Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.
P2: If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
P3: An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
P4: For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have the intention to create it, and then at a later time after the creation he no longer has the intention to create it.
P5: Thus it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything. (P3, P4)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P5)

StrongAtheism.net
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:29:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just to be an @sshole, how about this.

The thing that is immutable about God is God's mutability.

God is never unchanging in changing.

Either way, to say such an argument disproves God is silly. This would be an attempt at disproving this certain idea of what God is.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:33:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.
P2: If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
P3: An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
P4: For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have the intention to create it, and then at a later time after the creation he no longer has the intention to create it.
P5: Thus it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything. (P3, P4)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P5)

StrongAtheism.net

I'll just repost this from the other thread. P4 is invalid. Causes need not temporally precede effects. Two events can exist concurrently in an asymmetric dependency relationship. If I'm climbing a ladder, for example, the ladder is holding me up rather than me holding the ladder down.

There's a good case to be made that all causation is instantaneous. Imagine A causes B. Lets say you're on top of a ladder and I accidentally trip and knock the ladder over. As result of me knocking the ladder over (A) you fall and break your leg (B). What if A fails to obtain prior to causing B? Would B still occur? The intuitive answer is no, but consider that if time is linear there will always be a gap between A and B. So it may seem strange, but for every effect E, there is never a cause C that immediately precedes it temporally.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:49:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:33:59 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.
P2: If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
P3: An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
P4: For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have the intention to create it, and then at a later time after the creation he no longer has the intention to create it.
P5: Thus it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything. (P3, P4)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P5)

StrongAtheism.net

I'll just repost this from the other thread. P4 is invalid. Causes need not temporally precede effects. Two events can exist concurrently in an asymmetric dependency relationship. If I'm climbing a ladder, for example, the ladder is holding me up rather than me holding the ladder down.

There's a good case to be made that all causation is instantaneous. Imagine A causes B. Lets say you're on top of a ladder and I accidentally trip and knock the ladder over. As result of me knocking the ladder over (A) you fall and break your leg (B). What if A fails to obtain prior to causing B? Would B still occur? The intuitive answer is no, but consider that if time is linear there will always be a gap between A and B. So it may seem strange, but for every effect E, there is never a cause C that immediately precedes it temporally.

This doesn't have to do with causation.

The argument simply says that after creation, God no longer has the intention to create. What's controversial about that?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:04:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.

I deny this premise. What now?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:11:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:33:59 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

The intuitive answer is no, but consider that if time is linear there will always be a gap between A and B. So it may seem strange, but for every effect E, there is never a cause C that immediately precedes it temporally.

Current understanding does point towards time being discreet not continuous. However isn't the basic argument here that God can not be unchanging and temporal?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:19:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:04:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.

I deny this premise. What now?

Does immutable mean anything before creation?
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:19:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:49:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:33:59 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.
P2: If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
P3: An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
P4: For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have the intention to create it, and then at a later time after the creation he no longer has the intention to create it.
P5: Thus it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything. (P3, P4)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P5)

StrongAtheism.net

I'll just repost this from the other thread. P4 is invalid. Causes need not temporally precede effects. Two events can exist concurrently in an asymmetric dependency relationship. If I'm climbing a ladder, for example, the ladder is holding me up rather than me holding the ladder down.

There's a good case to be made that all causation is instantaneous. Imagine A causes B. Lets say you're on top of a ladder and I accidentally trip and knock the ladder over. As result of me knocking the ladder over (A) you fall and break your leg (B). What if A fails to obtain prior to causing B? Would B still occur? The intuitive answer is no, but consider that if time is linear there will always be a gap between A and B. So it may seem strange, but for every effect E, there is never a cause C that immediately precedes it temporally.

This doesn't have to do with causation.

The argument simply says that after creation, God no longer has the intention to create. What's controversial about that?

Because it is not "after" to Him. Orthodox christian theology has God atemporal; both causes and effects are eternally present and simultaneous. In this sense Christ is referred to in Revelation as the "Lamb slain before the foundation of the world;" to Him, every moment is present, without a progression from past to future.

In short, the first instant creation when time began and the last moment of the universe when time ends, and every moment in between, are all present and open before Him; He cannot change, because change is an effect of time.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:22:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:11:36 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:33:59 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

The intuitive answer is no, but consider that if time is linear there will always be a gap between A and B. So it may seem strange, but for every effect E, there is never a cause C that immediately precedes it temporally.

Current understanding does point towards time being discreet not continuous. However isn't the basic argument here that God can not be unchanging and temporal?

Yeah, I misread the argument. Geo was defending a version that's different form the one I'm familiar with.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:54:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@Cliff,
I continue to be impressed with your ability to think, and pick out clear missteps.
It explains how Plato (and others) were able to attract followers.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:00:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This doesn't have to do with causation.

The argument simply says that after creation, God no longer has the intention to create. What's controversial about that?:

There's no way to know. It assumes to know everything about how God would operate in the event of his existence in order to prove God's non-existence. If that's not the epitome of retarded, then I don't know what is.

I'll say it again. If something does not exist, there is no way to prove it's non-existence, because by definition "proof" requires positive evidence, and evidence is something measurable. You can't measure nothingness and quantify that. At most you can make reasonable assumptions on the improbability of it, but not empirical proof.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. Case in point: A few years ago there was no known water to be on the moon. If we were to accept the ethos that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence rejoinder, we would conclude that it's "proof" that no water is on the moon.

But when finally discovered, was it is more likely that water suddenly and inexplicably appeared out of thin air; or that even though we looked previously we didn't find any?

More than likely the water was always there in the past, we just didn't find it at that point in time. Simply because we cannot find something does not necessarily mean with absolute certainty that no God exists. At most, one can conclude that it's simply illogical to assume that such a God exists. And for all intents and purposes, that's still atheism. And you know, that's how science works. There is no 100% certainty. They'll allow 99.8% certainty to account for an unknown variable.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:05:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:00:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This doesn't have to do with causation.

The argument simply says that after creation, God no longer has the intention to create. What's controversial about that?:

There's no way to know. It assumes to know everything about how God would operate in the event of his existence in order to prove God's non-existence. If that's not the epitome of retarded, then I don't know what is.

I'll say it again. If something does not exist, there is no way to prove it's non-existence, because by definition "proof" requires positive evidence, and evidence is something measurable.

Square circles don't exist.

You can't measure nothingness and quantify that. At most you can make reasonable assumptions on the improbability of it, but not empirical proof.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. Case in point: A few years ago there was no known water to be on the moon. If we were to accept the ethos that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence rejoinder, we would conclude that it's "proof" that no water is on the moon.

Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case we should expect to find evidence for X assuming X exists.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:16:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:00:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This doesn't have to do with causation.

The argument simply says that after creation, God no longer has the intention to create. What's controversial about that?:

There's no way to know. It assumes to know everything about how God would operate in the event of his existence in order to prove God's non-existence. If that's not the epitome of retarded, then I don't know what is.

The definition of God. Look it up. Definitions are not assumptions. Unicorns have one horn, by definition. But according to you, that is assuming too much! Who's to say whether a unicorn has one horn or not! It's completely illogical to assume that!

I'll say it again. If something does not exist, there is no way to prove it's non-existence,

If someone posits something that conflicts with reality, it does not exist. For example, you can prove the nonexistence of Earths second moon. Or you can demonstrate the nature of a proposed thing is contradictory and therefore nonexistent.

So if Gods existence can be demonstrated to be the same as positing a square circle, you have just disproved Gods existence.

because by definition "proof" requires positive evidence, and evidence is something measurable.

False.

You can't measure nothingness and quantify that. At most you can make reasonable assumptions on the improbability of it, but not empirical proof.

This argument does not propose to be an empirical proof. It is a logical proof.

The absence of evidence is not necessarily the evidence of absence. Case in point: A few years ago there was no known water to be on the moon. If we were to accept the ethos that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence rejoinder, we would conclude that it's "proof" that no water is on the moon.

But when finally discovered, was it is more likely that water suddenly and inexplicably appeared out of thin air; or that even though we looked previously we didn't find any?

More than likely the water was always there in the past, we just didn't find it at that point in time. Simply because we cannot find something does not necessarily mean with absolute certainty that no God exists. At most, one can conclude that it's simply illogical to assume that such a God exists. And for all intents and purposes, that's still atheism. And you know, that's how science works. There is no 100% certainty. They'll allow 99.8% certainty to account for an unknown variable.

Strawman. I never claimed that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 6:01:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The definition of God. Look it up. Definitions are not assumptions.:

In the case of God, whatever that is, is a massive assumption. I'm sorry Geo, but the dictionary doesn't encapsulate what God is or isn't. Those are simply opinions laid out. What the dictionary can accurately define are tangible things.

If someone posits something that conflicts with reality, it does not exist.:

Then you is essence play the role of God and try to dictate rules for the universe, not the other way around.

For example, you can prove the nonexistence of Earths second moon. Or you can demonstrate the nature of a proposed thing is contradictory and therefore nonexistent.:

No, you cannot "prove" that. The great thing about it is that the burden of proof is the one who says it does exist. All the burden of proof is on them and not the atheist. The atheist is simply the skeptic. Big difference.

So if Gods existence can be demonstrated to be the same as positing a square circle, you have just disproved Gods existence.:

No, it just proves your ignorance on what constitutes proof.

I'll get to the rest of it later.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 6:08:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:15:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
The Immutability vs. Creation Argument

P1: If God exists, then he is immutable.
P2: If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
P3: An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
P4: For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have the intention to create it, and then at a later time after the creation he no longer has the intention to create it.
P5: Thus it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything. (P3, P4)
Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist. (P1, P2, P5)

StrongAtheism.net

I agree with Cosmic Alfonzo. I do not believe this logical argument works in practicality.

This definitional constraint/boundary being used to limit, when immutability was only ever used in an attempt to describe "certain" other attributes of God.

Nothing logically necessitates God's intentions as immutable. He could have countless attributes that are indeed immutable but "intent" does not logically or necessarily fall into that category.

Ex:
P1: God is immutable
P2: God speaks
P3: An immutable God cannot at one time be speaking and at another time not be speaking.
P4: Thus it is impossible for an immutable God to be speaking and not speaking.

Conclusion: Therefore it is impossible for God to exist.

No belief system would place a definitional constraint on God speaking as an immutable quality.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 8:42:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 6:08:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Nothing logically necessitates God's intentions as immutable. He could have countless attributes that are indeed immutable but "intent" does not logically or necessarily fall into that category.

The argument would be in the form of intent being a change in essence or nature, it is perfectly valid if applied to people. For example at this stage in your life you may have the intent to have children, it is likely you did not have this intent when you were a child - thus it can be claimed that your nature or essence had to change for you to have this intent now but not back then.

This is valid for us but we can not apply such a paradigm to God. Simply consider a cube and now consider walking around it and taking pictures from different angles/orientations. The cube appears to be changing, but all that is changing is our perspective. Similar we see intent in God as a change of his essence because we look at a moment in time and apply our paradigm of how we change with intent.

I like the talking example, this is constant throughout the dialogues as Socrates attacks the Sophists for using similar arguments by twisting words to create contradictions. When you first are introduced to that, as they were, it seems very clever, and is a little amusing. But of course when words like immutable and infinite are applied to God they refer to certain aspects, God is immutable in the fact that he always exists for example, or he is infinite in wisdom - he is not for example infinite in fatness.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 12:34:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
pleaze state a sorce for p1. thank you.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 12:43:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
please state a source for p1. thank you.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh