(December 5, 2017 at 12:38 pm)SteveII Wrote: I have heard of it. You have tried to create one, but fail because you have defined 'nothing' as 'something that exists'. This is a definition problem. You really have to get over this.
Logically problematic statements can be part of reductio ad absurdum arguments. Either you really don't know what it means, or we're talking past each other here.
When you say "not anything exists", this is the same as saying "nothing exists". But you can't apply existence to what's "not a thing". Otherwise, it would be something, not "nothing".
I noticed you didn't answer what was in place of God's creation when it did not yet exist.
Let me rephrase in other words, non-existence cannot by definition exist. Existence exists, not non-existence.
Quote:Again, there is nothing illogical about an omnipotent God creating the universe ex nihilo. Your complaint boils down to what it means to be omnipotent. Fine, but don't imagine that you have found a logical contradiction when all you really mean is "omnipotence does not mean you can create something from nothing".
I used to be a Christian apologist myself, so I know what most Christian apologists argue regarding God's omnipotence. God being omnipotent often means he can do [almost] anything but what's logically impossible. Therefore, God can't create square circles and such. It's the same thing here. It's logically absurd to speak of something made of "nothing". No material cause for something that had a beginning to its existence means that this "something" could never have been made. A "something" that has no substance at all is not a "something", it's "nothing". If God can't do what's logically impossible, then he can't create something out of "nothing".
Quote:For example, the existence of unicorns, tooth fairy and magic are not logical contradictions. You are using the term "logical contradiction" wrong. Browse this for some examples: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4...iction.htm
Yawn ... it's like you are deliberately being obtuse.
Quote:You think that eternalism avoids an actual logical contradiction because you reformulate the sentence to use the term 'temporal'. Nope. The dimension of time has nothing to do with it. If there was past eternal physical material, there is past eternal series of causes and effects. As I said (reformulate for B theory of time): If we have a infinite series of causes/effects that precede the time slice we are experiencing now, then the causes responsible for the conditions of our time slice would never have happened--because even in the B theory of time, caused and effects only travel in one direction one following the other. But there could always be one more cause on the leading edge of the series...forever.
There is no past in eternalism, Steve. At least not in an absolute sense. There are "points in time", so to speak, with the connection being spatial, not temporal. Your argument against eternalism here shows you have no idea what it is about.
So I will link you to an article on eternalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism...y_of_time)
Quote:Quote:I have looked them up a long while ago, and am very familiar with the terms, thank you.That said, you still made an assertion in your first sentence. I'm assuming by "physical material", you mean basically the whole natural Cosmos (apart from God). So how did you establish that it is even logically possible that no physical material exists, when I've been arguing that there always had to be something because "nothing" cannot exist in its place?
The confusion continues to be that you don't know what a logical contradiction is. Whenever you use the term "logical contradiction" what you mean is that you don't think there are sufficient reasons to believe this to be the case. They are NOT the same thing. See link above about logical contradictions.
I kept my original quote here so people can see what you're actually addressing. Now, note how I asked a question in that quote of mine, which you did not answer at all. Instead, you just continued to ramble on about me not knowing what a logical contradiction is, even though I am very well aware of the distinction between logically impossible and implausible.
So, Steve, what existed in place of God's creation when God had not yet created? Also, is "nothing exists" not a logical contradiction?
Quote:The theory seems to do a lot of metaphysical handwaving--cloaking deficiencies with vague language. Example: your entire answer above. I don't want to start an entirely new topic in the middle of this. I may come back to this.
This is eternalism. It's not something I made up. Eternalism is the philosophy of time most backed by science, as opposed to presentism. Eternalism is linked to the B-theory of Time, while presentism is linked to the A-theory of time.
Quote:I was showing you that your hangup on the word 'time' is irrelevant. Since 'time' is a feature of our universe, it is much more appropriate to discuss what was prior to our universe than what was prior to a feature of our universe.
Actions require time to exist. This includes divine action. When, according to you, God created the universe, time began. But prior to time beginning, not even divine action could logically be performed. Because it's like saying that God acted in time to create time, which is clearly an absurd thing to say.
Quote:I don't know what that first sentence means. God, with all of his attributes, existed changelessly/timelessly. That state ended when he did something: created the universe. I think your hangup is that God had to mull it over, plan it out, counted down 3...2...1. An omniscient mind does not mull it over and plan it out.
LOL, it's like you don't even try to think about the logical implications of what you're defending ...
Reread your last sentence here. That's exactly what I'm trying to explain to you. No mulling or planning, then no exercise of the mind. God could only exercise the mind (if he wanted to, of course) within time.
But speaking of omniscience, this is another problem with God regarding him being a mindful entity. If God is omniscient, then there is no exercise of the mind needed, even within time. So God behaves mindlessly and spontaneously, similar to computers.
Quote:I don't care what you believe.
I know you don't. You're just here to defend your God no matter the logic and/or evidence.
Quote:Just pointing out that your OP failed to do what you said it was going to do: show us...
The Impossibility of "Nothingness"
The Impossibility of "Something from Nothing"
The Impossibility of Timeless Creation
The Impossibility of Mindful Creation
Ok, not that it's going to matter to you at all, but the OP arguments in short:
Nothing cannot exist. To exist is to be.
To be made from nothing is to be made of nothing. Something is not made of nothing. It's made of something.
Actions require time to exist. Creation of time is not possible without time already existing.
In the absence of time, if timeless actions was somehow logically possible, then only mindless actions can be made. Mindful actions require time to exist.
