Checkmate in 2 moves

[Perplexity]

I prefer plain English.

There could not have been a “time” when absolutely nothing existed, or there still would be nothing.

There must have been something that existed necessarily, or else, again, there would still be nothing…
But this can’t be matter or anything in the universe that we can measure scientifically since all these things change and therefore cannot exist necessarily.

Therefore, the necessary thing existed “before” the universe which it created.

---

We will now hear all kinds of wordy nonsense from Perplexity.

Nah, Perplexity has seen that argument recycled too many times before, he ain’t going green this time

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I prefer plain English.

There could not have been a “time” when absolutely nothing existed, or there still would be nothing.

*There must have been something that existed necessarily, or else, again, there would still be nothing… *
But this can’t be matter or anything in the universe that we can measure scientifically since all these things change and therefore cannot exist necessarily.

Therefore, the necessary thing existed “before” the universe which it created.

-----------------------------------------

We will now hear all kinds of wordy nonsense from Perplexity.


Perplexity wrote:

Nah, Perplexity has seen that argument recycled too many times before, he ain’t going green this time

Perplexity finally gives up! :extrahappy::whackadoo:

He can’t hide his ill-defined, innuendo-filled, leaps in logic,
when plain common sense English is being used. :dancing::harp:

 

[Perplexity]

Perplexity finally gives up! :extrahappy::whackadoo:

He can’t hide his ill-defined, innuendo-filled, leaps in logic,
when plain common sense English is being used. :dancing::harp:

Meh, I just figure if you’re actually advocating an argument like that, you’ve gotta be pretty unseasoned.

 

[Perplexity]

Its one thing that say that there is a possible world in which pokemon exists. There is nothing contradictory about a pokemon’s existence; at least nothing immediately evident.

Its a completely different thing entirely to say that a non-existent world exists. This is the same level of contradiction exhibited in the statement that a square is a triangle. You cannot say that the opposite of existence “exists”, is real. Its meaningless. However you could say that there is a world where nothing physical exists (no space, time, and energy), since it is not evident that their non-existence would entail the existence of nothing; it would merely entail the existence of nothing physical.

We’d be affirming the bolded part of your response. A naive metaphysical nihilism would claim in some possible world, there is * nothing*. But, the prominent form only says it’s possible for there to have been no concreta (things which occupy space, endure time, and are able to causally interact…indeed, as you note, time and space itself etc.).

The theist can’t affirm this since God is a concrete object (at least in so far as he’s causal).

 

[Perplexity]

JDaniel: I’m a little confused by your responses. You introduce (what I consider to be fairly novel) definitions of abstraction and impossibility. But, why? Are these intended to clarify your position, or rebut mine?

I suppose the main thing I’m interested with you is whether you think possible worlds are concreta. You seemed very much to affirm this earlier when you rhetorically asked: “How is it possible for there to be an " existing world where nothing exists?”"

I can’t make sense of this unless you believe possible worlds are concreta. In any case, I’ve clarified my position on possible worlds, so I hope it’s clear I’m not affirming the existence of a world in which nothing exists. I say, on the one hand that possible worlds are abstracta, and on the other hand that in some possible world, there are no concrete objects.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We’d be affirming the bolded part of your response. A naive metaphysical nihilism would claim in some possible world, there is * nothing*. But, the prominent form only says it’s possible for there to have been no concreta (things which occupy space, endure time, and are able to causally interact…indeed, as you note, time and space itself etc.).

The theist can’t affirm this since God is a concrete object (at least in so far as he’s causal).

God is not a physical object and is not causal in the physical sense of the word. God is not an object in space that changes and has an effect spatially. God is not a process or quantity of events.

 

[Perplexity]

God is not a physical object and is not causal in the physical sense of the word. God is not an object in space that changes and has an effect spatially.

I agree.

 

[JDaniel]

We’d be affirming the bolded part of your response. A naive metaphysical nihilism would claim in some possible world, there is * nothing*. But, the prominent form only says it’s possible for there to have been no concreta (things which occupy space, endure time, and are able to causally interact…indeed, as you note, time and space itself etc.).

The theist can’t affirm this since God is a concrete object (at least in so far as he’s causal).

Perplexity:

An interesting conclusion. That which creates must either be equal to or greater than his creation. Because that which is lesser cannot confer what it does not have. But, God must enter the material world somehow.

The instances that humans have witnessed him as material have been few. But, they were material. Christ is one of those instances. The burning bush another. But this does not of necessity imply that He is material. I am tempted to think of him as physical in some manner. In either manifestation, his whereabouts remains a mystery so that shouldn’t be problematic to your thinking.

But, he also confers intelligence and will, among other non-material things. These are above matter. Matter cannot confer these qualities. So, God is more than likely not material. For the moment, I’m good with “physical.”

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

Perplexity blabbered…
Meh, I just figure if you’re actually advocating an argument like that, you’ve gotta be pretty unseasoned. Meh, I just figure if you’re actually advocating an argument like that, you’ve gotta be pretty unseasoned.

I was reading Plato when I was in high school, 45 years ago.

I know all your rhetorical tricks, Perplexity.
What saddens me is that other people don’t.

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel: I’m a little confused by your responses. You introduce (what I consider to be fairly novel) definitions of abstraction and impossibility. But, why? Are these intended to clarify your position, or rebut mine?

Perplexity:

They are not novel. The attributions of St. Thomas stem from Aristotle. So, they’re at least as old as Physics. It is the nuanced versions that err. Usually, rather than define abstractions and impossibility, they give examples and ask for my acquiescence.

I suppose the main thing I’m interested with you is whether you think possible worlds are concreta. You seemed very much to affirm this earlier when you rhetorically asked: “How is it possible for there to be an " existing world where nothing exists?”"

I will not extrapolate the object, “concreta,” beyond the pluralization of the object, “concrete.” If by “concreta” you mean, “a being of thought,” I would find that to be another example of absolute contradiction.

I can’t make sense of this unless you believe possible worlds are concreta. In any case, I’ve clarified my position on possible worlds, so I hope it’s clear I’m not affirming the existence of a world in which nothing exists. I say, on the one hand that possible worlds are abstracta, and on the other hand that in some possible world, there are no concrete objects.

Actually, you are not as clear as you believe. I regard “abstracta” as the pluralizing of “abstract.” I think that alterations of perfectly good words leads to belief systems that are often dangerous. Altering the idiom is usually the first order of business of the cult master.

So, if you will clearly define those terms - and never alter their meanings - I will acquiesce.

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

JDaniel wrote:

That which creates must either be equal to or greater than his creation. Because that which is lesser cannot confer what it does not have. But, God must enter the material world somehow.

The instances that humans have witnessed him as material have been few. But, they were material. Christ is one of those instances. The burning bush another. But this does not of necessity imply that He is material. I am tempted to think of him as physical in some manner. In either manifestation, his whereabouts remains a mystery so that shouldn’t be problematic to your thinking.

But, he also confers intelligence and will, among other non-material things. These are above matter. Matter cannot confer these qualities. So, God is more than likely not material. For the moment, I’m good with “physical.”

God does not “enter the material world somehow”. He is omnipresent in the sense that he constantly maintains all things in existence, but he does not occupy space, or in any other way be one with the universe. As far as something being part of the universe, he is outside it.

Humans have never “witnessed him as material” The Son of God took up to his personhood the body and soul of Jesus, but this in no way implies that God is material, physical, or participating in the universe in any way other than being its creator and sustainer.
The “burning bush” was nothing more than a miracle performed by the omnipotent God for an easy reference for Moses, and to make a point about God’s unchanging existence, but the bush was in no way God.
.
God is not “physical” in any way. He does not create things by pouring out his substance, or sharing his substance, or nudging his substance against something else. . He creates something into existence because he is existence and is his own existence. How this works is a mystery and always will be. Only God himself can understand it. But, here we are.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

He does not create things by pouring out his substance, or sharing his substance, or nudging his substance against something else. .

He creates something into existence because he is existence and is his own existence…

I’m not seeing the difference here from the former and latter. Could you explain?

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel wrote:

God does not “enter the material world somehow”. He is omnipresent in the sense that he constantly maintains all things in existence, but he does not occupy space, or in any other way be one with the universe. As far as something being part of the universe, he is outside it.

Norman:

We’re on the same team. Take a breath! Think for a moment: where. exactly, more or less, is God? If by that you mean that he is on the outside of matter, I would not concur. To some extent, I think he must be physical. He must be able to interface with all matter. And, matter is a potential infinity. Furthermore, what does “spiritual” mean? The opposite of “material?” And, that’s it?

Humans have never “witnessed him as material” The Son of God took up to his personhood the body and soul of Jesus, but this in no way implies that God is material, physical, or participating in the universe in any way other than being its creator and sustainer.
The “burning bush” was nothing more than a miracle performed by the omnipotent God for an easy reference for Moses, and to make a point about God’s unchanging existence, but the bush was in no way God.

I disagree. Christ was the hypostatic union of God and man. God, in his “matter,” and man in his matter. The burning bush spoke to Moses. Moses was able to interact with it. The burning bush was more than just matter, at that point, it had to be physical, otherwise what Moses saw and spoke to was an hallucination.

God is not “physical” in any way. He does not create things by pouring out his substance, or sharing his substance, or nudging his substance against something else. . He creates something into existence because he is existence and is his own existence. How this works is a mystery and always will be. Only God himself can understand it. But, here we are.

Correct. He Creates things by willing them. Things are his thoughts willed. That’s not Pantheism, or Panentheism. I am decidedly neither. He gave us our minds and our abilities. All of us here are using what He gave us. No one is hurt by thinking too hard. The Church keeps us straight. And, I’m good with that, too. Matthew told us to take the narrow gate. Despite its restriction, I’d like to pack as many as possible through it. If that means understanding the physical world through physics, so be it. St. Thomas took much from Aristotle (a non-Christian) and Averroes and Avicenna (both decidedly not Christian). I don’t think I’m in bad company.

God bless,
jd

 

[Kismetji]

Correct. He Creates things by willing them. Things are his thoughts willed. d

Whence cometh the translation of spiritual things “willed” into material things? If you cannot explain this, it’s a hole in your argument that something can come from nothing.

Unless, perhaps, matter is simply spirit incognito, which is what I believe.

 

[empther]

The burning bush spoke to Moses. Moses was able to interact with it. The burning bush was more than just matter, at that point, it had to be physical, otherwise what Moses saw and spoke to was an hallucination.

The bush might have been a physical thing, but it did not talk. The voice of God, or perhaps the voice of St. Michael as some of the early fathers thought, was heard by Moses. Whether there were actually sound waves that moved Moses’s eardrums, or God put the idea/sound in his mind is not important. Likewise, the bush might not have been physically there at all but rather a vision put into Moses’s mind, like the apparitions at Lourdes was “seen” only by Bernadette. It doesn’t matter which was the case. God’s objective was to give a message to Moses.

I dwelled on this small piece of your post to show how ill-thought out your ideas are. I am saddened.

 

[Perplexity]

JDaniel: In post 11 I gave the standard understanding of abstracta and concreta as follows:

Concrete objects (concreta pl.) are things which are at least one of the following: spatial, temporal, or causal. The modal realism of the ilk of David Lewis says possible worlds are concreta. So, for him, metaphysical nihilism is impossible.

Abstract objects (abstracta pl.) have none of the above properties. Things like numbers and their relations are abstracta. Most philosophers regard propositions as such, also. Propositions are what sentences express. Thus, ‘snow is white’ and ‘schnee ist weiss’ both exemplify the same proposition.

 

[JDaniel]

The bush might have been a physical thing, but it did not talk. The voice of God, or perhaps the voice of St. Michael as some of the early fathers thought, was heard by Moses. Whether there were actually sound waves that moved Moses’s eardrums, or God put the idea/sound in his mind is not important. Likewise, the bush might not have been physically there at all but rather a vision put into Moses’s mind, like the apparitions at Lourdes was “seen” only by Bernadette. It doesn’t matter which was the case. God’s objective was to give a message to Moses.

I dwelled on this small piece of your post to show how ill-thought out your ideas are. I am saddened.

Empther:

But why? In the upper paragraph, you give some propositions that could only, at best, be postulations. So, why is my premise “ill-thought out?” I am saddened that you have not given a rationale, just a sort of covert slap!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Whence cometh the translation of spiritual things “willed” into material things? If you cannot explain this, it’s a hole in your argument that something can come from nothing.

Unless, perhaps, matter is simply spirit incognito, which is what I believe.

Kismet:

Sorry, I had this crazy superiority notion that somehow, along the way, you had read each and every one of my CAF posts!

I have written on this subject a hundred times, give or take. But, I did not say that “spiritual things are ‘willed’ into material things.” You may want to re-read what I wrote. What I said was, that material things, as well as physical things, are willed into existence. God is, in all cases, that which Wills.

But, Creation is precisely that: it is the instantiation of something where nothing existed before. There is no “matter.” There is no simple causation. Causation implies that something existed from which a result could be fashioned. That is not, nor ever has been the case within Catholic thought regarding the concept of Creation.

That God is First Cause has more to do with the fact of substantial change, and secondary change, and has more to do with primary matter and secondary matter being in the picture (i.e., pre-existing). So, Yes, God creates precisely where nothing whatsoever (except Him) existed before. You mis-construed me to mean “something from nothing.” So, take it back!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel: In post 11 I gave the standard understanding of abstracta and concreta as follows:

Perplexity:

So, we’re good with my definitions.

God bless,
jd

 

[Bobber90]

Every where and every when.

God bless,
jd

In the argument for a necessary being/necessary first cause. I can acquiesce in a mysterious first cause, but I wouldn’t martyr myself over it. Where is God in the argument for ‘checkmate in 2 moves’?