What cannot be created?

[Ficciones]

I mentioned this in my post on nature, but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created.

If there is something rather than nothing - being rather than utter nonbeing - then this cannot have a cause, since anything that might be called a cause must itself be in some sense. If being cannot have a cause, then it cannot be caused by a creator.

If there is order rather than disorder, then this likewise cannot have a cause, since to say that something was caused is to presuppose that order was already in place. If it weren't, things would not be themselves, effects would not follow causes, and a willful act of creation could never get off the ground.

Since being and order cannot have been caused, they exemplify the aseity (from-self-ness), eternity, and ultimacy commonly attributed by the religious to God. There's nothing that being and order could have come from. You might, if you were feeling puckish, rearrange this to say that being and order "came from nothing" - the ultimate free lunch.

This means that being rather than nonbeing, and order rather than disorder, do not imply a creator and so cannot be taken as evidence of one. Because being and order cannot be willful creations, and are therefore not artifacts reflecting design and intent, they are natural.

 

[SteveB]

I mentioned this in my post on nature, but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created.

If there is something rather than nothing - being rather than utter nonbeing - then this cannot have a cause, since anything that might be called a cause must itself be in some sense. If being cannot have a cause, then it cannot be caused by a creator.

If there is order rather than disorder, then this likewise cannot have a cause, since to say that something was caused is to presuppose that order was already in place. If it weren't, things would not be themselves, effects would not follow causes, and a willful act of creation could never get off the ground.

Since being and order cannot have been caused, they exemplify the aseity (from-self-ness), eternity, and ultimacy commonly attributed by the religious to God. There's nothing that being and order could have come from. You might, if you were feeling puckish, rearrange this to say that being and order "came from nothing" - the ultimate free lunch.

This means that being rather than nonbeing, and order rather than disorder, do not imply a creator and so cannot be taken as evidence of one. Because being and order cannot be willful creations, and are therefore not artifacts reflecting design and intent, they are natural.

Rather curious that you start and end with the assumption that you have to be right, and no other view is correct.
Isn't that what they call--- confirmation bias?
As such, why should I believe that your bias is correct?

 

[5wize]

Rather curious that you start and end with the assumption that you have to be right, and no other view is correct.
Isn't that what they call--- confirmation bias?
As such, why should I believe that your bias is correct?

What's the other option Steve other than an eternal "something"?

 

[Ficciones]

Rather curious that you start and end with the assumption that you have to be right, and no other view is correct.
Isn't that what they call--- confirmation bias?
As such, why should I believe that your bias is correct?

Well, you can simply follow my reasoning and see where it goes wrong, if it goes wrong.

Does it? How so? I'm open to criticism.

 

[Nouveau]

Rather curious that you start and end with the assumption that you have to be right, and no other view is correct.

He didn't. You're strawmanning again. Try actually addressing the OP argument if you disagree with it.

 

[rossum]

I mentioned this in my post on nature, but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created.

If there is something rather than nothing - being rather than utter nonbeing - then this cannot have a cause, since anything that might be called a cause must itself be in some sense. If being cannot have a cause, then it cannot be caused by a creator.

If there is order rather than disorder, then this likewise cannot have a cause, since to say that something was caused is to presuppose that order was already in place. If it weren't, things would not be themselves, effects would not follow causes, and a willful act of creation could never get off the ground.

Since being and order cannot have been caused, they exemplify the aseity (from-self-ness), eternity, and ultimacy commonly attributed by the religious to God. There's nothing that being and order could have come from. You might, if you were feeling puckish, rearrange this to say that being and order "came from nothing" - the ultimate free lunch.

This means that being rather than nonbeing, and order rather than disorder, do not imply a creator and so cannot be taken as evidence of one. Because being and order cannot be willful creations, and are therefore not artifacts reflecting design and intent, they are natural.

Time cannot be created.

Creation is a form of cause, as in cause-and-effect. The cause must exist prior to the effect, and in order to have "prior" we have to have time. Otherwise, in the absence of time, the two are simultaneous; they cannot be separated in time. Hence it is only possible to say that they both exist, but it is not possible to say which was the cause and which the effect.

For there to be causation, time must already be in existence. In the absence of time then cause and effect are simultaneous and indistinguishable. If two people are exactly the same age, which was the parent and which the child?

 

[SteveB]

What's the other option Steve other than an eternal "something"?

You're the one who made the claim, so I'm asking.
Don't you have an answer?

 

[SteveB]

He didn't. You're strawmanning again. Try actually addressing the OP argument if you disagree with it.

I did.
And I wasn't talking to you.

 

[Nouveau]

I did.

No, you didn't. You responded with an ad hominem strawman instead of addressing his argument.

And I wasn't talking to you.

Tough. I'm responding anyway.

 

[SteveB]

Well, you can simply follow my reasoning and see where it goes wrong, if it goes wrong.

Does it? How so? I'm open to criticism.

I think you went wrong in the first sentence....
You claim "but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created."

You have no idea what cannot be created.
I say this because whatever you think God to be, he does not exist.
Yet, the God, YHVH who actually did create the cosmos out of nothing, has created all that is.
He holds the entirety of the cosmos in teh span of his hand. Isaiah 40:12
He spoke the cosmos into existence, and upholds it by the breathe of his mouth. Psalm 33.
Jesus sustains it by the word of his power. Hebrews 1:3.
All that exists, he created it from that which we cannot see. Colossians 1:16.
Nothing that does exist, could exist without him. John 1:3.

So..... I find myself looking at your comment, thinking what I stated in my initial post.

 

[Nouveau]

I think you went wrong in the first sentence....
You claim "but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created."

That was just introducing the topic. And you haven't shown it to be wrong.

You have no idea what cannot be created.

The actual OP argument proves otherwise. The argument you still haven't addressed.

 

[Ficciones]

I think you went wrong in the first sentence....
You claim "but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created."

Steve, I see what you're saying. Please consider the opening of my post to be a thesis statement rather than a premise. The bulk of my very short post is devoted to explaining why some things cannot be created. Maybe try reading again.

 

[Ficciones]

Time cannot be created.

Creation is a form of cause, as in cause-and-effect. The cause must exist prior to the effect, and in order to have "prior" we have to have time. Otherwise, in the absence of time, the two are simultaneous; they cannot be separated in time. Hence it is only possible to say that they both exist, but it is not possible to say which was the cause and which the effect.

For there to be causation, time must already be in existence. In the absence of time then cause and effect are simultaneous and indistinguishable. If two people are exactly the same age, which was the parent and which the child?

That's an excellent point and I agree. I've often thought that contingency, in the sense of change and the possibility of change, is a necessary attribute of nature. Not that there can't be some unchanging attributes, of course.

 

[Nouveau]

All the things presupposed by positing a God - existence, order, time, intelligence - obviously cannot be explained by positing God as a cause. Yet these are almost always the very things that positing God is supposed to explain.

One exception is design - this is not presupposed by positing God, but it still fails as an explanation because once God is posited as the designer of everything, we no longer have any basis of comparison for distinguishing design from non-design in the first place.

 

[Ficciones]

Once you have being, order and contingency a designer is redundant. The massive parallel processing of reality is going to cough up interesting things all on its own.

As Piet Hein put it,

Nature, it seems, is the popular name
for milliards and milliards and milliards
of particles playing their infinite game
of billiards and billiards and billiards.

 

[5wize]

You're the one who made the claim, so I'm asking.
Don't you have an answer?

I do not believe in something from nothing. As a result, that entails a past eternal something. I see no sentience in it however. Sentience came with biology and brains. Nowhere is it even implied that God is a sentient biological being.

 

[docphin5]

I mentioned this in my post on nature, but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created.

If there is something rather than nothing - being rather than utter nonbeing - then this cannot have a cause, since anything that might be called a cause must itself be in some sense. If being cannot have a cause, then it cannot be caused by a creator.
<snip>

Dude, EVERYTHING depends upon the definition of your terms otherwise it becomes an exercise in sophistry. Just because reality as we know it is defined as "something" versus "nothing" or "being" rather than utter "nonbeing" does not preclude something outside of something which we have no ?#*!#)) clue what it is. It is ONLY "something" your FEEBLE mind is INCAPABLE of comprehending. Simply, it actually is "SOMETHING" but you are clueless as to what it is, so you create sophist word games to nullify it. Nobody is actually asserting that utter "nothing" created "something". They are actually saying that something we have no ?#*!*)) clue what, -- created "something" so we might as well call it "nothing" or "()@L#HF)#JF)#LS" (that is word salad, fyi) BECAUSE that is the best we got.

 

[Nouveau]

Dude, EVERYTHING depends upon the definition of your terms otherwise it becomes an exercise in sophistry. Just because reality as we know it is defined as "something" versus "nothing" or "being" rather than utter "nonbeing" does not preclude something outside of something which we have no ?#*!#)) clue what it is. It is ONLY "something" your FEEBLE mind is INCAPABLE of comprehending. Simply, it actually is "SOMETHING" but you are clueless as to what it is, so you create sophist word games to nullify it. Nobody is actually asserting that utter "nothing" created "something". They are actually saying that something we have no ?#*!*)) clue what, -- created "something" so we might as well call it "nothing" or "()@L#HF)#JF)#LS" (that is word salad, fyi) BECAUSE that is the best we got.

I think you may have misunderstood the OP. The point was that you can't explain why there is something rather than nothing by saying that something else caused it.

 

[yrger]

I mentioned this in my post on nature, but wanted to expand on the idea that there are things that cannot be created.

[ . . . . ]

The title of your thread is "What cannot be created?"

Suppose you tell me what are you dealing with, something in objective reality that is outside and independent of your brain/mind, or something that is in your brain, and forgive me, but say it in less than 40 words.

 

[Nouveau]

The title of your thread is "What cannot be created?"

Suppose you tell me what are you dealing with, something in objective reality that is outside and independent of your brain/mind, or something that is in your brain, and forgive me, but say it in less than 40 words.

Sorry, but your post here uses more than 40 words so it will have to be ignored.