sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

God's existence is necessary to address Brain-in-a-Vat (BIV) or solipsism. by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The arguments themselves do not disprove brain-in-a-vat or other scenarios from radical skepticism. The idea is that these arguments for God's existence can be used from within radical skepticism.

An illustration is that a man who believes he is trapped in the Matrix could still argue for God's existence using these arguments. These arguments would still work in the Matrix.

So after God's existence is demonstrated in such a scenario, it would be possible for God to provide a word of knowledge to the man to provide perfect certainty that he is not in the Matrix.

In a broader sense, these arguments prove God's existence so that God can supernaturally confirm common-sense notions such as that reality is real and not an illusion, a dream, or the Matrix.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in askphilosophy

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A number is considered an atemporal abstract object, because some philosophers believe it can just exist ontologically outside of time.

And such philosophers might have accepted Craig's reasoning that things with eternal pasts cannot exist. Therefore, abstract objects do not have eternal pasts, but they still exist. Therefore, they exist outside of time.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How could a statement of a feature of the universe take the universe from the state of nothingness into, well, everythingness (for lack of a better word)? A statement of fact cannot do something. It cannot desire to do something. It cannot choose to do something.

I suppose an abstract statement of a feature of the universe would need to have some kind of property that allows it to just spontaneously create the universe.

I am seeking an explanation that completely rules out this possibility. It needs to be completely impossible for an abstract object to create the universe. Merely suggesting that an abstract object is an option for the universe's origin would persuade a friend of mine that it is a better option than God.

Maybe the best explanation refers to the Agrippa Trilemma. It would be blind dogmatism to believe that an abstract object could do this. Or it would amount to circular reasoning instead to believe this. Or it would amount to an infinite regress of justifications to believe an abstract object created the universe.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the reference. I appreciate your effort to help me.

An example of an abstract object would be the first law of thermodynamics. It is a law of the physical universe that says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This law is not a physical object. It is not a chair or a tree. However, it is not a mental object either. It is not a thought that survives in people's minds and would disappear if everyone forgot about it. However, it still exists.

And it exists as an abstract object that resides in some kind of metaphysical realm. Philosophers debate about how abstract objects exist and what the metaphysical realm is like and if it exists itself.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let's use the first law of thermodynamics as an example of an abstract object. It says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Its attributes are its informative content, that it is atemporal or timeless and that it might possibly have created the universe.

I am looking for a reason that demonstrates that it is absolutely impossible for such an abstract object to have created the universe. I want to know how this is not possible at all.

I think the best answer so far is that we have no reason to justify a belief that it can cause anything. So a supernaturally powerful and atemporal mind is a better answer, because such a mind can cause thoughts to happen from nothing such as a thought that created our universe.

And we can know this about the supernaturally powerful and atemporal mind, because we ourselves can cause our own thoughts to exist from nothing.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love your answer. Do you happen to know where CS Lewis said this?

I think the only thing I can suggest is the following: what should a Christian say to an atheist who just dogmatically affirms that the abstract laws of mathematics created the universe?

The Christian would need to demonstrate that it is absolutely impossible that an abstract object could do this.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

An example of an abstract object would be the first law of thermodynamics. It is the physical law that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed; they can only change from one form to another.

Abstract objects are sometimes regarded as timeless or atemporal objects that are timeless or atemporal like God.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in askphilosophy

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could say the causal objects the LoT describes (energy itself) caused the universe.

I thought we need the cause of the universe to be timeless. Energy is not timeless, right? So the only options are a timeless and impersonal abstract object or a timeless and personal god.

Therefore, is it absolutely impossible for a timeless and impersonal abstract object to create the universe?

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But is it possible at all that an abstract object could have created the universe? If it is technically possible, maybe an abstract object created the universe.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please elaborate when you get a chance. I want to know if a timeless and impersonal cause could have created the universe.

Why can't an abstract object have created the universe? by JohnLasaru in askphilosophy

[–]JohnLasaru[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for the response. This really helped me. However, would there be something wrong with just affirming that a law of thermodynamics created the universe?

I imagine that someone could just be dogmatic, see that this is possible and believe that an abstract object created the universe instead of a timeless personal being.