Godlessness and choice

[ToddNotTodd]

What are these two other scenarios?

Hint: they both involve something other than a deity always existing.

But the larger issue is that because there are scenarios that you haven't even thought about, it shows that your argument holds no water at all. Trying to prove that a deity necessarily had to be involved in the existence of the universe by discounting all non-deity related scenarios only works if you can discount all possible non-deity related scenarios. Which you obviously haven't done, and as far as I can tell can't do, since there's no way to know all possible scenarios.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I am being devils advocate in case you didn't notice. But the fact is that because the Christian God does exist and your mind is not based on brain chemistry but rather based on your soul/spirit then you CAN logically reason and engage in science.

Sorry, but for me facts are based on evidence, so unless you have some evidence I haven't heard before, it's not a fact that the Christian god exists or that humans have souls.

So I'll just be over here without your version of free will waiting for you to provide some evidence that will change my mind. I'll probably engage in some logical reasoning and maybe a bit of science, because I can...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Something that is self-evident doesn't need an argument to support it, that is what the term "self-evident" or "properly basic" implies, thus, your claim that my appeal lacks argumentative power is one I can agree with.

The term "properly basic" is used by frightened people when they know they can't show what they believe is actually true. it's not an argumentative tool at all, it's a security blanket that only serves to make the person employing it feel better about their lack of evidence.

Here:

"It's properly basic and self evident that the Christian god doesn't exist."

Not very satisfying, huh?

 

[Dave Ellis]

The notion of something creating itself is logically impossible because it would have to exist before it existed. This is absurd and I submit that on this basis alone, one should not entertain it as a viable explanation. Further argument strikes me as unnecessary.

The notion of something coming from nothing without any sort of causal conditions whatsoever is also absurd. Again I submit this without argument.

The science does not say the universe created itself, nor does it say anything came from pure nothingness. So, you're not really addressing a scientific view of things.

Secondly, you haven't addressed where your creator came from.

 

[jayem]

But the fact is that because the Christian God does exist and your mind is not based on brain chemistry but rather based on your soul/spirit then you CAN logically reason and engage in science.

What do you mean by the "mind" not being based on brain chemistry? If that were true, then why does a neurotrans mitter abnormality, like schizophrenia, cause disordered thinking, paranoid delusions, and auditory hallucinations? Why would a buildup of abnormal proteins in neurons cause memory loss and major changes in mood and personality as seen in Alzheimer's Disease?

 

[anonymous person]

Hint: they both involve something other than a deity always existing.

Well, I addressed these earlier.

1. The universe comes into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever
2. The universe comes into being as a result of it creating itself, having existed before it existed in order to do so.

I have submitted that neither is preferable to:

3. The universe comes into being as the result of an efficient cause which is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless (sans creation).

But the larger issue is that because there are scenarios that you haven't even thought about, it shows that your argument holds no water at all.

Even if there were scenarios I have not thought about, it does not follow that my argument holds no water. Whether or not an argument is a good argument depends on whether or not the premises are true and whether or not the form of the argument is valid, not whether or not the arguer has thought about every possibility that would rebut what he is arguing for.

Now I have thought about those scenarios which some appeal to to explain how the universe came into being. If you have another feel free at anytime to provide it.

Trying to prove that a deity necessarily had to be involved in the existence of the universe by discounting all non-deity related scenarios only works if you can discount all possible non-deity related scenarios.

I have addressed these non-deity scenarios. I have submitted that something cannot create itself, and that something cannot come from nothing without any cause whatsoever. I submit that without argument, for I take these propositions to be self-evident truths, for which I need supply no evidence or argument.

Which you obviously haven't done, and as far as I can tell can't do, since there's no way to know all possible scenarios.

This simply assumes that there are other scenarios other than the ones we have talked about. Do you have any evidence that we have missed some other scenarios?

The term "properly basic" is used by frightened people when they know they can't show what they believe is actually true. it's not an argumentative tool at all, it's a security blanket that only serves to make the person employing it feel better about their lack of evidence.

Here:

"It's properly basic and self evident that the Christian god doesn't exist."

Not very satisfying, huh?

So you don't have any properly basic beliefs?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Opinion.

True, it is an opinion, but an opinion based on evidence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Double

?????

 

[Ed1wolf]

Mind is that fuzzy word we use to describe what the brain does. But please, feel free to demonstrate a brain is anything but. You've made some claims, so get to it.

Well I just presented some evidence that it is not entirely physical, because it can reason logically. Also, your personal identity remains the same thru time. Almost all cells in your body are replaced every seven years but you are still you. If you replace almost all the parts of a purely physical entity, it is no longer what it was. For example if you replace every part of a table except one leg, it is no longer the same table. In addition, NDEs are evidence that the mind is not entirely tied to the physical.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Even if atheistic materialism is not true, i.e. no matter what they think,
then most people on earth don't have free will either,
until, if ever, the day they are Redeemed (the few, vs the many on the wide road to destruction)...

I disagree and BTW, I am a Calvinist, we do have free will, but until we are converted we always only freely choose to rebel against God. Having free will means you are free to choose what you want, and before we are converted we always want to disobey God.

 

[anonymous person]

The science does not say the universe created itself, nor does it say anything came from pure nothingness. So, you're not really addressing a scientific view of things.

You're right and that's a good point!

I'm addressing views that some scientists hold, views unsupported by science itself.

Secondly, you haven't addressed where your creator came from.

The question assumes that the creator came from somewhere, i.e. that it was itself the effect of some cause. However, if this cause is timeless sans creation and in time subsequent to it coming to be, then this creator did not come from anywhere or by anything. This creator, we would argue, exists necessarily. For remember, something exists necessarily. In addition, we should not multiply causes anymore than what is necessary when analyzing explanations. Keeping these two things in mind, it seems to me that we would argue that the cause of the universe is a necessarily existing being.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You're right and that's a good point!

I'm addressing views that some scientists hold, views unsupported by science itself.

Do you have an example of a scientist who holds those views? I'm not aware of one myself.

The question assumes that the creator came from somewhere, i.e. that it was itself the effect of some cause. However, if this cause is timeless sans creation and in time subsequent to it coming to be, then this creator did not come from anywhere or by anything. This creator, we would argue, exists necessarily. For remember, something exists necessarily. In addition, we should not multiply causes anymore than what is necessary when analyzing explanations. Keeping these two things in mind, it seems to me that we would argue that the cause of the universe is a necessarily existing being.

Saying he's a necessary being doesn't answer the question, if anything it's a cop out. Why is he there? Why is he necessary? And if that holds for god, then why not something like a multiverse or other natural phenomena that's causally disconnected from our spacetime?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well, I addressed these earlier.

1. The universe comes into being from nothing without any causal conditions whatsoever
2. The universe comes into being as a result of it creating itself, having existed before it existed in order to do so.

I have submitted that neither is preferable to:

3. The universe comes into being as the result of an efficient cause which is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless (sans creation).

And you're still missing the scenarios I mentioned before, so you're no better off than before.

Even if there were scenarios I have not thought about, it does not follow that my argument holds no water. Whether or not an argument is a good argument depends on whether or not the premises are true and whether or not the form of the argument is valid, not whether or not the arguer has thought about every possibility that would rebut what he is arguing for.

It does follow that your argument (the universe had to have been created by a god) holds no water. That's because your argument doesn't provide evidence that it's true in any form other than an attempt to show that all possible non-deity scenarios are false, therefore your assertion must be true. It's basically the Raven Paradox. And while this line of argument can be used to show your position is correct, it only works if you can provide evidence that all other possibilities cannot be true. If you don't do that, you leave open the possibility that a non-deity scenario exists that can't be refuted, invalidating your argument completely.

I have addressed these non-deity scenarios. I have submitted that something cannot create itself, and that something cannot come from nothing without any cause whatsoever. I submit that without argument, for I take these propositions to be self-evident truths, for which I need supply no evidence or argument.

You've left out at least two scenarios, therefore your argument isn't complete, which makes it useless.

And you can hold whatever self-evident truth you want, but if someone calls you on it, and you refuse to give reasons why you think it's self-evident, you're essentially running away from the argument.

This simply assumes that there are other scenarios other than the ones we have talked about. Do you have any evidence that we have missed some other scenarios?

The burden of proof is on you, the person employing the Raven Paradox, to show that you've exhausted all possible scenarios in order for your argument to actually do what you think it's doing.

So you don't have any properly basic beliefs?

Other than "something exists", no.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well I just presented some evidence that it is not entirely physical, because it can reason logically.

No, you didn't. You stated your opinion.

Also, your personal identity remains the same thru time.

Assuming you haven't had a TBI, then yes.

Almost all cells in your body are replaced every seven years but you are still you.

Yes, this known as apoptosis, and seven years is an average.

If you replace almost all the parts of a purely physical entity, it is no longer what it was.

Unless, of course, brain cells and nerve tissue are not replaced, which they're not.

For example if you replace every part of a table except one leg, it is no longer the same table.

Ok.

In addition, NDEs are evidence that the mind is not entirely tied to the physical.

You have proof NDE's are anything more than a brain being deprived of oxygen?

 

[bhsmte]

True, it is an opinion, but an opinion based on evidence.

What evidence?

 

[anonymous person]

Do you have an example of a scientist who holds those views? I'm not aware of one myself.

When speaking of the cause of the universe, Dennett asks, "Why not stop at the material world? It does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo. " ~ Daniel Dennett

When speaking of the same, Smith states, “The most reasonable belief is that we have come from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” ~ Quentin Smith

Saying he's a necessary being doesn't answer the question, if anything it's a cop out. Why is he there? Why is he necessary?

Why is water wet? Why is ice cold? Why is fire hot?

Wetness is an inherent characteristic of water. Coldness is an inherent characteristic of ice. Hotness is an inherent characteristic of fire. These inherent traits or characteristics are to their respective entities what aseity is to a necessarily existing being. A necessarily existing being exists necessarily by definition, so asking why is this being there or why is this being necessary is pointless. It is so by definition.

And if that holds for god, then why not something like a multiverse or other natural phenomena that's causally disconnected from our spacetime?

Anything causally disconnected from our spacetime cannot be a cause of our spacetime Dave. That is what causal disconnection implies!!!

 

[anonymous person]

And you're still missing the scenarios I mentioned before, so you're no better off than before.

What are they? Can you list them, and please no hints this time.

It does follow that your argument (the universe had to have been created by a god) holds no water. That's because your argument doesn't provide evidence that it's true in any form other than an attempt to show that all possible non-deity scenarios are false, therefore your assertion must be true. It's basically the Raven Paradox. And while this line of argument can be used to show your position is correct, it only works if you can provide evidence that all other possibilities cannot be true. If you don't do that, you leave open the possibility that a non-deity scenario exists that can't be refuted, invalidating your argument completely.

The only other possibilities can't be true. I've explained this.

You've left out at least two scenarios, therefore your argument isn't complete, which makes it useless.

Well you keep saying this, but what are these other two scenarios?

And you can hold whatever self-evident truth you want, but if someone calls you on it, and you refuse to give reasons why you think it's self-evident, you're essentially running away from the argument.

"Nothing" cannot create something, because "nothing" is nothing. It is a universal negation. Potentialities lodge only in things that exist. You can't have potentiality in non-being. Non-being has no properties; it has no potentialities. You can't argue against that, just accept it.

Additionally, in order for something to have the potential to create something, it must first exist. Once again Todd, just accept this. You can't argue against it my friend.

Other than "something exists", no.

So you have at least one properly basic belief by your own admission, which by your own judgment, makes you a frightened person that knows that you cannot show what you believe is actually true. You use this as a security blanket that only serves to make you feel better about your lack of evidence.

You see how uncharitable that sounds?

Why not just admit that like everybody else, you too hold numerous beliefs that are properly basic? That is no indictment against you.

I understand that you place great stock in empiricism and the tired old verificationism that saw its demise in the academy back in the 50's. What you need to understand is that empiricism is built on certain assumptions about reality, certain philosophical presuppositions, properly basic beliefs if you will, about reality and that these are taken for granted as being true without themselves being empirically verifiable.

 

[Dave Ellis]

When speaking of the cause of the universe, Dennett asks, "Why not stop at the material world? It does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo. " ~ Daniel Dennett

When speaking of the same, Smith states, “The most reasonable belief is that we have come from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.” ~ Quentin Smith

Dan Dennett and Quentin Smith are philosophers, not scientists. I asked for an example of a scientist who believes those things, namely a scientist who is educated in the relevant fields (i.e. cosmology, astrophysics, etc).

Why is water wet? Why is ice cold? Why is fire hot?

Wetness is an inherent characteristic of water. Coldness is an inherent characteristic of ice. Hotness is an inherent characteristic of fire. These inherent traits or characteristics are to their respective entities what aseity is to a necessarily existing being. A necessarily existing being exists necessarily by definition, so asking why is this being there or why is this being necessary is pointless. It is so by definition.

Except you can't simply define a being into existence, you need to demonstrate it actually exists. Simply calling a concept in your head a necessary being and stopping there does nothing to prove your point.

Anything causally disconnected from our spacetime cannot be a cause of our spacetime Dave. That is what causal disconnection implies!!!

I mean causally disconnected from spacetime as we know it in the present day. If a multiverse actually exists, it's not unlikely a separate place from the universe which we can't get to. That doesn't mean universes can't spawn from that place however. It just means that we can't get there, and it no longer influences what's in this universe.

 

[quatona]

The universe is a necessarily exisiting being.
The universe is self-existing.
The universe is eternal and sans creator.
Existence is an inherent trait of the universe.

Just to name a few options that you have introduced as valid explanations for the existence of something.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Sorry, but for me facts are based on evidence, so unless you have some evidence I haven't heard before, it's not a fact that the Christian god exists or that humans have souls.

So I'll just be over here without your version of free will waiting for you to provide some evidence that will change my mind. I'll probably engage in some logical reasoning and maybe a bit of science, because I can...

Yes, the Christian God exists, the BB theory has pretty much proven that the universe is an effect and needs a cause. And the characteristics of the universe such as that purposes exist in it and persons exist in it point to the cause being personal. And I have already provided evidence that the mind is primarily non-physical in a few earlier posts.