Checkmate in 3 moves

I think you are right, I had a extensive discussion with Crunchy Cat on that matter (where I was actually arguing for the opposite view, that something comes from nothing). We didn't reach a conclusion, but I can easily say that the "particles coming from nothing" isn't as easy as that. It does seem that energy conservation is violated for a brief period though (a period in accordance to the "uncertainty principle of energy and time") and this would suggest "something from nothing", not necessarily the particle coming from nothing, but the energy needed to create it from the field.

I don't think it really is "nothing" though. I think it's rather the second point you raised, I think it is a reality of potentiality.

To your second premise I have to say the opposite "actuality is dependent on potentiality to become a real being". There could be a existence of actuality holding only potentiality. Reality can't be pure "non-existence", it must have some actuality though, at least enough to produce the rules that potentiality has to abide by.

Also "some actuality" could actually be potentiality. It doesn't necessarily have to be "true" or "false" it could be something in-between.

I don't think that potentiality must be preceded by actuality, but rather that potentiality is always the state where actuality isn't. Which means that it must always precede actuality (unless the actuality is infinite). If there isn't Potentiality then how can there be Actuality (if the Actuality isn't infinite)?

It is of course still possible that there is a infinite Actuality too though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And of the ideologies therein inseminated:

When the epistemologists' concept of consciousness first became popular, it seems to have been in part a transformed application of the Protestant notion of conscience. ... "Consciousness" was imported to play in the mental world the role played by light in the mechanical world.​

-Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind, p. 159​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny, I thought "magically produced" was going to be your explanation...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The problem with MomM's arguments is that they do not present his position in its entirety. Too often, he omits references to God.
He is very atheistic in this sense.

 

@wynn

Maybe the atheists have had adverse effects on him...​

 

There is no excuse for a theist to refrain from adequately presenting his position.

 

I'm not sure what MoM's motive was for starting this thread.

But if we assume that it was an attempt to create a natural-theological argument for the existence of a traditional-style monotheistic god, then wouldn't his including god as one of his premises render the argument circular?

I don't think that Aquinas explicitly presupposed what he was trying to prove when he formulated his 'five ways', did he?

 

From Wiki:

The Quinque viæ, Five Ways, or Five Proofs are five arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th century Roman Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book, Summa Theologica. They are not necessarily meant to be self-sufficient “proofs” of God’s existence; as worded, they propose only to explain what it is “all men mean” when they speak of “God”.


And further on proofs of God as such:

In this section you will find arguments of many different kinds for the existence of God. And we make to you, the reader, an initial appeal. We realize that many people, both believers and nonbelievers, doubt that God's existence can be demonstrated or even argued about. You may be one of them. You may in fact have a fairly settled view that it cannot be argued about. But no one can reasonably doubt that attention to these arguments has its place in any book on apologetics. For very many have believed that such arguments are possible, and that some of them actually work.

They have also believed that an effective rational argument for God's existence is an important first step in opening the mind to the possibility of faith—in clearing some of the roadblocks and rubble that prevent people from taking the idea of divine revelation seriously. And in this they have a real point. Suppose our best and most honest reflection on the nature of things led us to see the material universe as self-sufficient and uncaused; to see its form as the result of random motions, devoid of any plan or purpose. Would you then be impressed by reading in an ancient book that there exists a God of love, or that the heavens proclaim his glory? Would you be disposed to take that message seriously? More likely you would excuse yourself from taking seriously anything claimed as a communication from the Creator. As one person put it: I cannot believe that we are children of God, because I cannot believe there is anyone to do the adopting.

It is this sort of cramped and constricted horizon that the proofs presented in this chapter are trying to expand. They are attempts to confront us with the radical insufficiency of what is finite and limited, and to open minds to a level of being beyond it. If they succeed in this—and we can say from experience that some of the proofs do succeed with many people—they can be of very great value indeed.

You may not feel that they are particularly valuable to you. You may be blessed with a vivid sense of God's presence; and that is something for which to be profoundly grateful. But that does not mean you have no obligation to ponder these arguments. For many have not been blessed in that way. And the proofs are designed for them—or some of them at least—to give a kind of help they really need. You may even be asked to provide help.

Besides, are any of us really in so little need of such help as we may claim? Surely in most of us there is something of the skeptic. There is a part of us tempted to believe that nothing is ultimately real beyond what we can see and touch; a part looking for some reason, beyond the assurances of Scripture, to believe that there is more. We have no desire to make exaggerated claims for these demonstrations, or to confuse "good reason" "with scientific proof." But we believe that there are many who want and need the kind of help these proofs offer more than they might at first be willing to admit.

A word about the organization of the arguments. We have organized them into two basic groups: those which take their data from without—cosmological arguments—and those that take it from within—psychological arguments. The group of cosmological arguments begins with our versions of Aquinas's famous "five ways." These are not the simplest of the arguments, and therefore are not the most convincing to many people. Our order is not from the most to the least effective. The first argument, in particular, is quite abstract and difficult.

Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager." Another (the ontological argument) we regard as fundamentally flawed; yet we include it because it is very famous and influential, and may yet be saved by new formulations of it. Others (the argument from miracles, the argument from religious experience and the common consent argument) claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. We have included them because they form a strong part of a cumulative case. We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

They are all flawed.

 

i don't know. three step checkmate impossible........

 

Reminds me of a quote by Peter Kreeft:

"Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it.

...existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God."

 

Mate in three moves: (the first move is optional: pawn two or three spaces)

+01234567
801010101
910101010
A01010101
B10101010
C010*0101
D101*1010
E010*0101
F10101010

+01234567
801010101
910101010
A01010101
B101010*0
C01010101
D10101010
E01010101
F10*01010

+01234567
801010101
910101010
A01010101
B10101010
C0*010101
D10101010
E01010101
F1010*010

+01234567
801010101
91010*010
A01010101
B10101010
C0*010101
D10101010
E01010101
F10101010