General Discussion

Apologetics and Theology

Read 640 times

Mammal

  • ****
  • 5724 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2021, 01:21:16 pm »
@ belorg: Exactly.

Or an emergent property of something else, perhaps a quantum SOA, as Gordon argued for elsewhere.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 01:27:34 pm by Mammal »
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

1

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2021, 01:37:51 pm »
@ belorg: Exactly.

Or an emergent property of something else, perhaps a quantum SOA, as Gordon argued for elsewhere.

But the state ontically prior to the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric is not a classically temporal state, and so yes time emerges but it still must be caused by a non-temporal state.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 02:43:11 pm by Harvey »

2

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 15346 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2021, 03:57:23 pm »
I probably am not understanding your point fully, but an effect necessarily follows from its cause. However, the cause ontically precedes the effect. This becomes a temporal relation iff the effect includes a metric.

That is not the issue here. Suppose that in one possible world changeless God creates the universe and in the other he does not. Is there a difference between creating God and non-creating God or are they identical?
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

3

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2021, 04:14:11 pm »
That is not the issue here. Suppose that in one possible world changeless God creates the universe and in the other he does not. Is there a difference between creating God and non-creating God or are they identical?

So, let me translate this:

1) A divine supertask S exists that chooses C but there are no supervisory supertasks that prevented ~C being the eternal output.
2) Had ~C been chosen, there is no finite algorithm that would be able to determine that the divine supertask acted undivinely, but the divine supertask acted necessarily divinely in choosing C.
3) Thus, S behaved freely in its divine and necessary choice to choose C because it could have chosen ~C (i.e., no finite algorithm would judge ~C to be an undivine choice).
4) Thus, in one possible world changeless God creates the universe and in the other he does not then the difference is that the ~C world was decided by a different supertask S'.
5) Thus, S ≠ S'
6) Therefore for the two possible worlds S and S' they are not identical.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 05:01:11 pm by Harvey »

4

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 15346 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2021, 07:23:22 pm »
So, let me translate this:

1) A divine supertask S exists that chooses C but there are no supervisory supertasks that prevented ~C being the eternal output.
2) Had ~C been chosen, there is no finite algorithm that would be able to determine that the divine supertask acted undivinely, but the divine supertask acted necessarily divinely in choosing C.
3) Thus, S behaved freely in its divine and necessary choice to choose C because it could have chosen ~C (i.e., no finite algorithm would judge ~C to be an undivine choice).
4) Thus, in one possible world changeless God creates the universe and in the other he does not then the difference is that the ~C world was decided by a different supertask S'.
5) Thus, S ≠ S'
6) Therefore for the two possible worlds S and S' they are not identical.

It is not a translation, but obfuscation.

If creating God and non-creating God are different AND are timeless/changeless, then the difference between them cannot be the result of something that God does. Thus the property of creating/non-creating is both uncaused and accidental, i.e. a brute fact. God did not choose to create the universe, it just happens that we are in a world in which timeless God has an uncaused accidental property of being creating.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

5

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2021, 07:29:20 pm »
Thus the property of creating/non-creating is both uncaused and accidental, i.e. a brute fact. God did not choose to create the universe, it just happens that we are in a world in which timeless God has an uncaused accidental property of being creating.

But a divine being couldn't not exist if that's the only consistent reality. That's uncaused but it's not without explanation and it's not accidental since God's divine existence is itself necessary.

6

belorg

  • ****
  • 7925 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2021, 11:57:59 pm »
I probably am not understanding your point fully, but an effect necessarily follows from its cause. However, the cause ontically precedes the effect. This becomes a temporal relation iff the effect includes a metric.

That is not the issue here. Suppose that in one possible world changeless God creates the universe and in the other he does not. Is there a difference between creating God and non-creating God or are they identical?

Craig's God is not changeless, but I see what you mean. In one world god has the timeless and beginningless intent to cause X and in another to cause Y. This intent is not caused by anything and it is not necessary either. So, it is a brute fact.

7

Mammal

  • ****
  • 5724 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #37 on: June 11, 2021, 12:50:16 am »
But the state ontically prior to the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric is not a classically temporal state, and so yes time emerges but it still must be caused by a non-temporal state.
The time dimension within it seems like an effect of speed and mass, it could be akin to a spatial dimension when not in effect. It only emerges when the conditions prompt it to, i e. its relative properties are "caused" by relative speed and mass. But how does this affect the argument?
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

8

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 15346 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2021, 03:52:51 am »
But a divine being couldn't not exist if that's the only consistent reality. That's uncaused but it's not without explanation and it's not accidental since God's divine existence is itself necessary.

This is irrelevant to what I wrote.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

9

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #39 on: June 11, 2021, 06:44:23 am »
The time dimension within it seems like an effect of speed and mass, it could be akin to a spatial dimension when not in effect. It only emerges when the conditions prompt it to, i e. its relative properties are "caused" by relative speed and mass. But how does this affect the argument?

Speed is time and mass is spatial, so something more fundamental is happening for time (i.e., temporal processes) to emerge.

10

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #40 on: June 11, 2021, 06:55:26 am »
This is irrelevant to what I wrote.

How so?

Quote
If creating God and non-creating God are different AND are timeless/changeless, then the difference between them cannot be the result of something that God does. Thus the property of creating/non-creating is both uncaused and accidental, i.e. a brute fact. God did not choose to create the universe, it just happens that we are in a world in which timeless God has an uncaused accidental property of being creating.

1) If S and S' are different AND are timeless/changeless, then the difference between them cannot be the result of something that S or S' both do.
2) Thus the property of creating/non-creating is both uncaused and accidental, i.e. a brute fact.
3) Thus, S or S' did not choose to create the universe, it just happens that we are in a world in which timeless S or timeless S has an uncaused contingent (i.e., accidental) property of being creating.
4) S couldn't not exist.
5) Hence, S is what it is out of necessity.
6) S is contingent [from 3]
7) Hence S is necessary and contingent.
8 ) 7 is impossible.
9) Thus, S is not contingent.
10) Therefore, S is not a contingent   or accidental brute fact.

11

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 15346 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2021, 07:36:34 am »
1) If S and S' are different AND are timeless/changeless, then the difference between them cannot be the result of something that S or S' both do.
2) Thus the property of creating/non-creating is both uncaused and accidental, i.e. a brute fact.
3) Thus, S or S' did not choose to create the universe, it just happens that we are in a world in which timeless S or timeless S has an uncaused contingent (i.e., accidental) property of being creating.
4) S couldn't not exist.
5) Hence, S is what it is out of necessity.
6) S is contingent [from 3]
7) Hence S is necessary and contingent.
8 ) 7 is impossible.
9) Thus, S is not contingent.
10) Therefore, S is not a contingent   or accidental brute fact.

LOL.

I might as well write:

8 ) 7 is impossible.
9) Thus, S is not necessary.

If you accept the truth of 3), then the rest of your argument does not follow. If you do not, make an argument against it, instead of... this.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

12

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #42 on: June 11, 2021, 08:13:19 am »
If you accept the truth of 3), then the rest of your argument does not follow. If you do not, make an argument against it, instead of... this.

Your position is:

Quote
If 'changeless' means 'incapable of change', then 'initially changeless' makes no sense - just 'changeless' would do. But then a changeless God cannot do anything. If 'changeless' means 'not undergoing the change', then there is no difference between 'initially changeless' things and 'changing' things.

Do you mean to say this only applies if God is not necessary? Okay, that's fine, but I reject your premise that God is not necessary. If you want to say that it applies even if God is necessary, then my argument stands.

13

Jabberwock

  • *****
  • 15346 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #43 on: June 11, 2021, 08:33:09 am »
Do you mean to say this only applies if God is not necessary? Okay, that's fine, but I reject your premise that God is not necessary. If you want to say that it applies even if God is necessary, then my argument stands.

Lol. It is not argument, you just assert that 3) is false without any argument. And it still does not follow, as 6) does not follow from 3, as I have explained. Unless you believe God has no accidental features, but if you do, then Craig's Kalam is false anyway.
First learn to spell "ironic discussion"...

14

Harvey

  • *****
  • 27097 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: [Kalam] Andrew Loke's Kalam
« Reply #44 on: June 11, 2021, 09:31:29 am »
Lol. It is not argument, you just assert that 3) is false without any argument.

No, if your statement that "[ i]f 'changeless' means 'incapable of change'..." is meant to cover even if God is necessary, then 3 is false if God is necessary -- hence false. Thus, my denial of your conclusion that "God creating is an accidental brute fact" is correct because 3 is false under the conditions you have established.

Quote from: Jabberwock
And it still does not follow, as 6) does not follow from 3, as I have explained. Unless you believe God has no accidental features, but if you do, then Craig's Kalam is false anyway.

I missed your explanation. But, again, it's not that God could not have accidental features but rather His creating was due to His S-reasoning/divine nature and He would arrive at that same reasoning in all worlds.

In any case, 6 is just a summary of what is stated in 3. If S is a supertask that arrives at creating but it does as an accidental feature as you stated, then it is a contingent supertask.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 09:33:40 am by Harvey »