Post: #1

At the time of writing, nothing new had been posted in the previous thread—Philosophy: The case for/against materialism—in the last three weeks. For the purpose of this thread, we will assume that the argument in the previous thread is undisputed and regard it as true. If any new or unaddressed objection arises to the subject of the previous thread, post it in the previous thread.

In this thread, we must presuppose that the universe and all material and contingent things are ultimately caused by a substance or substances which possess(es) the quality of modal necessity. We have not yet explored the necessary properties of the substance(s).

In this thread, let us move on to the subject of whether or not the necessary substance which caused all contingent things is personal, abstract and impersonal, necessarily personal, necessarily abstract and impersonal, or what have you. Post objections, counterarguments, and/or independent arguments for/against any side of this debate. When posting objections, designate exactly which premise you are objecting to and follow up with a concise refutation of that premise.

I will start.

1) Modally necessary substances are either impersonal substances or transcendent persons.
2) A modally necessary substance(s) created the universe.
3) Either a modally necessary impersonal substance(s) created the universe, or a modally necessary transcendent person(s) created the universe. (1,2)
4) If a modally necessary impersonal substance(s) created the universe, the universe would exist from eternity.
5) If the universe existed from eternity, it would have an actually infinite past.
6) If a modally necessary impersonal substance(s) created the universe, the universe would have an actually infinite past. (4,5)
7) The universe does not have an actually infinite past.
8) An impersonal substance(s) did not create the universe (6,7)
9) A transcendent person(s) created the universe (3,8)
∴) A modally necessary transcendent person(s) created the universe.

Post: #2

Bro, I've studied Mathematical Logic at Masters Level at a top Uni. I also have religious debates frequently.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Try using less technical jargon and frame your thoughts in Laymens terms.

Post: #3

The technical terms are important for the ordered argument, but I can also go into detail regarding what each premise means.

Premise 1: For any modally necessary thing J, J is either impersonal (not a person) or J is personal (a person). This premise just introduces the dichotomy between personhood and non-personhood. If proposition P is that J is impersonal, than ~P would mean that J is personal. Thus, premise 1 is the same as Pv~P, which is necessarily true. Premise 1 can't be falsified.

Premise 2: The universe and all contingent things have a cause which is itself uncaused (modally necessary). This premise is universally assumed in this thread, so if you want to dispute premise 2, do so in the previous thread on materialism.

Premise 3: This just combines premises 1 and 2 to show that the universe was either created by a person or a non-person, in either case possessing the quality of modal necessity. Since premises 1 and 2 cannot be disputed, neither can premise 3.

Premise 4: If the universe is caused by a non-personal uncaused abstract object, the object's unchanging nature would mean the universe emerges from that object. If the universe emerges from an ever-unchanging abstract object, then the universe will have always emerged from that object. Therefore, the universe would have existed from eternity.

Premise 5: This is really just a rewording of premise 4. If the universe exists from eternity, it exists without a beginning, so the past must be infinite. The only way to falsify this is to falsify premise 4.

Premise 6: A combination of premises 4 and 5. The only way to falsify this is to falsify premise 4 or 5.

Premise 7: The past is not infinite. I proved this logically in the previous thread, but we can reiterate here if we need to.

Premise 8: This is just a modus tollens between premises 6 and 7. In order to falsify this, you must falsify either 6 or 7.

Premise 9: Premise 8 resolves the disjunction in premise 3, so we can conclude that the uncaused cause is a person. This is a disjunctive syllogism, and the disjunction can't be falsified, so the only way to falsify this to to falsify premise 8.





Effectively, you have three vectors of attack. You can attack premise 2, but you need to do that in the other thread. You can attack premise 4, and you can attack premise 7

Post: #4

Because I am a NoFapper (on Day 131) and cannot Jerk Off - I will not be able to participate in this thread.

Post: #5

Interesting. Arguments of this cosmological/ontological sort were one of the first things that brought me to a belief in God, so I always appreciate going over this ground. I haven't yet taken any upper level courses on formal logic so I'm hardly an expert, but if I had to pick at something I would ask you:

What precisely is meant by "transcendent person"? What qualities or attributes distinguish a non-transcendent entity from a transcendent one? What categorization can we use to completely separate the categories of persons and non-persons? Can a non-person be transcendent?

Post: #6

OK, correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is pretty similar to the famous argument also use by Ali in my debate with him. Your argument is not really answering as you seem to simply be moving the buck around but adding an extra entity, the uncaused person.

If the uncaused person created the Universe then either (according to your own logic)

1. The uncaused person is always creating a Universe is never-ending loop.
2. The uncaused person created the Universe at some point in time.

1. We can discount because otherwise there would an infinite regress in time and so we would never get to the point where our Universe was created. Therefore we are only left with 2. If 2 then there must be some cause that made the Uncaused Person create the Universe at that point in time.

So now we have the question of

"What caused the Uncaused Person to create the Universe"

This is implies that the Uncaused Person is just another "being" existing in some Universe similar to ours in that it has cause and effect and time. This is why it doesnt work to use logic (or in your case Logic) to try and answer these questions. The fact is you have only moved the buck and now have

(Universe + 1) instead of just (Universe) and have pretty much all the same unanswered questions.

You seem interested in Logic so I would suggest you have a look at Godels Second Incompleteness Theorem. In it he shows that

Logic System A is incomplete as it cannot prove Sentence A even though A is shown to be True
Logic System B = (Logic System A + Axiom A): is incomplete as it cannot prove some sentence B though B can be shown to be True
Logic System C = (Logic System A + Axiom A + Axiom B) :is incomplete as it cannot prove some sentence C and C can be shown to be True.

Your argument works the same as the above. You are adding entities and creating new questions trying to answer the first.

Conclusion: The whole line of reasoning is pointless.

Or you can just answer the question: What caused the Uncaused Person to create the Universe?

Post: #7

Another point is that it seems to me that the idea of cause doesnt actually make sense talking about the beginning of the universe.

Cause is not a logical thing but a physical (time and space thing). For instance if our world was completely static with no time and things were eternally the same, then there would be no such thing as cause. So Cause is something, a concept that we created, that by it's own nature is dependent on time and space.

If I said I was late for work because there was an earthquake on Mars, my employer wouldnt accept that as a valid excuse. If the Earthquake was in my city I would get away with it. It should be clear to you this means Cause is related to Physical Space.

If I said I was late for work 3 weeks ago because I had an accident two weeks ago, that wouldnt make sense. Cause has to come before effect in terms of time. Therefore it is related to Time.

You are trying to use Cause within a Logical agument and I already told you Logic cannot be applied to the Physical world in that way, and certainly not to the beginning of the Universe.

Now, we do not know the nature of Physics (Space and Time) at the beginning of the Universe so we cannot really make sense of the term Cause. This is why I say it is pointless talking about this as it makes no sense.

Cause, a man-made logical concept based on our experience of the world, cannot be applied to something that doesnt conform to the nature of time and space that Cause is based on.

Again, Cause is not some Universal metaphysical idea that always applies, it is based on the physical world and is must be limited in its use.

Post: #8

ScrapperTL, you funny guy, you.

-------------------

(05-12-2017 10:56 AM)Maistre Wrote:  What precisely is meant by "transcendent person"? What qualities or attributes distinguish a non-transcendent entity from a transcendent one? What categorization can we use to completely separate the categories of persons and non-persons? Can a non-person be transcendent?

I used vague language there, I apologize. By "transcendent", I mean the type of transcendence as being beyond the natural world. This is a consequence of modal necessity. I should have just said "modally necessary person" and it would have been clearer. I don't understand the question. May I have an example, hypothetical or otherwise, of a necessary substance that would be in a grey area between personhood and non-personhood? Yes, in being modally necessary, an impersonal substance would be transcendent in the same sense. I should have written it more clearly. And my dude, don't worry about not having higher education in philosophy. I'm not educated in philosophy either, just computer shit.

--------------------

(05-12-2017 12:21 PM)kavi Wrote:  OK, correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is pretty similar to the famous argument also use by Ali in my debate with him. Your argument is not really answering as you seem to simply be moving the buck around but adding an extra entity, the uncaused person.

If the uncaused person created the Universe then either (according to your own logic)

1. The uncaused person is always creating a Universe is never-ending loop.
2. The uncaused person created the Universe at some point in time.

1. We can discount because otherwise there would an infinite regress in time and so we would never get to the point where our Universe was created. Therefore we are only left with 2. If 2 then there must be some cause that made the Uncaused Person create the Universe at that point in time.

So now we have the question of

"What caused the Uncaused Person to create the Universe"

This is implies that the Uncaused Person is just another "being" existing in some Universe similar to ours in that it has cause and effect and time. This is why it doesnt work to use logic (or in your case Logic) to try and answer these questions. The fact is you have only moved the buck and now have

(Universe + 1) instead of just (Universe) and have pretty much all the same unanswered questions.

You seem interested in Logic so I would suggest you have a look at Godels Second Incompleteness Theorem. In it he shows that

Logic System A is incomplete as it cannot prove Sentence A even though A is shown to be True
Logic System B = (Logic System A + Axiom A): is incomplete as it cannot prove some sentence B though B can be shown to be True
Logic System C = (Logic System A + Axiom A + Axiom B) :is incomplete as it cannot prove some sentence C and C can be shown to be True.

Your argument works the same as the above. You are adding entities and creating new questions trying to answer the first.

Conclusion: The whole line of reasoning is pointless.

Or you can just answer the question: What caused the Uncaused Person to create the Universe?

Without at least one uncaused cause, the universe would have an infinite regress of causes, which I have shown to be false in the previous thread. Premise 2 is derived from the previous thread, so to dispute it, please do so in the previous thread. So the uncaused cause(s) is not an extra entity. With regard to objections 1 and 2, I don't think either are true. Number 1 is not true, because it only applies to impersonal things. Number 2 may or may not be true—it is true from our perspective, surely, in that the universe had a beginning. If 2 is true, it doesn't necessitate that the necessary creator exist in a separate universe where there are causes and effects, because the creator would be the first cause to have transpired and the universe the first effect. Can you explain to me why number 2 requires that the creator's action be caused by something else? If a man had been sitting from eternity, it is conceivable that of his own volition, he could decide to stand without being caused to make that decision. This is a characteristic of being a personal agent.

This can be said of all sorts of sound arguments even about basic physical reality (see example A below). I don't see how this refutes. Gödel's work is important, but the issue arises when you try to use logic alone to prove logic. I don't see how it arises when using logic to prove something else. Can you elucidate this?

example A:
    1) My mora knife was made by knife company Morakniv.
    2) If Morakniv made something, Morakniv exists
    ∴) Morakniv exists

This simple argument adds a new entity (Morakniv) and creates new questions to answer the first (Who owns Morakniv? Is Morakniv ethical? Where is Morakniv located?). It seems that with most discoveries, new entities and questions will be added.
His own volition. If he is modally necessary, then by definition, he is not subject to causes.

(05-12-2017 12:53 PM)kavi Wrote:  Another point is that it seems to me that the idea of cause doesnt actually make sense talking about the beginning of the universe.

Cause is not a logical thing but a physical (time and space thing). For instance if our world was completely static with no time and things were eternally the same, then there would be no such thing as cause. So Cause is something, a concept that we created, that by it's own nature is dependent on time and space.

If I said I was late for work because there was an earthquake on Mars, my employer wouldnt accept that as a valid excuse. If the Earthquake was in my city I would get away with it. It should be clear to you this means Cause is related to Physical Space.

If I said I was late for work 3 weeks ago because I had an accident two weeks ago, that wouldnt make sense. Cause has to come before effect in terms of time. Therefore it is related to Time.

You are trying to use Cause within a Logical agument and I already told you Logic cannot be applied to the Physical world in that way, and certainly not to the beginning of the Universe.

Now, we do not know the nature of Physics (Space and Time) at the beginning of the Universe so we cannot really make sense of the term Cause. This is why I say it is pointless talking about this as it makes no sense.

Cause, a man-made logical concept based on our experience of the world, cannot be applied to something that doesnt conform to the nature of time and space that Cause is based on.

Again, Cause is not some Universal metaphysical idea that always applies, it is based on the physical world and is must be limited in its use.

I think I agree. It surprises me that you're saying this, because it goes against your previous post's dichotomy between objections 1 and 2. If cause as a concept is inherently spatiotemporal, would the act of creating space and time not be the first causal event? I do not agree that causes come before effects. It seems causes and effects are simultaneous, so this is really a non-issue. Otherwise, we would have to consider there is a temporal gap between causes and effects, a notion with countless bizarre consequences. So if it's possible that the universe began to exist without a cause, because it doesn't need to conform to causality, then what is it about an actual nothing that allows it to descriminate between things it can be the cause of? Why just universes? Why did causality begin with the universe? It is inconceivable that an actual nothing, a lack of anything, would have such properties. For if the nothing has properties, it is a something rather than a nothing and the universe is therefore subject to causality. You may have something here that would turn my argument from a proof to circumstancial evidence, but we are going to need more clarity to find out. EDIT: I didn't realize it before, but this post is also an attempted rebuttal of premise 2. To continue this line of argumentation, please quote this post in a reply to the other thread.

Post: #9

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  With regard to objections 1 and 2, I don't think either are true. Number 1 is not true, because it only applies to impersonal things.

That it only applies to impersonal things is an assumption you are making. Free will is not proven and is only conjecture. That is another discussion we can have another time.

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Can you explain to me why number 2 requires that the creator's action be caused by something else? If a man had been sitting from eternity, it is conceivable that of his own volition, he could decide to stand without being caused to make that decision. This is a characteristic of being a personal agent.

No it is not conceivable. Being Stands because nerve signal goes to his muscles to make them contract. Nerve signals are created in the brain due to chemisty as a result of ...and so on.

You are trying to bring free will into it again. Free will is a non-thing that I would not entertain unless proven otherwise.

So you made this whole argument to simply turn around and say "This being was sitting around doing nothing and for no reason decided to create the universe"

This is something I would never accept.

So did This Being create the Universe randomly? I mean without any outside determining factors?

Also, you said the Universe could not have existed forever because we would never get to this point. Doesnt that also apply to This Being. If he was sitting around forever then how did he get to the point where he created the Universe?

I say this because you also need to consider the consequences of any theory you conjecture.

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  This can be said of all sorts of sound arguments even about basic physical reality (see example A below). I don't see how this refutes. Gödel's work is important, but the issue arises when you try to use logic alone to prove logic. I don't see how it arises when using logic to prove something else. Can you elucidate this?

example A:
    1) My mora knife was made by knife company Morakniv.
    2) If Morakniv made something, Morakniv exists
    ∴) Morakniv exists

This simple argument adds a new entity (Morakniv) and creates new questions to answer the first (Who owns Morakniv? Is Morakniv ethical? Where is Morakniv located?). It seems that with most discoveries, new entities and questions will be added.

2) is redundant in your logical proof. Conclusion follows from 1) directly. No new entity is created as Morakhnov is present in 1) already, infact 1) simply presents a relationship between two entities, one of which is morakhnov

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  I think I agree. It surprises me that you're saying this, because it goes against your previous post's dichotomy between objections 1 and 2.

No it doesnt, my dichotomy is a result of your argument, an argument I dont accept.

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  If cause as a concept is inherently spatiotemporal, would the act of creating space and time not be the first causal event?

No, because the act of creating space and time exist outside of space and time, obviously. Space and Time cannot be created from within otherwise it would already exist.

There is no 'causal' (atleast not in our sense of the word) link between the act of creating space and time and space and time itself. Also, this clear from the fact that physicist have no idea how the Universe came about and cannot see beyond the big bang.

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  I do not agree that causes come before effects. It seems causes and effects are simultaneous, so this is really a non-issue. Otherwise, we would have to consider there is a temporal gap between causes and effects, a notion with countless bizarre consequences. So if it's possible that the universe began to exist without a cause, because it doesn't need to conform to causality, then what is it about an actual nothing that allows it to descriminate between things it can be the cause of? Why just universes? Why did causality begin with the universe? It is inconceivable that an actual nothing, a lack of anything, would have such properties. For if the nothing has properties, it is a something rather than a nothing and the universe is therefore subject to causality. You may have something here that would turn my argument from a proof to circumstancial evidence, but we are going to need more clarity to find out. EDIT: I didn't realize it before, but this post is also an attempted rebuttal of premise 2. To continue this line of argumentation, please quote this post in a reply to the other thread.

Dude, I'm not saying it was nothing, I'm saying we dont know what it was. I said the same thing to that guy Ali. This thread shows us one thing which is that we cannot apply the ideas of our world, whether it be logic, cause and effect, nothingness, to the outside of it.

This is what you are trying to do and you are making arbitrary assumptions and running into contradictions.

Post: #10

(05-12-2017 12:21 PM)kavi Wrote:  So now we have the question of

"What caused the Uncaused Person to create the Universe"

The real unanswered question I posed in the first thread is:

What created the entity that created the universe? And what created that?

When and how does the loop end?

Post: #11

Kavi and RatInTheWoods, you are both making a mistake here. You are both arguing that a modally necessary thing must be caused. It is by definition that a modally necessary thing is neither caused nor subject to cause, so what you two are presenting is a gigantic contradiction. To argue that the creator of all contingent things is itself caused, you must dispute premise 2. Premise 2 is assumed true in this thread, so to dispute it, go to the other thread. The potential targets in this argument are premises 2, 4 and 7, so in this thread you may attack either premise 4 or premise 7.

(05-12-2017 04:13 PM)kavi Wrote:  That it only applies to impersonal things is an assumption you are making. Free will is not proven and is only conjecture. That is another discussion we can have another time. No it is not conceivable. Being Stands because nerve signal goes to his muscles to make them contract. Nerve signals are created in the brain due to chemisty as a result of ...and so on. You are trying to bring free will into it again. Free will is a non-thing that I would not entertain unless proven otherwise. So you made this whole argument to simply turn around and say "This being was sitting around doing nothing and for no reason decided to create the universe". This is something I would never accept. So did This Being create the Universe randomly? I mean without any outside determining factors? Also, you said the Universe could not have existed forever because we would never get to this point. Doesnt that also apply to This Being. If he was sitting around forever then how did he get to the point where he created the Universe? I say this because you also need to consider the consequences of any theory you conjecture.

2) is redundant in your logical proof. Conclusion follows from 1) directly. No new entity is created as Morakhnov is present in 1) already, infact 1) simply presents a relationship between two entities, one of which is morakhnov. No it doesnt, my dichotomy is a result of your argument, an argument I dont accept. No, because the act of creating space and time exist outside of space and time, obviously. Space and Time cannot be created from within otherwise it would already exist. There is no 'causal' (atleast not in our sense of the word) link between the act of creating space and time and space and time itself. Also, this clear from the fact that physicist have no idea how the Universe came about and cannot see beyond the big bang. Dude, I'm not saying it was nothing, I'm saying we dont know what it was. I said the same thing to that guy Ali. This thread shows us one thing which is that we cannot apply the ideas of our world, whether it be logic, cause and effect, nothingness, to the outside of it. This is what you are trying to do and you are making arbitrary assumptions and running into contradictions.

I had to reuse some colors this time. I hope that's no problem.
I think I can settle it pretty quickly. For a thing which is both completely uncaused AND the cause of something, determinism is impossible and therefore free will is necessary. Free will is an unavoidable consequence of premise 2. This argument begs the question because the only reason why I would accept your premise would be if I already accepted your conclusion. No, that's only if the second part of your dichotomy is true. But your dichotomy is a false dichotomy, and neither part is true. I would have to be extremely vain to answer the first question. The second question's answer is yes. That would only be the case if the second part of your false dichotomy was true. To be outside of time negates that one would sit around for an infinite amount of time. The point still stands. We know that when we discover facts, we also discover new entities and new questions. No, it isn't. I have no reason to believe that causality is fully contained within the natural world, rather than a necessary property of contingent things (which would make more sense, since contingent things by definition are subject to cause). And if cause and effect occur simultaneously, there is no contradiction in saying that a necessary being caused a contingent thing to begin existing. I don't wonder why. It's a metaphysical question, not a physical one. Why would physicists have an answer? If it wasn't nothing, then it was something. If it was the cause of all contingent things, it must be necessary. If it's necessary, my argument in this thread proves it must be personal. To dispute, dispute either premise 4 or premise 7. Logic is modally necessary, seeing as it governs modally necessary things. Logic is not contained in "our world", so we can use it to deduce things beyond "our world". I haven't made arbitrary assumptions and I have resolved any perceived contradictions.

Post: #12

I dont understand how the below is a false dichotomy?

X happened =>

Either
1) X happened at some point in time
Or
2) X is always happening

Also, it is quite difficult to follow all colours and the structure of your replies. Would help if you just selected the main parts you want to reply to and reply beneath them

Post: #13

So much colors...

Post: #14

Quote:Also, it is quite difficult to follow all colours and the structure of your replies. Would help if you just selected the main parts you want to reply to and reply beneath them

Ah, I figured it was worth a try. The idea was to avoid excessively long posts full of quote boxes, but if it's making it harder to read, it defeats its purpose. I'll just quote and number, then.

Quote:I dont understand how the below is a false dichotomy?

X happened =>

Either
1) X happened at some point in time
Or
2) X is always happening

To start, a valid dichotomy is such that propositions P and Q are true given the falsity of the other. If ~P, then Q. If ~Q, then P.
If P is "A necessary being created the universe at some point in time" and Q is "A necessary being is always creating the universe in a never-ending loop", then ~P doesn't imply Q. Neither does ~Q imply P.
If we are talking from a perspective within the spatiotemporal, natural world, then P is true, since the creation event took place at the first moment of the universe. But for your dichotomy to have the consequences you ascribe to it, it must be speaking from the perspective of a modally necessary non-spatiotemporal being—a being outside of time. All temporal qualifiers like "always" and "at some point in time" are malformed in describing the experience of any non-temporal being. Both P and Q are false, so it is a false dichotomy.

But why stop there? Let's assume that P is true. Then, the being in question would be a temporal being, losing its modal necessity. It would fail to be the substance described in premise 2, so the being described in the OP is not the same being as that for which P is true. P defeats itself, so it cannot be true.

Let's assume that Q is true. Earlier you said that, as a consequence of Q, we would have the infinite regress described in premise 5 of the OP. Let's also assume that the usage of "always" in Q is such that the uncaused being doesn't itself engage an "event", but in creating the universe also creates time. This is different qualitatively from the universe infinitely emerging from an impersonal substance's nature, because there is an inception implied in the act—a beginning. With an infinite emergeance, there is no inception. With a personal creation, we can have an inception, regardless of whether Q is true or false. So if Q is true, it doesn't defeat the argument. Despite that, it is still false for the reason given above.

Post: #15

Also, what is distinction between something being personal and something being non-personal.

Assuming you are a personal being, if I start killing your brain cells, at which point do you become non-personal.

If a human is personal, is a monkey, how about a mouse, what about jellyfish, bacteria, trees?

Show me the point in life where something goes from being non-personal to personal?

Is a human in a coma a personal being?

Post: #16

(05-13-2017 06:43 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  To start, a valid dichotomy is such that propositions P and Q are true given the falsity of the other. If ~P, then Q. If ~Q, then P.
If P is "A necessary being created the universe at some point in time" and Q is "A necessary being is always creating the universe in a never-ending loop", then ~P doesn't imply Q. Neither does ~Q imply P.
If we are talking from a perspective within the spatiotemporal, natural world, then P is true, since the creation event took place at the first moment of the universe. But for your dichotomy to have the consequences you ascribe to it, it must be speaking from the perspective of a modally necessary non-spatiotemporal being—a being outside of time. All temporal qualifiers like "always" and "at some point in time" are malformed in describing the experience of any non-temporal being. Both P and Q are false, so it is a false dichotomy.

If Time does not exist then the action of creating the Universe nevers ends, so it is 'always' being created, even now, as we speak. God would exist in a singular state of 'creating' the Universe but never cause a change to actually have a Universe in existence.

You are making weird assumptions quite often. You seem to imply there is no Time yet things can still happen i.e that the state of things can go from No Universe to Universe, but Time as know is only a measure of change, so there must be some Time in Gods experience otherwise how can he perceive No Universe and then Universe. Just because 'our' time did not exist then, doesnt mean there was not some other 'Time'.

This and the above post refer to arbitrary assumptions you are making.

Post: #17

Finally, there is a problem with the premises of your argument. You are missing

A contingent thing must be caused (or created) by another contingent thing.

A necessary thing can only cause a necessary thing, because in any situation that the cause exists, the effect will too, by the nature and meaning of 'cause and effect'.

Therefore, you contradict yourself when you say the The Modally Necessary created the Contingent, because that would make the Contingent necessary.

Post: #18

(05-12-2017 02:58 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 10:56 AM)Maistre Wrote:  What precisely is meant by "transcendent person"? What qualities or attributes distinguish a non-transcendent entity from a transcendent one? What categorization can we use to completely separate the categories of persons and non-persons? Can a non-person be transcendent?

I don't understand the question. May I have an example, hypothetical or otherwise, of a necessary substance that would be in a grey area between personhood and non-personhood? [color=#483D8B]

--------------------

Good question. Hmmm. Honestly off the top of my head? Have you read the Isaac Asimov short story the last question? The computer program in that could be an example, though whether or not its metaphysically necessary in the same sense as what you mean might be a little hazy.

All this really comes down to issues of language I suppose (hey wittgenstein!) which maybe means im being pedantic. But honestly I believe they hint at larger issues with logical proofs for god. Anselm put together a logically sound and valid argument for the existence of god 1000 years ago but somehow there are still atheists, and not necessarily irrational ones either. I think honestly it tells us something about the limits of our human capacity to fully discern and understand the Truth - which to my mind is only more proof for an Intelligent Creator of the sort you're talking about here.

Post: #19

(05-13-2017 06:43 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  Kavi and RatInTheWoods, you are both making a mistake here. You are both arguing that a modally necessary thing must be caused.

Try to avoid using language like "modally necessary thing must be caused"

Are you saying the creation of the universe requires no explanation?

If you take that position, there's no discussion to be had, "because magic happens" isn't a logical thing.

How the universe came into existence is a deeply fascinating question, I'd be interested if you have a different opinion rather than supernatural or "unknown".

Post: #20

(05-14-2017 06:23 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  [][][][]a non-argument[][][][]

This is a non-argument. It is still a contradiction in terms to claim an uncaused thing is caused. Word salad doesn't change that.

Post: #21

I'm trying another thing for formatting. Let me know if this also sucks or what.

(05-14-2017 07:18 AM)kavi Wrote:  [1] Also, what is distinction between something being personal and something being non-personal.
[2] Assuming you are a personal being, if I start killing your brain cells, at which point do you become non-personal.
[3] If a human is personal, is a monkey, how about a mouse, what about jellyfish, bacteria, trees?
[4] Show me the point in life where something goes from being non-personal to personal?
[5] Is a human in a coma a personal being?

[1] If we're talking about beings in the natural world, my opinion ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but can you demonstrate how any such ambiguity could exist among necessary things?
[2] When I'm dead, surely. How much earlier than that, if at all, I don't know. I think this is a question for more seasoned ethicists.
[3] Again, I'm not qualified to answer, but it may be the case that the distinction between personal and impersonal is the same distinction between quantum observers and non-observers. If that is the case, we can do some sort of experiment to see if monkeys can cause a superposition to collapse. Just an idea.
[4] This is the same question as [2]
[5] My gut says yes.

(05-14-2017 07:31 AM)kavi Wrote:  [1] If Time does not exist then the action of creating the Universe nevers ends, so it is 'always' being created, even now, as we speak. God would exist in a singular state of 'creating' the Universe but never cause a change to actually have a Universe in existence.
[2] You are making weird assumptions quite often.
[3] You seem to imply there is no Time yet things can still happen i.e that the state of things can go from No Universe to Universe, but Time as know is only a measure of change, so there must be some Time in Gods experience otherwise how can he perceive No Universe and then Universe.
[4] Just because 'our' time did not exist then, doesnt mean there was not some other 'Time'.
[5] This and the above post refer to arbitrary assumptions you are making.

[1] It makes no sense to ascribe endingness or unendingness to the actions of a timeless agent. But again, if "Q" (see previous post) is true it doesn't defeat the argument.
[2] What have I assumed?
[3] I haven't argued this necessarily, but there are numerous ways this can be true. I'll give one example. If modal classes themselves are emergeant from the nature of our necessary being, the being is able to traverse modality, and therefore both be a necessary being and be a causal agent upon contingent things.
[4] We can suppose that there are approaching infinite "times", then, but eventually, we must either arrive at something timeless or somehow arrive at something timeful that is not subject to causality.
[5] What's arbitrary?

(05-14-2017 07:40 AM)kavi Wrote:  Finally, there is a problem with the premises of your argument. You are missing
[1] A contingent thing must be caused (or created) by another contingent thing.
[2] A necessary thing can only cause a necessary thing, because in any situation that the cause exists, the effect will too, by the nature and meaning of 'cause and effect'.
Therefore, you contradict yourself when you say the The Modally Necessary created the Contingent, because that would make the Contingent necessary.

[1] If this proposition was true, the past would be an infinite regress, but it is not.
[2] I have no reason to believe this.

Post: #22

(05-14-2017 07:41 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 06:23 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  [][][][]a non-argument[][][][]

This is a non-argument. It is still a contradiction in terms to claim an uncaused thing is caused. Word salad doesn't change that.

Speak slowly because I am dumb.

1) How do you think the universe came into existence?

2) How did your god come into existence?

Why couldn't the mechanism for 2) explain 1)

Post: #23

(05-14-2017 09:02 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Speak slowly because I am dumb.

I don't want to hear people insult themselves, even as a joke. I do the same thing but I think it's a bad habit.

(05-14-2017 09:02 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  1) How do you think the universe came into existence?

If you want the long version, the previous thread was about that.
In short, the universe had a beginning. That makes the universe contingent (something which can exist, but can also change, be different than it is, and in a hypothetical world not have existed at all). Things that are contingent depend on other things in order to exist and to determine their current state. For example, ice cubes would not form without water and my freezer being plugged into a working power source. Those things also depend on other conditions which in turn depend on other things. So the universe depends on something else in order to exist. If the thing it depends on is contingent, that would create an infinite regress which is absurd. If the thing it depends on is not contingent, then the thing it depends on can and does exist without any cause or beginning. This is called necessity.

So I think the universe came into existence because something that is not contingent created it. This is premise 2 in the OP.

(05-14-2017 09:02 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  2) How did your god come into existence?

It didn't. When you say "your god", you're referring to the uncaused thing I mentioned. Since it exists without any cause or beginning, it did not come into existence, but can be said to exist beyond time.

(05-14-2017 09:02 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Why couldn't the mechanism for 2) explain 1)

The reason why is because (2) is a property of things that are not contingent, but (1) is contingent. If (2) explained (1), the universe would neither be contingent nor have a beginning, but it does have a beginning.

Post: #24

(05-14-2017 08:10 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 07:18 AM)kavi Wrote:  [1] Also, what is distinction between something being personal and something being non-personal.
[2] Assuming you are a personal being, if I start killing your brain cells, at which point do you become non-personal.
[3] If a human is personal, is a monkey, how about a mouse, what about jellyfish, bacteria, trees?
[4] Show me the point in life where something goes from being non-personal to personal?
[5] Is a human in a coma a personal being?

[1] If we're talking about beings in the natural world, my opinion ought to be taken with a grain of salt, but can you demonstrate how any such ambiguity could exist among necessary things?
[2] When I'm dead, surely. How much earlier than that, if at all, I don't know. I think this is a question for more seasoned ethicists.
[3] Again, I'm not qualified to answer, but it may be the case that the distinction between personal and impersonal is the same distinction between quantum observers and non-observers. If that is the case, we can do some sort of experiment to see if monkeys can cause a superposition to collapse. Just an idea.
[4] This is the same question as [2]
[5] My gut says yes.

[1] I dont need to demonstrate it, how does the definition of 'personal' change when dealing with necessary or contingent things. It doesnt. The property of being personal, or of being necessary, are independant of each other, according to your definition of the terms. Either way, both are terms you have created and you have not defined any such limitation. This is how logic works.

Do you not see why it is problem to use the property of being personal in your argument, but you are not able to define it some scientific way? You cannot use a subjective property in a logical argument.

Personal needs to be objectively defined in such a way that for every thing x, either
1. Everyone agrees X is personal
2. Everyone agrees X is impersonal

This is only possible if there exist some impersonal test by which we can determine whether X is one or the other.

This is a really basic thing and shouldnt try and skirt around the issue. Just prove personal is an objectively determined property.

(05-14-2017 08:10 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  [3] I haven't argued this necessarily, but there are numerous ways this can be true. I'll give one example. If modal classes themselves are emergeant from the nature of our necessary being, the being is able to traverse modality, and therefore both be a necessary being and be a causal agent upon contingent things.

This doesnt make sense to me, but there are too many issues to go into, so I will leave it and go to the other point, as this one doesnt seem too central.

(05-14-2017 08:10 PM)The Gooz Boos Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 07:40 AM)kavi Wrote:  Finally, there is a problem with the premises of your argument. You are missing
[1] A contingent thing must be caused (or created) by another contingent thing.
[2] A necessary thing can only cause a necessary thing, because in any situation that the cause exists, the effect will too, by the nature and meaning of 'cause and effect'.
Therefore, you contradict yourself when you say the The Modally Necessary created the Contingent, because that would make the Contingent necessary.

[1] If this proposition was true, the past would be an infinite regress, but it is not.
[2] I have no reason to believe this.

A Contingent thing can only be caused by a Contingent thing.
Therefore, a Necessary thing cannot cause a Contingent thing

Proof

For any A that is Contingent
Assume it is caused by B, a Necessary thing
For every World w,
B exists (As B is necessary)
B Causes A
A exists (From the last two)
For every world w, A exists
A is a Necessary thing (from the above)
Contradiction

A Cannot be caused by a Necessary thing (Assuming negative causes contradiction)

Seems a pretty simple and airtight argument to me.

It causes a problem because of your assumptions that
1. All Contingent things have a cause
2. An infinite regress is not possible
(Probably the first)

Post: #25

Quote:The property of being personal, or of being necessary, are independant of each other, according to your definition of the terms.

Yes, that's true, you're right. The reason why I ask is because the examples we have of things that are in a grey area between personhood and non-personhood are things like monkeys, mice, trees, and bacteria. Or a person who's beaten half to death. Or a person who is in a coma. I don't think any of these things can translate easily into properties of a necessary thing. For example, a necessary monkey or a necessary mouse doesn't really make any sense. And a person who is necessary wouldn't be subject to physical injuries. In order to answer the question, I think we ought to first discover any possible ways that necessary personhood can be ambiguous.

Quote:Do you not see why it is problem to use the property of being personal in your argument, but you are not able to define it some scientific way? You cannot use a subjective property in a logical argument.

Yes, you're right. I will need to mull this over for a while. The properties of personhood which the OP argument relies on are things like free will, agency, spontaneity. Are these things separable from personhood? There are other aspects of personhood not used in the OP argument. I will need to mull this over.

Quote:For every world w, A exists

This is true if B is without agency and free will, but then B is not the personal being described in the OP argument. If B is not an agent, then anything created by it, such as A, would be emergeant from its intrinsic properties, rather than created by B's volition. On the other hand, if B is an agent, then things that are created by it can, in a hypothetical scenario, have not been created.