Correlation

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is an entire eternal universe hillside. But what is it which makes it change?
Hence the observed category of derived ability/power/potential but more importantly no mention of a beginning.

You therefore misrepresent my argument ....and that is why we are done.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is an entire eternal universe hillside. But what is it which makes it change?

On your premise of an eternal universe, the forces that have eternally been there. That's what "universe" means – it's not just material stuff, it's forces too.

Hence the observed category of derived ability/power/potential but more importantly no mention of a beginning.

But that's plain stupid. If by "ability/power/potential" you actually mean "forces" (you'll have to forgive me for guessing here as you're unable to tell us what you think mean by these terms) then in an eternal universe they/it didn't begin either. Why then contradict yourself by positing a god to have begun them?

You therefore misrepresent my argument ....and that is why we are done.

Nope - I represent correctly the corner into which you've actually painted yourself. That you can't or won't see it though is another matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

On your premise of an eternal universe, the forces that have eternally been there. That's what "universe" means – it's not just material stuff, it's forces too.

But that's plain stupid. If by "ability/power/potential" you actually mean "forces" (you'll have to forgive me for guessing here as you're unable to tell us what you think mean by these terms) then in an eternal universe they/it didn't begin either. Why then contradict yourself by positing a god to have begun them?

Nope - I represent correctly the corner into which you've actually painted yourself. That you can't or won't see it though is another matter.

Telegram for mr Hillside

Congratulations on your invention of the perpetual motion machine.stop.
Who'd have thought it was special pleading that kept it going?

That aside I see you edging towards the notion of an actual power from which other things are derived.
The trouble now is to demonstrate it rather than its effects and prior to that that we are not just talking at any moment about a force which isn't derived

I think you are moving towards Fesers notion that actual power must be immaterial in the standard sense of matter energy.

Welcome to the club.

[SusanDoris]

Posting to say that I read with interest and admire any posts which attempt to make sense of Vlad's recent (and, of course, many previous) efforts!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Telegram for mr Hillside

Congratulations on your invention of the perpetual motion machine.stop.

Who'd have thought it was special pleading that kept it going?

It’s your “invention”, not mine – you’re the one who’s posited a universe that’s “eternal” remember?

Me, I'm fairly agnostic about that. I'm not sure the question even has meaning to be frank - time is essentially entropy, and without something to be entropic I can't see how there can be time. Either way though, at some point you're going to have to get off the fence: eternal universe = no beginning, therefore no need for a god to start it; not eternal universe = the "everything has a cause, therefore god" cosmological argument daftness. Which do you plump for, or do you intend to keep ducking and diving about this? 

That aside…

Priceless!

… I see you edging towards the notion of an actual power from which other things are derived.

I see you’re edging towards unicorns being real.

Where exactly do you think I did that? (Clue: I’ve done no such thing of course.)

The trouble now is to demonstrate it rather than its effects and prior to that that we are not just talking at any moment about a force which isn't derived

No, your problem now is finally to demonstrate that there’s a hint of an iota of a scintilla of a reason even to think that there is “an actual power from which other things are derived”.

I think you are moving towards Fesers notion that actual power must be immaterial in the standard sense of matter energy.

As I’ve said only pretty much the opposite of that I’m not sure why you persist in the lie, but that’s your business I guess.

Welcome to the club.

Dream on. This “derived ability” nonsense you’re attempting by way – I just ate an apple. Does that mean that the apple had a derived ability to be eaten or something? It’s a weird folkloric model of reality you’re attempting here – essentially you seem to be projecting onto stuff qualities on the basis of the way other stuff can interact with them. I can just about see why the ancient Greeks liked it (they  were keen on al sorts of whacky stuff) but I can’t think why someone around now would give it house room.

Ah well - there's nowt so queer as folk I guess.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

Posting to say that I read with interest and admire any posts which attempt to make sense of Vlad's recent (and, of course, many previous) efforts!

He does seem to be getting awful confused doesn't he. On the one hand he wants to posit a universe eternally old (in which case there'd be nothing to "begin" and so no need for a causal god), and on the other if he wants to posit a universe that did begin he's back to the broken cosmological argument, however much he insists otherwise. I have little hope that he'll ever make his mind up, but you never know - he may surprise us both by finally trying to answer something! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside. You have no handle on what I am proposing at all!

In fact I can but propose, like anyone else the range of cosmogeny and cosmology.

Let's eliminate though a universe with a beginning and set aside the question of why there is anything anyway.

That leaves us in the classic "universe just is position".

We are then asked by you to accept that it goes by itself.

That still leaves what that is driving the perpetual motion.

All your arguments propose an internal actual ability to move itself.

You have abandoned science then and perhaps logic in a mighty act of special pleading.

There are of course other violations of science and logic here in your scheme.

Of course a continual movement suggests continual movement or operation but you have failed to spot the logic and failed to see that you are suggesting it with your talk of forces.

Observed ability or change is derived but logically you cannot only have derived ability without actual ability.

In short we can imagine an endless chain of railway trucks but still have the burden of explaining how they are moving.

Good luck with demonstrating how an infinite chain of railway wagons move themselves or to put it another way, how the motion is derived from the infinity rather than energy.

I would give up using half of Occam's razor in arguments here.

So science doesn't help you out and as far as I can see it Quantum theory doesn't help you since the implication of particles popping in and out of existence merely helps theories of actual power and creator and sustainer theologies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Susan,

He does seem to be getting awful confused doesn't he. On the one hand he wants to posit a universe eternally old (in which case there'd be nothing to "begin" and so no need for a causal god), and on the other if he wants to posit a universe that did begin he's back to the broken cosmological argument, however much he insists otherwise. I have little hope that he'll ever make his mind up, but you never know - he may surprise us both by finally trying to answer something!

I have said that there is a hierarchical chain. Whatever you are doing now depends on the present existence of something else (derived power) right down to what,at the bottom of it it is all dependent on(actual power). That is not an infinite causal chain since you cannot have derived power without
Actual power.

Also the hierarchical chain ends with you in this case.

It's obvious you either didn't watch Feser or you don't understand the argument.

The evidence is your clutching that in some mystical way, this is the Kalam argument. It ain't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Posting to say that I read with interest and admire any posts which attempt to make sense of Vlad's recent (and, of course, many previous) efforts!

He sure sounds Purdee Miss Doris. I bet he uses expensive cologne and smells real good.

I value style in man too.

[wigginhall]

Vlad - how is actual power immaterial?  How do you know this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside. You have no handle on what I am proposing at all!

That’s right. Sadly though, nor do you – presumably because it’s incoherent. 

In fact I can but propose, like anyone else the range of cosmogeny and cosmology.

Let's eliminate though a universe with a beginning and set aside the question of why there is anything anyway.

That leaves us in the classic "universe just is position".

We are then asked by you to accept that it goes by itself.

No, we’re left with a “don’t know with any degree of confidence, but here are some hypotheses that look promising” but ok…

That still leaves what that is driving the perpetual motion.

Of course it doesn’t. What “drives” motion is the forces that act on materials – which themselves are part of the infinitely old universe you posit.

All your arguments propose an internal actual ability to move itself.

You have abandoned science then and perhaps logic in a mighty act of special pleading.

Why even bother lying about that? If you want to posit an infinitely old universe you can’t just split out the “stuff” bits from the forces bits and treat them differently. That really is special pleading.   

There are of course other violations of science and logic here in your scheme.

You’ve yet to identify a first one, and there is no “scheme” – just various hypotheses.

Of course a continual movement suggests continual movement or operation but you have failed to spot the logic and failed to see that you are suggesting it with your talk of forces.

Take a deep breath, and try in comprehensible terms to describe what you think I’ve “forgotten’” exactly.

Observed ability or change is derived but logically you cannot only have derived ability without actual ability.

Presumably I’ll be wasting my breath if I ask you yet again what on earth you even think you mean by “ability”? Did my apple have the "ability" to be eaten? Why so coy?

Yup, thought so. It’s just white noise, however much you seem to be in thrall to it.

In short we can imagine an endless chain of railway trucks but still have the burden of explaining how they are moving.

They’re moving because of the forces acting on them. Why do you think it reasonable to posit on the one hand materials that are infinitely old, but on the other hand forces acting on them that are not?

Good luck with demonstrating how an infinite chain of railway wagons move themselves or to put it another way, how the motion is derived from the infinity rather than energy.

Good luck explaining away your special pleading for forces.

I would give up using half of Occam's razor in arguments here.

A principle you’ve never grasped – why poof into existence “god” when that requires more assumptions than no god?

So science doesn't help you out and as far as I can see it Quantum theory doesn't help you since the implication of particles popping in and out of existence merely helps theories of actual power and creator and sustainer theologies.

Oh dear. The quantum borrowing hypothesis merely suggests one way in which your “something popping out of nothing” is a straw man. Why is this so difficult for you?

I have said that there is a hierarchical chain. Whatever you are doing now depends on the present existence of something else (derived power) right down to what,at the bottom of it it is all dependent on(actual power). That is not an infinite causal chain since you cannot have derived power without Actual power.

Naturally you’ll be along any time now finally to tell us what you mean by “power” here then won’t you.

Won’t you?

Also the hierarchical chain ends with you in this case.

NURSE – COME QUICK, HE’S RANTING GIBBERISH AGAIN!

It's obvious you either didn't watch Feser or you don't understand the argument.

The evidence is your clutching that in some mystical way, this is the Kalam argument. It ain't.

Not as obvious as your complete and utter failure to grasp that it’s just Kalam re-stated.

Coda: Incidentally old son you seem to to be inventing a new theology all of your own. As I understand it, most who posit "God" assert that this god created everything. You on the other hand seem to be arguing for a god who happened one day across an infinitely old (but apparently force-less) universe, and thought: "You know what, all I have to do here is give it a jolt of the old power juice and Robert's yer Auntie's husband".

Well, it's novel - I'll give you that. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Vlad - how is actual power immaterial?  How do you know this?

Be nice too if he tried to explain what he even thinks "immaterial" consists of.

Mind you, I'm quite taken with his notion of god as a starter motor. Not a creator god at all, but rather a god with a big battery who injected some (apparently immaterial) "power" into the stuff that was already there. I could have done with some of that when I was defrosting the car this morning - maybe a prayer would have caused it to fire into life? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - how is actual power immaterial?  How do you know this?

Because matter/energy is in a state of being changed and that is derived.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Be nice too if he tried to explain what he even thinks "immaterial" consists of.

Mind you, I'm quite taken with his notion of god as a starter motor. Not a creator god at all, but rather a god with a big battery who injected some (apparently immaterial) "power" into the stuff that was already there. I could have done with some of that when I was defrosting the car this morning - maybe a prayer would have caused it to fire into life?

Origen believed in something similar and I believe there is a Souther Baptist theologian with similar views.

However, I think it's your view of energy which needs modifying because energy is not monolithic.
In other words energy only is.....if there is a change.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because matter/energy is in a state of being changed and that is derived.

Which has nothing to do with the question. What makes you think it's "immaterial" exactly? Electrical power for example is moving electrons - is that no longer power according to your definition? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Origen believed in something similar and I believe there is a Souther Baptist theologian with similar views.

However, I think it's your view of energy which needs modifying because energy is not monolithic.
In other words energy only is.....if there is a change.

All very gnomic I'm sure, but nothing to do with the problem you've given yourself. Having apparently arbitrarily split the infinitely old material in the universe from the "not infinitely old therefore a god was needed to kick start it" forces in the universe, you still have the basic problem of the cosmological argument in drag: "forces can't come from nothing, therefore god".

Good luck with it though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

All very gnomic I'm sure, but nothing to do with the problem you've given yourself. Having apparently arbitrarily split the infinitely old material in the universe from the "not infinitely old therefore a god was needed to kick start it" forces in the universe, you still have the basic problem of the cosmological argument in drag: "forces can't come from nothing, therefore god".

Good luck with it though.

I have no problem since an Aristotelian argument is good for a universe with a start or one without a start.

What we are left with then is New Atheist bleating when theists suggest an infinite universe and when they suggest a universe with a start.

But at the moment a naturalist argument for an infinite universe is like Anselms ontological argument since it calls on our imaginations.

If you argue that this doesn't work for Anselm then such an argument fails for a naturalistic appeal for us to imagine an infinite universe.

Infinite or not there is always going to be the non infinite chain of actual power and a limited number of derived powers at any moment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have no problem since an Aristotelian argument is good for a universe with a start or one without a start.

Except of course your problem of asserting that “power”, “ability” or whatever other undefined terms you want to poof into existence did have a start - hence “God”.

What we are left with then is New Atheist bleating when theists suggest an infinite universe and when they suggest a universe with a start.

It’s got nothing to do with atheism, new or otherwise. Your broken logic is broken whether or not there are other reasons for thinking there to be god(s). You’re welcome to suggest either an infinite or a finite universe as you please. What you can’t do though is the special pleading of arbitrarily deciding that one part of it (matter) is infinite, whereas a different part of it (forces) is finite. Matter and forces each consist of sub-atomic particles – you have no argument of any kind to explain why for this purpose they should be treated differently.

But at the moment a naturalist argument for an infinite universe is like Anselms ontological argument since it calls on our imaginations.

Oh dear. GIBBERISH ALERT! GIBBERISH ALERT!

You can “call on imaginations” (or as the more sensible call it, conjecture or hypothesise) as much as you like but that has nothing to do with the arbitrary special pleading you’re attempting here.

If you argue that this doesn't work for Anselm then such an argument fails for a naturalistic appeal for us to imagine an infinite universe.

What on earth are you smoking these days? You can imagine whatever takes your fancy. If you want to go beyond imagining though then you need more – like reason and logic and, better yet, evidence.   

Infinite or not there is always going to be the non infinite chain of actual power and a limited number of derived powers at any moment.

And again our Vlad flatly contradicts himself – if “the universe” is infinitely old then on what possible basis would you argue that the bits you call “power”, “ability” etc are not? What would this infinitely old but apparently powerless and ability-less universe that your god tripped over one day have looked like would you say?

Weird weird thinking indeed. Weird theology too by the way if you believe in a god of the omnis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except of course your problem of asserting that “power”, “ability” or whatever other undefined terms you want to poof into existence did have a start - hence “God”.

It’s got nothing to do with atheism, new or otherwise. Your broken logic is broken whether or not there are other reasons for thinking there to be god(s). You’re welcome to suggest either an infinite or a finite universe as you please. What you can’t do though is the special pleading of arbitrarily deciding that one part of it (matter) is infinite, whereas a different part of it (forces) is finite. Matter and forces each consist of sub-atomic particles – you have no argument of any kind to explain why for this purpose they should be treated differently.

Oh dear. GIBBERISH ALERT! GIBBERISH ALERT!

You can “call on imaginations” (or as the more sensible call it, conjecture or hypothesise) as much as you like but that has nothing to do with the arbitrary special pleading you’re attempting here.

What on earth are you smoking these days? You can imagine whatever takes your fancy. If you want to go beyond imagining though then you need more – like reason and logic and, better yet, evidence.   

And again our Vlad flatly contradicts himself – if “the universe” is infinitely old then on what possible basis would you argue that the bits you call “power”, “ability” etc are not? What would this infinitely old but apparently powerless and ability-less universe that your god tripped over one day have looked like would you say?

Weird weird thinking indeed. Weird theology too by the way if you believe in a god of the omnis.

No you still aren't quite there.......indeed you seem to be against both a finite universe and an infinite universe.

What universe then is OK as far as you are concerned?

In any case the Feser argument is good for both an infinite universe sustained moment by moment as supported by quantum theory and derived power which you leave unaddressed.........or a Universe which appears out of nothing.....Physical zilch or a creation from an immaterial uncaused cause.

What is it about an infinite universe that you think is permanent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

. What you can’t do though is the special pleading of arbitrarily deciding that one part of it (matter) is infinite, whereas a different part of it (forces) is finite.

Never suggested this. This is you projecting your own confusion.
We observe change and status to be derived from the actual. If the universe is infinite they have always been derived from the actual.

See. No suggestion of any division of matter......No special pleading....just going along with an antitheists appeal to an infinite universe.

What though do you think is permanent in an infinite universe though since big bang seems to suggest that not even the laws of physics are immune from break down?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you still aren't quite there.......indeed you seem to be against both a finite universe and an infinite universe.

What universe then is OK as far as you are concerned?

I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but yet again – I’m not sure that “infinite” anything is a meaningful term, but either way I’m agnostic about whether or not the universe is infinitely old. If you want to posit an infinite universe though that’s fine by me – what you don’t get to do however is just arbitrarily to take some bits out of it that you’ve decided aren’t infinite after all. That’s called special pleading and it doesn’t wash.

In any case the Feser argument is good for both an infinite universe sustained moment by moment as supported by quantum theory and derived power which you leave unaddressed.........or a Universe which appears out of nothing.....Physical zilch or a creation from an immaterial uncaused cause.

Why are you persisting with this utter bollocks? The Feser argument (or at least the version of it you’ve attempted) just decides that there are things called “power”, “ability” etc with no attempt either to define or to demonstrate them, and then unilaterally asserts these things to require a cause. Finally it puts some lipstick on the pig of the cosmological argument and inserts “God” into the slot that that cause apparently requires.

It’s desperate stuff, but there it is nonetheless.

What is it about an infinite universe that you think is permanent?

He lied.

Again.

If you want to post a universe that’s infinitely old, knock yourself out. So far as I know though you’ve said nothing about whether you think it’s permanent too, and nor for that matter have I. There's nothing about an infinitely old universe that means it can't end tomorrow.

Never suggested this. This is you projecting your own confusion.

We observe change and status to be derived from the actual. If the universe is infinite they have always been derived from the actual.

That’s exactly what you’ve suggested, and in any case if you want to posit an eternal universe then you don’t get to treat some bits of it differently.

See. No suggestion of any division of matter......No special pleading....just going along with an antitheists appeal to an infinite universe.

I’ve no idea what on earth you think “antitheism” has to do with it, but if you’ve now changed your mind and think “the universe” as a whole to be infinite then of course you have no need of a god to begin anything.

Welcome to atheism! 

What though do you think is permanent in an infinite universe though since big bang seems to suggest that not even the laws of physics are immune from break down?

And for those of us working in English?

I see by the way that – as ever – you’ve just ignored every rebuttal of your efforts and kept on lying instead.

What does that say about you do you think?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I don’t know why you keep lying about this, but yet again – I’m not sure that “infinite” anything is a meaningful term, but either way I’m agnostic about whether or not the universe is infinitely old. If you want to posit an infinite universe though that’s fine by me – what you don’t get to do however is just arbitrarily to take some bits out of it that you’ve decided aren’t infinite after all. That’s called special pleading and it doesn’t wash.

Why are you persisting with this utter bollocks? The Feser argument (or at least the version of it you’ve attempted) just decides that there are things called “power”, “ability” etc with no attempt either to define or to demonstrate them, and then unilaterally asserts these things to require a cause. Finally it puts some lipstick on the pig of the cosmological argument and inserts “God” into the slot that that cause apparently requires.

It’s desperate stuff, but there it is nonetheless.

He lied.

Again.

If you want to post a universe that’s infinitely old, knock yourself out. So far as I know though you’ve said nothing about whether you think it’s permanent too, and nor for that matter have I. There's nothing about an infinitely old universe that means it can't end tomorrow.

That’s exactly what you’ve suggested, and in any case if you want to posit an eternal universe then you don’t get to treat some bits of it differently.

I’ve no idea what on earth you think “antitheism” has to do with it, but if you’ve now changed your mind and think “the universe” as a whole to be infinite then of course you have no need of a god to begin anything.

Welcome to atheism! 

And for those of us working in English?

I see by the way that – as ever – you’ve just ignored every rebuttal of your efforts and kept on lying instead.

What does that say about you do you think?

Power and ability are quite clear Hillside.
You have the power and ability or even the potential to do things but all of that is dependent on something else and that is dependent on other things and that is what derived means.
That is quite straight forward your faux ignorance not withstanding.

You cannot have dependent power without it ultimately being actually supplied.
I think you have acknowledged that.
Feser makes the argument for why actual power etc. must be unique because it would be derived otherwise.
I'm sorry Hillside, even an infinite universe doesn't get rid of God easily or at all.

Also there is for your conception of the universe the problem of not being able to produce say......last Tuesday.

If the universe is infinite then the above has always been true. If it is finite then the above has been true for as long as it has existed.


See again, No division of matter energy.
I cant begin to err toward your argument since you don't seem to have one. That leaves you with ''I don't know, but I know it isn't yours''. Debate with that line is as they say a waste of time.

By the way No rebuttals from you.....just assertions of rebuttals so far.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Power and ability are quite clear Hillside.

Good. Then perhaps finally you’ll define what you mean by them, and then demonstrate that the phenomena you’ve defined exist at all.

You have the power and ability or even the potential to do things but all of that is dependent on something else and that is dependent on other things and that is what derived means.

What is this gibberish even supposed to mean? These things aren’t “power” or “ability” at all. Rather what you’re fumbling toward is the idea that matter and forces can act on each other to produce outcomes they don’t posses alone. Well yes, that’s what happens when material things combine but that doesn’t for one moment mean there’s any inherent “power” or such like just lurking away in either or both of them.

There was no “power” or “ability” in the apple I ate today that meant it was somehow equipped to be digested.

Good grief man – can you really not see that this is the nonsense you end up with when your rely for your understanding of the world on the knowledge of the ancient Greeks?

Really?

That is quite straight forward your faux ignorance not withstanding.

It’s straightforwardly ludicrous – on that at least we can agree. How would you propose to identify this “power” etc? Would you weigh it, measure it, hook it up to a voltmeter? What?

You cannot have dependent power without it ultimately being actually supplied.

Er, actually you cannot have “power” of the type you conjecture at all until and unless you can finally demonstrate its existence in the first place. Where would it reside do you think, and in what form exactly? Ectoplasm maybe? Scotch mist perhaps?

I think you have acknowledged that.

Oh stop it now – my sides are splitting…

Feser makes the argument for why actual power etc. must be unique because it would be derived otherwise.

Is he really as idiotic as you are about this stuff? And he’s drawing down a salary for it? Really?

Wow!

I'm sorry Hillside, even an infinite universe doesn't get rid of God easily or at all.

It does if you want to argue for this god on the ground that “He” was necessary to begin it all. It it’s infinite, then it had no beginning.

QED

Also…

“Also…”?

…there is for your conception of the universe the problem of not being able to produce say......last Tuesday.

Oh blimey, he’s gone again. NURSE!

If the universe is infinite then the above has always been true. If it is finite then the above has been true for as long as it has existed.

The above what exactly? Not the wreckage of a thought about last Tuesday surely?

See again, No division of matter energy.

Er no – so far at least, you haven’t returned to that (which is probably just as well by the way).

I cant begin to err toward your argument since you don't seem to have one. That leaves you with ''I don't know, but I know it isn't yours''. Debate with that line is as they say a waste of time.

You really haven’t understood a word of this have you. You're the one “arguing” (ok, asserting actually) “power”, “ability” etc with no logic or evidence of any kind for them. All I need to do is to identify where you go wrong when you do it – a trivially easy thing to do.

That’ll be the burden of proof issue you’ve never understood either.

By the way No rebuttals from you.....just assertions of rebuttals so far.

No - when your attempt at logic is falsified, that’s called a rebuttal. There are lots of them in the last few posts. That you don’t recognise or just lie about them is a different matter though.

Still, you could jus prove me wrong by finally demonstrating these “powers” and “abilities” you so blithely assert to be real.

Over to you then!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Good. Then perhaps finally you’ll define what you mean by them, and then demonstrate that the phenomena you’ve defined exist at all.

What is this gibberish even supposed to mean? These things aren’t “power” or “ability” at all. Rather what you’re fumbling toward is the idea that matter and forces can act on each other to produce outcomes they don’t posses alone. Well yes, that’s what happens when material things combine but that doesn’t for one moment mean there’s any inherent “power” or such like just lurking away in either or both of them.

There was no “power” or “ability” in the apple I ate today that meant it was somehow equipped to be digested.

Good grief man – can you really not see that this is the nonsense you end up with when your rely for your understanding of the world on the knowledge of the ancient Greeks?

Really?

It’s straightforwardly ludicrous – on that at least we can agree. How would you propose to identify this “power” etc? Would you weigh it, measure it, hook it up to a voltmeter? What?

Er, actually you cannot have “power” of the type you conjecture at all until and unless you can finally demonstrate its existence in the first place. Where would it reside do you think, and in what form exactly? Ectoplasm maybe? Scotch mist perhaps?

Oh stop it now – my sides are splitting…

Is he really as idiotic as you are about this stuff? And he’s drawing down a salary for it? Really?

Wow!

It does if you want to argue for this god on the ground that “He” was necessary to begin it all. It it’s infinite, then it had no beginning.

QED

“Also…”?

Oh blimey, he’s gone again. NURSE!

The above what exactly? Not the wreckage of a thought about last Tuesday surely?

Er no – so far at least, you haven’t returned to that (which is probably just as well by the way).

You really haven’t understood a word of this have you. You're the one “arguing” (ok, asserting actually) “power”, “ability” etc with no logic or evidence of any kind for them. All I need to do is to identify where you go wrong when you do it – a trivially easy thing to do.

That’ll be the burden of proof issue you’ve never understood either.

No - when your attempt at logic is falsified, that’s called a rebuttal. There are lots of them in the last few posts. That you don’t recognise or just lie about them is a different matter though.

Still, you could jus prove me wrong by finally demonstrating these “powers” and “abilities” you so blithely assert to be real.

Over to you then!

So an apple has no ability to grow itself by deriving that ability from sunlight which derives it's ability to transfer energy from nuclear reaction and of course you owe nothing to the apple at all.


We are not arguing beginnings here but existence and that is observed to be derived or contingent on something else.
You cannot have derived without an actual.

You would be the one who needs to learn some modern physics old son since energy is only observed as transferred energy.
Not as something monolithic which is what you are suggesting I'm suggesting. That somehow God finds solid energy.
Energy is only realised in its transfer. In other words it is dependent on change. Also we know that the mass of anything is dependent on how much energy is put into it.

The universe is therefore 'dependent' and if infinite.....infinitely so.

Still waiting for a rebuttal.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So an apple has no ability to grow itself by deriving that ability from sunlight which derives it's ability to transfer energy from nuclear reaction and of course you owe nothing to the apple at all.

You’re just abusing the term “ability” again. There’s not some quixotic stuff called “ability” (or “power” either for that matter) residing somehow in the apple. All there is are materials and forces that can sometimes combine or react with other materials and forces. What you’re asserting though is a whole additional layer of property for which there’s no supporting logic or evidence of any kind.

I went for a bike ride yesterday, but when we got to the cafe there were no bike racks. There was though a handy tree, so I chained by bike to it. Does that in your view mean that the tree had the “ability” or some such to be a makeshift bike rack, or did it just happen to be a convenient shape to do the job?

Do you see your problem now?

We are not arguing beginnings here but existence and that is observed to be derived or contingent on something else.
You cannot have derived without an actual.

Nope – there’s stuff that exists only because other stuff has interacted or combined to make it so, but you’re basically just back to cause and effect here – which leads you inexorably to the cosmological argument. Again.

You would be the one who needs to learn some modern physics old son…

You never have done irony have you.

…since energy is only observed as transferred energy.

Actually it isn’t, but no matter. If you want to argue for “transferred” energy nonetheless there’s your basic cause and effect again: A transferred energy to B, B transferred energy to C etc in order to give you a god-shaped hole for where A obtained its energy in the first place.   
 

Not as something monolithic which is what you are suggesting I'm suggesting.

You may want to drop the “monolithic” here as it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. What are you trying to say?

That somehow God finds solid energy.

No. You asserted a “universe” that was infinitely old, and at the same time hat something about that universe must have been kick started by a deity. You can have either of those contentions, but not both.
 

Energy is only realised in its transfer. In other words it is dependent on change. Also we know that the mass of anything is dependent on how much energy is put into it.

The universe is therefore 'dependent' and if infinite.....infinitely so.

You’re still terribly confused. “The universe” means everything – matter and forces (or “energy” if you prefer). If that everything is infinitely old, then by definition there was no beginning, and so no agency was needed to begin it.

Still waiting for a rebuttal.

There are lots of them in the last few posts. That you’ve ignored or lied about them is a matter for you, not me. Your cop out answer  incidentally – just calling anything you want to assert into existence but that has no logic or evidence to support it “immaterial” – is so full of holes that you ought to be working in a Swiss cheese factory.