Evolution depends on survival of the fittest in competition for limited resources entailing combative behavior.
I know that. Are you a Nazi? Life (not the dead) life running through your veins understand that the translation of desirable states is more important than the encryption of desirable states.
What is the translation of desirable states?
Teaching someone how to say “hello” in another language. You lost nothing, they gained it
Evolution is all about the encryption of desirable states, “I won, you lost”
Your mind is so small to this regard John.
Silhouette and/or gib? Let’s discuss your comments. I am here to answer your questions/objections.
1). The dichotomy is of two uncaused sides. The absolute nothingness side is there to show that neither side is necessary, but one side is simply the case.
2). God is uncaused because the power to create logically possible physical realities cannot be contingent or it would also be a possibility.
3). A thing is caused by its parts because the disassociation of those parts would cause the thing to cease to be. A thing without parts can’t be destroyed, because destruction is the disassociation of parts.
4). Agency is explained. The greatest decision making capacity logically possible is necessary for the fullest extent of everythingness to be logically possible. For example, decision making capacity affects the extent of what can be created, as one would not expect a Mona Lisa from a robot but only from a DiVinci.
5). The Cosmological Arguments are Bible independent.
6). Absolute nothingness is the absence of God. God being uncaused cannot be destroyed. So, even were something to end, there would always be God and not absolute nothingness. Moreover, because we do not see physical reality ceasing to be, then one can also argue that the end of effect would also require a God. However, the end of physical reality is an uncertainty due to the arrow of time and the principle of conservation of energy/mass. I would note that a final effect would not affect God, because God is causing the effect to end.
7). The speed a causality is fixed in relativity, so I don’t think you’ll get much mileage out of appealing to general relativity as a monkey wrench to causality.
8. The rest of your comments are philosophical nitpicking and not terribly significant at that.
John:
It’s commendable how mirror-simulation so nearly matches what science has come up with so far.
Therefore the lower and higher logics can be said to be - not merely comparatively similar, but, reductively induced by preconception.
Which makes inductive reasoning more a validation , ( by comparison/ reflection ) of ontology rather then the reverse.
That said, do post enlightenment attacks on reason justify simulated inducements, through material dialectics , only to relieve the appearent antithetic containment of thetic /synthetic a-priori propositions?
Is science really a necessary defense against the sudden lack of belief in the bible?
Is it Guttenberg’s fault that Darwin had to literally account for the Creation?
So many questions, that probably, John, You could not explain for similar reasons , as that, which social awareness today is in a foundry.
At times , it’s overwhelming for us romantics.
How can everything become a mirror of its self when if so, even God becomes a reflection of Himself , causing Jesus to oblige to redempt anew the appearent guilt of ‘His’ Father.
Too many questions, I know, so how in the world did You expect me to pose simply one?
The Cosmological arguments are only valid, with Jesus existing at both alpha And omega , simulteniously.
Therefore if He isn’t already here, (here being Omega) , then he must be there, when Omega reappears.
But then, He must be here and not there.
Therefore He must be omnipresent, as well as omnipotent.
Now I will try to read all the initial arguments and see if there may be some correspondence .
Go figure,
John is scared of the PoE argument just like every creationist!
Can god make evolution to have no suffering unless we want to explore it and make god clones of us? Or can god only violate every being in existences consent to make god clones of all of us?
Do you doubt gods omnipotence?
You seem to.
I ask you this John:
Why is it so important that god violate the consent of every being in existence against their will rather than letting every being learn on their OWN terms?
Every being in existence is having their consent violated against their will. From humans to a simple virus or a simple blade of grass.
God must be “perfect” for violating the consent of every being in existence. Right? I don’t think so.
What I do think is that you’re not being honest with yourself.
Would it be fair to say that you have mostly reiterated your arguments rather than answered questions/objections?
I’d be fine with you simply saying that there’s something and not nothing.
It’s not possible for there to “be nothing” though, because “be” and “nothing” contradict each other. A statement alone is “something” - even the potential for a statement at all is “something”. “Nothing” doesn’t even get off the ground to even begin to say anything about its opposite, “something”. If it did, it would be something and not nothing. Therefore if there is a dichotomy of “something or nothing?”, the existence of the dichotomy alone already answers itself as “there is something”. It would even be problematic to say “nothing” requires the non-existence of any dichotomy, because this would appear to attribute a property to “nothing”, which would be the existence of “something” and therefore it would not be “nothing”.
Basically the existence of a dichotomy of “something and not nothing” is not a dichotomy, because its existence is only consistent with one half of itself and not the other half. Thus a dichotomy at the level you’re suggesting internally contradicts itself out of existence. There cannot be a dichotomy at this level. “There is something” is all you can say by virtue of saying anything at all. “Nothing” doesn’t come into it - literally.
So “something is simply the case” is fine, but the dichotomy that concerns itself with “absolute nothingness” is not.
It’s just not a strong fundamental basis for an argument, and even “something is simply the case” doesn’t say anything specific about itself - only that there is general existence, which is a meaningless tautology that provides no information about its nature or its properties.
Since “there is something” is logically all you can say about “something and not nothing”, there is no beginning and no end suggested at this point. Even if you were to say that there is no cause suggested at this point, “therefore it’s uncaused”, this would be a logical error similar to committing the formal fallacy of “Affirming a disjunct”: p v q, ¬p ⊢ p. This is because you could arbitrarily swap p and q to say there’s nothing suggested about things being uncaused at this point, “therefore it’s caused”.
It’s only once a beginning is asserted for “caused or uncaused” to be logically exhaustive, but since there is no beginning or end suggested by “something and not nothing”, nothing about causation can be concluded. In fact it’s safer to say that causation has nothing to do with it, which rules out any talk of a Creator at all.
The property of “uncaused” is therefore simply thrown in there as a premise. You stated it to be your conclusion that there is an “uncaused Creator”, but if this is your premise - that’s why I identified the logical fallacy of “begging the question”. You’re assuming the conclusion of your argument in your premise. This is a critical problem, simply as a result of logical necessity. Is that really “not terribly significant philosophical nitpicking” as in your point number 8?
I’m not sure the wording here is optimal.
What does the “it” refer to?
“The power to create logically possible physical realities”, “God is uncaused”?
As I just explained above, a creator is necessarily not logically provable from 1). Caused or uncaused doesn’t come into it. Agency with or without power doesn’t come into it - nor even a beginning or end to create.
The only thing we have from “something and not nothing” is that there is a physical reality, therefore a physical reality is logically possible.
“There is something and not nothing” is a tautology and therefore not contingent - but strictly logically that does not necessarily entail anything else that you’re asserting.
So the condition for something to be “caused” is that it is not destroyed? This is what your first sentence breaks down to:
P1. “The disassociation of those parts would cause the thing to cease to be”.
P2. A thing exists that is not disassociated into parts.
∴ Such a thing is not caused to cease to be.
Therefore “a thing is caused by its parts” by virtue of it not being destroyed into its parts?
This is why I recommend breaking everything down into syllogism - because doing so really highlights any logic there is or isn’t in your arguments.
As such, the first sentence actually says nothing at all about the uncaused - it only covers “that which is caused to be/that which is not caused to be” as a function of parts.
If a thing has no parts, and therefore can’t be destroyed, it also cannot be caused to be according to your first sentence. Being uncaused doesn’t get out of this because the first sentence only deals with the existence of the caused.
For the uncaused to be indestructible, it has to exist in the first place, but we only know about the existence of the caused from your arguments. “How can the uncaused be said to exist?” remains unanswered.
“The fullest extent of everythingness to be logically possible”, i.e. the universe (with no valid proof that anything else than how it ended up could be possible) doesn’t necessitate decision making capacity of any kind. Decision making and agency can at best be posed as possible, not necessary. At best you can say that IF there was agency involved in universe creation, and assuming decision making requirements scale up uniformly from the mundane level to the level of the entire universe, universe creation would be unfathomably huge to a human. What you “expect” from mundane creations like paintings and robot technologies really isn’t relevant to the logic of an argument that necessitates agency.
Yes, all the way until you decide to name any uncaused Creator “God”, knowing how easily people will thus associate the first line of genesis with the entire rest of the bible - when the rest of the bible is as you say: independent from Cosmological argument. But fortunately Cosmological Arguments are deeply flawed in the many ways that I’m explaining, so there’s no danger of logical people casually or accidentally buying into the entire bible based on arguments that attempt to logically justify its opening line only.
Absolute nothingness is the absence of anything at all. If you define God as everything that isn’t nothing, then sure - your first statement follows. The problem is in justifying that definition of God. If you simply assume it from the start, then any argument intended to prove the existence of an uncaused Creator that you want to define as God will just be “Begging the Question” - a logical fallacy.
Not sure if you read my play on the logic of Cosmological Arguments - which can be equally applied to a final effect as a prime cause - but it explains that if any prime cause was explained by God as “something” then any final effect would equally be explained by God as “nothing”. The argument undoes itself simply by looking at it from both ends. Physical reality ceasing to be actually ends up being logically necessary, at least given any validity of physical reality being initially created. It’s interesting that you’re willing to use scientific understandings to explain the universe after any initial beginnings, but not for the initial beginnings themselves. I even predicted in my previous post that people would be tempted to say that God would be the cause of any “final effect”, explaining that given the same logic of God as the prime cause (uncaused somethingness), He would equally have to be the final effect (caused nothingness) if you’re strict about using the same logic “from the other direction”. But my prediction came true even though I explicitly said it before it happened…
Speed is a function of time (unit distance/unit time), and spacetime most certaintly is NOT fixed in relativity - that’s the entire premise of relativity in fact: that spacetime is not fixed as was previously assumed in the Newtonian days, centuries ago. Time dilation literally involves time itself being stretched, making seconds themselves longer. So yeah - plenty of mileage here, but not even my primary argument, just an area of interest as it undoes the assumptions of linear time that are so seldom questioned by people who want to impose a starting point where there might not be one at all, and which science might very easily explain.
It’s not nitpicking to sufficiently deconstruct the logic of an argument. Just because I’m picking up small fundamental errors, the fact that they’re what props up your entire argument makes them terribly significant errors. The only reason you’d want to dismiss them as otherwise is if you’re not interested in a logically complete argument - perhaps instead preferring to rationalise the beliefs you already hold circularly? Which would be another logical fallacy. I’m unclear of your real intentions, but it should be clear that I’m simply being strictly logical, and applying this to your arguments.
Is this what you’re after?
An interjection here:
There seems a primal fallacy here with “nothing”
It isn’t as if nothing is merely a definitive problem, it is also a conceptual as well as at fault with usage.
All three approaches appear at times to be either one , or the other, or with connections with one in tandem.
The modus operandi operate toward or away from a well understood connotation of nothingness, or, a somethingness that contains more than a dual aspect of containment.
For instance, does some content imply two, or, 3 ingredients filling half of the whole? Can it be said to be half full or empty?
Such considerations may appear trivial, but in usage, they may displace conceptual or definitive qualifiers.
For example: is ‘nothing’ a lack of some thing, a logical definitive, which presumes an objective logic with implication of movement backwards into the more definitive mode of interpretation, as opposed to the more ‘useful’ role that can dispose of the conceptual problem of the content of a definitive ‘thing’., moving forward.
The relative ambiguity with the objective reality of God, is requisite to both : a biblical or/ and ‘objective’ qualifier of the source out if which God is created/recreated. The obvious definitive aspect of God negates a self creation, as per John, so the re-creation, the 2nd coming has to induce a more objective criteria of meaning. Here again that objectivity requires a shift away from logic toward phenomenal objectivity. Hence that objectivity has to shift from a nominal logical apprehension through the conceptual envisioning toward the objective promise of a hyperreal application.
It is trough the original criterion of John’s cosmological arguments leading to the phenomenal nature of
an existential nothingness that His existence can be validated.
An existential nothingness is not merely that difference between between different shades of the meaning of nothing, but a reapplucation of the reaffirmation with the Being separate from God’s essence.
That must logically preceded the spirit of God by Holiness , a whole separated by an existential otherness.
refer:
“Something that is sacred is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a … It shares the same triliteral Semitic root as the Hebrew kodesh …”
"Testament period of history, the people of God , as a whole, did not individually experience the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit "
Silhouette,
The dichotomy of existence is a metaphysical dichotomy. It is meant as an explanation of first principles, and not a thing in itself. You’ve misconstrued absolute nothingness as “not something”. Absolute nothingness is the absence of God. God is not a physical reality. Absolute nothingness is likewise not primarily the absence of physical reality. The absence of God surely entails the absence of any physical reality created by God, but absolute nothingness excludes physical reality through the exclusion of God. Accordingly, your objections are nullified because you failed to use the proper conception of absolute nothingness. You’ve pressed no argument to suggest that the absence of God would be incoherent. But, be my guest in doing so, because you would have succeeded in demonstrating the necessity of God. Your subsequent discussion concerning causation is fatally infected by your initial misconception concerning absolute nothingness. In any event, the concept of absolute nothingness as “not something” does not necessarily create contradiction, because the absence of physical reality is not itself a state of physical reality.
The rest of your criticisms are not terribly significant. I am not concerned with 100% philosophical certainty. No reasonable person demands 100% philosophical certainty to believe in God.
A short reply that doesn’t address the half of what I’ve brought up.
So be it. “Absolute nothingness is the absence of God” - there we have that same “begging the question” logical fallacy. If only God can be “not absolute nothingness”, then of course “God” - by virtue of my own argument around “something and not nothing”.
But then, of course “not God” because this definition of absolute nothingness is begging the question.
You expand “absolute nothingness” as “not primarily the absence of physical reality” - good! Here you recognise the lack of necessity of any God/uncaused Creator.
But then you say “the absence of God surely entails the absence of any physical reality created by God” - again, very good. The addendum “created by God” is the key. “The absence of any physical reality created by God” does not necessitate “the absence of any physical reality”.
Absolute nothingness indeed excludes physical reality, with or without the exclusion of God, though if you define absolute nothingness as the absence of God, then of course “physical reality through the exclusion of God” is going to be impossible by virtue of the definitional contradiction that is your premise as well as conclusion.
This logical fallacy that I repeatedly point out is what nullifies your objections to my objections, because if you don’t assume your conclusion within your premises: God is indeed not a necessity for physical reality.
If you’ve missed this - and are under the impression that my repeated identification of your “begging the question” is a lack of pressed argument to suggest that “the absence of God would be incoherent”, then you are quite simply mistaken.
So hopefully you recognise my valid objection to your definition of “absolute nothingness” at this point, and understand that my argument against the non-absence of God is coherent.
It’s only “demonstrating the necessity of God” to raise such an objection if one fails to reject your logical error. Accepting your logical error, arguing against the non-absence of God does not in turn necessitate Him. Thus my subsequent discussion concerning causation remains in tact.
You’re confused. God and only God creates physical reality. No God - no physical reality. Absolute nothingness is the absence of God. There cannot be an absolute nothingness without God but with physical reality. The begging the question criticism is unfounded, because the narrative does eventually get around to proving the existence of God. The argument is not in syllogistic format, and I do not care about achieving 100% certainty with the argument.
Yes, but if it is an intended confusion, then it would appear that without such confusion the percentages would decrease drastically, approaching naught.
If it is unintended, there can be no objective way to determine any syllogism inherent in the reasoning for god to exist in the first place.
Not to confuse with the certainty of God’s essential nature.
What do you mean by objective? Do you think 100% certainty is required for objective philosophical proof? There is no such thing as 100% certainty. One could always claim your belief is uncertain, because you cannot exclude the possibility that you’ve been fed your misbelief by your alien masters while you sit as a brain in a vat. Objectivity is really only indicative of widespread agreement, but it’s not defined as 100% certainty.
This mammal species uses contradiction as extra energy signaling from the male side to attract females.
It’s not “all relative”
Ask yourself this: “why is my consent being violated right now?”
You were taught to think that this universe is perfect.
You were taught to agree with everything that happens.
“Spiritual” people even take it so far as to state that we all signed “soul contracts”
This is bullshit.
I’ve met every being in existence. Not a single being wants their consent violated.
That’s 100% proof that ALL gods (past and present) are false gods.
The presupposition is required of an Absolute Mover, or, an uncaused cause, that the no-thingness that even He created , be an effect of His, even if it’s outside the 100 % perimeter that still has to include Him, in some sense;
That is my notion of the Alpha-Omega spread continuum, as represented by less than a perfect circle.
This refers to the Leibnitz section of one of the arguments listed.
Now this is speculative but I intuit that St. Augustine has some bound relevance here with Leibnitz, in this regard, re. In his conception of telos.
In particular, God’s moral perfection is charged as a fallacy, since He allows evil to come into the world. However the possession of Absolute good is not dispossessed by the allowed objective of evil, since it is a teleological movement which prevents evil from becoming a moved object.
This is pure science, the Aristetolian apology toward Platinism, that shows evil devoid of moving toward as an intentional object, therefore never attaining a credible objectivity.
A 100% objective , has to be presumed, to move far lesser weighed down moral effectiveness, , like a fulcrum, about which , the shorter of
the assumptions have to carry a lot more weight.
For an assumed Absolute weight, only a miracle can pull off an equilibrium to advance to the proximal distance that would allow possessing anything near a counterweight.
You excel at almost complete incoherency. Didn’t see much relevance in your last post, except that you really don’t like God.
Now in that I can say with absolute honesty that You could not be further from the truth.
It is bewildering how You could have come to that conclusion, ? You owe me that for not accepting a very basic premise that God, and only God can be the catalyst to make sense of the Chaos.
Sorry, but I have a difficult time understanding what you write.
Ibid. Sorry but it is entirely much more difficult to counter prove an attempt to logically prove God’s existence, especially so, in light of the fact that the. Cosmological arguments has been successfully demonstrated to be insolvent. ( Meaning the onus to disprove God, is much more tenuous, and may not imply anything else than an argument for the sake of argument It may not imply the veracity of either the existence or non existence of God, only the soundness of the argument or, the counter argument) .In that regard Your attack on the counter-argument is equally unreasonable.
Look what I discovered today:
IV. THE ARGUMENT FROM NATURE (BY KIRK DURSTON)
The argument from nature proves the existence of God by demonstrating that nature has an uncaused timeless supernatural cause we call God. The cause of nature must be natural or not natural, i.e. supernatural. The cause of nature cannot be natural, because you cannot assume the existence of natural processes in order to come up with a natural explanation for the origin of natural processes without committing a circular reasoning logical fallacy. Therefore, the cause of nature must be supernatural.
Physical time is a physical component of nature that actually elapses or “flows” leaving behind a historical regress. Accordingly, the cause of nature is also the cause of physical time. The cause of physical time must either be dependent upon time or be timeless. It is logically impossible for the cause of physical time to be dependent upon physical time, because you cannot assume the existence of physical time in order to come up with an explanation for the origin of physical time without committing a circular reasoning logical fallacy. Therefore, the cause of physical time was timeless and at least logically – not temporally – “prior to” the point of the creation of physical time and nature itself. It is logically impossible to cause a timeless entity to come into existence. It is either always there or “never” there, and no temporal regress is possible. Therefore, the cause of physical time is supernatural, timeless and uncaused. Accordingly, there must be an uncaused timeless supernatural cause of nature we call God.