Atheists have a very difficult time explaining away events that have no natural explanation YET which have clearly and undeniably take place.
Two examples are:
1. The existence of a first state of the universe. (Obviously there was not a scientific or natural cause since nothing natural existed UNTIL time, space, matter and energy were brought into existence).
2. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead
Atheists posting here are familiar with event / event causation
Atheists posting here are familiar with state / state causation
Atheists posting here vehemently deny what is known in Philosophy as Agent Causation since that would explain both the examples above.
Obviously matter / energy did not bring itself into being. We know from logic that matter / energy cannot be eternal. Matter and energy (the universe) had a cause that was external to them. We know from logic that this Cause was itself uncaused or eternal. As the cause of space / time, this Cause existed Atemporally or, regarding a physical universe, non spatially. Since timelessness entales changeless, and changeless implies immaterial (don’t let atheists tell you that only “nothing” can be immaterial), this Cause was changeless and immaterial. We know from logic that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause. Thus the First Cause had no antecedent conditions. Ockhams’s Razor applies here. Since nothing does not become everything for no reason, the Cause was also Personal in the sense that It was able to effect or create, or “bring about.”
There are two types of causes or explanations for events:
. Scientific laws and principles
. Personal > volitional agent
As stated:
. The Cause of the universe must be personal since nothing natural / scientific existed. A "choice" was made to bring matter into existence. It was not an accident since matter came into being in a very precise and mathematically controlled manner.
. The Cause of the resurrection must be personal since there is no natural mechanism or physical law for resurrecting a dead body back to life; at least not without the aide of an Intelligent Agent.
Everything known to science confirms this fact. We know the cause is personal and not scientific, as naturalists understand scientific, because the Cause is timeless and immaterial. Only something along the order of a Mind fits that description.
Atheists will say that a timeless Cause cannot bring about a temporal effect but what we objectively observe proves them wrong. Matter / energy came into being as the effect of a timeless first Cause.
This was not an event caused by and event
This was not a state caused by a state
This was what is known in Philosophy as Agent Causation
An agent the type of which describes the Greatest Conceivable Being is free to do whatever He wants, including being born from a human female, including bring life into a dead body, including bringing about conditions not previously present. Both the universe and the resurrection of Jesus came about from the free will choice of a personal Creator.
When a light goes on and an atheist dimly becomes aware that Creator God IS the solution that best fits the question of origins, or the resurrection, they like to ignore Ockham’s Razor and the principle often accepted in science: That one should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This causes them to switch subjects and suggest that it could have been many gods and not Creator God that brought the universe into being.
That’s for another discussion on the absurdities of atheism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well... unfortunately, you are the one who is confused again. Atheism is a rejection of claims about gods' existence, not a statement of belief concerning the beginning of the universe.
ReplyDeleteThis 'origin of the universe' issue is exactly like the 'origin of life' issue.
Nobody knows what caused the universe to begin. So there is nothing wrong with saying that it could be a god.
However, all the 'it MUST have been' this or that are wrong; because we do not know enough.
The first cause argument, or kalam, or whatever you want to call it does not work. It can be a valid sillogism, but the premises are false.
Here's a good description...
William Lane Craig's version:
ReplyDelete1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
The distinction between this and the traditional cosmological argument is that it distinguishes effects in general from those that have a beginning. This qualification leaves open an interesting possibility that some things in the universe might exist that never began to exist. But Craig is not that sloppy, so before we jump on this observation, we need to address the Kalam argument's second premise and its support.
The Kalam argument's second premise—"The universe began to exist"—is a claim that seems more of a presupposition than a fact, but watch how it is supported:
1.An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.A beginningless series of events is an actual infinite.
3.Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would be a beginningless series of events.
The important term here is, of course, "actual infinite." Wikipedia has the following to say about actual infinities:
Actual infinity is the notion that all (natural, real etc.) numbers can be enumerated in any sense sufficiently definite for them to form a set together. Hence, in the philosophy of mathematics, the abstraction of actual infinity is the acceptance of infinite entities, such as the set of all natural numbers or an arbitrary sequence of rational numbers, as given objects.
The mathematical meaning of the term 'actual' in 'actual infinity' is synonymous with 'definite', not to be mistaken for physically existing. The question of whether natural or real numbers form definite sets is therefore independent of the question of whether infinite things exist actually in nature.
Counter-argument
ReplyDeleteLet S1 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did not exist, and S2 = a state of affairs in which the Universe did exist.
The theist is trying to claim that the Universe began to exist, that is, there was a state in which there was God, "and then" there was a state in which there was the Universe. In other words, they want to say S1 "and then" S2. In order to do that, they must show that S1 and S2 are distinct. The possibilities are:
1.The Universe never began to exist
2.The Universe never existed
3.S1 and S2 follow each other in time
4.Some agent in S1 is the atemporal cause of S2
If we can eliminate all three latter examples, then there is no way to distinguish between the two states. If that is the case, then there is no "beginning" - no state at which the Universe began to exist, thus undermining the conclusion.
If we try to prove by contradiction that the Universe never began to exist, the contradiction becomes evident. By assuming the Universe began to exist, it rules out (1). The Universe exists, so that rules out (2). (3) is disproven by the fact that time is a property of the Universe, and therefore can't be applied outside of the Universe. (4) can't be true because Craig defines "atemporal causation" as follows:
To borrow an illustration from Kant, a heavy ball’s resting on a cushion is the cause of a depression in the cushion, even if the ball has been resting on the cushion from eternity past.
However, this cannot be used to distinguish between S1 and S2 because it requires cause and effect to be simultaneous. S1 and S2 cannot be simultaneous, as the Universe would exist at the same instant that it doesn't exist - a contradiction.
By assuming that the Universe began to exist, we have ruled out all explanations for how it could have began to exist. Thus, we cannot distinguish at the moment between S1 and S2 - undermining their conclusion.
Short answer: Makarios scared by ideas which contradict his own.
ReplyDeleteDear Hugo you're going to obfuscate your way right into hell.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning God created
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God
For by Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. He is before all thing and in Him all things hold together.
I don’t understand why you run from this Love, this Salvation, this Forgiveness.
St. Thomas Aquinas happens to agree with Hugo. That the temporal beginning of the universe can be demonstrated philosophically is a matter of dispute within the classical theistic tradition. Aquinas did not believe that the temporal origins of the universe could be proved rationally. In this he is in Aristotle's company. However, neither Aristotle's argument nor Aquinas' rested upon whether the universe began to exist or not. This goes for most of the classical, meaning-pre modern, theistic tradition. Most popular Christian apologists are unaware of this, so what should be a philosophical question ends up being one concerning modern physics and astronomy.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny. Hugo gives Mak a sober and well presented rebuttal and all mak can reply with is [oh yeah, well...] In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God
ReplyDelete...What happened to Cosmology?
Well, Hugo said much and I'll see if I can contribute anything today.
But first off I must say, Props to Dr.Craig for being so talented at debate. It isn't that his arguments are irrefutible, but he's extremely well prepared for whatever answer the atheist may attempt to give contesting his contentions. As annoying as it is to watch him, It's equally entertaining. He is the best (in my opinion) debater on either side of the atheists-theist war. It's a shame he's playing for the other team :) I will say that in my opinion he had his ass handed to him when debating shelly kagan. I thought that was a breath of fresh air. If we had individuals serious about debating we could actually score victories against him, but someone like Hitchens doesn't prepare enough for a debate with Craig. Hitchens thinks he can get by with his normal rhetoric but its not effective against Craig. Hitchens had his ass handed to him I'm afraid.
But I digress...
Since timelessness entales changeless, and changeless implies immaterial (don’t let atheists tell you that only “nothing” can be immaterial), this Cause was changeless and immaterial.
ReplyDeleteIs nothing not changeless? Your attributing your own personal characteristics and "vision" for that which is immaterial. Only someone with utter non-compliance to the rules of logic could make assumptions of this nature. What is immaterial other than a notion of that which is not a dynamic fixture of the universe? And just because you may describe "immaterial" as something not attached to the physical universe, that does not necessarily follow logically that immaterial can be described accurately as the opposite of material. Get that?
If we're describing something that is not attached to the physical universe how do we know that an accurate description of it is simply not being the universe? because that's ALL YOUR SAYING. Oh, its not material, it must be immaterial. Okay, so if something is not "1", saying that this thing is "not 1" doesn't really tell us much, does it?
So how can you assign properties to something that we can only describe as "not 1". It takes someone with much motive and disregard for actual evidence to conclude that "not 1" is necessarily a designer. How would you know the attributes and properties of "not 1"?
A personal cause is a scientific cause. Subjectivity is the result from objective material reactions within nature. To "chose" is natural. It's your bias that allows you to suggest that "choice" may transcend natural law without granting anything else of the natural world. You cannot say that "choosing" is supernatural, and therefore you must dismiss an space transcending agent who "chooses".
ReplyDeleteTimeless and immaterial describe a mind? Since when? Minds are the result of nature. Minds cannot operate without their material processors. Can a computer process data without it's parts? Can data be communicated without time? You say this is backed by science? Are you nuts? Since when does science suggest that a mind can operate without a body? There is no clap without two hands, no visual beauty without eyes, and certainly no thoughts without brain processors. So stop throwing your "gut feelings" into logic, cosmology, and philosophy.
ReplyDeleteatheistsnackbar,
ReplyDeleteWhile I am not necessarily defending every argument put forth by the poster, the notion that immutability implies immateriality is implied in the Aristotelian and Thomist principles of act and potency and their more specific instances of form and matter. All material substances are, by nature, composites of matter and form with matter being the per se principle of change or motion and form being the principle of unity or rest. A man, for instance, may be born, grow old and die, but humanity as a formal cause of individual human beings can never be anything other than what it is by definition. Materiality always implies motion or change, and without it or any other potency, change cannot occur.
God, being both immaterial and also lacking any other potency, meaning any type of metaphysical composition whatsoever, cannot be mutable in any way. This is obviously an oversimplification, but only so much can go in a combox.
Similar arguments for the immateriality of mind are given, but I would suggest that your argument against it is question begging. Whether the mind can operate independently of matter is precisely what is at stake, so if you assume that it cannot then all arguments to the contrary will seem prima facie implausible.
Since timelessness entales changeless, and changeless implies immaterial (don’t let atheists tell you that only “nothing” can be immaterial), this Cause was changeless and immaterial.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, if timelessness IS changelessness, then no event could occur in such a realm.
Thesauros just argued the impossibility of his own beliefs.
@ bourne, I would argue that humanity is not immutable. These concepts need not resemble the lifecycle of a human being or the passing seasons to qualify as changing. Humanity, for instance, only goes as far as human perception will take it and is directly under the care of the evolving social patterns of the human collective. While the concept of humanity may seem unchanging, it is very much a reactive process parallel to human evolution. Let's say there was a toxin released into the earth's atmosphere that caused human beings to become nihilists, would that not destroy our collective social pattern? You may contest that and suggest that the very idea of humanity is eternal. I would say the idea exists dynamically within the human rendering of information and is as unique as the matter doing the rendering. It's universal that a human being may experience something as "gross" but what more of a reaction is "gross" than the reaction of cell division merely on the merit that the idea of gross cannot be visualized under a microscope? "gross" has no function without rules to abide. An action must qualify the attributes of "gross" for it to exist. And the attributes are products of matter. We see something as having the potential to make our material bodies sick or something that tastes bad and a material reaction occurs in the brain that recommends our non participation on that "gross" action. And so finally, being that the concept of "gross" requires parameters in place by which a foundation may be used for the concept to even be constructed, why should we assume that the idea can transcend space/time where such rules are not know to exist? What qualifications can we build a foundation by which ideas are formed under a system that is immaterial?
ReplyDeleteSubjective ideas are birthed in the interactions of matter. To qualify subjectivity we must achieve those spatial and temporal properties. Otherwise what function does subjectivity serve? How can an agent experience fear without a material world by which to construct the experience. To transcend material, to suggest that an immaterial system contains a foundation by which these subjective concepts may be constructed, I think, is presumptuous on what the immaterial does. It seems to me that all the necessary components to build the subjective idea exist in the material world. If all parts are accounted for, why summon the immaterial? As subjective as love may be it's real physical, there are several physical processes that attribute to the experience. If removed does the immutable idea remain. What becomes of love without oxytocin or endorphins? What become of excitement without adrenaline? It seems like the question becomes did reality grow to fit these subjective ideas or did these subjective ideas grow along side reality? I see no reason to assume that these ideas transcend material reality.
ReplyDeleteI think you have misunderstood me. All actual material substances are compounds of form and matter, which is to say that without matter, no particular thing in our universe would have actual existence. But to say that the form of something can be explained by an appeal to human convention or brain states is incoherent.
ReplyDeleteTriangularity, for instance, is something common to all triangles, yet it is not reducible to any material object or dependent upon any material triangle for its existence. That is, unless you want to say that human beings invented triangularity. If by "gross" we mean something that is displeasing to human beings, we immediately have an idea which is common to many things yet not reducible to any of them.
And finally, the human being is not wholly a material being, so to say that you cannot imagine what love would be like without biological processes just assumes what you are trying to prove, namely that humans are purely material beings. Again, the classic conception of man is that he is a compound of matter and form, body and soul, yet because his soul is rational it is therefore subsistent and can operate independently of matter. This is not to say that the human body has no role in our intellectual life, but it is to say that our highest intellectual operations, understanding, for instance, do not directly depend upon matter. In fact, it is a conceptual impossibility.
But the form of triangulation requires three material spatial dimensions. It completely relies on physical parameters. Certainly, you can say that it exists whether we Conceive of if or not, but it certainly cannot exist without qualifying conditions that make triangulation true. If there was another universe with say, 2 spacial dimensions, than the idea of triangulation would be a squared circle and without form or reality. If an immaterial system is without dimension, how can form exist? You may say there is a duelist nature to things, they exist as body and form, but you assume that body relies on a transcending form and I say the opposite. I say form is the mental rendering of the material world and only makes sense as long as the objective world allows it to.
ReplyDeleteBut it is not mental in the sense that it only exists in your mind and not in reality or that you personally have created it instead of merely recognized it within real things.
ReplyDeleteAgain, actual triangles require three spatial dimensions in order to exist. Triangularity, though, does not. It is conceptually impossible for there to be a material image or representation of triangularity because any material thing will have to be an actual triangular thing. It will be subject to the imperfections of material existence and thus be only an approximation of triangularity. The concept or idea of triangularity, though, which does not depend on human minds for its existence, is necessarily perfect, immutable, and universal. It therefore cannot possibly be a material thing.
Returning to the original point, immutability does imply some form of immateriality, and this example serves as an excellent one. Something that is triangular can become circular, but it does not make sense to say that triangularity can become circular or circularity.
I'm not arguing that triangularity is material, rather that the immaterial form of triangularity can only exist on the logical allowance that the material allots. Triangularity is after all, a condition of the physical triangle. If we lived in a universe where triangles COULD NOT exist, how can we extract triangularity as a form? If we can extract nonsensical forms not permissible by mathematics or the physical universe, what is to stop us from assuming there to be infinite number of nonsensical forms? All forms are inspired by our material existence and are only as immutable as the universe itself. Forms are exclusive to the material conditions they may potentially exist in. What's triangularity to the sub atomic world? What's love to the inflation of the universe? Being this the case, forms dissolve when their potential to become rendered does. Why should immutable forms not bound by material existence be so dependant on whether the material system allows their subjective reality?
ReplyDeleteWhether or not a 56 dimensional object can be rendered as a form depends on the physical system itself. If, in a universe with 4 dimensions, a 56 dimensional object cannot be rendered a form, then why not assume true, the dependency the form has with the physical universe? If the system that grants the reality of mathematics has changed or "died", the forms dependant on the mathematics exclusive to that universe must "die" with it.
If god exists "outside" 4 dimensional space/time, how can we suggest that any immaterial forms exist in a system we assume lacks the physical properties to define immaterial ideas?
You are confusing epistemology with metaphysics. All human knowledge begins with material sensation, but it does not end with it. Our sense knowledge gives rise to knowledge of forms as immaterial. This order of knowing, though, does not properly reflect the order of reality or being. It is therefore not controversial to say that humans would have no knowledge of forms without their particular material instantiations. The problem is whether or not our knowledge of form can in any coherent way be reduced to anything physical or material, which it cannot.
ReplyDeleteYou are right to say that the form of triangularity can only exist in material things, after all, we are not Platonists, but you are equivocating on the word 'existence.' To be a material substance is to be a compound of matter and form, and in this way these things exist. Forms, though, also exist as principles of the actual things which instantiate them, but they do not exist in the same manner as material substances.
To say that forms depend upon matter for their existence is incorrect. Metaphysically speaking, forms are prior to matter in the same way that act is prior to potency. Matter is defined as what can potentially receive form. In this way, matter as potency does place limits on form as act, so you are, in a sense, right to say that matter is crucial to our understanding of things. The problem, though, is when you confuse the order of knowing with the order of reality, which you seem to have done. Once this is understood, your points, if I understand them correctly, do not constitute real objections to the actual existence of things which are immaterial.
Okay, a few things regarding your last response...I disagree about whether or not our knowledge of forms can be reduced, in any coherent way, to anything physical or material. We part ways in a major way with you believing in a soul. Allowing a soul to exist allows much, but that is another arguement. Now, I concede to equivocating on the word existence. Perhaps I'm being too playful with the word. What I mean by existence is the container system of reality that abides the mathematics attributed to the container. If the universe collapsed in on itself and initiated another inflation where the laws of physics were completely different, could the mathematics granting the potential existence of the immaterial forms be different? By extention, could "previous" forms lose the potential to exist even immaterially?I admit that this is a rather presumptuous analogy however it may be relevant when we consider a system "outside" the universe where god is assumed to exist. If such a system is truly void of anything, including mathematics, how can forms transcend into that void system and potentially exist? I understand and agree that a form is first and then potentially material, however can it not be the case that the mathematics of a system of 'existence' assign permission to whether or not immaterial forms may exist? Is it safe to assume that mathematics transend space and time?
ReplyDeleteOh, i forgot something to put all this into perspective.... Can immaterial inside our dynamic container of the universe be the same as immaterial "outside" the container? The original arguement was about god. Mak's contention was that god transcends space/time. I cannot argue that immaterial forms do not exist within our container existence. But I think that the potential nature of the immaterial form is granted by the mathematics within the container. Let me redefine "container existence". Container existence = the domain of material or immaterial our mathematics has authority over. With that said, mathematics itself can only achieve a potential infinity because numbers themselves represent finite ideas. If the immaterial void is "outside" the universe where god is suggested to exist is, and the immaterial is infinite, the immaterial Cannot be under the authority of mathematics. Numbers can describe something expanding indefinitely but not something truly infinite. Therefore without mathematics to grant the rules by which forms may achieve realization, forms cannot exist and are consequentially natural, not supernatural.
ReplyDeleteSorry for not cutting off paragraphs, I'm writing these from my phone and for some reason it acts weird on this particular blog when I hit return to cut off a paragraph.
ReplyDeleteMathematics is itself a science that deals with the immaterial. Notice that in geometry, for instance, we are speaking of perfect figures that can only be approximated by their material instantiations. No actual triangle drawn or created or found in nature will ever be a perfect triangle, yet our concept of triangularity is necessarily perfect and immutable.
ReplyDeleteIn this way, mathematics does transcend space and time, since all matter could indeed go out of existence without compromising the truths of mathematics or any more specific science like geometry.
Regarding your last point, you are correct to suggest that immateriality exists in different modes depending on the particular being about which we are speaking. Material substances are essentially composite, so the forms they possess can only exist separately in our minds (or souls) as abstractions. When we understand the form of humanity as such, we are speaking about something common to many, but we cannot touch humanity, only particular humans.
God, on the other hand, cannot be considered in this way. God is not a composition of matter and form because matter is of itself only potency, it has no actual existence unless united to some form. God, by necessity, can have no active or passive potency and therefore must be pure act. He therefore must be immaterial and also immutable.
matter is of itself only potency, it has no actual existence unless united to some form.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that the end result of a hundred years of particle physics refutes this idea fairly soundly.
Since particle physics is a science of matter which already possesses actual existence, I do not see how it can speak to any idea of matter as such. Please explain.
ReplyDeleteI am going to attempt to show...
ReplyDelete1. Mathematics is finite by it's own nature
2. Mathematics is the prerequisite for forms
3. Mathematics cannot exist "outside" of a finite system
---------------------------------------------------
1. Mathematics is finite by it's own nature
The function of math is at it's core, the assignment of quantity. One cannot count to infinity because no matter how far you count the quantity will always be finite. You can "assign a velocity" (my own term) to numbers. What I mean by that is if we knew for a fact that the container universe would expand forever unchecked, could we validly call that universe infinite? No, the universe is restricted by the very expansion itself. No matter how far we allow the universe to expand it will always be a container, and can never qualify as boundless or infinite. This is how numbers operate. To even suggest that a set of numbers contain the number "45" for instance, assigns a measure to the infinity and voids the infinity by adding a "virtual ending". The number "45" or "virtual ending" (my own term) corrupts the actual infinite because now that the infinity can be defined by finite components (the number 45), we know that there is a "velocity" from the number "45" onward. Which is to say that we've compromised the infinity with a potential infinity. No matter how far we scale the infinity from the number "45", we'll always be able to measure the compromised infinity by it's finite components. I apologize for throwing my own made-up terms in their to try to describe my contention, but it's the best way I know how to explain that which I'm attempting to convey.
2. Mathematics is the prerequisite for forms
Immaterial forms can be reduced to mathematics. This suggests that the foundation for potential form is and is required to be mathematics. We can assume this because...
a. Forms do not defy mathematics.
b. There must be a regulatory mechanic by which even immaterial forms must be restricted to. Otherwise by what basis are forms "shaped"?
If allowed, impossible forms (forms not permissible by mathematics) would defeat the point of the possible form and we could therefore rule out forms all together, which we cannot do. An infinite possibility of forms could not distinguish individual forms because a single composite form would negate the infinite number of forms by adding a measure, or "virtual ending" to the infinity.
3. Mathematics cannot exist "outside" of a finite system
If the immaterial "outside" of the finite universe is infinite, how can we attach mathematics if mathematics is the foundation of finite systems? Even if we could illustrate that mathematics transcend our universe, we may look suspiciously at whether or not this "outside" system is truly infinite. We cannot inject a finite into an infinite without compromising the infinity for reasons stated above.
With these three qualifications in place, I think it's reasonable to assume that forms do not transcend space/time and are therefore not supernatural.
You are using terms that I think need clarification.
ReplyDeleteForms cannot be reduced to mathematics because not all forms are mathematical. Number is a species but not the genus of immateriality. All quantitative accounts of material reality correspond to accounts of formal causation, but this in no way means that the quantitative account is exhaustive.
To return to the example of mathematics, mathematical truths are by nature immutable and necessary. Material existence is anything but. And against your claim, which I do not understand too clearly, the series of numbers is, in fact, infinite. Material reality is finite by nature. It is simply a categorical mistake to think that mathematics, or any form for that matter, can be reduced to some spacio-temporal object.
These arguments are as old as Plato and Aristotle, and to reject them is to either accept some form of conceptualism or nominalism which are ultimately incoherent. Realism about forms or universals is unavoidable once you grasp the conceptual irreconcilability of the objects of our knowledge and the objects of our sensation. The world around us is constantly in motion or changing, yet we are aware of principles of permanence which allow us to possess true knowledge of the world.
(1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteRegarding infinity...
I'm not reducing mathematics to some spacio-temporal object, I explore it
while preserving it's immaterial nature, despite my analogy. I like to use the inflation analogy because I find it useful. I don't suggest that numbers are finite because they "end". I suggest that numbers are finite because they are finite. Any number to be conceived of is finite, material or not. Numbers function as a means of measure, material or not. This is why I suggest that mathematics are exclusive to finite systems. How can you put a measure on infinity?
Say that there's an infinite road. how long would it take to walk this road? An infinite amount of time? Most people would be satisfied with this answer but what does it actually mean to travel an infinite road for an infinite amount of time? It just means that your always walking. That's it. This is how I use the term "velocity" as associated with potential infinities. Velocity is the person walking the infinite road. Perhaps I'll think up a better word for it later.
Now, consider again this infinite road. Let's assume that it's "truly infinite" (If true infinity is possible [immaterial or not]). Let's also assume for the sake of the infinity that there are no people walking this road. What happens if we suddenly place a person somewhere on the road? The true infinity is lost. This is because we've just injected a form of measure onto the infinity. From that point on, the man will always be walking and no number of steps will ever be able to describe the "true length" of the road. HOWEVER, there will ALWAYS be a NUMBER of steps, and no number can breach into the distance of infinity. This is what I mean when I say, "virtual ending". A "virtual ending" is to inject a finite component into a true infinity. To do this compromises the infinity because now any position (But not the "true length") down the infinite road can now be described by the measure of finite components, or for the analogy, steps.
(2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteLet's pretend for a moment that the man somehow actually traveled the "entire distance" of the infinite road. Now, this is obviously absurd but let's play with the analogy. The man has perfect memory and was counting each and every step he took during his epic commute. After his walk he wanted to make a list of the top ten most favorite steps he took while walking this infinite distance (The man is idiosyncratic to be sure). How can the man select which ten steps were his favorite? If he thought back and remembered all the steps between 30,000 to 40,000 he could select his 10 favorite out of that finite set easily, why not? All he has to do is mentally evaluate 10,000 steps. But if the man wishes to remember all the steps from 1 to infinity, how can he do that? No matter how many steps he evaluated he'd never be able to render an infinite number of steps in his mind. So what if he spends an infinite amount of time mentally rendering these steps? Well, that just means he's always rendering. The man will never be able to select his favorite steps without finite parameters with which to select from.
So how can a universe-designer agent (god) with infinite resources, select specific forms by which to construct a finite universe? You cannot extract individual components from a true infinity. Parameters are required to make choices or for randomization.
This is why numbers are exclusive to finite systems. This is why logical forms are exhaustible even if an astronomically large number are possible. Immaterial forms are a condition of the physical universe and not the other way around. The screening agent that allows forms is mathematics. It's foundation, the universe itself. Love not describable by math? Fine, love is a function of the brain. It's something that the brain does, and the brain abides physical law. It is by extension, permissible by the authority of the physical universe. If it wasn't, it would not or ever exist materially or immaterially. Love is a component of the universe and need not transcend the universe. Love does not exist without a material generator of love computation and a universe to grant the potential existence of that which functions so that love may become realized. If it can't potentially exist materially OR immaterially in the universe, how is it a form? An infinite number of forms is formless and self-defeating.
No form necessarily transcends the container of space/time that generates the statistical existence of a finite number of all possible materializations and immaterial forms. To attach infinity to these concepts requires quite an explanation.
(2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteLet's pretend for a moment that the man somehow actually traveled the "entire distance" of the infinite road. Now, this is obviously absurd but let's play with the analogy. The man has perfect memory and was counting each and every step he took during his epic commute. After his walk he wanted to make a list of the top ten most favorite steps he took while walking this infinite distance (The man is idiosyncratic to be sure). How can the man select which ten steps were his favorite? If he thought back and remembered all the steps between 30,000 to 40,000 he could select his 10 favorite out of that finite set easily, why not? All he has to do is mentally evaluate 10,000 steps. But if the man wishes to remember all the steps from 1 to infinity, how can he do that? No matter how many steps he evaluated he'd never be able to render an infinite number of steps in his mind. So what if he spends an infinite amount of time mentally rendering these steps? Well, that just means he's always rendering. The man will never be able to select his favorite steps without finite parameters with which to select from.
So how can a universe-designer agent (god) with infinite resources, select specific forms by which to construct a finite universe? You cannot extract individual components from a true infinity. Parameters are required to make choices or for randomization.
This is why numbers are exclusive to finite systems. This is why logical forms are exhaustible even if an astronomically large number are possible. Immaterial forms are a condition of the physical universe and not the other way around. The screening agent that allows forms is mathematics. It's foundation, the universe itself. Love not describable by math? Fine, love is a function of the brain. It's something that the brain does, and the brain abides physical law. It is by extension, permissible by the authority of the physical universe. If it wasn't, it would not or ever exist materially or immaterially. Love is a component of the universe and need not transcend the universe. Love does not exist without a material generator of love computation and a universe to grant the potential existence of that which functions so that love may become realized. If it can't potentially exist materially OR immaterially in the universe, how is it a form? An infinite number of forms is formless and self-defeating.
No form necessarily transcends the container of space/time that generates the statistical existence of a finite number of all possible materializations and immaterial forms. To attach infinity to these concepts requires quite an explanation.
(2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteLet's pretend for a moment that the man somehow actually traveled the "entire distance" of the infinite road. Now, this is obviously absurd but let's play with the analogy. The man has perfect memory and was counting each and every step he took during his epic commute. After his walk he wanted to make a list of the top ten most favorite steps he took while walking this infinite distance (The man is idiosyncratic to be sure). How can the man select which ten steps were his favorite? If he thought back and remembered all the steps between 30,000 to 40,000 he could select his 10 favorite out of that finite set easily, why not? All he has to do is mentally evaluate 10,000 steps. But if the man wishes to remember all the steps from 1 to infinity, how can he do that? No matter how many steps he evaluated he'd never be able to render an infinite number of steps in his mind. So what if he spends an infinite amount of time mentally rendering these steps? Well, that just means he's always rendering. The man will never be able to select his favorite steps without finite parameters with which to select from.
So how can a universe-designer agent (god) with infinite resources, select specific forms by which to construct a finite universe? You cannot extract individual components from a true infinity. Parameters are required to make choices or for randomization.
Sorry for pasting part 2 twice...
ReplyDeleteSorry for the three (2 of 2's) I was using a different browser on my phone and it didn't quite work out...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey, I'm late to the party but I just took the time to read this long comment tread and was noting things along the way. Sorry for the repetitions since some comments already covered what I wrote but I did not know it was coming...
ReplyDeleteTriangularity, for instance, is something common to all triangles, yet it is not reducible to any material object or dependent upon any material triangle for its existence. That is, unless you want to say that human beings invented triangularity
Yes, it is a conceptual notion invented by humans; it is dependent on humans existing. Triangle things would still exist without humans, of course, but what you refer to as Triangularity is only the concept that points to the real triangle things.
Later on in the comments:
The concept or idea of triangularity, though, which does not depend on human minds for its existence, is necessarily perfect, immutable, and universal. It therefore cannot possibly be a material thing.
Right, it is not a material thing, but, you are also wrong, it IS dependent on humans. You say it yourself: it is a concept. Concepts are created by minds, our minds; therefore they ARE dependent on humans. What it points to, real triangles, is not conceptual, but it is meaningless without humans!
*********
And finally, the human being is not wholly a material being
Human beings are material beings. We all agree on that. If you want to prove that they are more than just material beings, you need to demonstrate that claim.
so to say that you cannot imagine what love would be like without biological processes just assumes what you are trying to prove, namely that humans are purely material beings.
Wrong. You are the one who jumps to his own conclusion... quite ironic. Let's see why...
the classic conception of man is that he is a compound of matter and form, body and soul, yet because his soul is rational it is therefore subsistent and can operate independently of matter
What evidence do you have to support the idea that the mind is NOT a consequence of the material body? What makes you think that we can operate independently of matter? What makes you think that we can think without having neurons?
*****
Ok, while trying to answer to many parts of this conversation, I think I got what the real issue is here and it was explained by Atheistsnackbar as well I think but it more complicated terms...
E.R. Bourne claims:
The problem is whether or not our knowledge of form can in any coherent way be reduced to anything physical or material, which it cannot.
Agreed, we can conceptualize things that are not physical or material. Any human emotion is a good example.
To say that forms depend upon matter for their existence is incorrect.
This is correct also in my opinion; simply because it's possible to conceptualize non-existent things; it's that simple.
Now here's where I have a problem: when discussing the Christian Creator God, my position is that I do not believe he is real. I am labeled as an atheist because I happen to also disbelief the other gods that I have heard of.
To believe this God is real, I would need to see evidence that He exists. In other words, I would like to know what evidence makes you think that the concept notion of God that we, humans, have in our mind, points to a real existing entity which is independent of humans.
All this long discussion proved that immaterial things exist; but I have yet to be convinced that any of them are independent of humans, that they are NOT the product of a brain. Most conceptual ideas do point to real physical entities; but E.R. Bourne reminded us that it is not always the case. Therefore, why is God not in that category of non-existing conceptual things? What mental gymnastic do you need to do to convince you that God is real?
How can we do that?