On the Necessity of Proving Things

[itinerant1]

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

You are most welcome to explain your understanding of being qua being rather than limiting yourself to posting useless responses.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

You need to explain what you mean by the terms you are using before anyone can reply to your post.

 

[itinerant1]

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.

I am not sure what you mean. Your “infinitely large” is ambiguous. Large is a quantitative term and thus to say something is “infinitely large” is a contradiction.

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.

There is nothing finite about creatio ex nihilo. Hence, you have created a pseudo-problem for yourself.

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

As I stated above, you are working from a misconception of creatio ex nihilo, so you would do well to study this Catholic Encyclopedia article on Creation. If you have any questions about anything the articles says, I will be glad to discuss it.

The gap between non-being and being is infinite. There is no incremental bridge between non-being and being, between nothing and something. It is an all or none difference. To draw an analogy, no female is a little pregnant: she either is or is not pregnant.

There is nothing, or ever has been anything that sort of has existence. It either exists or it does not. (I am not speaking of “generation” where something comes into existence from pre-existing matter. I am speaking of nothing whatsoever existing at all, no universe, nothing at all except God.) To bring something into existence out of nothing is to bridge an infinite gap between non-existence and existence, between non-being and being. We should not think that a finite power is capable of bridging an infinite gap, as such would be a logical contradiction and an ontological impossibility.

Check out the article on “Creation” and we can go from there.

 

[anthony022071]

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?

The ability to make things come into existence without the use of any prior substance requires infinite power. It is infinite power.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

It implies omnipotence in and of itself simply because nothing could be more powerful than to make exist what did not exist in any prior form. Even the ability to call into existence a single atom without anything else to work with implies,and requires,omnipotent power.

 

[JohnDamian]

It implies omnipotence in and of itself simply because nothing could be more powerful than to make exist what did not exist in any prior form. Even the ability to call into existence a single atom without anything else to work with implies,and requires,omnipotent power.

To not draw a distinction between being able to create one atom from nought to being able to create a universe from nought seems to be to be quite a leap.

 

[itinerant1]

To not draw a distinction between being able to create one atom from nought to being able to create a universe from nought seems to be to be quite a leap.

Your statement implies a view of God who is a finite God, and thus not truly God at all.

Unlike how creatures act, whatever God does he does absolutely without effort. Man creates by laboring to fashion or form things from pre-existing materials. On the other hand, God creates through his Word that which had no prior existence in any manner: “God said, Let there be light…”

For God, who is omnipotent, creating an entire cosmos containing hundreds of billions of galaxies is as absolutely effortless an act as is creating a single neutrino. It would imply a false anthropomorphic conception of God to claim otherwise.

 

[JohnDamian]

Your statement implies a view of God who is a finite God, and thus not truly God at all.

Unlike how creatures act, whatever God does he does absolutely without effort. Man creates by laboring to fashion or form things from pre-existing materials. On the other hand, God creates through his Word that which had no prior existence in any manner: “God said, Let there be light…”

For God, who is omnipotent, creating an entire cosmos containing hundreds of billions of galaxies is as absolutely effortless an act as is creating a single neutrino. It would imply a false anthropomorphic conception of God to claim otherwise.

I am not trying to imply God is finite; but merely to state that;

As creation is finite - it is absurd to extrapolate that the creator is infinite.
Secondarily; if there is a distinction between creating one atom from nought, then there is also a distinction between creating one finite universe from nought and creating an infinite one.

Only, if the universe was infinite could we use creation to justify omnipotence - a finite creation (whilst **not **implying a finite creator) does not in itself imply an infinite power; as the product of this power is not seen infinitely.

 

[anthony022071]

To not draw a distinction between being able to create one atom from nought to being able to create a universe from nought seems to be to be quite a leap.

The ability to create one atom or many atoms does not entail a difference in the extent of power,because to be able to create even one atom is itself proof of having limitless power. If God can create one atom,it stands to reason he can create any number of atoms.

 

[JohnDamian]

The ability to create one atom or many atoms does not entail a difference in the extent of power,because to be able to create even one atom is itself proof of having limitless power. If God can create one atom,it stands to reason he can create any number of atoms.

I do not deny that God can do such;

Yet this; If it is conceivable that a thing may exist that may bring about one atom from nought; - or bring any finite number of atoms from nought – this thing is lesser than a thing that can bring an infinite number of atoms into being from nought.

As a finite number of atoms have been brought into being; we cannot presume that this entails omnipotence; as it is conceivable that a greater and sensible* power is conceivable – as it is insensible to say one infinity is greater than the next, it is insensible to predicate the lesser as an infinity; and as omnipotent - by virtue of our current creation.

Therefore; as God has only brought about a finite universe; we cannot use this finite universe for proof of omnipotence. This is so because I can conceive a numerically higher, or even a numerically infinite universe - and such a conception is not logically implausible. Therefore; if we concede that the lesser entails omnipotence; what is entailed by the greater?

*(assuming only practicables here, not logical contradictions)

 

[Leela]

…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?”

Wow, Leela. Those are all really good questions. All this talk about what is and is not essentially ordered does just sound accidentally ordered.

 

[itinerant1]

I am not trying to imply God is finite; but merely to state that;

As creation is finite - it is absurd to extrapolate that the creator is infinite.
Secondarily; if there is a distinction between creating one atom from nought, then there is also a distinction between creating one finite universe from nought and creating an infinite one.

Only, if the universe was infinite could we use creation to justify omnipotence - a finite creation (whilst **not **implying a finite creator) does not in itself imply an infinite power; as the product of this power is not seen infinitely.

I cannot agree with your reasoning that says creation must be infinite in order to imply an omnipotent creator.

The first problem you have is you assert what is both a logical and ontological impossibility, i.e. an infinite creation. That is, an “actual” infinite creation is a contradiction. An actual infinite, outside of God, cannot exist.

Metaphysical reflection on nature can logically conclude to a universe that has always existed, from all eternity, while being dependent on a cause which transcends the universe. This situation would involve an eternal creation of the universe. This so described universe can only be “potentially” infinite, or possesses infinite “possibilities”; it cannot involve an “actual infinite”. It is only by means of Revelation that we know the universe was, on the other hand, “created in time”, rather than from eternity (a complex concept in itself).

Philosophically, creation, in all its finitude, witnesses to the Creator’s omnipotence, the omnipotence required in the very creative act of bringing into existence that which had none.

In sum, your claim about an infinite creation being needed to witness to an omnipotent creator is a pseudo-problem and a contradiction.

"For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made (Romans 1:19-20).

 

[Leela]

What is proof?

 

[anthony022071]

I do not deny that God can do such;

Yet this; If it is conceivable that a thing may exist that may bring about one atom from nought; - or bring any finite number of atoms from nought – this thing is lesser than a thing that can bring an infinite number of atoms into being from nought.

But it is only lesser in the quantity of things created,not in the power necessary to do it.
To be able to call into existence even one atom requires limitless power,because of the difference between non-being and being. I don’t know whether there can be an infinite number of atoms considering that the physical world seem to be characterized by finiteness in all ways. Although,all things are possible with God.

As a finite number of atoms have been brought into being; we cannot presume that this entails omnipotence; as it is conceivable that a greater and sensible* power is conceivable – as it is insensible to say one infinity is greater than the next, it is insensible to predicate the lesser as an infinity; and as omnipotent - by virtue of our current creation.

Therefore; as God has only brought about a finite universe; we cannot use this finite universe for proof of omnipotence. This is so because I can conceive a numerically higher, or even a numerically infinite universe - and such a conception is not logically implausible. Therefore; if we concede that the lesser entails omnipotence; what is entailed by the greater?

*(assuming only practicables here, not logical contradictions)

Even though the physical universe is finite,the difference between nothingness or non-existence and physical existence is absolute or limitless,and so it would take an omnipotent God to make physical things exist.

 

[anthony022071]

This is too vague to suffice for a definition of philosophy. There needs to be an explanation of the formal and material objects of philosophic knowledge, and adequate enough to distinguish philosophy from both theology and the natural sciences. As it stands, I don’t see that you know what philosophy is. How then can you understand what natural science is and how it compares to philosophy?

I didn’t intend to give a definition of philosophy,I was just saying what philosophy does. The original definition of philosophy is simply "love of truth’,or the pursuit of truth. I’m not concerned with professionalism in philosophy and science,because “professional” ways of thinking or doing things are sometimes stumbling blocks to truth,and they lead to falsehood and sin. The professional pursuit of a certain kind of knowledge should not be done in a way that hinders the acknowledgement of other kinds of knowledge which bear upon the subject.

What natural science and philosophy and theology have in common is that they deal with causes and effects in the natural world,and they should only admit proper causes and effects if they are really about the search for truth.

 

[itinerant1]

I didn’t intend to give a definition of philosophy,I was just explaining my position. What natural science and philosophy and theology have in common is that they deal with causes and effects in the natural world,and they should only admit proper causes and effects if they are really about the search for truth. The original definition of philosophy is simply "love of truth’,or the pursuit of truth.

So, in response to a request for you to define science and philosophy, you avoid or evade the question by posting a position. Hmmm!

You now state what you think science, philosophy and theology have in common. What about how they differ? How does one distinguish science from philosophy and theology, and philosophy from theology?

It becomes clear, rather quickly, that you present a garbled picture of just what are the natural sciences, philosophy and theology. Do you care to try again, and provide clear and concise definitions, such as would enable anyone to distinquish the various disciplines from each other?

“Love of truth” is not an adequate definition of philosophy. According to the etymology of the term, philo + *sophia, *philosophy is the “love of wisdom”. But in what specifically does this wisdom consist? This wisdom is defined primarily by first philosophy, i.e. metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being.

 

[anthony022071]

So, in response to a request for you to define science and philosophy, you avoid or evade the question by posting a position. Hmmm!

In post 761,you didn’t ask for definitions of science and philosophy,you asked if I knew the difference between them,and asked me to explain. By the way,I edited my last post while you were responding to it.

You now state what you think science, philosophy and theology have in common. What about how they differ? How does one distinguish science from philosophy and theology, and philosophy from theology?

I already went over the differences between science and philosophy in post 767.

It becomes clear, rather quickly, that you present a garbled picture of just what are the natural sciences, philosophy and theology. Do you care to try again, and provide clear and concise definitions, such as would enable anyone to distinquish the various disciplines from each other?

The natural sciences are fields of the study the natural world and natural phenomena. Philosophy is the intellectual pursuit of truth. Theology is the study of truth about God.

“Love of truth” is not an adequate definition of philosophy. According to the etymology of the term, philo + *sophia, *philosophy is the “love of wisdom”.

Sorry,I forgot that it meant love of wisdom.

But in what specifically does this wisdom consist? This wisdom is defined primarily by first philosophy, i.e. metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of being qua being.

It also invoves the study of proper causation,necessary beings that causes certain things to be and happen,and what follows from what. It is not limited to the study of being and causation in general or in the abstract because we gain knowledge of being and causation through our observation and common experience of physical things and physical phenomena.

 

[anthony022071]

You are merely arguing your opinion. Argument is not the same as defining the terms one is using. You need to define the natural sciences also by formal and material object.

Who determined what the formal and material objects of the natural sciences are? Was it scientists or philosophers? Do you really think that the scientists who deal with evolution theory,chaos theory,string theory,quantum mechanics,quarks,Gaia theory,or the neurobiologists who explain how humans believe in God,restict themselves according to what philosophers think is proper to science? No,they just restrict themselves to naturalism. Scientists will study whatever they think exists. Science is what scientists make of it.

 

[anthony022071]

When it comes to things scientists don’t believe exist,like the soul,spiritual mind and the power of God in the natural world,they will provide explanations using natural causes alone,even invented ones.

Despite the inadequacies of your attempt to provide definitions, I agree with what you said in your next post, I believe it was #768, about God and creation.

What I said in that post is what I had been saying to you. If it is reasonable to believe that only a power over nature could make the physical world exist,and give it order and life,then this knowledge should be brought into scientific explanations wherever it is necessary. This would not be a God of the gaps,but acknowledgement of necessary power.

 

[itinerant1]

In post 761,you didn’t ask for definitions of science and philosophy,you asked if I knew the difference between them,and asked me to explain. By the way,I edited my last post while you were responding to it.

Okay, let me state things more explicitly. How do you define natural science, philosophy and theology?

I already went over the differences between science and philosophy in post 767.

That is where you reveal one of the problems with your position. So far you have failed to provide a proper explanation of the differences between philosophy and science. I know I made that point clear beyond any doubt. It would be highly unfortunate if you were to remain satisfied with your statements as somehow being adequate and correct.

The natural sciences are fields of the study the natural world and natural phenomena. Philosophy is the intellectual pursuit of truth. Theology is the study of truth about God.

The natural sciences are limited to the study of the natural world and natural phenomena. However, your explanation of philosophy is useless. The natural sciences pusue truth, also. So you have failed here to explain how philosophy differs from science.

It also invoves the study of proper causation,necessary beings that causes certain things to be and happen,and what follows from what. It is not limited to the study of being and causation in general or in the abstract because we gain knowledge of being and causation through our observation and common experience of physical things and physical phenomena.

This is rather ambiguous:

What do you mean by “proper causation”?

What are “necessary beings”?

Also, because we gain knowledge of “being and causation” through common experience, etc. it does not follow that the study “is not limited to the study of being and causation in general or in the abstract”. Your statement involves a non sequitur.