Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
278 replies to this topic

#61 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:19 AM

1. Ummmm yes you were....

2. You've just supported my point 1.... Additionally its not special pleading since that is what God is. God is supernatural hence you literally cannot attempt to conform God to the standards that are required by natural laws, conversely your claims ARE required to conform to natural laws since you are stating a natural cause, nature conforms to natural law (thus it is limited in its action), God is supernatural and is therefore unlimited in his potential action. This is not special pleading, this is merely understanding what God is and what natural uncaused things are, they are totaly different things so it really is stupid to try and make one fit the others rules.

3. An infinite regress in the past IS logically impossible since there is no begining, did you not READ my post? (yet again I ask you to read and comprehend my post before replying). Eternity in the future is totally different since the future has yet to come to pass, meaning that it can indeed go on (since we do not know of a end point (thus far), whereas in relation to the past there is indeed and end point, that being the creation of the universe (which has been verfied by science!!!). If there was a begining then its not an INFINITE regress. So you can comprehend my point here

- Infinite regress in the past implies no start point since its infinite
- Infinite regress to the future is possible since the future is yet to occur, additionally its not a REGRESS since a regress is a past tense action.
- Science has verified that the universe did have a begining
- Therefore there is no infinite regress since there is a begining point meaning the regress in the past is not infinite... It does end.
- Therefore you're attempts here defy logic and the established scientific evidence, I challenge you to find scientific evidence that refutes that of a begining of the universe, as well as supports there being an eternal past.


4. Absolute lies! I stated that the concentration of reactants was not enough due to the ocean being vast, you stated that perhaps the reactions occured where the reactants were not required to be in close proximity, (to which I pointed out was not what a reaction is since it requires physical contact with enough velocity to account for the activation energy required of the reaction).

Considering that you have yet to reply to this in the thread, with a quote, suggests that you are indeed making things up here. If it was this simple why avoid replying?

5. Actually I said the opposite, hence why I stated "Absolute lies". Spontanteous reactions occur however they do so to increase the chaos of the system, that is why they are spontaneous in that they fit within the 2nd law dealing with entropy. I was saying that a reaction that reverses entropy is not spontaneous, not that spontaneous reactions do not happen, again this is yet another instance where you need to read and comprehend my post....

6. As I said I use the definition of spontaneous as per any other person.

7. Convienient that you state this now, AFTER I demonstrated the absolute idiocy of the claim and how it defies how reactions work in nature. Why not reply to this in the thread? In fact you never stated that I believed in this, I stated that the concentration of reactants was not enough due to the ocean being vast, you stated that perhaps the reactions occured where the reactants were not required to be in close proximity, (to which I pointed out was not what a reaction is since it requires physical contact with enough velocity to account for the activation energy required of the reaction)... There was no mention of me believing in this, nor any mention of sarcasm, (except after the fact... aka covering ones tracks)

8. Really.... Sounds like a lame excuse to me. SInce if you felt as such you wouldn't be replying now..... Kinda defies the point eh.


Yes it would be best if we continued this on the thread since you can actually QUOTE me rather than make claims which are either misrepresentations or outright lies.


Which part am I lying about? You are very quick to state that someone who doesn't agree with you is a liar. I will go to the other thread and address the claims you make about my honesty. I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Regarding your statement about infinite regress in the past because there is no beginning. So, if the universe was eternal, then nothing could be happening at all because there is no beginning? I have already stated that the spacetime we are in may not be the only possible physical existence. The universe may have been in a different physical existence that did not require a "beginning" of events for events to occur. You may claim the this is not possible for a physical entity but you claim it is possible for a supernatural entity without any more logical proof than I have.

My interpretation of the logical proof so far:

1. There is no possible physical manifestation of the universe that can be eternal...ie no eternal physical reality. This claim is based on our own limited understanding of "physical reality".

2. Because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality, a non-physical reality must exist.

3. Also because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality and a belief in a non-physical reality, a non-physical thing must exist that caused the physical reality to come into existence.

4. For some reason, this non-physical thing that caused physical reality to come into existence must be intelligent. Even if I bought into the logical leaps made earlier, I cannot see how this statement must be true. If the non-physical exists then the rules of infinite regress do not apply so the non-phyical thing could be performing events without requiring a beginning and does not have to be intelligent.

My number 4 is not exactly what was claimed in post #1. That post claimed that no non-intelligent events could happen if there were no beginning event due to infinite regress of events. It did not say that the non-physical existence worked by different laws than the physical existence. That information was provided later to answer the concern about infinite regress of intelligent events.

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:31 PM

1. Regarding your statement about infinite regress in the past because there is no beginning. So, if the universe was eternal, then nothing could be happening at all because there is no beginning?

I have already stated that the spacetime we are in may not be the only possible physical existence. The universe may have been in a different physical existence that did not require a "beginning" of events for events to occur. You may claim the this is not possible for a physical entity but you claim it is possible for a supernatural entity without any more logical proof than I have.

My interpretation of the logical proof so far:

1. There is no possible physical manifestation of the universe that can be eternal...ie no eternal physical reality. This claim is based on our own limited understanding of "physical reality".

2. Because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality, a non-physical reality must exist.

3. Also because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality and a belief in a non-physical reality, a non-physical thing must exist that caused the physical reality to come into existence.

4. For some reason, this non-physical thing that caused physical reality to come into existence must be intelligent. Even if I bought into the logical leaps made earlier, I cannot see how this statement must be true. If the non-physical exists then the rules of infinite regress do not apply so the non-phyical thing could be performing events without requiring a beginning and does not have to be intelligent.

5. My number 4 is not exactly what was claimed in post #1. That post claimed that no non-intelligent events could happen if there were no beginning event due to infinite regress of events. It did not say that the non-physical existence worked by different laws than the physical existence. That information was provided later to answer the concern about infinite regress of intelligent events.


1. You are doing exactly the thing I wrote about, again I urge you to read and comprehend my posts. If something is eternal that doesn't mean it is eternal in the past... Its eternal in terms of the future since that could go onto infinity.

Again, I stress that if something is unending in the past then there is no beginning, this is why an infinite regress is deemed illogical.

2. No because the laws of reality defy that such a thing would exist, as stated before the law of cause and effect.

3. No, because the laws of reality defy that such a thing would exist therefore means that something else must be the cause.. Additionally the universe cannot create itself, since how can it do the creating if it didn't exist? Therefore something else must be the cause.

I've proposed two lines of logic, all you've been saying is denial and questions...

4. There are no logical leaps. Additionally this was already explained to you by others. I suggest you go back and read their posts.

5. And?
  • goldliger likes this

#63 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

Which part am I lying about? You are very quick to state that someone who doesn't agree with you is a liar. I will go to the other thread and address the claims you make about my honesty. I don't want to derail this thread any further.

Regarding your statement about infinite regress in the past because there is no beginning. So, if the universe was eternal, then nothing could be happening at all because there is no beginning? I have already stated that the spacetime we are in may not be the only possible physical existence. The universe may have been in a different physical existence that did not require a "beginning" of events for events to occur. You may claim the this is not possible for a physical entity but you claim it is possible for a supernatural entity without any more logical proof than I have.

My interpretation of the logical proof so far:

1. There is no possible physical manifestation of the universe that can be eternal...ie no eternal physical reality. This claim is based on our own limited understanding of "physical reality".

2. Because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality, a non-physical reality must exist.

3. Also because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality and a belief in a non-physical reality, a non-physical thing must exist that caused the physical reality to come into existence.

4. For some reason, this non-physical thing that caused physical reality to come into existence must be intelligent. Even if I bought into the logical leaps made earlier, I cannot see how this statement must be true. If the non-physical exists then the rules of infinite regress do not apply so the non-phyical thing could be performing events without requiring a beginning and does not have to be intelligent.

My number 4 is not exactly what was claimed in post #1. That post claimed that no non-intelligent events could happen if there were no beginning event due to infinite regress of events. It did not say that the non-physical existence worked by different laws than the physical existence. That information was provided later to answer the concern about infinite regress of intelligent events.


Your 4 points are so far off from the argument, I don't know where to begin, except to suggest that you actually read it over several (more?) times in full:

http://www.silverwea...osmicproof.html

I really can't waste time debunking complete strawman arguments (and Gilbo took care of it anyhow - thank you bud), so I'll check back to see if you present an argument that actually applies.

And this?....

//The universe may have been in a different physical existence that did not require a "beginning" of events for events to occur. You may claim the this is not possible for a physical entity but you claim it is possible for a supernatural entity without any more logical proof than I have.//

You'd need something more concrete than pulling any random thought out of a hat and saying "it could have been this..." with no supporting logic or evidence. A "different physical existence" would still require things to happen via chance and probability, which means that changes and events rely solely on past changes and events, which rely solely on past changes and events, so on and so forth to infinity. And there again is your impossible infinite regress!

What God wills to happen, does NOT rely on an endless past string of mindless, chance events. That is the difference. Again, if you'd simply imagine an omnipotent, eternal being "existing...", could such a being create our universe at any moment - despite the past? Of course! Now in the mindless scenario, this could not happen, because whatever event would occur at such a moment would have relied on past change, after past change, after past change, and so on to infinity. Meaning you never *reach* the present change (present moment) due to an impossible infinite regress.

This is the difference between events caused by will, and events caused by "chance change". The latter begs the impossible infinite regress, while the former simply does not. Think about it. The eternal uncaused cause of all existence HAS to have a will, as that is the only escape from infinite regress.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#64 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:08 PM

Your 4 points are so far off from the argument, I don't know where to begin, except to suggest that you actually read it over several (more?) times in full:



I know how you feel :)

It was not an "explosion". However, I am willing to admit that the possibility exists that the cause of the Big Bang was a god or even your God. That does not eliminate the Big Bang or old earth or evolution. An omniscient God could start things off and have designed it so we (humans) would be the result of that chain of events. The scientific evidence points ot that chain of events occurring.


So you admit that there is a beginning to the universe? If so then the past is not infinite since there is an endpoint to which you cannot go further, that being the begining of the universe. Therefore your own beliefs defy your other beliefs...
  • goldliger likes this

#65 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:43 PM

//An omniscient God could start things off and have designed it so we (humans) would be the result of that chain of events. The scientific evidence points ot that chain of events occurring.//

God did start a chain of events (though I definitely do not think it was evolution)... And from this chain of events, we can see how the natural realm works. And how "mindless cause and effect" works... Things happen as the result of past change. You were born because of your parents, who were born because of their parents, etc, etc. Now if we were to suggest that this chain of events has continued on since BEFORE the universe, mindlessly and forever, then we have an impossible infinite regress. This is why an intelligent eternal uncaused cause is needed. First off, we know that something cannot come from absolute nothingness, so something must have existed for eternity. But that something cannot be mindless, because mindless events happen via chance and probabilities... One thing happens because of something before, which happens because of something before, which happens because of something before... To infinity... And beyond!



The uncaused cause simply could not have been mindless (without will and choice)... This is precisely what my argument covers (that's the whole point of it, in other words).. A mindless something would have to be ever-changing (since change comes from past change in a mindless existence). And all those changes, because they are mindless, could only be the result of past change, after past change, after past change, where the whole chain DEPENDS on the past (just like what we see happening in our universe with the matter and energy that God created to function according to the laws of physics). If this "mindless scenario" were to have existed eternally, that's where the impossible infinite regress is violated.

So then our minds come back to, "Well, don't the 'first events' and 'first changes' that God causes depend on past change after past change after past change...?" And the answer is, "no!" If God wants to cause a universe by an act of will, He simply causes it. In other words, what He causes is NOT "past dependent" on one change, after another change, after another change, in an endless dependent string. The "Universe Event" was only dependent on God's power and existence (meaning dependence on just one thing, that being God). And that's it. No infinite regress. No problem.

By the way, the laws of physics also must have existed right from the start of our universe, or things would not have held together. We're talking about atoms not holding together. Nothing would have worked, whatsoever, without the laws of physics! So one must also answer the HUGE question as to where those laws came from, such that atoms (so on and so forth) held together right from the start. And this is no small problem, quite obviously. Science has absolutely no answer, but logically we can imagine that God could cause order, as an act of will, and supreme power.

This is why you need to dump your belief in a mindless existence, and believe in an intelligent existence. And from there, it's an easy "jump" to belief in the God of the Bible, since we all know that we sin, and that we feel guilt, and that we need forgiveness for that sin... And Jesus (and what He did for you on the cross) is the only answer for that! God created you for a purpose. Don't waste your life, my friend!

#66 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 November 2012 - 05:53 PM

1. You are doing exactly the thing I wrote about, again I urge you to read and comprehend my posts. If something is eternal that doesn't mean it is eternal in the past... Its eternal in terms of the future since that could go onto infinity.

Again, I stress that if something is unending in the past then there is no beginning, this is why an infinite regress is deemed illogical.

2. No because the laws of reality defy that such a thing would exist, as stated before the law of cause and effect.

3. No, because the laws of reality defy that such a thing would exist therefore means that something else must be the cause.. Additionally the universe cannot create itself, since how can it do the creating if it didn't exist? Therefore something else must be the cause.

I've proposed two lines of logic, all you've been saying is denial and questions...

4. There are no logical leaps. Additionally this was already explained to you by others. I suggest you go back and read their posts.

5. And?

1. ?? I agreed with you and you say I don't comprehend your posts? Weird.

2. The laws of reality defy that what should exist?... a non-physical reality? Then what is God? I thought you said he is not part of physical reality.

3. So non-physical things can't exist? How is it that God exists then? I never said that the non-physical thing was the universe.

4. I have read all the posts and still see nothing that applies here. You seem to think that you are communicating the obvious but I just don't get how what you have said in the past is obviously showing my claims to be illogical. Can we take this one step at a time instead of telling me that I should reread your posts? Show me which posts are destroying my arguments. Quoting the portions of the posts that apply would be very helpful.

#67 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 05 November 2012 - 06:56 PM

...Your posts are getting more and more sketchy. What exactly is your argument at this point, Jonas? Please present it in one nice, neat, logical statement (as best you can). And we can go from there. Thanks.

#68 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:36 PM

1. ?? I agreed with you and you say I don't comprehend your posts? Weird.

2. The laws of reality defy that what should exist?... a non-physical reality? Then what is God? I thought you said he is not part of physical reality.

3. So non-physical things can't exist? How is it that God exists then? I never said that the non-physical thing was the universe.

4. I have read all the posts and still see nothing that applies here. You seem to think that you are communicating the obvious but I just don't get how what you have said in the past is obviously showing my claims to be illogical. Can we take this one step at a time instead of telling me that I should reread your posts? Show me which posts are destroying my arguments. Quoting the portions of the posts that apply would be very helpful.


1. Does the following sound like you are in agreance?

I have already stated that the spacetime we are in may not be the only possible physical existence. The universe may have been in a different physical existence that did not require a "beginning" of events for events to occur. You may claim the this is not possible for a physical entity but you claim it is possible for a supernatural entity without any more logical proof than I have.


You hit the nail on the head, yes this is not possible for this to occur from a physical cause, we know this due to the laws on which the physical reality operates. Simply put the beginning of the universe defies the laws of reality which would mean its a supernatural event by definition. This is much more "logical proof" than what you have given.

You're free to believe that somehow the natural laws changed somewhere between now and the begining of the universe, however you do so from a point of faith with zero evidence.


2. Where did I say that? Please stop putting YOUR words in my mouth. I said that a physical cause defies the laws of reality, yet this shouldn't occur since nature is governed by the laws of reality meaning it shouldn't defy it. Meaning that a natural cause of the universe is literally impossible due to the fact that the laws of nature would prevent such a thing occuring..

3. Shakes head. I am saying that the physical universe cannot create itself, therefore there must have been something that created physical universe outside of physical universe, since it cannot create itself as it wouldn't exist to do the creating... We can deduce that something outside of the physical universe was the cause, such a thing implies something supernatural, and is a "God-like" attribute.

The funny thing is that when you consider all the logistics of what this cause must be you get a list of "God-like" attributes which pretty much describe God.

4. Here are just posts from myself, I haven't added anyone else.


The 2nd Law also disproves a random natural cause since the natural prerogative of the universe is to go into chaos (if left to natural cause), yet at the begining of the universe energy was ordered (defying the 2nd law), since if there was no ordered energy, (and there would be none if left to the natural prerogative of the universe), then there would be no 2nd law, no life, no planets etc, since all the energy would already be at the highest state of chaos, (ie- the heat death situation would be the norm). Therefore a cause is needed that defies natural law, something that defys natural law is considered supernatural thus a supernatural cause.

In fact I would argue that creation of suns and planets also defy this, since the natural prerogative of the universe is to break down, not build up.


Not to the atheist Posted Image

Additionally the evidence given for the big bang supports there being a creation event in history, in that time is not infinite in the past. Hence any who claim it is, is going against what the current scientific evidence demonstrates....


1. An infinite regress is logically impossible

2. Yes an INFINITE regress of events

3. If that is the case then the regress is not infinite... That is the point!... If there is an INFINITE regress there will never be a begining.

4. No it does, you've demonstrated here that you do not comprehend what an infinite regress actually is. An infinite regress is not traversable since infinity never ends therefore being infinite in the past literally means that there is no begining.

5. No demonstration is required since that is what an infinte regress is, it prevents the beginning due to its very nature. As I said you do not comprehend what an infinite regress actually is.



In fact the infinite regress is used by atheists to deny the creation event of the world. Scientists the world over admit to a creation event and dubbed it the big bang. Additionally from this it was found that there can NEVER be an infinite regress in the past, in that there is a finite past thus a creation event.


1. Ummmm yes you were....

2. You've just supported my point 1.... Additionally its not special pleading since that is what God is. God is supernatural hence you literally cannot attempt to conform God to the standards that are required by natural laws, conversely your claims ARE required to conform to natural laws since you are stating a natural cause, nature conforms to natural law (thus it is limited in its action), God is supernatural and is therefore unlimited in his potential action. This is not special pleading, this is merely understanding what God is and what natural uncaused things are, they are totaly different things so it really is stupid to try and make one fit the others rules.

3. An infinite regress in the past IS logically impossible since there is no begining, did you not READ my post? (yet again I ask you to read and comprehend my post before replying). Eternity in the future is totally different since the future has yet to come to pass, meaning that it can indeed go on (since we do not know of a end point (thus far), whereas in relation to the past there is indeed and end point, that being the creation of the universe (which has been verfied by science!!!). If there was a begining then its not an INFINITE regress. So you can comprehend my point here

- Infinite regress in the past implies no start point since its infinite
- Infinite regress to the future is possible since the future is yet to occur, additionally its not a REGRESS since a regress is a past tense action.
- Science has verified that the universe did have a begining
- Therefore there is no infinite regress since there is a begining point meaning the regress in the past is not infinite... It does end.
- Therefore you're attempts here defy logic and the established scientific evidence, I challenge you to find scientific evidence that refutes that of a begining of the universe, as well as supports there being an eternal past.




  • goldliger likes this

#69 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 06 November 2012 - 07:09 AM

...Your posts are getting more and more sketchy. What exactly is your argument at this point, Jonas? Please present it in one nice, neat, logical statement (as best you can). And we can go from there. Thanks.

In concentrating on replies to gilbo12345 I did not reply to your concerns. Since I don't have that distraction any more, I can go back and concentrate on your presentation.

I was reading the information on the link you provided in order to completely understand the case being made. The Q&A portion of the webpage seemed to contradict the logic provided before it....at first glance. I will need a little time to really dig into it before I can comment, effectively. Thanks for your patience.

BTW: I hope U.S. citizen here goes out and votes.

#70 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:31 AM

Ok, I read the webpage and the Q&A.

Now I have some questions.

Hilbert's hotel paradox states that an infinite number of physical things cannot exist. However it is based on the idea that the hotel with infinite number of rooms is able to be full, as if infinity was an actual number rather than a concept. How can the hotel be full?

The webpage proof declares that a mindless immaterial thing cannot change since each change requires a cause. It then states that an intelligent immaterial thing (God) can change by force of will and does not require a cause.
1. Why do we assume that causality is required in an immaterial existence? Is this something that we have tested or shown logically to be true?
2. How does intelligence prevent the requirement for a cause for each change while mindless things require a cause in order to change?

#71 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:43 PM

Ok, I read the webpage and the Q&A.

Now I have some questions.

Hilbert's hotel paradox states that an infinite number of physical things cannot exist. However it is based on the idea that the hotel with infinite number of rooms is able to be full, as if infinity was an actual number rather than a concept. How can the hotel be full?

The webpage proof declares that a mindless immaterial thing cannot change since each change requires a cause. It then states that an intelligent immaterial thing (God) can change by force of will and does not require a cause.
1. Why do we assume that causality is required in an immaterial existence? Is this something that we have tested or shown logically to be true?
2. How does intelligence prevent the requirement for a cause for each change while mindless things require a cause in order to change?


Concepts are for philosophy whereas if you want to claim that there is an infinite amount of physical events then you are dealing with an "actual number" as its now meant to be something tangible within reality.

Causality is required due to the law of cause and effect. This law ensures that order is kept in that things don't spontaneously explode or pop in and out of existence etc. Therefore only things that have a sufficient cause can occur, for example a chemical reaction can only occur due to the cause of its activation energy and the energy levels of the reactants (as well as their relative affinity), we wouldn't expect reactions to occur without these requirements this expectation is due to the law of cause and effect.

The first cause needs to be supernatural in order to escape requiring a cause. Supernatual in light of being
- timeless / eternal (always existing = no need to be created)
- spaceless (something of the universe cannot create the universe, therefore there is the requirement to exist outside of this plane of existance)
- omnipotent (something that creates the entire universe would need to be all-powerful)

The role of intelligence was already demonstrated to you before, which lies in the power of choice.
  • goldliger likes this

#72 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:19 PM

//1. Why do we assume that causality is required in an immaterial existence? Is this something that we have tested or shown logically to be true?
2. How does intelligence prevent the requirement for a cause for each change while mindless things require a cause in order to change?//


Just to add to what Gilbo has said, whether we're dealing with a mindless material existence, or mindless immaterial existence, has nothing to do with it. A "mindless immaterial something" would still be changing (and therefore causing immaterial events) solely via an interconnected string of past immaterial changes and events. If one change depends on another prior, which depends on another prior, which depends on another prior to infinity, you have the problem of impossible infinite regress. (Refer back to my "Buzz Lightyear" post, which describes how intelligent will and choice "escape" this dilemma.)

This again might help to illustrate (although a little rough around the corners): Imagine a tennis ball bouncing all over the place. Each bounce is an event (albeit a physical event, but as mentioned it doesn't matter either way). In order for one bounce to happen, some sort of change in the past - another bounce for example - must have caused the tennis ball to move. And some change before that, must have caused that motion. So on and so forth, to infinity. That first bounce that I mentioned would not have occurred without the prior motion. But the prior motion would not have occurred without the motion before. And yet again, that motion would not have occurred without a prior change of some sort. This goes on to infinity as one change leads to another which leads to another.

But now imagine a tennis ball just sitting there. The tennis ball has never moved. There's never been a change, ever. An intelligent being with a will comes along, picks it up, and starts bouncing it. No infinite regress needed. Now, you might be tempted to object by saying, well wouldn't this intelligent being Himself require an infinite number of "past changes" in order to pick up the tennis ball and start bouncing it? And the answer is "no". God moves of His own accord as an act of will (vs. chance). Unlike a mindless something, His actions do not depend on an infinite string of past, "mindless chance events" that "lead up" to a present change or action. Whereas again, a "mindless something", if for example it were the tennis ball, would require change after change after change, all dependent on the past, to get to that "present bounce".

Or another way to look at it, if God were the tennis ball, the (intelligent) ball would be able to choose to move itself (i.e., choose to change) - rather than relying on infinite past events.

#73 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 09 November 2012 - 06:40 AM

//1. Why do we assume that causality is required in an immaterial existence? Is this something that we have tested or shown logically to be true?
2. How does intelligence prevent the requirement for a cause for each change while mindless things require a cause in order to change?//


Just to add to what Gilbo has said, whether we're dealing with a mindless material existence, or mindless immaterial existence, has nothing to do with it. A "mindless immaterial something" would still be changing (and therefore causing immaterial events) solely via an interconnected string of past immaterial changes and events. If one change depends on another prior, which depends on another prior, which depends on another prior to infinity, you have the problem of impossible infinite regress. (Refer back to my "Buzz Lightyear" post, which describes how intelligent will and choice "escape" this dilemma.)

But doesn't the idea of needing a cause for a change depend on our understanding of this material existence? How can you make the requirements of this material existence apply to an immaterial existence?

This again might help to illustrate (although a little rough around the corners): Imagine a tennis ball bouncing all over the place. Each bounce is an event (albeit a physical event, but as mentioned it doesn't matter either way). In order for one bounce to happen, some sort of change in the past - another bounce for example - must have caused the tennis ball to move. And some change before that, must have caused that motion. So on and so forth, to infinity. That first bounce that I mentioned would not have occurred without the prior motion. But the prior motion would not have occurred without the motion before. And yet again, that motion would not have occurred without a prior change of some sort. This goes on to infinity as one change leads to another which leads to another.

But now imagine a tennis ball just sitting there. The tennis ball has never moved. There's never been a change, ever. An intelligent being with a will comes along, picks it up, and starts bouncing it. No infinite regress needed. Now, you might be tempted to object by saying, well wouldn't this intelligent being Himself require an infinite number of "past changes" in order to pick up the tennis ball and start bouncing it? And the answer is "no". God moves of His own accord as an act of will (vs. chance). Unlike a mindless something, His actions do not depend on an infinite string of past, "mindless chance events" that "lead up" to a present change or action. Whereas again, a "mindless something", if for example it were the tennis ball, would require change after change after change, all dependent on the past, to get to that "present bounce".

Or another way to look at it, if God were the tennis ball, the (intelligent) ball would be able to choose to move itself (i.e., choose to change) - rather than relying on infinite past events.

If the physics of the material existence applies to the immaterial existence what is it about the intelligence that is God that exempts Him from the physics that you apply to the mindless immaterial existence. Don't the laws of causality require God to have a cause for Him to be able to think anything? Except for your saying so, there appears to be no reason that intelligence affects the laws of causality that you say prevents the mindless immaterial existence from causing the mindless material existence.
Why does this intelligence of God allow Him to not be affected by the laws of causality. If you, as an intelligent being, are not independent of the laws of causality in this material existence, why should I accept your statement that an intelligent God is independent of those same laws?

#74 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:10 AM

But doesn't the idea of needing a cause for a change depend on our understanding of this material existence? How can you make the requirements of this material existence apply to an immaterial existence?


If the physics of the material existence applies to the immaterial existence what is it about the intelligence that is God that exempts Him from the physics that you apply to the mindless immaterial existence. Don't the laws of causality require God to have a cause for Him to be able to think anything? Except for your saying so, there appears to be no reason that intelligence affects the laws of causality that you say prevents the mindless immaterial existence from causing the mindless material existence.
Why does this intelligence of God allow Him to not be affected by the laws of causality. If you, as an intelligent being, are not independent of the laws of causality in this material existence, why should I accept your statement that an intelligent God is independent of those same laws?



"If the physics of the material existence applies to the immaterial existence"

As I pointed out before this is your wrong assumption, you may not want to reply to my posts but at least make an effort to read and understand them lest you repeat the same mistakes and look silly on a public forum.
  • goldliger likes this

#75 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 09 November 2012 - 07:45 AM

But doesn't the idea of needing a cause for a change depend on our understanding of this material existence? How can you make the requirements of this material existence apply to an immaterial existence?


If the physics of the material existence applies to the immaterial existence what is it about the intelligence that is God that exempts Him from the physics that you apply to the mindless immaterial existence. Don't the laws of causality require God to have a cause for Him to be able to think anything? Except for your saying so, there appears to be no reason that intelligence affects the laws of causality that you say prevents the mindless immaterial existence from causing the mindless material existence.
Why does this intelligence of God allow Him to not be affected by the laws of causality. If you, as an intelligent being, are not independent of the laws of causality in this material existence, why should I accept your statement that an intelligent God is independent of those same laws?


We've already answered these questions. Whether a material or immaterial existence, something must have existed forever (since something cannot come from nothingness). And therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of the whole of existence. So, we have an uncaused cause either way. That's not the question. The question is how other changes and causes occurred as a result of this uncaused cause, and whether the uncaused cause is mindless, or intelligent... And that's precisely what has already been addressed very clearly: God can cause change to occur by his own will and power, while "mindless causation" consists of one change dependent upon a past change, which was dependent upon another past change, which was dependent upon another past change, and so on to infinity (meaning an impossible infinite regress).

#76 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 09 November 2012 - 09:07 AM

We've already answered these questions. Whether a material or immaterial existence, something must have existed forever (since something cannot come from nothingness). And therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of the whole of existence. So, we have an uncaused cause either way. That's not the question. The question is how other changes and causes occurred as a result of this uncaused cause, and whether the uncaused cause is mindless, or intelligent... And that's precisely what has already been addressed very clearly: God can cause change to occur by his own will and power, while "mindless causation" consists of one change dependent upon a past change, which was dependent upon another past change, which was dependent upon another past change, and so on to infinity (meaning an impossible infinite regress).

Can you cause changes to occur by your own will and power or are you constrained by the need for a cause?

#77 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:13 PM

Can you cause changes to occur by your own will and power or are you constrained by the need for a cause?


I am not an eternal, uncaused cause (last I checked). But if I were, the changes that I cause would only be conditional on my will and power to cause them - not on past change, after past change, after past change (unlike mindless causation). That's the whole point.

Update: I just double checked with my mom, and yeah, I'm not an eternal uncaused cause.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#78 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 November 2012 - 04:57 PM

I am not an eternal, uncaused cause (last I checked). But if I were, the changes that I cause would only be conditional on my will and power to cause them - not on past change, after past change, after past change (unlike mindless causation). That's the whole point.

Update: I just double checked with my mom, and yeah, I'm not an eternal uncaused cause.


Lol :D
  • goldliger likes this

#79 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 10 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

I am not an eternal, uncaused cause (last I checked). But if I were, the changes that I cause would only be conditional on my will and power to cause them - not on past change, after past change, after past change (unlike mindless causation). That's the whole point.

Update: I just double checked with my mom, and yeah, I'm not an eternal uncaused cause.

So intelligence does not provide an immunity to causality in the material existence. Why does it provide immunity to causality in the immaterial existence?

#80 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,676 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

So intelligence does not provide an immunity to causality in the material existence. Why does it provide immunity to causality in the immaterial existence?


This query already was dealt with... Again I ask you to at least read and comprehend my posts, ignoring them or intentional or not makes you look silly.

Concepts are for philosophy whereas if you want to claim that there is an infinite amount of physical events then you are dealing with an "actual number" as its now meant to be something tangible within reality.

Causality is required due to the law of cause and effect. This law ensures that order is kept in that things don't spontaneously explode or pop in and out of existence etc. Therefore only things that have a sufficient cause can occur, for example a chemical reaction can only occur due to the cause of its activation energy and the energy levels of the reactants (as well as their relative affinity), we wouldn't expect reactions to occur without these requirements this expectation is due to the law of cause and effect.

The first cause needs to be supernatural in order to escape requiring a cause. Supernatual in light of being
- timeless / eternal (always existing = no need to be created)
- spaceless (something of the universe cannot create the universe, therefore there is the requirement to exist outside of this plane of existance)
- omnipotent (something that creates the entire universe would need to be all-powerful)

The role of intelligence was already demonstrated to you before, which lies in the power of choice.


  • goldliger likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users