Prizm:


I have no desire for the sort of pointless exchanges where discussants intentionally strive as it were to misunderstand each other. And sadly, you have been guilty of this severally. One might conclude based on your questions and assertions that you have no real desire for an honest exchange of ideas – just unvarnished dogmatic skepticism. If your complaint is that some of the terms used are not clear, I suppose a brief research on your part, or an honest request for clarification will help. If your strategy is to dig in your heels and quibble over every word or sentence when they undercut some of your arguments or positions, then I am sorry to inform you that I have no stomach for that sort of merry-go-round. Anybody can sit in his/her easy chair and play the role of the unflinching skeptic.

And sadly, you have been guilty of this severally.

Who?  Huxley??  Noooo! 

You misunderstand the poor guy.  He merely suffers from Amnesia.  It's a terrible sickness.  One minute he doesn't know what a word means even if you quote 7 different dictionary definitions for him.  But the the next minute he is using the word freely as if he was the one who coined the term.  Then all of a sudden again he doesn't know what the word means.

Hello Prizm,

Nice to see you back here - I was beginning to wonder what happened to you.  Good to know you have been whacking all this while .

I shall dive straight into the substance of the debate, avoiding all the fuss about whether you or I are being unnecessarily pedants about some words, as important was this is in its own right.

I did ask you how you came to the knowledge that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation"  and your responds was :

Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists".

Barring the qualitatives of "scientifically of otherwise",  I deduce that what you meant here was that this knowledge was a priori.  You seemed to have had issues with me describing this as a priori, as evident from below;

Prizm:

What exactly is your objection here? Have I argued that the premise is a prior[/i]i? This is one of those situations where you strive to misunderstand what has been said. If you remember, I dealt with exactly this objection in my reply to your objection to the Cosmological Argument. Some people may feel that the first premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation” is reasonably a priori knowledge and I have no problem with that. But let us grant that it is [i]a posteriori knowledge to satisfy you. That little distinction on your part totally aligns with the way I see it and it is the way I want you to consider the premise.

From the foregoing, it is still not clear how you came by that knowledge.  As you know, a priori knowledge is knowledge that can be arrived at by pure reason or analysis alone - it requires no appeal to experience or the empirical methods.  On the other hand a posteriori knowledge requires an appeal to the empirical methods or experience. In view of what we know a prioir and a posteriori to mean, can you look back at your earlier statement and categories it under 1)  a priori 2)  a posteriori [/i]3) both [i]a priori and a posteriori 4) None of the above?  In other words, is the statement

Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists".

1)  a priori ?
2)  a posteriori ?
3)  both a priori and a posteriori ?
4)  None of the above ?

Note that it is not a matter of satisfy me, but satisfying the rules and rubrics of reasons an logic that matter.

I noted earlier that there are many empirical facts that indicates that somethings can come into existance without a cause.  The two well-known and commonly accepted of these class are the radioactive decay to atomic elements and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  I did ask you to consider the case of radioactive decay. For instance, what causes Carbon-14 to decay to Nitrogen-14?  You said;

Nevertheless that minute distinction does not obviate or undercut the first premise at all. So when you say that there are many empirical facts that do so, I’ll have to strongly disagree with you and ask for your evidence. Now, it seems to me that you are trying to undermine the first premise of the Cosmological Argument by talking about radioactive decay? Am I right?

Here’s how we are going to do this. Rather than asking me what I mean by “cause”, I’ll allow you to explain what Radioactive decay is and how it supposedly subverts the first premise. The reason why I am doing it this way is because I want this to be conversational in nature. You don’t get to simply assert that Radioactive Decay belies the premise. To me this is the main crux of this entire post. Besides, I do not want a situation where I demonstrate initially that the premise is intact only for you to recline in your comfortable skeptical chair to declare it some unjustified adhoc assertion. So, here’s your opportunity to take a crack at physics to show us that Radioactive Decay destroys the first premise. It may be that this little exercise may help to fully illuminate the depth and scope of the first premise though as I said previously, it has been constantly confirmed philosophically and scientifically.

OK, at this point it pays to take a break and make some definition of terminology - CAUSATION.  What do we understand by the word CAUSATION?  This is where wikipedia comes in handy:

Causation - Causality refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a direct consequence of the first.  See wikipedia for details.

Obviously, this is a simple definition, but it is still useful for our discussion.  Causation implies a cause and an effect, with the cause happen before or at the same time as the effect. 

Now, what is radioactive decay?    Again wikipedia to the rescue:

Radioactive decay is the process in which an unstable atomic nucleus [b]spontaneously loses [/b]energy by emitting ionizing particles and radiation. This decay, or loss of energy, results in an atom of one type, called the parent nuclide transforming to an atom of a different type, named the daughter nuclide. For example: a carbon-14 atom (the "parent" emits radiation and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter". This is a stochastic process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay, but given a large number of similar atoms the decay rate, on average, is predictable.  See   here for more.

Now, what causes an unstable atomic nucleus to decay such that it emits other particles?  As far as I know,  NOTHING is known to cause the decay of the nucleus.  For instance, you could not act such as to take away the "cause" of the decay.  Nothing influences the rate of decay, nothing can stop.  No amount of heat treatment, pressure treatment, etc, etc, is known to affect the rate of decay.  If the "cause" of radioactive decay is anything outside of the atom itself, then on the view that causation requires two things - the cause and the effect, then you could imagine a scenario where you could take away the cause to prevent the decay.

So, from this analysis, it could be said that the N-14 atom came into existence from C-14 without a cause.   Hey, I am happy to be contradicted if you have got some better evidence that what I just described is wrong.


In view of your use of some terms from modal logic (ie necessity and contingency) and your use of the word transcendence, and your ascription of these words to God, I asked:

Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent disembodied being inter-acts with a physical universe?  BY WHAT MECHANISM?

You said:

Prizm:

I am not exactly sure what you are asking me here. When you asked how one knows that a necessary entity (like God) transcends the universe, I gave my answer. I also contrasted it with another type of necessary entity like numbers.

At any rate, I may be wrong, but it seems that you are asking me the mechanism or physics by which God (here you can substitute the word ‘God’ with any appropriate synonym for this necessary first mover) created the universe. In other words, you are asking me to speak on exactly how God created ex nihilo. If this is what you are asking, the answer is that I don’t know and no one can possibly know how this supernatural event happened. There is no physics for this event. No one is equipped to pronounce on how such a metaphysical event occurred. Our human physics can only probe or go back to the first few moments after this event. There is a limit to what we can actually postulate or verify scientifically because our contemporary physics break down at certain barriers. So we may need a whole new physics to probe even further than we currently know.

No, I was not asking how God created the world - rather I wanted to know things like the following, given his disembodied, transcendent and necessary ontology:

1)  Does he created material things within the universe?  If so, by what mechanism?

2)  Can he move an object from A to B?  If so, by what mechanism?

In short, how does the immaterial unphysical inter-act with the material physical world?  For the sake or argument, I am taking for granted that God, on your definition exists, but am examining claims that you have made about his ontology.  That was my line of reasoning with that initial question.

Prizm:

But here’s a point to consider: no matter what advances we make, there is no chance that we can ever get to a model that is eternal in the past. Here I am reminded of how nebulous or metaphysical some of these new areas in physics like the String Theory are—there is always the specter of a cosmic beginning even if we can get ourselves to not only picture deeply counterintuitive things like 11 dimensional hyperspace but to actually show that it exists. In the end, there are boundaries even to the string theory model assuming we decide that it successfully unifies all fundamental physical interactions. And so no physics could speak about what happens in that transcendental domain.

I think you are shouting horay here a bit prematurely and for someone to say this of science betray your lack of knowledge not only of science, but also of the current state of knowledge in cosmology and theoretical physics.  If you have not kept up with the state of affairs in cosmology, astromony and theoetical physics,  allow me to tell you the following.  The two competing candidates for the best explanation of the origins of the cosmos are  1)  Inflationary Theory 2) The Cyclic Model founded on String Theory and the concept of membranes (or branes)

1)  The Inflationary model is essentially the Big Bang, modified to accommodate more explanatory potential.

2) The Cyclic Model envisages a totally different view of the universe. That our universe sit on one of several membrane and that the Big Bang was the result of the collision of two of these membranes.

For my money, the Cyclic model promises to answer more of the currently baffling features of the universe than the inflationary model, features such as:

-  the flatness of observed space
-  the origin and role of dark energy and dark matter.

Both models make prediction that can be verified empirically and at present both have pass all but one of the six milestone predictions.  In fact, the fifth milestone prediction was only achieved quite recently, with the publication of the results of WMAP, regarding red tilt,  - a feature that both models predicted.  The winner will turn on which models best predicts the sixth milestone, something called gravitational waves.

The Cyclic Model postulates that membranes are in a cyclic pattern of collision, retraction, attraction and collision, ad infintum.  Although it is not necessarily committed to a infinite past, it can also very well support a finite past model.

So let's keep our ears to the ground for developments in this space before we make forecast like this.

Physics picks up and makes sense only after the universe is created along with it every physical quantity or phenomena.  Indeed the way I see it, the theories or the models of the Origin of the Universe can indeed be revised as time goes on, but in any and all revisions, there is no chance or possibility that any viable and experimentally verifiable model will be shown to have been eternal in the past. So, you can push back the origin of the Universe as far as you want, but you will always be confronted with the specter of a cosmic beginning. That cosmic beginning cries out for an explanation. This is where, as I have demonstrated over and over again, the necessary existence of God becomes very evident. So, the possible existence of multiple universes in some Mother Universe does not even affect the argument. Nevertheless, I am by no means dogmatically wedded to any model. We’ll go with where the evidence points.

On the burden of proof question, you said the following;

First of all, this assumption is Wrong. This is a burden of proof fallacy on your part. But before I show how that is the case, allow me to briefly explain the terms theist, atheist and agnostic. An agnostic is one who confesses ignorance on the question of whether God exists or not. An agnostic therefore makes no claims on whether God exists or not. Theists and atheists on the other hand, make knowledge claims about the existence or non-existence of God. An atheist maintains that a God does not exist while a theist maintains that a God exists. The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic. Now, if an agnostic is sufficiently persuaded, he may decide that some kind of God exists even if he does not think that his feeble human reason can fully understand that God. He becomes an agnostic theist. On the other hand, there are equally agnostic atheists and they maintain that not only does God not exist, if such a thing as God did in fact exist, that God cannot be accessed by human reason.

As you might expect, I do not agree with some of your definitions above.  I know we could quibble about this until kingdom come, nevertheless I shall say what I understand by these words:

Atheism - Admits of a number of definitions - 

1) The view that there are absolute NO Gods.  This is sometimes called Strong or Positive or Explicit Atheism, and is generally understood in philosophical as rather a metaphysical commitment ( I shall not go into why this is so for now)

2) The view that one does not have a belief in god or one lacks a god-belief. This is also called Weak or Implicit Atheism. Comtemporary philosophy regards this view as essentially questioning the ontology of gods given by the theists.

Agnostic or Agnosticism - The agnostic makes a claim (or rather lack of claim) about knowledge.  The agnostic basically says that it is unknowable one way or the other.  See the below from wikipedia and see the etymology of the word.

Agnosticism . . . is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.  See here   for more details.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." T. S. Huxley.

So according to the standardly accepted version of the term agnostic, an agnostic is not making any claims, but simply says that the answer to the question of god's existence is UNKNOWABLE.   How could you go from the definition of agnosticism to the following claim?

The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic.

Note that the agnostic is NOT neutral -  if you consider the two extremes of theism and atheism, the agnostic does not sit in the middle.  For instance, it is conceivable that one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.  So which flavour of agnostic will you give the role of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides?  Will it  be;

1) An agnostic theist
2) An agnostic atheist
3) An agnostic agnostic (if there is such a thing)?


Still on the terminological issue, you said the following;

With the term atheist defined as I did, you can see that I do not subscribe to some newly revised definition of atheism which merely seeks to present atheism as “the absence of belief in the existence of God.” This loose redefinition absolves the atheist of a responsibility or burden in any discussion and squarely puts all the responsibility on the theist. By this definition then, an atheist becomes synonymous with non-theist - a broad term which would include not just traditional/strong Atheists but Agnostics and Verificationists.

As far as I am concerned this redefinition trivializes the discourse because by this definition, atheism ceases to be a viewpoint. It becomes a psychological state which is shared by people who hold a wide range of views or no views at all. With this definition, babies who hold no opinion on the issue would also have to be called atheists; people who suffer some deep and irreversible brain damage will automatically have to be reclassified atheists since they have no demonstrable belief or opinion on the matter. We can even stretch that definition to include your pets - suddenly your pets would qualify as atheists since they have no belief in the existence of God. Consequently a theist may equally loosely define theism as “the belief in the existence of God” and be equally absolved of any responsibility or confirmatory burden. The result is that everyone will sit tight in their domain of belief or disbelief and no God debates/discussions will ever arise; neither will any answers arise.

Supposing, I tell you that my position is the following -  I do not have a god-belief and that I do not belief there is a god.  And that people with this state of mind call themselves Nodists. I argue that I have every right to call myself whatever I want, just as Huxley had the right to formulate the word AGNOSTIC to describe people of a certain state of mind.  Under this new view,  these terms now become

1)  Atheist - one who asserts positively that there are no gods
2)  Nodist -  one who does not have a god-belief and does not belief in god.
3)  Agnostic -  one who thinks that it is unknowable one way or the other.

Supposing the word nodist enters into current usage, how would you deal with the arguments from the nodist position?  By the way, I am arguing the nodist position.


For there to be the sort of discussions that have raged for centuries on whether God exists or not, we have to understand that the atheist is not just stating some innocuous absence of a belief in the existence of God, but he is making a  positive knowledge claim that a God as a matter fact doesn’t exist. He needs to provide justification for that position.


You said:

For example, I do not know whether extraterrestrials exist or not. I have not visited all of the vastness of the universe to be able to say with any degree of confidence that there are no aliens in Andromeda or anywhere else. As far as extraterrestrials are concerned, I am agnostic about their existence or non-existence. They may or may not exist and I’ll openly confess my ignorance on that matter. However, there might be people who are deeply convinced that there are extraterrestrials and may have good reasons for such a conviction. Equally, there are people who are convinced that there are no such things as extraterrestrials. In any discussion on whether extraterrestrials exist or not, both sides which affirm or deny the existence of extraterrestrials have to present good arguments why their side should be believed. As an agnostic, all I get to do is weigh the evidence. In the end, I may be unconvinced that extraterrestrials exist OR I could be convinced that they do exist even if before that point, I have never actually witnessed an extraterrestrial. Before this can happen though, I have to be willing and receptive to the evidence offered for or against. If I am dogmatically set against one side of the discussion then it may be that no countervailing evidence from that side will convince me.

Like I said above, I do not agree with your ascription of the role of the mediator or arbiter to the agnostic.  All parties in the debate have as their responsibility to assess ALL the evidence from ALL other parties.

Let me address the below with the following thought experiment:

A person who posits that extraterrestrials do not exist cannot say that the inability of the other side to show evidence that would suggest the existence of an extraterrestrial is a positive proof of his own claim that extraterrestrials do not exist. That would be logically fallacious. All this would show in this example is that the person proposing that extraterrestrials exist has not proven his own case or has not shown evidence that would strongly suggest so – NOT that the denier of the proposition has been proven right! From the denier of the proposition, we need to hear a positive case that would suggest that their side is to be believed. Such a person, for example, may provide authoritative evidence of having traversed the entire universe and seeing no evidence of such extraterrestrials. In the absence of such strong positive disconfirming evidence, anyone is still completely within his rational rights to believe in the existence of extraterrestrials.

Thus, we are not in some law court where a person is assumed innocent if the prosecution cannot demonstrate some palpable guilt. This is more or less an academic exercise and each side of this conversational divide has to show with positive reasons why their side ought to be believed. Each side in essence has to build up a case that argues for the truthfulness of their knowledge claims. It is utterly fallacious therefore to think that in this scenario, you bear no responsibility or burden of proof for adopting your position, and as such, you can claim the possible lack of evidence for theistic positions as positive proof of atheistic positions. This false reasoning simply reduces to a fundamental presumption of atheism because “Absence of evidence” [/b]is not [b]“Evidence of Absence”.

Can you tell me which of the following entities are standardly thought to exists and why? Can you also explain HOW YOU COME TO KNOW THEY EXIST OR THEY DO NOT EXIST?

1)  Dragon
2)  Nfenah-nfenah
3)  Santa Claus
4)  Mami Wata
5)  Satyr

Could you methodology for investigating the five entities above be applied to investigating the existence of God?  WHY?

So it is entirely possible for instance for a theist not to be able to present any proof at all for his position. Nevertheless, it would be deeply illogical to assume that that necessarily proves the assertions or positions of the atheist.  Atheism is not the default position here. The default position is agnosticism, a confession of nescience, which essentially says “I don’t know whether God exists or whether God does not exist”.

What do you mean by default?  Is it suppose to mean one who has not take a view or a position of the God question?   How about a two-year old child?  On your definition of theism atheism and agnosticism,  where would you put a two-year old child?

Below, you are giving some sort of ontology of God, following on from your earlier definition of God as a necessary, transcendent, disembodied being with a mind and intelligence.

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

As an omnipotent being however, he can interact and directly impact the physical realm/universe. So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. Such interventions would appropriately be supernatural interventions since by definition, a supernatural event is not simply an ‘implausible’, ‘impossible’ or counter-intuitive event, BUT an event that in its proper context cannot be adequately explained by a simplistic recourse to naturalistic explanations.

To my question about why God lacks a body, you said " he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity".  So God is a necessary being.  But that statement is worrying, as your God already possess other attributes of the universe such as minds, freewill and inteligence.  Why does this not make him part of the universe, but having a body would make him part of the universe?

Can God bring about a state of affairs that result in him having a body?  If so,  would he cease to be a necessary being ?  Remember what you said above -( he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity)

If God ceases to be a necessary being by obtaining a physical body, as you say above,   does he also lose the quality of transcendence, since necessity implies transcendence?

If God cannot bring about a state of affairs whereby he has material form,  can he be said to be omnipotent?


You said:

So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

You said above that if God were to bring himself into the universe in material form, he would no longer be a necessary being. So in the fleeting moments that he assumes material form to show himself in the world is he necessary or contingent or transcendent?


Consider these two statements of yours:

Statement A:

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

And this

Statement B:

So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

[size=14pt]Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary)  BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form.  Are These two statements logically consistent?[/size]



From your reading of philosophy, can you provide an reference to books, journals, articles, material that support the view that an entity is capable of at one time being necessary and at another contingent?


On the Christian view, Jesus was God in material form.  I don't know if you are Christian, but let's assume that you are.   From you analysis,  what was the ontic status of Jesus?  Was he

1)  Necessary and hence transcendent?
2)  Contingent given that he possess a material form and consequently non-transcendent?
3)  Necessary and contingent?

.

Prizm,

Consider these two statements of yours:

Statement A:

If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

And this

Statement B:

So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

[size=14pt]Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary) BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form. Are These two statements logically consistent?[/size]

huxley:


I shall dive straight into the substance of the debate, avoiding all the fuss about whether you or I are being unnecessarily pedants about some words, as important was this is in its own right.

Well done Huxley. And while I agree that defining terms is very important in discussions of this sort you can't deny that you suddenly become quite obtuse about the meaning of words and concepts when it suits you. Anyway sha, please continue. As you were gentlemen . . .

Pastor AIO:

Well done Huxley. And while I agree that defining terms is very important in discussions of this sort you can't deny that you suddenly become quite obtuse about the meaning of words and concepts when it suits you. Anyway sha, please continue. As you were gentlemen . . .

Hello Pastor,

I don't know what you mean by "you can't deny that you suddenly become quite obtuse about the meaning of words and concepts when it suits you". I generally tend to use words as they are standard used in the general public or in trade literature. Can you show examples where I have deviated from this principle?

I can't remember what threads exactly but I particularly recall you not knowing what existential meant even after I provided dictionary definitions.

And you also conveniently found it hard to distinguish between timeless eternity and temporality a few months back.

I'll look for the threads but it might take a while. Meanwhile please don't let me distract you from your discourse with Prizm.

Pastor AIO:

I can't remember what threads exactly but I particularly recall you not knowing what existential meant even after I provided dictionary definitions.

And you also conveniently found it hard to distinguish between timeless eternity and temporality a few months back.

I'll look for the threads but it might take a while. Meanwhile please don't let me distract you from your discourse with Prizm.

Yes, I do remember those discussions. I did NOT say I did not know the meaning of the word "existential". What I was disputing was your use and understanding of said word. That is why I asked you to provide a definition. For goodness sake, do you think going to a book or wikipedia is beyond me?

On the question of timess eternity and temporality, my dispute was that your definitions were inconsistent, illogical and incoherent.

I am happy for us to resume the discussion (if you can find it) to try to iron things out.

seven pages an I'm yet to see conclusive proof for god. . . . . deepsight this isn't what you promised

huxley:

Yes, I do remember those discussions. I did NOT say I did not know the meaning of the word "existential". What I was disputing was your use and understanding of said word. That is why I asked you to provide a definition. For goodness sake, do you think going to a book or wikipedia is beyond me?

On the question of timess eternity and temporality, my dispute was that your definitions were inconsistent, illogical and incoherent.

I am happy for us to resume the discussion (if you can find it) to try to iron things out.

Pastor AIO:

Secondly, I've already provided you with the wiki definition of the word and you are still asking. So I don't know whether you read my post or not. Yet you responded so you obviously read it. Wikipedia defines it as:

Existential philosophy is characterized by what has been called the "explicit conceptual manifestation of an existential attitude"[5] that begins with a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[6][7]

Perhaps you don't understand the english. Let me try to rephrase what it says.
When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people. This state of disorientation is called the existential state. My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation.
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not? Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against. Thus Ethics give us an orientation. We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on.

huxley:



I asked for what you understood by existentialism and you simply copied a rather tedius definition from wikipedia. I also asked how you would relate ethics with mans existential needs, and I am yet to see you response. How am I suppose to make sense of what you are saying when your ideas are so flaky? Man, buckle them up, buckly them up.

The above is classic because here you suggest that there is no connection between existentialism and ethics. I couldn't respond because I didn't feel clever enough to get beyond your formidable impression of a dullard.

So in the end I tried to proceed by removing the whole issue of existentialism from the discussion.

Pastor AIO:

Okay, Huxley. I see that this will not get anywhere like this. Can we forget everything that I've said. Let us say that I never made any comments and we're starting afresh. All I want to ask is one question:

How do you INVENT an ethical system? If not you, how does Paul Kurtz do it? What is it based on?

Pastor AIO:

Perhaps you don't understand the english. Let me try to rephrase what it says.
When faced with meaninglessness or absurdity in the world, it has the effect of disorientating people. This state of disorientation is called the existential state. My question to you is how does one create an ethical system in such a state of disorientation.
Ethics give you a scale of values (moral values), do they not? Ideals exist at the top of the scale and they are striven for, while at the bottom of the scale are the lowly valued things and they are striven against. Thus Ethics give us an orientation. We are oriented towards the ideals.
If however the basic state of reality is acknowledged to be existential (ie. disorientated) then on what are the Ethics to be based on.


The above is classic because here you suggest that there is no connection between existentialism and ethics. I couldn't respond because I didn't feel clever enough to get beyond your formidable impression of a dullard.

So in the end I tried to proceed by removing the whole issue of existentialism from the discussion.

I shall respond to this in the thread in which it was raised.

Prizm, Huxley - many thanks for expatiating the issues.

However, lets try to keep the arguments simple, otherwise we shall be lost in a maze of extended and unnecessary philosophy.

Huxley - you need to understand this: what is sought to be proven IS NOT the mechanics of God, how he must interact with the universe, how he caused it, etc. If you understand this, you will have no need to ask questions such as: "How does he interact with the universe, can he move an object from point A to point B", ETC.

What is sought to be proven is that AN element exists which CAUSED the universe. That element is the element we seek to refer to as the FIRST MOVER, or if you like, GOD.

It seems to me that the significance of the equation i laid out in the beginning is entirely lost on everybody.

If we appreciate that 0 + 0 (or any amalgamation or configuration of zeros) will always = zero, we will immediately see the irrefutable logic in Prizm's Cosmological Argument: to wit: Once any quantity exists - it could not have come from zero.

I am surprised and somewhat amused that the participants on this thread have failed to see the deeper implicit truth embedded in this rationale about the existence of God: because embedded within that equation lies the very obvious fact that since things exist, there must perforce be on the left side of the equation an irremovable and permanent quantity. That's what makes it clear that the element, whatever it is, is eternal.

It is futile and entirely outside the point of this thread, to begin to ask - "How did God begin to exist" or "what caused God" for several reasons -

1. As Prizm pointed out - God is not said to have begun to exist, he is not said to have been caused

2. This is made clear within a deeper understanding of the zero equation

3. And most importantly, we are not out to give the rationale for his existence, or show the mechanics of his operations, but simply to show that PERFORCE, he (or "she", or "it" IS THERE.

@ Tudor - i would suggest that rather than sit back in the discussion, you begin to show us how these equations are disproven, or actively advance proof that GOD POSITIVELY does not exist.

Through the Cause and Effect argument we can prove there was a cause for existence.

But with no argument can we ever PROVE that GOD POSITIVELY DOES NOT EXIST.

So understand: since things exist, there is an irremovable quantity on the left side of the equation. Defining or describing it is not my business.

But let it suffice to state that it should not be surprising that that originating quantity needn't have a cause. I explained this when i spoke about numbers, for example. They needn't be caused.

Deep Sight:

Prizm, Huxley - many thanks for expatiating the issues.

However, lets try to keep the arguments simple, otherwise we shall be lost in a maze of extended and unnecessary philosophy.

Huxley - you need to understand this: what is sought to be proven IS NOT the mechanics of God, how he must interact with the universe, how he caused it, etc. If you understand this, you will have no need to ask questions such as: "How does he interact with the universe, can he move an object from point A to point B", ETC.

What is sought to be proven is that AN element exists which CAUSED the universe. That element is the element we seek to refer to as the FIRST MOVER, or if you like, GOD.

It seems to me that the significance of the equation i laid out in the beginning is entirely lost on everybody.

If we appreciate that 0 + 0 (or any amalgamation or configuration of zeros) will always = zero, we will immediately see the irrefutable logic in Prizm's Cosmological Argument: to wit: Once any quantity exists - it could not have come from zero.

I am surprised and somewhat amused that the participants on this thread have failed to see the deeper implicit truth embedded in this rationale about the existence of God: because embedded within that equation lies the very obvious fact that since things exist, there must perforce be on the left side of the equation an irremovable and permanent quantity. That's what makes it clear that the element, whatever it is, is eternal.

It is futile and entirely outside the point of this thread, to begin to ask - "How did God begin to exist" or "what caused God" for several reasons -

1. As Prizm pointed out - God is not said to have begun to exist, he is not said to have been caused

2. This is made clear within a deeper understanding of the zero equation

3. And most importantly, we are not out to give the rationale for his existence, or show the mechanics of his operations, but simply to show that PERFORCE, he (or "she", or "it" IS THERE.

@ Tudor - i would suggest that rather than sit back in the discussion, you begin to show us how these equations are disproven, or actively advance proof that GOD POSITIVELY does not exist.

Through the Cause and Effect argument we can prove there was a cause for existence.

But with no argument can we ever PROVE that GOD POSITIVELY DOES NOT EXIST.

Supposing I grant to you that the God of your definition exists, BUT I contest that this God did not cause the universe - that this universe was caused by some other entity who by necessity also exists, but is not the God of your definition. So, in effect, the God you posit is on an eternal holiday, but the entity of my definition is a diligent creator busily in the habit of creating universes.

I contend that my proposition is equally valid, don't you agree?

huxley:

Supposing I grant to you that the God of your definition exists, BUT I contest that this God did not cause the universe - that this universe was caused by some other entity who by necessity also exists, but is not the God of your definition. So, in effect, the God you posit is on an eternal holiday, but the entity of my definition is a diligent creator busily in the habit of creating universes.

I contend that my proposition is equally valid, don't you agree?

No this is not tenable. For the simple reason that the GOD i have defined was defined with specific reference to being the Cause of the Universe, and all existence. That very causation, is the context for the proof of his existence. Thus this statement of yours is completely out of context.

Uh oh, this discussion is going down an all too familiar route.

Deepsight,
what you've been able to show is there should (according to you) be a first cause/prime mover/force for the universe. . . . Is that what you call god?
Is this force a 'being'?
What does this 'being' hope to acheive by creating the universe?
What does it want from us?
Can we experience this prime mover?

Tudór:

Uh oh, this discussion is going down an all too familiar route.

Deepsight,
what you've been able to show is there should (according to you) be a first cause/prime mover/force for the universe. . . . Is that what you call god?
Is this force a 'being'?
What does this 'being' hope to acheive by creating the universe?
What does it want from us?
Can we experience this prime mover?

Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such. Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

Adittionally, quite frankly once you accept the existence of a Prime Mover, you have ceded the debate: because we did not set out to prove the peculiar nature of the Prime Mover but its existence. We have also seen that it must perforce qualify as a being - even if in a broad context.

I have no problem with a "first mover". That makes perfect sense to me. I still think we need to drop the word "God", though. It is a religious word and one can't help but associate it with all the baggage that comes with it. You either call it a first mover, and that alone. . .or u accept the baggage that comes with "God". U can't eat your cake and have it 

1 = 1.

It is a pity i have been off Nairaland for a week (man cannot live by Nairaland alone), and i have missed this very interesting and cerebral thread. Well done to Deep Sight for the thread and to my able bothers, Pastor, Huxley, Toneyb, Tudor,Chrisbenogor , etc. you guys make me feel proud to be a Nigerian. Now let me add my own thought on the matter, i hope i am not taking you all back because i am joining the debate late.

Deep Sight, the major flaw in your argument is your equation is wrong, mathematically, logically and scientifically.
First there is nothing like 0 +0 = 0 in mathematics, in all my years of studying mathematics, i had never come across such equation. Because zero is used to represent absence of a quantity, so how can you add two quantities that is not present. When we try to divide 0 by a figure we get an indeterminate quantity.

Secondly zero does not mean absolute nothing, it only means the absent of a specific quantity we are dealing with. Because a space has zero amount of matter  does not mean it has zero amount of all other physical quantities known to nature, like energy, gravity, magnetism, electric charge etc.  And because of the interchangeability of matter and energy, a space with zero matter but with photons can change to a space with zero photons and matter instantly.

Then finally in there realm of quantum physics, quantities are not absolute but as a result of complex interactions and probabilities of energy and particles. Also note in the area of relativistic physics, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2 but depends on their speed relative to each other and to the observer.

Let me finish by adding that when you say zero, you will have to tell us  zero what?  As pastor says maths is abstractions but science does not allow abstraction like 0,1,2, etc without specifics.

Deep Sight:

Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

   1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

   2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such.

This is made on the assumption that the so called prime mover magically created the universe out of nothing, right?
I would think of this prime force as the event that set in motion the chemical reaction that lead to the formation of the universe as we know it. Whether it be the explosion of a parent body whose fragments dissipate to form universes or whatever.
How you came to know that this thing must be alive is beyond me.

No one here argues that there's no first event that led to the universe, so it was never the argument. All we ask is that you prove the extra characterisation and nature you bestow on this unknown.

Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

That it has the genetics of those attributes does it mean it's expressive in the original state of the mover?
Just like in the evolution theory where it's postulated nitrogen, hydrogen and bla bla mixed (under the perfect condition) in the primordial soup to form the first living thing
, it doesn't mean the soup itself was alive even though it had the components for life, does it?

Deep Sight:

Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

   1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

   2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such.

This is made on the assumption that the so called prime mover magically created the universe out of nothing, right?
I would think of this prime force as the event that set in motion the chemical reaction that lead to the formation of the universe as we know it. Whether it be the explosion of a parent body whose fragments dissipate to form universes or whatever.
How you came to know that this thing must be alive is beyond me.

No one here argues that there's no first event that led to the universe, so it was never the argument. All we ask is that you prove the extra characterisation and nature you bestow on this unknown.

Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

That it has the genetics of those attributes does it mean it's expressive in the original state of the mover?
Just like in the evolution theory where it's postulated nitrogen, hydrogen and bla bla mixed (under the perfect condition) in the primordial soup to form the first living thing
, it doesn't mean the soup itself was alive even though it had the components for life, does it?

Deep Sight:

Only the first two questions above are relevant to this discussion. What God may hope to acheive through Creation, or what he (or she or it) may want from us, and whether we can experience him, are all non-issues.

THE ISSUE IS HIS EXISTENCE.

Addressing your relevant questions only:

   1. Is the prime mover what i call God - YES.

   2. Is the Prime Mover a being? It must be. One element cannot bequeath attributes to another element that it doesnt have itself. I challenge you to show me even a single instance of such.

This is made on the assumption that the so called prime mover magically created the universe out of nothing, right?
I would think of this prime force as the event that set in motion the chemical reaction that lead to the formation of the universe as we know it. Whether it be the explosion of a parent body whose fragments dissipate to form universes or whatever.
How you came to know that this thing must be alive is beyond me.

No one here argues that there's no first event that led to the universe, so it was never the argument. All we ask is that you prove the extra characterisation and nature you bestow on this unknown.

Its impossible. To the extent that the observable world contains creatures of intelligence and feelings, it is inconceivable that the Prime Mover (whatever it may be) does not have embedded in its nature the genetics of those very attributes. And to the extent that it does, then it must qualify as a being.

That it has the genetics of those attributes does it mean it's expressive in the original state of the mover?
Just like in the evolution theory where it's postulated nitrogen, hydrogen and bla bla mixed (under the perfect condition) in the primordial soup to form the first living thing
, it doesn't mean the soup itself was alive even though it had the components for life, does it?

It is a pity i have been off Nairaland for a week (man cannot live by Nairaland alone), and i have missed this very interesting and cerebral thread. Well done to Deep Sight for the thread and to my able bothers, Pastor, Huxley, Toneyb, Tudor,Chrisbenogor , etc. you guys make me feel proud to be a Nigerian. Now let me add my own thought on the matter, i hope i am not taking you all back because i am joining the debate late.

Deep Sight, the major flaw in your argument is your equation is wrong, mathematically, logically and scientifically.
First there is nothing like 0 +0 = 0 in mathematics, in all my years of studying mathematics, i had never come across such equation. Because zero is used to represent absence of a quantity, so how can you add two quantities that is not present. When we try to divide 0 by a figure we get an indeterminate quantity.

Secondly zero does not mean absolute nothing, it only means the absent of a specific quantity we are dealing with. Because a space has zero amount of matter  does not mean it has zero amount of all other physical quantities known to nature, like energy, gravity, magnetism, electric charge etc.  And because of the interchangeability of matter and energy, a space with zero matter but with photons can change to a space with zero photons and matter instantly.

Then finally in there realm of quantum physics, quantities are not absolute but as a result of complex interactions and probabilities of energy and particles. Also note in the area of relativistic physics, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2 but depends on their speed relative to each other and to the observer.

Let me finish by adding that when you say zero, you will have to tell us  zero what?  As pastor says maths is abstractions but science does not allow abstraction like 0,1,2, etc without specifics.

This is the neatest argument on this thread so far well done!

huxley: Hello Prizm,

Nice to see you back here - I was beginning to wonder what happened to you.  Good to know you have been whacking all this while   .

I shall dive straight into the substance of the debate, avoiding all the fuss about whether you or I are being unnecessarily pedants about some words, as important was this is in its own right.

Thanks a bunch.

huxley: I did ask you how you came to the knowledge that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation"  and your responds was :

[Quote]
Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists".

Barring the qualitatives of "scientifically of otherwise",  I deduce that what you meant here was that this knowledge was a priori.  You seemed to have had issues with me describing this as a priori, as evident from below;[/quote]

Nope, the problem here is that you are clinging to the terms a priori and a posteriori and trying to make this a discussion about what is a priori and what is a posteriori. Your hope is that such academic distinctions will obviate the force of the premise. A far as I am concerned, the veracity of the premise “whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation” is independent of these distinctions. In order not to be drawn into some rabbit trail, I am prepared to entertain your philosophical interpretation here. The real bone of contention in my opinion lies in any attempt on your part to refute the premise.

huxley:
[Quote author= Prizm]
What exactly is your objection here? Have I argued that the premise is a priori? This is one of those situations where you strive to misunderstand what has been said. If you remember, I dealt with exactly this objection in my reply to your objection to the Cosmological Argument. Some people may feel that the first premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation” is reasonably a priori knowledge and I have no problem with that. But let us grant that it is a posteriori knowledge to satisfy you. That little distinction on your part totally aligns with the way I see it and it is the way I want you to consider the premise.

From the foregoing, it is still not clear how you came by that knowledge.  As you know, a priori knowledge is knowledge that can be arrived at by pure reason or analysis alone - it requires no appeal to experience or the empirical methods.  On the other hand a posteriori knowledge requires an appeal to the empirical methods or experience. In view of what we know a prioir and a posteriori to mean, can you look back at your earlier statement and categories it under 1)  a priori 2)  a posteriori 3) both a priori and a posteriori 4) None of the above?  In other words, is the statement

[Quote]
Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists".[/quote]

1)  a priori ?
2)  a posteriori ?
3)  both a priori and a posteriori ?
4)  None of the above ?

Note that it is not a matter of satisfy me, but satisfying the rules and rubrics of reasons an logic that matter.[/quote]

Thanks for asking these questions. But before I answer them, I have a few questions to ask you first to see, from your answer, if we are working with the same meanings. I’ll make a number of statements and I’ll need you to tell me if you think these truth statements are a) a priori  b) a posteriori c) both a priori and a posteriori  d) None of the above.
i) Everything that has a shape has a size

ii) No event precedes itself

iii) Nothing can be red all over and at the same time blue all over

For each of these statements or premises (i-iii) I’ll need you to tell me whether your choice from (A) to (D), whatever that choice is, refutes or negates the premise. That is the real issue here.

huxley: I noted earlier that there are many empirical facts that indicates that somethings can come into existance without a cause.  The two well-known and commonly accepted of these class are the radioactive decay to atomic elements and quantum vacuum fluctuations.  I did ask you to consider the case of radioactive decay. For instance, what causes Carbon-14 to decay to Nitrogen-14?  You said;

[Quote]
Nevertheless that minute distinction does not obviate or undercut the first premise at all. So when you say that there are many empirical facts that do so, I’ll have to strongly disagree with you and ask for your evidence. Now, it seems to me that you are trying to undermine the first premise of the Cosmological Argument by talking about radioactive decay? Am I right?

Here’s how we are going to do this. Rather than asking me what I mean by “cause”, I’ll allow you to explain what Radioactive decay is and how it supposedly subverts the first premise. The reason why I am doing it this way is because I want this to be conversational in nature. You don’t get to simply assert that Radioactive Decay belies the premise. To me this is the main crux of this entire post. Besides, I do not want a situation where I demonstrate initially that the premise is intact only for you to recline in your comfortable skeptical chair to declare it some unjustified adhoc assertion. So, here’s your opportunity to take a crack at physics to show us that Radioactive Decay destroys the first premise. It may be that this little exercise may help to fully illuminate the depth and scope of the first premise though as I said previously, it has been constantly confirmed philosophically and scientifically.

OK, at this point it pays to take a break and make some definition of terminology - CAUSATION.  What do we understand by the word CAUSATION?  This is where wikipedia comes in handy:

Causation - Causality refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a direct consequence of the first.  See wikipedia for details.

Obviously, this is a simple definition, but it is still useful for our discussion.  Causation implies a cause and an effect, with the cause happen before or at the same time as the effect.  

Now, what is radioactive decay?    Again wikipedia to the rescue:

Radioactive decay is the process in which an unstable atomic nucleus spontaneously loses energy by emitting ionizing particles and radiation. This decay, or loss of energy, results in an atom of one type, called the parent nuclide transforming to an atom of a different type, named the daughter nuclide. For example: a carbon-14 atom (the "parent" emits radiation and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter". This is a stochastic process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay, but given a large number of similar atoms the decay rate, on average, is predictable.  See   here for more.

Now, what causes an unstable atomic nucleus to decay such that it emits other particles?  As far as I know,  NOTHING is known to cause the decay of the nucleus.  For instance, you could not act such as to take away the "cause" of the decay.  Nothing influences the rate of decay, nothing can stop.  No amount of heat treatment, pressure treatment, etc, etc, is known to affect the rate of decay.  If the "cause" of radioactive decay is anything outside of the atom itself, then on the view that causation requires two things - the cause and the effect, then you could imagine a scenario where you could take away the cause to prevent the decay.

So, from this analysis, it could be said that the N-14 atom came into existence from C-14 without a cause.   Hey, I am happy to be contradicted if you have got some better evidence that what I just described is wrong.[/quote]

When you attempt to disprove the first premise, you have to realize that in its full explication, the first premise of the Cosmological Argument covers not just efficient but material causes. To paraphrase it “Nothing spontaneously pops or comes out of nothing, by nothing, from nothing” or “Being does not come from non-being”.

I have already dealt decisively with the whole virtual particle objection elsewhere (Has Atheism taken over NL) so I am not going to repeat that here.

Let us go straight to radioactive decay because this is the most important point of this thread. This is just the point I am looking to discuss as it connects to the Cosmological Argument which I am making.

There are two ways to answer your question. One is to focus on the concluding statement “So, from this analysis, it could be said that the N-14 atom came into existence from C-14 without a cause”.  This statement is self-contradictory. How can you say that N-14 comes into existence without a cause when you just said that it came from C-14? Isn’t this transformation or radioactive decay the very cause you are trying to flesh out? How can you propose that N-14 spontaneously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused and in the same breath mention the prior existence of C-14 which materially caused it? This is self-refuting and it nullifies your argument; indeed it demolishes the very process or phenomenon (radioactive decay) that you are trying to show.

The second way to answer the question is to draw the distinction here that radioactive decay is really just a process or a phenomenon. Unlike the virtual particle objection which more or less involves finite particulars, when talking about radioactive decay we are merely talking about a process that involves finite particulars – specifically unstable nuclei.

I suspect that the problem here is that you misunderstand the stochastic (random) and indeterminate/unpredictable nature of this spontaneous process to mean that it doesn’t have a cause or explanation. The cause or explanation of radioactive decay is simple – it is unstable nuclei. As a matter of fact, all you need to do is keep reading the Wikipedia page you got your definition from to see that radioactive decay is not even that mysterious. It is richly governed by the physical laws. Radioactive decay (of any type) is only possible because of the presence of unstable or radioactive nuclides. Radioactive or unstable nuclei, based on their configuration, have the property that a random slight disturbance could upset the apple cart as it were and facilitate another rearrangement of the particles in the nucleus followed by the release of heat energy. This is essentially what radioactive decay is. When a stable or ground state is reached, such decays cease.

Tell me, can there ever be any spontaneous radioactive decay event if there is no 1) Unstable nucleus 2) a perturbatory energy to act on the unstable configuration of particles in an unstable nucleus? The answer is clearly no. Thus, this is no valid undercutting defeater of the first premise.

huxley: In view of your use of some terms from modal logic (ie necessity and contingency) and your use of the word transcendence, and your ascription of these words to God, I asked:

Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent disembodied being inter-acts with a physical universe?  BY WHAT MECHANISM?

You said:
[Quote author= Prizm]
I am not exactly sure what you are asking me here. When you asked how one knows that a necessary entity (like God) transcends the universe, I gave my answer. I also contrasted it with another type of necessary entity like numbers.

At any rate, I may be wrong, but it seems that you are asking me the mechanism or physics by which God (here you can substitute the word ‘God’ with any appropriate synonym for this necessary first mover) created the universe. In other words, you are asking me to speak on exactly how God created ex nihilo. If this is what you are asking, the answer is that I don’t know and no one can possibly know how this supernatural event happened. There is no physics for this event. No one is equipped to pronounce on how such a metaphysical event occurred. Our human physics can only probe or go back to the first few moments after this event. There is a limit to what we can actually postulate or verify scientifically because our contemporary physics break down at certain barriers. So we may need a whole new physics to probe even further than we currently know.

No, I was not asking how God created the world - rather I wanted to know things like the following, given his disembodied, transcendent and necessary ontology:

1)  Does he created material things within the universe?  If so, by what mechanism?

2)  Can he move an object from A to B?  If so, by what mechanism?

In short, how does the immaterial unphysical inter-act with the material physical world?  For the sake or argument, I am taking for granted that God, on your definition exists, but am examining claims that you have made about his ontology.  That was my line of reasoning with that initial question.[/quote]

At the risk of appearing pedantic once again, I have another little correction to make here. I did not say ‘disembodied’ mind as that would imply that there was a body which was later cast off as it were. I said ‘unembodied’ mind which in its proper understanding means that what we are talking about does not possess a material body ab initio. It seems to me that by simply dwelling on the terms ‘immaterial’ and ‘unphysical’, you are forgetting that I mentioned that God is a mind and thus possesses not just consciousness but free will, superlative reason and logic. These are the attributes of this necessary being in addition to omnipotence or omniscience. If that were not so – if God is like another necessary but causally effete or inert entity like numbers then there could not have been any creation of the universe at all. To be able to cause or create an entity which is contingent and temporal (like the universe), the causative agency, God, must possess not just intelligence or rationality but the freewill to do so – otherwise there will simply be the uninterrupted state of transcendence and no universe would be around.

The first question you asked me is a repetition of the question you asked before although you have chosen to phrase it differently. When you ask what mechanism God used to create the universe along with it all matter, space, time and energy, you are asking a question that no human physics can answer. It is the same thing as asking individually for what mechanism God created space, or created time, or created matter or created energy. All these came into existence with the universe. Now, when these conditions are laid down, the reorganization of matter into different forms can then be pursued by physics. They can now be studied, understood, and modeled mathematically – that is to say that one can then advance empirical or naturalistic explanations for reconfigurations of matter. Matter and its reorganization thus become amenable to universal physical laws.

Now, for God to physically interact with the universe to entertain and satisfy ‘interesting’ skeptical queries like whether he can move objects around in space or create other reorganizations of matter, I want to draw your attention back to the thought experiment we did in my last reply. If you remember, from that thought experiment, it was evident that as the creator of that 2-D universe, you can physically impact or interact with that universe. Your temporary decision to be present or evident in that 2-D realm may be seen and understood by 2-D creatures as completely natural to their 2-D framework  - but their limited perception says nothing about and cannot contradict your higher dimensional existence. Likewise, if a transcendental omnipotent God chooses to directly impact the physical world to do such mundane things like move chairs around or create razor blades or can openers, he would use the raw material already available in the universe to do so, but by a process that is supernatural. Another option would be that he could indirectly set in place a natural or physical mechanism or sequence of events that would result in the achievement of that purpose.

As a philosophical or theosophical rejoinder, I’ll add that God doesn’t tinker with creation in such an erratic and purposeless manner – for him to directly interfere physically in the natural world there has to be a divine purpose which such a manifestation of his omnipotence would fulfill.

huxley:
[Quote author=Prizm]
But here’s a point to consider: no matter what advances we make, there is no chance that we can ever get to a model that is eternal in the past. Here I am reminded of how nebulous or metaphysical some of these new areas in physics like the String Theory are—there is always the specter of a cosmic beginning even if we can get ourselves to not only picture deeply counterintuitive things like 11 dimensional hyperspace but to actually show that it exists. In the end, there are boundaries even to the string theory model assuming we decide that it successfully unifies all fundamental physical interactions. And so no physics could speak about what happens in that transcendental domain.

I think you are shouting horay here a bit prematurely and for someone to say this of science betray your lack of knowledge not only of science, but also of the current state of knowledge in cosmology and theoretical physics.  If you have not kept up with the state of affairs in cosmology, astromony and theoetical physics,  allow me to tell you the following.  The two competing candidates for the best explanation of the origins of the cosmos are  1)  Inflationary Theory 2) The Cyclic Model founded on String Theory and the concept of membranes (or branes)

1)  The Inflationary model is essentially the Big Bang, modified to accommodate more explanatory potential.

2) The Cyclic Model envisages a totally different view of the universe. That our universe sit on one of several membrane and that the Big Bang was the result of the collision of two of these membranes.

For my money, the Cyclic model promises to answer more of the currently baffling features of the universe than the inflationary model, features such as:

-  the flatness of observed space
-  the origin and role of dark energy and dark matter.

Both models make prediction that can be verified empirically and at present both have pass all but one of the six milestone predictions.  In fact, the fifth milestone prediction was only achieved quite recently, with the publication of the results of WMAP, regarding red tilt,  - a feature that both models predicted.  The winner will turn on which models best predicts the sixth milestone, something called gravitational waves.

The Cyclic Model postulates that membranes are in a cyclic pattern of collision, retraction, attraction and collision, ad infintum.  Although it is not necessarily committed to a infinite past, it can also very well support a finite past model.

So let's keep our ears to the ground for developments in this space before we make forecast like this.[/quote]

[Quote author=Prizm]
Physics picks up and makes sense only after the universe is created along with it every physical quantity or phenomena.  Indeed the way I see it, the theories or the models of the Origin of the Universe can indeed be revised as time goes on, but in any and all revisions, there is no chance or possibility that any viable and experimentally verifiable model will be shown to have been eternal in the past. So, you can push back the origin of the Universe as far as you want, but you will always be confronted with the specter of a cosmic beginning. That cosmic beginning cries out for an explanation. This is where, as I have demonstrated over and over again, the necessary existence of God becomes very evident. So, the possible existence of multiple universes in some Mother Universe does not even affect the argument. Nevertheless, I am by no means dogmatically wedded to any model. We’ll go with where the evidence points.
[/quote]

Hahaha. Apart from simply stating some disjointed facts about the chaotic inflationary model or the cyclic ecpyrotic model (brane cosmology), have you made any point here? Let us assume that I am shouting hooray here and you’ve somehow figured out that I am ignorant about the current state of cosmology, here’s what I need you to address or demonstrate. I want you to show me how any of these models have been scientifically proven to be eternal or infinite in the past . This is the main issue here. In other words, it is not enough to mention that there are other models out there – a fact I think that is pretty obvious to any serious person – I[i] want you to show me how any of these theories have  been shown to avoid that cosmic singularity in other to be infinite in the past. [/i]

No one has argued that these models couldn’t be shown to infinite in the future. Indeed any potentially inflating or potentially oscillating universe could be shown to go on indefinitely in the future with successive and scattered Bangs and successive and scattered Bounces. But none of these either inflating or oscillating models can be shown to be past incomplete or eternal in the past. The need for an initial singularity cannot be eliminated. LOL, not even when you consider the highly speculative Hartle-Hawking model which starts dealing with imaginary entities so as to avoid a point singularity is the issue resolved.

You know, sometimes atheists hang their hopes on the possibility that this issue would eventually be resolved in their favor. This is why the entire history of 20th century cosmology has been one failed attempt after another to get away from the intuitive inference to theism apparent from the Standard Big Bang Model. I suppose in this endeavor, we can sit back and observe people build fantastic models to explain away the specter of a cosmic beginning out of nothing but pure speculations – speculations which are more metaphysical in nature than they are actually physical or scientific.

huxley: On the burden of proof question, you said the following;
[Quote]
First of all, this assumption is Wrong. This is a burden of proof fallacy on your part. But before I show how that is the case, allow me to briefly explain the terms theist, atheist and agnostic. An agnostic is one who confesses ignorance on the question of whether God exists or not. An agnostic therefore makes no claims on whether God exists or not. Theists and atheists on the other hand, make knowledge claims about the existence or non-existence of God. An atheist maintains that a God does not exist while a theist maintains that a God exists. The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic. Now, if an agnostic is sufficiently persuaded, he may decide that some kind of God exists even if he does not think that his feeble human reason can fully understand that God. He becomes an agnostic theist. On the other hand, there are equally agnostic atheists and they maintain that not only does God not exist, if such a thing as God did in fact exist, that God cannot be accessed by human reason.

As you might expect, I do not agree with some of your definitions above.  I know we could quibble about this until kingdom come, nevertheless I shall say what I understand by these words:

Atheism - Admits of a number of definitions -  

1) The view that there are absolute NO Gods.  This is sometimes called Strong or Positive or Explicit Atheism, and is generally understood in philosophical as rather a metaphysical commitment (I shall not go into why this is so for now)[/quote]

If you don’t mind I actually want you to go into why this is so. I’ll be expecting to read a specific answer to this in your next reply.

huxley: 2) The view that one does not have a belief in god or one lacks a god-belief. This is also called Weak or Implicit Atheism. Comtemporary philosophy regards this view as essentially questioning the ontology of gods given by the theists.

Agnostic or Agnosticism - The agnostic makes a claim (or rather lack of claim) about knowledge.  The agnostic basically says that it is unknowable one way or the other.  See the below from wikipedia and see the etymology of the word.

Agnosticism . . . is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.  See here   for more details.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle."  T. S. Huxley.

So according to the standardly accepted version of the term agnostic, an agnostic is not making any claims, but simply says that the answer to the question of god's existence is UNKNOWABLE.   How could you go from the definition of agnosticism to the following claim?
Quote
The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic.

Note that the agnostic is NOT neutral -  if you consider the two extremes of theism and atheism, the agnostic does not sit in the middle.  For instance, it is conceivable that one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist.  So which flavour of agnostic will you give the role of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides?  Will it  be;

1) An agnostic theist
2) An agnostic atheist
3) An agnostic agnostic (if there is such a thing)?

I’ll simply disagree with your definitions here.

First of all, let us tackle your definition of atheism. By your broad and overarching definition, you have incorporated into atheism not just agnostics but non-theists who are not atheists or agnostics. By presenting this definition, you are seeking to absolve yourself of any burden which you should rightly shoulder for maintaining an atheistic position. I simply reject what you have coined ‘weak or implicit atheism’. I reject this distinction from so-called strong atheism because by its definition, you are viciously grabbing the definitional terrain of “non-theism”.

Non-theism therefore, in its proper meaning, is the absence or lack of belief in God.  So in its proper meaning, non-theism would include atheists (who maintain that God does not exist or that the existence of God is impossible), agnostics (who do not know whether a God exists or not), skeptics (who do not believe in the existence of God or a supernatural being) and verificationists (who refuse to discuss the existence or non-existence of God because the concept of God to them is unintelligible).

Non-theism would also include newborns or people who have never been exposed to theistic ideas and as such maintain an unconscious lack or absence of belief in God. This speaks more about their psychological state. Furthermore, it will also include children who have the conceptual capacity to grasp these issues but who have never been exposed to them. Indeed to stretch the example out, it will also encompass your pets and people who have sustained deep and irreversibly brain loss or damage (in a comatose or vegetative state), who for all intents and purposes cannot be said to consciously bear a belief in God or anything at all. So, my good friend, I am just not going to allow you to sweep everything into the atheist tent.

Now, let us consider what you have said about agnosticism. First of all, I am not offering the position that theists and atheists must conduct discussions in the presence of an agnostic whereby the agnostic is deemed the arbiter of sorts for the discussion. If that was what you understood, please correct that misimpression. I am not saying that an agnostic is someone saddled with the unenviable position of arbitrating or deciding for theists and atheists what views they should hold. Why would I assign such a task to them?

My point was that just like a theist had a burden to shoulder for his claim to the knowledge that God exists, an atheist also has a burden to shoulder for the claim to the knowledge that God does not exist. The only one who doesn’t have a burden to shoulder in the discussion is the agnostic who does not claim to know whether God exists or not. They do not make any knowledge claims at all.

Nevertheless, one can get very technical and then define an agnostic as a person who makes the claim that “if God exists or not, such knowledge is unknown but it is possible for someone to know” (soft agnosticism) or “if God exists or not, such knowledge is unknowable to anybody”, (hard agnosticism). Does this change anything? My reply is that it changes nothing. The Theist and the Atheist make a claim to some knowledge-based belief while an Agnostic on the other hand makes a claim to Ignorance. An agnostic is still confessing ignorance or nescience on the matter by suggesting that it is unknown or unknowable. But from this, you can see that in one example the confession of ignorance (strong agnosticism) is obstinate and confrontational. The strong agnostic view is saying that the theist and the atheist are both wrong and that they cannot conceivably know what they claim even if they actually have sound arguments. It is an extreme view as you can see.

But if you remember my analogy with the possibility of the existence of extraterrestrials, you’ll see that as an agnostic listener in any discussions between people who believe that extraterrestrials exist and those who do not, I do not shoulder any burden of proof. My agnosticism rises or falls based on what I hear and consider. The catch is that an agnostic has to be willing to consider the evidence. So after exposure to evidence for and against, I could decide whichever way I am led on the whole question of extraterrestrials.

It is evident therefore that it is possible to be an agnostic atheist who is atheistic in not believing the existence of God but agnostic in the sense that he does not actually claim to have a definitive knowledge that God does not exist. This becomes a function of what he is prepared to believe based on the evidence he has received because he cannot appeal to his own prior lack of reason or knowledge.

Likewise, it is possible to be an [b]agnostic theist [/b]who does believe that God exists but does not claim to have a definitive knowledge of this. Also, this is a function of what he is prepared to believe based on what evidence he has received because he cannot appeal to his own prior lack of reason or knowledge. So, an agnostic theist may be led to say something like “Yikes it seems to me that God exists, but gosh, I just don’t know!”
The fact still remains that on the issue, it is the agnostic irrespective of the flavor (soft or hard agnosticism) that gets a pass on the issue of the burden of proof. The reason is because he is not claiming to ‘know’ something (which is whether God exists or does not exist) – he is claiming ‘no knowledge’ on the proposition which essentially reduces to ‘ignorance’ on the matter.

huxley: Still on the terminological issue, you said the following;
[Quote]
With the term atheist defined as I did, you can see that I do not subscribe to some newly revised definition of atheism which merely seeks to present atheism as “the absence of belief in the existence of God.” This loose redefinition absolves the atheist of a responsibility or burden in any discussion and squarely puts all the responsibility on the theist. By this definition then, an atheist becomes synonymous with non-theist - a broad term which would include not just traditional/strong Atheists but Agnostics and Verificationists.

As far as I am concerned this redefinition trivializes the discourse because by this definition, atheism ceases to be a viewpoint. It becomes a psychological state which is shared by people who hold a wide range of views or no views at all. With this definition, babies who hold no opinion on the issue would also have to be called atheists; people who suffer some deep and irreversible brain damage will automatically have to be reclassified atheists since they have no demonstrable belief or opinion on the matter. We can even stretch that definition to include your pets - suddenly your pets would qualify as atheists since they have no belief in the existence of God. Consequently a theist may equally loosely define theism as “the belief in the existence of God” and be equally absolved of any responsibility or confirmatory burden. The result is that everyone will sit tight in their domain of belief or disbelief and no God debates/discussions will ever arise; neither will any answers arise.

Supposing, I tell you that my position is the following -  I do not have a god-belief and that I do not belief there is a god.  And that people with this state of mind call themselves Nodists. I argue that I have every right to call myself whatever I want, just as Huxley had the right to formulate the word AGNOSTIC to describe people of a certain state of mind.  Under this new view,  these terms now become

1)  Atheist - one who asserts positively that there are no gods
2)  Nodist -  one who does not have a god-belief and does not belief in god.
3)  Agnostic -  one who thinks that it is unknowable one way or the other.

Supposing the word nodist enters into current usage, how would you deal with the arguments from the nodist position?  By the way, I am arguing the nodist position.[/quote]

You do not have to invent the word ‘nodist’ here. You could have just said that you were skeptical about the belief in God. That will conveniently explain why you do not have a belief in God. However, unlike certain non-theists like the comatose, newborns, children or people who have never encountered theistic ideas and thus exhibit a simple psychological absence of a belief in God, the skeptic and the agnostic once they have been exposed to theistic ideas and evidence are not in the same boat. The former do not even know what it is to argue for or against the proposition. The latter have consciously decided to anchor themselves to a particular viewpoint and therefore they need justification for that position.

An agnostic atheist for example might just decide not to waste his time since he already confesses that he doesn’t know definitively that a God does not exist. A skeptic who maintains the unbelief in God despite having heard contrary positions is not in a position to argue with anyone at all on whether God exists or does not exist. That is the difference. You can maintain your skepticism and allow others their tiresome God-belief. Once you step out to argue that God does not exist or to suggest that God likely does not exist based on your belief, you have automatically become an atheist and as such, you shoulder the atheist’s burden. You automatically have to present evidence that would lead to the inescapable conclusion that God does not exist. That nodist position is fine so long as you keep it to yourself. Once you come out to engage in any arguments, you will need to present justification for that belief.

huxley:
You said:
[Quote]
For example, I do not know whether extraterrestrials exist or not. I have not visited all of the vastness of the universe to be able to say with any degree of confidence that there are no aliens in Andromeda or anywhere else. As far as extraterrestrials are concerned, I am agnostic about their existence or non-existence. They may or may not exist and I’ll openly confess my ignorance on that matter. However, there might be people who are deeply convinced that there are extraterrestrials and may have good reasons for such a conviction. Equally, there are people who are convinced that there are no such things as extraterrestrials. In any discussion on whether extraterrestrials exist or not, both sides which affirm or deny the existence of extraterrestrials have to present good arguments why their side should be believed. As an agnostic, all I get to do is weigh the evidence. In the end, I may be unconvinced that extraterrestrials exist OR I could be convinced that they do exist even if before that point, I have never actually witnessed an extraterrestrial. Before this can happen though, I have to be willing and receptive to the evidence offered for or against. If I am dogmatically set against one side of the discussion then it may be that no countervailing evidence from that side will convince me.

Like I said above, I do not agree with your ascription of the role of the mediator or arbiter to the agnostic.  All parties in the debate have as their responsibility to assess ALL the evidence from ALL other parties.[/quote]

I have done no such thing as ascribe the role of mediator or arbiter to the agnostic.

huxley: Let me address the below with the following thought experiment:
[Quote]
A person who posits that extraterrestrials do not exist cannot say that the inability of the other side to show evidence that would suggest the existence of an extraterrestrial is a positive proof of his own claim that extraterrestrials do not exist. That would be logically fallacious. All this would show in this example is that the person proposing that extraterrestrials exist has not proven his own case or has not shown evidence that would strongly suggest so – NOT that the denier of the proposition has been proven right! From the denier of the proposition, we need to hear a positive case that would suggest that their side is to be believed. Such a person, for example, may provide authoritative evidence of having traversed the entire universe and seeing no evidence of such extraterrestrials. In the absence of such strong positive disconfirming evidence, anyone is still completely within his rational rights to believe in the existence of extraterrestrials.

Thus, we are not in some law court where a person is assumed innocent if the prosecution cannot demonstrate some palpable guilt. This is more or less an academic exercise and each side of this conversational divide has to show with positive reasons why their side ought to be believed. Each side in essence has to build up a case that argues for the truthfulness of their knowledge claims. It is utterly fallacious therefore to think that in this scenario, you bear no responsibility or burden of proof for adopting your position, and as such, you can claim the possible lack of evidence for theistic positions as positive proof of atheistic positions. This false reasoning simply reduces to a fundamental presumption of atheism because “Absence of evidence” is not “Evidence of Absence”.

Can you tell me which of the following entities are standardly thought to exists and why? Can you also explain HOW YOU COME TO KNOW THEY EXIST OR THEY DO NOT EXIST?

1)  Dragon
2)  Nfenah-nfenah
3)  Santa Claus
4)  Mami Wata
5)  Satyr

Could you methodology for investigating the five entities above be applied to investigating the existence of God?  WHY?[/quote]

LOL, to follow your example, I’ll need you to define these five entities. If I am to waste my time entertaining this distraction, I’ll need you to give me not just the ontologies of these entities, but also a response as to whether they satisfy an evidence expectation criterion or a knowledge expectation criterion.

huxley:
[Quote]
So it is entirely possible for instance for a theist not to be able to present any proof at all for his position. Nevertheless, it would be deeply illogical to assume that that necessarily proves the assertions or positions of the atheist.  Atheism is not the default position here. The default position is agnosticism, a confession of nescience, which essentially says “I don’t know whether God exists or whether God does not exist”.

What do you mean by default?  Is it suppose to mean one who has not take a view or a position of the God question?   How about a two-year old child?  On your definition of theism atheism and agnosticism,  where would you put a two-year old child?[/quote]

By the default position, I mean the lack of a position for or against. This is why I said that agnosticism is the default position in a discussion on whether God exists or not. The Theist and the Atheist are on opposite sides of that agnostic position. Children, newborn or other non-theists who show an absence of God-belief based on the fact that they have not been exposed to theistic ideas are exempted from this discussion.

huxley: Below, you are giving some sort of ontology of God, following on from your earlier definition of God as a necessary, transcendent, disembodied being with a mind and intelligence.
[Quote]
If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

As an omnipotent being however, he can interact and directly impact the physical realm/universe. So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. Such interventions would appropriately be supernatural interventions since by definition, a supernatural event is not simply an ‘implausible’, ‘impossible’ or counter-intuitive event, BUT an event that in its proper context cannot be adequately explained by a simplistic recourse to naturalistic explanations.

To my question about why God lacks a body, you said " he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity".  So God is a necessary being.  But that statement is worrying, as your God already possess other attributes of the universe such as minds, freewill and inteligence.  Why does this not make him part of the universe, but having a body would make him part of the universe?[/quote]

I do not like this disingenuous style of just selecting one or two sentences in a whole paragraph of an answer or explanation to quibble with. It is even worse when you select parts of a complete sentence to fuss over when the full sentence (or paragraph as the case may be) will properly illuminate what has been said. Once again, I have not used the word “disembodied mind”. What I used was “unembodied mind”.

I see no reason why you omitted “If God had a body” [/i]in that sentence. The full sentence was [i]“If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity”. Like I said earlier, if the ontology of God is to say that God is composed of matter and thus had a body, there will be no reason to call him God. He will just be another contingent entity of even lesser import than the universe. On that view, the talk about God transcending the universe does not even arise.

Now, it is wrong to think that freewill or intelligence is a property of the brute physical universe. These attributes are attributes of minds. My position therefore is that as the primordial and necessary sentient being, God had also allowed for some of the entities in this physical domain to possess infinitesimally small portions of his transcendentally anchored attributes. Always refer back to that thought experiment we carried. That it is possible for instance that the 2-D creatures existing in the 2-D reality you created to move around in 2-D space does not mean that you, as a higher dimensional being, is a subset of the 2-D world seeing that you exhibit motion yourself. The motility of these 2-D creatures is simply a very small portion or scale compared to what you are capable of.

huxley: Can God bring about a state of affairs that result in him having a body?  If so,  would he cease to be a necessary being ?  Remember what you said above -( he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity)

This is just a hopeless misrepresentation of what I have said.

huxley: God ceases to be a necessary being by obtaining a physical body, as you say above,   does he also lose the quality of transcendence, since necessity implies transcendence?

If God cannot bring about a state of affairs whereby he has material form,  can he be said to be omnipotent?

What I have said is not that God is a subset of this universe but rather that if God were said to be an entity X, quantitatively composed of finite matter thus possessing a material body, then entity X is contingent (and not necessary) and therefore cannot be called God. Like I said he does not possess finite physically instantiated particulars.

Also, I have not suggested that God loses transcendence at any point. Omnipotent as he is, if he were to directly impact the universe and make his presence perceivable in the universe, it is illogical to expect that such an instantiation will be transcendental. If it were, no one could perceive it. If he were to arbitrarily choose to impact the universe, it stands to reason that such an effort on his part could only be perceived if such a physical instantiation has material component. His transcendental attribute is unaltered. He’ll be existing transcendentally as God while simultaneously and volitionally interacting with our spatio-temporal reality.

In the thought example we carried, if you were to thrust your finger onto the plane on this 2-D reality, you’ll be perceived as another 2-D object by these 2-D creatures but that in no way destroys the 3-D spatial attribute of your finger. The difference is that in a 2-D perceptual framework, your finger seemingly loses its higher dimensional attribute which is realistically never altered.

God’s omnipotence does not mean that he performs logical self-contradictions like atheists love to ask. It means that he can do anything which is possible to do without contradicting his own nature. Sometimes you find atheists asking ridiculous questions like “If God is omnipotent, can he make himself not be God again?” or “If God is omnipotent, can he make a rock so big that he cannot carry it?”

huxley: You said:
[Quote]
So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it.

You said above that if God were to bring himself into the universe in material form, he would no longer be a necessary being. So in the fleeting moments that he assumes material form to show himself in the world is he necessary or contingent or transcendent? [/quote]

This is yet another misrepresentation of what I have said. Refer to my explanation above.

huxley: Consider these two statements of yours:

Statement A:

[Quote]
If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’?

And this

Statement B:

[Quote]
So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. [/quote]

Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary)  BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form.  Are These two statements logically consistent? [/quote]

Your problem lies in what you think that these statements are saying.

Statement A is saying that God by definition does not have a body. He is a mind. If he had a body by definition, he will not be metaphysically necessary or transcendental.

Statement B on the other hand is saying that as a necessary and omnipotent entity, God has the capacity to interact with the physical realm.

To be evident or to be perceived in the physical realm, it is illogical to expect that any such instantiation would be his full transcendental nature. If that were so, he just could not be perceived or understood in the physical realm. Besides, as has already been repeated ad infinitum, he transcends this universe. Such an instantiation has to be physical for it to be perceived - but doing so doesn’t detract from his transcendence for it is by virtue of his transcendentally necessary self and power that he temporarily allows empirical instantiation. Remember the thought experiment we carried and how you can simultaneously be a 3-D creator existing independently but observable as a 2-D entity in a 2-D universe.

huxley: From your reading of philosophy, can you provide an reference to books, journals, articles, material that support the view that an entity is capable of at one time being necessary and at another contingent?


On the Christian view, Jesus was God in material form.  I don't know if you are Christian, but let's assume that you are.   From you analysis,  what was the ontic status of Jesus?  Was he

1)  Necessary and hence transcendent?
2)  Contingent given that he possess a material form and consequently non-transcendent?
3)  Necessary and contingent?

I’d rather not get into this topic of Jesus for now. Let us keep the discussion where it currently is. I am sure that a time and a place would come for us to get ourselves into that discussion.

To summarize: [b]In this lengthy reply, we have accidentally gotten into other discussions tangential to the Cosmological Argument and its refutation. You sought to subvert the first premise that argues for the existence of God by appealing to virtual particles and radioactive decay. As far as I am concerned, this is the main crux of these length posts. I think I have also decisively shot down these objections. If you have any other objection to the first premise, I’ll gladly entertain them. [/b]In the absence of further objections to the first premise, I may or may not be responding to some of these other finer philosophical or theosophical enquiries. The reason is because I want to refocus the discussion on the Cosmological Argument. If you remember, the whole exchange between us is hinged on the premise “Whatever begins to exist has a cause or explanation”.

By the way, in your next reply, at least in other to keep me interested in this discussion, I want to insist that you provide me with a positive case for your atheism. That is only fair, isn’t it? 

Prizm,

Many, many thanks for the great response to my mail.  I really do appreciate the effort you have put it in addressing EVERY aspect of my post to you.  Who said good, health debates were dead?

I take from your lastest post a number of things which I shall endeavour to address.  These are:

1)  The main blank of our discussion, ie, the Cosmological Argument.

2)  Other sub-topics like Ontology of entities (Dragons, Satyr, etc) , meaning of words (atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc)

3)  And importantly, you have challenge me to explain WHY I am an atheist, which I shall do in a subsequent post.

I am sure you are keen to see my response to your very interesting post, but unfortunately, I am not feeling very well at the moment and I have got plenty of work to do.  So my full response will come nearly towards the end of the week.  So please, Pardon me.  I ask just one little favour from you - Can you oblige me with an answer to the following question?

Are all entities and beings (transcendent minds and non-transcendent minds ) within and without (like God) the universe, subject to the same rules or laws  of logic?  Or are there some rules/laws of logic that are applicable to some beings and not to others?  Further, do you think the rules/laws of logic are immutable?




A response to the above would be much appreciated as it would enable me to respond to all your queries on this subject in my next post to you.

Many thanks.

@ Prizm or deep sight?

What did the first mover move?

Unless the universe was created out of the first mover, there was nothing to create it from. . unless something else existed. . right? If something cannot come from nothing, how can something be created from nothing. .

All this grammar wey una dey blow don confuse me finish. . .

wirinet:

It is a pity i have been off Nairaland for a week (man cannot live by Nairaland alone), and i have missed this very interesting and cerebral thread. Well done to Deep Sight for the thread and to my able bothers, Pastor, Huxley, Toneyb, Tudor,Chrisbenogor , etc. you guys make me feel proud to be a Nigerian. Now let me add my own thought on the matter, i hope i am not taking you all back because i am joining the debate late.

Deep Sight, the major flaw in your argument is your equation is wrong, mathematically, logically and scientifically.
First there is nothing like 0 +0 = 0 in mathematics, in all my years of studying mathematics, i had never come across such equation. Because zero is used to represent absence of a quantity, so how can you add two quantities that is not present. When we try to divide 0 by a figure we get an indeterminate quantity.

Secondly zero does not mean absolute nothing, it only means the absent of a specific quantity we are dealing with. Because a space has zero amount of matter does not mean it has zero amount of all other physical quantities known to nature, like energy, gravity, magnetism, electric charge etc. And because of the interchangeability of matter and energy, a space with zero matter but with photons can change to a space with zero photons and matter instantly.

Then finally in there realm of quantum physics, quantities are not absolute but as a result of complex interactions and probabilities of energy and particles. Also note in the area of relativistic physics, 1 + 1 is not equal to 2 but depends on their speed relative to each other and to the observer.

Let me finish by adding that when you say zero, you will have to tell us zero what? As pastor says maths is abstractions but science does not allow abstraction like 0,1,2, etc without specifics.

Wirinet! You are most welcome! I have long awaited you on this thread.

Unfortunately it appears you have misunderstood the idea of the zero equation. It really is a statement of nothingness, which by that very nothingness implicitly makes the case for somethingness, an irremovable and necessary quantity which must exist in infinitude for anything at all to exist. The logical deduction for this remains the self evident truth within the zero equation that somethingness cannot come out of nothingness, an thus, only a pre-existent somethingness, could sire the universe as we know it.

With reference to your ideas on the relativity of numbers, without getting into an extended argument about that, i will restrict myself to stating that even if any other fugures may have a relative co-relation in different contexts, that certainly will not apply to the zero quantity - because by definition it means nothing. There is therefore nothing to co relate with and nothing to be relative to. Thus the zero we refer to is the only zero that can be seriously considered: absolute nothing. In this context, all the energies you referred to (magnetism, gravity, electricity, etc) do not qualify as zero because they are something. They are a force, even if invisible. In this regard, the zero equation still rings true: these forces could not have come out of nothing. Nor could they be eternal in the past given the fact that the universe has a finite begining. Thus something sparked them into existence.

I am very disturbed by the fact, as Prizm noted, that sometimes we begin to dwell on definitions which no honest discussants would bother to create a fuss about. Can it really be said that there is any uncertainty about the meaning of "nothingness" or "zero"?


Chrisbenegor ? ? ?

Deepsight.
Peradventure I come across a rock shaped like that chiseled by forces of nature like heat and erosion is that intelligent design?

I throw a dynamite, blast a giant rock into pieces and some fragments turn out like in the picture above does that constitute intentional design?

That mine was created unintentionally and yours intentionally designed does that in anyway prevent it's use as a tool for cutting and killing?

I actually used the very elementary example of stone tools for a special reason: to show that even the most elementary designs normally infer intelligence.

However note that i did not posit that Design alone proves intelligence.

I said:

Design + Purpose verifies Intelligence. You may put it this way: When a specific Design is seen to be set up for a particular purpose which achieves a problem solving solution - this is evidence of mental activity.

Let's put the stone tools aside for a moment. The universe is vastly more complex than stone tools. Let's use something that is even vaguely as complex. Let's say a lap top computer. (Please note that Laptops do not have anything near the complexity of a human brain).

So you come across a lap top in a desert.

You conclude -

1. It shows specific and complex design

2. The design is directed at specific functional purposes

3. It was therefore made by an Intelligent Element

OR -

It popped out of thin air

OR -

There was an earthquake, and it appeared as a result

OR -

The fusion of forces in nature such as magnetism, electricity, etc created the laptop.


ANSWER ME TUDOR!!!!

Cranky hard heartedness,before you consume yourselves on the entire physicology you have learnt from a non God believing lecture try to watch 23Minutes in Hell Video search it on Google or read the Book of enoch,search in google read and learn,don't search for God by your terms and not His,He only reveals Himself by those who earnestly seek Him to select the ones that would believe in Him by faith not by forceful observance of signs and fleece.

Out