: It is only undefined because most cosmologists wont go one more step in logic, though some very respected ones have as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

dm: No, the universe is actually undefined if it went back to a singularity. At that point there is 0 cubic inches with infinite density and our space time ceases. Beyond that it is no more solvable that solving the equation X = 0/0.

Not mathematically but logically using the law of Causality it is solvable.

ed: The majority believe that it did go back to zero and all space time came into existence after the BB.

dm: What percentage believes that the universe definitely went back to zero? Many leading physicists say it could have begun at a finite size, such as Plank length.

At least 51% according to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History magazine.

ed: See above it is not just me.

dm: The problem is that you declare that you know what was "before" a singularity at the Big Bang. You could not possibly know this.

I dont know with certainty but I do know what logic says is there.

ed: I never said I could prove it but it is the majority view.
dm: The majority of whom?

Astrophysicists.

dm: The majority of leading physicists do not agree with your statement that the universe was caused by the cause you claim. I also don't think it is the majority view that the universe had to have started smaller than Plank length.

No, they dont believe it is the Christian God like I do but they do think there was an intelligent cause.

dm: For perspective, Plank length is 10^-35m , which is far smaller than the diameter of a proton. Squashing the entire universe that small is quite a feat!

ed: No, you are claiming that since we cannot see everything in the then that proves it is infinite but as I demonstrated above that is not true.
dm: No, I gave a detailed explanation of why we think the universe is probably much bigger than what we see, and is perhaps infinite. I never claimed that the fact that we don't know proves it is infinite.

That is what you appear to be saying.

ed: Dark matter and dark energy is what is expanding the universe and combined with gravity and other laws of physics can create simple structures. But none of this means there are other big bangs.
dm: Actually dark matter is pulling the observable universe inward. Dark matter is part of the observable universe and has real gravitational effects, but we can't see it.

Dark energy is a mysterious force that causes space-time to expand. Since it affects space-time itself, it might be "external" to our universe.

Dark energy is currently winning over dark matter, and is accelerating the outward movement of the galaxies.

And that is why most cosmologists believe it started as a singularity and requires a cause.

dm: Many physicists think that dark energy and quantum mechanics, or something analogous to these, could be causing many Big Bangs to occur.

If you are referring to the multiverse, there is still an initial big bang that is a singularity but there are serious problems with the Multiverse theory.

Paulomycin · Apr 8, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
I never signed off on any absolute truth.

But you act as-if it were absolute whenever it feels right (see below).

Nihilist Virus said:
Which is why I specifically said it would not be an effect. And of course you cropped that portion of my post out of your response.

What? God is the cause, and whatever He creates (by omnipotence; from nothing) is the effect. Problem?

Nihilist Virus said:
The problem on your end is that you're failing to grasp the concept.

The problem is you keep hiding it. If you can't teach it on a freshman level, I can only conclude you're faking it. Either that, or you're seeing something that probably isn't there.

Nihilist Virus said:
It's like if I said that there is no integer with property X, and then I say, "Suppose n is an even integer" and then I prove n does not have property X; and then I say, "Suppose n is an odd integer" and I prove n does not have property X. And then you come along and say you pick the second one. Not exactly the 200 IQ move you think it is.

How does that analogy even fit?

Nihilist Virus said:
Prove it any way you want. I don't care. Just actually prove it.

No problem. Here goes. . .

P → Q, P infers Q

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic *
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

* Literally "of the universe."

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

Axioms of logic cannot be dismissed. I put an axiom inside a modus ponens.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

(yes, I checked the meaning of axiom before I posted)

Nihilist Virus said:
Also, you have no way of knowing whether the entire universe is finite or infinite.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

"beginning" = finite

Nihilist Virus said:
I prefer you explain the mechanics of what he did.

Omnipotence is the mechanic.

Nihilist Virus said:
Omnipotence is already a dubious, self-refuting, unfalsifiable property.

Of course it's unfalsifiable. Who said falsifiability was an absolute rule in-itself?

How is it "self-refuting?"

"Dubious?" Only to an incredulity junkie.

Omnipotence is the entire goal here. If you believe that it can't be proven, then it's not intellectually honest to demand proof in the first place. Please, pick a lane.

Nihilist Virus said:
You then want to leverage such a joke into being an explanation for yet another dubious claim, creation out of nothing?

So you hate the maxim because you think it's. . .dubious???

Nihilist Virus said:
This is a lousy movie script, bud. I can tentatively grant you omnipotence but you have to use that to explain, step by step, what God does.

lmao.

Step 1. Omnipotence.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. PROFIT.

But thanks for granting me omnipotence and then moving the goalposts after the fact. I'll just frame that quote, take my trophy, and moonwalk outta here.

Nihilist Virus said:
You misunderstand. I'm not saying your laws of logic are definitively false. That'd be absurd. I'm just refuting absolute truth.

So they're only absolute when you say they are.

Nihilist Virus said:
Strawman. I never said anything like this. I'm simply saying that your absolute truth, or eternal truth, or self-evident truth, has gotten its teeth knocked out and nose broken by quantum mechanics.

You're using absolutist rhetoric there. Again, you cannot make a determinate claim of any finality based on indeterminate data, and you're mad about that.

Indeterminate ≠ Determinate

Uncertainty ≠ Certainty

Nihilist Virus · Apr 8, 2021

Paulomycin said:
But you act as-if it were absolute whenever it feels right (see below).

What? God is the cause, and whatever He creates (by omnipotence; from nothing) is the effect. Problem?

Problem? Yes, see previous posts.

The problem is you keep hiding it. If you can't teach it on a freshman level, I can only conclude you're faking it. Either that, or you're seeing something that probably isn't there.

I certainly presented it on a freshmen level. Here it is again:

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?

Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

How does that analogy even fit?

The analogy fits because it is a proof that splits the possibilities into two cases, and shows that both cases are impossible. Your idea of "picking the second one" demonstrates that you haven't the foggiest idea what the discussion is even about. You're supposed to pinpoint a problem in my proof. You've not only failed to do so, but you don't even know what you are supposed to be doing.

No problem. Here goes. . .

P → Q, P infers Q

You've mixed up "infer" with "imply".

or

p→q
p
∴ q

p = universal logic *
q = universal logician

Modus ponens is a basic first-order inference in propositional calculus (logic).

* Literally "of the universe."

^ See, it's extraordinary evidence due to its extraordinary parsimony. Extraordinary evidence that's also compatible with Occam's Razor.

Axioms of logic cannot be dismissed. I put an axiom inside a modus ponens.

Meaning you only have two options.

1. Accept it for the proof it is.

2. Reject logic.

That's how the logic trap works.

(yes, I checked the meaning of axiom before I posted)

What is this in response to? Go back and read the thread. Read this specific exchange within the thread. I was asking you to prove your "from nothing" claim. Remember, I said you couldn't prove it logically or empirically, so I said to try a different method, and you said I was moving the goalposts? I said that it is a stupid axiom because it makes no difference whether it is true or false, and further, it is not used to prove anything. It is undeniably useless and stupid as an axiom. You can't prove it logically or empirically. Your case is so bad that you are pretending I asked you to prove something else.

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." - Stephen Hawking

"beginning" = finite

We went to great length to make it clear we are talking about volume, and you go talking about time. We specifically said, "Are you referring to the observable universe, the entire universe, or all reality?" Those are clearly spatial dimensions. Furthermore, the Big Bang only proves that the observable universe is finite. It's absolutely a possibility that the Big Bang is a local event in an infinitely large universe.

Omnipotence is the mechanic.

That would be the hammer. I'm asking what you do with it.

Of course it's unfalsifiable. Who said falsifiability was an absolute rule in-itself?

Uh, that would be this thing called science.

How is it "self-refuting?"

Can God kill himself? Follow the "yes" and "no" flow charts.

"Dubious?" Only to an incredulity junkie.

Omnipotence is the entire goal here. If you believe that it can't be proven, then it's not intellectually honest to demand proof in the first place. Please, pick a lane.

What a silly thing to say. It would be intellectually dishonest to ask for the proof if I knew it couldn't be proven. If it is just my opinion or my belief, then I'm subjecting my opinion/belief to scrutiny. Isn't that what I'm supposed to be doing?

So you hate the maxim because you think it's. . .dubious???

Did I say I hate it?

lmao.

Step 1. Omnipotence.
Step 2. ?????
Step 3. PROFIT.

But thanks for granting me omnipotence and then moving the goalposts after the fact. I'll just frame that quote, take my trophy, and moonwalk outta here.

How is it not fair to move the goalposts if I'm allowing you to re-spot the ball? What is it you think I'm supposed to do, just grant you all of your arguments and then declare you the winner?

So they're only absolute when you say they are.

Right, which is never, because I've never said it.

You're using absolutist rhetoric there. Again, you cannot make a determinate claim of any finality based on indeterminate data, and you're mad about that.

Indeterminate ≠ Determinate

Uncertainty ≠ Certainty

Absolutist rhetoric? Go on.

Paulomycin · Apr 8, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
Problem? Yes, see previous posts.

Which demonstrate absolutely nothing. It's nothing more than an argument from outrage. You have nothing objective. Wait wait, you got, "Nuh-uh," and "See previous posts." But no substantive argument that you could copypaste.

Nihilist Virus said:
I certainly presented it on a freshmen level. Here it is again:

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?

Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

I gotta hand it to you, it fooled me for awhile. But the contradiction is implicit in the question, "Is there nothing?" As-if "nothing" were a non-abstract material claim. Thus, it's a false dilemma. The third conclusion is, "No, because the conditions for the rule, 'Is there nothing?' are a logical contradiction."

Look, I know I'm not as brilliant as all your friends say you are, but I can spot a streetcorner hustle after watching a few times.

Nihilist Virus said:
The analogy fits because it is a proof that splits the possibilities into two cases, and shows that both cases are impossible.

Which uses all positive claims. "Nothing" is not a positive claim. Sorry. Thus, your analogy fails.

Nihilist Virus said:
You've mixed up "infer" with "imply".

Nope. Just checked it. You really wish it were "implies," rather than "infer," and you want me to change it myself. It's inferred due to PSR.

Nihilist Virus said:
What is this in response to? Go back and read the thread. Read this specific exchange within the thread. I was asking you to prove your "from nothing" claim.

Then stop being vague!

Nihilist Virus said:
Remember, I said you couldn't prove it logically or empirically, so I said to try a different method, and you said I was moving the goalposts? I said that it is a stupid axiom because it makes no difference whether it is true or false, and further, it is not used to prove anything.

You're not citing anyone who disproved the axiom before you. I imagine after hundreds and hundreds of years, at least one atheist would come along to be able to demolish it. Thus, I guess you're implying you're the first ever to do so.

Nihilist Virus said:
You can't prove it logically or empirically.

That's why it's an axiom. Remember, we're not running with your pet definition of "axiom" here.

Nihilist Virus said:
We went to great length to make it clear we are talking about volume, and you go talking about time.

"Beginning" isn't slaved to spacetime, nor does anything cause us to dogmatically assume it. A logical beginning doesn't absolutely necessitate a Newtonian definition of "time." Leibniz's definition of time works just fine in this scenario. Law of causality isn't on any timetable.

Nihilist Virus said:
We specifically said, "Are you referring to the observable universe, the entire universe, or all reality?" Those are clearly spatial dimensions.

Therefore, boundaries.

Nihilist Virus said:
Furthermore, the Big Bang only proves that the observable universe is finite. It's absolutely a possibility that the Big Bang is a local event in an infinitely large universe.

From outside the beginning, which is nothing more than implied supra-naturalism. I know you don't wanna think about that. And I know it's too taboo to admit. But there you go. If the only universe we know had a beginning, then honestly, that's all you can scientifically refer to. Anything outside of that is meta-physical.

Nihilist Virus said:
That would be the hammer. I'm asking what you do with it.

Why, you potentialize with it.

The omni is finite.
Therefore, the omni necessitates an omni-potential from outside of it.

God then utilizes omnipotence to potentialize the omni. IIRC, it's also a term used in physics, but such associations are an atheist taboo, I get that.

Nihilist Virus said:
Uh, that would be this thing called science.

Noooooo, lol. It's not science at all! <-- It's philosophy of science. Karl Popper isn't even a scientist. Falsifiability is not absolute either. And it's highly debatable as a so-called "rule." In one sense, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos "falsified" falsifiability as a singular universal rule. You probably think I'm lying as part of some vast Christian conspiracy, but I assure you it's already (secular) history.

Nihilist Virus said:
Can God kill himself? Follow the "yes" and "no" flow charts.

The question itself is fallacious, because it's demanding that infinity exceed itself.

Nihilist Virus said:
What a silly thing to say. It would be intellectually dishonest to ask for the proof if I knew it couldn't be proven. If it is just my opinion or my belief, then I'm subjecting my opinion/belief to scrutiny. Isn't that what I'm supposed to be doing?

You're being terribly vague again. So which is it?

Nihilist Virus said:
Did I say I hate it?

You stated the maxim was dubious. What else can I conclude?

Nihilist Virus said:
How is it not fair to move the goalposts if I'm allowing you to re-spot the ball? What is it you think I'm supposed to do, just grant you all of your arguments and then declare you the winner?

What I think you're supposed to do is stop holding on so tight. If the truth is on your side, then you don't have to "control" anything. You don't have to throw yourself against it. This really isn't about you at all.

Look, I think you're too personally involved. It doesn't have to be a competition if you don't want it to be. Truth doesn't have to compete. Truth isn't a product of forced incredulity.

Nihilist Virus said:
Right, which is never, because I've never said it.

I'm just looking for a little consistency here.

Nihilist Virus said:
Absolutist rhetoric? Go on.

I'm sorry. Allow me to clarify things for you. I am the theist in this discussion. I have license to be an absolutist. Certainty is a very wonderful and restful feeling. I got my feet firmly planted on absolute truth. I don't have to waste emotion on it. Real faith is relying on what you can absolutely trust. And I trust absolute truth.

Again, you cannot make a determinate claim of any finality based on indeterminate data.

Indeterminate ≠ Determinate

Uncertainty ≠ Certainty

Nihilist Virus · Apr 9, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Which demonstrate absolutely nothing. It's nothing more than an argument from outrage. You have nothing objective. Wait wait, you got, "Nuh-uh," and "See previous posts." But no substantive argument that you could copypaste.

I've been copy/pasting the same thing for dozens of pages and you still dont get it. And then you basically claim victory when I lose interest.

I gotta hand it to you, it fooled me for awhile. But the contradiction is implicit in the question, "Is there nothing?" As-if "nothing" were a non-abstract material claim. Thus, it's a false dilemma. The third conclusion is, "No, because the conditions for the rule, 'Is there nothing?' are a logical contradiction."

I've made no such mistake. I can spell it as "no thing" if you prefer.

Assume "From no thing, no thing comes."

Is there no thing?

Yes → Then no thing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

Look, I know I'm not as brilliant as all your friends say you are, but I can spot a streetcorner hustle after watching a few times.

Which uses all positive claims. "Nothing" is not a positive claim. Sorry. Thus, your analogy fails.

That is not relevant to the fact that you don't understand that you're supposed to disprove the argument rather than "pick one of the choices."

Nope. Just checked it. You really wish it were "implies," rather than "infer," and you want me to change it myself. It's inferred due to PSR.

Minds infer things. A logical object cannot infer anything.

Then stop being vague!

You're not citing anyone who disproved the axiom before you.

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

By definition, you can't disprove an axiom.

I imagine after hundreds and hundreds of years, at least one atheist would come along to be able to demolish it. Thus, I guess you're implying you're the first ever to do so.

That's why it's an axiom.

And it's a stupid axiom. It makes no difference whether it is true or false, and it is not used to prove further theorems or notions. So why on earth would you propose it as an axiom?

Remember, we're not running with your pet definition of "axiom" here.

Your definition gave me a chuckle. You think it's different just because philosophers have strong confidence their axioms are true. An axiom is an unproven assumption, period, the end.

"Beginning" isn't slaved to spacetime, nor does anything cause us to dogmatically assume it. A logical beginning doesn't absolutely necessitate a Newtonian definition of "time." Leibniz's definition of time works just fine in this scenario. Law of causality isn't on any timetable.

Therefore, boundaries.

From outside the beginning, which is nothing more than implied supra-naturalism. I know you don't wanna think about that. And I know it's too taboo to admit. But there you go. If the only universe we know had a beginning, then honestly, that's all you can scientifically refer to. Anything outside of that is meta-physical.

I'm fairly convinced you don't understand cosmology.

Why, you potentialize with it.

The omni is finite.
Therefore, the omni necessitates an omni-potential from outside of it.

God then utilizes omnipotence to potentialize the omni. IIRC, it's also a term used in physics, but such associations are an atheist taboo, I get that.

A bunch of blathering to dodge the question.

Noooooo, lol. It's not science at all! <-- It's philosophy of science. Karl Popper isn't even a scientist. Falsifiability is not absolute either. And it's highly debatable as a so-called "rule." In one sense, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos "falsified" falsifiability as a singular universal rule. You probably think I'm lying as part of some vast Christian conspiracy, but I assure you it's already (secular) history.

The question itself is fallacious, because it's demanding that infinity exceed itself.

Like I said, you don't understand set theory. There are hierarchies of infinities. The set of real numbers is more numerous than the set of integers. Also, your response is unintelligible. I asked if God can kill himself. A transfinite number "exceeding itself" (what does that mean?) is irrelevant gibberish. Lastly, questions cannot be fallacies. They can be malformed, but you've committed a clear category error. Only arguments can be fallacious.

You're being terribly vague again. So which is it?

You stated the maxim was dubious. What else can I conclude?

You can conclude that you should defend it, or perhaps prove it.

What I think you're supposed to do is stop holding on so tight. If the truth is on your side, then you don't have to "control" anything. You don't have to throw yourself against it. This really isn't about you at all.

Look, I think you're too personally involved. It doesn't have to be a competition if you don't want it to be. Truth doesn't have to compete. Truth isn't a product of forced incredulity.

I'm just looking for a little consistency here.

I'm sorry. Allow me to clarify things for you. I am the theist in this discussion. I have license to be an absolutist. Certainty is a very wonderful and restful feeling. I got my feet firmly planted on absolute truth. I don't have to waste emotion on it. Real faith is relying on what you can absolutely trust. And I trust absolute truth.

Again, you cannot make a determinate claim of any finality based on indeterminate data.

Indeterminate ≠ Determinate

Uncertainty ≠ Certainty

What I see in you is a person who will never admit fault, and who will never admit that he learned something new, and who will never convince a single atheist to consider Christianity. If I were a Christian, I'd absolutely lay into you ten times harder for driving atheists away from the faith.

Paulomycin · Apr 9, 2021

Nihilist Virus said:
I've been copy/pasting the same thing for dozens of pages and you still dont get it. And then you basically claim victory when I lose interest.

Because you don't want to admit where your so-called "point" is flawed.

And you obviously haven't lost interest at all, because you're still posting.

Nihilist Virus said:
I've made no such mistake. I can spell it as "no thing" if you prefer.

Assume "From no thing, no thing comes."

Is there no thing?

Yes → Then no thing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

Oh, good. Some consistency for a change. Then, "No," the conditions for the rule are not met, so the question changes, "Why is there something rather than no-thing?" Unless you want to force "something" to come from "no thing." <-- We've been over this before.

Just give it up. You can't "get me," and you know it. You're trying too hard.

Nihilist Virus said:
Minds infer things. A logical object cannot infer anything.

Logical objects like rules of inference?

Nihilist Virus said:
You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And you're doing no-thing to correct it, so I can only conclude you're faking knowledge you don't have.

Nihilist Virus said:
By definition, you can't disprove an axiom.

Good! I agree. So stop trying to disprove it.

Nihilist Virus said:
And it's a stupid axiom.

You hate it. I get that.

Nihilist Virus said:
It makes no difference whether it is true or false, and it is not used to prove further theorems or notions. So why on earth would you propose it as an axiom?

For people who try to get something from nothing. No free lunch, baby!

Nihilist Virus said:
Your definition gave me a chuckle. You think it's different just because philosophers have strong confidence their axioms are true. An axiom is an unproven assumption, period, the end.

Many times axioms cannot be proven because the mere attempt to prove them often results in further absurdity. You know, like implying that something can come from literally "no-thing."

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm fairly convinced you don't understand cosmology.

I'm fairly convinced you're faking some gnostic understanding of cosmology that I'm not allowed to see. lol. Don't look behind THAT curtain, Dorothy!

Nihilist Virus said:
A bunch of blathering to dodge the question.

I think you'll start taking me seriously after maybe, the 5th or 6th response after this?

I was pretty serious about what I wrote. Omnipotence is the hammer. Potentializing is the verb. Order up! What? U not happy with your order? It's exactly what you asked for!

Nihilist Virus said:
Like I said, you don't understand set theory. There are hierarchies of infinities.

I am aware of that. I'm familiar with Georg Cantor, and the like.

Nihilist Virus said:
I asked if God can kill himself. A transfinite number "exceeding itself" (what does that mean?) is irrelevant gibberish.

Then you admit that it's not possible. Thank you, drive through.

Nihilist Virus said:
Lastly, questions cannot be fallacies. They can be malformed, but you've committed a clear category error. Only arguments can be fallacious.

Loaded questions are a type of fallacy. I know you wish I was that stupid, but I'm really not. It is a fallacious question if it's part of an argument. And the question is either fallacious or (if you prefer) malformed. You just proved it as such.

Nihilist Virus said:

Okay then I can conclude you're being deliberately vague.

Nihilist Virus said:
You can conclude that you should defend it, or perhaps prove it.

Prove nothing? lol. You already argued that it wasn't a positive claim. You even bent over backwards to re-phrase your argument as "no-thing," so were you wrong now, or were you wrong earlier? You can't have it both ways.

Nihilist Virus said:
What I see in you is a person who will never admit fault, and who will never admit that he learned something new, and who will never convince a single atheist to consider Christianity. If I were a Christian, I'd absolutely lay into you ten times harder for driving atheists away from the faith.

^ Oh, here comes the guilt-trip.

I will never admit fault when I'm falsely accused in some sham interrogation disguised as a "discussion." You got NO-THING on me!

Moral Orel · Apr 10, 2021

Paulomycin said:
Loaded questions are a type of fallacy. I know you wish I was that stupid, but I'm really not. It is a fallacious question if it's part of an argument. And the question is either fallacious or (if you prefer) malformed. You just proved it as such.

Ahh, the old "Question Argument" of the form:

p1 If A then B
p2 A?
c B?
lol Questions aren't ever part of an argument. Arguments make statements exclusively.

doubtingmerle · Apr 10, 2021

Ed1wolf said:
Actually I think it does negate your statement, how could it not from what we know about the universe and its temperature gradient?

The universe and its temperature gradient has nothing to do with the size of the universe that was created by the Big Bang.

We are limited in how far in space we can see, and we don't know how much is beyond that limit. We know that the universe has no edge, so it either extends to infinity, or it somehow circles back upon itself in a big circle in any direction. And as I explained before (and you ignored) the evidence indicates it is significantly larger than what we see, and could be indeed infinite in size.

Most of the evidence points in that direction and the majority of cosmologists believe it does.

What evidence indicates that the universe started smaller than Planck length? So far you have presented none, nor have you given me any confidence that you understand the physics.

Not mathematically but logically using the law of Causality it is solvable.

And I have shown your logic of causality to be bogus in another thread.

If the universe did not go back to a singularity, that is, if is started as some finite size, then I understand our spacetime could have continued before that. If it did go back to a singularity, that does not prove that your law of causality "before" the Big Bang applies.

At least 51% according to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History magazine.

Judging by the difficulty I have to get you to understand what I am asking, and not having access to this magazine, I will remain skeptical of your claim that this many scientists think the universe definitely went back to a singularity. From what I am reading, we don't know if it began at zero, or at some finite size such as Planck length.

But again, it is wrong for you to state, as you have done many times, that if the universe went back to a singularity, that therefore you know what was "before" that. You don't. Nobody does.

No, they dont believe it is the Christian God like I do but they do think there was an intelligent cause.

No sorry, it is not the majority view of leading physicists that the Big Bang had an intelligent cause. You simply made that up.

That is what you appear to be saying.

No it does not appear that I claim it is proven the universe in infinite. I have repeatedly told you:

I gave a detailed explanation of why we think the universe is probably much bigger than what we see, and is perhaps infinite [in size]. I never claimed that the fact that we don't know proves it is infinite [in size].

That does not appear to me to say that I know for sure it is infinite in size.

And that is why most cosmologists believe it started as a singularity and requires a cause.

Dark energy does nothing to prove a singularity. It does indicate that there is something stretching out spacetime. This stretching appears to be outside of the natural cause and effect of the known universe. This indicates that ultimate reality may at least partially consist of something that manifests itself as stretching in our spacetime. And this continuous stretching, combined with something like quantum functions, could be causing Big Bangs. We don't know.

God the middleman

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

I'll think about it.

Similar threads