On the Necessity of Proving Things

[greylorn]

Thanks, but no thanks on both counts.

Good!

 

[Leela]

You have not answered my questions. How you answer them is significant…

I thought I did. The answer is “Yes”

 

[tonyrey]

I thought I did. The answer is “Yes”

So I think we can sum up your views on the topic:

It is unnecessary to prove the following facts:

1. The universe exists
2. It is necessary, i.e. it must exist - and presumably we too must exist!
3. It is valuable
4. It is purposeless
5. Nothing else exists but the physical universe

Is that correct?

 

[anthony022071]

However, there are certain aspects of the omnipotent God concept which make it logically untenable. For example, if God knows all, then God cannot have a creative thought. That would mean that God is essentially a mindless computer, doing now what He always knew that He was going to do, from the beginning of time— and in process, observing the detailed circumstances of the demise of every ant and the position and momentum of every electron.

Knowing and the act of creating are different things. Creation is the manifestation of God’s power and knowledge. If God does now what he always knew he would do and observes every detail of nature,that is not a logical impossibility. God is eternal spirit. He has access to all time and space.

Those ideas worked well in medieval times, for people whom, if educated to the level of a modern day 8th grade student, would be seen as geniuses. They do not work for a belief system competing with honest (non-Darwinian) science.

How so?

God does not need to be omnipotent to create the universe. He only needs to be capable of creating the universe.

The ability to make physical matter come into existence requires omnipotent power. There’s an absolute difference between nothingness and existence.

 

[anthony022071]

Edit:

The ability to make physical matter come into existence requires omnipotent power. There’s an absolute difference between non-existence and existence,and so it would take an omnipotent being to make physical matter exist.

 

[Leela]

So I think we can sum up your views on the topic:

It is unnecessary to prove the following facts:

1. The universe exists
2. It is necessary, i.e. it must exist - and presumably we too must exist!
3. It is valuable
4. It is purposeless
5. Nothing else exists but the physical universe

Is that correct?

I do think the universe exists and that we must exist to be able to ask the question “is the universe necessary?” I think it has a lot of value and lots and lots of different purposes. I think it is by definition true that the universe is all that exists since “all that exists” is all I mean by “the universe” or “the world.” You use the term “physical universe” which puts limits on what can be said to exist. I think lots of things are not best described in physical terms, like ideas and intentions and love for example. While I think that everything can be given a physical description, I don’t think that everything ought to only ever be given a physical description.

 

[JohnDamian]

I do think the universe exists and that we must exist to be able to ask the question** “is the universe necessary?”**

Only those things in the universe that are predicated on essentially ordered things can be said to be nessecary; everything else that is not causally nessecary to an essential order is predicated by accident or volition.

 

[itinerant1]

Edit:

The ability to make physical matter come into existence requires omnipotent power. There’s an absolute difference between non-existence and existence,and so it would take an omnipotent being to make physical matter exist.

This is indisputably correct. Only an infinite power can bridge that infinite gap beween existence and non-existence or bring being into existence from non-being.

 

[JohnDamian]

This is indisputably correct. Only an infinite power can bridge that infinite gap beween existence and non-existence or bring being into existence from non-being.

As bringing a thing from existence and non-existence is only one aspect of potency (viz. Generation); how can it be said accuratly that because one is able to do such; that one is essentially infinite in the totality of potential potency?

 

[itinerant1]

As bringing a thing from existence and non-existence is only one aspect of potency (viz. Generation); how can it be said accuratly that because one is able to do such; that one is essentially infinite in the totality of potential potency?

You are confusing generation with *creatio ex nihilo. *Creation, in the theological sense, is not a matter of generation, which involves potency and prime matter.

 

[JohnDamian]

You are confusing generation with *creatio ex nihilo. *Creation, in the theological sense, is not a matter of generation, which involves potency and prime matter.

I was mistaken

But I still don’t understand why creatio ex nihilo. nessecarily implies an omnipotence. I can see that it requires an infinite capacity qualitatively, as the difference between this existing thing, and a lack of it’s existence is (infinitely) qualitatively distinct. But is appears arbitrary to extend this capacity to the it’s quantitative replication or actualisiation outside of creating this or that matter.

That is; to me it there is a distinction between being able to perform creatio ex nihilo. alone; and being able to translate this into an infinite actualisation in reality - both of which; to me seem like predicates essential for “omnipotence”

 

[Leela]

Only those things in the universe that are predicated on essentially ordered things can be said to be nessecary…

and yet I just said that I need lots of stuff that you don’t think are essentially ordered even thought it supposedly “can’t be said.”

everything else that is not causally nessecary to an essential order is predicated by accident or volition.

Really?

 

[Leela]

This is indisputably correct. Only an infinite power can bridge that infinite gap beween existence and non-existence or bring being into existence from non-being.

How do you know?

 

[JohnDamian]

Really?

I would like to know of an example of something that is not either:

A part of an essentially ordered thing.
Accidentally ordered.
A product of Volition.

 

[itinerant1]

I was mistaken

But I still don’t understand why creatio ex nihilo. nessecarily implies an omnipotence. I can see that it requires an infinite capacity qualitatively, as the difference between this existing thing, and a lack of it’s existence is (infinitely) qualitatively distinct. But is appears arbitrary to extend this capacity to the it’s quantitative replication or actualisiation outside of creating this or that matter.

I am not sure what you mean by “infinite capacity qualitatively”.

Also, existence is not a quality. It is an act.

That is; to me it there is a distinction between being able to perform creatio ex nihilo. alone; and being able to translate this into an infinite actualisation in reality - both of which; to me seem like predicates essential for “omnipotence”

Sorry, but I am not sure what you are tring to say. Why did you use the word “alone”? What is an “infinite actualisation in reality” that supposedly gets translated?

 

[itinerant1]

How do you know?

I know dianoetically…that is, through an understanding of the nature of being and its determinations.

 

[JohnDamian]

Simply;

How does creatio ex nihilo imply omnipotence in and of itself, specifically when the only example we have of this is a finite creation.

To be omnipotent itself must mean more than to be able to perform creatio ex nihilo, it must be able to do such in an infinitely large manner.

That said; I don’t deny God’s omnipotence; I am merely skeptical that finite creatio ex nihilo is enough to declare omnipotence with certitude.

 

[itinerant1]

Simply;

How does creatio ex nihilo imply omnipotence in and of itself, specifically when the only example we have of this is a finite creation.

To be omnipotent itself must mean more than to be able to perform creatio ex nihilo, it must be able to do such in an infinitely large manner.

That said; I don’t deny God’s omnipotence; I am merely skeptical that finite creatio ex nihilo is enough to declare omnipotence with certitude.

Okay. I will have to answer your questions later…gotta jump off the web for now.

 

[Leela]

I know dianoetically…that is, through an understanding of the nature of being and its determinations.

Funny. My knowledge of the nature of being and its determinations doesn’t lead me to the same conclusion.

 

[Leela]

I would like to know of an example of something that is not either:

A part of an essentially ordered thing.
Accidentally ordered.
A product of Volition.

Why? What would that prove to you?

By the way, do you think such terms as “essentially ordered” and “product of Volition” are some how written into the fabric of the cosmos? Are the things you say the exact things that the universe demands be said about it? Is the funny language you speak the language in which the universe demands to be spoken of? Or is all this talk itself "accidently ordered?