Does being and order disprove God?

[paulo75]

Hi everyone,

First post.

I saw a post from an atheist online who is claiming that "being and order can exist without agency". He writes:

"Agency presupposes being and order. 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."

He continues,

"Being and order are the preconditions for agency. An agent would have to be in order to be an agent, and order would have to obtain for the agent to will, act and cause. In other words, there is being and order whether or not there is an agent who acts. Agency is contingent, not necessary."

He then finishes by saying,

"Just as being is a precondition for agency, so is order. If there were not order in the first place, cause would not follow effect, things would not be themselves, and so forth. So a particular act of will cannot create order - because any such act would necessarily rely on an order that would already have to be exemplified. So being and order are not in any way reliant - logically and metaphysically CANNOT be reliant - on the will of a personal agent. God is not only superfluous but impossible."

I tend to think that this atheist is rather confused, but I'm stumped. There seems to be some faulty, hidden assumptions in his claim, but I'm having difficulty pinpointing them.

Is his claim nonsensical? How would you respond?

 

[farouk]

Hi everyone,

First post.

I saw a post from an atheist online who is claiming that "being and order can exist without agency". He writes:

"Agency presupposes being and order. 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."

He continues,

"Being and order are the preconditions for agency. An agent would have to be in order to be an agent, and order would have to obtain for the agent to will, act and cause. In other words, there is being and order whether or not there is an agent who acts. Agency is contingent, not necessary."

He then finishes by saying,

"Just as being is a precondition for agency, so is order. If there were not order in the first place, cause would not follow effect, things would not be themselves, and so forth. So a particular act of will cannot create order - because any such act would necessarily rely on an order that would already have to be exemplified. So being and order are not in any way reliant - logically and metaphysically CANNOT be reliant - on the will of a personal agent. God is not only superfluous but impossible."

I tend to think that this atheist is rather confused, but I'm stumped. There seems to be some faulty, hidden assumptions in his claim, but I'm having difficulty pinpointing them.

Is his claim nonsensical? How would you respond?

My approach would be Hebrews 11.6...

 

[shnarkle]

Hi everyone,

First post.

I saw a post from an atheist online who is claiming that "being and order can exist without agency". He writes:

"Agency presupposes being and order. 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."

He is reasoning from the fact that things have a cause to assuming that being cannot have a cause. His terminology is inaccurate. He's conflating cause or beginning with origin, or perhaps ignoring the fact that just because being may have no cause or beginning, it doesn't then follow that there is no origin to being or existence. Things come into existence because existence already exists. Existence is eternal, but the origin of existence exists conceptually as non-existence. It is the counterweight to non-existence in our dualistic way of thinking. Non existence doesn't exist, but this is only in relation to things.

When we think non-dualistically, the two are absorbed into the whole of reality.

"Being and order are the preconditions for agency. An agent would have to be in order to be an agent, and order would have to obtain for the agent to will, act and cause. In other words, there is being and order whether or not there is an agent who acts. Agency is contingent, not necessary."

Christianity addresses this by pointing out that the medium is the contingent, and necessary agency. There is only the medium, the way, the word, the image, etc.

"Just as being is a precondition for agency, so is order. If there were not order in the first place, cause would not follow effect, things would not be themselves, and so forth.

He appears to contradict himself here, or perhaps he just got confused as "cause doesn't follow effect, it causes the effect.

So a particular act of will cannot create order - because any such act would necessarily rely on an order that would already have to be exemplified.

He doesn't support this with much of anything. It also seems to be a tautology. A particular act of will can and does create order. We know this to be a fact. The fact that we may already know that this act of the will is intended to create order doesn't negate the fact that a will to create order couldn't exist prior to demonstrating order.

So being and order are not in any way reliant - logically and metaphysically CANNOT be reliant - on the will of a personal agent. God is not only superfluous but impossible."

Being and order, according to Christianity; are the personal agent, i.e. the immanent means by which things come into being each in their own order. God is simply the origin or source while Christ is being and order, the word, the way, etc.

 

[ScottA]

Hi everyone,

First post.

I saw a post from an atheist online who is claiming that "being and order can exist without agency". He writes:

"Agency presupposes being and order. 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."

He continues,

"Being and order are the preconditions for agency. An agent would have to be in order to be an agent, and order would have to obtain for the agent to will, act and cause. In other words, there is being and order whether or not there is an agent who acts. Agency is contingent, not necessary."

He then finishes by saying,

"Just as being is a precondition for agency, so is order. If there were not order in the first place, cause would not follow effect, things would not be themselves, and so forth. So a particular act of will cannot create order - because any such act would necessarily rely on an order that would already have to be exemplified. So being and order are not in any way reliant - logically and metaphysically CANNOT be reliant - on the will of a personal agent. God is not only superfluous but impossible."

I tend to think that this atheist is rather confused, but I'm stumped. There seems to be some faulty, hidden assumptions in his claim, but I'm having difficulty pinpointing them.

Is his claim nonsensical? How would you respond?

Theory and conjecture do not make for knowledge.

Ask him what actual knowledge is it that he bases his theory on. Then ask him, "What happened before that?" and if he has an answer, keep asking the same question until he ends with "I don't know."

What he thinks he knows is built on what he doesn't know, proving that he never did know anything.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Hi everyone,

First post.

I saw a post from an atheist online who is claiming that "being and order can exist without agency". He writes:

"Agency presupposes being and order. 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."

He continues,

"Being and order are the preconditions for agency. An agent would have to be in order to be an agent, and order would have to obtain for the agent to will, act and cause. In other words, there is being and order whether or not there is an agent who acts. Agency is contingent, not necessary."

He then finishes by saying,

"Just as being is a precondition for agency, so is order. If there were not order in the first place, cause would not follow effect, things would not be themselves, and so forth. So a particular act of will cannot create order - because any such act would necessarily rely on an order that would already have to be exemplified. So being and order are not in any way reliant - logically and metaphysically CANNOT be reliant - on the will of a personal agent. God is not only superfluous but impossible."

I tend to think that this atheist is rather confused, but I'm stumped. There seems to be some faulty, hidden assumptions in his claim, but I'm having difficulty pinpointing them.

Is his claim nonsensical? How would you respond?

If there is nothing, how can there be a precondition for an agency?

Remind him that prior to the big bang there was nothing, no prconditions, no laws of quantem physics, no laws of science, no energy, no matter, no space, there was nothing.

Then it all began. evertyhing I've said there was nothing now existed.

What is his explanation for it coming into being?

Does he really believe that nothing caused everything?