Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theists, if you think the KCA is sound...

Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.
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
7/30/2013 8:42:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Agreed. Oddly enough, I used to agree with P2, and I tried to fight P1. However, after getting into metaphysics (mostly dealing with time, but in other areas as well), I have realized that P1 is probably correct (if we equate P1 with ex nihilo nihil fir), and that P2 is the flawed premise.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 9:07:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
However, I would say that while premise 1 is true, and that everything that begins to exist has a cause. It is a trivial premise. The reason is, the premise doesn't say"everything that begins to exist, has every type of cause, it just alludes to the notion that there at least has to be some type of cause. Ok, I can get on board with that. If the universe began to exist, it must have at least had one type of cause. It couldn't have just come from absolutely nothing. Here is where the argument for God falls apart....If God exists, then not only is the necessary cause of the universe (his existence and the will to create the universe, would be the necessary cause), but also the sufficient cause of the universe (not his will, but his acting on his will, or his undertaking, would be the sufficient cause). Why is this problematic? Well, the argument for God off of that Kalam is that a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions would entail the universe was eternal in the past, only agent causation can get you out of the dilemma. However, this implies that sufficient conditions are required! The first premise only says the universe could not have come from complete non-being, and that it must have a cause. It doesn't say that everything must have a sufficient cause specifically.

Imagine a lake. Now, imagine a gravity defying drop of water drips up from the lake and into the sky, almost as if gravity was in reverse just for that drop. Now, imagine that the drop began to exist without any reason. This would not violate ex nihilo nihil fit, or the first premise at all. Why? Because the drop came from something (the lake), and it had a cause (the lake was the necessary cause). However, there was no sufficient cause for the drop, it just, happened! This may be a bizarre scenario, but quantum mechanics is more bizarre than the scenario I mentioned, and that is well accepted. Bizarre doesn't mean false. So, the theist has to show that everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause. The first premise, as is, is trivial as God would be the sufficient cause of the universe. How can this be an argument for God, if a sufficient cause is not required?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.


Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.

It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?



Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:16:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.

It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?

Yes, one metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one. However, there is nothing metaphysically impossible with simultaneous causation. If God created the universe, then this is how he would do it.




Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified

That has nothing to do with metaphysical impossibility. Those were just added support on top of the principle. That is not what the principle is founded on.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 10:47:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 10:16:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.


It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?

Yes, one metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one. However, there is nothing metaphysically impossible with simultaneous causation. If God created the universe, then this is how he would do it.

That would require a timeless God being the cause of an act of God, which can't be the case, since causation can only happen in time.





Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified

That has nothing to do with metaphysical impossibility. Those were just added support on top of the principle. That is not what the principle is founded on.

Yeah I think it is. Why what do you think it's based on ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.


Why don't you look it up then?

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 11:25:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.


Why don't you look it up then?

I have.

And what I have found is that people seem to think just because you can state such a meta claim, then present argument to support the meta claim, that constitutes some objective criteria that establishes what is or isn't meta impossible.

It doesn't.

It basically comes down too, make up a claim, then use what you can to justify it. Well then.........game on.

Metaclaim - It is impossible for personal causation absent pre-existing material

Always affirmed, never falsified.

Would you like to state a metaphysical impossibility ? It's fun for the whole family, ages 0 - 90.


It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:49:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 10:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:16:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.


It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?

Yes, one metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one. However, there is nothing metaphysically impossible with simultaneous causation. If God created the universe, then this is how he would do it.

That would require a timeless God being the cause of an act of God, which can't be the case, since causation can only happen in time.

You forget that God would create the universe in time, as his creative act would exist simultaneously with the first moment of the universe. God would exist timelessly, as a necessary cause or condition, but the actual act of creation (the sufficient cause) would take place in time. Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal.






Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified

That has nothing to do with metaphysical impossibility. Those were just added support on top of the principle. That is not what the principle is founded on.

Yeah I think it is. Why what do you think it's based on ?

Always confirmed and never falsified would just extra-icing on the cake. Even without that, one could still argue for ex nihilo nihil fit a priori.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:58:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Don't mean to be a troll, but just sayin what others are thinking ..

Dude, you have debated this topic like 100 times over and over again ..

maybe time to find another topic? Don't get me wrong your good at it, heck i even used your arguments as a basis for my own when challenged on the KCA, but seriously? Don't you ever get bored of this ONE topic?
Thank you for voting!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 11:59:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 11:37:53 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 11:25:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.


Why don't you look it up then?

I have.

And what I have found is that people seem to think just because you can state such a meta claim, then present argument to support the meta claim, that constitutes some objective criteria that establishes what is or isn't meta impossible.

It doesn't.

It basically comes down too, make up a claim, then use what you can to justify it. Well then.........game on.

Metaclaim - It is impossible for personal causation absent pre-existing material

Always affirmed, never falsified.

Would you like to state a metaphysical impossibility ? It's fun for the whole family, ages 0 - 90.


It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

"Would you like to state a metaphysical impossibility ? It's fun for the whole family, ages 0 - 90."

Oh dear Lord haha Do you honestly think that's how metaphysics works? The fact that all minds we observe seem to be dependent on brains, doesn't mean that it is metaphysically impossible for their to be a person before matter, just physically impossible at best. A metaphysical impossibility would be like:

"Something coming into being without temporal becoming"

Basically, if temporal becoming is an illusion (like B-Theory states), then nothing comes into being. However, that is not a logically necessary truth, as there is no contradiction in the idea of a B-Theory universe coming into being. However, it is metaphysically impossible because if a B-Theory universe came into being, then you could hypothetically time how long it's actually been in being, which would actually entail temporal becoming.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:09:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 11:49:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:16:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.


It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?

Yes, one metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one. However, there is nothing metaphysically impossible with simultaneous causation. If God created the universe, then this is how he would do it.

That would require a timeless God being the cause of an act of God, which can't be the case, since causation can only happen in time.

You forget that God would create the universe in time, as his creative act would exist simultaneously with the first moment of the universe. God would exist timelessly, as a necessary cause or condition, but the actual act of creation (the sufficient cause) would take place in time. Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal.

" Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal. " Says you. But back to the main point.....

But the act of God (the effect) is caused by a God who is timeless so the effect can't be before or even simultaneous with the cause (timeless God) ergo based on that metaphysical impossibility of causation can't happen absent time, a timeless God didn't cause jack.







Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified

That has nothing to do with metaphysical impossibility. Those were just added support on top of the principle. That is not what the principle is founded on.

Yeah I think it is. Why what do you think it's based on ?

Always confirmed and never falsified would just extra-icing on the cake. Even without that, one could still argue for ex nihilo nihil fit a priori.

Oh ok then, one could still argue that causation doesn't happen absent time as a prior.

Metaphysical impossibilities.............AWWWW YEAH !!!!!!!!
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:15:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 12:09:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 11:49:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:16:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.


It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?

Yes, one metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one. However, there is nothing metaphysically impossible with simultaneous causation. If God created the universe, then this is how he would do it.

That would require a timeless God being the cause of an act of God, which can't be the case, since causation can only happen in time.

You forget that God would create the universe in time, as his creative act would exist simultaneously with the first moment of the universe. God would exist timelessly, as a necessary cause or condition, but the actual act of creation (the sufficient cause) would take place in time. Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal.

" Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal. " Says you. But back to the main point.....

But the act of God (the effect) is caused by a God who is timeless so the effect can't be before or even simultaneous with the cause (timeless God) ergo based on that metaphysical impossibility of causation can't happen absent time, a timeless God didn't cause jack.








Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified

That has nothing to do with metaphysical impossibility. Those were just added support on top of the principle. That is not what the principle is founded on.

Yeah I think it is. Why what do you think it's based on ?

Always confirmed and never falsified would just extra-icing on the cake. Even without that, one could still argue for ex nihilo nihil fit a priori.

Oh ok then, one could still argue that causation doesn't happen absent time as a prior.

Metaphysical impossibilities.............AWWWW YEAH !!!!!!!!

There is no metaphysical impossibility of a cause without time though, not that I know of.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:17:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see how that would be metaphysically impossible. Maybe if the cause involved motion, because that would require temporal becoming. But a cause that requires no motion, would not need time.
YYW
Posts: 36,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:29:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 7:50:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
...Then defend it in a debate against me!

http://www.debate.org...

As a Christian, I can tell you that it -and every single other argument for the existence of God- is not. Christians argue for God's existence only because their faith is insufficient, or because they don't know what faith is.
Tsar of DDO
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:31:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 12:15:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 12:09:43 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 11:49:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:47:14 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:16:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:12:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/30/2013 10:01:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/30/2013 9:35:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
It has never being explained to me what the rules are for determining what is metaphysically possible vs impossible.

It is claimed that is is meta impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause.

Well I can claim its meta impossible for causation to happen absent time.

If God created the universe, then this act of creation would occur simultaneously with the first moment of time. This means, the creation moment would not happen absent of time. God could be the necessary cause, and would be timeless, but the actual sufficient condition (God's undertaking of creation) would take place at the first moment of time, along with the beginning of the universe. There is nothing metaphysically impossible about a timeless state causally prior to the universe without time.


It is impossible, according the rule premise I just said. One metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one eh ?

Yes, one metaphysical impossibility is just as good as the next one. However, there is nothing metaphysically impossible with simultaneous causation. If God created the universe, then this is how he would do it.

That would require a timeless God being the cause of an act of God, which can't be the case, since causation can only happen in time.

You forget that God would create the universe in time, as his creative act would exist simultaneously with the first moment of the universe. God would exist timelessly, as a necessary cause or condition, but the actual act of creation (the sufficient cause) would take place in time. Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal.

" Also, even a timeless sufficient cause is not incoherent, or metaphysically impossible, the effect would just have to be eternal. " Says you. But back to the main point.....

But the act of God (the effect) is caused by a God who is timeless so the effect can't be before or even simultaneous with the cause (timeless God) ergo based on that metaphysical impossibility of causation can't happen absent time, a timeless God didn't cause jack.








Or its meta impossible for personal causation to happen without pre-existing material

Based on everything we know about the mind's dependence on the brain, personal causation without pre-existing material seems physically implausible (maybe even physically impossible). However, I don't see how you could argue that it is metaphysically impossible.

The same way that some one like William Craig argues for his metaphysically claims those being....

1) The appeal to absurdity
2) Always confirmed, never falsified

That has nothing to do with metaphysical impossibility. Those were just added support on top of the principle. That is not what the principle is founded on.

Yeah I think it is. Why what do you think it's based on ?

Always confirmed and never falsified would just extra-icing on the cake. Even without that, one could still argue for ex nihilo nihil fit a priori.

Oh ok then, one could still argue that causation doesn't happen absent time as a prior.

Metaphysical impossibilities.............AWWWW YEAH !!!!!!!!

There is no metaphysical impossibility of a cause without time though, not that I know of.

Oh really ? And that is the question I keep asking. What determines what is metaphysically possible and more importanlty what is metaphysically IMPOSSIBLE ?

What are the rules for deciding metaphysical truth ? well there aren't any....
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:40:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

Aye, the entropy point is pretty convincing. I'm definitely more convinced of P1 though.
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
7/31/2013 1:46:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

The universe coming into being is in no way synonymous with a finite past. This should be self-evident. The universe coming into being also does not follow from a finite past. That is clearly a non-sequitur. I am not sure where Craig, and other theists gets off making this unjustified metaphysical assumption. Secondly, the second premise rests on the A-Theory of time, which is the least favored theory of time in metaphysics due to many inherent problems. Not only that, but that standard Big Bang model predicts a singularity. This is a mathematically impermissible, as it entails temperature, curvature, and density that is n/0. Division by 0 makes no sense and is impossible. Thus, the singularity at t=0 is impossible. However, there is no first decimal after 0:

t=" 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001"

Thus, there is no first state that springs into being ex nihilo.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:48:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:40:06 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

Aye, the entropy point is pretty convincing. I'm definitely more convinced of P1 though.

Also, I've been meaning to ask you a couple things (since you are clearly more well-versed than I in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition):

Aquinas thought it was in fact the case that the universe did begin to exist, but thought that it would be perfectly coherent for the universe to have existed for eternity (and yet still owe its existence to God). But, if we were to suppose that the universe did exist for eternity, it seems to me, vis-a-vis the arguments against the traversing of an infinity, for it to be impossible to arrive at the present moment, as, in order for this moment to come to pass, an infinite of moments must have preceded it. Any thoughts on this?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:52:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:46:55 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

The universe coming into being is in no way synonymous with a finite past. This should be self-evident. The universe coming into being also does not follow from a finite past. That is clearly a non-sequitur. I am not sure where Craig, and other theists gets off making this unjustified metaphysical assumption. Secondly, the second premise rests on the A-Theory of time, which is the least favored theory of time in metaphysics due to many inherent problems. Not only that, but that standard Big Bang model predicts a singularity. This is a mathematically impermissible, as it entails temperature, curvature, and density that is n/0. Division by 0 makes no sense and is impossible. Thus, the singularity at t=0 is impossible. However, there is no first decimal after 0:

t=" 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001"

Thus, there is no first state that springs into being ex nihilo.

To clarify, you do accept the supposition that the universe began to exist (or it's B-theory semantical equivalent)?
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:54:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:48:02 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:40:06 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

Aye, the entropy point is pretty convincing. I'm definitely more convinced of P1 though.

Also, I've been meaning to ask you a couple things (since you are clearly more well-versed than I in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition):

Aquinas thought it was in fact the case that the universe did begin to exist, but thought that it would be perfectly coherent for the universe to have existed for eternity (and yet still owe its existence to God). But, if we were to suppose that the universe did exist for eternity, it seems to me, vis-a-vis the arguments against the traversing of an infinity, for it to be impossible to arrive at the present moment, as, in order for this moment to come to pass, an infinite of moments must have preceded it. Any thoughts on this?

Pardon if I'm repeating stuff you already know.

Well, Aquinas was distinguishing between an accidental series and an essential series. An essentially-ordered series is one in which the moved only moves inasmuch as the prior mover. Feser uses the example of a cup on a table -- the cup only rests there inasmuch as the table holds it there. Obviously, this sort of series cannot proceed to infinity, because it is not accidental that a mover precedes it -- for the moved can only move inasmuch as the prior mover, thus requiring a mover before it. (This is obviously the framework for the First Way.)

But, with an accidentally-ordered series, it is only "incidental" that a mover precedes it. For the moved can move beyond the motion of the mover (this does not negate the need for the priority of an actual). Thus, Aquinas believed that a construction worker could hammer a nail constantly to infinity, because it is only incidental that some event preceded it -- it does not absolutely mandate a simultaneous mover.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:05:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:54:08 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:48:02 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:40:06 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

Aye, the entropy point is pretty convincing. I'm definitely more convinced of P1 though.

Also, I've been meaning to ask you a couple things (since you are clearly more well-versed than I in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition):

Aquinas thought it was in fact the case that the universe did begin to exist, but thought that it would be perfectly coherent for the universe to have existed for eternity (and yet still owe its existence to God). But, if we were to suppose that the universe did exist for eternity, it seems to me, vis-a-vis the arguments against the traversing of an infinity, for it to be impossible to arrive at the present moment, as, in order for this moment to come to pass, an infinite of moments must have preceded it. Any thoughts on this?

Pardon if I'm repeating stuff you already know.

Well, Aquinas was distinguishing between an accidental series and an essential series. An essentially-ordered series is one in which the moved only moves inasmuch as the prior mover. Feser uses the example of a cup on a table -- the cup only rests there inasmuch as the table holds it there. Obviously, this sort of series cannot proceed to infinity, because it is not accidental that a mover precedes it -- for the moved can only move inasmuch as the prior mover, thus requiring a mover before it. (This is obviously the framework for the First Way.)

But, with an accidentally-ordered series, it is only "incidental" that a mover precedes it. For the moved can move beyond the motion of the mover (this does not negate the need for the priority of an actual). Thus, Aquinas believed that a construction worker could hammer a nail constantly to infinity, because it is only incidental that some event preceded it -- it does not absolutely mandate a simultaneous mover.

Well, I guess I'll have to dust off my copy of The Last Superstition because most of this stuff is just flying over my head. Thanks for the insight, Nur.
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 2:06:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 2:05:06 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:54:08 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:48:02 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:40:06 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:36:24 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:20:25 AM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:12:34 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 7/30/2013 8:20:06 PM, Nur-Ab-Sal wrote:
Premise 2 is really difficult to defend, in my opinion. I used to think it was pretty solid, but I'm not as certain anymore.

Why?

Well, if we have an infinite set of events ordered temporally, then it is just "incidental" (as Saint Thomas puts it) that some other event preceded it. So no matter how far back we go, there can be another event before it, and from there to this time is finite, and so can be traversed. But then there's the fallacy of composition, and I honestly don't even know how to answer that.

Like I said, I don't really know -- I'm just not as certain about premise 2 as I used to be.

Aye, I'm quite certain Craig has sufficiently rebutted this objection (if I recall correctly, in both On Guard and Reasonable Faith). As far P2 goes, it seems to me to be, after reflection, clearly true. We have not only an enormous amount of empirical evidence for the finitude of the past (2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe, etc.) and virtually no evidence to the contrary, but also non-empirical evidence as well.

Aye, the entropy point is pretty convincing. I'm definitely more convinced of P1 though.

Also, I've been meaning to ask you a couple things (since you are clearly more well-versed than I in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition):

Aquinas thought it was in fact the case that the universe did begin to exist, but thought that it would be perfectly coherent for the universe to have existed for eternity (and yet still owe its existence to God). But, if we were to suppose that the universe did exist for eternity, it seems to me, vis-a-vis the arguments against the traversing of an infinity, for it to be impossible to arrive at the present moment, as, in order for this moment to come to pass, an infinite of moments must have preceded it. Any thoughts on this?

Pardon if I'm repeating stuff you already know.

Well, Aquinas was distinguishing between an accidental series and an essential series. An essentially-ordered series is one in which the moved only moves inasmuch as the prior mover. Feser uses the example of a cup on a table -- the cup only rests there inasmuch as the table holds it there. Obviously, this sort of series cannot proceed to infinity, because it is not accidental that a mover precedes it -- for the moved can only move inasmuch as the prior mover, thus requiring a mover before it. (This is obviously the framework for the First Way.)

But, with an accidentally-ordered series, it is only "incidental" that a mover precedes it. For the moved can move beyond the motion of the mover (this does not negate the need for the priority of an actual). Thus, Aquinas believed that a construction worker could hammer a nail constantly to infinity, because it is only incidental that some event preceded it -- it does not absolutely mandate a simultaneous mover.

Well, I guess I'll have to dust off my copy of The Last Superstition because most of this stuff is just flying over my head. Thanks for the insight, Nur.

I don't really know where I stand on an eternal past -- that's why I almost exclusively use the First Way now.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.