Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

I was asking you for the criteria. You keep being circularly general and vague.

If a premise has more going for it than against it, I say it is more plausible than its negation. I determine whether or not something is in favor for a premise or against it by looking at subject specific data.

This is my general method. Specifics enter in the more specific the premise is. Common sense is indispensible here.

I have had very good results in assessing things this way and most of the times my assessments take a matter of seconds.

Other than calculable, stastitical probabilities - not at all. And even then, I don´t conclude from probablities on truth.

Now, has the topic changed from propositions about the origin of everything to events in my day to day life? Tss.

So you never say things like "it will probably be worth looking into", or "it's plausible" when asked a question about your view on a particular matter without without taking the time to use probability calculi?

That's interesting. I would never be able to do that. The sheer impractacality of that prohibits me from doing so and even if I could do that, I wouldn't need to or want to, for as I mentioned earlier, I have done very well without having to use probability calculi in my day to day life.

The discussion I think, can be concluded here. The evidence I have for the existence of God requires one to be comfortable with probability, not certainty. There is no evidence for God that will convince everyone or show that God exists with certainty. However, you can know God personally for yourself. When you do, you will not need arguments to know He lives!

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It's not incoherent to me, nor has any textbook I've ever read which discussed Parmenides' response against the theory of change proposed by earlier natural philosophers ever mentioned his principle ex nihilo nihil fit as being incoherent. I reason that this is because none of the authors, nor myself, share your views as to what criteria a proposition must meet in order to be coherent.

The principle simply implies that nothing can arise without a cause .

I can think of several propositions right off the top of my head that are coherent and meaningful even though the proposition contains a subject whose existence is logically impossible.

1. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists.

This proposition is meaningful and coherent and true.

2. There is no possible world in which a square circle exists.

So I think you need to distinguish between logical possibility, coherence, and possible states of affairs.

Your confusion lies in misunderstanding how I am using the term "nothing".

I am using it the way you would use it if you were to say

"nothing about your argument is persuasive"

Or

"when he opened his wallet and looked inside, he found nothing in it"

It is used in the above as a universal negation, not as some sort of thing which posessess the property of nothingness.

Oh, I well understand the meaning of “nothing” you’re using. And what coherence means.

What you’re missing is that since your definition is an impossibility, it’s equal to any other incoherent or unimaginable impossibility. So the phrase “Something cannot come from nothing” becomes (based on your definition) “Something cannot come from impossible conditions.”

While you can assign a truth value to that statement, it has zero explanatory power, and thus is pointless. I don’t know why you would even bring it up.

As for causes and effects, linguistically, effects imply causes. But since I know you’re not going to limit this to linguistics, let me jump ahead to this statement that gets around the wordplay that typically enters into discussions about cause and effect:

“All events have reasons.”

Do you agree with that statement?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Common sense is indispensible here.

Ah, “common sense”... the ill-defined bulwark of those without evidence...

 

[quatona]

If a premise has more going for it than against it, I say it is more plausible than its negation.

I am asking you for your method and criteria of making that judgement.

This is my general method. Specifics enter in the more specific the premise is. Common sense is indispensible here.

Ah, common sense - that´s what you actually mean when using all the big words. Doesn´t seem to be a particular good tool for determining metaphysics.

I have had very good results in assessing things this way and most of the times my assessments take a matter of seconds.

I´m glad you are satisfied with yourself.

So you never say things like "it will probably be worth looking into"

No. In this case I´d say "it´s worth looking into".

or "it's plausible"

Yes, I say that. Plausibility is something completely different than probability. The plausibility of an idea doesn´t really speak to its accuracy any more than its probability, though.

That's interesting. I would never be able to do that. The sheer impractacality of that prohibits me from doing so and even if I could do that, I wouldn't need to or want to, for as I mentioned earlier, I have done very well without having to use probability calculi in my day to day life.

Whatever. Here we aren´t speaking about washing the dishes, we are talking about metaphysical ideas.
Since you are very reluctant to come up with criteria as to how you determine such an idea to be plausible or probably true and hence consider it true, and on top do not give the evidence you say that´s so important in your method, we aren´t able to make any progress in validating your methods or your conclusions.

The evidence I have for the existence of God requires one to be comfortable with probability, not certainty.

I think it´s nonsense to talk about "probability" when the subject is a supposedly unique metaphysical entity. But since you have already revealed that in the end it comes down to your "common sense" I have a pretty good idea about your method now.

 

[anonymous person]

Oh, I well understand the meaning of “nothing” you’re using. And what coherence means.

What you’re missing is that since your definition is an impossibility, it’s equal to any other incoherent or unimaginable impossibility. So the phrase “Something cannot come from nothing” becomes (based on your definition) “Something cannot come from impossible conditions.”

While you can assign a truth value to that statement, it has zero explanatory power, and thus is pointless. I don’t know why you would even bring it up.

As for causes and effects, linguistically, effects imply causes. But since I know you’re not going to limit this to linguistics, let me jump ahead to this statement that gets around the wordplay that typically enters into discussions about cause and effect:

“All events have reasons.”

Do you agree with that statement?

Yes I agree. For every event, there is a reason for it happening.

 

[anonymous person]

I am asking you for your method and criteria of making that judgement.


Ah, common sense - that´s what you actually mean when using all the big words. Doesn´t seem to be a particular good tool for determining metaphysics.


I´m glad you are satisfied with yourself.






No. In this case I´d say "it´s worth looking into".

Yes, I say that. Plausibility is something completely different than probability. The plausibility of an idea doesn´t really speak to its accuracy any more than its probability, though.



Whatever. Here we aren´t speaking about washing the dishes, we are talking about metaphysical ideas.
Since you are very reluctant to come up with criteria as to how you determine such an idea to be plausible or probably true and hence consider it true, and on top do not give the evidence you say that´s so important in your method, we aren´t able to make any progress in validating your methods or your conclusions.


I think it´s nonsense to talk about "probability" when the subject is a supposedly unique metaphysical entity. But since you have already revealed that in the end it comes down to your "common sense" I have a pretty good idea about your method now.

Awesome!

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, I mean about Christianity. Why are you concerned about whether Christians have evidence for their views?

Because I care about what's true. If Christians are actually correct, I'd like to know about it. Whether or not they have backing for their beliefs is therefore very important.

Furthermore if it's shown that there is no backing for the Christian worldview, then I have a much harder time taking arguments on here for it seriously as there's nothing to back the foundation of those beliefs.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If the past is actually infinite then we can never reach the present, but since the present exists, the past is not infinite, so therefore there was a first cause.

That doesn't follow.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The inability to traverse an actual infinite number of moments prior to the present moment simply implies that if there is such a thing as "this present moment" then the number of moments prior to said present moment cannot be infinite but finite. This would imply that time itself began at some finite point in the past, a conclusion that has been confirmed by scientific observation and a point which the author of Genesis made long before people had the means of making such scientific observations.

+1 for the Bible

Except we acknowledge time as we know it started with the big bang. That's pretty widely held scientific consensus.

Secondly, isn't your god supposedly infinite? Wouldn't that create the problem for him that you're trying to put on us? At no point does your argument lend any credence to the god of the bible, or any god for that matter.

 

[anonymous person]

Because I care about what's true.

Why?

If Christians are actually correct, I'd like to know about it.

Why? What would you do with the knowledge?

Whether or not they have backing for their beliefs is therefore very important.

I agree.

Furthermore if it's shown that there is no backing for the Christian worldview, then I have a much harder time taking arguments on here for it seriously as there's nothing to back the foundation of those beliefs.

Ok.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Your use of the word "more" implies a comparative criterion, which is exactly what epistemologists use when assessing the epistemic status of premises.

Plausibility is used in the comparative criterion because it provides us with an alternative to having to achieve certainty, which is as we agree, simply an unreasonable and unrealistic expectation.

Obviously plausibility will be a heavily person-dependent notion. What I find plausible may not be plausible to you and vice versa. In the instance of disagreement we simply have to dig deeper and ask ourselves why we do or do not find a premise to be more plausible than its negation.

For example, the premise:

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

Now, this premise to me seems certain, not just more plausible than its negation. I am certain that something cannot come from nothing.

However, for whatever reason, you may not be certain, but as long as you can agree that it is at least more plausible than its negation, you should hold it to be true, at least tentatively.

Can you demonstrate that something can not come from nothing?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why?

Because it's to my advantage to believe as many true things as possible and reject as many false things as possible.

Why? What would you do with the knowledge?

I'd accept it as true.

 

[anonymous person]

Except we acknowledge time as we know it started with the big bang. That's pretty widely held scientific consensus.

Secondly, isn't your god supposedly infinite? Wouldn't that create the problem for him that you're trying to put on us? At no point does your argument lend any credence to the god of the bible, or any god for that matter.

Yes God is infinite. No that does not create a problem for me because I use the word in a qualitative sense, not a quantitative sense when speaking of God as being infinite.

Well, the argument leaves us with the conclusion that the universe has a cause, that it is not eternal, but owes its existence to something other than itself.

While you are correct in that this alone does not give us the God of the bible, it does make theism a rational position to hold to and supports a cumulative case for theism in general.

 

[anonymous person]

Can you demonstrate that something can not come from nothing?

Depends on what you mean by demonstrate. If you are asking me for reasons why I think something cannot come from nothing, then yes I have reasons.

I would have thought you would be charitable and agree with me, that something cannot come from nothing. Seems self evident to me.

I will give you this much, at least you understand what I am saying. Some people would argue that the causal principle is incoherent and meaningless!

 

[Dave Ellis]

A cause must exist in order to produce an effect. Call it a necessary condition if you have misgivings with the term "essential property".

A cause must, at the very least, exist in order to produce an effect.

Time must also exist for cause and effect. In the absence of time, cause and effect is nonsensical.

If time started with the big bang, there is no "prior" for a cause to exist. The whole construct of cause and effect breaks down. As such, it's basically a moot point.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Yes God is infinite. No that does not create a problem for me because I use the word in a qualitative sense, not a quantitative sense when speaking of God as being infinite.

Well, the argument leaves us with the conclusion that the universe has a cause, that it is not eternal, but owes its existence to something other than itself.

While you are correct in that this alone does not give us the God of the bible, it does make theism a rational position to hold to and supports a cumulative case for theism in general.

Except your argument doesn't lead to that conclusion without you making a number of unsupported assertions.

Theism may be consistent with the argument you've presented, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to accept it as actual fact. For example, believing in universe creating pixies is also consistent with your argument, but you wouldn't consider that a valid solution either. You must provide evidence that the god you propose actually exists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Depends on what you mean by demonstrate. If you are asking me for reasons why I think something cannot come from nothing, then yes I have reasons.

I would have thought you would be charitable and agree with me, that something cannot come from nothing. Seems self evident to me.

I will give you this much, at least you understand what I am saying. Some people would argue that the causal principle is incoherent and meaningless!

I'm not aware of a situation where pure nothingness was all there was, or if the concept is even coherent. So, making statements about that situation is fairly absurd.

However, more importantly is that science makes no claims that something came from nothing. I therefore don't see why theists keep pushing that argument. If anything, some theists believe that god created the universe from nothing.

 

[anonymous person]

Time must also exist for cause and effect.

Why?

In the absence of time, cause and effect is nonsensical.

Why?

If time started with the big bang, there is no "prior" for a cause to exist.

*There is no prior temporal state of affairs for a cause to exist. This is correct.

The proponent of the Kalam is not committed to arguing that there exists some sort of time before time.

The whole construct of cause and effect breaks down. As such, it's basically a moot point.

Why does the idea of cause and effect break down in the absence of time?

What is nonsensical about a timeless state of affairs wherein a necessarily existing creates something, like an angel?

 

[anonymous person]

I'm not aware of a situation where pure nothingness was all there was, or if the concept is even coherent. So, making statements about that situation is fairly absurd.

I think the idea of something coming from nothing is absurd too.

However, more importantly is that science makes no claims that something came from nothing. I therefore don't see why theists keep pushing that argument. If anything, some theists believe that god created the universe from nothing.

Science makes no claims regarding anything. Scientists make the claims, and yes some scientists and philosophers claim that the universe came from nothing.

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo is the idea that God created the universe without using pre-existing matter. It is an objection to the idea that God was tinkering with some eternally existing matter, shaping and molding it and crafting it and so on and so forth. There was no eternally existing matter. There was a state of affairs wherein no matter, time, or space existed, and then God created it. That is creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why?

Cause and effect is necessarily temporal. An effect happens after a cause. That after is the key point here. If there is no flow of time, cause and effect doesn't work as "after" is nonexistent.

*There is no prior temporal state of affairs for a cause to exist. This is correct.

The proponent of the Kalam is not committed to arguing that there exists some sort of time before time.

How is the Kalam relevant?

What is nonsensical about a timelessly and necessarily existing being creating another being?

I'm not sure there's such thing as a timeless being. How does that work?