Checkmate in 3 moves

[MindOverMatter2]

Your religion says Catholic but you are answering this as if you are an atheist. I am puzzled

He doesn’t really understand the metaphysical implications of his faith or what it means to have faith in God. His a fideist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Exactly, I don’t need metaphysical arguments to underpin my faith.

Then you don’t understand what you are talking about. Anybody can have blind faith. I am talking about the catholic faith which is supposed to be a marriage of reason and faith.

 

[ivebeenshown]

There never was nothing.

Well I think the point of creation ex nihilo refers to the non-existence of physical matter prior to creation, and that where there was no physical matter, God created new physical matter.

Anyways, we could really just leave the outdated Aristotlean philosophical ramblings out of the picture entirely and point to the laws of thermodynamics as evidence for creation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Which contradicts the first premis in the OP.

There never was nothing.

I have not argued that the first cause creates out of nothing.

I wonder how many more straw-men and contextual misrepresentations of scientific concepts you are going to post?

Thats a rhetorical question by the way.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Creation ex nihilo

Creation ex-nihilo, is not creation out of absolute non-reality; its creation of nothing-physical. Thats the context in which the statement is made.

Misrepresentations and straw-men are piling up on this thread. But of course thats to be expecting given that such is the only way the OP can appear to be refuted

 

[MindOverMatter2]

There is the Creator that creates out of nothing therefore the creation ex nihilo.

If there is no creator nothing happens therefore out of nothing comes nothing.

This is a misrepresentation of what is meant by creation ex-nihilo.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Then you don’t understand what you are talking about. Anybody can have blind faith. I am talking about the catholic faith which is supposed to be a marriage of reason and faith.

Reason is one thing. Logic bashing to appear smart is another.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Thomism is not the Faith and the Faith is not Thomism.

There are several other philosophical schools within the Church, some which have had not one premise struck from the record too.

You are asking people to refute your Thomist position without allowing us to question the premises underneath.

In that case, of course it is checkmate, but it is a game only Thomists can play amongst themselves.

I reject the whole premise of a separate existence/essence divide. I don’t see it as anything other than a word game.

I don’t believe The Divine Intellect precedes the Divine Will.

I think univocity of being presents stronger arguments than total analogy.

Does this put me outside of the Church? No- it just doesn’t make me a Thomist.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’ve sufficiently shown a way to model the Universe that doesn’t fit within these.

It doesn’t seem to have departed from your imagination yet, since i cannot see any argument that refutes the OP with out ignoring rational principles of knowledge and the facts of observation.

Or perhaps, it doesn’t have a beginning (as you say: the beginning of time has no measurable point[which is a lot like something that doesn’t exist]), and the fuzziness of the concept is what allows people who want to make arguments for a creator feel like they have a good gap to put him in.

You are simply ignoring the facts to suite your pride.

The fact remains that change is finite

. There has been a finite quantity of change. This necessarily means that change has a non-temporal beginning, insofar as there is a “first part of change” (a physical point that proceeds from nothing physical), and the fact that its potentiality is contingent upon something outside of time (since time by definition is an actualization of potentiality). It does not matter that the beginning is not discernible in the sense of a time or place. You cannot get potentiality out of nothing; which is what you are trying to do.

Which can be modeled with the surface of a sphere to show how it could be finite.

Again you are ignoring the fact that his is a contextually flawed analogy. It has no contextual relevance to the nature of time. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it.

The space in front of my nose is not in China… not all space is everywhere.

Of was speaking of space holistically, not in particular.

No, space is finite… its just unbounded. Being unbounded does not mean being infinite like you are using it. You have to think of it as a manifold.

I was simply showing how space can appear nonsensical, saying that it is unbounded doesn’t make it any less counter-intuitive.

A mobius strip is a finite manifold, even though you could walk in a single direction on the surface forever and ever… but that doesn’t make it “infinite”.

You can move on the surface of a sphere, and go on forever. Unless you know its a sphere, then there is no discernible difference epistemologically speaking between a finite object and an infinite one.

Its apparent that you have your own misunderstandings of what space is, but we can agree that its finite.

I don’t have any misunderstandings. I simply understand and i am willing to admit that somethings can appear contradictory and nevertheless be true; and we can say that they are true if we can show why they are necessary. What you do with that information is up to you. The fact that space is finite and expanding is truly counter intuitive as soon as you begin to wonder what it is expanding in to. Its not expanding in to anything, and yet the fact of being finite implies that it is expanding in to something since nothing by definition does not exist. I am not saying here that it is expanding into something, but it can certainly appear unreasonable that it does not expand in to something. Yet there is no contradiction, and we cannot say it is, because of the fact that there is evidence to support the fact that space is expanding and began to exist with time, regardless of anyones inability account rationally for that phenomenon.

Back to my original point: There is logical and physical evidence that time has a finite quantity of change and therefore there is a beginning to the fact of change.

And now you’re the one claiming there is a square-triangle. Non-temporal beginning is a contradictory and nonsensical phrase. You should say that time has a finite past (and stop trying to call it a beginning).

If the universe has a finite past then it is necessarily true that there is a beginning to that past. Its counter-intuitive. If i had no good reason for stating that such where the case, then you would be correct to reject it. However, the fact remains that time is finite in its duration. Therefore we cannot reject the beginning of time as a contradiction, but must accept it as a counterintuitive fact.

There are plenty of things that appear paradoxical due to us not being able to measure the context in which it is rationally true. I have given logical reasons why we must accept a non-temporal beginning as necessarily true.

You are simply ignoring that fact.

 

[Jaaanosik]

This is a misrepresentation of what is meant by creation ex-nihilo.

Really, why?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Really, why?

I am not in the mood and neither am i interested in teaching those who think they already know otherwise. You are happy to think that creation ex-nihilo means the creation from absolutely nothing in the context of metaphysics. Feel free to believe what pleases you. Thats what you have been doing and i am sure thats what you will be doing long into the future.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Reason is one thing. Logic bashing to appear smart is another.

You can excuse me all you want. It doesn’t change a thing in the eyes of God.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I am not in the mood and neither am i interested in teaching those who think they already know otherwise. You are happy to think that creation ex-nihilo means the creation from absolutely nothing in the context of metaphysics. Feel free to believe what pleases you. Thats what you have been doing and i am sure thats what you will be doing long into the future.

That’s fine. Not important.

 

[CatSci]

If its logically possible for the universe to exist with no cause, then God, as the catholic church understands him, does not exist.

False. Logical possibilities have no say on the actual existence of God. If God exists, he exists whether we disprove him or not. If God doesn’t exist, he doesn’t whether we prove him or not.

It only takes the “logical possibility” to disprove the God of catholicism.

If that were true, then the God of Catholicism would have already been disproven, as its not very difficult to come up with logical possibilities that disprove God. But its not true, so the God of Catholicism is doing just fine.

You evidently do not understand the Catholic faith or the nature of God, or the importance of proving that the universe is a contingent entity.

I guess that’s a different topic. You’re OP stands as refuted by my counter-example.

He doesn’t really understand the metaphysical implications of his faith or what it means to have faith in God. His a fideist.

You’re unable to know what I really understand and you’re speculations here expose you for the jerk that you are (that other’s noticed previously upthread with the warnings of moderater action).

I have not argued that the first cause creates out of nothing.

I haven’t said that you have. What I said was that creation ex-nihilo would contradict the premise in the OP that nothing comes from nothing, which it true that it would. Ex nihilo literally means “out of nothing”.

Then you don’t understand what you are talking about. Anybody can have blind faith. I am talking about the catholic faith which is supposed to be a marriage of reason and faith.

Sure, but its supposed to be good reason, not the trumped up false apologetics we got from the OP.

You are simply ignoring the facts to suite your pride.

You’re projecting.

Again you are ignoring the fact that his is a contextually flawed analogy. It has no contextual relevance to the nature of time. It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat it.

Regardless of the accuracy of the model, it is one that can be used for Universe without a god. You haven’t addressed that fact at all.

As far as its contextual relevance to the nature of time, all we have is you saying that its not right. I’m gonna have to trust the cosmolgists that taught me over you.

You can move on the surface of a sphere, and go on forever. Unless you know its a sphere, then there is no discernible difference epistemologically speaking between a finite object and an infinite one.

Who cares about epistemologically speaking… I’m talking about whether or not its finite or infinite and that is a fact one way or the other. You’re just adding confusion to avoid addressing the facts.

I don’t have any misunderstandings.

Oh, so now your arrogant too.

I simply understand and i am willing to admit that somethings can appear contradictory and nevertheless be true; and we can say that they are true if we can show why they are necessary. What you do with that information is up to you. The fact the space is finite and expanding is counter intuitive as soon as you begin to wonder what it is expanding in to. Its not expanding in to anything, and yet that fact of being finite implies that it is expanding in to something since nothing by definition does not exist. I am not saying here that it is expanding into something, but it can certainly appear unreasonable that it does not expand in to something. Yet there is no contradiction, and we cannot say it is, because of the fact that there is evidence to support the fact that space is expanding and began to exist with time.

Yes, physics and especailly cosmology can be very counter-intuitive.

Back to my original point: There is logical and physical evidence that time has a finite quantity of change and therefore there is a beginning to the fact of change.

Yes, that would be the intuitive assessment. But when you get into the actual physics and cosmology, into the counter-intuitive stuff, that’s when we realize that calling it a beginning is nonsensical.

No. Its counter-intuitive. If i had no good reason for stating that such where the case, then you would be correct to reject it. However, the fact remains that time is finite in its duration. Therefore we cannot reject the beginning of time as a contradiction, but must accept it as a counterintuitive fact.

As I explained with the model of the universe as a sphere, having a finite duration when modeled as being unbounded, removes that qualification as a “beginning”.

There are plenty of things that appear paradoxical due to us not being able to measure the context in which it is rationally true. I have given logical reasons why we must accept a non-temporal beginning as necessarily true.

You are simply ignoring that fact.

I’ve specifically addressed it and shown why its wrong.*

 

[atheistgirl]

…you’re speculations here expose you for the jerk that you are (that other’s noticed previously upthread with the warnings of moderater action).

Bravo.

Sarah x

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Thomism is not the Faith and the Faith is not Thomism.

There are several other philosophical schools within the Church, some which have had not one premise struck from the record too.

Is this some kind of disposition that people born with, that they helplessly take what people say out context? Where did i say exactly that Thomism is the faith?

Faith by definition is faith in God’s message of salvation. The word faith has nothing to do with whether or not we are able to discern the existence of the metaphysical attributes of God. The faith itself admits as a part of its core teaching that Gods existence can be know within the light of human reason. Which makes absolutely no sense if the church simply presents the existence of God as a matter of faith. Thats not Catholic teaching; thats fidiesm. A heresy.

newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm

"This authority, indeed, in order to be a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid; before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Church has condemned such doctrines. In 1348, the Holy See proscribed certain fideistic propositions of Nicholas d’Autrecourt (cf. Denzinger, Enchiridion, 10th ed., nn. 553-570). In his two Encyclicals, one of September, 1832, and the other of July, 1834, Gregory XVI condemned the political and philosophical ideas of Lamenais. On 8 September, 1840, Bautain was required to subscribe to several propositions directly opposed to Fideism, the first and the fifth of which read as follows: “Human reason is able to prove with certitude the existence of God; faith, a heavenly gift, is posterior to revelation, and therefore cannot be properly used against the atheist to prove the existence of God”; and “The use of reason precedes faith and, with the help of revelation and grace, leads to it.”

Feel free to learn your faith.

I am not saying that people cannot have faith in the existence of God, but there would not be a deep philosophical tradition (that many catholics are ignorant of) if it were the teaching of the faith that Gods existence cannot be discerned rationally, but simply something to be taken on faith.

Many people take Gods existence on faith because the torment of their life forces them to do so. However, if you are to be a Catholic, you have to at the very least admit that metaphysical proof of God is possible.

If you can show, as “CatSci2” has been trying show, that it is logical possible for the universe to exist by itself, then you are contradicting Gods logical necessity as a cause, and therefore, despite what Catsci thinks, you are disproving Gods existence as understood by Catholics.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

False. Logical possibilities have no say on the actual existence of God.

Tautological logic perhaps (when dealing with concepts which have no ontological reference to real objects). However Metaphysical possibilities do. You intend your arguments to have real ontological implications. What you have presented does not conform to Catholic teaching, but is your own invention. In other-words logic is only relevant when it suites your faith. That is not the sign of an honest thinker.

If that were true, then the God of Catholicism would have already been disproved, as its not very difficult to come up with logical possibilities that disprove God.

If thats the case then i fail to see why you call yourself Catholic.

I guess that’s a different topic. You’re OP stands as refuted by my counter-example.

No it does not. Any honest person with rational discernment can see that it fails as a rebuttal.

You’re unable to know what I really understand and you’re speculations here expose you for the jerk that you are.

I can tell when you don’t understand something because you present things out of context and misrepresent ideas. I don’t make assertions

Ex nihilo literally means “out of nothing”.

Not in a metaphysical sense it does not and was not intended to mean that. This is precisely what i am talking about when i say that you misrepresent ideas and take things out of context. Ex-nihilo is intended to mean out of nothing physical, because the statement was originally made in reference to physics. God did not create the universe of out matter. The statement is made in the context of refuting heresies that suggested that God created the universe out of real quantities, parts, physics. It says nothing about “how” God creates; and i do not need to know in order to understand that being is the principle of all potentiality, and must exist first before any potential possibility can become actual. Therefore there is a timeless cause at the root of the universe. It is not space-time, and is therefore not physical.

Sure, but its supposed to be good reason, not the trumped up false apologetics we got from the OP.**

You can call it what you like. But the truth and what you think the truth is are evidently two different things to me and other people who know what they are talking about.
CatSci;8688704:

You haven’t addressed that fact at all.

I have addressed it, since if it is not relevant to the nature of the actual universe, then it is not a rebuttal.

As far as its contextual relevance to the nature of time, all we have is you saying that its not right. I’m gonna have to trust the cosmologists that taught me over you.

As far as i am concerned you don’t understand science, just like a lot of people on this forum who pretend that they do.

Who cares about epistemologically speaking…

Any body that knows how to reason and rationally discern evidence, physical or otherwise.

Yes, that would be the intuitive assessment. But when you get into the actual physics and cosmology, into the counter-intuitive stuff, that’s when we realize that calling it a beginning is nonsensical.

Physically speaking, i agree, and so does anybody that understands that when a scientist makes a statement on the basis of the scientific method, they are presenting that statement within the context of physics alone, and are not speaking about any possibilities are limitations outside the context of physics.

As I explained with the model of the universe as a sphere, having a finite duration when modeled as being unbounded, removes that qualification as a “beginning”.

Your “model” is irrelevant, because the real world is made up of change (the actualization of potentiality) which needs to be accounted for. This means the universe is an effect not a cause. You are still trying to have an effect with out a cause, which is not logically possible in so far as reality is the principle of all change and therefore necessarily and ontologically precedes all actuality of potential and is simultaneous with it; and since a being cannot move itself without intelligence or teleological information as its sufficient cause, the cause cannot be a physical effect.

What is relevant is that the universe is a finite quantity of evolving events proceeding from a physical point which is the smallest quantity of change with no physical before. You simply refuse to acknowledge what that necessarily entails. The same would be true if you had an expanding sphere proceeding from an infinitely dense point; the only meaningful analogy or “model” of an evolving/expanding “space-time” in so far as it reflects reality.

I’ve specifically addressed it and shown why its wrong.

You have not show why its wrong. You have merely attempted to twist the nature of reality to suite you agenda. Your rebuttal has failed. How you choose to deal with that is up to you.

 

[vz71]

Really, why?

Creation implies a creator.

Therefore ‘ex nihilo’ cannot exclude the creator.

 

[CatSci]

This is not Catholic teaching, but you own invention. In other-words logic is only relevant when it suites your faith. That is not the sign of an honest thinker.

All that is irrelavent to this fact: If God exists, he exists regardless of any logical disproof we can create.

Logic does not dictate veracity. Something can be logical and false.

If thats the case then i fail to see why you call yourself Catholic.

I’m comfortable with that.

I can tell when you don’t understand something because you present things out of context and misrepresent ideas. I don’t make assertions

Perhaps I’m just dishonest… (I’m not)

Not in a metaphysical sense it does not and was not intended to mean that. This is precisely what i am talking about when i say that you misrepresent ideas. Ex-nihilo means out of nothing physical. God did not create the universe of out matter.

No, that would be ex materia… this is basic wikipedia stuff: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

The statement is made in the context of refuting heresies that suggested that God created the universe out of real quantities, parts, physics.

Source please. (by the way, that was you making an assertion)

and i do not need to know in order to understand that being is the principle of all potentiality, and must exist first before any potential possibility can become actual.

So the Universe had to exist before it existed?

I have addressed it, since if it is not relivant the nature of the actual universe, then it is not a rebuttal.

How do you know it isn’t relavent to the nature of the actual universe?

Its basically the Hartle–Hawking no boundary proposal… I’m pretty sure those guys better understand cosmology than you do. And we’re certainly not going to go on your say-so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

"The Hartle-Hawking state is a proposal concerning the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch. Hartle-Hawking is essentially a no-boundary proposal that the universe is infinitely finite: that there was no time before the Big Bang because time did not exist before the formation of spacetime associated with the Big Bang and subsequent expansion of the universe in space and time.

James Hartle and Stephen Hawking suggest that if we could travel backward in time toward the beginning of the universe, we would note that quite near what might have otherwise been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time. Beginnings are entities that have to do with time; because time did not exist before the Big Bang, the concept of a beginning of the universe is meaningless. According to the Hartle-Hawking proposal, the universe has no origin as we would understand it: the universe was a singularity in both space and time, pre-Big Bang. Thus, the Hartle-Hawking state universe has no beginning, but it is not the steady state universe of Hoyle; it simply has no initial boundaries in time nor space."

Physically speaking, i agree, and so does anybody that understands that when a scientist makes a statement on the basis of the scientific method, they are presenting that statement within the context of physics alone, and are not speaking about any possibilities are limitations outside the context of physics.

What is outside the context of physics? Physics is everything… unless you want to get into metaphysics, but that’s all bullspit.

Your “model” is irrelevant, because the real world is made up of change (the actualization of potentiality) which needs to be accounted for.

The model accounts for that.

This means the universe is an effect not a cause. You are still trying to have an effect with out a cause, which is not logically possible in so far as reality is the principle of all change and therefore necessarily and ontologically precedes all actuality of potential and is simultaneous with it; and since a being cannot move itself without intelligence or teleological information as its sufficient cause, the cause cannot be a physical effect.

What a bunch of meaningless mumbo-jumbo… a word salad.

What is relevant is that the universe is a finite quantity of evolving events proceeding from a physical point which is the smallest quantity of change with no physical before. You simply refuse to acknowledge what that necessarily entails.

No, you’ve refused to acknowledge my explanations of how what this entails is different from what you think it is. All you’ve been capable of doing is repeating the same old: “But its finite and it changes so it must have a beginning”

The same would be true if you had an expanding sphere proceeding from an infinitely dense point; the only meaningful analogy or “model” of an evolving/expanding “space-time” in so far as it reflects reality.

And when it has no boundary, its nonsense to say it has a “beginning”. I’m still waiting for you to address that.

You have not show why its wrong. Your rebuttal has failed.

The only thing its failed is getting you to show that you understanding it.

 

[CatSci]

Creation implies a creator.

Therefore ‘ex nihilo’ cannot exclude the creator.

Not really, that would be creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God). See the wiki link in my previous post.

Ex nihilo is literally out of nothing, which is impossible. Too, there never was nothing so its a non-issue.