Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theophage · 01-15-2002, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
Okay, I understand a little better now.

However, the theist could simple alter their definition of 'creation of the universe'. They could state that the arrangement of matter and energy that we see around us was what God created and that the point of time of God's 'will to create' exists at some point on an infinite timeline.

In other words, time could have always existed. The creation moment is simply the point along that time line where God chose to create the matter and energy we see today.
David

This is a very good point, David, and it is one, I'm sorry to say, my argument has no defense for.

But you are right, It would imply that God did not create everything (i.e. time) and he would certainly appear to be somewhat of a lesser being because of it. I wonder if any theists would accept such a demotion to avoid the consequences of my argument?

[edited to add:]

Now that I think about it, though, in the case you described above there would be a distinction between "The Universe" (everything that ever existed) and merely "our universe". In that sense, my argument would only apply to "The Universe" and not "our universe". And such a lesser deity would necessarily be a part of "The Universe", though not necessrily part of "our universe".

Ack! This is getting too semantical for my taste.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

Theophage · 01-15-2002, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
P1 is a tautology between cause and time. It describes causes as subsisting in time. But this is no different than describing time as subsisting in causes. That's why it's a tautology. Allow me to illustrate ...

Thank you for your feedback, Albert, however I would have to say that you are completely wrong about the tautological nature of P1 and its ability to be inverted with respect to the words "time" and "cause".

You are getting caught up in the phraseology of P1 and not addressing its meaning at all. Perhaps how I phrased P1 is rather klunky. If so, here is a different version of it with the same meaning:

P1) All cause and effect relationships require that the cause be temporally prior to the effect.

There you go, Albert, see what you can do with that one.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

Theophage · 01-15-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
Now move over. Two can play this game:
P1) For there to become an atheist, there must be rational thought.
P2) But theistic people, by definition, aren't being rational.
C1) Ergo, theistic people cannot become atheists.

-- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

It's not a game, Albert, its called logical argument. You should try it some time.

As for your argument above, I would agree with both P1 and P2, but C1 is a non-sequitur. The proper C1 derivable from the premises would be:

C1) Ergo theistic people are not atheists.

You cannot say anything about what they will become, unless you added an aditional postulate such as:

P3) Those who do not have rational thought can never acquire rational thought.

And this premise would, of course, be false.

Sorry Albert, please try again (I'm sure you can aspire to rational thought someday :^)

Theophage · 01-15-2002, 06:22 AM

Quoted material from Datheron will be in bold:

One of the problems that I see here is the fact that you assume logic operates outside the Universe.

Well, to be honest I don't think that there is any "outside the Universe" in the first place. This is because I define the universe as containing everything that exists. It makes it much simpler that way, and anything "outside" would be equivalent to "What is 10 miles north of the North Pole?"

Second of all, I consider the laws of logic (such as non-contradiction) to be necessarily true a priori, meaning that they could not be untrue. Indeed, it would be meaningless for them to be untrue. Consider the following example:

Milliways is a bar outside the universe. Since Milliways is outside the universe, logical requirements such as non-contradiction don't apply here. But of course, since non-contradction doesn't apply here, I can say both "non-contradiction doesn't apply here" and "non-contradiction does apply here" both statements are true.

Now, does the law of non-contradiction apply at Milliways? Or even stranger, I can say that Milliways is both "a bar outside the universe" and "a bar not outside the universe" and both would be true. Or both false. Or....

No, I don't think so; such examples are simply meaningless. We mustn't confuse a posteriori rules of the universe such as gravity, or electrodynamics which may not apply "outside" our universe with a priori rules which simply cannot not apply.

This leads to the question of what, exactly, works outside a temporal context? What can we safely apply to areas outside our own familiar spacetime, without having everything contradict and denied logically? You say that by example, every cause is temporally before the effect, but that is simply because all examples are still placed in a temporal context. Can we get observational results beyond it, and what can we say reasonably about non-temporal space?

Nothing can "happen" in non-temporal space by defintion, since that requires something to change, and change requires time. Causation also requires change which also requires time. If there is no change, then whatever you want to call it, it isn't cause and effect.

What you're asking here is equivalent to: "sure all the rocks we found so far are make of rock, does that mean we are sure that there aren't some rocks made out of jelly?" If it was made out of jelly, it wouldn't be a rock. If it didn't involve time, it wouldn't be cause and effect.

Simple.

Thank you, Datheron, for helping me cement my ideas on P1 better! (You too Albert, in future versions I will use the altered version of P1 that I gave you!)

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

Theophage · 01-15-2002, 06:49 AM

Quoted material by rainbow walking will be in bold:

FIRST CAUSE needn’t be stamped with the signature of a POINT in TIME prior to the EFFECT.

As I wrote to Datheron, cause and effect is by defintion a temporal effect. This means that yes, the cause must be at a point temporally prior ("before") to its effect. If it isn't, then it isn't cause and effect. That's why the First Cause idea doesn't work, rainbow.

As for the differnce between divisible and indivisible time, if it isn't divisible (i.e. an interval between points), it isn't time.

(P2) is right on and I concur. But (P1) doesn’t lead to (P2) for the reasons outlined above.

Ummm, rainbow I don't think you understand how a logical syllogism works. P1 isn't supposed to lead to P2. Bad choice of words again?

Well, you were talking about “THIS UNIVERSE”. Clearly this universe is comprised of SPECIFIC attributes arranged in a specific manner to account for this universe as an ongoing phenomenon. Space, time, gravity, energy etc. and so on are all attributes of this universe but that in no way means they couldn’t have existed prior to their incorporation into THIS UNIVERSE. They just couldn’t have existed relationally as they now do in the specific manner and state in which they now exist.

Cool! I actually understand what you're saying here! Except that I define the Universe as everything that exists (or has ever existed, since we're talking about the beginning). Thus, if those attributes of the universe did exist but simply weren't "put together" yet, then that would still be included within my defintion of the Universe.

In other words, my argument would then apply to the beginning of that earlier primodial state, and not simply the beginning of our current state from that primordial state. If I am indeed understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing for the idea that David came up with at the top of page 4. Check it out.

Hence (P1) fails…

Sorry, but no. Thanks for trying though!

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

Albert Cipriani · 01-15-2002, 09:02 AM

Theophage now argues:

Quote:

All cause and effect relationships require that the cause be TEMPORALLY PRIOR to the effect.

To simplify your words further we get:
All causes must temporally precede their effects.

You have assumed temporality AND precedence. A single premise ought to have a single assumption.

I could accept your premise if it only assumed precedence and did not assume that precedence to be temporal precedence. For example, in the Trinity Procession, the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son. This precedence (taking place eternally in a being that cannot change) necessarily must not be a temporal precedence, must not be the stuff of metronomes.

An example closer to home: In the 50's many homeowners thought the future would be decided by atom bombs. This future potentiality caused them to effect backyard bunkers. Ergo, a future cause produced an effect in the present. The cause that preceded its effect preceded it as thoughts or values in people's heads, not as moments in time. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Theophage · 01-15-2002, 09:52 AM

Quoted material by Albert Cipriani will be in bold

Theophage now argues:
"All cause and effect relationships require that the cause be TEMPORALLY PRIOR to the effect."

To simplify your words further we get:
All causes must temporally precede their effects.

Thank you for that simplification, Albert. But you are wrong that I "now argue" this is true. I have argued that since the beginning, you simply didn't understand what I'd said. Indeed, if you'd read the commentary I gave to other people's posts, they show that is precisely what I've been arguing even before I have you my alternate P1.

I do like your even simpler version better, however, so I will use it from now on.

You have assumed temporality AND precedence. A single premise ought to have a single assumption.

No Albert, I didn't assume anything. I merely described a single requirement for causation. That requirement being "All causes must temporally precede their effects." (I do like this new version!) This requirement is based on the very defintion of cause and effect, so it isn't even my "assumption".

I could accept your premise if it only assumed precedence and did not assume that precedence to be temporal precedence.

If it doesn't have temporal precedence, it isn't cause and effect that we're talking about. Simple.

For example, in the Trinity Procession, the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son. This precedence (taking place eternally in a being that cannot change) necessarily must not be a temporal precedence, must not be the stuff of metronomes.

Supporting an absurd notion with imaginary characters? Yeah, that makes sense

An example closer to home: In the 50's many homeowners thought the future would be decided by atom bombs. This future potentiality caused them to effect backyard bunkers. Ergo, a future cause produced an effect in the present. The cause that preceded its effect preceded it as thoughts or values in people's heads, not as moments in time.

The thoughts about the future were the cause of building the bunkers, right? These thoughts preceded their effects temporally, right? Then that is all I'm talking about, Albert.

Those thoughts about the terrible future occured at various points in time before the individuals built bunkers. By defintion of cause and effect, they would have to occur at points in time before their effects, and they did. That's why the thoughts are indeed the cause of that particular effect.

Now, if you don't have any points in time before something, that thing cannot have a cause. Why? Because the cause would have to be at some point before the thing in question, thus violating what cause and effect means.

It's simple really...

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]

CodeMason · 01-15-2002, 10:39 AM

To Albert:

Quote:

This is the logical equivalent of: If not-A then A. You can't get more illogical than that.

Stop attacking a straw-man. You are syllogising my argument when it was never meant to be in the form of a syllogism (the if ... then operators were just a part of my prose.) My argument is simple: If God is to cause discrete events at particular points in time, he must change states. If, as you say, God has no states, then he cannot cause dicrete events at particular points in time. The converse of states is complete staticity. Even if all aspects of God's causality are contained within his infinite being, it is change between the operational status of these aspects that must follow.

Quote:

The operative phrase is "to our frame of reference." To which I say yes, everything that you say that follows is correct, but so what?

If you agree to my postulate, then you agree that your notion of a God without states causing the universe is ludicrous, because it means God's only function would be creator, and the Universe would have been created infinitely long ago. Why don't you follow this?

Quote:

To a slug's frame of reference desserts don't exist. So what? It's a given that in a theological argument we are stretching our frame to accommodate what is beyond our frame of reference because God, by definition, is not in our frame of reference.

You misunderstand my use of the terminology "frame of reference". Since eternality is an infinite amount of time, and God is timeless, one cannot meaningfully assert that God is eternal. However, as beings bound by time observing a timeless entity, God would appear eternal to us. That is all I meant.

Quote:

Philosophy has nothing to do with Dictionary definitions; it has everything to do with self-consistent and intellectually precise definitions. Those who think that the common dictionary definition of a word is the conclusion of and not the beginning of the yellow brick road just don't get it.

So what institution or reference may I consult to receive these ultimate, supreme definitions? Should I just throw my old dictionaries away and buy Webster's "Book of Self-consistent and Intellectually Precise Definitions"?

Quote:

To the contrary, there is no other way to conceive of creation except as being continuously created.

This is nonsense. Creation is the process of change between non-existence and existence. Once existence is established, something is not non-existent anymore, and so can't be created again.

Quote:

You’re problem is that you are thinking of secondary creations, such as man or pots created from the slime.

What on Earth is a secondary creation? If it's defined as "something made after God made everything"

then you are assuming what you're trying to prove.

I will not answer your furthur notes on "creation", it's just unsupported pontification, and self-contradictory at its core.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: CodeMason ]

Albert Cipriani · 01-15-2002, 11:42 AM

Dear Daniel Theophage,
What have I done, what have I done?! You say:

Quote:

I do like your even simpler version better… so I will use it from now on.

O, wilt thou reconsider? Do you realize what the penalty in Purgatory is for Catholics who contribute to the delinquency of an atheist? Eons!

You tricked me into helping you build an atheistic edifice when I was trying to kick in the rotted doors of your logical hovel. Woe is me!

Now that I got that out of my system, I would like you to reconsider from another vantage point. Recognize that recent questionable experiments with laser light has resulted in light arriving at it's destination before it is emitted. Under certain conditions, light appears to travel about 100 times faster than the speed of light. But nothing can go faster than the speed of light. So, there seems to be a species of time travel going on, where the future effect precedes the present cause.

This is "hot ice and wondrous snow" I know, but it is where physics is taking us. So beware of building too much on your notion that causes must necessarily precede their effect TEMPORALLY. – Cheers, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

CodeMason · 01-15-2002, 11:57 AM

Even so, Albert, the crux of his argument still stands. Even if quantum particles can flow backwards in time,

there is still a space (for lack of better word) in time for which the cause can occur. No time = no cause.

01-15-2002, 06:22 AM	#54
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Quoted material from Datheron will be in bold: *One of the problems that I see here is the fact that you assume* logic operates outside the Universe.** Well, to be honest I don't think that there is any "outside the Universe" in the first place. This is because I define the universe as containing everything that exists. It makes it much simpler that way, and anything "outside" would be equivalent to "What is 10 miles north of the North Pole?" Second of all, I consider the laws of logic (such as non-contradiction) to be necessarily true a priori, meaning that they could not be untrue. Indeed, it would be meaningless for them to be untrue. Consider the following example: Milliways is a bar outside the universe. Since Milliways is outside the universe, logical requirements such as non-contradiction don't apply here. But of course, since non-contradction doesn't apply here, I can say both "non-contradiction doesn't apply here" and "non-contradiction does apply here" both statements are true. Now, does the law of non-contradiction apply at Milliways? Or even stranger, I can say that Milliways is both "a bar outside the universe" and "a bar not outside the universe" and both would be true. Or both false. Or.... No, I don't think so; such examples are simply meaningless. We mustn't confuse a posteriori rules of the universe such as gravity, or electrodynamics which may not apply "outside" our universe with a priori rules which simply cannot not apply. This leads to the question of what, exactly, works outside a temporal context? What can we safely apply to areas outside our own familiar spacetime, without having everything contradict and denied logically? You say that by example, every cause is temporally before the effect, but that is simply because all examples are still placed in a temporal context. Can we get observational results beyond it, and what can we say reasonably about non-temporal space? Nothing can "happen" in non-temporal space by defintion, since that requires something to change, and change requires time. Causation also requires change which also requires time. If there is no change, then whatever you want to call it, it isn't cause and effect. What you're asking here is equivalent to: "sure all the rocks we found so far are make of rock, does that mean we are sure that there aren't some rocks made out of jelly?" If it was made out of jelly, it wouldn't be a rock. If it didn't involve time, it wouldn't be cause and effect. Simple. Thank you, Datheron, for helping me cement my ideas on P1 better! (You too Albert, in future versions I will use the altered version of P1 that I gave you!) [ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

01-15-2002, 09:52 AM	#57
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Quoted material by Albert Cipriani will be in bold Theophage now argues: "All cause and effect relationships require that the cause be TEMPORALLY PRIOR to the effect." To simplify your words further we get: All causes must temporally precede their effects. Thank you for that simplification, Albert. But you are wrong that I "now argue" this is true. I have argued that since the beginning, you simply didn't understand what I'd said. Indeed, if you'd read the commentary I gave to other people's posts, they show that is precisely what I've been arguing even before I have you my alternate P1. I do like your even simpler version better, however, so I will use it from now on. You have assumed temporality AND precedence. A single premise ought to have a single assumption. No Albert, I didn't assume anything. I merely described a single requirement for causation. That requirement being "All causes must temporally precede their effects." (I do like this new version!) This requirement is based on the very defintion of cause and effect, so it isn't even my "assumption". I could accept your premise if it only assumed precedence and did not assume that precedence to be temporal precedence. If it doesn't have temporal precedence, it isn't cause and effect that we're talking about. Simple. For example, in the Trinity Procession, the Holy Ghost is said to proceed from the Father and the Son. This precedence (taking place eternally in a being that cannot change) necessarily must not be a temporal precedence, must not be the stuff of metronomes. Supporting an absurd notion with imaginary characters? Yeah, that makes sense An example closer to home: In the 50's many homeowners thought the future would be decided by atom bombs. This future potentiality caused them to effect backyard bunkers. Ergo, a future cause produced an effect in the present. The cause that preceded its effect preceded it as thoughts or values in people's heads, not as moments in time. The thoughts about the future were the cause of building the bunkers, right? These thoughts preceded their effects temporally, right? Then that is all I'm talking about, Albert. Those thoughts about the terrible future occured at various points in time before the individuals built bunkers. By defintion of cause and effect, they would have to occur at points in time before their effects, and they did. That's why the thoughts are indeed the cause of that particular effect. Now, if you don't have any points in time before something, that thing cannot have a cause. Why? Because the cause would have to be at some point before the thing in question, thus violating what cause and effect means. It's simple really... Daniel "Theophage" Clark [ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2002, 06:49 AM	#55
Theophage Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 966	Quoted material by rainbow walking will be in bold: FIRST CAUSE needn’t be stamped with the signature of a POINT in TIME prior to the EFFECT. As I wrote to Datheron, cause and effect is by defintion a temporal effect. This means that yes, the cause must be at a point temporally prior ("before") to its effect. If it isn't, then it isn't cause and effect. That's why the First Cause idea doesn't work, rainbow. As for the differnce between divisible and indivisible time, if it isn't divisible (i.e. an interval between points), it isn't time. (P2) is right on and I concur. But (P1) doesn’t lead to (P2) for the reasons outlined above. Ummm, rainbow I don't think you understand how a logical syllogism works. P1 isn't supposed to lead to P2. Bad choice of words again? Well, you were talking about “THIS UNIVERSE”. Clearly this universe is comprised of SPECIFIC attributes arranged in a specific manner to account for this universe as an ongoing phenomenon. Space, time, gravity, energy etc. and so on are all attributes of this universe but that in no way means they couldn’t have existed prior to their incorporation into THIS UNIVERSE. They just couldn’t have existed relationally as they now do in the specific manner and state in which they now exist. Cool! I actually understand what you're saying here! Except that I define the Universe as everything that exists (or has ever existed, since we're talking about the beginning). Thus, if those attributes of the universe did exist but simply weren't "put together" yet, then that would still be included within my defintion of the Universe. In other words, my argument would then apply to the beginning of that earlier primodial state, and not simply the beginning of our current state from that primordial state. If I am indeed understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing for the idea that David came up with at the top of page 4. Check it out. Hence (P1) fails… Sorry, but no. Thanks for trying though! Daniel "Theophage" Clark

01-15-2002, 11:57 AM	#60
CodeMason Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 226	Even so, Albert, the crux of his argument still stands. Even if quantum particles can flow backwards in time, there is still a space (for lack of better word) in time for which the cause can occur. No time = no cause.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.