Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.

[Jacob86]

ND & RB:

The reason special science details are irrelevant to the issue at hand is because I am claiming (and I think I can prove) than ANY theory derived by physicists which "explains" the origins of motion without a volitional actor will be a contradiction. IF it is a contradiction, then its details are irrelevant. They might have had some very good and true data, but if they arrive at a contradiction, they've made a mistake somewhere since contradictions do not exist.

That is what is meant when Plasmatic and I refer to this as a PHILOSOPHICAL issue: it is dealing with the logical consistency of ideas/theories and if an idea/theory is proven logically inconsistent, then no special details about that particular idea/theory are relevant.

My position is the volition is required because any other theory is a contradiction. There are likely a MILLION variant theories (supported by some physicist or another), but I do not have the time, patience, or most importantly, the NEED to know their details, IF I can prove that they are contradictions from the get-go.

Does that make sense?

So, this is a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion in which I am attempting to prove that a non-volitional beginning is a contradiction. Your side is attempting to prove that a non-volitional beginning is NOT a contradiction. No special science details necessary. They just lead to endless rabbit trails.

Perhaps you are more of a concrete-bound scientist and are not yet able to communicate in abstract, philosophical terms- that's fine. Go to a scientific debate on the matter and let those who wish to talk philosophy do it here.

[bluecherry]

I really haven't followed this thread much, so I apologize if this has been asked before. Why do you believe there must be a first action of any sort? Supposing existence has always existed, why couldn't the same apply to motion? Cause and effect, after all, are not about chains of one action to another with this action causing that action but rather things behaving according to their natures in any given context. If existence was always here (and, of course, all of existence is one thing, there is no stuff totally cut off from everything else in every way), then it follows there would always be other objects around for everything to interact with and respond to, doesn't it? You couldn't just freeze everything in place and make them not respond to stimuli, that would go against their nature.

[Ninth Doctor]

Perhaps you are more of a concrete-bound scientist and are not yet able to communicate in abstract, philosophical terms- that's fine. Go to a scientific debate on the matter and let those who wish to talk philosophy do it here.

Obviously there’ll be no piercing your veil of ignorance. So, just enjoy the bongo video, I know that the other one, and the point it makes relevant to this topic, is not going to penetrate.

[RationalBiker]

Go to a scientific debate on the matter and let those who wish to talk philosophy do it here.

Given that you did not start this thread, you don't get to establish the ground rules, who participates, or the limits of their participation. What you do get to do, is ignore those posts that you don't think are relevant to your argument. If you want to debate strictly philosophically, you can go start another thread and set the ground rules.

[Dante]

My position is the volition is required because any other theory is a contradiction. There are likely a MILLION variant theories (supported by some physicist or another), but I do not have the time, patience, or most importantly, the NEED to know their details, IF I can prove that they are contradictions from the get-go.

Does that make sense?

So, this is a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion in which I am attempting to prove that a non-volitional beginning is a contradiction. Your side is attempting to prove that a non-volitional beginning is NOT a contradiction. No special science details necessary. They just lead to endless rabbit trails.

But the premise that you are relying on, that the only two possible causes of motion are previous motion or volition of some kind (correct me if I'm misstating that) is a scientific claim about what kinds of things are possible in the universe. Furthermore, it is a claim which is much more suspect in a quantum-mechanical universe of vacuum energy and particles winking in and out of existence randomly, than it was in a classical universe where space is, well, simply empty space within which objects interact.

[Plasmatic]

Equivocating? How pedantic can you get? It was a list, an incomplete and deliberately disparate list of physics concepts that apply to “everything that exists”, and not necessarily to motion. Though, glancing again at the examples, they do all apply to motion in one context or another. Small wonder there, that would be hard to avoid, motion is about as basic a concept as can be.

You call me pedantic her for following your earlier line of reasoning regarding the relation of motion to physics:

How is one to know what “motion” even is, without reference to physics?

which in spite of your "deliberate" claim, you concede do in fact relate to motion.And the you reassert the same point I was addressing with the equivocation.

Does a toddler need to understand conservation of energy to form a rudimentary version of the concept “motion”? Of course not, but a philosopher better have graduated to a more sophisticated, informed, and integrated concept before pontificating about prime movers, first causes, “reactions” and “volition”.

As well as simply reassert your position that special knowledge of physics is necessary to integrate for philosophers without argument.

[Plasmatic]

But the premise that you are relying on, that the only two possible causes of motion are previous motion or volition of some kind (correct me if I'm misstating that) is a scientific claim about what kinds of things are possible in the universe.

Dante Im just curious,are you saying you think that all claims of what is possible in the universe are decided in the special science realm? I know your statement doesnt necessarily claiming that so thats why Im asking.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Plasmatic

[Jacob86]

I really haven't followed this thread much, so I apologize if this has been asked before. Why do you believe there must be a first action of any sort? Supposing existence has always existed, why couldn't the same apply to motion? Cause and effect, after all, are not about chains of one action to another with this action causing that action but rather things behaving according to their natures in any given context. If existence was always here (and, of course, all of existence is one thing, there is no stuff totally cut off from everything else in every way), then it follows there would always be other objects around for everything to interact with and respond to, doesn't it? You couldn't just freeze everything in place and make them not respond to stimuli, that would go against their nature.

It's true that objects act according to their natures, but the nature of an object is such that it either moves of its own accord (volitionally) or as a reaction to some prior action. An eternity of REactions is impossible because a REaction by definition necessitates an initiatory action. An infinite regress is impossible.

Make sense?

[dream_weaver]

An infinite regress is contradictory. Why do you attempt desire to assign time to that which is outside of time does not apply (eternity)?

Edited July 12, 2011 by dream_weaver

[Ninth Doctor]

It's true that objects act according to their natures, but the nature of an object is such that it either moves of its own accord (volitionally) or as a reaction to some prior action. An eternity of REactions is impossible because a REaction by definition necessitates an initiatory action. An infinite regress is impossible.

Make sense?

I’m wondering about something, in this fantasy cosmological scenario you’ve developed, was matter formed, cooled down to zero degrees Kelvin (aka absolute zero), and then set in motion by God? I ask because I doubt you’re aware that matter is created, or you might say transformed into matter from energy (ref E=mc2) at very high temperatures, in all cases much higher than absolute zero. For example, the temperature of the universe was about 4,000K when hydrogen was first formed.

So what, you say? Well, what is temperature, what does it measure? And what’s this business about absolute zero? Alas for your theory, temperature is actually a measure of MOTION!!! And absolute zero is the temperature at which all motion has stopped. Look it up, get some education. Absolute zero is not observed in nature, we can get close in the lab, and empty space between galaxies is between two and three degrees Kelvin. Which is very cold, kill you instantly cold, but not cold enough to stop motion. This was the point of the Feynman video called “Jiggling Atoms” I posted earlier, I thought I’d make the meaning explicit since the point is tangential, or only implied, in what he said there.

So, in order for matter to form, it had to already be in motion, and had to be in motion immediately afterwards. And to the extent it is above absolute zero, it is in motion. Would you like to switch now to God created matter? This motion/volition business just doesn't cut it. No, you’re just going to dismiss everything I say on the grounds that it’s “special science”. Which I believe I have a working definition of, at last: special science is whatever the typical bible school dropout remains ignorant of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMmzKDonRY

[Eiuol]

It's true that objects act according to their natures, but the nature of an object is such that it either moves of its own accord (volitionally) or as a reaction to some prior action. An eternity of REactions is impossible because a REaction by definition necessitates an initiatory action. An infinite regress is impossible.

Make sense?

And since you're speaking of the origin of all motion, WHAT moves of its own accord volitionally? How would pure volition move anything? I'm sure you mean that some particular object/form of energy was self-directed (also implicitly saying that god LOOKS like something and therefore you have a way to empirically prove the existence of god...), but where did that come from? You'll probably say it was eternal, which is fine. But why must self-directed have to even mean volitional and conscious? I don't see how it is necessarily true that some kind of internal energy (or whatever else to be discovered by physicists) couldn't have done what you propose.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Eiuol

[JayR]

So, just enjoy the bongo video,

Thats a badass bongo solo.

[Jacob86]

I’m wondering about something, in this fantasy cosmological scenario you’ve developed, was matter formed, cooled down to zero degrees Kelvin (aka absolute zero), and then set in motion by God? I ask because I doubt you’re aware that matter is created, or you might say transformed into matter from energy (ref E=mc2) at very high temperatures, in all cases much higher than absolute zero. For example, the temperature of the universe was about 4,000K when hydrogen was first formed.

Actually, Greebo has done quite a good job of educating me on this particular position (although he seems to call it a theory while you seem to consider it proven fact... whichever). He and others have also introduced many other special science models (big bang, God-Particle, etc..)

So what, you say? Well, what is temperature, what does it measure? And what’s this business about absolute zero? Alas for your theory, temperature is actually a measure of MOTION!!! And absolute zero is the temperature at which all motion has stopped. Look it up, get some education. Absolute zero is not observed in nature, we can get close in the lab, and empty space between galaxies is between two and three degrees Kelvin. Which is very cold, kill you instantly cold, but not cold enough to stop motion. This was the point of the Feynman video called “Jiggling Atoms” I posted earlier, I thought I’d make the meaning explicit since the point is tangential, or only implied, in what he said there.

So, in order for matter to form, it had to already be in motion, and had to be in motion immediately afterwards. And to the extent it is above absolute zero, it is in motion.

So, what your saying is that there was motion (heat) before matter existed? Ok. Was this motion a reaction to prior motion or not? That's ALL I need to know.

This motion/volition business just doesn't cut it. No, you’re just going to dismiss everything I say on the grounds that it’s “special science”. Which I believe I have a working definition of, at last: special science is whatever the typical bible school dropout remains ignorant of.

No. I'll actually indulge you on this point because I think that may be the only way that I can convince you of what is meant by the fundamentality of the philosophical to the scientific.

So go ahead. Elaborate on this position. There was motion (in the form of heat/energy) which gave rise to the formation of matter. That explains the formation of matter, but it does not explain the origins of motion per se (which is the issue we are debating). It only takes the question a step back to pre-matter motion. Was the motion in this energy reactionary or volitional motion?

If reactionary, it is a response to prior motion which we must then ask the same question of, and so on ad infinitum until we get to motion which is non-reactionary (i.e. volitional).

[Jacob86]

And since you're speaking of the origin of all motion, WHAT moves of its own accord volitionally? How would pure volition move anything? I'm sure you mean that some particular object/form of energy was self-directed (also implicitly saying that god LOOKS like something and therefore you have a way to empirically prove the existence of god...), but where did that come from? You'll probably say it was eternal, which is fine.

These are good questions, but like I said before, they jump the gun. It's pointless to discuss HOW God would interact with the physical universe before establishing THAT He exists and THAT He interacts with the physical universe. You are anxious for some sort of empirical proof and you won't find any, but I will challenge you to examine the epistemological premises which make you so anxious for it.

But why must self-directed have to even mean volitional and conscious? I don't see how it is necessarily true that some kind of internal energy (or whatever else to be discovered by physicists) couldn't have done what you propose.

Self-directed must mean volitional and conscious because that's all that it possibly could mean. To act volitionally is to act with a chosen intention. To act non-volitionally is to act without chosen intention (i.e. cumpulsion, reaction, etc..). Those are the only two possible types of action. Of course there are many SUB-types, but there is no middle ground between volitional & non-volitional, chosen & unchosen, purposeful & accidental.

[dream_weaver]

It's pointless to discuss HOW God would interact with the physical universe before establishing THAT He exists and THAT He interacts with the physical universe. You are anxious for some sort of empirical proof and you won't find any, but I will challenge you to examine the epistemological premises which make you so anxious for it.

And all that is asked is that this you objectively establish that god(s) exist. That it cannot be objectively established is precisely why it is referred to as an invalid concept.

[Greebo]

the nature of an object is such that it either moves of its own accord (volitionally) or as a reaction to some prior action.

FALSE

Strike volitional, and I'll agree - but gravity is not volitional.

[Jacob86]

FALSE

Strike volitional, and I'll agree - but gravity is not volitional.

Haven't we been over this gravity issue like 5 times now and I still don't recall you having any response to my position on it. Gravity is not an action, its a force (as you said). Its a force that only causes motion when two objects have some amount of distance between them. If gravity and the objects were eternal, they never would've been separated. If you wish to say that the objects were not eternal, that they sprung into existence as a result of the motion of energy, then the motion of energy is the prior motion that gave rise to the gravitational motion by creating objects which were separated by distance. Notice, though, that we have only taken the step BACK to the motion of energy (whatever that means). Was this motion ALSO caused by gravity? Gravity acting upon what? And whatever was in motion that gravity was acting upon will bring up the same problem-- that they are separated and in motion as a result of prior action.

EDIT: I want to try to drive this point home. Reactions are not limited to actions caused by direct physical contact with other objects. Reactions cover any and all actions that occur as a result of the action of another object in ANY way (whether it is the mass and proximity of the object as with gravity, or the polar charges of the objects as with magnetic action, etc...) All of these are REactions which presuppose prior action (prior CHANGE in the status of the objects involved) in order for the action to have occurred at all.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Jacob86

[Greebo]

Haven't we been over this gravity issue like 5 times now and I still don't recall you having any response to my position on it. Gravity is not an action, its a force (as you said). Its a force that only causes motion when two objects have some amount of distance between them. If gravity and the objects were eternal, they never would've been separated. If you wish to say that the objects were not eternal, that they sprung into existence as a result of the motion of energy,

Stop there. Motion applies to objects. Objects are not eternal, but energy is.

Energy is not an object, it is a force. When energy is not in a material form, and there is no matter at all, we have no idea how Energy acts. Since energy has no mass, it has no speed limits - and in fact may not even have velocity. We don't have any idea how it works or how causality works or even IF it applies in a massless space.

Equal and opposite reaction stops there. Once we move into "there is no mass" land, we are beyond the bounds of the rules we currently understand. The context ends. You cannot *definitively* apply THIS context's rules to that vastly different context.

then the motion of energy is the prior motion that gave rise to the gravitational motion by creating objects which were separated by distance. Notice, though, that we have only taken the step BACK to the motion of energy (whatever that means). Was this motion ALSO caused by gravity? Gravity acting upon what? And whatever was in motion that gravity was acting upon will bring up the same problem-- that they are separated and in motion as a result of prior action.

Gravity requires mass. No mass, no gravity. Energy without mass has its own rules and we don't know what they are but absolute spontaneity could very well be one of them.

[Greebo]

EDIT: I want to try to drive this point home. Reactions are not limited to actions caused by direct physical contact with other objects. Reactions cover any and all actions that occur as a result of the action of another object in ANY way (whether it is the mass and proximity of the object as with gravity, or the polar charges of the objects as with magnetic action, etc...) All of these are REactions which presuppose prior action (prior CHANGE in the status of the objects involved) in order for the action to have occurred at all.

Ok so what is the spontaneous appearance of a volitional force which can act upon massless, eternal energy a reaction to?

[Ninth Doctor]

Actually, Greebo has done quite a good job of educating me on this particular position (although he seems to call it a theory while you seem to consider it proven fact... whichever). He and others have also introduced many other special science models (big bang, God-Particle, etc..)

So, what your saying is that there was motion (heat) before matter existed? Ok. Was this motion a reaction to prior motion or not? That's ALL I need to know.

Greebo does a good job of answering you above, but I’ll again recommend the Lawrence Krauss lecture, there’s an interesting twist you’ll find in there. If you can’t bother to watch it after this many referrals, there’s no reason I should spend more time on you.

Meanwhile, there’s a new creation myth being published, and I think this one finally gets it right.

I feel so close to shouting it: I’m a believer!

[Egosum—]

Stop there. Motion applies to objects. Objects are not eternal, but energy is.

Energy is not an object, it is a force. When energy is not in a material form, and there is no matter at all, we have no idea how Energy acts. Since energy has no mass, it has no speed limits - and in fact may not even have velocity. We don't have any idea how it works or how causality works or even IF it applies in a massless space.

Equal and opposite reaction stops there. Once we move into "there is no mass" land, we are beyond the bounds of the rules we currently understand. The context ends. You cannot *definitively* apply THIS context's rules to that vastly different context.

Gravity requires mass. No mass, no gravity. Energy without mass has its own rules and we don't know what they are but absolute spontaneity could very well be one of them.

Greebo, energy is without mass; however, that is because energy is just a concept of matter-motion; you're right, it is a force -- OF MATTER AND MOTION; energy presupposes both. Your phrase, "When energy is not in a material form," is a contradictory statement; form presupposes an object--your sentence before, "energy is not an object," contradicted you; furthermore, your metaphysics is meaningless: by establishing that your concept of energy is despite being separate and distinct of matter, you've banished it from sense data, ergo empiricism, ergo science, ergo how we achieve knowledge of sophisticated thought. Any reasoning of it from now on without the boundaries of our laws of nature is to dismantle the idea -- "in order to command nature, you must first obey it;"

P.S: if energy without mass exists, and it is outside the law of nature, then it is equally as possible for energy without mass to have anything you want it to have.

[Plasmatic]

Egosum said:

P.S: if energy without mass exists, and it is outside the law of nature, then it is equally as possible for energy without mass to have anything you want it to have.

Example: the idea that causality might not apply !

[Egosum—]

Egosum said:

Example: the idea that causality might not apply !

it's still meaningless. ;\

Edited July 13, 2011 by Egosum—

[Greebo]

Greebo, energy is without mass; however, that is because energy is just a concept of matter-motion; you're right, it is a force -- OF MATTER AND MOTION; energy presupposes both.

Tell that to the physicists.

Your phrase, "When energy is not in a material form," is a contradictory statement; form presupposes an object--your sentence before, "energy is not an object," contradicted you; furthermore, your metaphysics is meaningless: by establishing that your concept of energy is despite being separate and distinct of matter, you've banished it from sense data, ergo empiricism, ergo science, ergo how we achieve knowledge of sophisticated thought. Any reasoning of it from now on without the boundaries of our laws of nature is to dismantle the idea -- "in order to command nature, you must first obey it;"

Welcome to the time before matter could form.

P.S: if energy without mass exists, and it is outside the law of nature, then it is equally as possible for energy without mass to have anything you want it to have.

AND THUS, knowledge about it is impossible - and thus Jacob's claim that first motion must have been volitional is JUST as unknowable as my claim that energy might teleport freely in a matterless state.

In short - per the physics - ANY speculation about the nature of existence prior to the big bang is and must be arbitrary, and thus, cannot be considered *known* or *proven*.

[dream_weaver]

Tell that to the physicists.

Welcome to the time before matter could form.

AND THUS, knowledge about it is impossible - and thus Jacob's claim that first motion must have been volitional is JUST as unknowable as my claim that energy might teleport freely in a matterless state.

In short - per the physics - ANY speculation about the nature of existence prior to the big bang is and must be arbitrary, and thus, cannot be considered *known* or *proven*.

Reading between the lines a little bit here, but what seems to be coming into focus here is summed up nicely in the opening of "Consciousness As Identification" where Harry Binswangers proclaims:

The massive resistance that Objectivism encounters is due to a clash of the methods of thinking. The problem we face is psycho-epistemological. The problem is people’s inability to think in principles.

It isn’t that people hold that Objectivist principles are false in the sense that some other set of principles are true; rather the problem is their inability to grasp principles at all.

Deeper yet:

It is the inability to form and use concepts.

Or in the case of the use of the concept "energy" (and "proven"), it violates the hierarchal structure of concepts, in this case, the violation appears to be that of the "stolen concept".

Edited July 13, 2011 by dream_weaver