Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse

Methodology on God : Matt Dillahunty is Bad · Others Commented under Matt's Video · More answering other comments · Methodology on God : Lynne Atwater is Worse · On God's Being "Possible" (in our research, not in His Nature which is pure act)

A creating God is Impossible: A Final Proof
Lynne Atwater | 28.I.2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQm-vMMDe-E

While the video is on Lynne Atwater's channel, the host is another, younger person, who refers to Lynne as another person than herself.

I

I am very sorry, but Lynne Atwater abuses her status as psychologist to promote her bad (that is sloppy) logic as a philosopher, as an Atheist.

• 1) Creatio ex nihilo does not mean there is no Creator to start with, it means He is not transforming Himself, and when He starts, there is also nothing except him.
• 2) God creating something from nothing entails no logical contradiction. Because God being there involves there being an active cause for the resulting creation, an efficient cause. The one thing that lacks is a passive cause, also known as a material cause.

Lynne Atwater

Hans-Goerg,
Don't be sorry, but do explain why and where my logic is sloppy. Don't just accuse, demonstrate. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater Did you read my follow up comment in which I did precisely show the faults in your logic, or did you only sight the first comment and respond to that one?

[Limit of my originally two and still so under youtube comments before the enumeration 1), 2)]

II

Also, the presentation is abusive at the point where "we have already agreed, if I described my house as completely empty and said I could fetch you anything you want from it, this would be contradictory".

When agreeing to that, I am assuming:

• 1) you are you, you are not God, therefore you do not have an ability to create from nothing, you also have no special standing with God allowing you miracles
• 2) by empty you mean "nothing" as to things that can be fetched and by "from it" you are not really saying "through it" (if you had sth behind the house that would be cheating).

Yes, on those terms, the house as you described it would be contradictory.

Lynne Atwater

Hans,
You are assuming that there is some sort of entity out there that you call God; an entity that can create from nothing. Please prove that that entity exists then explain how an "existing" being can create something from nothing when 'nothing' would not be an available point of creative departure. After all, there would already be something: i.e.; That entity's existence. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater You are using a very foul tactic, namely, confusing what is offered as a reply with what is offered as a proof and vice versa.

YOU were trying to disprove. YOU were making a claim, a very strong one in logic, of impossibility.

Whether or not God exists is not per se important for assessing the "proof" you offered. Supposing He does, and supposing He is the ground of existence and supposing He disposes of Himself in that capacity, He is adequate for creating after no previous material.

Hence, your disproof is flawed and deflecting from that fact by asking, out of order, while it was not my proposition "at hand" to prove God as if that were the one sole and even isolated task every Christian had to perform, is simply as bad logic as it is bad manners.

III

Indeed, basic truths are self evident, but impossibility of creation from nothing is not one of them.

Lynne Atwater

Hans,
The impossibility that something can emerge from nothing is, very definitely, a self-evident truth. Please review Aristotle's law of non-contradiction. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater You are confusing contradiction with causal logic, and you are confusing "with no cause at all" (which is in violation of principle of adequate ground) with "with no previous matter" (when there is however a previous agent).

I'm better at Aristotle than you are, since I spent some time actually studying philosophy, as opposed to psychology.

As previously mentioned, you are abusing your position.

If you want to read up, here you have St Thomas:

Summa Theologiae, I Pars, Q 45
http://newadvent.com/summa/1045.htm

Particularly interesting would be:

Article 1. Objection 3. Reply to Objection 3.

Article 2. Objection 1. Reply to Objection 1. & Objection 2. Reply to Objection 2.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please explain what role cause can play where existence is not in evidence. I fear you are postulating a causal scenario in a non-causal setting. Remember, in order for existence to be created, it must do so from a position of non-existence and where there is nothing, cause is absent as well. I have a master's degree in Philosophy. I am not in the habit of posting proofs for no reason at all. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater "Please explain what role cause can play where existence is not in evidence."

Note, when we talk of can play, we are talking of possibilities. Not on whether God's previous existence is actually proven or not, but on whether, given it, He could cause.

Well, since He (on this hypothesis) exists, since He is unlimited (since unborrowed) existence, He is free to cause existence.

If you meant some existence on which to project His causality, I go with St Thomas, both in so far as I say that His causation is instantaneous, that is, the thing "emerging" into existence does not "emerge" gradually and therefore has no need of already existing before emerging into full existence (such a need would make the scenario contradictory), or if you meant that making always is transforming, always implies sth from which you make, which would be contradictory to making from nothing, I answer that is an observation which is empirically impeccable about making in our experience of human makers, but cannot be projected as a limitation onto God.

"Remember, in order for existence to be created, it must do so from a position of non-existence and where there is nothing, cause is absent as well."

We do not say "existence" is created, but "created existence" or "existence other than God" is created.

Therefore, the cause was NOT absent.

"I have a master's degree in Philosophy. I am not in the habit of posting proofs for no reason at all."

Too bad, postulating a contradiction where none exists is not what one should earn master's degrees in philosophy for.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Causality plays no role whatsoever where existence is not in evidence. It can't. Under such conditions, nothing exists, very much including causality.

You go on to discuss a being you call god and that apparently dose some most amazing things. Before we discuss the this god's marvels, please first prove the existence of God. No one likes to waste their time discussing something that is supposed to be real when, in reality, it is only imaginary. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater Again, you are misconstructing two things:

• 1) the concept of existence being there and the concept of it "being in evidence"
• 2) the actual Christian view of starting point as "nothing existed except God" and your misconstruction of purely verbal sound of "creation from nothing" as "nothing including no God" being the starting point.

If you got a masters in philosophy, it was at a university with clear atheistic and more or less Commie bias, or your professors overlooked an error as irrelevant for your masters essay.

"Before we discuss the this god's marvels, please first prove the existence of God."

That is a totally different kettle of fish.

We exist, we did not always exist. Ergo, our existence is contigent. But if all existence were contingent, some point all would exist and some point all would not exist.

But in eternity past, the point of all not existing would already have been reached and from there no return.

Your reply might be, the particles we consist of are unlike us not contingent but necessary. That was the position of Democritus and Epicure, with their poetic disciple Lucrece. However, if we take mind into account, their primary solution of specially fine particles being "mind particles" or their secondary solution of "mind particles" just being a very clearminded case of all particles having a mind of some kind is not satisfactory. Mind is a primary.

Also, supposing you are to try to misconstrue mind as a byproduct of matter, of particles, you do not have Epicure's eternal steady state universe to fit this into, unless you want to seriously ditch science.

Ergo, particles are ultimately contingent as we are, mind is the primary non-contingent existence, but not our mind, which is united in so many ways to contingent particles, therefore a pure mind, a pure spirit. Which we call God.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Please differentiate for me 'the being of existence and the concept of existence being in evidence.

Also kindly give me 'your' view of what make God, God.

You say "... in eternity past, the point of all not existing would already have been reached and from there no return." Once again you are pre-supposing some sort of causal event even in an obviously a-causal setting. Please explain.

Define 'mind'. (in detail) Apparently you feel that it has, somehow, non-physical properties.

Kindly clarify your ideas and the terminology you're using. If not, we could be talking to each forever about completely different things. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater "Please differentiate for me 'the being of existence and the concept of existence being in evidence."

There is a difference of sth being there and something being in evidence, right?

"Also kindly give me 'your' view of what make God, God."

Is this English? If you mean what quality makes Him God as opposed to sth else, being necessary existance would be one.

"You say "... in eternity past, the point of all not existing would already have been reached and from there no return." Once again you are pre-supposing some sort of causal event even in an obviously a-causal setting. Please explain."

Nothing non-causal about the setting. What can happen sooner or later will happen given an eternity of time.

In other words, if every being were contingent, none necessary, sooner or later the point where each was not would be there. Ergo there is a necessary being.

"Define 'mind'. (in detail) Apparently you feel that it has, somehow, non-physical properties."

Tell me when you latest caught a physical vector discussing things.

"Kindly clarify your ideas and the terminology you're using. If not, we could be talking to each forever about completely different things. Lynne"

I think I was clear enough for one who claims to has studied philosophy.

Lynne Atwater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Hans,

• 1) Saying "There is a difference of sth being there and something being in evidence" tells me nothing about the difference between these two declarations. Please give me your explanation in a proper form.
  
  
• 2) The postulate that God exists necessarily, requires proof that a) that indeed is what defines god and b) that there is such a god.
  
  
• 3) You continue to pre-suppose causality in an eternal universe. You don't see the contradiction in such a supposition?
  
  
• 4) Your comment ..."in other words, if every being were contingent, none necessary, sooner or later the point where each was not would be there. Ergo there is a necessary being." This apparent declaration of some sort is totally incomprehensible. Please re-phrase.
  
  
• 5) Vectors, equations, ideas, thoughts, and pies in the sky all refer to physical entities or events. Without physicality, there are no vectors.
  
  
• 6) The terminology you use is not philosophical in nature, it is the language of he who tries to camouflage their lack of understanding, not their knowledge. Please make an effort to first understand what it is you are trying to say, then make another to express yourself in a meaningful way. Lynne

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lynne Atwater

• 1) "Saying "There is a difference of sth being there and something being in evidence" tells me nothing about the difference between these two declarations. Please give me your explanation in a proper form."
  
  I am sorry, I don't know the "philosophese" for this, if you mean terminology by Bertrand Russell.
  
  I am not interested in "philosophese" as in Bertrand Russell's own very special pursuit of hermetic terms.
  
  If you don't know the difference between existing and being evidenced, I am sorry for you. Presumably on your view bacteria didn't exist before the microscope?
  
  
• 2) "The postulate that God exists necessarily,"
  
  Is not a postulate, but a conclusion of one necessary existence, and a refutation of this being a material existence, a purely physical one.
  
  "requires proof that a) that indeed is what defines god and b) that there is such a god."
  
  I sense Betrand Russelesque or Kantian philosophese. Constructing circles in the conversation to pretend to detect circles in opponent's proof.
  
  
• 3) "You continue to pre-suppose causality in an eternal universe. You don't see the contradiction in such a supposition?"
  
  No.
  
  
  • a) I wasn't speaking of "eternal universe" but of eternal time;
  • b) I wasn't speaking of "caused universe" either.
  
  
  Presumably, you were sensing a contradictiçon between "eternal universe" and "caused universe" which wasn't there, because both terms come from your sloppy sense of what counts as equivalent.
  
  
• 4) "Your comment ..."in other words, if every being were contingent, none necessary, sooner or later the point where each was not would be there. Ergo there is a necessary being." This apparent declaration of some sort is totally incomprehensible. Please re-phrase."
  
  I am sorry, I am not your English teacher.
  
  
• 5) "Vectors, equations, ideas, thoughts, and pies in the sky all refer to physical entities or events. Without physicality, there are no vectors."
  
  The point is, vectors don't have ideas.
  
  Ideas don't evidence physicality.
  
  
• 6) "The terminology you use is not philosophical in nature,"
  
  You mean it is not Bertrand Russelesque philosophese? Touché.
  
  "it is the language of he who tries to camouflage their lack of understanding, not their knowledge."
  
  So far you have shown a lack of comprehension.
  
  "Please make an effort to first understand what it is you are trying to say, then make another to express yourself in a meaningful way. Lynne"
  
  Sorry, I am still not your English teacher, and I don't intend to get schooled in Bertrand Russelesque philosophese, which isn't English or any other natural language.

IV

5:20 It so happens, I did check up godgone.com and it is simply a rhetoric packing up of the idea that creation of nothing is impossible, it has no bearing whatsoever on where the universe came from.

Perhaps because her naiveté in logic did not allow her to pose the question, or perhaps because she thinks "eternal steady state universe" is an option (for several scientific reasons, it is not) or perhaps because she provided an answer back in 2008 but had to withdraw it between then and now (2019) because it was so flawed, it was hurting her rhetoric.

Oh, wait, it actually is stated what she thinks:

"How sure are we that this big bang was the first? From where did that initial source of energy materialize anyway, from nowhere? Is it even remotely possible that absolutely nothing could have exploded into all of this? How does something blow-up that isn’t there?"

"Man is accustomed to witnessing the birth of a child or the destruction of an inanimate object and surmising he has witnessed the emergence or annihilation of existence itself. He has not. He has only witnessed a fleeting moment of transformation. That which we interpret as the beginning or the end of physical form is, indeed, but the almost magical-like illusion created by snap-shot observations of an eternally evolving universe."

Nice show of explaining why Big Bang being first is a contradiction in terms.

But if she claims an eternally evolving universe being there before the Big Bang, she is basically breaking her own rule and asking us to believe there are rabbits on Pluto.

Let me break it down why Big Bang, even after previous shapes of an "eternally evolving universe" is a really bad idea scientifically.

• 1) In Big Bang or immediately previous to it, no atoms, this also means no hydrogen atoms or other elements;
• 2) After Big Bang, no known way of producing all the elements.

Abiogenesis doesn't work.

This means, life would either come from outside the universe (making God the creator as perfectly valid an option as erratic transfer between universes in a multiverse), or doesn't exist (which we know is false) or survived through the Big Bang, which defies the biological definitions of life.

So, which is it?

Atwood claims to be a clinical psychologist, meaning, her job is to straighten people out who are fools. Her job on this item shows her making a fool of herself.

V

Let's break down what she considers as "paraphrases".

"This box is void of any content. By adding absolutely nothing, it will have something in it. And..."

"Joe was never here, therefore he was."

"Yet the above are precise paraphrases of the self-contradictions:"

// 1) “Nothing can become something by adding nothing to it" or, 2) Before creation took place, “God didn’t exist, therefore, he did”. //

• 1) is not involved, since nothing didn't become something by adding nothing to it, but by God adding His word into the action of creating;
• 2) is also not involved, since "from nothing" doesn't mean from an initial state of absolute nothing, but "from no preexisting material". It definitely does not exclude the eternal pre-existence of a creator.

If she really wanted to know what theological terms mean, she should go to theologians, not to dictionary definitions which may be as sloppy as general culture.