IMPLICIT CONTEXTUAL CATEGORY DISPUTE CONTENTIONS AND PHRASEOLOGY

https://plus.google.com/106774038347107328330/posts/YbZaetpCuQx

+z08840
My very good friend whom I love reading his discussions. Whoop whoop!!! I finally come back to you and now I'm able to reply you. I hope you are as excited as I am lol. Don't mind me - enough of the formalities. I just want you to know that I fully respect you and honor our discussions.

Now let us get into replying you bro :)

>This is true Scotsman argument becauseno, it's notknowledge of "more than Thomas Aquinas" is a requirement to be a "well educated student" - by definition of "well educated"learn your fallacies

HAHAHAHAHA... are you actually taking me seriously. OK OK... sorry for that. I am going to assume that you are taking me seriously. I noticed that you are more of a "science guy" than you are of a "philosophical guy" ... and I see you using the infamous Hitchen Razor saying

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." 

Please, show me the evidence where it is written:

"Thou must have more knowledge than Thomas Aquinas to be called a "well educated highschool student"

Please show me the evidence if not, I dismiss it as an argumentum ad lapidem hahahaha

>Secondly, this is an argumentum ad novitatem
no, it's not

OK bro... thanks for making that clear :)

>This is because you are using the present day to debunk logical credibility of the past. appeal to novelty states "it's true because it's new/modern" 

learn your fallacies

Oh I greatly apologise if I was sounding ambiguous. I had just finished writing a long ass reply that day and I was very low on energy, weak and tired. So I do apologise on the ambiguity. You are a harsh scrutiniser than I expected. Not even taking into consideration the fact that I said:

hey bro... I'm gonna answer you quickly coz I gotta go. I'll reply you tomorrow if you have a counter-reply :). I'm tired and exhausted from that long ass reply hahaha.

I guess you only deserve perfection. OK... I will not reply you ambiguously this time. But I will show you the honor of of a through verbiage and logical scrutiny :) ... You want it? You get it :)

This is why I think it was argumentum ad novitatem

Simple Answer: Speculative Assumption
I know that I am not in your brain so I guess when you say that it was not your intention, then I guess that you, being the originator of your intentions, you can only be trusted :). So, as a friend to a friend, I grant you the honour and mutual respect of believing you. OK  I accept.

Further Buttress

But I further noticed your last statement it's disingenuous to appeal to this corpse today
Please sir, concentrate on the last two words corpse and today
Corpse: I did some research into the CONTEXT (ie Thomas Aquinas) and noticed that he died in 1274 which is a very long time ago
today: In this context, I believe you meant this present day and age

So, I fully apologise for confusing what you were trying to imply. Both of us were ambiguous that day. So... by implication of Corpse to Today, I drew the speculative assumption that you were dismissing the "objective soundness" of a logically warranted argument, not by simply producing a logical counter-argument, but due to the genetic fallacy that it originated in the past and not nowadays. All this is an explanation why I speculatively assumed that you were dismissing Thomas Aquinas Efficient First Cause Argument.

So please, I humbly ask, can you re-iterate to me why you're dismissing Thomas Aquinas Efficient First Cause Argument. Thanks bro

PS: His "Argument"; not his "person" - if not, that would be an Argumentum ad hominem.

*our understanding of logic makes it not true ("how do you know?" part)our knowledge of reality makes it false ("false" part)*

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbLJtxn_OCo[/embed]

That is very true. Indeed I applauded this bro as it is a very valid point: Logical Epistemology (how we come to know logic) is very much different from Logical Ontology (The Objective Reality of Logic). But you see, as much as I agree, this is a straw man. I was not dichotomising Logical Epistemology vs Ontology but Present Time VS Past Time. Now let us criticise your argument.
Notice you used the word "our" here twice. Who are you dichotomising?

Hypothesis to Understanding what you are implying

(1) Thomas Aquinas VS the whole present day world
(2) Thomas Aquinas Past Day and Age VS This present Day and Age that we live in

If you meant (1) then that is an unfair parallel. Teaming the whole present day world versus 1 man is unfair and biased in my opinion.

If you meant (2), then this is a fair parallel and I credit you for it. Time VS Time sounds very unbiased to me. However, my contention here as to why you are rejecting the Credibility of the Objectivity of Thomas Aquinas LOGICAL Argument is because his time is different from our time. You give an argumentum ad lapidem because you assert this without any evidential demonstration of which premise fails to be logically fallacious other than Appealing to Ignornace that "we don't know" - which is not an a valid argument. Please follow this reference (1) and look for "Argument from Ignorance" so that you and I are on the same semantics and phraseology about the definition of an "Argument from Ignorance". An example of you using the Argument from Ignorance was when you tried debunking Thomas Aquinas Efficient First Cause Argument Premise (1) saying and I quote:

1. false
2. even if we wouldn't know it's false, how do you know it's true? assumption, premise dismissed

Hence, you dismissed the validity of a logical argument based on the assertion that it cannot be known for absolute certainty. This by definiton in Reference (1) is what we call "An Argument from Ignorance".

So, rather than falling into the same pit of appealing to ignorance that "I do not know what this guy is saying therefore, I am right and he is wrong" ... I have tried to produce to you hypothesis to genuinely try to get to know you bro and know where you stand on this argument but I do not know you for absolute certainty. I do not mean to disrespect you... we only just started getting to know each other so, yeah... I'm enjoying building this journey with you :)

Secondly, you appear to Poison the Well. Here is RationalWiki's take on Poisoning the well (2) as I copy and paste:

Poisoning the well (also called the smear tactic) is a rhetorical technique and logical fallacy that uses the association of negative emotions to distract a subject from actual evidence in an argument.
The usual method is to point out the unpleasant nature of the person making the opposing argument, in which case it is a special case of a personal attack or ad hominem. In general, "to poison the well" means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative.
It can be done subtly or quite blatantly. A subtle way of poisoning the well would be to use particular adjectives in introducing something that would influence people who are about to hear an argument. In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. For example, asking people to remember that a person has been in prison before listening to their statements; the well is now "poisoned" because people are likely to distrust a person making an argument knowing that they're a convict, regardless of the reasoning that they put forward.

Please feel free to go and read it up for yourself in Reference (2).

Here, you have used emotional language in debunking Thomas Aquinas. You laid an accent on "Thomas Aquinas Corpse". Why was the emphasis laid on his corpse? Well, if you study Rationalwiki's take on "Emotional Appeal" (3) and study the subsection called "Emotion-baiting" where rationalwiki uses the word "hysterical woman" to show that it is pointless in the rational argument but it appeals to people's emotions to try and get the rational point across - which is a fallacy in my opinion. What I am trying to say is this:
* "What is the Rational/ Logical Connection between Thomas Aquinas Corpse and Thomas Aquinas Argument? *
Does his corpse affirm or debunk his arguments in THIS CONTEXT?
Hence, this is why I consider it to be an emotional appeal.

Now you have used a negative emotion of Thomas Aquinas Corpse (as if if he were not a corpse but a living person today, that would make his arguments more rational and objective - Which I do not believe is logically valid) to distract a subject from the actual philosophical evidence (or thought experiment) in Thomas Aquinas Argument. Rationalwiki used the example of associating someone to be in prison so that people are likely to distrust him. This is not different on how you have associated Thomas Aquinas with either of my hypothesis in trying to understand you better
You have associated Thomas Aquinas:
Either of
(1) Thomas Aquinas Person or
(2) Thomas Aquinas Day and Age
with Thomas Aquinas Objective Logical Argument which makes it sound like Thomas Aquinas Objective Argument is contingent on his Person/ Corpse (ie Personal Incredulity) or his Day and Age (Genetic Fallacy) - I do not know, all this my hypothesis could be wrong, but forgive me for just assuming for now as this is progress to Scientia (4). So I hope I have made my stance in the way I am coming to understand your stance clear. If there is anything wrong, please feel free to chip in sir ^_^

Thirdly, you create a category error by equivocating Thomas Aquinas argument with Thomas Aquinas corpse.make a confession please - you pulled this nonsense right out of your ass, right?

hahahaha.... you funny guy. You jest. Ok... here is the semantics for "Category Error":

A category mistake, or category error, is a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category,[1] or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. (5)

The Category I was Talking about: The Soundness of Thomas Aquinas Objective Logical Argument
The Category you were talking about: The Soundness of Thomas Aquinas Person - ie Corpse

The reason I call this a Category Error is because my category does not have the same properties as your category in the contextual discussion flow we are having at the moment.

This is an appeal to ignorance.number (1) is exactly opposite - it's appeal to our knowledgenumber (2) is accusation of this specific argument, namely "There is an efficient cause for everything" to be an appeal to ignorance - you are projecting much - learn your fallacies

notice your use of "projecting much" with "appeal to ignorance". What am I projecting? I assume in this context its "projecting much knowledge". However, you give the impression its unwarranted knowledge which I understand but then you later go to say the opposite of projecting-knowledge ie appealing to ignorance. This is confusing ... am I projecting knowledge or ignorance in your context?
hahahaha ... I see that you are playing with Socratic Paradox hahaha ... ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat which means I know that I know nothing

Actuality

You: even if we wouldn't know it's false, how do you know it's true? assumption, premise dismissed
Me: This is an appeal to ignorance. You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption - this is fallacious. Just because we do not KNOW for sure does not mean that we should sit on our asses and remain ignorant. This argument is a believe or assumption or confidence or trust or suspicion of what is most likely true and not a claim to absolute knowledge.
You: ...it's appeal to our knowledge...

Caricature

You: We cannot know this is true - therefore, dismissed (1)
Me: this is appeal to ignorance (1)
You: This is appeal to knowledge

You mean the knowledge that we do not have knowledge? hahahaha ... nice one Mr Phraseology lol. Even mathematic tells us that

Positive Times Negative is Negative
(+) * (
) = ()

So for attaching a Positive Assertion = I know; to a Negative Assertion = I don't know; you ultimately mean "I don't know". Hence, why are we playing this game of phraseology and contextual semantic dispute (6), I do not know lol. Hence, we come back to the ULTIMATE FACT that you do not know.

But if you are still going to be adamant on your proposition that you are appealing to knowledge and I am appealing to Ignorance, because you said that

number (2) is accusation of this specific argument, namely "There is an efficient cause for everything" to be an appeal to ignorance - you are projecting much

then let me show again my reply which was:

...You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption...

Sorry for the typo error there lol. I meant an assumption lol. So much for me being tired and weary when replying you lol. OK. I did not want to end up giving you definitions and semantics because I thouht that would insult your intelligence but I have found it an utmost necessity since you scrutinize every single thing I say and almost mis-understand me into a straw man. So here goes:

Thomas Aquinas gave a

Syllogism: Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by twopremises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to bothpremises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C.”. (7)

as seen above, syllogisms contain
Premise: an ​*idea* or ​*theory* on which a ​statement or ​action is ​based. to ​base a ​*theory*, ​argument, etc. on an ​idea, ​*thought*, or ​*belief*: (9)

so I repeat again:

...You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption...

Now I am not claiming that I KNOW for absolute certainty that There is an efficient cause for everything. It is a premise, belief, assumption, thought,suspicion, confidence etc

This is why when I say:

...You used absolute certainty to debunk and assumption...

I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges even though they are both fruits but its a Straw man, Category Mistake, Equivocation Fallacy and Ignoratio Elenchi. In sequitur, even though assumptions (abductions) andabsolute knowledge (deductions) are both epistemological, they are distinct in the their parts and concepts. Here is a link to the definition of Equivocation Fallacy (8) and Ignoratio Elenchi (10) so that you and I know that we are discussing on the same understanding and so that you stop accusing me for not learning my fallacies. At least, I'm doing as you've kindly advised me to do :)

So I am not "projecting much". You say this because you confuse what a "premise" is with "absolute knowledge". I believe it is much more abundantly demonstrable that there is indeed ...an efficient cause for everything...why?

Because anything that is not a first cause cannot be an efficient cause of itself. ... All this is logically warranted assumptions; not logically warranted absolute knowledge :)

it's not appeal to ignorance argument - appeal to ignorance sounds like this:*_"There is an efficient cause for everything (because we don't know anything to have no cause)" - this is your with Thomas argument;
besides we know there are uncaused effects :P_*

I will simply say "no". The extra part you added because we don't know anything to have no cause can be demonstrated to be false by the evidence of absence in Thomas Aquinas argument. Again Category Mistake for mistaking "premise"/ "assumptions"/ "belief" with "absolute knowledge".

Secondly, can you LOGICALLY demonstrate or GIVE REASONS why you think that effects (which are not first causes eg like God) can occur uncaused.
You can't just say a wonderful and magical statement like that and keep quiet. Extra ordinary claims rrequire extra ordinary evidences hahahaha - if not Hitchen Razor applies.

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ5a7Q-yGtk[/embed]

event-caused-by-other-event/event-caused-by-itselfthere is a third option (at least) - non-causedbesides "event-caused-by-itself" is nonsensical

thanks for agreeing with Thomas Aquinas and I when you say besides "event-caused-by-itself" is nonsensical because this is what Thomas Aquinas and I argue for the second half of premise 1 that nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. ... so whoop whoop yaaaaaay .... you agree halfway with Thomas Aquinas and I.

Your argument for the 3rd option is the argument we use for God. That is, God is uncaused or non-caused (which ever way you like to say it). So it seems to me that you already agree withthe logic of Thomas Aquinas and I that it is possible for uncaused entities to exist whoop whoop ... welcome to borderline-theism hehehehe ... thanks for presenting the false dichotomies - but when you think of it, you appear to be disagreeing but you ended up agreeing. Do you really believe that uncaused entities exists or are you trying to make me happy that you are starting to thing like a theist lol. In theism, uncaused entities are always necessary entities and not contingent. But it seems like, as you're a naturalist, you can show me that non-causality can occur. wow! almost sounds like magic. Like I could put my hands into a hat and bring out a rabbit without any tricks. Please, as a true naturalist, adhere to the definition of Causality (11)

Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is understood to be responsible for the second.

and prove to me that effects of events can occur without a responsible relationship or logical connection to a prior first cause. Show it to me and let me study, scrutinize and logically warrant it in all totality :)

disingenuouslet me alert you that any further disingenuous bullshit will result of calling you namesthank you for your understanding

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Ni_wn-OiQ[/embed]

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51rR4aC9aMg[/embed]

I checked the dictionary for disingenuous and saw it say:

lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere:

Calling me disingenuous is a metaphysical claim. You seem to know that I know the truth but I am purposefully withholding that from you. I have 2 questions for you
1. Do you absolutely KNOW for certain that I am disingenuous? Can you really see my intentions? Can you really see my heart?
2. Do you ASSUME or BELIEVE that I am disingenuous? If so, what are the logically warranted premises that made you make that assertion?

I am so confused as to why you would blame me metaphysically. Did I do anything to you to show that I was not taking you seriously? I even took extra time to reply you after giving
+K railroads a long ass reply and this is what I get? Where did I go wrong? My Chief Sunday School Teacher told me that giving analogies/ examples is a very good teaching method... heck! ... even Wikipedia (13) using credible sources such as (12) saying demonstration by using examples is a great teaching method. Did I really offend you or were you going through a bad day that day or are you becoming emotionally wrapped up in your arguments? Even if you are, shouldn't it be positive emotions? Where is the mutual respect? You may thank me for understanding but I'm sorry I do not understand. What credible repeatable methodology you used to come to the conclusion that I am disingenuous? I am sorry but I did not come here to be insulted. +carmel Kainvited me here to have a discussion and not a fighting match like you do with +Alex Spevak. Have I not been mutually repectful to you enough?

I was not being disingenuous. This argument you are bringing up is the famous Freewill-Omipotence Paradox argument or the Omniscience-Omnipotence Paradox Argument. Please read them up for yourself and see how they've been debunked (14) & (15) & (16). These articles all show 1 thing:

It has not been demonstrated by the people who present this kinda argument, how (FOR)KNOWLEDGE implies causality and denies a person the potential to do alternatively  (11).

The burden of proof is on you making the claim.

There we go, simply explained without using (setup) analogies just exactly as you ordered in the menu. This should satisfy you.

So after abusing me and insulting me for creating analogies... you begin your rebuttal with an analogy? in your section called The Experiment ... I'm not pointing fingers here as to who the disingenuous one here because I have an objective moral standard that say that I should be merciful to people. This is nothing short of mafia style bullying. You tell me not to use "setups" but you end up suing the very same thing. I leave you to God.

But I will answer your premises coz that's why I'm here:

By indirect implication, I disagree with

if choice changed then X can not exist at T1, if choice didn't change then X can exist

even though I agree with it by definition of Omniscience.

You make it sound as if free will causal decisions or choices is in the ability to defy an omniscient being. Let X be the fact that i will write (JLY) in this BRACKET. If it changed and were not so, then then God cannot know that I will write (JLY) in this bracket. If it changed did not change then God did know that I would write (JLY) in this bracket all prior to this time that I would write it. What you have done is describe omniscience. Thats all. You have ignored my analogy because only you can give analogies but not others. I repeat, you have not demonstrated how (FOR)KNOWLEDGE implies causality and denies a person the potential to do alternatively.

I do not know how much on the philosophy of Free Will you have studied. But notice the implicit assumption I make regarding my definition of Free Will - ie Free will is the ability to self-originate or self-perform or self-cause the potential of other alternatives as I said in my first opening response titled FREEWILL EXISTS, AT LEAST, COMPATIBLY (17) where I gave 3 logical philosophical arguments for free will and backed it up with scientific arguments to re-affirm free will. So i beg to ask this ver important question which I really need answered:

"What is your definition of Free Will?"

My Philosophical Definitions

1.) The Origination Argument
2.) The Logical Fatalism Argument
3.) The Causal Fatalism Argument

My Scientific Back-Up

1.) Quantum Biology
2.) Eminent Experiments from Roger Sperry, Wilder Penfields etc

If you do not grant The Origination Argument, you run the risk of irresponsibly violating objective moral and duties. You may become morally irresponsible like +Alex Spevak who told me that we have locked criminals in prison falsely because they are not the originators of their actions. Hence, rapists can never really be OBJECTIVELY blamed because as Dr Richard Dawkins says

DNA just is and we dance to its music

But I leave that to your next reply. Have a wonderful day and...

...God bless you

[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv3MiRyt7is[/embed]

REFERENCES
(1) http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
(2) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
(3) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal
(4) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scientia
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute
(7) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/syllogism
(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
(9) http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/premise
(10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
(11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
(12) Bruce, Catherine D., John Ross, Tara Flynn, and Rich McPherson. "Lesson Study and Demonstration Classrooms: Examining the Effects of Two Models of Teacher Professional Development." Google. CD Bruce, Aug. 2009. Web. 15 September 2010.
(13) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_method
(14) http://philosophiesofmen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/omniscience-free-will-paradox.html
(15) http://www.comereason.org/omniscience-and-free-will.asp
(16) http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/how-can-we-reconcile-free-will-with-gods-omniscience
(17) http://rdlogo.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/freewill-exists-at-least-compatibly.html

QUESTIONABLE SEQUITURS OF PREMISES

+K railroads

....hey bro... nice one. I have seen your polished reply. Seems like I was too hasty to call you out when I hadn't even responded to your polished reply. Ok... lets do this :D

1. Necessary being cannot be eternally material or mechanistic since there is no possibility of an infinity of mechanical operations.

I see you using the argument of the impossibility of an infinite regress. Yes you are right. This is the evidence we see in this world. So if I were to re-implicate that premise it would read as thus:

1. Necessary being CAN be eternally IMMATERIAL...

and I agree.

But i see you equivocating material and mechanism together. This seems to be a questionable dichotomy to me. Please, can you logically warrant why a "materiality" and "mechanistic operations" should be equivocated in this context. For example, the mechanistic operations of the laws of logic are NOT material. You seem to imply that "mechanistic operations" can ONLY be "material". Now I have given you the analogy of the laws of logic; in this rebuttal-light, can you logically warrant why they are "necessarily" mutually inclusive in the context of this premise.

2. We have no reason to suppose material reality exists since all we know is qualia and awareness. Qualia does not tell us that material exists.

My beloved brother, after seeing +Alex Spevak and +z08840 take down themselves in russian language (which was entertaining btw - these guys never fail to make my day hahahaha), I assume that English Language might not be your first language (i don't know, you gotta confirm it to me please); but saying

we have not reason to suppose material reality exists...

you make me wonder. Maybe you are conflicting the dichotomy between "believing / supposing / assuming / trusting / having confidence" with "absolute-knowledge-certainty". If you said:

we have no reason to know-for-certain material reality exists...

But come on... I totally disagree with premise 2. I think there exists good logically warranted reasons to believe / suppose / assume / trust / being confident with the fact that the material world exists.

Qualia may not absolutely/ certainly tell us that the material world exists... but Qualia can make us believe / suppose / assume / trust / being confident with the fact that the material world exists. (Sorry for the Tautology :P :D :) )

3. The simplest theory of the nature of qualia is that it is necessary being's awareness of its own activity, or 'energy level', or variation. To posit other possibilities is less parsimonious since we already have a proven being that can have these qualities (necessary being).

I agree, Hence Qualia must be "The Beginning" lol ie variation rather than special pleading one-ended sticks lol.

4. Necessary being is immaterial (from 1) and can have all necessary qualities to explain reality so it is more parsimonious to suggest that all there is is immaterial 'being' than to propose that unsupported 'material' exists as well as proven necessary being, or to propose that material needs to be created by necessary being.

This premise again creates an accent fallacy that leads to an argument from ignorance. I'll repeat... Just because we cannot absolutely-know-certainly that the material world exists, does not mean that we cannot use the undebunkable evidences/ data we have now of what we can see, hold, touch, feel, perform science on etc ... to "posit, theorize, believe, suppose, assume, trust, be confident" in the fact the material world may actually exists. Saying that "only Qualia exists is certain" and therefore "everything must be qualia" is a Slippery Slope fallacy arising from Rene Descartes fallacious circular reasoning

Cogito ergo sum - meaning "I think therefore I am".

Are you absolutely sure that because your qualia thinks, therefore, that is all that exists? or do you "posit, theorize, believe, suppose, assume, suspect, trust, be confident" that all that exists is qualia. There are many metaphysical assertions that make premise 4 UNNECESSARY:-

- Solipsism

- materialism

- Idealism

- Skepticism

- Dualism

- Externalism

- Internalism etc

So I am not convinced on the explanation of the above logic that it is more parsimonious to suggest that all there is is "immaterial being" because the "material" seems to be supported by belief/ theory/ presupposition/ assumption / trusts / confidences.

Secondly, I do not see why it is more parsimonious to propose that material need not to be created by necessary beings. It sounds like special pleading;

Do you know any other way contingent-materials can arise without a necessary-being?

One answer you could give is that the materials are necessary-entities. But can you show how acausality can occur without it being a conscious being without personality. (this is to distinguish between conscious personal beings and material beings).

- Conscious Personal Beings (material/ immaterial) = Humans, Animals, God (by definition),

- Material Beings =  Everything contingent on the big-bang ie this cosmos that can be seen, felt, sensed with our material senses.

- Immaterial Beings = Laws of Arithmetic/ Logic/ Mathematics/ Nature etc

Can the Laws of Mathematics or Arithmetic acausally create more money in my bank account? no

Can the Laws of nature acausally make me start floating in the air? no

It seems to me that even if the "material" was not created by a necessary being and it self-existed, devoid of a consciousness, it cannot be self aware that it exists. Hence, it cannot imbibe acausality if it were the only thing that existed. For example, the primordial soup that started the big bang, if it was not created by a necessary being and it existed atemporal, how can it just "start" to create seeing that it has no "personality" or "ability to choose" from transitioning mechanisms from a timeless, spaceless realm to this one we have now? It seems to me that only conscious beings with freewill can choose to oppose the determinism of eternal atemporality acausally.

5. Mechanism is therefore supported as an inherent aspect of the nature of immaterial being even though it could not be an eternal aspect.

I do not agree. I believe that Mechanism CAN be an eternal aspect and it is supported as an inherent aspect of the nature of immaterial beings. Let me explain my opinion: Firstly, I think you're categorizing / equivocating "infinite regress/ progress" with "eternal". You assume that mechanisms CANNOT be eternal because they only exist operationally regressing or progressing IN TIME. However, a necessary being existing eternally is not subject to "progress" or "regress" - such a necessary being is unchanging. This means that it is possible for a necessary being to be undergoing the mechanisms of speaking, breathing, seeing, sitting, being, existing, thinking, smiling, crying etc through all eternity but may freely choose to manifest them using HIS personality at various different moments/ times. This is only applicable on a philosophical A-Theory of time.

However, if you advocate for a B-Theory of time, then you're right - mechanisms cannot ultimately exists - this means that all mechanisms are ultimately illusions - everything is determined - even God. But this is not the Christian God. The Christian God is free by virtue of HIM being transcendental and infinitely great.

6. Mechanism began to exist (from 1 and 5).

I agree lol. but not in this context - not ALL mechanisms began to exist. by "began" you need to do what Dr Richard Dawkins did in his book "The God Delusion" and ask who created God? lol. In this context, you need to talk about the mechanism that made the mechanism that made the mechanism that made the mechanism ... which is an infinite regress... which is impossible. You have to be like Thomas Aquinas and posit the impossibility and reductio ad absurdum of this bad boy as you smack it on its bottom lol

Notice Thomas Aquinas First Cause Argument:

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1.) There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.

2.) It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.

3.) To take away the cause is to take away the effect.

4.) If there be no first cause then there will be no others.

5.) Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

To which I would say, as per this context, by equating "mechanism = cause" - because there is not mutual exclusivity or logical contradiction in that notion (ie mechanism can cause effects too) "Therefore a First Mechanism exists (and this is God). This still proves my point that a mechanism can exist eternally without going through an infinite regress/ progress - God is constant and Unchanging and in no need of regress/ progress. If you want to stand on this premise, you must prove, in light of my counter-arguments presented, that ALL MECHANISMS must necessary "begin" to exist.

7. In order to explain causality we need variation. Since there is only necessary being supported (from 2 and 4) this variation is supported as being of necessary being.

God is variation - I agree according to the philosophical bootstrap objection of christian theology (BOCT). This is why we believe in God's variation in the trinity - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

8. Therefore since it is supported that causality is entailed by variation , variation began, and therefore the beginning is supported to be a simple awareness with a single qualia type. Any variation would mean causality since there is no other explanation for causality that is supported other than variation in necessary being since necessary being is supported as all there is.

Notice you said "necessary being is all there is"? So, if this necessary simple qualia with no variation is all there is ... where did variation come from?

I think that it is a category mistake to say that since necessary being is what existed in the beginning, therefore contingent beings dont exist UNLESS you are talking to THE BEGINNING in this context, then i apologise :). Secondly, you get the fact that "variation is a necessary being" but you say it "began" to exist. I do not believe that it "began" to exist because you would imply that variation began to exist from another variation which is an impossible infinite regress. Variation has to exist eternally for your premises to be logically coherent. Thirdly, this single qualia type without variation sound like a one-ended stick which is a logical contradiction ... please, i cannot conceive of this, can you explain to me how anything can exist in its simplest form with out any single iota of variation?

9. Since there is only necessary being supported and causality began, it must have begun a-causally since necessary being would have no variation until the advent of causality, and so necessary being would therefore be very simple until the advent of causality (from 8).

I do not see the logical connection between7, 8 and 9. You just said that necessary being supports variation without the necessary being being variation. This is begs the question "where did that necessary being find the variation to vary the first acausal variation?" ... either way, that cannot be the first variation. It would mean that the necessary being is variation and hence, it can create variation itself. Where God the Father/ Agency varies from God the Son/ Variation and from God the Holy Spirit/ Mechanism. It seems to me that variation must not "begin" to exist but must exist eternally as the first and beginning.

As I said earlier, this is also a special pleading simple-to-complex argument. Why must everything move from simple-to-complex necessarily without appealing to the consequence that the explanation of the complex being is gonna be more complex and hence inexplicable? - because that's the point, God is complex and inexplicable. However, do not equivocate the fact that just because God cannot be comprehended, then HE cannot be apprehended.... because HE CAN be apprehended. In layman's terminologies, just because you cannot get the infinity into your head, does not mean that you cannot get your head into infinity.

10. Therefore it is not supported for the beginning to be the Christian God.

I'm sorry bro ... not my God hahahahaha ...My God is the beginning and HE is the Christian God. By your fallacious premises, you're right lol. You seem to be arguing for a Monadic Concept of God like the Islamic God "Allah". Well done, you have debunked Allah but not the Trinity Cocept of God. Your premises are contextually disjointed and logically unwarranted. You have failed to tackle the Philosophical Bootstrap Objection of Christian Theology (BOCT) (1). This BOCT says that whatever created the beginning is more of a beginning than the created beginning - therefore, the creator/ cause is THE BEGINNING.

and the corresponding proof in the bible bible

John 1:1-5 ... 1In the beginning was the Word (simple qualia), and the Word was with God*(Cause), and the Word was God *(both simple qualia with variation + cause = God is variation + conscious). 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him (mechanism) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life (raw materials - the essence), and that life was the light (effect) of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

SUMMARY OF MY CRITICISM OF YOUR LOGICAL SYLLOGISM

So far you are question begging and special pleading about the christian God.

(1) Equivocation fallacy between "suppose" and "absolute certainty"

(2) Special Pleading for "unsupported material" = variation in the context of no-variation in the simple beginning.

(3) Special Pleading for mechanisms inability to be eternal as a result of (1) above.

(4) Accent fallacy of the word "began" without indicating how it "began" - from where? how? when? (all special pleading and blanket assertions).

You can propose other possibilities that there may be another property of necessary being apart from the variations that are related to causality, but that makes things more complicated and this added complication is not called for since a-causal advent of variation is a logical and simple proposition.

Well... this is an appeal to complex consequences which is not a valid justification of why other possibilities cannot be posited. Hence, I still believe I remain logically coherent to ignore you and posit other possibilities. One of the inherent properties of entities that begin to exist is that they were efficiently caused by something outside their exists according to Thomas Aquinas First Cause Argument. If you are arguing for ADVENT of mechanisms and variations and acausality you must answer the questions especially number 1:

(1) Where did acausality come from when there was no acausality?

(2) Where did mechanism come from when there was no mechanism?

(3) Where did variation come from when there was no variation?

You can talk of the possibility of brute fact intelligent will but that wouldn't entail capacity to do the logically impossible (ie violate the law of identity). The creation of mechanism is not possible for God as defined ( in the beginning there was only God) because God does not have anything about his nature that could be used to create mechanism. He therefore lacks explanatory power.

I don't wanna repeat myself too much. I answered you before in (2). And this is where I gave you the Philosophy of Infinity to show you about the Eternal NATURE of God for HIM to conserve HIS identity.

1 + infinity = infinity

1 - infinity = infinity

and then I said But, to say, if mathematics behaves MOSTLY like this, then why is it impossible for God to ADD or SUBTRACT from HIS identity and HE still remains HIS very same identity? ... Hence, the Christian God has the nature to create smaller mechanisms because HE is Mechanisms HIMSELF and YET... HIS identity is conserved due to HIS infinite greatness. The only thing HE cannot do is create another infinite greatness greater than HIMSELF because that would be a logical contradiction. You are defining God on your own terms in logically wanting manners and appealing to consequences for special pleadings. Please, read my first reply (2) especially the "This is where I educate you on Christian Theology" section before I tackled your former premise 7 :)

So God theory is not only uncalled for and elaborate, it is contradictory because omnipotence doesn't entail capacity to do the logically impossible. So rather than bringing all this elaborate contradictory theory, I suggest we stick with the simple non contradictory suggestion that the beginning of causality was an aspect of the a-causal advent of variation in the immaterial conscious being.

I'm glad you understand the definition of Omnipotence that God cannot create one ended sticks ie do the logically contradictory. You seem to have studied a very huge amount of Christian Arguments. Well done :) - you have my respect :D Although, Study more Christian Theology and Doctrine. God Theory is not contradictory. The "simple qualia" with no variation sounds like a one ended stick and you fail on BOCT. I like your suggestion lol - it sure would make it very very very easy to understand God lol. But it seems like your one-sided stick that lacks variation is even a bigger contradiction than the contradiction you're trying to prove by disregarding the complexity and infinitude of my God, the Christian God. According to BOCT the "a-causal" advent of variable, is more of a variation than the created variation which makes A-causal Advent of Variation = Variation which is circular reasoning of saying variation existed before variation. You would save yourself a lot of brian space if you just admitted like Thomas Aquinas that "Variation (God the Son), Mechanism (God the Holy Spirit) and Agency (God the Father) has always existed eternally and never "began" or "advent" to exist at some finite point in time.

God bless you :)

PS: There is no NECESSARY law that states that EVERYTHING must always move from simple-to-complex.

REFERENCES

(1) http://sh.st/vC7x5

(2) http://sh.st/vVqLC