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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 8:55 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 16, 2019 at 6:11 pm)SenseMaker007 Wrote:
(June 15, 2019 at 11:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You said the First Cause is not a thing, but then you go on to say, “without it.”  What is existence then, if it isn’t a thing? Do you mean to say, ‘without the potential for things to exist?’ If so, what are the preconditions necessary for anything at all to exist? I believe that it is logically contradictory to describe “nothing” as a potential alternative to “something”, because “nothing”, by definition, cannot be.  Not trying to be difficult, I just want to make sure I understand exactly what is meant by the First Cause, and I’m no philosopher, lol.

The idea of there being a such thing as something that isn't a thing ... makes zero sense to me. Even people are living things. Numbers are abstract things. "It's a cause not a thing!" ... just seems like nonsense. If it's not a thing then it can't do anything ... including causing stuff. And how could a non-thing interact with things? And isn't a non-thing, well ... nothing?

(June 14, 2019 at 6:22 pm)Belaqua Wrote: Not a thing that exists, but existence. Without it -- without existence -- there would obviously be nothing. 

There's nothing more real than the totality of existence itself. It's more likely that the separation of one thing from another is an illusion* .... than that existence itself isn't a thing. Existence HAS  to be a thing ... or it wouldn't exist. It would be nothing.

There are sound reasons to believe in a first cause ... but there are no sound reasons to believe that that first cause has a personality.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy)

^^^ but without the "divine being" aspect.

If you look at Griffith's proof above, QM implies that the Universe is eternal, without beginning or end.  It just IS.
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 16, 2019 at 11:21 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If you look at Griffith's proof above, QM implies that the Universe is eternal, without beginning or end.  It just IS.

Aristotle also thought that the universe is eternal. This is why we speak of a First Cause as being essential, not temporal.
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
@Belaqua

I nominate you to vote the OP via skype.
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 17, 2019 at 12:10 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: @Belaqua

I nominate you to vote the OP via skype.

Thanks, I guess.

I'd be interested to chat with him on this forum. But I'm so shy I can barely stand to Skype my own brother.
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 16, 2019 at 1:43 am)Belaqua Wrote:
(June 15, 2019 at 11:27 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: You said the First Cause is not a thing, but then you go on to say, “without it.”  

Yes, reasonable questions. The whole thing goes outside our daily experience of the world, and is hard to picture. And pushes the limits of English.

By thing in that sentence, I mean a tangible, separable object. As if when you see the First Cause and the universe, you're seeing two objects. But the world and the First Cause do not make two.

Then why would a first cause be necessary in the first place? Why would the cosmos require something in addition to itself in order to exist?

Quote:I guess if we say "this cat exists," then we're not talking about a cat and something else. The cat exists. And existence -- the fact that things exist -- is necessary for that cat to exist. And everything else.

Sure, I agree with that. I would even say the word “exists” is redundant in the sentence. We could simply point to the animal and and say, “this cat”.

Quote:Those who argue for a First Cause say that existence per se is necessary for anything at all to exist. And they have elaborate arguments as to why existence itself must be uncaused and unchanging. Things change, but existence itself remains existence.

I keep coming back to the same problem in my mind. They seem, then, to be insinuating that existence is in some way separate, or beyond, or ontologically different from that which exists. I feel like that’s unnecessary. Existence is simply a state of being. The cosmos exist. Earth exists. This pencil exists. Do you think that there is a good reason why we shouldn’t accept existence as a brute fact?  Is there a good reason to believe that “the cosmos” and “existence” can’t be synonymous terms? I’m not arguing anything here. Just picking your brain. 😉

Quote:When they posit a First Cause, they are hoping to answer your question here: for anything contingent, changing, and tangible to exist, we require the precondition of something non-contingent, unchanging, and intangible -- namely, existence.

Hmm. I’m not persuaded that that is true. I think that things exist necessarily, because there is no logical alternative to existence.  If existence exists necessarily, then a prior cause or condition would be superfluous.

Quote:You may not be a philosopher, but here you've stated an important part of the argument as to why there must be a First Cause.

The standard thinking says that if there were absolutely nothing, then existing things couldn't come to be. But obviously some things exist. Therefore there must be something which doesn't need to come to be.

Bold mine. The problem is that there could never be nothing. That sentence itself is a logical contradiction. Absolute nothingness is incoherent. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.
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.”

Wiser words were never spoken. 
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 17, 2019 at 2:43 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Then why would a first cause be necessary in the first place? Why would the cosmos require something in addition to itself in order to exist?
Well, again, I don't think existence is "in addition" to the cosmos. The cosmos exists -- and we can call this a "thing" or a "state" or some other word, but it's not separate. 
Quote:I would even say the word “exists” is redundant in the sentence. We could simply point to the animal and and say, “this cat”.

We can if the cat is sitting there! 

But I still think it's meaningful to talk about the cat's existence. It didn't exist for a long time, and then it existed for a while, and then it didn't any more. These are facts about most of the cats in history (my late cat Nadja, for instance). 

Quote:I keep coming back to the same problem in my mind. They seem, then, to be insinuating that existence is in some way separate, or beyond, or ontologically different from that which exists. I feel like that’s unnecessary. Existence is simply a state of being. The cosmos exist. Earth exists. This pencil exists. Do you think that there is a good reason why we shouldn’t accept existence as a brute fact?  Is there a good reason to believe that “the cosmos” and “existence” can’t be synonymous terms? I’m not arguing anything here. Just picking your brain. 😉

I'm fine with "state of being." Or maybe "fact of being." 

I'd say that "the cosmos" and "existence" are only separate insofar as we talk about them that way. The cosmos exists; the cat existed before and doesn't now. The cosmos's existence isn't separate from the cosmos, but it is a fact about the cosmos. 

So maybe it would be clearer, and in line with Aristotle still, to say that existence is a state of affairs, but that it is the state of affairs that must be the case for any contingent and changing object to have that state of affairs. 

Since the First Cause isn't a tangible object but the "thing" (in the sense of situation, state, etc.) required for all other things (in the sense of objects, situations, states) then we can say this is the end of the causal chain -- the final answer to the series of questions "what must be the case in order for all other things to be the case?"

Quote:I think that things exist necessarily, because there is no logical alternative to existence.  If existence exists necessarily, then a prior cause or condition would be superfluous.

I'm not sure about this. I can imagine a previously existent cat to not exist any longer. Is it then possible to imagine that every other thing doesn't exist either? Maybe not in my own range of imagination, but logically speaking. But again, I don't know about this.

If what you say is true, I think it argues FOR a First Cause as necessary, non-contingent, not-possible-to-not-exist. 

"Things exist necessarily" would be equal to "there must be existence." Again, not as a separate thing, but as a state of affairs. 

And if we are talking about a "prior cause" as something that causes existence itself, then yes, that is in agreement with the First Cause argument. Existence is the only thing that isn't caused by something else -- in the sense that no other thing must be the case if existence is to be the case. 

Quote:n. Absolute nothingness is incoherent. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.

Yes, I'm not sure what to think about that. 

It may be a language issue, something for Wittgenstein people to take up -- the issue may be that the structure of our thinking, as defined by our language, can't handle "something" and "nothing" in a coherent manner. 

Or it may be that you have hit on why the existence of "something" is indeed necessary, and the absolute foundation of everything else. In which case it is the First Cause.
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 16, 2019 at 6:57 pm)Belaqua Wrote:
(June 16, 2019 at 6:11 pm)SenseMaker007 Wrote: There are sound reasons to believe in a first cause

I'm curious about the reasons you find to be sound.

The fact that there are a number of causes in the world and one of them must be first.

What cause is the cause before the second cause?

That's one reason.

Another reason is that scientists consider the universe to be finite.

And a philosophical reason to believe in a finite universe is the fact that it's more parsimonious.

Occam's razor says that you shouldn't postulate more entities than necessary. Well, what postulates more unnecessary entities than infinity?

(June 16, 2019 at 8:45 pm)Succubus Wrote:
(June 16, 2019 at 6:11 pm)SenseMaker007 Wrote: There are sound reasons to believe in a first cause ... but there are no sound reasons to believe that that first cause has a personality.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy)

^^^ but without the "divine being" aspect.

Is this equivocation I see?

My bold.

I think you're going to have to explain how that's an equivocation.

Also, you have cut out all the stuff in the middle of my post.

(June 16, 2019 at 11:21 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If you look at Griffith's proof above, QM implies that the Universe is eternal, without beginning or end.  It just IS.

I agree that the universe is eternal. That doesn't mean that it's without a beginning. Without an end? Yes.

(June 16, 2019 at 11:57 pm)Belaqua Wrote:
(June 16, 2019 at 11:21 pm)Jehanne Wrote: If you look at Griffith's proof above, QM implies that the Universe is eternal, without beginning or end.  It just IS.

Aristotle also thought that the universe is eternal. This is why we speak of a First Cause as being essential, not temporal.

Causality requires time ... and the concept of "first" requires time. Nothing happened before time. Time was the beginning if "beginning" is used in a way that means anything we can understand.

(June 17, 2019 at 6:57 pm)Belaqua Wrote: But I still think it's meaningful to talk about the cat's existence. It didn't exist for a long time, and then it existed for a while, and then it didn't any more.

The cat didn't always exist as a cat but it always existed in some form. Before it was a cat the atoms that make up its body were something else instead.

You can apply that to the cat because the cat has a contigent existence. All we mean when we say that the cat used to not exist is that the cat used to be something else. We can't say that to reality as a whole. Reality is not contingent on anything, everything else is contingent on it.

This guy gets it right:



Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 18, 2019 at 4:42 am)SenseMaker007 Wrote: Causality requires time ... and the concept of "first" requires time. Nothing happened before time. Time was the beginning if "beginning" is used in a way that means anything we can understand.

Causality, in the sense that Aristotle used it, is not about time. 

I've tried to describe this before, but apparently I haven't done a good job. I'll take another stab at it.

For A to be the case, B must be the case. In Aristotle's use of the word, B is therefore a cause of A. They could be sequential in time, or they could be simultaneous. 

For cats to exist, space/time must exist. Therefore space-time is a cause of cats. If space-time went away, the cats would also disappear. But the same is not true the other way -- space-time would continue to exist even if all the cats disappeared.

I know this isn't how we normally use the word "cause" these days. But that's what Aristotle meant. 

This is important in Aristotelian philosophy and in theology. Traditional Christian theology holds that God is First Cause because he holds the world in existence constantly, not because he started it at a point in time. Aristotle thought that the world had no beginning, and Aquinas said a beginning is a matter of faith, not provable by logic or science. However they believed in a First Cause because they thought that there must be a fundamental thing that must be the case, in order for all other things to be the case.

Quote:The cat didn't always exist as a cat but it always existed in some form. Before it was a cat the atoms that make up its body were something else instead. 

I don't think it's right to say that the cat always existed, when all that existed was its material. 

Raw materials are not the thing. Maybe the atoms always existed, but for the cat to exist it has to have the form and functionality of the cat. Good old hylomorphism.

Michelangelo existed, and his atoms still exist, but Michelangelo no longer exists.

Quote:Reality is not contingent on anything, everything else is contingent on it.

If that's true, then reality is the First Cause. (I suspect, though, that the term "reality" is going to give us trouble down the road.)
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 18, 2019 at 7:10 am)Belaqua Wrote: Causality, in the sense that Aristotle used it, is not about time. 

I've tried to describe this before, but apparently I haven't done a good job. I'll take another stab at it.

For A to be the case, B must be the case. In Aristotle's use of the word, B is therefore a cause of A. They could be sequential in time, or they could be simultaneous. 

Simultaneity means "happening at the same time". I don't see how anything happening can avoid temporality.

Quote:For cats to exist, space/time must exist. Therefore space-time is a cause of cats. If space-time went away, the cats would also disappear. But the same is not true the other way -- space-time would continue to exist even if all the cats disappeared.

Yes ... but how can anything exist without space and time?

Something that never exists anywhere is identical to something that doesn't exist.

I know this isn't how we normally use the word "cause" these days. But that's what Aristotle meant. 

Quote:This is important in Aristotelian philosophy and in theology. Traditional Christian theology holds that God is First Cause because he holds the world in existence constantly, not because he started it at a point in time.


Quote:I don't think it's right to say that the cat always existed, when all that existed was its material. 

We only say that the cat hasn't always existed because when it was another form we don't consider it to be a cat.

Quote:Raw materials are not the thing. Maybe the atoms always existed, but for the cat to exist it has to have the form and functionality of the cat. Good old hylomorphism.

Michelangelo existed, and his atoms still exist, but Michelangelo no longer exists.

The point is it's not an example of something coming out of existence out of nothing. Energy changes from one thing to another but nothing is created or destroyed in a deep sense.

Quote:If that's true, then reality is the First Cause. (I suspect, though, that the term "reality" is going to give us trouble down the road.)

You could say that the beginning of reality is the first cause.

But I think it's more accurate to say that there is ultimately only one thing. That thing is reality. It has expanded. And things like electrons are, say, something like rips in space-time. Steven Wienberg suggested this years ago.
Reply
RE: Invitation for Atheists to Debate a Christian via Skype
(June 19, 2019 at 4:48 am)SenseMaker007 Wrote:
Quote:For cats to exist, space/time must exist. Therefore space-time is a cause of cats. If space-time went away, the cats would also disappear. But the same is not true the other way -- space-time would continue to exist even if all the cats disappeared.

Yes ... but how can anything exist without space and time?

Something that never exists anywhere is identical to something that doesn't exist.

Thinking

Does space-time exist?
Space-time would be something that is not in someplace nor at any time in particular, though you can consider subsets of space-time that are influenced by masses in particular locations and times.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How can a Christian reject part of the Bible and still call themselves a Christian? KUSA 371 87836 May 3, 2020 at 1:04 am
Last Post: Paleophyte
  Christian Libertarians and Atheists - Common Ground? lowellwballard 21 1754 May 13, 2019 at 10:46 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Group prayer on Skype on behalf of our Christian members I_am_not_mafia 132 15970 May 26, 2018 at 1:22 pm
Last Post: I_am_not_mafia
  Facetime/skype Drich 43 3830 May 25, 2018 at 5:42 pm
Last Post: emjay
Big Grin Texax High school students stand up to Atheists: Zero Atheists care Joods 16 3313 October 23, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  New WLC debate Jehanne 18 3334 March 28, 2017 at 3:32 am
Last Post: Nihilist Virus
  Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement. Jehanne 155 23324 January 21, 2017 at 1:28 am
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  An invitation to debate. Jehanne 63 8031 December 22, 2016 at 8:26 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  The Big Debate -- Price versus Ehrman Jehanne 43 9439 November 26, 2016 at 3:42 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
Information Catholics VS Protestants Debate Thread Edward John 164 19148 November 15, 2016 at 5:06 pm
Last Post: Drich



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)