To act on nothing is to do something?

[Tone]

So, we can change this to:

"To act on God is to do something?"

So, since God is not something:

"To act on God is to do not God?" can be the new development.

To the above ^, I would answer...this is impossible for the creature to do...who can act on God?

*If you are acting on God...it is not God...but, something else...

**...maybe...thing...itself?

 

[Shimokita]

Are your words a thing?

Well apparently his thoughts are nothing as well, but I tend to agree with him here.

 

[Tone]

"To act on God is to do not God?"

This ^ is true.

 

[Chriliman]

True, there's no evidence for that position, either in reality or in your religion. But I'm not asking for evidence here on this thread - just a position that is self-consistent and which does not undermine the core principles of Christianity.

While your position does that, like I've said, it also has the problem of demoting God's existence from necessary to unnecessary. To say that physical material is eternal but that a God is needed to shape the world into its current state is a hard sale given what we know about quantum mechanics.

Explain why you think it’s a hard sell.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No thanks to the word games. I get it though, good one. Ha ha.

False dilemma. Divine dictates don't have to be either comprehensive explanations or cryptic poetry. God could have relayed specific pieces of information to indicate a divine source of knowledge while not giving a comprehensive overview of any field of study. As it is, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that couldn't have come from human beings. And no, there's no prophecy in there - recall that I explained this in detail.

Of course divine dictates don't "have" to be either comprehensive or cryptic, and I didn't actually say that they are. Hence, my use of the term "essentially" in my previous post, but I can see how the looseness by which I made my statement could have sounded to you like I was inferring a dichotomy.

As for your comment about 'no prophecy in there,' that's a follow up discussion for another time. I still hold by my comments from a year or two ago that biblical prophecy isn't a collection of concrete statements that will bear themselves out in ipso facto conformity to the hyperbolic (poetic) language that the Jewish prophets articulated it all by.

Literally anything at all could be assumed to be true as an axiom. This is worthless, and you know it.

Anything can be assumed? Really? So, no, I can't say that I agree with you here, let alone that I "know it." Hence, again, the reason I approach Christianity by way of Critical Realism and some existentialism.

Weaknesses of atheism on the position of the God question? The atheist position is, "I reject your claim" and that is the rational, most reasonable position to take since you have not met your burden of proof. Forget burden of proof, like I said, you don't even meet the absolute bare minimum requirement. Acceptance of Christianity is absolutely and completely irrational.

If by irrational you mean semantics pertaining to the fact that Kierkegaardian paradox or Pascalian notions of transcendent properties make for a very poor foundation by which to figure out Christianity, then yes, I suppose one could say Christianity is irrational. But if, instead, you mean by irrational a mode of thought that is completely adverse to utilizing reasonable human capacities of the mind, then I must disagree with you just as the Critical Realists will disagree with you, I'm sure.

It's just not relevant to the point I'm asking. Perhaps you have a great point, but even a dumb answer to a question is better than an intelligent point that is not even relevant to what was asked.

...you welcome to interpret the quality of my statements any way you wish. If you think they're "dumb," then so be it. But my point was in reference to existential Subjectivity and the appearance of contradiction by those who are addicted to so-called Objectivity, particularly where Christianity is concerned. [And here I insert an invisible quote from Kierkegaard "...." one which is interesting but also one I'm sure you wouldn't have read or cared about anyway.]

Or none. Just focus on the OP please.

According to Pascal, I'm pretty sure you qualify as at least having "some" culpability in your resistance against Christianity.

My spidey sense is detecting Sye Ten Bruggencate. Please, just don't.

Sye, who? No, I think you spidey-sense is off today because you should have sensed Myron Bradley Penner or Merold Westphal, among others. (Maybe your spidey powers are ebbing at the moment ... ?)

Isn't it funny that atheists want your God to show up, and you think it's a terrible idea for your God to show up?

...it probably would be a terrible idea if God showed up in a de facto manner here and now, because if the bible is what we're talking about here contextually, and we are, then His showing up would surely have some strings attached, strings which I'm not eager to pull.

I don't want to find belief. I want to find the truth. You're wrong from the outset.

See, now we're getting somewhere. We're working in different paradigms; you're apparently in more of a Modernist mode, despite your supposed Nihilistic mindset, and I'm working in a mindset of Critical Realism.

So, here we are. ... Nihilism VS. Critical Realism, as I interpret it anyway.

Personally, I think "causation" should be the least of your concerns ...

 

[Tone]

They think words are nothing...that's why they can't comprehend what you're saying.

Hmmm...words may be no thing, but this is not to say that they have no power...they are more like energy...so..."some force" may be more appropriate.

*Is force a thing?

 

[Moral Orel]

To act on nothing is to do nothing. There's my proof.

I think you got called out, bro. That isn't proof, that's a claim.

I'm seeing some pretty brazen logical fallacies popping up.

Can you provide a counter example? The title of this thread is,

To act on nothing is to do something?

Perhaps you can explain how this is so.

So unless we prove you wrong, you're right?

How many times do you need to see an apple fall to the ground to accept that this is just how gravity works?

And yet my position is even stronger than that, because while we've managed to make some things go up and never come back down, we've never performed an act of causality without acting on something. Nor can we even comprehend in principle how that would work. So my claim is based on the entirety of reality, and you reject it based on nothing... or perhaps because of your agenda to preserve the idea of creatio ex nihilo. But I'm saying that's in the category of square circles. If someone thinks a square circle is actually possible to exist, they wouldn't blabber on and on - they would just draw one! And if you think you can perform an action without acting on anything at all, just explain how it's done, or maybe make a YouTube video demonstrating it.

So it's true because we haven't experienced anything else?

You're asking me to prove a negative. How much do you want, exactly? I think we're as sure of my claim as we are that 2+2=4.

If you make a negative claim, you have to prove it too. You aren't one of the folks that thinks that's impossible, are you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nonsense

You can say that I've failed to meet my burden of proof, but you can't say it's nonsense. What I'm saying is literally verified by every single physical interaction you've ever had and even any kind of metaphysical interaction you can conceive of. What I'm saying isn't nonsense.

With your burden of proof being where it is, I'd like to see if you could prove the age-old saying, "From nothing, nothing comes." Because if you can't prove that, then your God is not necessary for existence, is he? And then we invoke Occam's razor.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Tone

What are you doing?

 

[Tone]

@Tone

What are you doing?

Philosophizing...you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I think you got called out, bro. That isn't proof, that's a claim.

It's more of a tautology, which is both a claim and a proof.

For example, if I said, "X is X" and you asked me to prove that, what do you want me to say?

I'm seeing some pretty brazen logical fallacies popping up.

Such as?

So unless we prove you wrong, you're right?

I'm basically saying that I don't know of a logical framework in which I'm wrong, and neither do you.

So it's true because we haven't experienced anything else?

Again, it is tautological.

If you make a negative claim, you have to prove it too. You aren't one of the folks that thinks that's impossible, are you?

All I'm saying is that to act on nothing is to do nothing, and beyond stating that obvious fact, I don't know what the victory conditions are which you've set for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You can say that I've failed to meet my burden of proof, but you can't say it's nonsense. What I'm saying is literally verified by every single physical interaction you've ever had and even any kind of metaphysical interaction you can conceive of. What I'm saying isn't nonsense.

With your burden of proof being where it is, I'd like to see if you could prove the age-old saying, "From nothing, nothing comes." Because if you can't prove that, then your God is not necessary for existence, is he? And then we invoke Occam's razor.

Not so fast there, Partner!

Science, Ockham’s Razor & God

David Glass and Mark McCartney [mathematicians] say Ockham’s razor doesn’t cut it with God.

 

[Tone]

to act on nothing is to do nothing

To effect (X) = (X)...is this what you are saying?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To effect (X) = (X)...is this what you are saying?

No.

 

[Tone]

No.

What then?



*I'm not very good at math...

 

[Tone]

act on nothing is to do nothing

If you act on (X)...you're doing (X)?

 

[Shimokita]

You can say that I've failed to meet my burden of proof, but you can't say it's nonsense.

OK. Fair enough.

What I'm saying is literally verified by every single physical interaction you've ever had and even any kind of metaphysical interaction you can conceive of. What I'm saying isn't nonsense.

As for the physical I would agree. We do not know of anything physical that does not have a material cause. As for the metaphysical, I do not think I would agree. What is the material cause (input) of Mozart's Requiem, for example?

Regardless, the fact that we have not seen it would not be a proof that it your assertion is required as a matter of logic, as your bother atheist kindly pointed out.

With your burden of proof being where it is, I'd like to see if you could prove the age-old saying, "From nothing, nothing comes." Because if you can't prove that, then your God is not necessary for existence, is he? And then we invoke Occam's razor.

I don't quite follow you here.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you act on (X)...you're doing (X)?

Also no.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK. Fair enough.


As for the physical I would agree. We do not know of anything physical that does not have a material cause.

So to be clear, would you agree that the Kalam Cosmological argument is invalid? Off topic I guess so you don't have to answer.

As for the metaphysical, I do not think I would agree. What is the material cause (input) of Mozart's Requiem, for example?

Oh, I see the problem. You're a Platonist.

The material cause for music is air. When you stop acting on the air with musical instruments, the music ceases to exist.

Regardless, the fact that we have not seen it would not be a proof that it is required as a matter of logic.

My argument is valid because it is a tautology, and yours is invalid because it is not well defined.

To do action X is to act on object Y. To do nothing is to act on nothing. That's my argument.

You're saying that this is false, so you must either determine the error in my reasoning or produce a counter example. You have done neither so you have no grounds to reject my proof.

I don't quite follow you here.

That's alright, I was off topic there anyway.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's more of a tautology, which is both a claim and a proof.

For example, if I said, "X is X" and you asked me to prove that, what do you want me to say?

No, you haven't said exactly the same thing twice. This isn't the law of identity. It's more like claiming you said "X - 0 = X + 0". Now you could explain why those are the same thing, you need to do so with your statement.

Such as?

This:

I'm basically saying that I don't know of a logical framework in which I'm wrong, and neither do you.

That is undeniably an argument from ignorance. And telling me I have to show you one is shifting the burden of proof.

All I'm saying is that to act on nothing is to do nothing, and beyond stating that obvious fact, I don't know what the victory conditions are which you've set for me.

You need to prove that acting on nothing is in fact the exact same thing as doing nothing. They're stated differently, so you need to show that they are equivalent, like X + 0 and X - 0.

You can say that I've failed to meet my burden of proof, but you can't say it's nonsense. What I'm saying is literally verified by every single physical interaction you've ever had and even any kind of metaphysical interaction you can conceive of. What I'm saying isn't nonsense.

I can imagine a magician snapping his fingers and a bouquet of flowers appearing in his hand from nothing. I can't imagine a bouquet of flowers that is both made completely of roses and completely made of tulips. There is an inherent contradiction in the latter, there is not an inherent contradiction in the former. I can conceive of an instance where nothing is acted on but something is done. I can't prove it is possible in physical reality, but that is an entirely different proposition.

With your burden of proof being where it is, I'd like to see if you could prove the age-old saying, "From nothing, nothing comes." Because if you can't prove that, then your God is not necessary for existence, is he? And then we invoke Occam's razor.

Now that is a fair point. "From nothing, nothing comes" hasn't been proven either. You can certainly use this in any of those "first cause" arguments that intend to prove God's existence. If people are accepting laws of causality, then they have to concede you this point, sure. I do not accept that causality has laws. You have to prove them.