First order logic, set theory and God

[dr0n3]

The phrase "began to exist"

I used this analogy in another thread but I like ice, so I'll use it again.

A cup of water is left outside over night and on this particular night, it got cold enough to create a little ice in the cup of water.
First question ....When did the ice "begin to exist" ?
Was ice "created" ? When creationists say the universe was created, would they also say that the ice was "created" ?

A baseball bat can be whittled down from a tree branch.
The branch existed the entire time, so when did the branch stop existing and the baseball bat began to exist ?

It was created as soon as the crystallization process ended.

Causality isn't continuous but rather discrete, and that is because the cause and effect are generally regarded as immanent.That is, the event of a " baseball bat being whittled down from a tree branch" is something concrete that occurs at a particular spatiotemporal location. Perceptually speaking, The tree branch (cause) and the bat (effect), can be individuated by their characteristics in a sense that they're both qualitatively distinct. The bat basically ceases to exists as soon as its qualitative properties appears to be inexistent, and that the properties of the bat come into being. Also, nothing stops the causal relatedness of the two entities to be partially contemporaneous, in a sense where entity A's time of occurrence includes the time at which the entity B's existence begins.

[Belacqua]

It was created as soon as the crystallization process ended.

Maybe it's a Sorites paradox? There's no clear boundary between 100% glass of water and 100% glass of ice...?

[dr0n3]

It was created as soon as the crystallization process ended.

Maybe it's a Sorites paradox? There's no clear boundary between 100% glass of water and 100% glass of ice...?

Not at all, Sorites paradox is more of a quantitation issue due to the limits of natural language. Water and Ice are both qualitatively distinct (on a molecular level, for instance), and that is precisely how the boundaries are established.

[I_am_not_mafia]

My point is that first order logic doesn't describe reality very well.

There is an awful lot of fundamentally important stuff that it cannot describe at all. Making your so called proof worthless if you are trying to say something about the nature of reality. For example thermodynamics, complexity and chaos.

It is not grounded in reality any more than the English language.

Which completely misses the point I am making in that reality is continuous whereas your arguments of causality are discrete.

As I said, your description of reality is not sufficiently powerful enough to say anything worthwhile at all.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions here.

No. It's called being scientifically literate.

First, on what basis is first-order logic inefficient at describing reality ?

I did not use the word inefficient, although it is that as well. I used the inadequate. I have already explained several times. It reasons about reality as if it is made up of discrete objects when in fact these are arbitrary definitions. It does not take into account continuous and continual processes, chaos, complexity or thermodynamics which are fundamentally important to describing the nature of reality and why the world is as it currently is.

Take a snow flake for example. How would your logic be used to describe what causes a snow flake. Go on, try it. Now use your first order logic to explain why a snow flake has the shape that it does. First order logic is inadequate for doing so, but the same laws governing why and how a snowflake exist are behind why galaxies, solar systems, planets, chemistry, biology, abiogenesis, evolution and even intelligence and consequently society. And if you tried reasoning about them using first order logic you would not come up with much that was any use.

---

The phrase "began to exist"

I used this analogy in another thread but I like ice, so I'll use it again.

A cup of water is left outside over night and on this particular night, it got cold enough to create a little ice in the cup of water.
First question ....When did the ice "begin to exist" ?
Was ice "created" ? When creationists say the universe was created, would they also say that the ice was "created" ?

A baseball bat can be whittled down from a tree branch.
The branch existed the entire time, so when did the branch stop existing and the baseball bat began to exist ?

It was created as soon as the crystallization process ended.

Right. So the moment two H2O molecules formed a crystal inside a cup of water, was it a cup of ice or a cup of water?

How does your first order logic describe a cup that is in the process of transitioning from a cup of water to a cup of ice?

Causality isn't continuous but rather discrete

Possibly at the Quantum level if you are referring to events at the Planck length, but that's not the kind of stuff you use first order logic for.

So no. When you refer to causality you are referring to a continuous process.

[Rahn127]

The phrase "began to exist"

I used this analogy in another thread but I like ice, so I'll use it again.

A cup of water is left outside over night and on this particular night, it got cold enough to create a little ice in the cup of water.
First question ....When did the ice "begin to exist" ?
Was ice "created" ? When creationists say the universe was created, would they also say that the ice was "created" ?

A baseball bat can be whittled down from a tree branch.
The branch existed the entire time, so when did the branch stop existing and the baseball bat began to exist ?

It was created as soon as the crystallization process ended.

Causality isn't continuous but rather discrete, and that is because the cause and effect are generally regarded as immanent.That is, the event of a " baseball bat being whittled down from a tree branch" is something concrete that occurs at a particular spatiotemporal location. Perceptually speaking, The tree branch (cause) and the bat (effect), can be individuated by their characteristics in a sense that they're both qualitatively distinct. The bat basically ceases to exists as soon as its qualitative properties appears to be inexistent, and that the properties of the bat come into being. Also, nothing stops the causal relatedness of the two entities to be partially contemporaneous, in a sense where entity A's time of occurrence includes the time at which the entity B's existence begins.

I think perhaps you're missing the point.
Ice is a solid state of water. The structure changed.
Nothing was actually created or added to the environment.

Ice is the solid form of water.
The water exists. The ice didn't begin to exist.
The structure of the water that already existed changed.

With the tree branch and baseball bat.
The shape of the branch is altered. All the existing material is still there. The wood shaving on the ground we're part of the branch. They are now shavings.
The bat wasn't created. It was shaped.

It didn't begin to exist. We just changed the label as the shape of the branch was altered.

That is the distinction that needs to be made.

Ice forms naturally. It's not created. It didn't arrive out of nothing. Water was already there. Only the structure changed as the environmental factors changed.

We have the cosmos.
We have the forces of nature.
We have the energy of the universe.

This isn't nothing.

When those existing things change, like a snowflake, a universe is formed, not created. Formed.

[Paleophyte]

Space-time is logically necessary for everything else.

Yes, I think so too. If by "anything" you mean "anything that relies for its existence on space-time." We don't want to beg the question by beginning with the axiom that there is nothing else. 

Can you think of anything that can possibly exist without space-time? Do we even have an epistemological framework or did that go crunch along with the very logic we're trying to employ?

The first cause arguments work on whether we have to stop with the brute fact "space-time just exists, period, no further cause is required." Or whether it makes sense to argue that space-time, too, is caused. 

That appears paradoxical:

- Space-time requires a cause.
- Causality requires both space and time.

It's like asking for a chocolate chip cookie when neither chocolate nor cookie dough exist.

The Argument(s) from First Cause are lovely examples of why you can't apply "common sense" to the least common event in the history of history and expect the answers to make sense.

When you say "event," are you referring to the Big Bang?

More specifically the beginning of space-time that is the vital part of the Big Bang. Consider two scenarios:

A Big Bang in which there is no mass or energy. This is going to be more of a Dull Fizzle as space-time majestically unfolds to reveal a shit ton of darkness but it's conceivable.

By contrast, a Big Bang in which there is no space or time never bangs. The mass and energy don't even bother sitting there looking embarrassed. They simply don't exist with space-time.

All of this is ignoring brane cosmology, but that's so a far above my pay grade that I won't even pretend to understand it.

[Angrboda]

(1) Arguments aren't evidence. Can you imagine a murder trial where the prosecution failed to demonstrate that anybody had been killed?

Some things are proved through logic, and some things are proved through evidence. 

Just because murder trials are proved (in large part) through evidence, doesn't mean that logical syllogisms work the same way.

Although in fact, simple logic will be used throughout a murder trial. 

~ A man can not be in two places at the same time.
~ The suspect was in Chicago and the murder was in New York.
~ Therefore, the suspect is innocent. 

It's so simple it may not even look like logic, but without logic we wouldn't have the correct conclusion. 

Maybe he just had really long arms.

[dr0n3]

No. It's called being scientifically literate.

I can assure you that you're anything but that. Your reasoning, in general, leaves much to be desired.

I did not use the word inefficient, although it is that as well. I used the inadequate. I have already explained several times. It reasons about reality as if it is made up of discrete objects when in fact these are arbitrary definitions. It does not take into account continuous and continual processes, chaos, complexity or thermodynamics which are fundamentally important to describing the nature of reality and why the world is as it currently is.

Take a snow flake for example. How would your logic be used to describe what causes a snow flake. Go on, try it. Now use your first order logic to explain why a snow flake has the shape that it does. First order logic is inadequate for doing so, but the same laws governing why and how a snowflake exist are behind why galaxies, solar systems, planets, chemistry, biology, abiogenesis, evolution and even intelligence and consequently society. And if you tried reasoning about them using first order logic you would not come up with much that was any use.

I'm not entirely sure why you're presupposing that logic is an all-encompassing science meant to explain everything and anything. That assumption you made is completely unwarranted and speaks volumes on your lack of knowledge. So much for the scientific literacy you've proudly proclaimed. Logic does not tell us how we ought to reason or infer in all particular cases, since it lacks the ability to deal with specifics. Its purpose, generally speaking, is to study reality's nature and the general relations it has to other things. The methodology is akin to abductive reasoning, wherein one makes observations, recognizes a pattern, presents a generalization, and infer the likeliest possible scenario. On that note, it is evident that your example is completely irrelevant and thus, not worth discussing.

Right. So the moment two H2O molecules formed a crystal inside a cup of water, was it a cup of ice or a cup of water?

That's a matter of semantics. Heck, call it a cup of blood if you wish so. The fact remains that causality is established as soon as the transition from cause to effect is complete, and that the properties of said cause and effect are qualitatively distinctive. That is, one could perceptually distinguish the different state of water that arose from the process of crystallization.

How does your first order logic describe a cup that is in the process of transitioning from a cup of water to a cup of ice?

It doesn't. That is why we teach chemistry. Again, what is your point?

I think perhaps you're missing the point.
Ice is a solid state of water. The structure changed.
Nothing was actually created or added to the environment.

Ice is the solid form of water.
The water exists. The ice didn't begin to exist.
The structure of the water that already existed changed.

With the tree branch and baseball bat.
The shape of the branch is altered. All the existing material is still there. The wood shaving on the ground we're part of the branch. They are now shavings.
The bat wasn't created. It was shaped.

It didn't begin to exist. We just changed the label as the shape of the branch was altered.

That is the distinction that needs to be made.

Ice forms naturally. It's not created. It didn't arrive out of nothing. Water was already there. Only the structure changed as the environmental factors changed.

We have the cosmos.
We have the forces of nature.
We have the energy of the universe.

This isn't nothing.

When those existing things change, like a snowflake, a universe is formed, not created. Formed.

What is laughable is that you've completely dismissed the substance on my argument by shifting the goalposts and putting words in my mouth. The appeal to creation ex nihilo is completely unwarranted, nowhere in my reasoning have I hinted that causality hinged upon the creation of energy through external interference. That interpretation is of your own doing, and I suspect your intellectual dishonesty is being at play here.

What you, and countless of other posters, have failed to grasp is that causality, in the case of water transitioning to ice, appeals to a concrete and distinct occurence of the interconnectedness of both events. In this light, causality can only be established if and only if, one can properly define and distinguish the qualitative properties that makes water what water is supposed to be, and ice what ice is supposed to be. Water ceases to be, qualitatively speaking, when the substance and qualities of ice appears to be discernible for it's previous liquid state at a point of time, and this, while concurring with the Law of Conservation of Energy. Furthermore, nitpicking over terms such as "created" "formed" or "existed" is a futile endeavor, since whatever choice of the term may be, the effect (ice) will always be distinctive from its cause (water), qualitatively speaking.


In a nutshell, it can be said that A is the cause of B, given that A can be qualitatively distinctive from B at a point of time. If A and B, can both be individuated  by their associated {substance, property, time} triple, the causal relatedness of A and B is said to have been established. Now, this is by no means a black and white represatation of how causality operates, there are alot more factors that needs to be taken into conisderation if one is to capture the complete dynamics and the intricate complexity of its nature.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Well..... watching dr0n3 cross paths with Mathilda will be interesting.

All the best to the both of you.

[Angrboda]

God damn it, there goes another full bucket of puerile verbal diarrhoea, you seem to get the thrill out of it... but sadly, time is of the essence and I just can't be arsed to thwart each and every one of your piss-poor scattershot ad hominem attacks.

However, I must admit that GIF caught my attention and quite honestly - I'd love for you to name me your price.

Feel free to name the fallacy that you think I've committed by pointing out the problem with your argument and naming the species of fallacy it is. I expect that you won't, and instead we'll hear more moronic bluster about how a fallacy is not fatal to a logical argument.

Expectation met!


So, you're not going to name the fallacy you accused me of committing? I thought so. Loser.