Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't recall what the point in bringing up the immateriality of symphonies and such was, but it seems to rest on a non sequitur.  I don't see any reason to necessarily conclude that a symphony is anything more than stuff doing what stuff does.

It was a challenge to one of the premises of the argument I presented earlier: the premise that everything that begins to exist must have a material cause. Steve seems to think that if he can demonstrate that some objects we're familiar with do not have material causes, then material cause (unlike efficient cause) isn't so essential. Fair enough, but the best he can point to in this case are abstract objects like symphonies, and as you have just argued, that itself is problematic a counter to use.

Thanks Grandizer. I was wondering why he was going on non-material causes.

Of course the problem is that all matter has energy. Stevell is talking about material causes. Does he mean a cause that requires matter? Or causes that consist only of matter?

If the latter, then Stevell is effectively arguing that symphonies and books weren't caused by matter at zero Kelvin.

The words 'no', 'shit' and 'Sherlock' spring to mind. But of course that would be stupid. So apparently a 'material cause' is:

[*]Matter: a change or movement's material "cause", is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble.

So yeah, only taking into account the material.

Maybe Stevell would like to give us a solid (haha!) example of a material cause?

What type of cause is behind electricity for example? Material, form, agent or purpose? You know, things may have moved on since Aristotle. All four definitions of cause looks utterly arbitrary and useless for the modern world. Is there any practical use any more for talking about causes in this way?