Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since I'm not sure what "the first potential is actualized" means, are you saying that this 'creator' is part and parcel of the first instance of 'time'?

No.
By potential I mean something that could exist but doesn't. By actualisation I mean it being realised or created.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence please - given that creation involves something that doesn't exist at one point in time and then does exist at a later point in time, how can time be created as there cannot be a point in time before time exists.

As so often you are talking complete non-sense Vlad.

But actually until you actually provide a cogent definition for 'created' then the whole discussion is completely pointless.

This is an argument.
Like your argument except yours palpably don't stack up and are in any case unevidenced. I have stated what I mean by created.

[Gordon]

No.
By potential I mean something that could exist but doesn't. By actualisation I mean it being realised or created.

So - does that apply to your proposed 'creator' too? If so, how does a potential 'creator' get 'actualised'?

[Maeght]

I'd contend that we can tell when something has been woven in. How about in Matthew 28, when the women are suddenly greeted by Jesus? This is odd, as it follows straight on from the angel's message to the women about going to Galilee, which Jesus essentially repeats. Also why would they be told by the angel that they would see him in Galilee, and then see him a few minutes later? These verses (Mt 28:9-10) must have been inserted into the original text.

And I'd contend that you can't know what has been woven in and what hasn't. There are passages which have clearly been inserted I'd agree but additional elements to the story being included before they were written, down during the oral history transmission stage, is more what I was referring to.

[Spud]

These are just anecdotes, Spud - your claim that they represent 'evidence' is, quite frankly, infantile.

If we were trying to establish who murdered someone, and all we had were anecdotes, we would assume they were telling the truth if they both gave away the same detail but in independent ways. For example, Mary Magdalene held onto Jesus' feet, according to Matthew 28, and according to John 20, she held onto him in general. The differences show that Matthew and John were not colluding, but the common element in their description suggests that they were not making it up.

[Maeght]

If we were trying to establish who murdered someone, and all we had were anecdotes, we would assume they were telling the truth if they both gave away the same detail but in independent ways. For example, Mary Magdalene held onto Jesus' feet, according to Matthew 28, and according to John 20, she held onto him in general. The differences show that Matthew and John were not colluding, but the common element in their description suggests that they were not making it up.

We wouldn't assume they were telling the truth if they were writing down stories they had heard that had been in circulation for some time years after the events when they may have heard the same stories.

[Spud]

And I'd contend that you can't know what has been woven in and what hasn't. There are passages which have clearly been inserted I'd agree but additional elements to the story being included before they were written, down during the oral history transmission stage, is more what I was referring to.

Are you thinking of miracles being woven into oral transmission of Jesus' teaching? But the teaching is sometimes woven into the story of a miracle: John does this with the feeding of the 5000, for example. Without the miracle, there would have been no discussion about Jesus as the true bread that comes down from heaven.

[Maeght]

Are you thinking of miracles being woven into oral transmission of Jesus' teaching? But the teaching is sometimes woven into the story of a miracle: John does this with the feeding of the 5000, for example. Without the miracle, there would have been no discussion about Jesus as the true bread that comes down from heaven.

Yes, miracles and other things, to link Jesus to the Old Testament for example. No idea what point you are making in your example though I'm afraid. Could you clarify that?

[Spud]

We wouldn't assume they were telling the truth if they were writing down stories they had heard that had been in circulation for some time years after the events when they may have heard the same stories.

We would if they got the minor details right - that would show that the reports had to have been first or second hand.

[Maeght]

We would if they got the minor details right - that would show that the reports had to have been first or second hand.

No. The details could have come from the same initial stories that circulated around and were heard by the gospel authors who included those details in their accounts years later. Minor details can indicate common sources or copying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So - does that apply to your proposed 'creator' too? If so, how does a potential 'creator' get 'actualised'?

No there is never the situation when the unactualised actualiser is a potential rather than existent.

Other creators, I.e. anything which gives rise to something else are actualised.

[Nearly Sane]

No there is never the situation when the unactualised actualiser is a potential rather than existent.

Other creators, I.e. anything which gives rise to something else are actualised.

Special pleading.

[Spud]

Yes, miracles and other things, to link Jesus to the Old Testament for example. No idea what point you are making in your example though I'm afraid. Could you clarify that?

Yes, in John 6 the miracle links Jesus to the OT.

My point is that the miracle was recorded in Matthew as part of his narrative in which Jesus withdraws after hearing about John the Baptist's execution. Without it, all we would have would be "he stepped ashore and saw a large crowd". In John 6, all we would have without the miracles would be "After this, Jesus  crossed to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias). 2A large crowd followed Him [because they saw the signs He was performing on the sick]. 3Then Jesus went up on the mountain and sat down with His disciples."

[Spud]

No. The details could have come from the same initial stories that circulated around and were heard by the gospel authors who included those details in their accounts years later. Minor details can indicate common sources or copying.

The minor details (names, places etc) wouldn't have survived years of oral circulation of the stories.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Special pleading.

Your assertion, your burden.
I'm just going by the principle of sufficient reason. The reason being that for why there is something rather than nothing. Now you yourself doubt whether there can be nothing.
So what then is it that you think I am specially pleading?

[ProfessorDavey]

No.
By potential I mean something that could exist but doesn't. By actualisation I mean it being realised or created.

How can you know whether something exists or does not exist if time doesn't exist.

And again your terms 'realised' and 'created' are completely time determined - it didn't exist at one point in time and then it does exist at a later point in time. Doesn't work unless you assume time to be constant and, critically, unilinear.

[Gordon]

If we were trying to establish who murdered someone, and all we had were anecdotes, we would assume they were telling the truth if they both gave away the same detail but in independent ways.

Then you would be very stupid: what if they were colluding in lies or were both recounting lies told to them by others? At the very least you'd have to find a way of resolving that risk else you could be accused of being naively gullible.

For example, Mary Magdalene held onto Jesus' feet, according to Matthew 28, and according to John 20, she held onto him in general. The differences show that Matthew and John were not colluding, but the common element in their description suggests that they were not making it up.

Yet they could well have been making it up - since you can't check then you'd need a lorry-load of pinches of salt to take this seriously.

[Nearly Sane]

Your assertion, your burden.
I'm just going by the principle of sufficient reason. The reason being that for why there is something rather than nothing. Now you yourself doubt whether there can be nothing.
So what then is it that you think I am specially pleading?

  You are saying a rule applies except when it doesn't - that's special pleading.

Note you haven't evidenced the rule you cite to start with simply asserted it.

What I've said as regards to nothing is that since existence is a time based concept, talking about it existing isn't coherent.

[ProfessorDavey]

So - does that apply to your proposed 'creator' too? If so, how does a potential 'creator' get 'actualised'?

Oh no - Vlad is crushed between infinite regress and special pleading.

[Gordon]

No there is never the situation when the unactualised actualiser is a potential rather than existent.

Other creators, I.e. anything which gives rise to something else are actualised.

So were back to 'prime mover' stuff - if something can exist without a cause, which does seem like a rather convenient way to manufacture a stop to an infinite regress of your own creation, then why cannot that apply to the Universe, or is that status reserved for your choice of 'God', which is unreconstructed special pleading.

Of course there are other positions you could adopt - my own preference is 'don't know' and/or 'not knowable'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  You are saying a rule applies except when it doesn't - that's special pleading.

Note you haven't evidenced the rule you cite to start with simply asserted it.

What I've said as regards to nothing is that since existence is a time based concept, talking about it existing isn't coherent.

I think you are mistaking evidence for proof.
Am I justified in suggesting there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. Yes. Is there an alternative that can be equally plead? The alternative is literally nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So were back to 'prime mover' stuff - if something can exist without a cause, which does seem like a rather convenient way to manufacture a stop to an infinite regress of your own creation, then why cannot that apply to the Universe, or is that status reserved for your choice of 'God', which unreconstructed special pleading.

Of course there are other positions you could adopt - my own preference is 'don't know' and/or 'not knowable'.

gibberish.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are mistaking evidence for proof.
Am I justified in suggesting there is a reason why there is something rather than nothing. Yes. Is there an alternative that can be equally plead? The alternative is literally nothing.

I see you are mistaking assertion for evidence, and logic.

[ProfessorDavey]

So were back to 'prime mover' stuff - if something can exist without a cause, which does seem like a rather convenient way to manufacture a stop to an infinite regress of your own creation, then why cannot that apply to the Universe, or is that status reserved for your choice of 'God', which is unreconstructed special pleading.

Of course there are other positions you could adopt - my own preference is 'don't know' and/or 'not knowable'.

Absolutely.

The problem (well actually one of the many problems) with Vlad's approach is that he nails his colours totally to the notion for the need for a creator, thereby dismissing all other possibilities (despite the fact that most evidence-based theories on the origins of the universe are not based on the need for a creator).

So while we keep our options open (by the way, that includes the possibility of a creator) and follow the evidence, Vlad has already made up his mind that all those creator-free theories must, a priori, be wrong cos Vlad says so.

It's almost as if he is using a preformed faith-based opinion to determine what he thinks must be right and wrong regardless of evidence and cogency of argument

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you are mistaking assertion for evidence, and logic.

Not really, Am I specially pleading, not sure since we are left with two alternatives, a reason why there is something rather than nothing and  nothing.

In terms of evidence, there is ample evidence of contingency but non for things that are not contingent.

Everything else then is argument.

Illogical? It's you who has been flying the flag for a nothing and as far as I can tell suspending the principle of sufficient reason at a certain point. Now THAT'S what I call special pleading.
Once again plenty of evidence for contingency
None for non contingency. That is done through philosophical argument.