The universe with no need of God

Eudaimonist · Jun 22, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
How can one draw such a connection?

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action/change.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Nihilist Virus · Jun 22, 2016

Eudaimonist said:
The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action/change.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I think you know that is bunk.

The law of identity requires only one entity: X is identical to itself. The "law of causality" requires two entities: the cause and the effect.

The law of identity is a logical law. Causality is a description of physical reality. Causality is no more a logical law than gravity is.

Eudaimonist · Jun 23, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I think you know that is bunk.

I think it is true.

The law of identity requires only one entity: X is identical to itself.

As Aristotle had pointed out, to exist is to exist as something. To exist as something is to have characteristics. The law of identity means that a thing has its own characteristics, including possibly the power to change and/or influence itself or other entities. A dog is not a cat. A dog has dog-characteristics including the power to bark and wag its tail.

The "law of causality" requires two entities: the cause and the effect.

No, those aren't "two entities". An effect isn't an entity. An effect is a change in some entity that is explained by some entity (itself or another entity, however one is mentally dividing reality up into entities). An entity may be affected by some other entity or itself.

The law of identity is a logical law.

Yes, but it applies to physical reality. It is not disconnected. It is because we can speak of entities and their characteristics that this is a logical law in the first place. It helps us to reason about entities, including physical ones.

Causality is a description of physical reality. Causality is no more a logical law than gravity is.

True, causality is the law of identity applied to physical reality.

I'm not suggesting that in the absence of any knowledge whatsoever of physical reality that we would know in advance that entities have causal powers. We wouldn't know just what sort of identity entities would have. However, we would know that if they did have the potential to change themselves or other entities, then this would be "causality", and entities would simply be acting according to their identities (that is, their natures).

As I had said, causality is the law of identity applied to action/change. That's the connection I mean.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Nihilist Virus · Jun 23, 2016

Eudaimonist said:
No, those aren't "two entities". An effect isn't an entity. An effect is a change in some entity that is explained by some entity (itself or another entity, however one is mentally dividing reality up into entities). An entity may be affected by some other entity or itself.

I'll just address this because your entire argument falls here.

You say I'm wrong in labeling an effect as an entity and yet you say,

"An entity may be affected by some other entity or itself."

So you just admitted that causality can, at least in some cases, involve two entities. Now please acknowledge that the law of identity cannot involve two entities. Not ever. Please conclude that the law of identity is not related to causality.

And to put the cherry on top here, let's consider Aristotle's view on causality since you did invoke him in your argument. He defines causality as having four parts, but we only need two of them to show there are two entities in causality: material cause and efficient cause. Most of the time the efficient cause is different from the material cause, such as when a sculptor sculpts a marble statue.

Eudaimonist · Jun 23, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I'll just address this because your entire argument falls here.

You say I'm wrong in labeling an effect as an entity and yet you say,

"An entity may be affected by some other entity or itself."

So you just admitted that causality can, at least in some cases, involve two entities. Now please acknowledge that the law of identity cannot involve two entities. Not ever.

You are simply mistaken.

Please conclude that the law of identity is not related to causality.

What is described is the way in which one entity has the power to affect itself and/or some other entities. That power is a characteristic of that entity and is what may distinguish it from other sorts of entities. Causality is the law of identity applied to action/change. If you hear a dog barking, that's because it is part of the identity of a dog to sometimes bark, which not only the dog hears, but other conscious observers might hear as well.

So, you have given me no good reason to conclude differently.

And to put the cherry on top here, let's consider Aristotle's view on causality since you did invoke him in your argument. He defines causality as having four parts, but we only need two of them to show there are two entities in causality: material cause and efficient cause.

Those aren't parts. They are different sorts of causality. And, no, you haven't shown that there must be two entities in causality.

Most of the time the efficient cause is different from the material cause, such as when a sculptor sculpts a marble statue.

Of course they are different. So what?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Nihilist Virus · Jun 23, 2016

Eudaimonist said:
And, no, you haven't shown that there must be two entities in causality.

So a guy chiseling a marble block does not involve two entities?

Eudaimonist · Jun 23, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
So a guy chiseling a marble block does not involve two entities?

You are making two errors here.

1) An atom is an entity, and so is a molecule. A molecule is an entity, and so is a marble block. A marble block is an entity, and so is the planet Earth that contains the block. The Earth is an entity, and so is the galaxy that contains the Earth.

The boundaries of entities are mentally determined. There is nothing metaphysical that determines where those boundaries are.

2) Assuming that one finds it convenient to distinguish between the sculptor and the marble block and treat them as separate entities, simply giving that example does not show that there must be "two entities". It's just an example that happens to contain two entities. There is such a thing as self-causation, such as proton decay, or the growth and maturation of the sculptor, for which the cause is internal.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Nihilist Virus · Jun 23, 2016

Eudaimonist said:
You are making two errors here.

1) An atom is an entity, and so is a molecule. A molecule is an entity, and so is a marble block. A marble block is an entity, and so is the planet Earth that contains the block. The Earth is an entity, and so is the galaxy that contains the Earth.

The boundaries of entities are mentally determined. There is nothing metaphysical that determines where those boundaries are.

2) Assuming that one finds it convenient to distinguish between the sculptor and the marble block and treat them as separate entities, simply giving that example does not show that there must be "two entities". It's just an example that happens to contain two entities. There is such a thing as self-causation, such as proton decay, or the growth and maturation of the sculptor, for which the cause is internal.

eudaimonia,

Mark

First of all, in regards to this:

Assuming that one finds it convenient to distinguish between the sculptor and the marble block and treat them as separate entities, simply giving that example does not show that there must be "two entities".

You are not representing my position. Recall I said this:

So you just admitted that causality can, at least in some cases, involve two entities. Now please acknowledge that the law of identity cannot involve two entities. Not ever. Please conclude that the law of identity is not related to causality.

With few inference skills you can see my position, at least in this bizarre debate, is that causality CAN involve two entities. Your straw man has me saying causality MUST involve two entities.

So how on earth can you have one law that accommodates ONLY ONE entity and another law that CAN ACCOMMODATE TWO entities and then conclude they are the same law? Baffling, to say the least.

Secondly, your definition of causality is inadequate. In the OP, presuming you did read it, I laid out my definition:

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

So this acknowledges that the partition of an entity is arbitrary, just as you desire. Also we see the two entities are the two states, and perhaps with some fudging of the language we might say that the initial and resulting states are the same entity if they are comprised of the same particles (assuming this is well defined in terms of quantum uncertainty). My definition also comports with your statement, "Causality is the law of identity applied to action/change" to the extent that I agree causality is a process.

The law of identity is useful to distinguish things from other things... I suppose. If you want to group all of existence together and refer to it as one entity, then the law of identity is pointless. You can only possibly be correct if we both first agree that the law of identity is pointless.

Or else at some point we start drawing lines, and we say that we can distinguish one entity from another, and then you are unequivocally wrong in what you have presented. I only started discussing material and efficient causes when you invoked Aristotle. But Aristotle in no way advocated single-entity causality, so you then start switching it up talking about molecules and dogs barking. Even in the example of a dog barking, Aristotle's model is well defined: the dog's throat is acting on air. Two entities in that instance.

You are going through the cartwheels and gymnastics that apologists are known for. Have some self respect, but more importantly, have respect for reality - just admit you're wrong. You're head over heels wrong. Seriously, this has gone on long enough. You're literally saying that a sculptor and a marble slab are the same entity in order to weasel out of this.

Ed1wolf · Jun 23, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
And yet you cannot demonstrate this. I've asked you several times.

You don't have to do it yourself. Just look it up and copy what you find. But you can't because no one in history has done this.

So please just admit you're wrong and carry on.

What I mean is that just like the law of non-contradiction, it is a formal principle that is analytically true.

Nihilist Virus · Jun 23, 2016

Ed1wolf said:
What I mean is that just like the law of non-contradiction, it is a formal principle that is analytically true.

If it is analytically true then please show the analysis.

Ed1wolf · Jun 26, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
If it is analytically true then please show the analysis.

An effect by definition has a cause.

Nihilist Virus · Jun 27, 2016

Ed1wolf said:
An effect by definition has a cause.

The "law" of causality is that effects have causes.

A page back, you said, "My point is that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction."

But wait, now you're saying it's true by definition? Which is it? Is it true by definition or is it a logical conclusion from the starting assumption that the law of non-contradiction is true?

If you don't know the difference between analysis and definition, then you are not qualified for this discussion. You commended me a while back for admitting that I was wrong about something, adding that most atheists don't do that. Well I don't think you know what you're even talking about at all here, a situation so bad that simply being wrong about a nuanced detail would be an immense improvement. You are guilty of far more than just being wrong, and that tree of ignorance has certainly yielded its fruit, but I doubt you will admit to even the lesser issue of being wrong.

I don't think that Christians are known for admitting when they are wrong, so let's see what you do.

Ed1wolf · Jun 30, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
The "law" of causality is that effects have causes.

A page back, you said, "My point is that the law of causality naturally follows from the law of non-contradiction."

But wait, now you're saying it's true by definition? Which is it? Is it true by definition or is it a logical conclusion from the starting assumption that the law of non-contradiction is true?

If you don't know the difference between analysis and definition, then you are not qualified for this discussion. You commended me a while back for admitting that I was wrong about something, adding that most atheists don't do that. Well I don't think you know what you're even talking about at all here, a situation so bad that simply being wrong about a nuanced detail would be an immense improvement. You are guilty of far more than just being wrong, and that tree of ignorance has certainly yielded its fruit, but I doubt you will admit to even the lesser issue of being wrong.

I don't think that Christians are known for admitting when they are wrong, so let's see what you do.

It is both.

Nihilist Virus · Jul 1, 2016

Ed1wolf said:
It is both.

Let's not forget that you are trying to use this "fact" to prove that the universe required an initial cause. So we're not just arguing over unimportant details but rather an issue that can weigh heavily in the likelihood of God's existence.

If this "law" is both true by analysis and true by definition, then there is an analysis. You're saying this "law" follows naturally from the law of non-contradiction. Please either show this analysis, here or via a link, or else admit you're wrong. I've asked several times and you keep tap dancing around. I'll even start it off for you:

1. Not (X and not X).
2. ?????
3. ?????
4. ?????
5. Every effect requires a cause.

If this is a part of logic then surely someone has proven it by now. It should not be hard to find. If you tap dance again, we're through. Either I'm wrong and I'll be shown why, or else you admit you're wrong, or else we never speak again. I'm fine with any of those outcomes.

Limo · Jul 3, 2016

The 4 potential explanations of godless model actually are not considered in my opinion explanations. It can be considered no-explanation. Why ?

The 1st and 2nd explanations ends up with "no reason and with no cause".
- We don't see any physical, or personal behavior incident happened with "no reason and with no cause". Even we say "We don't know the reason or the cause" but we never say "with no reason and with no cause".
- This is not an explanation. This is closure of discussion statement. So, nothing to be debated here.
The 3rd and 4th identifies what is called membranes that are either existed eternally or resulted from previously existing things etcetera and infinitum
- What does it mean eternal ? How long term "eternal" mean ?
- What are the previous existing things ? if we go back to previous of the previous , there should be a beginning. As universe started in t=0 there should be t=0 for every and each existence of the previous existing thing and to the grand fathers of these things
- Why these eternal membranes or things existed from previous existing things, at a certain time t=0 baaaaangggg and then the universe existed? What is the trigger for this physical interaction ?
- Why it didn't happen before ? Why especially at t=0 ? Why all membranes absolutely all have interacted all (100% of them) in the same time. Nevertheless, they disappeared although they're existed eternally before t=0 ?
- What physical laws for period of interactions between membranes or things ?
- What is the origin of it ? How it's found even it's "eternal"?
- Where are these membranes now ? Are there any remains ?
- What is the future of the universe after the current state ?

If there are no convenient answers to the above question (there are more questions) then godless model of the universe (no-explanation) fails

Nihilist Virus · Jul 3, 2016

Limo said:
The 4 potential explanations of godless model actually are not considered in my opinion explanations. It can be considered no-explanation. Why ?

The 1st and 2nd explanations ends up with "no reason and with no cause".

We don't see any physical, or personal behavior incident happened with "no reason and with no cause". Even we say "We don't know the reason or the cause" but we never say "with no reason and with no cause".

This is not an explanation. This is closure of discussion statement. So, nothing to be debated here.

The 3rd and 4th identifies what is called membranes that are either existed eternally or resulted from previously existing things etcetera and infinitum

What does it mean eternal ? How long term "eternal" mean ?

What are the previous existing things ? if we go back to previous of the previous , there should be a beginning. As universe started in t=0 there should be t=0 for every and each existence of the previous existing thing and to the grand fathers of these things

Why these eternal membranes or things existed from previous existing things, at a certain time t=0 baaaaangggg and then the universe existed? What is the trigger for this physical interaction ?

Why it didn't happen before ? Why especially at t=0 ? Why all membranes absolutely all have interacted all (100% of them) in the same time. Nevertheless, they disappeared although they're existed eternally before t=0 ?

What physical laws for period of interactions between membranes or things ?

What is the origin of it ? How it's found even it's "eternal"?

Where are these membranes now ? Are there any remains ?

What is the future of the universe after the current state ?

If there are no convenient answers to the above question (there are more questions) then godless model of the universe (no-explanation) fails

This is a disingenuous response. I am making an honest appraisal of the godless universe model, assessing its weak points, and then I said the following:

"...the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true."

You completely ignored this, and I find your response to be lacking in intellectual integrity.

Ed1wolf · Jul 3, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
Let's not forget that you are trying to use this "fact" to prove that the universe required an initial cause. So we're not just arguing over unimportant details but rather an issue that can weigh heavily in the likelihood of God's existence.

If this "law" is both true by analysis and true by definition, then there is an analysis. You're saying this "law" follows naturally from the law of non-contradiction. Please either show this analysis, here or via a link, or else admit you're wrong. I've asked several times and you keep tap dancing around. I'll even start it off for you:

1. Not (X and not X).
2. ?????
3. ?????
4. ?????
5. Every effect requires a cause.

If this is a part of logic then surely someone has proven it by now. It should not be hard to find. If you tap dance again, we're through. Either I'm wrong and I'll be shown why, or else you admit you're wrong, or else we never speak again. I'm fine with any of those outcomes.

1. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Law of Non Contradiction).

2. Therefore it is either self existent, ie has the power of being in itself or it is caused to be or exist, IOW an effect.

3. The universe is an effect, therefore it needs a Cause.

Eudaimonist · Jul 4, 2016

Ed1wolf said:
1. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Law of Non Contradiction).

Yes.

2. Therefore it is either self existent, ie has the power of being in itself or it is caused to be or exist, IOW an effect.

It can be both. The universe might not need anything to make it exist, but its current form can be a result of change.

3. The universe is an effect, therefore it needs a Cause.

You are smuggling a premise into your conclusion. You haven't shown that the universe is an effect. You've only shown that logically it might be an effect.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Nihilist Virus · Jul 4, 2016

Ed1wolf said:
1. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same relationship. (Law of Non Contradiction).

2. Therefore it is either self existent, ie has the power of being in itself or it is caused to be or exist, IOW an effect.

3. The universe is an effect, therefore it needs a Cause.

I appreciate the effort. But you use "therefore" in premise 2 when it is unrelated to premise 1. I think you should form it like this:

1. If something exists, it is either "self-existent" or not.

That is still the law of non-contradiction. By "self-existent" I assume you mean "exists without having been caused." Then premise 2 would be:

2. If something is not "self-existent" then it is an effect of a previous cause.

3. Nothing can be "self-existent."

Perhaps you don't want to invoke premise 3 because you want God to exist and premise 3 would make his existence special pleading. I know your thought is that the universe is an effect and requires a cause but that is not what you are tasked with proving. The task here is to prove that the "law" of causality follows from the law of non-contradiction, so discussion of the universe is entirely irrelevant.

You are implying that causality discusses things being caused to exist ex nihilo. I explained to you before that this is incoherent, for to bring about something from nothing via causality means to act on... what? Do you act on the universe to bring about the universe? Certainly not. Do you act on nothing? If so, then what you are doing is not causal.

You completely forgot what you were trying to prove. Once again, your conclusion needs to be "every effect requires a cause." You shouldn't discuss the universe in your proof.

Limo · Jul 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
This is a disingenuous response. I am making an honest appraisal of the godless universe model, assessing its weak points, and then I said the following:

"...the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true."

You completely ignored this, and I find your response to be lacking in intellectual integrity.

good side is that you've targeted my response.

is what you've said means that these explanations are neither convenient nor invalid and we shouldn't challenge it ?
if yes then no harm to shot a dead body.

The universe with no need of God

I believe in life before death!

Infectious idea

I believe in life before death!

Infectious idea

I believe in life before death!

Infectious idea

I believe in life before death!

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency