Originally posted by eatmybishop you are saying god is eternal and has always existed; that's no different from an athesists point of view of saying it all came from nothing... why do you put your theory on a pedestal..? neither can be proved and none is more valid than the other
There are some distinctions however. I agree that both scenarios involved an uncaused entity of some sort that is unexplainable by science (although S from Ners seem to think the whole business quite rational ). In this respect they are similar . However , the eternal existence theory does not present us with the problem of having to explain why nothing would just not continue being...well...nothing. In the eternal existence theory there is no nothing. God did not come into being "from nothing" he just always is. In this way there is continuity of existence without a "jump" from non-existence to existence. This problem is solved.
Another way of thinking about it is that if something had the incredible ability to create itself and exist from nothing with no cause or explanation whatsoever then why would it need to even have a beginning in the first place. A "beginning" is very suggestive of a thing that relies on something else to exist. Everything we know of that has a beginning is reliant on something to make it begin. Surely suvch an entity would have the ability to exist forever . Why not? Does it need to hang around for trillions of years of nothingness to wait for the right conditions to exist? If it could just exist from nothing then it doesn't rely on anything else to exist at all. So why bother with a beginning at all? It would be a bit like having a superman who could fly at 10000 mph but could only run at 40mph. Doesn't seem right somehow.
It seems more parsimonious and elegant just to take it logically forward one step further. Existence exists permanently or non-exists permanently. This means that if your answer to the nothing-o-tron thread is A then you are immediately drawn to eternity.
We have a choice between two theories both of which are incredible and unexplainable , but they are still different.
Originally posted by knightmeister There are some distinctions however. I agree that both scenarios involved an uncaused entity of some sort that is unexplainable by science (although S from Ners seem to think the whole business quite rational ). In this respect they are similar . However , the eternal existence theory does not present us with the problem of having to explain why nothin theories both of which are incredible and unexplainable , but they are still different.
yes, i can see your point... you still make the mistake though of saying god plays a role in all this... you are saying if there was never a state of non-existence then god has always existed... this statement is illogical, why can there always be existence without god..?
the problem is the more i learn of your opinions on this the more it seems you are actually disproving the one thing you're trying to prove... god. you are saying there has always been an existence and something cannot come from nothing, this raises the question 'why do we need god then, we would still in where we are without him?'
if life has always existed like you say and life creates life, god doesnt need to play a role in the creation of it
Originally posted by eatmybishop yes, i can see your point... you still make the mistake though of saying god plays a role in all this... you are saying if there was never a state of non-existence then god has always existed... this statement is illogical, why can there always be existence without god..?
the problem is the more i learn of your opinions on this the more it seems you ...[text shortened]... sted like you say and life creates life, god doesnt need to play a role in the creation of it
Good question! By existence I don't neccesarily mean the universe. The universe is all that we currently know but I see no reason to presumptiously assume that that's all there is. What we know about our universe seems to suggest that it is finite with some kind of beginning and seems to be running down (heat death) therefore if there is eternal existence our universe looks a poor candidate. This doesn't necessarily imply God though. One could have all sorts of other stuff out there that is eternal and not God.
You see , God cannot be proved by argument or science , only personally by knowing his Spirit. So I am not trying to prove God or have ever said that I was. What I can show is that something form of uncaused existence is most likely to be the truth. I can argue for the idea that S from N is illogical and that eternal uncaused existence is very possible and the most simple explanation. This existence may be God or something else but it is one small jigsaw piece in the overall argument.
I'm very realistic in what I think can be achieved on these forums. If I can get someone to think "...hmmm maybe the idea of an uncaused eternal entity (life or god) is not that wacky" then I am happy. The rest isn't up to me.
Originally posted by knightmeister Good question! By existence I don't neccesarily mean the universe. The universe is all that we currently know but I see no reason to presumptiously assume that that's all there is. What we know about our universe seems to suggest that it is finite with some kind of beginning and seems to be running down (heat death) therefore if there is eternal existe ...[text shortened]... eternal entity (life or god) is not that wacky" then I am happy. The rest isn't up to me.
well, you gave me food for thought anyway i grant you that... its funny how most people refuse to answer the kind of question you've asked, maybe because they just dont want to face it... yet it still remains one of the most common questions asked by children, "if god created us, who created god?"
Originally posted by knightmeister There are some distinctions however. I agree that both scenarios involved an uncaused entity of some sort that is unexplainable by science (although S from Ners seem to think the whole business quite rational ). In this respect they are similar . However , the eternal existence theory does not present us with the problem of having to explain why nothin ...[text shortened]... theories both of which are incredible and unexplainable , but they are still different.
S from N is only a logical problem if you assume causality. You do, I do not.
Originally posted by eatmybishop well, you gave me food for thought anyway i grant you that... its funny how most people refuse to answer the kind of question you've asked, maybe because they just dont want to face it... yet it still remains one of the most common questions asked by children, "if god created us, who created god?"
That's right . It's the big question really. Whatever theory you follow through logically to the end will always lead to some uncaused entity. Causality gets defied and we end up positing either something from nothing in an uncaused way or something eternally uncaused. An uncaused entity is extremely likely. By the way watch out for my new thread and see if anyone answers it.
Originally posted by scottishinnz S from N is only a logical problem if you assume causality. You do, I do not.
Oh I see, it's all so simple for you. Chuck out causality (maybe even time) and it all makes "sense" Duh! You think an uncaused event from nothing makes sense to you? This is disingenuous rationalising. As a paper exercise it may not be a logical problem, but in the real world? I can equally say that an eternal God is not a logical problem (even though it is) if one chucks out causality!
Originally posted by knightmeister Oh I see, it's all so simple for you. Chuck out causality (maybe even time) and it all makes "sense" Duh! You think an uncaused event from nothing makes sense to you? This is disingenuous rationalising. As a paper exercise it may not be a logical problem, but in the real world? I can equally say that an eternal God is not a logical problem (even though it is) if one chucks out causality!
You are a wally.
I didn't "chuck out causality", it was Professors Einstein, Minkowski and Hawkins which did that.
Originally posted by knightmeister I would be interested to hear from the Something from Nothingers what they feel the basic probability was that existence would exist from zilch (and why)?
Have you found any Something from Nothingers yet as you keep talking about them but I am yet to see any of them post in any of your threads.
Originally posted by twhitehead Have you found any Something from Nothingers yet as you keep talking about them but I am yet to see any of them post in any of your threads.
Originally posted by scottishinnz You are a wally.
I didn't "chuck out causality", it was Professors Einstein, Minkowski and Hawkins which did that.
Take your beef up with them.
No I am not a wally , you just don't understand the point. I accept that causality has to go and it is totally logical that it should do so , thus I have no beef with Einstein et al . I'm just questioning the matter of factness with which you talk about an uncaused entity as if it were just a walk in the park.
nothing ever happens...
04 Mar '07 15:011 edit
Back to Top