Checkmate in 3 moves

[Nimeniton]

]You have either failed to understand the second premise or you simply don’t want to understand. ]

I do not know why you felt the need to say this. It is fairly obvious that in the first case there is a misunderstanding of your point or my counter. This is the nature of debates! With regard to the second position of not wanting to understand that seems a rather premature conclusion on your part and I believe an unnecessary ad hominem.

In order for a potential being or state to become actual we require an actual reality to make it a reality.

I still disagree with this statement. Potentiality never becomes anything and no actual reality can make it become actual. If you say “make it” a reality, you imply cause and effect.

However, we could lose a lot of time arguing over the meaning of potentiality. So maybe we could make a short cut. I would certainly agree that reality has always existed and is timeless that is self evident. However, you equate Reality with Being and you have not demonstrated at this stage why you believe they are identical.

"Therefore there has to be an actual reality that was not a potential** being**"

My emphasis

 

[CatSci]

I still disagree with this statement. Potentiality never becomes anything and no actual reality can make it become actual. If you say “make it” a reality, you imply cause and effect.

However, we could lose a lot of time arguing over the meaning of potentiality. So maybe we could make a short cut. I would certainly agree that reality has always existed and is timeless that is self evident. However, you equate Reality with Being and you have not demonstrated at this stage why you believe they are identical. My emphasis

You’re right, and MOM2 has an error in this:

MOM2:

In order for a potential being or state to become actual we require an actual reality to make it a reality.

Reality did not become actual. As you noticed, that’s a cause and effect situation that would require a point in time when reality did not exist. But we know that reality has existed for all points in time so its already wrong from the get-go.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You’re right, and MOM2 has an error in this:

Reality did not become actual. As you noticed, that’s a cause and effect situation that would require a point in time when reality did not exist. But we know that reality has existed for all points in time so its already wrong from the get-go.

You are both ignoring the fact that there are in fact contingent beings, entities or states that at some point were not actual, and therefore are not the cause of their actuality. I explained clearly what I mean by potentiality, and this has been ignored, justifying my my claim that neither of you are here to learn. Are you denying that even your thoughts at one time were only potential? All states do not equally exist. Ridiculous. You are are both ignoring where I demonstrate the factor of potentiality and its relation to actual beings. Neither of what you are saying is demonstrable in experience or in rational fact. You are both just making assertions.

And with that, neither of you have anything reasonable to offer to this debate.

 

[CatSci]

You are both ignoring the fact that there are in fact contingent beings, entities or states that at some point were not actual, and therefore are not the cause of their actuality.

That’s undisputable, and irrelevant. Some does not equal all. Your OP makes the case for all.

I explained clearly what I mean by potentiality, and this has been ignored,

I don’t know what you’re referring to, got a post number?

justifying my my claim that neither of you are here to learn.

Perhaps I simply didn’t see it… What’s the point of speculating on my motive? That’s rude.

Are you denying that even your thoughts at one time were only potential? All states do not equally exist. Ridiculous. You are are both ignoring where I demonstrate the factor of potentiality and its relation to actual beings. Neither of what you are saying is demonstrable in experience or in rational fact. You are both just making assertions.

And with that, neither of you have anything reasonable to offer to this debate.

What do you mean by a thought being only potential?

I’m not talking about all states equally existing. Here’s your OP again:

1. Out of nothing comes nothing.

1. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.

1. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.

I’m talking about this “absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states”… It would be nothing other than the Universe, itself, except I don’t think the qualifier “timeless” is meaningful or necessary.

A thought requiring a cause doesn’t mean the Universe needs one too.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Out of nothing comes nothing.
Premise.

Potentiality is dependent on actuality.
Premise

If potentiality is dependent on actuality, then potentiality cannot precede actuality, infinitely, and, therefore, an absolute transcends potentiality.
Non sequitor condition and conclusion.

I’m afraid it’s more like 1, 2, 3 strikes, you’re out !

No logic, much less failed reasoning; but, thank you, brother, for trying.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Out of nothing comes nothing.
Premise.

Potentiality is dependent on actuality.
Premise

If potentiality is dependent on actuality, then potentiality cannot precede actuality, infinitely, and, therefore, an absolute transcends potentiality.
Non sequitor condition and conclusion.

I’m afraid it’s more like 1, 2, 3 strikes, you’re out !

No logic, much less failed reasoning; but, thank you, brother, for trying.

I really don’t understand why you bother posting at all if you are incapable of proving true your assertions. If you are smart enough to call it a non-sequitur condition and conclusion then you should be smart enough to demonstrate why that is in fact the case. Or you can simply be quiet when adults are talking.

 

[Nate13]

Out of nothing comes nothing.
Premise.

Potentiality is dependent on actuality.
Premise

If potentiality is dependent on actuality, then potentiality cannot precede actuality, infinitely, and, therefore, an absolute transcends potentiality.
Non sequitor condition and conclusion.

I’m afraid it’s more like 1, 2, 3 strikes, you’re out !

No logic, much less failed reasoning; but, thank you, brother, for trying.

1. If nothing can come from nothing, then something must have always existed.
2. If a potentiality exists, an actuality must exist to allow for the potentiality and vice versa. I.e they are mutually inclusive.
3. Therefore a timeless actual reality with potential must exist.

This argument leads to this:

1. If matter cannot create/destroy itself, something else must have created it. (Law of Conservation of mass/energy)
2. If the Universe is ordered and abides by laws, it implies that it must have been created by something capable of reasoning. It takes reason to create reason.
3. Therefore something capable of reason must have created the Universe.

 

[CatSci]

1. Therefore a timeless actual reality with potential must exist.

Its called The Universe.

1. If matter cannot create/destroy itself, something else must have created it. (Law of Conservation of mass/energy)

The law says that matter/energy cannot be created, not that it can’t create itself. The total energy of The Universe has existed for all points in time. Being “created” would require a point in time where it did not exist, and that just ain’t so.

1. If the Universe is ordered and abides by laws, it implies that it must have been created by something capable of reasoning. It takes reason to create reason.

And reason, itself, relies on order and laws to already exist. That’s a bit of a Catch-22…

I don’t think it follows that since The Universe behaves in some way, that something must have chosen that it behaves that way.

1. Therefore something capable of reason must have created the Universe.

A valiant effort, but the premises aren’t true.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I really don’t understand why you bother posting at all if you are incapable of proving true your assertions. If you are smart enough to call it a non-sequitur condition and conclusion then you should be smart enough to demonstrate why that is in fact the case. Or you can simply be quiet when adults are talking.

I am sorry if uncovering errors in your thinking provokes you to be rude (for an adult, I mean).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I am sorry if uncovering errors in your thinking provokes you to be rude (for an adult, I mean).

I see that you have no argument, so please post somewhere else. Or make a new forum where baseless assertions are an acceptable grounds for demonstrating that an argument is false.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well your post did seem rude.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I see that you have no argument, so please post somewhere else. Or make a new forum where baseless assertions are an acceptable grounds for demonstrating that an argument is false.

“Checkmate!”

And in one move.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“Checkmate!”

And in one move.

Perhaps you are just jealous. Poor curious seed.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Perhaps you are just jealous. Poor curious seed.

Perhaps.

Thank you, for your compassion, matter over mind.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Perhaps.

Thank you, for your compassion, matter over mind.

A good smack is what you need, you can thank me for that!

 

[Nimeniton]

. Are you denying that even your thoughts at one time were only potential?.

Yes I am. My thoughts were never once potential because there is no dependency between potential thoughts and actual thoughts. Potentiality exists only in the mind. Without actualities one could not even conceive of potentialities.

…justifying my my claim that neither of you are here to learn

This is an impolite personal attack as it libels us with impure motives. I would not mind if you had used it after numerous exchanges but you throw it out to both I and Catski on our very first counters to your argument. May I remind you of the forum rules:

Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2

It is, of course, possible that you are right but at the moment I just cannot see it.

 

[Nimeniton]

Or you can simply be quiet when adults are talking.

said to Curious Seed. May I again remind you of the forum rules that replies should be polite and avoid personal attack. This comment is impolite. This is now the third person you have been rude too. If it continues I will lodge a complaint.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

said to Curious Seed. May I again remind you of the forum rules that replies should be polite and avoid personal attack. This comment is impolite. This is now the third person you have been rude too. If it continues I will lodge a complaint.

If you read my comment in context, you will find that it was a just rebuke against his childish behavior.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes I am. My thoughts were never once potential because there is no dependency between potential thoughts and actual thoughts. Potentiality exists only in the mind. Without actualities one could not even conceive of potentialities.

With that i see no point in continuing this discussion since you do not seem to be able to understand the concept of potentiality much less acknowledge that each thought you have had at one time did not exist; and thus by definition was only a potential thought.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

If you feel insulted by that, please speak to a forum administrator.

 

[shoe]

They could argue that the universe has existed at every point in time, that there was never a point in time that the universe did not exist (even tho past time is finite).

There has never been nothing. The only place nothing can exist is nowhere.

At every point in time, there is something somewhere.

But if the atheist were to argue that “that the universe has existed at every point in time,” then it could also be said that the universe had its beginning at the very first “point in time”; that is to say, that the beginning of the universe also indicates the beginning of the first point in time and vice versa. And since it is impossible for matter and energy to become matter and energy from nothing, since nothing without existence has neither the means nor the power in which to cause either itself or something else into existence, the only explanation for the universe then, or at least the best one, is that a non-contingent Being (God) made it.