Checkmate in 3 moves

[MindOverMatter2]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

If the absence of reality entails the absence of logic, then why not?

You are now objectifying nothing by saying no logic applies to it. There is no reality in which logic is absent.

[Kismetji]

Originally Posted by Credo in Deum

The physical sphere shows that everything must come from something. The universe is made of up of energy and therefore came from something. Only something immaterial/supernatural could be eternal.

It could have always existed but in a timeless state, I think. Sort of like the data on your cd which plays the movie.

[FurtherSuntime]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

I don't feel intimidated. I feel amused actually.

None of what you guys say makes any sense to me.

I'm not quoting yourself.....anyway, ....you can't negotiate nothingness into anything because it does not exist.....good thing I checked in tonight

[Kismetji]

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

You are now objectifying nothing by saying no logic applies to it. There is no reality in which logic is absent.

Excellent. So what does it mean to say God created "out of nothing."

[Credo in Deum]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

It could have always existed but in a timeless state, I think. Sort of like the data on your cd which plays the movie.

Nope. The cd had a beginning which means it was not eternal.

[MindOverMatter2]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

Excellent. So what does it mean to say God created "out of nothing."

It means that God created the universe out of nothing physical. It does not mean that he created the universe out of a real nothing.

[Kismetji]

Originally Posted by Credo in Deum

Nope. The cd had a beginning which means it was not eternal.

The analogy breaks down, granted.

But I see no problem in thinking that the universe existed in an eternally atemporal state logically prior to the onset of time.

So, what's the deal there? We've already demonstrated nothing is not logically possible. So what is the purpose in bringing in an Engineer?

[Kismetji]

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

It means that God created the universe out of nothing physical. It does not mean that he created the universe out of a real nothing.

I have no problem with that!!!

[MindOverMatter2]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

So, what's the deal there? We've already demonstrated nothing is not logically possible. So what is the purpose in bringing in an Engineer?

Because it is evident that the universe is made up of contingent beings or states; they all borrow their reality.

[Kismetji]

Originally Posted by MindOverMatter2

Because it is evident that the universe is made up of contingent beings or states; they all borrow their reality.

But that's only true of the universe's constituents. Whose to say the universe as a whole, not in part, was not always necessary?

[Credo in Deum]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

The analogy breaks down, granted.

But I see no problem in thinking that the universe existed in an eternally atemporal state logically prior to the onset of time.

So, what's the deal there? We've already demonstrated nothing is not logically possible. So what is the purpose in bringing in an Engineer?

We have demonstrated that a supernatural nothing is not logically possible. We have not demonstrated that a physical nothing is not impossible.

[Kismetji]

Again he leaves me, BLAST!

XD

[Perplexity]

I'm a little surprised that the OP is being taken so seriously, and I hope you'll see why at the end of this post.

I'll critique the argument in terms of its form, and its content.

Form:

"A deductive argument is an argument where it is intended that it be impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false." - Cook, Roy T. A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 2009. p. 81.

Since MindoverMatter2 (MM2 from now on) intends his argument to be such that it's impossible for his premises to be true and the conclusion false, his argument is deductive.

Now, deductive arguments are either valid or invalid. They're valid if their conclusion(s) can be derived from the premises by rules of inference. This occurs naturally when the argument's structure is a valid argument form like Modus Ponens, or Modus Tollens, etc.

I've translated MM2's argument into several logics with the same result: the argument certainly isn't valid. For example, this is what it looks like in propositional logic:

1. O
2. P & => ~I & C
3. R & ~V

The above is literally gibberish. It can't even translate meaningfully. So, on the grounds of the form of his argument alone, I think we should all abandon any confidence in the argument. (it's not meaningful)

In case I'm accused of being pedantic, if we can't clearly see the intended implication relationship between the premises and the conclusion, then we can't tell if the premises afford good reason to accept the conclusion. It certainly isn't pedantic: it's necessary.

He can't offer the argument as inductive either since he thinks it's impossible for his premises to be false.

Content:

1. Out of nothing comes nothing..

(1) is ambiguous because MM2 thinks that out of nothing, God created everything. So, he'll need to clarify that unless he's down with (1) precluding creatio ex nihilo. If I might be so bold, I'm sure his clarification will reduce to the variation of Kalam's first premise: "nothing begins to exist without being caused to."

In that case, MM2's (1) is subject to alllll the objections and responses that shroud Kalam's first premise. We've all taken our stands on that, and I doubt any of us could say something the other hasn't already heard, so if MM2's (1) reduces to Kalam's (1), we should treat MM2's (1) just exactly as we do Kalam's.

2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.

(2) is highly ambiguous as well. Especially because MM2 thinks the latter statement of (2) is a derivation of the former, otherwise I can't make any sense of the "therefore" locution in (2). But, obviously the latter cannot be deduced from the former by any rule of inference. It shouldn't be included in a premise, and MM2 says (2) is a premise in (3).

Further, the phrase "potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality" can mean a number of things. What does it mean for something to infinitely precede another?

In an infinite series of whatever, there is no first memeber, so it doesn't make sense to say there is a member of that series which is infinitely remote from another member of that series. All members are finitely extended (causally, spatially, temporally etc.) from each other. What's infinite is the amount of members, not their relations to each other.

3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.

(3) interests me most because MM2 says here that there *has to be* an infinite reality. Yet,here, he practically says that infinity cannot be real. Now, he might respond here and say "I was talking about quantity there, I'm not so doing in (3)." But, then it's his burden to explain what infinity means in relation to God if not anything in a quantitative sense.

Conclusion:

The argument is, logically speaking, gibberish. The premises are really ambiguous, and as far as I can tell (2) is false.

To run with his Checkmate reference, the argument (as stated) is analogous to showing up to a darts tournament in scuba gear, armed only with Uno cards, and shouting 'Checkmate in 3!' Can you really blame the dart players for wondering?

I recommend the following to MM2:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-N...2663179&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-L...dp_ob_title_bk

If this stuff seems a bit weak sauce, check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Philosop...2663239&sr=1-2

Or if you're not into modern logic, and prefer an aristotelian approach:

http://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic...2663267&sr=1-1

In any case, logic will revolutionize your argumentation.

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by Kismetji

You know... I might just be crazy.

But it might just be a lunatic we're looking for!

And perhaps I do not fully understand the comprehensive meaning of 'potentiality', but I do not see, by the light of my own reason, why something cannot spontaneously generate itself from a potential state.

You were right in you premonition: you have mis-defined "potentiality." In this regard, we mean in its eldest sense as "privation." You see, if one digs a hole, there it is. It can always be filled back in. So, in the sense that it exists in such a way that it "invites" being filled back in, is what is meant by 'potentiality.' If one can imagine a hole WITHOUT the surrounding shell of dirt, rocks, roots, etc., as though it were glass, but without the solidness of glass, so that it is not a bottle, that would be close to being "pure potentiality," in the sense of privation.

This to me seems the essence of freedom. To say there is some antecedent cause which forces something to come to be, is to say that all things are determined. But this goes against my strongest intuitions.

And, you'd be correct. But, to some extent there is some imperfect determination here. Only the matter can have the privation and in that sense it can be said that matter has an appitite.

Of course, this is not to say causes are uncommon. However, on a metaphysical basis, I do not see any indication why everything should have to be caused. And in fact, in the larger scheme of things, it appears to me everything causes itself.

So, you caused yourself? And, your dog caused him/her-self? And the bird nest outside your window caused itself? And the fry of some fish caused themselves? And, your car caused itself? And the statue in your living room caused itself? And, your house caused itself? Ad infinitum.

Glad to see you're back!

God bless,
jd

[JDaniel]

Originally Posted by FurtherSuntime

Come on mate....concede ? ( intimidation

FS:

Might I ask, with all due respect: does "RC" (up in the right hand corner of your posts under the topic of Religion) stand for "Roman Catholic?" Or, is it merely two letters of the alphabet strung together; or does it stand for something else? I'm curious.

God bless,
jd