Originally posted by Jichard
View Post
Yet you said this:
I am using "caused" and "creation" is just the way they are used in philosophy. If you don't know what "creatio ex materia" is, then look it up. To say that you are using "the classical theist definition" makes no sense, since classical theists (including many Christians) already used the idea of "creatio ex materia". They basically lifted it from Greeks like Aristotle, though of course, some theists came up with the idea independently of the Greeks.
And yes, knifes are created... via creatio ex materia, the only observed form of creation. Creatio ex nihilo is unobserved nonsense, that likely isn't even coherent.
No, it wasn't, and you don't have a shred of evidence that it was, anymore than a witchdoctor has evidence that evil spirits caused a sickness. The materials were caused to exist by previously existent matter.
Again, no he didn't. The elements were caused to exist by previously existent elements.
And as I told you before, causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is not the same thing as causing X's existence.
That's not all your claiming. You're claiming that since God acts as a cause, humans can't. Also, fallacious reasoning on your part: causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is not the same thing as sustaining X's existence in reality. For example, my grandparents made by infant parents, and my infant parents are a distal causal presursor of me. Yet that does not mean my grandparents sustain my existence in reality. In fact, my grandparents could die, and I would still exist.
You're claiming otherwise since you're the one claiming that causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is same thing as causing X's existence.
That's what causation and creation actually are.
No, something new was created via creatio ex materia. What was created was a new mental state that was not there before.
Again, you seem to have no clue what "creatio ex materia" is. Creatio ex materia does not require that one create brand new materials ex nihilo. And there is something new: some new state that was not present before. Saying that "[i]t's still the same materials", does nothing to change this.
No, it's incoherent. Period.
A claim for which you likely have no evidence. Knowing you, you're probably just equivocate on the term "eternal".
You seem to be missing the point. You made a point about laws of gravitation being made by God. I then pointed out to you that:
A claim for which you have no evidence. There are quite a number of scientists who'd argue that the state in question was lawless.
Made-up, incoherent claims for which you have no evidence.
Again, you're making stuff up. There are quite a number of scientists who'd argue that the state in question was lawless.
Of course I have evidence you're wrong. Spent a thread discussing it. You just ignore that evidence, sort of like how you ignore evidence on AGW. That's how your denialist works.
Again, you're making stuff up about physics. You really have to be ill-informed on physics, to think that all my body's atoms have existed since the beginning of the universe (if the universe began to exist). For example, you'd have to be ignorant of how nuclear fusion resulted in the existence of new, heavier atoms, via creatio ex materia.
My parents created me via creatio ex materia.
Nope, as reflected in your lack of understanding of how atoms are created via creatio ex materia.
That's nice. Tell me when you have evidence for your claims.
My parents created me via creatio ex materia. If you doubt this, then it's looks like you're a denialist about reproductive biology as well.
If you know that, then you'd admit that my parents created me via creatio ex materia. Yet you seem unable to do that.
Irrelevant, since my parents can create me via creatio ex materia, without my parents needing to create all of my atoms ex nihilo and even if my atoms existed before I existed. Again, I seriously suggest you look up what creatio ex materia is, because you don't seem to have any idea what it is, even though it's apart of classical theism and contemporary theism.
Actually, you would need to claim that in order to claim that God (as opposed to my parents) made me; you'd need to introduce some magical gaps in the biological process via which my parents would have made me, so God could sneak in and cause me to exist. Hence occasionalism.
No I don't. Please try not to make stuff up. Thanks.
Even if this universe is past finite, it still would be the case that your God does not exist and your God did not cause the universe to exist.
You are arguing against him by using an incoherent theology composed of made-up, knowably false claims.
You're saying otherwise, as you invent supernatural causes for natural occurences.
Again, knowably false nonsense. I already know who caused me to exist: my parents, via creatio ex materia. It's absurd to claim that God caused me to exist as opposed to my parents being the cause, just as it's absurd to claim that God caused AIDS to exist as opposed to HIV being the cause.
I knew that you didn't know that.
False claim that runs afoul of creatio ex materia.
You think motion is "non-material"? *sigh* It's a material process.
And you seem to fallaciously assume that if something is a consequence, then that thing cannot be created. That's absurd. For example, I'm a (causal) consequence of a my parents having sex, but that doesn't change the fact that my parents caused me to exist via creatio ex materia. And heat is a (broadly logical) consequence of the motion of particles, but that doesn't change the fact that heat can be caused to exist.
Yes I would, since there are quite a number of metaphysically possible scenarios under which I would exist, but God would not.
No, I'm just applying something to you that you're apparently not familiar with: actual contemporary Christian theology. What I said to you comes from folks like Plantinga, Swinburne, and Craig. Do you think Christian theology is overly complicated?
Same mistake that Christians philosophers like Plantinga and Swinburne have taken pains to correct. Remember, that your claim was that God was logically necessary:So the necessity under discussion here is logical necessity. Given this, your conclusion that:
Occurrences are created via creatio ex materia, the only observed form of creation.
No, but re-arranging non-lamp materials into a lamp, creates a new lamp in that location; that is: the lamp is created via creatio ex materia.
Motion is an observable, material process. It can be created via creatio ex materia, just like any other material process. For example, I can create some motion by causally affecting the door of my front door.
I am using "caused" and "creation" is just the way they are used in philosophy. If you don't know what "creatio ex materia" is, then look it up. To say that you are using "the classical theist definition" makes no sense, since classical theists (including many Christians) already used the idea of "creatio ex materia". They basically lifted it from Greeks like Aristotle, though of course, some theists came up with the idea independently of the Greeks.
And yes, knifes are created... via creatio ex materia, the only observed form of creation. Creatio ex nihilo is unobserved nonsense, that likely isn't even coherent.
No, it wasn't, and you don't have a shred of evidence that it was, anymore than a witchdoctor has evidence that evil spirits caused a sickness. The materials were caused to exist by previously existent matter.
Again, no he didn't. The elements were caused to exist by previously existent elements.
And as I told you before, causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is not the same thing as causing X's existence.
That's not all your claiming. You're claiming that since God acts as a cause, humans can't. Also, fallacious reasoning on your part: causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is not the same thing as sustaining X's existence in reality. For example, my grandparents made by infant parents, and my infant parents are a distal causal presursor of me. Yet that does not mean my grandparents sustain my existence in reality. In fact, my grandparents could die, and I would still exist.
You're claiming otherwise since you're the one claiming that causing the existence of X's distal causal presursors is same thing as causing X's existence.
That's what causation and creation actually are.
No, something new was created via creatio ex materia. What was created was a new mental state that was not there before.
Again, you seem to have no clue what "creatio ex materia" is. Creatio ex materia does not require that one create brand new materials ex nihilo. And there is something new: some new state that was not present before. Saying that "[i]t's still the same materials", does nothing to change this.
No, it's incoherent. Period.
A claim for which you likely have no evidence. Knowing you, you're probably just equivocate on the term "eternal".
You seem to be missing the point. You made a point about laws of gravitation being made by God. I then pointed out to you that:
"Even if one is a theist one can't claim that, since on even on contemporary physics, there was a state of affairs at which the modern laws of physics (including those for gravity) break down. So laws of gravitation would not apply at that state of matter."
Notice that I didn't say our undrstanding of the laws breaks down. Instead, the laws themselves breakdown; that is: the laws no longer apply. So your point about "our understanding" does not apply to what I said. Furthermore, I just showed you're making stuff up: you're just randomly claiming that God made stuff, without any evidence that God made that stuff. For instance, you claimed that God made the laws of gravitation, even though we already know that there were early stages in the universe's existence, where such gravitational laws breakdown and thus were not existent. Yet you claim they were in existence and were mad by God. Bill, this is what happens when you simply make stuff up for the sake of your theology, without understanding what you're discussing.A claim for which you have no evidence. There are quite a number of scientists who'd argue that the state in question was lawless.
Made-up, incoherent claims for which you have no evidence.
Again, you're making stuff up. There are quite a number of scientists who'd argue that the state in question was lawless.
Of course I have evidence you're wrong. Spent a thread discussing it. You just ignore that evidence, sort of like how you ignore evidence on AGW. That's how your denialist works.
Again, you're making stuff up about physics. You really have to be ill-informed on physics, to think that all my body's atoms have existed since the beginning of the universe (if the universe began to exist). For example, you'd have to be ignorant of how nuclear fusion resulted in the existence of new, heavier atoms, via creatio ex materia.
My parents created me via creatio ex materia.
Nope, as reflected in your lack of understanding of how atoms are created via creatio ex materia.
That's nice. Tell me when you have evidence for your claims.
My parents created me via creatio ex materia. If you doubt this, then it's looks like you're a denialist about reproductive biology as well.
If you know that, then you'd admit that my parents created me via creatio ex materia. Yet you seem unable to do that.
Irrelevant, since my parents can create me via creatio ex materia, without my parents needing to create all of my atoms ex nihilo and even if my atoms existed before I existed. Again, I seriously suggest you look up what creatio ex materia is, because you don't seem to have any idea what it is, even though it's apart of classical theism and contemporary theism.
Actually, you would need to claim that in order to claim that God (as opposed to my parents) made me; you'd need to introduce some magical gaps in the biological process via which my parents would have made me, so God could sneak in and cause me to exist. Hence occasionalism.
No I don't. Please try not to make stuff up. Thanks.
Even if this universe is past finite, it still would be the case that your God does not exist and your God did not cause the universe to exist.
You are arguing against him by using an incoherent theology composed of made-up, knowably false claims.
You're saying otherwise, as you invent supernatural causes for natural occurences.
Again, knowably false nonsense. I already know who caused me to exist: my parents, via creatio ex materia. It's absurd to claim that God caused me to exist as opposed to my parents being the cause, just as it's absurd to claim that God caused AIDS to exist as opposed to HIV being the cause.
I knew that you didn't know that.
False claim that runs afoul of creatio ex materia.
You think motion is "non-material"? *sigh* It's a material process.
And you seem to fallaciously assume that if something is a consequence, then that thing cannot be created. That's absurd. For example, I'm a (causal) consequence of a my parents having sex, but that doesn't change the fact that my parents caused me to exist via creatio ex materia. And heat is a (broadly logical) consequence of the motion of particles, but that doesn't change the fact that heat can be caused to exist.
Yes I would, since there are quite a number of metaphysically possible scenarios under which I would exist, but God would not.
No, I'm just applying something to you that you're apparently not familiar with: actual contemporary Christian theology. What I said to you comes from folks like Plantinga, Swinburne, and Craig. Do you think Christian theology is overly complicated?
Same mistake that Christians philosophers like Plantinga and Swinburne have taken pains to correct. Remember, that your claim was that God was logically necessary:So the necessity under discussion here is logical necessity. Given this, your conclusion that:
"God/Gods is necessary in order to begin the process of creation"
does not follow from what you wrote. To see why, note that we've known since at least Hume that causes are not logically necessary for their effects. For example, suppose a ball's movement is caused by the motion of a baseball bat. It's still logically possible for the ball's movement to have been caused by something else, such as the motion of a foot. Similarly, suppose I was caused to exist by my parents, via creatio ex materia. It's still logically possible for me to have been caused to exist via IVF through creatio ex materia. So pointing out that God caused the universe to exist, does not show that God is logically necessary for the beginning of creation. There are other logically possible scenarios under which the universe begins, without God. To put it in a slogan form: causal necessity is not logical necessity. This is a point that many Christian philosophers like Plantinga and Swinburne, take pains to emphasize. And as I explained to you before, God's existence is not logically necessary, even on traditional theism. At best, God's existence would be metaphysically necessary, though I wouldn't even grant that, for the reasons I went over in my previous post.Occurrences are created via creatio ex materia, the only observed form of creation.
No, but re-arranging non-lamp materials into a lamp, creates a new lamp in that location; that is: the lamp is created via creatio ex materia.
Motion is an observable, material process. It can be created via creatio ex materia, just like any other material process. For example, I can create some motion by causally affecting the door of my front door.
Comment