Godlessness and choice

[Dave Ellis]

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.

Ah, I see. So, something can't come from nothing unless god does it.

 

[anonymous person]

Ah, I see. So, something can't come from nothing unless god does it.

No.

Something cannot come from nothing, period.

The universe came from God as an effect in which He was the efficient cause.

The nihilo in ex nihilo refers to what Aristotle distinguished as material cause. There was nothing material out of which God created.

 

[anonymous person]

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.

Wholly apart from appealing to arguments for instances where simultaneous causation occurs, your argument can be objected to by pointing out that it begs the question that temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations. For while it is certainly true that an effect does not come about until its efficient cause acts in order to cause it to be, at most this would show that effects cannot arise without a cause, something I totally agree with, even argue for.

But it doesn't follow from this that causes can only produce effects in time. If your argument is expressed in a syllogism, the fallacy will be more clearly seen.

1. If an effect does not come about until after its efficient cause acts in order to cause it to be, then cause and effect are necessarily temporal
2. An effect does not come about until after its efficient cause acts in order to causes it to be.
3. Therefore, cause and effect are necessarily temporal

Now two is true, we agree. But look at premise 1. For premise 1, you would need an argument which would would conclude with temporality being a necessary condition for causal relations.

1. If we speak of temporal cause and effect relations in terms of before and after, then temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations
2. We speak of temporal cause and effect relations in terms of before and after
3. Therefore, temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations

Now premise 2 we can agree on but here is the kicker, it is trivial!!

Of course we speak of cause and effect relationships which take place in time using terms like before and after! But this does nothing to show that a timeless state of affairs wherein causal relations obtain does not exist!

A supporting argument for your premise 1 would entail a non-sequitur, for it does not follow from the fact that we speak of temporal cause and effect relations in terms of before and after that temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations. At most this would show that temporality is merely a sufficient condition for causal relations.


At most, your argument shows that effects do not arise without a cause, which is the point I have been trying to get people to agree with me on for days now!!!

How is the Kalam relevant?

It is relevant because its conclusion has theistic implications. IOW, you can agree with it, become a theist, and not feel like you have to throw your brain out the window or in the trash in order to do so!

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

I can supply you with some references on this subject if you would like.

 

[HitchSlap]

Something cannot come from nothing, period.

How do you know this?

Follow up question; If something cannot come from nothing, from whence did this "god" come from?

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know this?

Follow up question; If something cannot come from nothing, from whence did this "god" come from?

Nothing is nothing, and therefore has no potentiality. Potentiality is a necessary condition for an efficient cause.

The answer to your follow up is this:

God did not come from anywhere or by anything. God exists necessarily by virtue of His nature.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nothing is nothing, and therefore has no potentiality. Potentiality is a necessary condition for an efficient cause.

The answer to your follow up is this:

God did not come from anywhere or by anything. God exists necessarily by virtue of His nature.

Which is it then, a god from something or a god from nothing?

 

[Dave Ellis]

No.

Something cannot come from nothing, period.

The universe came from God as an effect in which He was the efficient cause.

The nihilo in ex nihilo refers to what Aristotle distinguished as material cause. There was nothing material out of which God created.

If there's nothing material, then what is there?

Secondly, where did god come from?

 

[anonymous person]

Which is it then, a god from something or a god from nothing?

False dichotomy.

Not God from this or that, but God is, necessarily.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wholly apart from appealing to arguments for instances where simultaneous causation occurs,

Simultaneous means the same moment in time. Again, it's a temporal measurement.

your argument can be objected to by pointing out that it begs the question that temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations. For while it is certainly true that an effect does not come about until its efficient cause acts in order to cause it to be, at most this would show that effects cannot arise without a cause, something I totally agree with, even argue for.

Ok

But it doesn't follow from this that causes can only produce effects in time. If your argument is expressed in a syllogism, the fallacy will be more clearly seen.

1. If an effect does not come about until after its efficient cause acts in order to cause it to be, then cause and effect are necessarily temporal
2. An effect does not come about until after its efficient cause acts in order to causes it to be.
3. Therefore, cause and effect are necessarily temporal

Now two is true, we agree. But look at premise 1. For premise 1, you would need an argument which would would conclude with temporality being a necessary condition for causal relations.

1. If we speak of temporal cause and effect relations in terms of before and after, then temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations
2. We speak of temporal cause and effect relations in terms of before and after
3. Therefore, temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations

Now premise 2 we can agree on but here is the kicker, it is trivial!!

Of course we speak of cause and effect relationships which take place in time using terms like before and after! But this does nothing to show that a timeless state of affairs wherein causal relations obtain does not exist!

A supporting argument for your premise 1 would entail a non-sequitur, for it does not follow from the fact that we speak of temporal cause and effect relations in terms of before and after that temporality is a necessary condition for causal relations. At most this would show that temporality is merely a sufficient condition for causal relations.


At most, your argument shows that effects do not arise without a cause, which is the point I have been trying to get people to agree with me on for days now!!!

This didn't really do anything to demonstrate your point...

It seems we agree that cause and effect works within time. Can you show how cause and effect would work without the existence of time? That seems to be the important issue, and one you haven't really addressed at all.

It is relevant because its conclusion has theistic implications. IOW, you can agree with it, become a theist, and not feel like you have to throw your brain out the window or in the trash in order to do so!

Only if you want to shut your brain off to ignore the logical flaws in the Kalam.

I can supply you with some references on this subject if you would like.

Explain it to me. You brought up a timeless being, I'd like you to explain what you meant by that.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God did not come from anywhere or by anything. God exists necessarily by virtue of His nature.

Why is that? You need to justify that claim, not just assert it.

 

[anonymous person]

If there's nothing material, then what is there?

There is God, and a whole spiritual realm which is contingent, depending upon Him for its existence. Heck who knows, I personally think there are numerous other dimensions that exist, but that is for another discussion!!!!

Secondly, where did god come from?

He didn't come from anything, and I just love this question because it comes so natural to us to ask it. That is just how strong our intuition is about the causal principle and we are right to ask it, even with regards to God. The answer in His case, is quite profound.

God has always been, is, and always will be. To say that is awe-inspiring would be the understatement of the century.

 

[Dave Ellis]

False dichotomy.

Not God from this or that, but God is, necessarily.

God may be necessary to explain your worldview, however your worldview may be wrong. He is not necessary given the evidence we have about the universe itself.

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is God, and a whole spiritual realm which is contingent, depending upon Him for its existence. Heck who knows, I personally think there are numerous other dimensions that exist, but that is for another discussion!!!!

So basically your answer is nothing.

Or evidently nothing, because we have no reason to assume any of that actually exists.

He didn't come from anything, and I just love this question because it comes so natural to us to ask it. That is just how strong our intuition is about the causal principle and we are right to ask it, even with regards to God. The answer in His case, is quite profound.

God has always been, is, and always will be. To say that is awe-inspiring would be the understatement of the century.

It's astounding you can't identify that as special pleading.

 

[anonymous person]

Why is that? You need to justify that claim, not just assert it.

Well a necessarily existing being exists necessarily. Now you can label this being whatever you like. I speak English so I say God. If I spoke Spanish I would say Dios, Latin...Deus, Arabic....Allah etc. etc.

 

[anonymous person]

God may be necessary to explain your worldview,

Yes He is.

However, even if I were not a Christian, I would still think that something, whatever this was, existed necessarily.

however your worldview may be wrong.

This is true. I could be wrong.

He is not necessary given the evidence we have about the universe itself.

You can always say that despite the evidence, the universe is eternal. Or you could say that the universe came into being by nothing, for nothing, from nothing like Quentin Smith says. Or like Dennett, you can always say that the universe created itself.

 

[anonymous person]

So basically your answer is nothing.

Or evidently nothing, because we have no reason to assume any of that actually exists.



It's astounding you can't identify that as special pleading.

Well it is not special pleading Dave because remember, the atheist will typically say the same thing about the universe.

God or the universe, it seems are the typical candidates for being necessarily existing.

Unless of course you want to think either:

1. The universe came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing.

or....

2. The universe created itself.


Now if God were off the table, I would simply say that the universe existed eternally, for 1. and 2. are just not even worthy of being entertained.

 

[HitchSlap]

False dichotomy.

Not God from this or that, but God is, necessarily.

Then it's incumbent upon you to support your assertion. You state only nothing comes from nothing, and only something comes from something... except for this one thing. This is special pleading, unless of course, you can demonstrate this to be true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well a necessarily existing being exists necessarily. Now you can label this being whatever you like. I speak English so I say God. If I spoke Spanish I would say Dios, Latin...Deus, Arabic....Allah etc. etc.

Yes, but the point is simply asserting this being is necessary doesn't make him so. You have to justify your assertion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You can always say that despite the evidence, the universe is eternal. Or you could say that the universe came into being by nothing, for nothing, from nothing like Quentin Smith says. Or like Dennett, you can always say that the universe created itself.

Or you could say we don't know how the universe got here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well it is not special pleading Dave because remember, the atheist will typically say the same thing about the universe.

God or the universe, it seems are the typical candidates for being necessarily existing.

Unless of course you want to think either:

1. The universe came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing.

or....

2. The universe created itself.


Now if God were off the table, I would simply say that the universe existed eternally, for 1. and 2. are just not even worthy of being entertained.

That's not correct at all.

The answer most atheists I'm aware of (including myself) is that we don't know how the universe got here beyond the big bang. We aren't justified in making assertions beyond that point.

Theists try to make assertions beyond that point, and they have no justification to do so.