A Couple of Fair Questions

[Lambert]

I am not Sam, but there is no such a thing as beginning to exist if existence is the essence called to exist prior to its form. This so becomes Design by Intelligence from within, where RNA are the building blocks for DNA. Then if you add that RNA is convertible from the outside in, it follows that DNA is convertible from the inside out the be the efficient cause of the Intelligent Design that science is trying to figure out by looking at it from the outside in.

You're not the reincarnation of Martin Heidegger, are you?
 

Never read Heidegger, but even a painter must have an image in mind before he starts his work, and we just have a plan so we know what we are going to do before we start, as does an architect, and he relies on the material data sheet of the components to be used.

[Lambert]

Yes but reason is the enemy of intuition and that is why illumination is not a product of thinking.

Intuition is the friend of reason.  After all, reason would not be possible without intuition.  There are only so many times you can ask, "How do you know that?" before you arrive at an a-priori item of knowledge.

//

Sure, intuition is the friend of reason until you begin to think. What you are saying is that all of our primaries are prior to us from intuition, and from there science becomes the exercise of validation them, kind of like the ambition of proving yourself right, that so becomes an uncovery instead of a discovery.   

[rjonesx]

As the starter of this thread (and a theist), I have to admit I remain unconvinced. I think that Carroll has a point that the atheist / naturalist is not bound to assume there was a cause.

[Lambert]

As the starter of this thread (and a theist), I have to admit I remain unconvinced. I think that Carroll has a point that the atheist / naturalist is not bound to assume there was a cause.

I do not have the science on it to say 'yes or no,' but this picture clearly shows that with all those people in our mind we clearly are not the only one who makes the choice.

Then notice that Adam was not even inside the place where the choice is made, and here we think that he is the free agent in us?

Hmm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo_-_Creation_of_Adam.jpg

Oh, and do not miss the human skull as the backdrop of the main frame where the decisions are made.

[The Watcher]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.--since nothingness has no properties and is thus indiscriminate.  Taking this further, it seems perfectly plausible that in a world which allows things to come out of nothing, an item could pop into being uncaused and immediately obey the laws of physics and physical causal restraints it now finds itself in.  For in Carroll's world, it is only ontological entities which are restricted by the causal principle.  An existing chair, for instance, must obey cause and effect and the physical laws upon which cause and effect are based.  But if the chair doesn't exist, then it doesn't have to obey this causal principle and can come to be uncaused.  Which begets the question, why don't more things come into existence causeless given Carroll's physical causal principle?  Why has it only happened once, as a universe?  The fact there has only been a creation ex nihilo event once actually supports Craig's position (which predicts it), not Carroll's.  We don't see violations of ex nihilo nihil fit when we should all the time on Carroll's metaphysics.

This isn't to say that the universe is the only entity which began to be, certainly you and I are two further examples.  There is no need to grant any reductionist assumptions. 

[redtilt1]

Sam, do you have any examples of thing beginning to exist ex nihlo?

You mean besides the universe?  I don't know.  I think it's possible that energy is created ex-nihilo every time the direction of causation is from the mind to the brain, for example when we act out of a belief or desire.  It's a solution I came up with to the interaction problem that I'm not totally sold on.

Yes I do mean beside the unvierse and what I meant by do you have any examples I mean something cocnrete , not something you just made up like the mind brain example you gave above.

[Ocean]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Two things,

1) as 'caused' intelligent beings looking back toward a 'singularity', our perspective is biased by the laws of our universe. We are imprisoned in anthropomorph-land. We cannot attain the unattainable nor can we imagine that which is not accessible to us. "No eye has seen or...." We are only able to guess thoughts available to us, the singularity point of existence and before are the nanosecond (the moment time began and the term moment had meaning) spirit to material...a secret God may show us after we meet Him face to face...

2) Spirit 'spoke' matter, energy and information into existence....that doesn't work in reverse.

[Lambert]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.--since nothingness has no properties and is thus indiscriminate.  Taking this further, it seems perfectly plausible that in a world which allows things to come out of nothing, an item could pop into being uncaused and immediately obey the laws of physics and physical causal restraints it now finds itself in.  For in Carroll's world, it is only ontological entities which are restricted by the causal principle.  An existing chair, for instance, must obey cause and effect and the physical laws upon which cause and effect are based.  But if the chair doesn't exist, then it doesn't have to obey this causal principle and can come to be uncaused.  Which begets the question, why don't more things come into existence causeless given Carroll's physical causal principle?  Why has it only happened once, as a universe?  The fact there has only been a creation ex nihilo event once actually supports Craig's position (which predicts it), not Carroll's.  We don't see violations of ex nihilo nihil fit when we should all the time on Carroll's metaphysics.

This isn't to say that the universe is the only entity which began to be, certainly you and I are two further examples.  There is no need to grant any reductionist assumptions.

Sorry to say, but if Dr. Craig (PhD and all) thinks that God can make chairs, kitchen tables and all ex-nihilo, he probably does not understand what ex-nihilo creation is all about.

Ex-nihilo creation refers to the essence of being only, that is prior to it's material cause. It means that essence precedes existence as in Gen.1 where nothing is formed, and then in Gen. 2 form is given to the images and that includes a plan of salvation built inside nature.

Next, the universe has no existence of being and therefore is not created all to be, and hence does not exist. The same is true with time; it just does not exist.

[redtilt1]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.--since nothingness has no properties and is thus indiscriminate.  Taking this further, it seems perfectly plausible that in a world which allows things to come out of nothing, an item could pop into being uncaused and immediately obey the laws of physics and physical causal restraints it now finds itself in.  For in Carroll's world, it is only ontological entities which are restricted by the causal principle.  An existing chair, for instance, must obey cause and effect and the physical laws upon which cause and effect are based.  But if the chair doesn't exist, then it doesn't have to obey this causal principle and can come to be uncaused.  Which begets the question, why don't more things come into existence causeless given Carroll's physical causal principle?  Why has it only happened once, as a universe?  The fact there has only been a creation ex nihilo event once actually supports Craig's position (which predicts it), not Carroll's.  We don't see violations of ex nihilo nihil fit when we should all the time on Carroll's metaphysics.

This isn't to say that the universe is the only entity which began to be, certainly you and I are two further examples.  There is no need to grant any reductionist assumptions.

the WLc is contradicting hismelf, suppose something can come from nothing, woudl we ever observe this? No becuase we dont ever observe "nothing" we dont live in nothing. Accroding to WLC that vacuum isnt even nothing.

[Lambert]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.--since nothingness has no properties and is thus indiscriminate.  Taking this further, it seems perfectly plausible that in a world which allows things to come out of nothing, an item could pop into being uncaused and immediately obey the laws of physics and physical causal restraints it now finds itself in.  For in Carroll's world, it is only ontological entities which are restricted by the causal principle.  An existing chair, for instance, must obey cause and effect and the physical laws upon which cause and effect are based.  But if the chair doesn't exist, then it doesn't have to obey this causal principle and can come to be uncaused.  Which begets the question, why don't more things come into existence causeless given Carroll's physical causal principle?  Why has it only happened once, as a universe?  The fact there has only been a creation ex nihilo event once actually supports Craig's position (which predicts it), not Carroll's.  We don't see violations of ex nihilo nihil fit when we should all the time on Carroll's metaphysics.

This isn't to say that the universe is the only entity which began to be, certainly you and I are two further examples.  There is no need to grant any reductionist assumptions.

the WLc is contradicting hismelf, suppose something can come from nothing, woudl we ever observe this? No becuase we dont ever observe "nothing" we dont live in nothing. Accroding to WLC that vacuum isnt even nothing.

Correct, and that is because nothing means no-thing because the 'thinginess' as being the essence for the thing that was created ex-nihilo for it "to be" is not prior to its form in the same way as the horseness of the horse is prior to the horse.

This is where paralogism is 'outside talk' opposite to neologism where the horse is seen from the inside out.

It is from here that paralogism is the paradox to be resolved that is emergent from hyletic vision as the basis for kinetic vision with a promise to unfold that will take us to telic vison in which the primary is exposed the scientific way for all to see.

Then if you consider that the kinetic promise was ours by intuition, it follows that the primary of the experiment was subliminally ours before the test began . . . that in the end means that we are omniscient in the fullness of our intuit mind.

[pat1911]

After watching the Carroll debate, I felt there was one question that needed to be dealt with and I was wondering if some of you had an opinion on them.

How do we respond to the objection that "causality" is a weak premise in that the only time something truly "began to exist" was at the big bang.  The argument goes something like this... We only have evidence that causation is true of things that already exist - that is to say matter/energy/etc. transform from one into another and a cause and effect are described at that point. We do not have evidence causation is true of things that did begin to exist because we have no observation of anything that began to exist, much less of something prior to it beginning to exist.

Of course, we can easily make the claim that IF something began to exist and it IF it has a cause, that cause cannot carry the properties of what began to exist (otherwise it did not, in fact, begin to exist).

Any thoughts?

Well I think Carroll shot himself in the foot when he said, 'I explained the reason why causation does not apply to the universe.'
lol

[osmosis321]

But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.

No it's not special pleading for two different things to have two different explanations.
Furthermore, it is fundamentally incorrect to try to take a rule of this universe and apply it to the very origin of those rules.
I'm fairly sure Craig knows this and is simply lying when he repeats the KCA.  He ought to know it's fallacious.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

But if a person wants to make an arbitrary exception in the case of things that begin to exist ex-nihilo, then that strikes me as a classic case of special pleading.

No it's not special pleading for two different things to have two different explanations.
Furthermore, it is fundamentally incorrect to try to take a rule of this universe and apply it to the very origin of those rules.
I'm fairly sure Craig knows this and is simply lying when he repeats the KCA.  He ought to know it's fallacious.

This is not a "rule of the universe;" this a contraint on reality. If, to avoid the conclusion of a transcendent cause, one needs to posit the universe came into existence uncaused and our of nothing, I sincerely feel sorry for the athiest in that position.

Furthermore, if you don't equate a thing with its parts, the objection that this thread is about is meaningless. The only person who should be affected by this argument is the person that thinks a thing is the same as Its parts.

[osmosis321]

Dr. Craig pointed out that a world which allows universes to come into being uncaused will also allow anything else to come into being--tables, chairs, clouds of electrons, black holes, planets, etc.

This is just BS, plain and simple.  Craig is really stretching the imagination here.  Our universe didn't suddenly appear as is, it evolved like this.  So for him to say a chair is just as likely as this universe, is for him to try to pull a fast one.
And again, this stuff about the universe needing a cause is yet more BS from Craig. Composition fallacy through and through.  As Carroll noted, "I know Dr. Craig says he's not doing this, but then he does it"

[osmosis321]

This is not a "rule of the universe;" this a contraint on reality.

Nope.  Rule of this universe.  I highly doubt you even know what "constraint on reality" even means and I'm sure as heck not about to entertain anything you say on the subject.

to avoid the conclusion of a transcendent cause, one needs to posit the universe came into existence uncaused and our of nothing, I sincerely feel sorry for the athiest in that position.

You're just like Craig, in that you're not even wrong.  The universe didn't "come into existence" in the way you want to say it did.  Even if it did, it does not follow that it needed a cause because cause and effect is a rule of this universe, not a "constraint on reality" as you so laughably tried to claim.
You're also like Craig in that you're reduced to argument from personal incredulity and argument from ignorance.