Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 11, 2016 at 7:56 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: First, I don't necessarily buy into the "possible worlds" hypothesis of philosophy, which your article itself explicitly states "has been disputed." But as for your "Necessarily true propositions," these are purely definitions created by human minds. It's easy to imagine cultures which didn't have the concept of addition (certainly animals don't, and you'd be hard pressed to identify where exactly in our evolution the concept, however first expressed, that 2 + 2 = 4 originated).
But let's imagine I'm from another culture in another world. In my culture, we work solely with binary digits. Your 2 + 2 = 4 makes no sense to us. I insist that 10 + 10 = 100! This is a necessarily true proposition, despite your insistence that 10 + 10 = 20. And what do you mean by marriage, or bachelor? In my world, the males and females mate at will, without monogamous commitment. This is a necessarily true proposition, and all others are false!
To borrow from a quote I agree with...
So, these concepts are only true definitionally, and thus, only true in the models we build inside our own heads.
Now it's your turn... Prove that the concept of "unmarried" or "bachelor" or "plus" exists outside of human minds.
You will have to explain why 10 objects plus 10 objects is not the same as 2x10 objects and the same as 20 objects--even in another culture. The fact that they do not understand the concept or don't have a description of it does not make it any less true.
An unmarried bachelor is just combining two words together that mean the opposite and therefore can be described as an Impossible Proposition in all possible worlds (from the same article):
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
I'm happy to address your questions and assertions as soon as you address my challenge, which I'll repeat... Prove that the concept of "unmarried" or "bachelor" or "plus" exists outside of human minds.
If these concepts do NOT exist outside human minds, then any relationship - logical or otherwise - we attribute to these words and concepts can be wholly explained by internal human constructs alone.
I'll also note that we're on page 19 of a debate (I'm on 40 posts per page, my preferred ratio), which largely consists of Steve's defence of the KCA/Aquinas/Aristotlean "proof" of god, and Steve still hasn't even acknowledged, never mind addressed, the most basic problem with the argument in that if everything needs a creator to exist then you cannot have an uncaused cause. The only logical conclusion of his argument is "it's turtles all the way down" or in this case "gods all the way back, each one more all-powerful than his successor".
That is the only valid conclusion, if you want do describe god as a real being with an actual existence.
(May 12, 2016 at 8:54 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: 1. Everything that began to exist, existed previously in a different form
2. The universe began to exist
Therefore:
3. The universe existed in different forms before it began to exist in its current form
*******
1.If the universe existed in different forms before it began to exist in its current form, then a race of omnipotent, formless unchanging, green, manic-depressive extraterrestrials who exist sans the universe must necessarily be responsible for universe beginning to exist in its various forms.
Therefore:
A race of omnipotent, formless unchanging, green, manic-depressive extraterrestrials exist, who exist sans the universe and are responsible for the universe beginning to exist in its various forms.
(Please provide defeaters for my premises, otherwise you MUST accept my conclusion as true.)
Defeater for P1: infinite regression of past causes is logically absurd.
But, but! You can't prove that the actual universe isn't an infinite regress, so therefore my premise is true and you have to agree with me!
Sound familiar?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
(May 11, 2016 at 3:33 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: 1) Define cause and effect.
2) Demonstrate simultaneous cause and effect is plausible under your definition.
3) Even if we grant whatever you mean by simultaneous cause and effect, you still can't get around the fact that, God could not exist timelessly and changelessly without the universe prior to causing time to exist within the universe. This is a non sequitur.
(May 11, 2016 at 12:46 pm)SteveII Wrote: Why does causation presuppose the existence of time?
Review the first video in my "Timelessness" thread here: http://atheistforums.org/thread-42797.html
Time becomes an emergent property of causality. Or, put in terms of the video, "Causality is responsible for Time."
Third time trying to post this...
First, we must distinquish between a material cause and an efficient cause (there are more types of causes, but I don't think they are germane to the discussion). A material cause always precedes its effect. It is not so clear that an efficient cause does.
For example, take a train locomotive and a freight car connected by a coupling with 0% flex. When the locomotive starts moving (the efficient cause), the freight care moves as well (the effect). Simultaneous.
Another thought experiment: Take an artist and a clay vase. The clay is the material cause. The efficient cause is not the artist (person) alone. That artist can go home from the studio and may be a mother or daughter and engage in other activities. It is only the artist (person) and the act of molding the clay together that can be considered the efficient cause and therefore necessarily simultaneous with the effect (the vase).
Regarding your point 3), why do you say that? Do you imagine that God had to count down 3...2...1...create?
Time is a measurement of a sequence of events and/or the duration between them. Does time require causality or does causality require time?
May 12, 2016 at 2:06 pm (This post was last modified: May 12, 2016 at 2:14 pm by SteveII.)
(May 12, 2016 at 1:01 pm)Time Traveler Wrote:
(May 11, 2016 at 8:31 pm)SteveII Wrote:
You will have to explain why 10 objects plus 10 objects is not the same as 2x10 objects and the same as 20 objects--even in another culture. The fact that they do not understand the concept or don't have a description of it does not make it any less true.
An unmarried bachelor is just combining two words together that mean the opposite and therefore can be described as an Impossible Proposition in all possible worlds (from the same article):
Impossible propositions (or necessarily false propositions) are those that are true in no possible world (for example: "Melissa and Toby are taller than each other at the same time").
I'm happy to address your questions and assertions as soon as you address my challenge, which I'll repeat... Prove that the concept of "unmarried" or "bachelor" or "plus" exists outside of human minds.
If these concepts do NOT exist outside human minds, then any relationship - logical or otherwise - we attribute to these words and concepts can be wholly explained by internal human constructs alone.
Either I was not clear in my reply or you misunderstood. I am not talking about the words. I am talking about the concepts of propositions like "A and not A" in are absurd in all possible worlds.
(May 12, 2016 at 12:45 pm)SteveII Wrote: Defeater for P1: infinite regression of past causes is logically absurd.
But, but! You can't prove that the actual universe isn't an infinite regress, so therefore my premise is true and you have to agree with me!
Sound familiar?
No, not at all familiar. Sure you can prove that an infinite regress is absurd. I posted about Hilbert's Hotel awhile back. Here it is again:
Imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. All the rooms are full and a new guest walks in and wants a room. The desk clerk says no rooms are available.
Now imagine a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms. All the rooms are filled up so an infinite number of guests. A new guest walks up and wants a room. All the clerk has to to do is to move the guest in room #1 to room #2 and the guest from #2 to #3 and so on so your new guest can have a room #1. You can do this infinite number of times to a hotel that was already full.
Now imagine instead the clerk moves the guest from #1 to #2 and from #2 to #4 and from #3 to #6 (each being moved to a room number twice the original). All the odd number rooms become vacant. You can add an infinite number of new guests to a hotel that was full and end up with it half empty.
How many people would be in the hotel if the guest in #1 checked out?
If everyone in odd number rooms checks out, how many checked out? How many are left?
Now what if all the guest above room number 3 check out. How many checked out? How many are left?
So from the above we get: infinity + infinity = infinity infinity + infinity = infinity/2 infinity - 1 = infinity infinity / 2 = infinity infinity - infinity = 3
Conclusion: the idea of an actual infinite is logically absurd.
