Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nothingness and causation

Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 9:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was thinking about premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument today ... and I came up with a syllogism that I think affirms the ancient principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit." Pardon me if this subject or something similar is getting repetitive, but I was wondering what everyone thought ...

P1. Nothingness lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, nothingness lacks the potential to cause

I was wondering if anyone thought this was valid, or if it were philosophically naive of me ...
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 9:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 9:46:38 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I was thinking about premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument today ... and I came up with a syllogism that I think affirms the ancient principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit." Pardon me if this subject or something similar is getting repetitive, but I was wondering what everyone thought ...

P1. Nothingness lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, nothingness lacks the potential to cause

I was wondering if anyone thought this was valid, or if it were philosophically naive of me ...

Well, the potential for the first something, could not be something, as this would be incoherent. For example, If I am engaged in the act of jumping, then it would be impossible for me to have the potential to engage in the first jump in existence while already in the act of jumping. If there is a flower, it would be impossible for it potentially turn into the first flower in existence, because it is already a flower. It being able to turn into the first flower in existence, at a point when it is already a flower, literally makes no sense like a spherical rectangle. Thus, the potential for the first something cannot be something.

Basically, the potential for the first something cannot exist if something does simultaneously. Thus, the potential for the first something, cannot be something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 9:59:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 9:46:38 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I was thinking about premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument today ... and I came up with a syllogism that I think affirms the ancient principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit." Pardon me if this subject or something similar is getting repetitive, but I was wondering what everyone thought ...

P1. Nothingness lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, nothingness lacks the potential to cause

I was wondering if anyone thought this was valid, or if it were philosophically naive of me ...

Also ex nihilo nihil fit has nothing to do with causation anyway. If something cannot come from nothing, then something cannot come from nothing. Whether in a causal, or acausal context.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:03:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 9:46:38 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I was thinking about premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument today ... and I came up with a syllogism that I think affirms the ancient principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit." Pardon me if this subject or something similar is getting repetitive, but I was wondering what everyone thought ...

P1. Nothingness lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, nothingness lacks the potential to cause

I was wondering if anyone thought this was valid, or if it were philosophically naive of me ...

Also, even if nothingness lacks the potential to cause. That says nothing about something beginning to exist from nothing without a cause at all.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:11:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A good argument for ex nihilo nihil fit, and the necessity of existence over non-existence, would be:

P1: The potential for the first actual "being" is impossible
P2: There is actual "being"
P3: Actual "Being" is necessary

To defend premise one, all one needs to do is point out that there would have to "be" this potential. But if it would "be" potential, then this means actual "being" already exists, and thus it could not be the potential for the first actual "being".

Premise two is self-evident.

Premise three logically follows. There never could have existed the mere potential for "being". Since there is "being", then this means actual "being" is necessary.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time. This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

(2) I'm pretty sure (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that the principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit" directly refers to causation -- nothingness simply cannot cause something.

(3) I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nothingness in science would be the ground state or lowest state of existence. It's not nothing literally, just a state that is void of particles, atoms, stars, you, me, or galaxies.. Consider it a pure energy state or highest possible level of entropy..

Science states that this state is highly unstable and thus lower entropy is always a possible state to which could self-induce an inflationary event.

However, first anything is going to be existence itself. And anything more will be emergent properties of existence.. Simple to understand :)
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:17:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:15:46 PM, TheJackel wrote:
Nothingness in science would be the ground state or lowest state of existence. It's not nothing literally, just a state that is void of particles, atoms, stars, you, me, or galaxies.. Consider it a pure energy state or highest possible level of entropy..

Science states that this state is highly unstable and thus lower entropy is always a possible state to which could self-induce an inflationary event.

However, first anything is going to be existence itself. And anything more will be emergent properties of existence.. Simple to understand :)

I am referring to the nothingness without existence ... since the creation of energy came with the creation of the Universe, your definition of "nothingness" fails ... There cannot be a "pure energy state" without energy itself.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:20:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:11:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A good argument for ex nihilo nihil fit, and the necessity of existence over non-existence, would be:

P1: The potential for the first actual "being" is impossible
P2: There is actual "being"
P3: Actual "Being" is necessary

To defend premise one, all one needs to do is point out that there would have to "be" this potential. But if it would "be" potential, then this means actual "being" already exists, and thus it could not be the potential for the first actual "being".

Premise two is self-evident.

Premise three logically follows. There never could have existed the mere potential for "being". Since there is "being", then this means actual "being" is necessary.

I read that a few times and understand what you're saying. I'm just philosophically naive.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:21:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 9:46:38 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
I was thinking about premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument today ... and I came up with a syllogism that I think affirms the ancient principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit." Pardon me if this subject or something similar is getting repetitive, but I was wondering what everyone thought ...

P1. Nothingness lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, nothingness lacks the potential to cause

I was wondering if anyone thought this was valid, or if it were philosophically naive of me ...

I don't see any way that nothingness can have anything, not even potential. If it does then it's not really nothingness. Seems perfectly valid to me.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:24:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:11:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A good argument for ex nihilo nihil fit, and the necessity of existence over non-existence, would be:

P1: The potential for the first actual "being" is impossible
P2: There is actual "being"
P3: Actual "Being" is necessary

To defend premise one, all one needs to do is point out that there would have to "be" this potential. But if it would "be" potential, then this means actual "being" already exists, and thus it could not be the potential for the first actual "being".

Premise two is self-evident.

Premise three logically follows. There never could have existed the mere potential for "being". Since there is "being", then this means actual "being" is necessary.

Consciousness cant exist without cause and thus P1 and P3 are falsified. Now saying there is "actual being" out to be your P1 as that relates to existence itself to which is the very nature of being.

P1 Nonexistence is impossible to exist as an existing person, place, object, substance or thing
P2 As above sates, this means Existence has no cause since the opposite is impossible to exist.
P3 Existence is the foundation and first cause
P4 Existence is the Totality of Causality, Every force to cause, and every rule or law of governance.
P5 All things come from existence
P6 All things in and of existence are emergent properties of existence itself
p7 All things require existence and it's rules to exist
P8 Existence is necessary

So what is first cause without existence?
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:26:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fix:
* Now saying there is "actual being", well that ought to be your P1 as that relates to existence itself to which is the very nature of being.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


(2) I'm pretty sure (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that the principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit" directly refers to causation -- nothingness simply cannot cause something.

Ex nihilo nihil fit simply means out of nothing, nothing comes. Or, something cannot come from nothing. It doesn't mean that nothing cannot cause anything (it says nothing on causation). And, if something cannot come from nothing, this means with a cause as well. If there is allowed an acception to the rule of ex nihilo nihil fit (which one has to admit if they believe in creatio ex nihilo), then it only seems rational to get rid of ex nihilo nihil fit all together. To believe that something cannot come from nothing, but to also believe that a being made something come from nothing, is a self-refuting position. That's like saying eggs don't boil, but I know a guy who biols eggs.


(3) I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:35:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


(2) I'm pretty sure (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that the principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit" directly refers to causation -- nothingness simply cannot cause something.

Ex nihilo nihil fit simply means out of nothing, nothing comes. Or, something cannot come from nothing. It doesn't mean that nothing cannot cause anything (it says nothing on causation). And, if something cannot come from nothing, this means with a cause as well. If there is allowed an acception to the rule of ex nihilo nihil fit (which one has to admit if they believe in creatio ex nihilo), then it only seems rational to get rid of ex nihilo nihil fit all together. To believe that something cannot come from nothing, but to also believe that a being made something come from nothing, is a self-refuting position. That's like saying eggs don't boil, but I know a guy who biols eggs.


(3) I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Correct.. And nothing can be used to make something. You can't take what doesn't exist and do something with it. It's as simple as understanding if that nothing existence, there wouldn't be an existence at all for anything to be, and that include nothing.. And that is impossible. Nothing can't do anything other than nothing at all. It has no capacity to literally exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:35:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:24:52 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:11:27 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
A good argument for ex nihilo nihil fit, and the necessity of existence over non-existence, would be:

P1: The potential for the first actual "being" is impossible
P2: There is actual "being"
P3: Actual "Being" is necessary

To defend premise one, all one needs to do is point out that there would have to "be" this potential. But if it would "be" potential, then this means actual "being" already exists, and thus it could not be the potential for the first actual "being".

Premise two is self-evident.

Premise three logically follows. There never could have existed the mere potential for "being". Since there is "being", then this means actual "being" is necessary.

Consciousness cant exist without cause and thus P1 and P3 are falsified.

That made no sense lol You cannot falsify the first premise, it is logically necessary.

Now saying there is "actual being" out to be your P1 as that relates to existence itself to which is the very nature of being.

P1 Nonexistence is impossible to exist as an existing person, place, object, substance or thing
P2 As above sates, this means Existence has no cause since the opposite is impossible to exist.
P3 Existence is the foundation and first cause
P4 Existence is the Totality of Causality, Every force to cause, and every rule or law of governance.
P5 All things come from existence
P6 All things in and of existence are emergent properties of existence itself
p7 All things require existence and it's rules to exist
P8 Existence is necessary

So what is first cause without existence?
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


Are you not presupposing that the Universe was the "first" something? I agree it was the actualization of space, time, matter, and energy -- but that doesn't make it the first "something," because abstract concepts like mathematics and potentiality, are possible in the absence of the Universe ... you'd have to prove that the abstract concept of potentiality was created with the Universe's beginning.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:38:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:35:51 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


(2) I'm pretty sure (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that the principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit" directly refers to causation -- nothingness simply cannot cause something.

Ex nihilo nihil fit simply means out of nothing, nothing comes. Or, something cannot come from nothing. It doesn't mean that nothing cannot cause anything (it says nothing on causation). And, if something cannot come from nothing, this means with a cause as well. If there is allowed an acception to the rule of ex nihilo nihil fit (which one has to admit if they believe in creatio ex nihilo), then it only seems rational to get rid of ex nihilo nihil fit all together. To believe that something cannot come from nothing, but to also believe that a being made something come from nothing, is a self-refuting position. That's like saying eggs don't boil, but I know a guy who biols eggs.


(3) I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Correct.. And nothing can be used to make something. You can't take what doesn't exist and do something with it. It's as simple as understanding if that nothing existence, there wouldn't be an existence at all for anything to be, and that include nothing.. And that is impossible. Nothing can't do anything other than nothing at all. It has no capacity to literally exist.

Something can come from nothing, but being cannot come from non-being. I guess it all boils down to semantics.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:35:51 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


(2) I'm pretty sure (if I'm wrong, please correct me) that the principle of "ex nihilo, nihil fit" directly refers to causation -- nothingness simply cannot cause something.

Ex nihilo nihil fit simply means out of nothing, nothing comes. Or, something cannot come from nothing. It doesn't mean that nothing cannot cause anything (it says nothing on causation). And, if something cannot come from nothing, this means with a cause as well. If there is allowed an acception to the rule of ex nihilo nihil fit (which one has to admit if they believe in creatio ex nihilo), then it only seems rational to get rid of ex nihilo nihil fit all together. To believe that something cannot come from nothing, but to also believe that a being made something come from nothing, is a self-refuting position. That's like saying eggs don't boil, but I know a guy who biols eggs.


(3) I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Correct.. And nothing can be used to make something. You can't take what doesn't exist and do something with it. It's as simple as understanding if that nothing existence, there wouldn't be an existence at all for anything to be, and that include nothing.. And that is impossible. Nothing can't do anything other than nothing at all. It has no capacity to literally exist.

I rarely know what the hell I'm talking about, so you're probably right.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:37:52 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


Are you not presupposing that the Universe was the "first" something? I agree it was the actualization of space, time, matter, and energy -- but that doesn't make it the first "something," because abstract concepts like mathematics and potentiality, are possible in the absence of the Universe ... you'd have to prove that the abstract concept of potentiality was created with the Universe's beginning.

The potential for the first something, logically, cannot be something. Did you skip my argument? If you accept the law of excluded middle for "nothing" and "something", then the potential for the first something, is "nothing", necessarily. I was improving your argument, by letting you know you should use the term "non-being" instead of "nothing".
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:43:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That made no sense lol You cannot falsify the first premise, it is logically necessary.

It makes perfect sense.. And I just did.. Let me help you:

What is consciousness without existence?

And a conscious state can't exist without cause, information, or the inertia of information and energy to which is what time is... Tell us, what requires more cause to exist?

A. An unconscious rock
Or:
B. A complex cognitive system capable of support a conscious state?

Well, it sure the hell isn't going to be a conscious being.. But let's actually demonstrate consciousness being able to exist without cause in video 1:

Yep, I can clearly make that argument.., and P1 of my argument is necessary..
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:41:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:37:52 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


Are you not presupposing that the Universe was the "first" something? I agree it was the actualization of space, time, matter, and energy -- but that doesn't make it the first "something," because abstract concepts like mathematics and potentiality, are possible in the absence of the Universe ... you'd have to prove that the abstract concept of potentiality was created with the Universe's beginning.

The potential for the first something, logically, cannot be something. Did you skip my argument? If you accept the law of excluded middle for "nothing" and "something", then the potential for the first something, is "nothing", necessarily. I was improving your argument, by letting you know you should use the term "non-being" instead of "nothing".

Alright. So you're saying my argument could work if it were phrased as the following...

P1. Non-being lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, non-being lacks the potential to cause

Also, I thought ex nihilo, nihil fit referred to causation, but I see now that I am incorrect.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:44:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:43:36 PM, TheJackel wrote:

That made no sense lol You cannot falsify the first premise, it is logically necessary.

It makes perfect sense.. And I just did.. Let me help you:

What is consciousness without existence?

And a conscious state can't exist without cause, information, or the inertia of information and energy to which is what time is... Tell us, what requires more cause to exist?

A. An unconscious rock
Or:
B. A complex cognitive system capable of support a conscious state?

Well, it sure the hell isn't going to be a conscious being.. But let's actually demonstrate consciousness being able to exist without cause in video 1:

Yep, I can clearly make that argument.., and P1 of my argument is necessary..

I never said anything about consciousness. So, you are refuting an argument I didn't make.

The first premise of my syllogism, is logically necessary.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:46:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
* being unable to exist without cause

So I would like to see someone prove my premises wrong since we are here discussing first cause..
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:48:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:44:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:43:36 PM, TheJackel wrote:

That made no sense lol You cannot falsify the first premise, it is logically necessary.

It makes perfect sense.. And I just did.. Let me help you:

What is consciousness without existence?

And a conscious state can't exist without cause, information, or the inertia of information and energy to which is what time is... Tell us, what requires more cause to exist?

A. An unconscious rock
Or:
B. A complex cognitive system capable of support a conscious state?

Well, it sure the hell isn't going to be a conscious being.. But let's actually demonstrate consciousness being able to exist without cause in video 1:

Yep, I can clearly make that argument.., and P1 of my argument is necessary..

I never said anything about consciousness. So, you are refuting an argument I didn't make.

The first premise of my syllogism, is logically necessary.

Which is simply falsified by the P1 I outlined. Your P1 makes a false premise. :/
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:44:16 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:41:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:37:52 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:30:38 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:13:22 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
(1) But the first "something" you're referring to is the creation of matter, space, energy, and time.This would only work if the Universe also created abstract concepts like potentiality or mathematics, both of which can exist nonspatiotemporally, but not in pure nihility.

I was saying that the potential for the first something, would be "nothing" necessarily (because, the potential for the first something could not be "something"). Unless you believe the law of excluded middle doesn't apply to "nothing" and "something".


Are you not presupposing that the Universe was the "first" something? I agree it was the actualization of space, time, matter, and energy -- but that doesn't make it the first "something," because abstract concepts like mathematics and potentiality, are possible in the absence of the Universe ... you'd have to prove that the abstract concept of potentiality was created with the Universe's beginning.

The potential for the first something, logically, cannot be something. Did you skip my argument? If you accept the law of excluded middle for "nothing" and "something", then the potential for the first something, is "nothing", necessarily. I was improving your argument, by letting you know you should use the term "non-being" instead of "nothing".

Alright. So you're saying my argument could work if it were phrased as the following...

P1. Non-being lacks anything
P2. The potential to cause is something
C. Therefore, non-being lacks the potential to cause

Also, I thought ex nihilo, nihil fit referred to causation, but I see now that I am incorrect.

Well, let me rephrase. Your argument works with "nothing" as. What I meant to say, is that the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit itself can be falsified, if the we are using the term "nothing" and "something". However, it is air tight if we use the term "being" and "non-being".

Also, theists always support the first premise of the KCA with the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit, but I fail to see how ex nihilo nihil fit is relevant to supporting the first premise. Something can begin to exist, even if it's not from nothing (like chairs and TV's) . Thus, if this ever happened without a cause, the first premise would still be falsified. Thus means, ex nihilo nihil fit cannot be used as a priori support for the first premise. This is because, the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit could be completely true, with the first premise being completely false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:50:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:48:34 PM, TheJackel wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:44:35 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:43:36 PM, TheJackel wrote:

That made no sense lol You cannot falsify the first premise, it is logically necessary.

It makes perfect sense.. And I just did.. Let me help you:

What is consciousness without existence?

And a conscious state can't exist without cause, information, or the inertia of information and energy to which is what time is... Tell us, what requires more cause to exist?

A. An unconscious rock
Or:
B. A complex cognitive system capable of support a conscious state?

Well, it sure the hell isn't going to be a conscious being.. But let's actually demonstrate consciousness being able to exist without cause in video 1:

Yep, I can clearly make that argument.., and P1 of my argument is necessary..

I never said anything about consciousness. So, you are refuting an argument I didn't make.

The first premise of my syllogism, is logically necessary.

Which is simply falsified by the P1 I outlined. Your P1 makes a false premise. :/

Huh? You are going on about consciousness, that had nothing to do with my argument lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:54:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:46:00 PM, TheJackel wrote:
* being unable to exist without cause

So I would like to see someone prove my premises wrong since we are here discussing first cause..

If you want to refute someone's premise, you first have to start by actually addressing what they said, and not going on about a topic that has nothing to do with it. I said nothing about consciousness. The first premise CANNOT be falsified.

The potential for the first actual "being" (analogous to something) is impossible. This is because, there would have to "be" this potential, but if there would "be" this potential, then actual "being" already exists, making the potential for the first "being" a logical impossibility.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 10:58:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Again, even the potential for the first actual "being", would have to actually "be" in the first place. Making the potential for the first actual "being", a logical impossibility.
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2012 11:11:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/23/2012 10:54:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 8/23/2012 10:46:00 PM, TheJackel wrote:
* being unable to exist without cause

So I would like to see someone prove my premises wrong since we are here discussing first cause..

If you want to refute someone's premise, you first have to start by actually addressing what they said, and not going on about a topic that has nothing to do with it. I said nothing about consciousness. The first premise CANNOT be falsified.

The potential for the first actual "being" (analogous to something) is impossible. This is because, there would have to "be" this potential, but if there would "be" this potential, then actual "being" already exists, making the potential for the first "being" a logical impossibility.

Consciousness was an example, and when you used the term "being", most people think you are referring to a conscious being.. If you were referring to existence and the state of, then you would be correct and just be stating the same P1 I did. . All it makes is that the the first being just is as the foundation for everything else. Now making the potential of creating the first Being would be impossible. That I can agree with :)