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

[polymath257]

Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.

For someone who claims that Aristotle's causes have been superceeded, you sure don't understand what they actually are. Material cause is simply the stuff(which is actually the best translation from Greek) out of which something is made without regard to its specific form or origin.

Like I said, the composition.

Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.

That's a highly debatable assertion. I do not believe that atheists accept the nominalist/conceptualist position on its merits. Nominalism is a woefully incomplete way way of describing the relationship between ideas and sensible bodies. Personally, I think atheists adopt that position entirely because they cannot abide the conclusions of any kind of realism.

Realism has a host of other issues: for example quantum mechanics isn't a realist theory of physics.

As far as mathematical entities go, I see them as equivalent to moves in a chess game: follow the formal rules and obtain certain positions.

Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc...Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology..

More unfounded assertions. Physical objects, in themselves, have no meaning. They aren't about anything. It is one of the fatal flaws of the atheist worldview - the vain and unsupported belief that there can be meaning in an meaningless universe. Physical objects can carry meaning but meaning is in no way inherent in physical objects nor is meaning capable of arising in physical objects without vague appeals to the magical powers of "emergence".

Right. Objects in and of themselves have no meaning. Meaning is something *we* assign to objects because of our needs and desires. Meaning isn't something inherent in the objects.

Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.

How about "metallic?" Is that just a convention or does it apply to something real and objective about the world? Are trees metallic if everyone agrees to it?

[/quote]

It is convention. And, at times, a poor one. Generally, on the scientific side, it has been operationally defined to some precision, so the convention is strong enough to not allow the flexibility of saying trees are metallic.

But the word itself is still conventional. The concept itself is still convention. We start with some phenomena and try to assign some operational definition to it that may or may not reflect how the real world actually acts.

Sort of like how the word 'planet' has changed over time. Is Pluto a planet? Depends on the accepted definition of the term. I.e, convention.

---

How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?

They all could/probably do if in fact the supernatural exists. However, that is not the argument. The point is we can see that even abstract concepts and objects that are not bound by the physical laws of the universe require a causal principle. This fact further supports the idea that a causal principle is an objective feature of all reality and therefore cannot be separated from the concept of existence. Tell me, can you conceive of a reality that has no governing causal principle? There would be no structure to even hold anything material together nor any duration/enduring of anything. There would be no possibility of even thinking (defined as a process of ordered thoughts). 

So, if we can't conceive of such a reality, why would we deny the premise "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is a lot more likely true than not? To deny it's not, is utter nonsense and seems to stem from some sort of irrational desire to prove the concept wrong. Further, it's not even a thing among philosophers to argue against things like the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It's almost like if a Christian says "white" there are those that are convinced that "black" must be the case.  

This is why I am done with Grandizer, Polymath, and Mathilda (and probably Jenny) on this subject. They seem incapable of taking that step back and seeing this point.

Really? What is the 'causal principle' in mathematics?  What is the 'causal principle' of ideas?

The *only* 'causal principle' for either of those is some sort of brain state that carries the ideas involved. But, since you claimed a supernatural (whatever that *could* mean), I think you are just talking out of your hat.

No, your thoughts on a 'causal principle' are simply your biases. They do not form objective evidence by a long shot. This is doubly true in math.

I can easily conceive of a reality without a 'causal principle' in the way you have defined it. In fact, I look at *reality* and I see exactly such. The real world is a-causal at the subatomic level. That is an established fact.

I *see* your point. I just don't find it to be a *valid* point. In fact, I think it is one of the many grave mistakes that you make.