Where does this logical argument against creatio ex nihilo break down?

[IWantGod]

Yes, but you are still talking about a temporal order. God is not a temporal being.

 

[NowHereThis]

He’s not an a-series entity, which is what most people mean when they talk about time. But that doesn’t preclude him from being a b-series entity.

 

[Gorgias]

Thomas and Aristotle disagree on this point, because Aristotle did believe in an eternal universe, and Thomas did not because of revelation…

Actually, since Aquinas greatly admired the thought of Aristotle, he left open the possibility of an eternally-existing universe, from a theoretical philosophical perspective.

 

[IWantGod]

He’s not an a-series entity, which is what most people mean when they talk about time. But that doesn’t preclude him from being a b-series entity.

God is not a physical entity, so i don’t understand how God would fit into any definition of time. God is not a particular being “in” time. God is the foundation of all contingent beings. If anything a B-series has it’s existence in God, not the other way round.

 

[Gorgias]

You have an argument for the conclusion that time only started to exist with the creation?

Time is the measure of change of things in the natural world, according to Aristotle.

Therefore, time begins with the creation of the universe (from a Christian perspective).

 

[Gorgias]

1. As perfect being, God is actuality with no potentiality.
2. God’s omnipotence does not require or allow God to violate the laws of logic.
3. Nothing can come into actual existence without existing potentially first.
4. If nothing but God exists prior to creation, then no potentiality exists outside of God prior to creation.
5. No potentiality exists prior to creation. (from 1 and 4)
6. If God is the only actually existing thing prior to creation, then nothing else can come into actual existence (from 2, 3 and 5)

I think you confuse the notions of “potentiality of God” with “potentiality of contingent beings” in 1 and 4. God is pure actuality, and there is no potentiality in God with respect to Himself, but I’m not certain I’d agree that this means that there is no potentiality whatsoever.

I’d also say that God’s act of creation isn’t an act that violates “the laws of logic.” Rather, it brings into existence a framework within which “the laws of logic” may operate. You’re playing the same sort of game that Douglas Adams did with his “Babel fish proof of God’s non-existence”…

 

[NowHereThis]

I said that creation is the act of bring potential to actual. The act of bringing no potential to actual is what I deemed illogical (and it is quite common to say that God’s omnipotence does not mean that he does the logically impossible). And if there is no potentiality in God, and nothing existed outside of God (including potentiality), how is it that potentiality exists? It doesn’t even help to say that there are ideas in the Mind of God, because those ideas would be platonic ideas, and the most actual example of their kind. No potentiality there, either.

 

[NowHereThis]

If you draw the universe’s timeline on a sheet of paper, and how God is in relation to that timeline, what does it look like?

 

[MPat]

No, actually, I don’t have a problem with that statement, because natural numbers do move by single positive whole increments, so in a sense, they are all “one” in themselves. They only receive different labels in relation to how many other increments there are around them.

Um… Is that supposed to be a joke?

I can see that it is nonsense. But I do not see what I am supposed to laugh at.

Look, if God is infinite and eternal, then it makes no sense to start his timeline with creation. He has a straight, undivided horizontal line of time that runs on forever. It’s b-series time. The universe has A-series time: split up into moments, divisible into past, present and future, with only one moment existing at any given time, and drawn parallel to God’s timeline. But I’m not going to pretend that only the a-series time of the universe counts as “time”, and that there was no “before creation” in God’s timeline from the perspective of the universe. If you draw it out, you’ll see that there clearly was.

If you draw the universe’s timeline on a sheet of paper, and how God is in relation to that timeline, what does it look like?

“Look”, “see”, “draw out”, “horizontal line of time”, “on a sheet of paper”…

I see that you stubbornly keep trying to use your imagination instead of intellect, reason, logic.

No, you won’t be able to imagine timelessness.

And yet there is nothing self-contradicting about it. I guess you know that, as otherwise you would have tried to find that contradiction…

Now, apparently, you believe that only things you can imagine can exist (otherwise all your imagination-based arguments are clearly irrelevant). But that’s false. In fact, I suspect that you might actually agree with me on this when this assumption is stated explicitly.

I don’t expect this call to have much of an effect, but still - do try to use reason, not imagination!

 

[NowHereThis]

No joke. An increment labeled “seven” is exactly one positive whole increment. The label is a statement about the presence of other single increments.

I gave a logical argument. Your complaint that I am now relying too much “imagination” as you put it undercuts your original objection that the statement about time from my original argument is meaningless. Apparently, you just couldn’t imagine it. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[MPat]

No joke. An increment labeled “seven” is exactly one positive whole increment. The label is a statement about the presence of other single increments.

I gave a logical argument. Your complaint that I am now relying too much “imagination” as you put it undercuts your original objection that the statement about time from my original argument is meaningless. Apparently, you just couldn’t imagine it. Physician, heal thyself.

You know, when you end up having to seriously claim that “in a sense” 7=1, I do not see much of a sense to argue further.

Now, just to make sure that you wouldn’t be able to claim that you are not arguing that 7=1, a couple of quotes:

Do you see a problem with such statement: “If ‘natural number less than 1’ is meaningless or false, then all natural numbers are 1.”?

No, actually, I don’t have a problem with that statement, because natural numbers do move by single positive whole increments, so in a sense, they are all “one” in themselves. They only receive different labels in relation to how many other increments there are around them.

So, again, if you end up having to assert such an obvious logical contradiction as 7=1 (you think it just requires imagination, or what?), your position has been discredited already. There isn’t much left to do.

 

[NowHereThis]

I label a set of objects 1-7. How many objects are labeled “7”? Just one. No logical contradiction at all. But you’ve stopped listening because I correctly pointed out the inherent double standard in your position.

It makes sense that you would use lack of understanding as an excuse to bail on the argument now. Your double standard is indefensible, but after opposing it so much, you’re not in an emotional place to give my argument a fair hearing. Completely understandable.

No worries. Have a good rest of your day, and thanks for the discussion!

 

[MPat]

I label a set of objects 1-7. How many objects are labeled “7”? Just one. No logical contradiction at all.

Ah, yes. Which is why I added the quotes:

Do you see a problem with such statement: “If ‘natural number less than 1’ is meaningless or false, then all natural numbers are 1.”?

No, actually, I don’t have a problem with that statement, because natural numbers do move by single positive whole increments, so in a sense, they are all “one” in themselves. They only receive different labels in relation to how many other increments there are around them.

So, my analogy was that $$ \emptyset = { x \in \mathbb{N} | x < 1 } \implies \forall x \in \mathbb{N} : x = 1 $$ is not valid reasoning (no, it doesn’t look like this forum supports LaTeX - but you can use, let’s say, LaTeX equation editor with part between “$$”).

You said that it was - with some hand waving (no, explicitly saying that 7=1 is obviously too much; which is why you end up acting as if my argument refered to something like $$ \emptyset = { x \in \mathbb{N} | x < 1 } \implies \forall x \in \mathbb{N} : |{x}| = 1 $$ - by the way, while the statement is true, “conclusion” and “premise” still have little to do with each other).

At which point I gave you a chance to take this back. You didn’t use it yet.

But you’ve stopped listening because I correctly pointed out the inherent double standard in your position.

It makes sense that you would use lack of understanding as an excuse to bail on the argument now. Your double standard is indefensible, but after opposing it so much, you’re not in an emotional place to give my argument a fair hearing. Completely understandable.

“Double standard”? Even “inherent”? (That’s supposed to be even stronger, right?)

I’m afraid that I must have missed anything that could have been interpreted in such way. Would you care to repeat (or quote) yourself?

 

[NowHereThis]

Two things: first, you’ve admirably descibed and understood the differences in what we were saying with regard to numbers, so I wish you had used that understanding in your responses instead of exaggerated incredulity and contempt.

Second, here is the double standard which you failed to respond to:

I gave a logical argument. Your complaint that I am now relying too much on “imagination” as you put it undercuts your original objection that the statement about time from my original argument is meaningless. Apparently, you just couldn’t imagine it. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[MPat]

Two things: first, you’ve admirably descibed and understood the differences in what we were saying with regard to numbers, so I wish you had used that understanding in your responses instead of exaggerated incredulity and contempt.

You know, if it takes that much effort just to get an agreement that no, it is not true that each natural number is equal to one, and there is going to be something wrong with the argument if it leads to such conclusion (by the way, it looks like such agreement still hasn’t been reached), then I do not see why I should pretend that I have much hope for this discussion.

But, of course, if you can think of a better way to convey the same idea, feel free to suggest it.

Second, here is the double standard which you failed to respond to:

NowHereThis:

I gave a logical argument. Your complaint that I am now relying too much “imagination” as you put it undercuts your original objection that the statement about time from my original argument is meaningless. Apparently, you just couldn’t imagine it. Physician, heal thyself.

You mean that if I’d decipher that, I’d see it points out not just “double standard”, but one “inherent” in my position?

Oh, well, I guess I might as well try…

Apparently, you think that my pointing out that “prior to creation” is undefined was only based on being unable to imagine that.

Oh, well, am I supposed to actually answer that? Perhaps it will be sufficient to cite myself answering a similar objection previously:

At this point I do not need any argument. It is sufficient that 1) I make an assertion, 2) it hasn’t been shown to be wrong, incompatible with my other beliefs, or unlikely, 3) if it is true, the argument in the original post falls apart.

But no, I do not intend to spend several posts trying to force you to agree to that.

And yes, it looks like you didn’t respond to that part (in case you really want to claim I have to respond to everything you write).

 

[NowHereThis]

Yup, that’s the double standard: the meaningfulness of my assertions needs defending, and the meaningfulness of yours is just baselessly asserted…

We’re done here. Your judgment of my argument has no further value to me, given the sub-par intellectual standards you adhere to. No further response from you will be replied to, so let’s see just how badly you need to have the last word.

 

[MPat]

Yup, that’s the double standard: the meaningfulness of my assertions needs defending, and the meaningfulness of yours is just baselessly asserted…

You mean that’s the “double standard” you had in mind?

Naturally, if you do not even suggest that anything I said is meaningless, I see no need to argue otherwise just for “equality’s sake”.

And yes, if you try to argue that something is impossible, your opponents only have to argue that it is possible, not that it is necessary (or that no alternative is possible).

If you don’t like it, then you don’t like it.

No further response from you will be replied to, so let’s see just how badly you need to have the last word.

I don’t see why expectation of reply should be important. After all, it was already clear that this discussion is not going to change the mind of any of its participants some time ago.

We’re done here.

I am happy to see that you have agreed with me at least on this point.

 

[AlNg]

God does not move from one moment to the next.

God was seen walking and moving in a garden. And Jesus, being God, did move from one place to another.

 

[HarryStotle]

If you draw the universe’s timeline on a sheet of paper, and how God is in relation to that timeline, what does it look like?

What about…

… any relationship he chooses or none at all? I.e., not constrained in any way whatsoever by time.

 

[Gorgias]

my analogy was that $$ \emptyset = { x \in \mathbb{N} | x < 1 } \implies \forall x \in \mathbb{N} : x = 1 $$ is not valid reasoning (no, it doesn’t look like this forum supports LaTeX

Wait… LaTeX? You’re using LaTeX in an apologetics forum?!?!?!? SWOON…