Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25

# Everything was caused into existence ex-nihil

 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:04:57 PMPosted: 3 years agoThis is hard to explain so bear with me and try to understand the concept.Either everything regresses back to an eternal uncaused cause of all contingent causes or to a point where something came from literally absolutely nothing. Remember that under both the A and B theories of time, anything that doesn't eternally exists contingently on some preceding cause. This topic focuses on what this eternal necessary cause could NOT have been.It's impossible for this uncaused causal mechanism to be eternal while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect. Let's focus on what may have randomly caused the Big Bang.Assume that pure energy existed prior to the Big Bang and that it has always existed. This energy randomly fluctuates and every time this fluctuation occurs, there's an infinitesimally small chance that it can cause the Big Bang. Let's say that there's only a 10^2000 chance that with every fluctuation the Big Bang will occur. The actualization of this probability is finite. In other words, there can't be an infinitely existing thing with a probability that some effect will occur because this effect is bound to be actualized after so many fluctuations. Once this effect is actualized, the amount of preceding fluctuations leading up to this effect are quantifiable. Once you can quantify something it is finite or with limited totality. The absolute beginning of this thing is inevitably reached and could never been eternal at all.So if nothing can eternally exist while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect, either everything was created ex nihilo or by the will of an eternally existing thing. Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:06:02 PMPosted: 3 years agoDang the title cut off. It was supposed to read "Everything was caused into existence ex-nihilo or by God."
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:24:18 PMPosted: 3 years agoAre you saying that the "pure energy" that existed prior to the Big Bang no longer exists? To analogize, if I turn a random chunk of Play-Doh into a ball, does the chunk of Play-Doh cease to exist?I would say that the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang, that caused it in your hypothetical situation, still exists in the form of matter and other types of energy. Couldn't energy, in general, be eternal and simply change forms? That would be completely consistent with with our understanding of it.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:29:15 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:24:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:Are you saying that the "pure energy" that existed prior to the Big Bang no longer exists? To analogize, if I turn a random chunk of Play-Doh into a ball, does the chunk of Play-Doh cease to exist?I would say that the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang, that caused it in your hypothetical situation, still exists in the form of matter and other types of energy. Couldn't energy, in general, be eternal and simply change forms? That would be completely consistent with with our understanding of it.No I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that energy itself could not be eternal if energy had an innate probability of some transformative effect.
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:30:07 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:24:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:Are you saying that the "pure energy" that existed prior to the Big Bang no longer exists? To analogize, if I turn a random chunk of Play-Doh into a ball, does the chunk of Play-Doh cease to exist?I would say that the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang, that caused it in your hypothetical situation, still exists in the form of matter and other types of energy. Couldn't energy, in general, be eternal and simply change forms? That would be completely consistent with with our understanding of it.No I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that energy itself could not be eternal if energy had an innate probability of some transformative effect.How is energy not eternal if it transforms, yet cannot be created or destroyed?
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:33:04 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:04:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either everything regresses back to an eternal uncaused cause of all contingent causes or to a point where something came from literally absolutely nothing.If that is true, then God could not cause it. Because God =/= nothing, lol. The only conclusion you can draw is *perhaps* "the universe at one point didn't exist". With the universe defined as everything within our four dimensional spacetime.Remember that under both the A and B theories of time, anything that doesn't eternally exists contingently on some preceding cause. This topic focuses on what this eternal necessary cause could NOT have been.Alright, barring the fact that it's a barely coherent concept to speak of causality and contingency when talking about the universe as a whole, let's accept for the sake of argument there was some cause or explanation...It's impossible for this uncaused causal mechanism to be eternal while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect.That's not the only way in which it could work, nor it it the most regarded possibility, especially if you ask membrane theorists.Let's focus on what may have randomly caused the Big Bang.Assume that pure energy existed prior to the Big Bang and that it has always existed. This energy randomly fluctuates and every time this fluctuation occurs, there's an infinitesimally small chance that it can cause the Big Bang.This entire sentence presupposes the existence of time... You see the problem in that, right.Let's say that there's only a 10^2000 chance that with every fluctuation the Big Bang will occur. The actualization of this probability is finite. In other words, there can't be an infinitely existing thing with a probability that some effect will occur because this effect is bound to be actualized after so many fluctuations. Once this effect is actualized, the amount of preceding fluctuations leading up to this effect are quantifiable.Depends on what time is. On many multiverse models (such as internal inflation), what is 'fluctuating' IS some form of spacetime. So it becomes incoherent to speak of 'resolving events'. Also fluxuations aren't literal fluxuations like ripples on a pond, although what they are exactly depends on the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Take your pick, there are over 10 of them.Once you can quantify something it is finite or with limited totality.What is birthed might be, but not necessarily the stuff it came from.The absolute beginning of this thing is inevitably reached and could never been eternal at all.It helps a lot of you try to imagine time as simply a 4th dimension of space (for the sake of coming up with explanations, not for understanding the ontology necessarily).So imagine this 'energy', or whatever as an infinitely large sheet of carpet. Now randomly, bubbles on the carpet appear and disappear. These bubbles are four-dimensional pocket 'universes'. If you were holding a clock on this carpet, it would never tick. But if you take a clock into one of those bubbles, then it would tick.I know this is a horrific analogy which gets 90% of physics wrong, but it suffices to show that there are a plethora of possibilities.So if nothing can eternally exist while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect, either everything was created ex nihilo or by the will of an eternally existing thing.Suddenly this being comes out of nowhere as a possibility. If you can just as easily propose a being as a possibility, then you can just as well propose a plethora of non-being possibilities.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 4:41:45 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:30:07 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:24:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:Are you saying that the "pure energy" that existed prior to the Big Bang no longer exists? To analogize, if I turn a random chunk of Play-Doh into a ball, does the chunk of Play-Doh cease to exist?I would say that the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang, that caused it in your hypothetical situation, still exists in the form of matter and other types of energy. Couldn't energy, in general, be eternal and simply change forms? That would be completely consistent with with our understanding of it.No I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that energy itself could not be eternal if energy had an innate probability of some transformative effect.How is energy not eternal if it transforms, yet cannot be created or destroyed?Imagine energy in its purest, earliest state. This energy existed eternally. In an extremely unlikely event, a fluctuation of this energy caused the Big Bang.Now, if this fluctuation occurred, and caused the Big Bang, the probability of this fluctuation occurring was an innate probability of this energy. If this probability wasn't innate, it would never have been possible to cause the Big Bang.Since energy had an innate probability of causing this specific effect (the Big Bang by fluctuation), and since energy itself is eternal, this effect will inevitably happen. But if we can quantify an inevitable effect by counting the number of prior fluctuations leading up to this effect, the existence of this energy has limited totality. It isn't eternal.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:33:04 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:04:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Either everything regresses back to an eternal uncaused cause of all contingent causes or to a point where something came from literally absolutely nothing.If that is true, then God could not cause it. Because God =/= nothing, lol. The only conclusion you can draw is *perhaps* "the universe at one point didn't exist". With the universe defined as everything within our four dimensional spacetime.God would fall under the category of an eternal uncaused cause of all contingent causes.Remember that under both the A and B theories of time, anything that doesn't eternally exists contingently on some preceding cause. This topic focuses on what this eternal necessary cause could NOT have been.Alright, barring the fact that it's a barely coherent concept to speak of causality and contingency when talking about the universe as a whole, let's accept for the sake of argument there was some cause or explanation...Let's focus on what caused the Big Bang. We both agree that the Big Bang had a cause, correct?It's impossible for this uncaused causal mechanism to be eternal while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect.That's not the only way in which it could work, nor it it the most regarded possibility, especially if you ask membrane theorists.Do you agree with what I said then?Let's focus on what may have randomly caused the Big Bang.Assume that pure energy existed prior to the Big Bang and that it has always existed. This energy randomly fluctuates and every time this fluctuation occurs, there's an infinitesimally small chance that it can cause the Big Bang.This entire sentence presupposes the existence of time... You see the problem in that, right.The problem remains the same though. Laws of causality are still the same under the B theory of time. "Prior" to the Big Bang is a simpler way of conceptualizing my point.Let's say that there's only a 10^2000 chance that with every fluctuation the Big Bang will occur. The actualization of this probability is finite. In other words, there can't be an infinitely existing thing with a probability that some effect will occur because this effect is bound to be actualized after so many fluctuations. Once this effect is actualized, the amount of preceding fluctuations leading up to this effect are quantifiable.Depends on what time is. On many multiverse models (such as internal inflation), what is 'fluctuating' IS some form of spacetime. So it becomes incoherent to speak of 'resolving events'. Also fluxuations aren't literal fluxuations like ripples on a pond, although what they are exactly depends on the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. Take your pick, there are over 10 of them.It still suffers the same problem unless laws of causality are violated by this.Once you can quantify something it is finite or with limited totality.What is birthed might be, but not necessarily the stuff it came from.The stuff it came from is necessarily limited. You can't have any innate, inevitable effect within an eternal substance because you could always quantify a beginning to that supposed eternal substance based on the amount of fluctuations leading up to that effect.The absolute beginning of this thing is inevitably reached and could never been eternal at all.It helps a lot of you try to imagine time as simply a 4th dimension of space (for the sake of coming up with explanations, not for understanding the ontology necessarily).So imagine this 'energy', or whatever as an infinitely large sheet of carpet. Now randomly, bubbles on the carpet appear and disappear. These bubbles are four-dimensional pocket 'universes'. If you were holding a clock on this carpet, it would never tick. But if you take a clock into one of those bubbles, then it would tick.I know this is a horrific analogy which gets 90% of physics wrong, but it suffices to show that there are a plethora of possibilities.Would this violate laws of causality? I don't see how it could be done any other way.So if nothing can eternally exist while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect, either everything was created ex nihilo or by the will of an eternally existing thing.Suddenly this being comes out of nowhere as a possibility. If you can just as easily propose a being as a possibility, then you can just as well propose a plethora of non-being possibilities.The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?
 Posts: 1,310 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:37:31 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:41:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:30:07 PM, Burzmali wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:29:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 4:24:18 PM, Burzmali wrote:Are you saying that the "pure energy" that existed prior to the Big Bang no longer exists? To analogize, if I turn a random chunk of Play-Doh into a ball, does the chunk of Play-Doh cease to exist?I would say that the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang, that caused it in your hypothetical situation, still exists in the form of matter and other types of energy. Couldn't energy, in general, be eternal and simply change forms? That would be completely consistent with with our understanding of it.No I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that energy itself could not be eternal if energy had an innate probability of some transformative effect.How is energy not eternal if it transforms, yet cannot be created or destroyed?Imagine energy in its purest, earliest state. This energy existed eternally. In an extremely unlikely event, a fluctuation of this energy caused the Big Bang.Now, if this fluctuation occurred, and caused the Big Bang, the probability of this fluctuation occurring was an innate probability of this energy. If this probability wasn't innate, it would never have been possible to cause the Big Bang.Since energy had an innate probability of causing this specific effect (the Big Bang by fluctuation), and since energy itself is eternal, this effect will inevitably happen. But if we can quantify an inevitable effect by counting the number of prior fluctuations leading up to this effect, the existence of this energy has limited totality. It isn't eternal.Okay. Can we actually quantify such an inevitable event? You seem to think such a think could be quantified, but you offer no evidence to support that idea. Also, why does the ability to quantify an aspect of something mean it has "limited totality?"
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:41:41 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?Remember that what my argument focuses on is the possibility of an eternally existent thing having an innate probability of causing an effect. My argument has shown that this is *logically impossible*.If an eternally existent thing has a causal effect by will, it is *logically possible* for this thing to have existed for eternity because the effect was never inevitable.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:46:31 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:41:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?Remember that what my argument focuses on is the possibility of an eternally existent thing having an innate probability of causing an effect. My argument has shown that this is *logically impossible*.If an eternally existent thing has a causal effect by will, it is *logically possible* for this thing to have existed for eternity because the effect was never inevitable.But neither is something that is probabilistic. Since you can go for as long as you want and the event still may not have occurred.Also you exhibit the same problem but in reverse. God waits for eternity before creating the universe, so the universe never gets created, lol. A naturalistic explanation can do the same thing, wait for eternity and then *poof* out a universe. There is nothing incoherent about postulating such if postulating God is apparently coherent in doing so.Also naturalistic explanations can be timeless, and have an infinite number of universes along it's 'timeline'. With no beginning, and no end. Which is a perfectly valid solution to this, random or not.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 6:56:49 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:46:31 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:41:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?Remember that what my argument focuses on is the possibility of an eternally existent thing having an innate probability of causing an effect. My argument has shown that this is *logically impossible*.If an eternally existent thing has a causal effect by will, it is *logically possible* for this thing to have existed for eternity because the effect was never inevitable.But neither is something that is probabilistic. Since you can go for as long as you want and the event still may not have occurred.I don't agree. Given an infinite number of chances, any innate probability of a specific effect occurring will occur inevitably.Also you exhibit the same problem but in reverse. God waits for eternity before creating the universe, so the universe never gets created, lol. A naturalistic explanation can do the same thing, wait for eternity and then *poof* out a universe. There is nothing incoherent about postulating such if postulating God is apparently coherent in doing so.It comes down to logical possibility. It isn't logically possible for something to be eternal and have specific causal effect as an innate probability. If an eternal thing has a causal effect that isn't inevitable it is at least logically possible that it can exist eternally.Also naturalistic explanations can be timeless, and have an infinite number of universes along it's 'timeline'. With no beginning, and no end. Which is a perfectly valid solution to this, random or not.The problem is the source of causality not time itself.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 7:05:57 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 6:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:46:31 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:41:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?Remember that what my argument focuses on is the possibility of an eternally existent thing having an innate probability of causing an effect. My argument has shown that this is *logically impossible*.If an eternally existent thing has a causal effect by will, it is *logically possible* for this thing to have existed for eternity because the effect was never inevitable.But neither is something that is probabilistic. Since you can go for as long as you want and the event still may not have occurred.I don't agree. Given an infinite number of chances, any innate probability of a specific effect occurring will occur inevitably.Which mathematically is only the case after an *infinite* amount of time,Also you exhibit the same problem but in reverse. God waits for eternity before creating the universe, so the universe never gets created, lol. A naturalistic explanation can do the same thing, wait for eternity and then *poof* out a universe. There is nothing incoherent about postulating such if postulating God is apparently coherent in doing so.It comes down to logical possibility. It isn't logically possible for something to be eternal and have specific causal effect as an innate probability.Well.. This is false. I have just shown that.If an eternal thing has a causal effect that isn't inevitable it is at least logically possible that it can exist eternally.Alright, reducio time.1) Either God will choose to cause the universe, or not2) If God doesn't choose, then God doesn't cause the universe3) If God does choose, then he can only choose after an infinite amount of time4) Traversing an infinite amount of time is impossible5) if God does choose, then he cannot cause the universe (4 & 5)C) In either case, God doesn't cause the universeIf you disagree with P4 (which is the only premise in contention here I expect), then you need to coherently defend why that's the case and why an infinite amount of time cannot precede a random event.Also naturalistic explanations can be timeless, and have an infinite number of universes along it's 'timeline'. With no beginning, and no end. Which is a perfectly valid solution to this, random or not.The problem is the source of causality not time itself.They are equally compatible.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 7:40:10 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 7:05:57 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:46:31 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:41:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?Remember that what my argument focuses on is the possibility of an eternally existent thing having an innate probability of causing an effect. My argument has shown that this is *logically impossible*.If an eternally existent thing has a causal effect by will, it is *logically possible* for this thing to have existed for eternity because the effect was never inevitable.But neither is something that is probabilistic. Since you can go for as long as you want and the event still may not have occurred.I don't agree. Given an infinite number of chances, any innate probability of a specific effect occurring will occur inevitably.Which mathematically is only the case after an *infinite* amount of time,Well reaching a certain effect *after* something *occurs infinitely* is incoherent and couldn't be the case. No matter how long it took to inevitably actualize that specific effect (existing as an innate probability by chance), the duration between the inevitable actualization of the effect requires a quantifiable beginning to that eternal substance.Also you exhibit the same problem but in reverse. God waits for eternity before creating the universe, so the universe never gets created, lol. A naturalistic explanation can do the same thing, wait for eternity and then *poof* out a universe. There is nothing incoherent about postulating such if postulating God is apparently coherent in doing so.It comes down to logical possibility. It isn't logically possible for something to be eternal and have specific causal effect as an innate probability.Well.. This is false. I have just shown that.You've wrongly assumed that an effect will occur inevitably if the cause is actualized by the *will* of a causal agent.If an eternal thing has a causal effect that isn't inevitable it is at least logically possible that it can exist eternally.Alright, reducio time.1) Either God will choose to cause the universe, or not2) If God doesn't choose, then God doesn't cause the universe3) If God does choose, then he can only choose after an infinite amount of time4) Traversing an infinite amount of time is impossible5) if God does choose, then he cannot cause the universe (4 & 5)C) In either case, God doesn't cause the universeIf you disagree with P4 (which is the only premise in contention here I expect), then you need to coherently defend why that's the case and why an infinite amount of time cannot precede a random event.The contention that I brought forth was that any eternally existing thing that has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring by chance will inevitably actualize and quantify the beginning of that supposedly eternally existent thing.If the specific effect doesn't exist as any innate probability, there is no quantifiable duration on this effect and thus the causal agent could still exist *eternally* as a logical possibility. This would allow God to exist in a realm of timelessness which actually takes issue with P3.Also naturalistic explanations can be timeless, and have an infinite number of universes along it's 'timeline'. With no beginning, and no end. Which is a perfectly valid solution to this, random or not.The problem is the source of causality not time itself.They are equally compatible.Even under the assumption of A and B theories of time this is a problem of causality though.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 7:48:46 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 7:40:10 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 7:05:57 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:56:49 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:46:31 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:41:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:33:46 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:31:17 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:27:05 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 6:23:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:38:35 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 5:03:33 PM, Benshapiro wrote:The eternal thing would need to have a causal effect that didn't exist by any innate necessity or chance. The only remaining option is by will.That's a false trichotomy.The dichotimy is simply by Free Will/Not Free WillWithin the "not will" category you have:1. Contingent substance2. Necessary substance3. Random contingent substance4. Random necessary substance5. Combination of ontological nature and chance6. Combination of necessity and chanceEtc.Etc.Also this exact same argument applies to God. Lest you commit the fallacy of special pleading.Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.Alright, let's formalize your argument, which looks like the following:1. Anything that has causal ability, will have a beginning2. All possible natural explanations have causal abilityC. All possible natural causes, will have a beginningAgreed? If not then formulate it yourself.I'm horrible at structuring formal logic but this illustrates it:1. If an eternal thing has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a specific effect occurring.And God escapes this... How? A similar p1 would apply to it.Because the will of something doesn't intrinsically depend on probability.It doesn't matter. I just reword it:1. If an eternal thing has a will of a specific effect occurring, that effect will inevitably be reached.2. Once this effect is inevitably reached, the duration between the beginning of the eternal substance and from the transformative event is quantifiable.3. Something can't be eternal and have a quantifiable beginning.C: An eternal thing can't have a will of a specific effect occurring.There you go, I changed literally 2 terms. How is my argument any less sound than yours?Remember that what my argument focuses on is the possibility of an eternally existent thing having an innate probability of causing an effect. My argument has shown that this is *logically impossible*.If an eternally existent thing has a causal effect by will, it is *logically possible* for this thing to have existed for eternity because the effect was never inevitable.But neither is something that is probabilistic. Since you can go for as long as you want and the event still may not have occurred.I don't agree. Given an infinite number of chances, any innate probability of a specific effect occurring will occur inevitably.Which mathematically is only the case after an *infinite* amount of time,Well reaching a certain effect *after* something *occurs infinitely* is incoherent and couldn't be the case. No matter how long it took to inevitably actualize that specific effect (existing as an innate probability by chance), the duration between the inevitable actualization of the effect requires a quantifiable beginning to that eternal substance.Also you exhibit the same problem but in reverse. God waits for eternity before creating the universe, so the universe never gets created, lol. A naturalistic explanation can do the same thing, wait for eternity and then *poof* out a universe. There is nothing incoherent about postulating such if postulating God is apparently coherent in doing so.It comes down to logical possibility. It isn't logically possible for something to be eternal and have specific causal effect as an innate probability.Well.. This is false. I have just shown that.You've wrongly assumed that an effect will occur inevitably if the cause is actualized by the *will* of a causal agent.No, I assume both horns in the argument I gave below.If an eternal thing has a causal effect that isn't inevitable it is at least logically possible that it can exist eternally.Alright, reducio time.1) Either God will choose to cause the universe, or not2) If God doesn't choose, then God doesn't cause the universe3) If God does choose, then he can only choose after an infinite amount of time4) Traversing an infinite amount of time is impossible5) if God does choose, then he cannot cause the universe (4 & 5)C) In either case, God doesn't cause the universeIf you disagree with P4 (which is the only premise in contention here I expect), then you need to coherently defend why that's the case and why an infinite amount of time cannot precede a random event.The contention that I brought forth was that any eternally existing thing that has an innate probability of a specific effect occurring by chance will inevitably actualize and quantify the beginning of that supposedly eternally existent thing.Irrelevant to this..If the specific effect doesn't exist as any innate probability, there is no quantifiable duration on this effect and thus the causal agent could still exist *eternally* as a logical possibility.Eh? Does. God wait for an infinite amount of time before choosing to make the universe or not?P1) Either. God waited a finite amount if time, or an infinite amount of timeP2) if God waits an infinite amount of time, then God never creates the universeP3) if God waits a finite amount if time, then God is not eternal, and hence incoherentC) In either case, God didn't create the universe.This would allow God to exist in a realm of timelessness which actually takes issue with P3.You are really confusing me. You seem to be making up rules as you go along here too.
 Posts: 11,322 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 7:57:19 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 4:04:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:This is hard to explain so bear with me and try to understand the concept.Either everything regresses back to an eternal uncaused cause of all contingent causes or to a point where something came from literally absolutely nothing. Remember that under both the A and B theories of time, anything that doesn't eternally exists contingently on some preceding cause. This topic focuses on what this eternal necessary cause could NOT have been.It's impossible for this uncaused causal mechanism to be eternal while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect. Let's focus on what may have randomly caused the Big Bang.Assume that pure energy existed prior to the Big Bang and that it has always existed. This energy randomly fluctuates and every time this fluctuation occurs, there's an infinitesimally small chance that it can cause the Big Bang. Let's say that there's only a 10^2000 chance that with every fluctuation the Big Bang will occur. The actualization of this probability is finite. In other words, there can't be an infinitely existing thing with a probability that some effect will occur because this effect is bound to be actualized after so many fluctuations. Once this effect is actualized, the amount of preceding fluctuations leading up to this effect are quantifiable. Once you can quantify something it is finite or with limited totality. The absolute beginning of this thing is inevitably reached and could never been eternal at all.So if nothing can eternally exist while having an innate probability of randomly causing some effect, either everything was created ex nihilo or by the will of an eternally existing thing. Now that I think about it, it seems that creation ex nihilo would suffer this same problem if absolute nothingness had some innate probability of causing something. Perhaps the only possible way for something to eternally exist besides God is if laws of causality were different before the Big Bang.It's a good thing God gave man "Google" for His Christians to be deceived with.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 8:09:41 PMPosted: 3 years agoIf the specific effect doesn't exist as any innate probability, there is no quantifiable duration on this effect and thus the causal agent could still exist *eternally* as a logical possibility.Eh? Does. God wait for an infinite amount of time before choosing to make the universe or not?P1) Either. God waited a finite amount if time, or an infinite amount of timeP2) if God waits an infinite amount of time, then God never creates the universeP3) if God waits a finite amount if time, then God is not eternal, and hence incoherentC) In either case, God didn't create the universe.This would allow God to exist in a realm of timelessness which actually takes issue with P3.You are really confusing me. You seem to be making up rules as you go along here too.Let's define time first. How about defining time as the relative duration between two things. God is an eternal thing with no relative duration. Something that is eternal has no quantifiable beginning or end. If God created relative time by *willing* this time into existence during the expansion event of the Big Bang from a realm of timelessness, God exists within a realm of timelessness but is now also relative to time after this initial Big Bang event. So God is unconstrained by, but relative to time.
 Posts: 3,866 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 8:29:29 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 8:09:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:If the specific effect doesn't exist as any innate probability, there is no quantifiable duration on this effect and thus the causal agent could still exist *eternally* as a logical possibility.Eh? Does. God wait for an infinite amount of time before choosing to make the universe or not?P1) Either. God waited a finite amount if time, or an infinite amount of timeP2) if God waits an infinite amount of time, then God never creates the universeP3) if God waits a finite amount if time, then God is not eternal, and hence incoherentC) In either case, God didn't create the universe.This would allow God to exist in a realm of timelessness which actually takes issue with P3.You are really confusing me. You seem to be making up rules as you go along here too.Let's define time first. How about defining time as the relative duration between two things. God is an eternal thing with no relative duration. Something that is eternal has no quantifiable beginning or end. If God created relative time by *willing* this time into existence during the expansion event of the Big Bang from a realm of timelessness, God exists within a realm of timelessness but is now also relative to time after this initial Big Bang event. So God is unconstrained by, but relative to time.W.T.F.?Externality means nothing if we have nothing to be eternal to. Externality only applies *within time*.So IF you are proposing time began to exist with the universe, then externality "before" this is meaningless. And this has nothing to do with will vs spontaneity. I can propose everything you propose but for something that is not intelligent, conscious, or personal on any level and be left with a perfectly legitimate answer.And unless you are going to argue that making a choice violates the principle of sufficient reason, then there needs to be a cause for the choice too. Otherwise you are once again engaging in special pleading.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 9:21:58 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 8:29:29 PM, Envisage wrote:At 11/26/2014 8:09:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:If the specific effect doesn't exist as any innate probability, there is no quantifiable duration on this effect and thus the causal agent could still exist *eternally* as a logical possibility.Eh? Does. God wait for an infinite amount of time before choosing to make the universe or not?P1) Either. God waited a finite amount if time, or an infinite amount of timeP2) if God waits an infinite amount of time, then God never creates the universeP3) if God waits a finite amount if time, then God is not eternal, and hence incoherentC) In either case, God didn't create the universe.This would allow God to exist in a realm of timelessness which actually takes issue with P3.You are really confusing me. You seem to be making up rules as you go along here too.Let's define time first. How about defining time as the relative duration between two things. God is an eternal thing with no relative duration. Something that is eternal has no quantifiable beginning or end. If God created relative time by *willing* this time into existence during the expansion event of the Big Bang from a realm of timelessness, God exists within a realm of timelessness but is now also relative to time after this initial Big Bang event. So God is unconstrained by, but relative to time.W.T.F.?Externality means nothing if we have nothing to be eternal to. Externality only applies *within time*.So IF you are proposing time began to exist with the universe, then externality "before" this is meaningless. And this has nothing to do with will vs spontaneity. I can propose everything you propose but for something that is not intelligent, conscious, or personal on any level and be left with a perfectly legitimate answer.And unless you are going to argue that making a choice violates the principle of sufficient reason, then there needs to be a cause for the choice too. Otherwise you are once again engaging in special pleading.Externality "before" this creation event isn't meaningless, it's just timeless. If time is defined as the relative duration between two things, but sans the creation of the universe God was not relative to anything, he was timeless. Now that God is relative to time during this creation event, he exists within time as well as outside of it.The main purpose of the OP was to point out that any eternally existing thing couldn't have caused anything by random chance and remain eternal. I couldn't fathom what would cause the mind of God to make any willful choice.
 Posts: 13,644 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/26/2014 9:36:10 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/26/2014 9:21:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:Externality "before" this creation event isn't meaningless, it's just timeless. If time is defined as the relative duration between two things, but sans the creation of the universe God was not relative to anything, he was timeless. Now that God is relative to time during this creation event, he exists within time as well as outside of it.First it was a burning bush, then atop a mountain, next it was in the clouds and beyond space, and now it's beyond time. What, beyond dimensions, next?Seems each time we discover what's really there, believers are forced to push their gods further into obscurity, completely undetectable from our universe and unaffected by it all...... as if believers are actually going to know this. heheMarrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth