Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Three irrefutable miracles.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I am a fallible human,I cannot 'tell' you anything. I already explained the Baha'i belief. You do not even believe in the possibility of God.

    The concept is that all the worlds of God including our physical existence are eternal with God.
    Then the physical existence would not be caused.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      No, the effect would not be eternal also. For instance, if there were an eternally existing god (the requirment) who decided to create the universe 14 billion years ago, then that universe (the effect) would not be eternal with its cause.
      Your counter-example doesn't work, because an eternally existing god is not by itself a sufficient cause for the universe to exist, so by definition it doesn't meet all the requirements to produce the effect (the universe). In order for all of the requirements to be met the decision and act of creating the universe also need to be eternal.

      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      But, if the cause were of one and the same substance as that of it's effects, then you could argue that the two, the cause and the effect, are forms of one and the same eternal thing.
      I see no reason why the cause and effect need to be of the same substance in order for the effect to be eternal. But you do realize that you're pretty much admitting here that something that exists eternally can be the effect of something else, even if you're arbitrarily limiting it to only effects that are of the same nature and substance as their causes, right?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Then the physical existence would not be caused.
        That is your Ontological Naturalist assertion based on your belief that God does not exist.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          That is your Ontological Naturalist assertion based on your belief that God does not exist.
          No, that has nothing to do with it shunya, it's an assertion based on logic, not on my stance on gods existence.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            Your counter-example doesn't work, because an eternally existing god is not by itself a sufficient cause for the universe to exist, so by definition it doesn't meet all the requirements to produce the effect (the universe). In order for all of the requirements to be met the decision and act of creating the universe also need to be eternal.
            The cause and the ability of the cause is all that need exist, unless you want to argue that the actions of the cause need be eternally determined. Sacrilege!


            I see no reason why the cause and effect need to be of the same substance in order for the effect to be eternal. But you do realize that you're pretty much admitting here that something that exists eternally can be the effect of something else, even if you're arbitrarily limiting it to only effects that are of the same nature and substance as their causes, right?
            Because if the effect is not of the same substance as its creator, if it was created ipso facto out of nothing, then it obviously is not eternal, it obviously hasn't never not existed. But of course, the infinite and eternal is the cause of the finite and temporal, but they are also just differing forms of one in the same thing. The finite and temporal is such with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to it's cause. It's similar to the way our own material world works. All things come into being, endure for a certain period of time, and then disappear. But the stuff of which they are made doesn't disappear, it is taken up into another form. Though Jesus died long ago, the atoms that made up his body are still here, you might even be breathing some of them in right now.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              The cause and the ability of the cause is all that need exist, unless you want to argue that the actions of the cause need be eternally determined. Sacrilege!
              I'm not arguing that the actions of the cause need to be eternally determined. I'm saying that the cause of the universe in this scenario is "an eternally existing god deciding to create the universe and acting upon that decision", not simply an "eternally existing god". Positing an "eternally existing god" as the cause for the universe doesn't make any sense, unless you're arguing that the mere existence of this "eternally existing god" is enough to produce a universe.

              We're discussing sufficient causes. A sufficient cause is such a cause that it fulfills all the requirements to produce it's effect. And if all the requirements to produce an effect are in place then the effect must necessarily follow. An "eternally existing god" would not be all the requirements needed to produce the universe (the effect), so it cannot be a sufficient cause for the universe to exist.
              You would also need to add "that decided to create a universe and acted upon that decision", or something to that effect (pun intended), for it to be a sufficient cause. The only question then is if that decision and act can be eternal or not. I don't believe they were, seeing as I'm a Christian who believes the universe is not eternal, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't have been eternal.


              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Because if the effect is not of the same substance as its creator, if it was created ipso facto out of nothing, then it obviously is not eternal, it obviously hasn't never not existed. But of course, the infinite and eternal is the cause of the finite and temporal, but they are also just differing forms of one in the same thing. The finite and temporal is such with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to it's cause. It's similar to the way our own material world works. All things come into being, endure for a certain period of time, and then disappear. But the stuff of which they are made doesn't disappear, it is taken up into another form. Though Jesus died long ago, the atoms that made up his body are still here, you might even be breathing some of them in right now.
              There is no logical contradiction to something being created out of nothing and having existed for infinite time. It might be metaphysically impossible (which I do believe), but that's another issue. But if you believe an infinite past is possible (which I don't) there's nothing contradictory about saying the universe was created/caused by an eternally existing god in the infinite past and is therefore eternal.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                I'm not arguing that the actions of the cause need to be eternally determined. I'm saying that the cause of the universe in this scenario is "an eternally existing god deciding to create the universe and acting upon that decision", not simply an "eternally existing god". Positing an "eternally existing god" as the cause for the universe doesn't make any sense, unless you're arguing that the mere existence of this "eternally existing god" is enough to produce a universe.
                If the decision to create the universe is an eternally existing decision, then it is a determined decision, and so not a decision at all.
                We're discussing sufficient causes. A sufficient cause is such a cause that it fulfills all the requirements to produce it's effect. And if all the requirements to produce an effect are in place then the effect must necessarily follow. An "eternally existing god" would not be all the requirements needed to produce the universe (the effect), so it cannot be a sufficient cause for the universe to exist.
                Again, if your requirements are the existence of an eternally existing decision, then the decision is determined as is your god. but that's all besides the point, the decision being eternal doesn't make the effect itself eternal. If you have an idea in your head to build something, and then ten years later you decide to go ahead and build it, though the idea is ten years old, the thing built is not ten years old. Two different things.
                You would also need to add "that decided to create a universe and acted upon that decision", or something to that effect (pun intended), for it to be a sufficient cause. The only question then is if that decision and act can be eternal or not. I don't believe they were, seeing as I'm a Christian who believes the universe is not eternal, but I don't see any reason why they couldn't have been eternal.
                The decision to create could be eternal, but not the act of creating, and not the effect of the act. The only way the created thing and the creator of that thing could both be eternal is if they are both one and the same substance, the thing created being just a temporal form of the eternal whole.



                There is no logical contradiction to something being created out of nothing and having existed for infinite time. It might be metaphysically impossible (which I do believe), but that's another issue. But if you believe an infinite past is possible (which I don't) there's nothing contradictory about saying the universe was created/caused by an eternally existing god in the infinite past and is therefore eternal.
                That doesn't make any sense at all Chrawnus, a thing being created last year by an eternally existing god, doesn't make the thing created last year itself eternal, it makes it a year old.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  If the decision to create the universe is an eternally existing decision, then it is a determined decision, and so not a decision at all.
                  I don't see how that follows at all, but I'll grant that point to you, because it has no bearing on the bigger picture at all. The important thing is that there is intent, regardless of whether that intent was determined or not.

                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Again, if your requirements are the existence of an eternally existing decision, then the decision is determined as is your god. but that's all besides the point, the decision being eternal doesn't make the effect itself eternal. If you have an idea in your head to build something, and then ten years later you decide to go ahead and build it, though the idea is ten years old, the thing built is not ten years old. Two different things.
                  Sure. Nothing of what I've written contradicts any of that.

                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  The decision to create could be eternal, but not the act of creating, and not the effect of the act. The only way the created thing and the creator of that thing could both be eternal is if they are both one and the same substance, the thing created being just a temporal form of the eternal whole.
                  Well, that's what you're claiming at least. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why anyone should accept that claim.


                  Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  That doesn't make any sense at all Chrawnus, a thing being created last year by an eternally existing god, doesn't make the thing created last year itself eternal, it makes it a year old.
                  But I didn't say it would be created a year ago, or any finite duration you want to pick, I said it would be created an infinite time ago.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                    I don't see how that follows at all, but I'll grant that point to you, because it has no bearing on the bigger picture at all. The important thing is that there is intent, regardless of whether that intent was determined or not.



                    Sure. Nothing of what I've written contradicts any of that.



                    Well, that's what you're claiming at least. I've yet to see a convincing argument as to why anyone should accept that claim.




                    But I didn't say it would be created a year ago, or any finite duration you want to pick, I said it would be created an infinite time ago.
                    Again, if the object is eternal, if it has never not existed, then how could it also be said to be created? It can't be, they are contradictory terms.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Again, if the object is eternal, if it has never not existed, then how could it also be said to be created? It can't be, they are contradictory terms.
                      I think we've been focusing too much on the word and phrase "created" and "out of nothing". I actually agree with you that if something is created out of nothing then it cannot have existed an infinite time ago.

                      However, "caused by x" does not necessarily have to mean "created by x", either "out of nothing", or "from the same substance as the cause", it can also mean "is dependent on x for it's existence".

                      In that case we would have "The universe is caused by (i.e "is dependent on for it's existence") an eternally existing god(or whatever you want to posit as the cause, e.g. some sort of "Natural Law" or w/e)".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I think we've been focusing too much on the word and phrase "created" and "out of nothing". I actually agree with you that if something is created out of nothing then it cannot have existed an infinite time ago.

                        However, "caused by x" does not necessarily have to mean "created by x", either "out of nothing", or "from the same substance as the cause", it can also mean "is dependent on x for it's existence".

                        In that case we would have "The universe is caused by (i.e "is dependent on for it's existence") an eternally existing god(or whatever you want to posit as the cause, e.g. some sort of "Natural Law" or w/e)".
                        If it is not of the same substance and is also eternal, then it is also illogical to say that it is dependent upon another for its existence.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                        31 responses
                        103 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post whag
                        by whag
                         
                        Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                        21 responses
                        129 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                        Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                        79 responses
                        420 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post alaskazimm  
                        Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                        45 responses
                        303 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                        Working...
                        X