PDA

View Full Version : Why is there something rather than nothing?



Damian
October 25th, 2014, 09:13 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

PureX
October 25th, 2014, 10:08 AM
Why is there something rather than nothing?I think that's actually an incoherent question. 'Something' and 'nothing' are binary conceptual elements created in our minds by the way our minds function. And each is completely meaningless without the other. They are the idea of 'this and that' applied to everything.

I'm not saying that it's inappropriate to ask such a question. We are humans, after all, and these are our brains doing what our brains do. But when we ask this kind of question: that brings us face to face with the paradox made inherent by our own conscious nature, we're going to have to expect no satisfactory answer.

oatmeal
October 25th, 2014, 11:43 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Genesis 1:1

chrysostom
October 25th, 2014, 01:10 PM
so the real question
is
what are we doing here?
and
the answer
is
we are being tested
and
this is necessary due to our having free will

George Affleck
October 26th, 2014, 05:32 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

How do you know it is something?

RobertoKarr
October 26th, 2014, 05:46 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Not all questions have answers, because questions are a product of the human imagination . We all know that not everything we imagine exists in reality. There's unicorns, Dracula, Frodo Baggins, non of them exist outside the human brains.

The same applies to questions. The fact that we can formulate a question (and even make up a poetical answer for it) doesn't make the question , nor the answer, a factual phenomenon.

Just try to answer the following questions and explain to me how is that proof of their reality?

Why are elves so bad tempered?
Why is it that every time you ride a unicorn a rainbow dies?

I know your question about "something" is not like my previous questions. In that "something" exists (unlike unicorns).

But what about "nothing"? Does nothing exist?.
What if "nothing" just doesn't exist. And everything is something.

What if "Nothing" is a product of the human imagination, and the question Why isn't "nothing" out there? or Why is there something , instead of nothing? is just as silly as asking why are there horses instead of unicorns?

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 05:51 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz
The total energy of the universe is zero.

So neither you nor Liebniz have really established that there is 'something'.

Stuart

Aimiel
October 26th, 2014, 05:52 AM
Why indeed. Obviously you have seen The Creator and know Him. You need to recognize that He has sent His Son to give you eternal life. Once you do that the rest is simple.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 06:43 AM
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ
That rather makes it sound like something people might find shameful.

I find it so.

Stuart

RobertoKarr
October 26th, 2014, 07:19 AM
The total energy of the universe is zero.

So neither you nor Liebniz have really established that there is 'something'.

Stuart

If "something" has not being established then by reductio ad absurdum "nothing" prevails.

Thus the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is meaningless (in a world where only "nothing" exists).

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 07:24 AM
If "something" has not being established then by reductio ad absurdum "nothing" prevails.

Thus the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is meaningless (in a world where only "nothing" exists).
I think the question is meaningless regardless.

Stuart

bybee
October 26th, 2014, 07:28 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Well... if there were nothing you wouldn't exist to pose the question....And I would not exist to posit a response....

Aimiel
October 26th, 2014, 07:36 AM
That rather makes it sound like something people might find shameful.

I find it so.When you stand before God on judgment day, you will be ashamed of the fact that you never acknowledged Him. That will be a shame, but it will be set, if you do not repent before your death.

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 07:40 AM
The modal cosmological argument (contingency version) proves God using a similar concept. The universe either has to be contingent (caused by an external cause) or necessary existing as a result of its own nature. The universe has to have an explanation for its existence. Atheists have to show how and why it is impossible for the universe not to have existed. Good luck.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 07:46 AM
When you stand before God on judgment day, you will be ashamed of the fact that you never acknowledged Him. That will be a shame, but it will be set, if you do not repent before your death.
And what if your god stands before us on judgement day, and we judge it? How does it rate then?

Stuart

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 07:47 AM
The modal cosmological argument (contingency version) proves God using a similar concept. The universe either has to be contingent (caused by an external cause) or necessary existing as a result of its own nature. The universe has to have an explanation for its existence. Atheists have to show how and why it is impossible for the universe not to have existed. Good luck.
Sorry? The universe is limited to what? Atheists have to do what?

Your internal monologue needs to get out more.

Stuart

bybee
October 26th, 2014, 08:17 AM
If "something" has not being established then by reductio ad absurdum "nothing" prevails.

Thus the question "Why is there something instead of nothing?" is meaningless (in a world where only "nothing" exists).

Wouldn't nothing be the absence of existence?

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 08:34 AM
Sorry? The universe is limited to what? Atheists have to do what?

Your internal monologue needs to get out more.

Stuart
The "universe" is composed of all of space-time (all of mass and energy).

The universe is more likely to be contingent than necessary.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 08:35 AM
The "universe" is composed of all of space-time (all of mass and energy).

The universe is more likely to be contingent than necessary.
I disagree with all of that.

Stuart

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 08:37 AM
I disagree with all of that.

Stuart
I've only defined "universe" like that. You could also name that the cosmos or whatever.

All the compositions of the universe is obviously contingent in nature. Why not the universe?

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 08:43 AM
I've only defined "universe" like that. You could also name that the cosmos or whatever.

All the compositions of the universe is obviously contingent in nature. Why not the universe?
Putting aside the problem of matter/energy/space-time for a minute, what exactly do you mean by contingent?

Stuart

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 08:46 AM
Putting aside the problem of matter/energy/space-time for a minute, what exactly do you mean by contingent?

Stuart
If something is contingent then the explanation for its existence lies externally to it. It has an external cause. It could fail to exist.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 08:50 AM
If something is contingent then the explanation for its existence lies externally to it. It has an external cause. It could fail to exist.
I see. Explain to me how cause works in a condition of time not existing.

Stuart

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 08:51 AM
How do you know it is something?

Because I am experiencing something.

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 08:54 AM
I think that's actually an incoherent question.

I don't. But if you do not understand the question, then perhaps you should find another thread to occupy your time.

bybee
October 26th, 2014, 08:54 AM
I disagree with all of that.

Stuart

There is a "Stuart" I'm addressing him/it. Therefore something exists.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 08:55 AM
There is a "Stuart" I'm addressing him/it. Therefore something exists.
I don't think that is actually relevant to that particular argument, is it?

We are borrowed gravitational energy. That means we may exist without being considered 'something', in an accounting sense at least.

Stuart

bybee
October 26th, 2014, 08:57 AM
I don't think that is actually relevant to the argument, is it?

Stuart

Welllllll, we are talking about existence and non-existence are we not?

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 08:57 AM
Genesis 1:1

I'm asking a philosophical question and I expect a philosophical response. Why don't you actually attempt to think for your self rather than simply citing biblical verses.

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 08:58 AM
so the real question
is
what are we doing here?l

If you don't like the question I posed in the OP, then I suggest you start your own thread.

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 09:00 AM
I see. Explain to me how cause works in a condition of time not existing.

Stuart
If you believe that that the universe necessarily exists as a result of its own nature somehow and that time has no beginning, then you should not have realise that this notion is quite illogical. Time should have a beginning and I think you agree.

So what caused time to begin? And why couldn't it have began sooner? You should realise that the second question is illogical. Without time there can be no concepts of "sooner" or "later". So what CAUSED the beginning? Without time there can be NO causal effects

BUT enter God a timeless space less being!

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 09:01 AM
Welllllll, we are talking about existence and non-existence are we not?
That's not the title of the thread.

Stuart

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 09:04 AM
If you believe that that the universe necessarily exists as a result of its own nature somehow and that time has no beginning, then you should not have realise that this notion is quite illogical. Time should have a beginning and I think you agree.

So what caused time to begin? And why couldn't it have began sooner? You should realise that the second question is illogical. Without time there can be no concepts of "sooner" or "later". So what CAUSED the beginning? Without time there can be NO causal effects

BUT enter God a timeless space less being!
I think there is little question that there was a beginning to time. And there is your problem. In your 'logical' view, cause-and-effect is temporal: causes come before effects. But with the beginning of the universe, the very first thing we see is an effect, not a cause. There is no such thing as "before the beginning of the universe".

So already you can forget human logic if you are trying to explain the existence of the universe. Who says the universe has to conform to logic? We already know it doesn't because of the freaky effects we observe at the quantum level.

Stuart

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 09:05 AM
Just try to answer the following questions and explain to me how is that proof of their reality?

I asked the question and I furnished you with a rational reply. Your only counterargument is to deny the legitimacy of the question. If that is your tack, then you are simply conceding the point by default.

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 09:06 AM
The total energy of the universe is zero.

So neither you nor Liebniz have really established that there is 'something'.

I don't have time for your stupidity.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 09:08 AM
I don't have time for your stupidity.
I acknowledge your rejection of philosophy.

Stuart

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 09:08 AM
Why indeed. Obviously you have seen The Creator and know Him. You need to recognize that He has sent His Son to give you eternal life. Once you do that the rest is simple.

Don't try to hijack this thread by engaging in your inane proselytizing .

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 09:11 AM
Well... if there were nothing you wouldn't exist to pose the question....And I would not exist to posit a response....

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't address the question.

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 09:14 AM
The modal cosmological argument (contingency version) proves God using a similar concept. The universe either has to be contingent (caused by an external cause) or necessary existing as a result of its own nature. The universe has to have an explanation for its existence. Atheists have to show how and why it is impossible for the universe not to have existed. Good luck.

I'm surprised. You're actually making a rational argument.

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 09:14 AM
I think there is little question that there was a beginning to time. And there is your problem. In your 'logical' view, cause-and-effect is temporal: causes come before effects. But with the beginning of the universe, the very first thing we see is an effect, not a cause.

So already you can forget human logic if you are trying to explain the existence of the universe. Who says the universe has to conform to logic? We know it doesn't because of the freaky effects we observe at the quantum level.

Stuart

Lmao! So you think there needn't be a logical explanation for the existence of the universe? This is quite astonishing. What is science for? Why are scientists sweating over it? We see an effect and we have the audacity to attribute no cause to it just because time does seem to began just then and cause and effect are temporal. Why not think of an abstract cause - something that is timeless and spaceless. Why not try the God hypothesis (the god of the deists). It needn't be up to a point of certainty. A Mind (which exists as a necessity of its own nature) being the cause of it is more probable than no cause at all! That's enough a good argument for God's existence.

The "freaky effects we observe at a quantum level" or more specifically the nondeterministic model of reality at the quantum level we are forced to consider does not provide any explanation for the beginning of the universe. It debunks determinism and upholds the concept of freewill in a way but "before" the beginning we should have had a philosophical nothingness and this leads to NO "freaky effects at all". No way could matter,space and time originate from a philosophical nothingness.

PureX
October 26th, 2014, 09:15 AM
I think there is little question that there was a beginning to time. And there is your problem. In your 'logical' view, cause-and-effect is temporal: causes come before effects. But with the beginning of the universe, the very first thing we see is an effect, not a cause. There is no such thing as "before the beginning of the universe".

So already you can forget human logic if you are trying to explain the existence of the universe. Who says the universe has to conform to logic? We already know it doesn't because of the freaky effects we observe at the quantum level.

StuartLike it or not, I think this hits the proverbial nail on the head.

The way we humans think is not sufficient to deduce a proper answer to the existential questions that we're asking. And that's just the way it is. :stuck:

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 09:22 AM
Lmao! So you think there needn't be a logical explanation for the existence of the universe? This is quite astonishing. What is science for? Why are scientists sweating over it?
Are scientists sweating over it? The problem is pretty plain to everyone who can understand it.


We see an effect and we have the audacity to attribute no cause to it just because time does seem to began just then and cause and effect are temporal.
You got it! But it's not audacious to say 'we don't know', and 'we think we can't know'.


Why not think of an abstract cause - something that is timeless and spaceless. Why not try the God hypothesis (the god of the deists). It needn't be up to a point of certainty. A Mind (which exists as a necessity of its own nature) being the cause of it is more probable than no cause at all! That's enough a good argument for God's existence.
Because it's entirely wishful thinking on your part, and a supreme example of something that goes past audacity to arrogance. Why should we listen to you spreading your lame selfish fantasies all over the universe? Actually what does it explain anyway? Nothing!


The "freaky effects we observe at a quantum level" or more specifically the nondeterministic model of reality at the quantum level we are forced to consider does not provide any explanation for the beginning of the universe. It debunks determinism and upholds the concept of freewill in a way but "before" the beginning we should have had a philosophical nothingness and this leads to NO "freaky effects at all". No way could matter,space and time originate from a philosophical nothingness.
You are welcome to your sophistry.

We have a universe from nothing. Perhaps you might care to deal with that fact first.

Stuart

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 09:26 AM
Lol how can someone even entertain the idea of something being born from an absolute philosophical nothing.

Lol how can someone even entertain the idea of a Creator God existing necessarily as a result of its own nature?

The latter is much more plausible than the former and is the safer conclusion out of the two. It needn't be science. Its just humble acceptance.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 09:59 AM
Lol how can someone even entertain the idea of something being born from an absolute philosophical nothing.
I don't know. I entertain the idea of matter and energy being borrowed from the gravitational energy of the inflation of the universe, giving us a universe from nothing, because that's physics.


Lol how can someone even entertain the idea of a Creator God existing necessarily as a result of its own nature?
The mental gymnastics that theists invent for themselves serves only as amusement for us atheists.


The latter is much more plausible than the former and is the safer conclusion out of the two. It needn't be science. Its just humble acceptance.
Sure, best to go for safe, rather than correct, I guess.

Stuart

Aimiel
October 26th, 2014, 11:32 AM
Lol how can someone even entertain the idea of something being born from an absolute philosophical nothing.

Lol how can someone even entertain the idea of a Creator God existing necessarily as a result of its own nature?

The latter is much more plausible than the former and is the safer conclusion out of the two. It needn't be science. Its just humble acceptance.Believing that Recombinant DNA came about by chance isn't even as possible as an eventual landslide causing trees to 'accidentally' be cut into 2"X4"'s and glass accidentally forming into windows and carpet, furniture and other knick-knacks appearing at random, since that is MUCH simpler than DNA. Believing evolution exists alone is a stretch, since there's no evidence, whatsoever. You need to re-think. You need to admit to knowing God exists, you understand Him and acknowledge His Power. If not, God calls you a FOOL!


For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

bybee
October 26th, 2014, 11:43 AM
That's not the title of the thread.

Stuart

There are mysteries! Some questions are exercises in futility because any answer is merely a surmise on our part.
I apology for not adhering to your "Why" agenda.

PureX
October 26th, 2014, 11:57 AM
There are mysteries! Some questions are exercises in futility because any answer is merely a surmise on our part.
Yes. I still think it's good that we ask these questions, however, because their unanswerability forces us to face the limited nature of our own thinking, and of what we think we know, and how well we actually know it.

We tend to go through our lives taking in information in the form of experiences, and continually adjusting our ideas about what is real and true, accordingly (at least, most of us are), and we never really question the fact that our natural intellectual limitations as human beings bias what we're able to perceive, recognize, and surmise about reality and 'truth'. And our egos tend to work within us to maintain that blind spot.

So that when we run head on into a big question like why does existence exist, and we see right away that this is one of those questions that we just don't have the capability of answering, we then find ourselves wondering why not? Why aren't we able to answer such an important and elemental question? And asking ourselves this last question is good for the mind and the soul, because it brings us some self-perspective, and therefor humbles us in an appropriate way.

bybee
October 26th, 2014, 12:49 PM
Yes. I still think it's good that we ask these questions, however, because their unanswerability forces us to face the limited nature of our own thinking, and of what we think we know, and how well we actually know it.

We tend to go through our lives taking in information in the form of experiences, and continually adjusting our ideas about what is real and true, accordingly (at least, most of us are), and we never really question the fact that our natural intellectual limitations as human beings bias what we're able to perceive, recognize, and surmise about reality and 'truth'. And our egos tend to work within us to maintain that blind spot.

So that when we run head on into a big question like why does existence exist, and we see right away that this is one of those questions that we just don't have the capability of answering, we then find ourselves wondering why not? Why aren't we able to answer such an important and elemental question? And asking ourselves this last question is good for the mind and the soul, because it brings us some self-perspective, and therefor humbles us in an appropriate way.

Yup!

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 07:55 PM
So already you can forget human logic if you are trying to explain the existence of the universe. Who says the universe has to conform to logic? We already know it doesn't because of the freaky effects we observe at the quantum level.

You're dispensing with rationality. As such, you are barring yourself from this or any other rational debate. (If you can't abide by the rules, then you can't play the game. That's how it works.)

Repentance
October 26th, 2014, 08:08 PM
Believing that Recombinant DNA came about by chance isn't even as possible as an eventual landslide causing trees to 'accidentally' be cut into 2"X4"'s and glass accidentally forming into windows and carpet, furniture and other knick-knacks appearing at random, since that is MUCH simpler than DNA. Believing evolution exists alone is a stretch, since there's no evidence, whatsoever. You need to re-think. You need to admit to knowing God exists, you understand Him and acknowledge His Power. If not, God calls you a FOOL!


For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Hey are you speaking to me or are you using the general second person?

I believe that God exists. That a maximally great being exists. End of story.

On a side note my belief in God doesn't contradict my belief in evolution.

George Affleck
October 26th, 2014, 08:26 PM
Because I am experiencing something.

How do you know you are experiencing?

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 08:32 PM
So that when we run head on into a big question like why does existence exist, and we see right away that this is one of those questions that we just don't have the capability of answering, we then find ourselves wondering why not?
..and also, gee my navel really does collect a lot of fluff. I wonder why that is...

Why does existence exist. Good grief. Philosophy isn't just dead, it's a corpse doing a parody of its former self.

Stuart

Damian
October 26th, 2014, 08:33 PM
How do you know you are experiencing?

Consciousness is axiomatic. Any attempt to deny it presupposes it.

Stuu
October 26th, 2014, 08:43 PM
You're dispensing with rationality. As such, you are barring yourself from this or any other rational debate. (If you can't abide by the rules, then you can't play the game. That's how it works.)
I think you might have thrown the baby out with the bathwater there.

The scientific method consists of rationally processing empirical data and producing further testable hypotheses. So it's not a case of dispensing with rational argument. But the claims I was addressing were resurrecting the arguments between the rationalists and the empiricists. Pure reason won't get you any closer to understanding the nature of the beginnings of the universe because the expansion of space-time from a singularity just doesn't conform to the rational forms of thinking we invented for ourselves. Otherwise one of Hume, Leibniz, Kant, Locke or Descartes could have worked it all out a quarter of a millennium ago, right?

But they are all dead, just like their modes of philosophical thinking. It took some human apes with a fancy metal tube full of pigeon poo to show us how, and when, the universe began.

Stuart

George Affleck
October 26th, 2014, 10:18 PM
Consciousness is axiomatic. Any attempt to deny it presupposes it.

Nothing is self-evident. Everything is presuppositional - even consciousness.

Stuu
October 27th, 2014, 12:36 AM
Nothing is self-evident. Everything is presuppositional - even consciousness.
Just another of Damian's semantic games.

Stuart

freelight
October 27th, 2014, 06:22 PM
Nothing is self-evident. Everything is presuppositional - even consciousness.

Consciousness is the fundamental reality; nothing exists as 'real' or 'unreal' apart from its recognition or determination (this includes all concepts of 'somethingness' or 'nothingness'.) Life itself, being conscious is absolutely Self-evident, here, now.....moment to moment. The conscious "I" that I am proves it. What is absolute is always that.....it is what always already IS. All points of view in space-time are subject to relativity, hence those perceptions and interpretations are relative, fluctuating, conditional.

Awareness precedes thought, ideation, supposition, concepts....being the prior reality in which such emerging perceptions arise. 'Something' appears to exist by consciousness alone (whether real or illusory).....without it there is nothing to perceive or know. This not 'supposed' since awareness is prior to suppositions. Existence itself is its own knowing, whatever terms we use to describe it, as 'God' (energy-intelligence-spirit) or otherwise.


pj

freelight
October 27th, 2014, 07:18 PM
Why is there something rather than nothing?

We do not know, for we only know something exists thru awareness, that there is consciousness in which a duality-play of objectivity and subjectivity takes place. In the primal awareness there is no-thing and every-thing, since it includes all. It would appear all questions dissolve in that which is beyond question.



pj

Damian
October 27th, 2014, 09:56 PM
I think you might have thrown the baby out with the bathwater there.

The scientific method consists of rationally processing empirical data and producing further testable hypotheses. So it's not a case of dispensing with rational argument. But the claims I was addressing were resurrecting the arguments between the rationalists and the empiricists.

What you are promoting is a not-so-tacit form of logical positivism. Positivism has been shown to be inherently self-refuting. (I asked a metaphysical question in the OP. If you believe that you do not have the rational capacity to address such questions, then I suggest you find another thread.)


The statements "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically verified" and "statements are meaningless unless they can be empirically falsified" have both been called self-refuting on the basis that they can neither be empirically verified nor falsified.[32] Similar arguments have been made for statements such as "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true," which was a problem for logical positivism.[33]

(source: Wikipedia: Self-refuting idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#Verification-_and_falsification-principles))

Damian
October 27th, 2014, 09:59 PM
Nothing is self-evident. Everything is presuppositional - even consciousness.

That's my point. You're presupposing consciousness. Thus your argument is inherently self-refuting.

Damian
October 27th, 2014, 10:28 PM
We do not know, for we only know something exists thru awareness, that there is consciousness in which a duality-play of objectivity and subjectivity takes place. In the primal awareness there is no-thing and every-thing, since it includes all. It would appear all questions dissolve in that which is beyond question.


I furnished you with an explanation.

"The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Leibniz

Those who grasp this explanation are true believers. Those who don't, aren't.

George Affleck
October 27th, 2014, 10:30 PM
That's my point. You're presupposing consciousness. Thus your argument is inherently self-refuting.

Then don't call it axiomatic.

Damian
October 27th, 2014, 11:09 PM
Then don't call it axiomatic.

Does "presupposing" exist?

Stuu
October 28th, 2014, 02:21 AM
What you are promoting is a not-so-tacit form of logical positivism.
Obviously not. Had you considered reading what I write?

The beginning of the universe doesn't conform to human-invented logic? Remember that one?

...never mind...

Stuart

Ben Masada
October 28th, 2014, 02:17 PM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Because of two concepts: The one of Logic and that of Causality. The logical one is that things cannot cause themselves to exist and that of Causality is that there is nothing that has been caused without a cause. Of course both of them are based on Logic.

Your question is too hypothetical though because there are things in existence and all have been proved to have been caused. Since the universe cannot be composed of only caused things, it is only obvious that the Primal Cause must by necessity exist.

Damian
October 28th, 2014, 11:25 PM
Obviously not. Had you considered reading what I write?

The beginning of the universe doesn't conform to human-invented logic? Remember that one?

...never mind...

Stuart

Translation: "I cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing."

Damian
October 28th, 2014, 11:29 PM
Because of two concepts: The one of Logic and that of Causality. The logical one is that things cannot cause themselves to exist and that of Causality is that there is nothing that has been caused without a cause. Of course both of them are based on Logic.

Your question is too hypothetical though because there are things in existence and all have been proved to have been caused. Since the universe cannot be composed of only caused things, it is only obvious that the Primal Cause must by necessity exist.

Rational thought has revealed this to you. Now go in peace and share it with the world.

Stuu
October 29th, 2014, 12:27 AM
Translation: "I cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing."
I've already explained that to you in quite a bit of detail, including the point that since the total energy if the universe is zero, and that all the matter and energy is borrowed from the gravitational energy of the expansion of the universe, therefore on average there is nothing.

Stuart

George Affleck
October 29th, 2014, 07:15 PM
Does "presupposing" exist?

No, presupposition occurs.

Damian
October 29th, 2014, 07:48 PM
I've already explained that to you in quite a bit of detail, including the point that since the total energy if the universe is zero, and that all the matter and energy is borrowed from the gravitational energy of the expansion of the universe, therefore on average there is nothing.

And I have already explained to you that I don't have time for your stupid antics.

Damian
October 29th, 2014, 07:50 PM
No, presupposition occurs.

Doesn't that qualify as something?

George Affleck
October 29th, 2014, 09:19 PM
Doesn't that qualify as something?

That depends on one`s definition of something which is based in presupposition.

Damian
October 29th, 2014, 09:51 PM
That depends on one`s definition of something which is based in presupposition.

You previously argued that "everything is presuppositional." "Everything" is definitely "something." (I don't want to hear any more stupidity from you.)

George Affleck
October 29th, 2014, 10:29 PM
You previously argued that "everything is presuppositional." "Everything" is definitely "something." (I don't want to hear any more stupidity from you.)

OK.
Bye.

freelight
October 30th, 2014, 02:10 AM
Then don't call it axiomatic.

As addressed earlier here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4095406&postcount=57)....consciousness is Self-evident....I don't see how that could be questionable. Try denying that you are aware, or the fact of awareness itself. :idunno:


No, presupposition occurs.

Apparently, as 'something' arising in consciousness. Whatever occurs is but a simulation of movement within awareness.



That depends on one`s definition of something which is based in presupposition

Well, anything goes eh? 'Suppositions' are 'things'. We can play language games til the cows come home.


OK.
Bye.

That was a quick run.....does this mean you concede to a play of stupidity or only engaged the topic half-heartedly? The subject is most significant hence my critiques, as nothing is as essential or fundamental to existence than consciousness apart from which nothing could be.

Threads:

Consciousness (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73446)

Pure Awareness (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76100)



pj

Stuu
October 30th, 2014, 02:18 AM
And I have already explained to you that I don't have time for your stupid antics.
One person's 'stupid antics' is another person's established cosmology.

At least you didn't try playing a stupid game of semantics, for a change.

Stuart

George Affleck
November 2nd, 2014, 10:08 PM
Sorry this took me so long. :(


As addressed earlier here....consciousness is Self-evident....

To which I replied: "Nothing is self-evident." This, of course, is only my opinion but I don't believe it was 'addressed' as you say, just stated without support. Mine was also a statement of a belief I hold and was intended to challenge your statement as a belief, not an axiom.


I don't see how that could be questionable. Try denying that you are aware, or the fact of awareness itself.

Saying that consciousness is not self-evident is not the same as denying it. I am not denying conciousness, I am simply saying that to declare it self-evident is an attempt to create a false and subjective starting point.

Conciousness may be axiomatic to you. To me it is merely a subjective description of a condition common to humans; as is awareness. These things are part of our makeup because God designed it so, not because 'it-just-is' (self-evident, axiomatic). The God of 'itjustis' is as hollow for mystics as for evolutionists just from a different perspective. There is no intrinsic value in consciousness/awareness that justifies it as the 'kickoff' for enlightenment.

Again, only my perspective/opinion. It is, I believe, a Biblical one. We start, not with ourselves but with God, who IS, and who enlightens us by His Revelation of truth; if we ever stop denying Him with our self-centredness.


Apparently, as 'something' arising in consciousness. Whatever occurs is but a simulation of movement within awareness.

Being made in the image of God, the recognition that we are conscious/aware should drive us toward God for fellowship with Him, not away from Him into vain and counterfeit representations of divinity. The reason it doesn't is evidence of the fact that we have fallen from a once perfect relationship and are adrift in manufactured religion. Most 'somethings' are not of our own making, but that does not register as significant. Awareness now drives idolatry. Before the Fall, it resulted in relationship.


Well, anything goes eh? 'Suppositions' are 'things'. We can play language games til the cows come home.

Not a language game, I don't think. Just a matter of perspective.


That was a quick run.....does this mean you concede to a play of stupidity or only engaged the topic half-heartedly?

No. Its just that Damian seems to have his mind made up (as I do) and there didn't seem to be a reason to continue flogging a...:deadhorse:


The subject is most significant hence my critiques, as nothing is as essential or fundamental to existence than consciousness apart from which nothing could be.

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion there is nothing as essential or fundamental to existence than knowing God. Awareness should be understood in relation to the cause of awareness. This is not to say that this has always been my opinion. Far from it; but I now wholeheartedly reject subjectivity as being totally unreliable.

LATER EDIT: By totally unreliable I am referring only to knowing God, existence, meaning, awareness, etc. and I am not commenting on mundane issues such as: stopping at a red light, etc. All men are religious but cannot know essential truth without guidance and faith.


Threads:

I'm not being flippant, but, I just don't have time to pour through threads with content I've heard before many times. I had a quick look. Thanks though.

JosephR
November 2nd, 2014, 11:23 PM
Like it or not, I think this hits the proverbial nail on the head.

The way we humans think is not sufficient to deduce a proper answer to the existential questions that we're asking. And that's just the way it is. :stuck:

I have found at the quantum level evidence for a simulated universe, pre-programmed with information,digitally packed.I know we have had this talk before and you somewhat agree.. I would like to add tho on the nothingness. In science there is no such thing.Kind of like infinity.We give it the name singularity because we dont understand it.Things, matter, actually will go backwards,negative if you will before you will find nothing.

God, or mother nature, or the Programmer, is smarter then we are. I dont think we will ever reach the end of the universe and feel its wall, and I dont think it infinite.String theory,and multiverse try and tackle this very question, I look forward to the advancements in those fields.

rexlunae
November 3rd, 2014, 02:21 AM
"The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

So...a causal circle?

PureX
November 3rd, 2014, 07:47 AM
I have found at the quantum level evidence for a simulated universe, pre-programmed with information,digitally packed.I know we have had this talk before and you somewhat agree.. I would like to add tho on the nothingness. In science there is no such thing.Kind of like infinity.We give it the name singularity because we dont understand it.Things, matter, actually will go backwards,negative if you will before you will find nothing.

God, or mother nature, or the Programmer, is smarter then we are. I dont think we will ever reach the end of the universe and feel its wall, and I dont think it infinite.String theory,and multiverse try and tackle this very question, I look forward to the advancements in those fields."God" is a label that we apply to the 'great mystery of being' - our being, the nature and existence of the material universe, the 'flow of change' that will inevitably kill us as it kills all life forms, and those unknown and unknowable states that we sense, and intuit, but cannot directly experience (like infinity, and perfection). At some point, whether theist or atheist, we need to acknowledge and concede our profound ignorance and our inherent limitations before this great mystery or we will become insane. Insanity being the result of a fundamental denial of our own reality.

Agnosticism is our reality. If we proclaim ourselves to be an atheist, or a theist, it's either because we have become insane, or it's because we have chosen to believe one or the other proposition, by faith. I choose to be a theist, by faith. And as such, I seek the 'face of God' in my limited explorations of the body of scientific and philosophical information. But I remain cognizant of the fact that I may be pursuing my own bias in that regard. And that as an honest human being I must concede my own profound and inherent ignorance regarding the great mystery we refer to as "God".

JosephR
November 3rd, 2014, 03:59 PM
"God" is a label that we apply to the 'great mystery of being' - our being, the nature and existence of the material universe, the 'flow of change' that will inevitably kill us as it kills all life forms, and those unknown and unknowable states that we sense, and intuit, but cannot directly experience (like infinity, and perfection). At some point, whether theist or atheist, we need to acknowledge and concede our profound ignorance and our inherent limitations before this great mystery or we will become insane. Insanity being the result of a fundamental denial of our own reality.

Agnosticism is our reality. If we proclaim ourselves to be an atheist, or a theist, it's either because we have become insane, or it's because we have chosen to believe one or the other proposition, by faith. I choose to be a theist, by faith. And as such, I seek the 'face of God' in my limited explorations of the body of scientific and philosophical information. But I remain cognizant of the fact that I may be pursuing my own bias in that regard. And that as an honest human being I must concede my own profound and inherent ignorance regarding the great mystery we refer to as "God".


I really admire your honesty you have with yourself, it's a breath of fresh air :)

Damian
November 3rd, 2014, 04:39 PM
So...a causal circle?

What causal circle?

rexlunae
November 3rd, 2014, 04:52 PM
What causal circle?

A being that bears the reason for its being in itself.

zippy2006
November 3rd, 2014, 09:42 PM
A being that bears the reason for its being in itself.

Do you believe it is possible that, at some point, absolutely nothing existed? Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?

rexlunae
November 3rd, 2014, 09:48 PM
Do you believe it is possible that, at some point, absolutely nothing existed?

I'm not sure. In part, it depends on what you mean my "nothing".


Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?

I don't see any problem with that. Though, I'm not sure the term "being" applies.

zippy2006
November 3rd, 2014, 09:52 PM
I'm not sure. In part, it depends on what you mean my "nothing".

Just the standard dictionary definition. :idunno:



Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?I don't see any problem with that. Though, I'm not sure the term "being" applies.

Ignore the term then. Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of everything that exists was one or many contingent things/existences/entities?

rexlunae
November 3rd, 2014, 09:56 PM
Just the standard dictionary definition. :idunno:

That's not necessarily specific enough. For instance, if we take it absolutely, the sentence "nothing exists" becomes potentially incoherent.


Ignore the term then. Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of everything that exists was one or many contingent things/existences/entities?

As I said, I don't see any problem with that.

zippy2006
November 3rd, 2014, 10:03 PM
That's not necessarily specific enough. For instance, if we take it absolutely, the sentence "nothing exists" becomes potentially incoherent.

Why? It is just a form of negative predication. We do it all the time. "He is blind (i.e. blindness exists)." "She is a poor cricket player." "There does not exist a komodo dragon in this room."


As I said, I don't see any problem with that.

Why not? Surely this is not the way you think in general when you come upon contingent realities.

rexlunae
November 3rd, 2014, 10:13 PM
Why? It is just a form of negative predication.

Because you are describing "nothing" in positive terms. Hypostatization.


We do it all the time. "He is blind (i.e. blindness exists)." "She is a poor cricket player."

But "He" and "She" are real things that you can describe.


"There does not exist a komodo dragon in this room."

But you're describing the room, not the komodo dragon that isn't there. How do you describe a "nothing"?


Why not? Surely this is not the way you think in general when you come upon contingent realities.

Well, I don't generally think of "contingent realities" at all, honestly, because I don't believe in anything to contrast against them. But there is no reason that I can think of that you couldn't have contingent things interacting with each other indefinitely.

zippy2006
November 3rd, 2014, 10:41 PM
Because you are describing "nothing" in positive terms. Hypostatization.

No, it's just a way of speaking. In particular, it is a way of speaking about a privation or lack. It is common to use positive terms to describe a lack, e.g. blindness, nothing, absence, emptiness, etc.


But "He" and "She" are real things that you can describe.

That doesn't account for the fact that we say blindness exists.



"There does not exist a komodo dragon in this room."But you're describing the room, not the komodo dragon that isn't there.

No, I am not just describing the room. I am describing something that does not exist in the room. I am describing a lack. I am describing a possibility that did not obtain.


How do you describe a "nothing"?

A "nothing" is not an object, it is a lack of an object. I could as easily say, "There does not exist a komodo dragon." The statement would be false and intelligible.

It seems to me that "Nothing exists" is a kind of counterfactual statement. I can look at the chair in my room and form the (intelligible) proposition, "The chair does not exist." I can also form the proposition, "Chairs do not exist." I can go on with, "Things do not exist," and "Realities do not exist." There is simply nothing incoherent about this. I just don't understand the force of your disagreement. I pray you're not just being difficult? Is it a conflation of imagination with conceptualization? :confused:


Well, I don't generally think of "contingent realities" at all, honestly, because I don't believe in anything to contrast against them.

You don't have a concept of the transience of things? You don't understand that certain things may or may not have existed, and will not going on existing forever?


But there is no reason that I can think of that you couldn't have contingent things interacting with each other indefinitely.

Like Monkeys in a Barrel that are just hanging on other monkeys, hanging on other monkeys, with nothing other than monkeys supporting them? :think:

Damian
November 3rd, 2014, 10:48 PM
A being that bears the reason for its being in itself.

This is not saying that God is creating himself. It's saying that God is a necessary being. That is, God's nonexistence is impossible. To a believer, it is impossible that God cannot exist. So, why is there something rather than nothing.? There is something rather than nothing because it is impossible for there to be nothing. God exists necessarily.

zippy2006
November 3rd, 2014, 11:22 PM
For instance, if we take it absolutely, the sentence "nothing exists" becomes potentially incoherent.

I think one of the easier ways to think about it is as follows:

The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists." I take it that this is intelligible? Your computer exists; your computer is something; therefore something exists. From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions. Furthermore, the truth of "Nothing exists" is equivalent to the falsity of "Something exists," and I think the falsity of that proposition is also quite intelligible and coherent.

rexlunae
November 3rd, 2014, 11:55 PM
No, it's just a way of speaking. In particular, it is a way of speaking about a privation or lack. It is common to use positive terms to describe a lack, e.g. blindness, nothing, absence, emptiness, etc.

But when you use blindness, or emptiness, and even "nothing", most of the time, you are describing something.


That doesn't account for the fact that we say blindness exists.

But blindness is a property of a thing (or a person) that exists. What is the thing that you are describing in the sentence "nothing exists"?


No, I am not just describing the room. I am describing something that does not exist in the room.

You're describing something that doesn't exist? What color is the komodo dragon that doesn't exist?


I am describing a lack. I am describing a possibility that did not obtain.

I think that's the problem.


A "nothing" is not an object, it is a lack of an object.

That's what I'm saying. :)


I could as easily say, "There does not exist a komodo dragon." The statement would be false and intelligible.

And ambiguous.


It seems to me that "Nothing exists" is a kind of counterfactual statement.

Where, in that posit, is this nothing?


I can look at the chair in my room and form the (intelligible) proposition, "The chair does not exist."

A cringeworthy assertion, if ever I heard one. And even so, you're describing the chairlessness of your room.


I can also form the proposition, "Chairs do not exist."

Presumably, the context here is "in reality" or something similar.


I can go on with, "Things do not exist," and "Realities do not exist." There is simply nothing incoherent about this.

I think we have more than enough examples.


I just don't understand the force of your disagreement. I pray you're not just being difficult?

Well, I'm being sincere, and not intentionally difficult.


Is it a conflation of imagination with conceptualization? :confused:

Nope.


You don't have a concept of the transience of things?

Sure I do. I call it "transience". :)


You don't understand that certain things may or may not have existed, and will not going on existing forever?

Everything is transient. I don't make a habit of using words to distinguish everything from nothing beside the obvious.


Like Monkeys in a Barrel that are just hanging on other monkeys, hanging on other monkeys, with nothing other than monkeys supporting them? :think:

Sure.

Damian
November 4th, 2014, 12:05 AM
In my opinion there is nothing as essential or fundamental to existence than knowing God.

Your response to the question I posed in the OP would suggest that you believe it is possible for nothing to exist.

rexlunae
November 4th, 2014, 12:17 AM
The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists."

The contrary proposition to "something exists" would be "something does not exist".

Furthermore, "something" is a thing, even if not a very specific thing, that can reasonably have properties applied to it.


I take it that this is intelligible? Your computer exists; your computer is something; therefore something exists.

Sure, as far as it goes.


From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions.

In order for it to be false, it would have to mean something.


Furthermore, the truth of "Nothing exists" is equivalent to the falsity of "Something exists," and I think the falsity of that proposition is also quite intelligible and coherent.

"∃(Nothing)" and "∃(something)" are not contrary hypotheses.

zippy2006
November 4th, 2014, 07:34 AM
I'll come back to your previous response in time:



The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists."The contrary proposition to "something exists" would be "something does not exist".

That's true, and the contradictory proposition to "something exists" would be "nothing exists." A contrary is different from a contradiction, and the negation of something does not entail its contrary.


Furthermore, "something" is a thing, even if not a very specific thing, that can reasonably have properties applied to it.

That's true, and the non-existence of such a thing is a perfectly coherent proposition. You're trying to apply some ready-made language philosophy instead of understanding language as it is used. It is just not incoherent to talk about the non-existence of something. For example, you will do this when your friend dies.


Sure, as far as it goes.

:up:



From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions.In order for it to be false, it would have to mean something.

That's my point. It obviously is false. You can't logically say that something exists without denying that nothing exists.


"∃(Nothing)" and "∃(something)" are not contrary hypotheses.

Again, that's true, and you are failing to understand distinctions between contraries and contradictories. Furthermore, you are failing to understand what is meant by "nothing" when you construct the formula implying that nothing is a positive entity. The correct formulation would be the logically equivalent, "There is not any entity such that it exists; there are no entities with existence; no-thing exists; it is false that something exists."

George Affleck
November 4th, 2014, 07:48 AM
Your response to the question I posed in the OP would suggest that you believe it is possible for nothing to exist.

You came to the conclusion that what I was saying was stupid. You have the right to that opinion.


You previously argued that "everything is presuppositional." "Everything" is definitely "something." (I don't want to hear any more stupidity from you.)

Are you now wanting to pursue what you have already labelled "stupid" or should we call it a day?

God exists infinitely. (A better way to say it is 'God is'. Existence sometimes implies physicality.) All things flow from Him perfectly at His command. Perfection is damaged by sin (disobedience - misuse of free will). Subsequently God deliberately withdraws a portion of His superintending power causing partial chaos.

The unregenerate notice this chaos and improperly assign it to a non-loving God, giving them what they think is excuse for further disobedience. God blocks the way back to fellowship with Him by providing reconciliation in a way that He has designed to be foolishness to those who love disobedience. But to us it is the power God.

It is impossible, given our life experiences, acquired presuppositions, and disobedience baggage, to imagine how we would react in a situation of coming into being and experiencing consciousness for the first time.

My point is that awareness is a false starting point. It assumes that God is not the starting point which, at the outset, is presupposition.

Damian
November 4th, 2014, 08:17 AM
God exists infinitely. (A better way to say it is 'God is'. Existence sometimes implies physicality.)

You're just playing a semantical game in order to divert attention away from the fact that your argument has been refuted. "Consicousness is." "Awareness is." So, there is defintely something, even if that something is not physical.



My point is that awareness is a false starting point. It assumes that God is not the starting point which, at the outset, is presupposition.

As you have learned, consciousness is. Awareness is. So, there is definitely something rather than nothing. Also, "belief in God" is itself a presupposition. (It is not axiomatic. It is not self-evident.) But more to the point, the OP actually does presuppose God. It presupposes that God is a necessary being whose nonexistence is impossible. That's why there is something rather than nothing.

PureX
November 4th, 2014, 08:21 AM
I really admire your honesty you have with yourself, it's a breath of fresh air :)Thanks! I appreciate the compliment. I do believe that for we humans, it's far more important to pursue love, forgiveness, and honesty than it is to pursue "the Truth". Because we can achieve love, and forgiveness, and honesty, while we will never be able to know the whole truth.

CherubRam
November 4th, 2014, 08:22 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Zero is a value, and all that is before the value of 1. Or in other words; nothing is something.

Damian
November 4th, 2014, 09:05 AM
Zero is a value, and all that is before the value of 1.

Your mathematics leave something to be desired. That being said, numbers are abstractions and do not exist independently of a mind that abstracts.


Or in other words; nothing is something.

That's an inherently self-refuting statement.

CherubRam
November 4th, 2014, 10:07 AM
Your mathematics leave something to be desired. That being said, numbers are abstraction and do not exist independently of a mind that abstracts.



That's an inherently self-refuting statement.

Have a nice day. :deadhorse:

Stuu
November 4th, 2014, 11:54 AM
You're just playing a semantical game.
Kettle, pot, black.

Stuart

George Affleck
November 4th, 2014, 01:52 PM
You're just playing a semantical game in order to divery attention away from the fact that your argument has been refuted.

OK
Bye again.

zippy2006
November 4th, 2014, 06:45 PM
But when you use blindness, or emptiness, and even "nothing", most of the time, you are describing something.

No, I am not. This is important. You are twisting language. You want to say that I am merely making a statement about a room, but that is simply not the intention of the speaker. The negative statement is about more than the room. It is about a lack precisely as a lack. It is about an absence. Take blindness:


But blindness is a property of a thing (or a person) that exists. What is the thing that you are describing in the sentence "nothing exists"?

No, it isn't a property of the person. Strictly speaking, blindness is not something a person has, it is just a lack of sight. And again, I am not describing the person, I am describing the lack of some possible thing. In truth the lack has no more subject or spatial coordinate than the idea of sheer nothingness. It is the same. The same exact question could be asked about the statement, "Blindness exists."


You're describing something that doesn't exist? What color is the komodo dragon that doesn't exist?

Do I have to assign a color to say that a komodo dragon does not exist in this room? Of course not. Color is an accidental property. The statement is perfectly intelligible without a specified color.



I am describing a lack. I am describing a possibility that did not obtain.I think that's the problem.

And yet you do it all the time. :idunno:



A "nothing" is not an object, it is a lack of an object.That's what I'm saying. :)

...and the language describing the lack is intelligible and coherent. :up:



I could as easily say, "There does not exist a komodo dragon." The statement would be false and intelligible.And ambiguous.

What is ambiguous about it? It is meaningful, it is intelligible, and it is coherent, so whatever you mean by "ambiguous" doesn't seem particularly important. It is no more ambiguous than any other instance of language use. Is this a true statement: "There do not exist unicorns"?



It seems to me that "Nothing exists" is a kind of counterfactual statement.Where, in that posit, is this nothing?

Again, you're relying on strawmen. Counterfactuals do not exist anywhere in space or time, and neither do lacks or privations. Your question makes no sense and is evidence of a misunderstanding of what is being said.



I can look at the chair in my room and form the (intelligible) proposition, "The chair does not exist."A cringeworthy assertion, if ever I heard one. And even so, you're describing the chairlessness of your room.

"Cringeworthy" isn't an argument. And no, I am not describing the chairlessness of my room (you didn't even read what I wrote). There is a chair in the room. The proposition is false, and yet intelligible.



I can also form the proposition, "Chairs do not exist."Presumably, the context here is "in reality" or something similar.

Of course! So what? :idunno:



I can go on with, "Things do not exist," and "Realities do not exist." There is simply nothing incoherent about this.I think we have more than enough examples.

Where is the incoherence?

Existence is a kind of absolute quality. I can form concepts in my head and yet they may or may not exist in reality. Lions do, unicorns don't. Consider the world (or state of affairs) in which we enumerate over everything that currently exists and theoretically negate its existence. That is what we mean by the scenario "Nothing exists."


Well, I'm being sincere, and not intentionally difficult.

Okay, good. :thumb:


Sure I do. I call it "transience". :)

Everything is transient. I don't make a habit of using words to distinguish everything from nothing beside the obvious.

Great, so you know what contingency is. Grand. :)

...and yet you clearly have a concept of "transience," even though you claim that everything is transient. So you have the same habit as everyone else. :D

Oftentimes language predicates properties of subjects. But that doesn't mean it always does. In fact there are many examples where language depicts a lack, a non-existence. I just don't find this answer compelling, and I'm not sure you've provided a sound argument:

zippy: Consider the counterfactual scenario in which nothing exists.
rexlunae: I have no idea what you are talking about. The statement is incoherent or contradictory.
zippy: :confused:

OCTOBER23
November 4th, 2014, 06:47 PM
DAMIAN BANNED ????- hmmmmmm

Aren't we all glad that there is something rather than nothing

or else we would not have a Forum of Friends to discuss things with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r7km3ygza4

steko
November 4th, 2014, 06:48 PM
OP: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Because, some thing has always existed.

George Affleck
November 5th, 2014, 07:26 AM
But when you use blindness, or emptiness, and even "nothing", most of the time, you are describing something.

But blindness is a property of a thing (or a person) that exists. What is the thing that you are describing in the sentence "nothing exists"?


Can you conceive of something that does not exist and talk about it as if it could exist, if not for the fact that it does not, even describing in detail imaginary properties? Flying Spaghetti Monster for example?

Does this mean that anything that is imaginary is something? I think what you mean is - the firing of neurons in your brain is something even if the subject matter does not exist.

Darkness is the absence of light which makes absolute darkness nothing within the restricted conversation about light/darkness.

Ignorance is the absence of knowledge which makes absolute ignorance nothing within the restricted conversation about knowledge/ignorance.

We have ascribed words to stand for, as Zippy said, a lack of something that would be real if there was any of it. Just because we use the words does not mean those things are something.

It doesn't matter how many non-meals we attempt to consume (impossible of course), we will never be filled.

PureX
November 5th, 2014, 07:49 AM
I think one of the easier ways to think about it is as follows:

The contradictory proposition is, "Something exists." I take it that this is intelligible? Your computer exists; your computer is something; therefore something exists. From this argument we can easily see that it is false that "Nothing exists," since the two are contradictory propositions. Furthermore, the truth of "Nothing exists" is equivalent to the falsity of "Something exists," and I think the falsity of that proposition is also quite intelligible and coherent.The problem is that neither statement means anything except in opposition to the other.

We can't comprehend "nothing". We can't experience "nothing". We can't recognize, share, or prove a state of nothingness. The term and concept of "nothing" is completely meaningless except that it opposes the term and concept of "something". And yet "something", until specified, is just as meaningless and empty the term as "nothing". And even having been specified, the "something-ness" of the thing we are referring to becomes a meaningless redundancy. So that in fact, the two terms really don't mean or refer to anything except as contrast to the other.

So how is it that we have created these two contrasting concepts in our heads, when neither of them refers to or means anything except in relation to the other?

The answer to that question lays in how the human brain 'thinks'. And that essentially happens via successive comparing and contrasting of whatever information it receives, so as to identify and qualify it relative to all the other information it has already received, identified, and qualified. We literally think by means of likeness, and unlikeness. And if we remove all the specific information from that mechanism, the fundamental mechanism of 'compare-contrast-repeat' remains: an unidentified "something" contrasting and standing in comparison to an unidentified "nothing".

JosephR
November 5th, 2014, 08:12 AM
Do you believe it is possible that, at some point, absolutely nothing existed? Do you believe it is possible that the exhaustive source(s) of all being was one or many contingent beings?

this is actually a great question and thought excorsize..

there was something that created the big bang... a dense state or whatever,, but now we know more about dimensions and quantum levals of existence...

what is size, and relativity? could there have ever been nothing?

I am afraid my dear friends, with fear of the Lord... that there has always been somthing, and that something is ever present...and that will drive you mad or in total disillusion. but these are the hard facts and we can rest knowing we have a loving Father who will not leave His children,alone in a entroptic environment..

Damian
November 5th, 2014, 03:54 PM
Have a nice day. :deadhorse:

I will. Thank you.

Damian
November 5th, 2014, 03:55 PM
OK
Bye again.

I said good day.

Damian
November 5th, 2014, 03:56 PM
Because, some thing has always existed.

But why?

Damian
November 5th, 2014, 03:58 PM
Kettle, pot, black.

Stuart

Show a little creativity. That's AMR's line.

freelight
November 6th, 2014, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by freelight:

As addressed earlier here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4095406&postcount=57)....consciousness is Self-evident....


To which I replied: "Nothing is self-evident." This, of course, is only my opinion but I don't believe it was 'addressed' as you say, just stated without support. Mine was also a statement of a belief I hold and was intended to challenge your statement as a belief, not an axiom.

The reality of consciousness is most certainly, self-evident, self-realizing, self-reflecting,...since the 'Self' itself is the mirror or the "I" of subjectivity at the heart of awareness, in which one's own 'being' is known, and in which all is known (the perceived world and all its forms/content/relationships, etc.). I can intuit from reality itself... the reality that "I Am", the very identity and awareness wherein 'no-thing' and 'every-thing' exists (in potential and actuality), even 'God'. There is awareness itself, and all its conceptions,...which are but abstract forms, assumptions, modifications, restrictions, refractions of the original light, since this is all that exists. 'God' (original primal awareness) is 'no-thing' and 'every-thing',...essence and form, and beyond. 'God' is One and All. There is no other.




freelight:

I don't see how that could be questionable. Try denying that you are aware, or the fact of awareness itself.

Saying that consciousness is not self-evident is not the same as denying it. I am not denying conciousness, I am simply saying that to declare it self-evident is an attempt to create a false and subjective starting point.

Conciousness may be axiomatic to you. To me it is merely a subjective description of a condition common to humans; as is awareness. These things are part of our makeup because God designed it so, not because 'it-just-is' (self-evident, axiomatic). The God of 'itjustis' is as hollow for mystics as for evolutionists just from a different perspective. There is no intrinsic value in consciousness/awareness that justifies it as the 'kickoff' for enlightenment.

Again, only my perspective/opinion. It is, I believe, a Biblical one. We start, not with ourselves but with God, who IS, and who enlightens us by His Revelation of truth; if we ever stop denying Him with our self-centredness.

I affirm that consciousness/awareness IS, and all else are but thought-reflections, constructs, concepts, ideas, beliefs, relative perceptions, speculations. We can only begin first with 'awareness', since it is primal, prior to and original to all other 'thoughts', that arise from IT. - this includes 'god-concepts', in all their various forms and personalities :) - All there is, is LIGHT and its various reflections, the entire spectrum of all the possibilities of 'light' and 'darkness', in the shadow-world-play of creation-duality.

I come from an Advaita (http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/nondual-spirituality.html) (non-dualism) point of view usually, with various nuances of my own nomenclature from various schools, as these all center from and originate with first the light of 'God' in one's own soul-consciousness (spirit-center), without which 'God' or the 'world' could exist. So you see that apart from awareness, nothing exists to be perceived or known, on any level or description, in the 'negative' or 'positive'....since some kind of awareness is essential for anything to be conceived (negative or positive existence). 'God' is the 'Light'(original awareness/energy-intelligence) making 'consciousness/existence' possible. I am that (http://www.anandavala.info/miscl/I_Am_That.pdf). (spiritual classic from Nisargadatta Maharaj).




freelight:

Apparently, as 'something' arising in consciousness. Whatever occurs is but a simulation of movement within awareness.

Being made in the image of God, the recognition that we are conscious/aware should drive us toward God for fellowship with Him, not away from Him into vain and counterfeit representations of divinity. The reason it doesn't is evidence of the fact that we have fallen from a once perfect relationship and are adrift in manufactured religion. Most 'somethings' are not of our own making, but that does not register as significant. Awareness now drives idolatry. Before the Fall, it resulted in relationship.

Perhaps 'God' is made in the imagination-reflection of our own consciousness...in our own 'imaging' power ;) - it might behoove us that intrinsic within the true nature of our Real Being, is already love, truth, innocence, grace, compassion, bliss,...because that is its very nature, God's own. Love is love. Just because within awareness, all potentials of 'good' and 'evil' exist DOES NOT prove there was a 'fall', or that there is 'original sin', since those are religious assumptions/mythology, no matter how they relate to the bigger picture in the imagination of man.

From the higher infinite perspective, yes....its all 'God' anyways dreaming the cosmos into being, whose play of possibilities must include all potentials to experience themselves, fulfilling their beginnings and endings in the currents of time. Yep,...all this is going on in consciousness, the only place that 'everything' or 'nothing', however you conceive it could exist!

We are consciousness itself (http://www.consciousnessitself.org/book-cover).



freelight:

The subject is most significant hence my critiques, as nothing is as essential or fundamental to existence than consciousness apart from which nothing could be.

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion there is nothing as essential or fundamental to existence than knowing God. Awareness should be understood in relation to the cause of awareness. This is not to say that this has always been my opinion. Far from it; but I now wholeheartedly reject subjectivity as being totally unreliable.

LATER EDIT: By totally unreliable I am referring only to knowing God, existence, meaning, awareness, etc. and I am not commenting on mundane issues such as: stopping at a red light, etc. All men are religious but cannot know essential truth without guidance and faith.

Ok,....we would agree that 'God' is the source of awareness-existence-creation,....so however one looks at it, we are still experiencing/knowing 'God' and all that has meaning and value within consciousness anyways. Faith, insight, reason, intelligence, inspiration/illumination all arise from the primal depths and purity of original awareness, Spirit.



I'm not being flippant, but, I just don't have time to pour through threads with content I've heard before many times. I had a quick look. Thanks though.

No worries,....I leave research-links and resource portals for those interested in looking deeper :sherlock::)

Thank you,



pj

freelight
November 6th, 2014, 02:49 AM
Zero is a value, and all that is before the value of 1. Or in other words; nothing is something.

Yes,...'God' can be equated to being the first original 'no-thing' from which 'every-thing' emerges or proceeds,...the Zero-point of infinity, the still-light center of all creative movements in the cosmos, from which all multiple points derive and multiply therefrom, yet 'zero' always being the nuclear-value, and return-point of all variables. In this context,...'zero' is the womb of 'everything'...and everything is but some derivative or multiplication-extension of zero.

No-thing is some-thing, yes, as it exists or is conceived as having any substance or value. So, something ('God', 'zero', 'awareness', 'essence', creative intelligence') has always been....since it is always 'be-ing'. 'God' is 'be-ing',....as 'timeless' and thru-out all time, both 'stillness' and 'movement'. God is all there is...and 'God' is both knowing and being it, since what exists outside of 'God'? From 'God' there is no escape possible, EVER.

Zeroed out :);):surf:



pj

freelight
November 6th, 2014, 03:12 AM
This is not saying that God is creating himself. It's saying that God is a necessary being. That is, God's nonexistence is impossible. To a believer, it is impossible that God cannot exist. So, why is there something rather than nothing.? There is something rather than nothing because it is impossible for there to be nothing. God exists necessarily.

In one sense, 'God' is necessary,.....in another 'God' is not. Only what is truly necessary or essential to being itself, is intrinsically so, yet a created 'God' or 'god-concept' may be totally 'unnecessary', 'problematic' or in the extreme....'insane'.

To contemplate an eternal/infinite 'something' is not a problem to this entity,....since if 'God' be that reality as classically defined or beyond as held by other schools....its logic stands to reason that God could not be proved otherwise, unless the evidence could absolutely refute his eternality/infinity of Being.

Something exists, and it just happens to be the case. This 'thisness', or 'suchness' is what IS. Such is reality. All else are descriptions, a fanfare of mind and its conceptualizing,...merry go rounds. No one has the upper hand or orthodox formula of success here, since existence is consciously existing the same for everyone, - only the perceptions, forms, appearances differ along so many story lines and their starring 'egos'.

The "my god is better than your god" looks rather dismal a party line, since it is by one's own criteria and qualifications that he enamors and worships his 'god', however defined. Once words are dismissed, that which is prior to and beyond words, shines forth of its own nature. That 'nature' is the essence of what/who we are.

Something exists,...because that just happens to be the case. Remember,...it is still YOU being and doing it all. The Conscious YOU. - even your 'gods' do not exist without YOU. Nothing exists apart from consciousness or some awareness to know it, or for a concept of 'not knowing' to be assumed.

There is only what is be-ing, nothing else as far as we know. Its redundant after a certain point.



pj

Stuu
November 6th, 2014, 03:22 AM
Show a little creativity. That's AMR's line.
Ok then. You're a hypocrite.

Is that original enough for you?

Stuart

George Affleck
November 6th, 2014, 07:07 PM
The reality of consciousness is most certainly, self-evident, self-realizing, self-reflecting,...

Then we will continue to disagree. If anything is self-evident, there is no need for God.


...since the 'Self' itself is the mirror or the "I" of subjectivity at the heart of awareness, in which one's own 'being' is known, and in which all is known (the perceived world and all its forms/content/relationships, etc.). I can intuit from reality itself... the reality that "I Am", the very identity and awareness wherein 'no-thing' and 'every-thing' exists (in potential and actuality), even 'God'. There is awareness itself, and all its conceptions,...which are but abstract forms, assumptions, modifications, restrictions, refractions of the original light, since this is all that exists. 'God' (original primal awareness) is 'no-thing' and 'every-thing',...essence and form, and beyond. 'God' is One and All. There is no other.

A great way of rationalising your belief in a religion that you control. God objectively IS. He is the only I AM. All else exists by His command.


I affirm that consciousness/awareness IS, and all else are but thought-reflections, constructs, concepts, ideas, beliefs, relative perceptions, speculations. We can only begin first with 'awareness', since it is primal, prior to and original to all other 'thoughts', that arise from IT. - this includes 'god-concepts', in all their various forms and personalities :) - All there is, is LIGHT and its various reflections, the entire spectrum of all the possibilities of 'light' and 'darkness', in the shadow-world-play of creation-duality.

I affirm that God IS. He is independent, infinite in wisdom, and you need to bow the knee to Him alone and hear His Word.


I come from an Advaita (http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/nondual-spirituality.html) (non-dualism) point of view usually, with various nuances of my own nomenclature from various schools, as these all center from and originate with first the light of 'God' in one's own soul-consciousness (spirit-center), without which 'God' or the 'world' could exist. So you see that apart from awareness, nothing exists to be perceived or known, on any level or description, in the 'negative' or 'positive'....since some kind of awareness is essential for anything to be conceived (negative or positive existence). 'God' is the 'Light'(original awareness/energy-intelligence) making 'consciousness/existence' possible. I am that (http://www.anandavala.info/miscl/I_Am_That.pdf). (spiritual classic from Nisargadatta Maharaj).

All that is would still exist without your awareness or the awareness of any and all humans on the earth if God wills it to be so. Your whole point is not self-awareness, it is self-worship.


Perhaps 'God' is made in the imagination-reflection of our own consciousness...in our own 'imaging' power ;) - it might behoove us that intrinsic within the true nature of our Real Being, is already love, truth, innocence, grace, compassion, bliss,...because that is its very nature, God's own. Love is love. Just because within awareness, all potentials of 'good' and 'evil' exist DOES NOT prove there was a 'fall', or that there is 'original sin', since those are religious assumptions/mythology, no matter how they relate to the bigger picture in the imagination of man.

No, He is from everlasting to everlasting. He has told us what we need to know. His Word tells us about the Fall. We don't need to be in the dark about that or tie ourselves in philosophical knots.


From the higher infinite perspective, yes....its all 'God' anyways dreaming the cosmos into being, whose play of possibilities must include all potentials to experience themselves, fulfilling their beginnings and endings in the currents of time. Yep,...all this is going on in consciousness, the only place that 'everything' or 'nothing', however you conceive it could exist!

We are consciousness itself (http://www.consciousnessitself.org/book-cover).

You can believe that if you want. I prefer to believe God when He speaks. He spoke everything into existence, He didn't dream it. It happened for real. When I became a man, I put away childish things.


Ok,....we would agree that 'God' is the source of awareness-existence-creation,....so however one looks at it, we are still experiencing/knowing 'God' and all that has meaning and value within consciousness anyways. Faith, insight, reason, intelligence, inspiration/illumination all arise from the primal depths and purity of original awareness, Spirit.

Closer, but still far, far away.

______________________________________________

Ok, now that I have commented from my 'party line' and you have done the same, let me say that I understand, in general terms, your reasoning and beliefs. It is rather common these days. There was a time when I gave all this airy fairy stuff the time of day but no longer. In my opinion it is just another way to deny Jesus and look clever.

The war is between objectivism and subjectivism. I am on one side and you are on the other. Subjectivism is a license to print your own religious currency and sell shares in a religion/worldview. History attests to an almost infinite number of 'right religions'.

But they are counterfeits of the original. Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it. The way is shut up in Jesus only. My hope is that you will sell all that you have acquired and count it as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus.

zippy2006
November 7th, 2014, 04:56 PM
The problem is that neither statement means anything except in opposition to the other.

No, you're confusing yourself. We know what existence is apart from either statement. People (or children) understand "something" before they understand "nothing." They understand existence and then learn to understand non-existence. Contradictory propositions imply one another, but this in no way means that they signify no positive reality. :idunno:

A concrete demonstration of this fact is seen when you try to teach kids math, especially subtraction. They understand how to subtract "something" (i.e. positive integers from larger integers), but they require further development to understand how to subtract "nothing" (e.g. 5 - 0). Someone who has just learned to subtract will be bewildered by the idea, for they don't properly understand what is meant by "nothing." Yet their grasp of "something" as well as subtraction is firmly planted.

steko
November 7th, 2014, 09:09 PM
But why?

'Why' implies a prior cause to that which has no cause.

There is no 'why'.

There is only 'is'.

OCTOBER23
November 7th, 2014, 11:04 PM
NOTHING FROM NOTHING LEAVES NOTHING

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HqyEHqEYho

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

--Were NOT Made of Things which do Appear ???

--What things do NOT appear = AIR containing Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen

--That is what Stars are made of but later the Hydrogen fuses to Helium, then Oxygen,

then Carbon and Finally IRON just like our IRON Core Planet that it cools down to

over millions of years and just add water and you have the Earth.

Zeke
November 8th, 2014, 08:27 AM
Closer, but still far, far away.

______________________________________________

Ok, now that I have commented from my 'party line' and you have done the same, let me say that I understand, in general terms, your reasoning and beliefs. It is rather common these days. There was a time when I gave all this airy fairy stuff the time of day but no longer. In my opinion it is just another way to deny Jesus and look clever.

The war is between objectivism and subjectivism. I am on one side and you are on the other. Subjectivism is a license to print your own religious currency and sell shares in a religion/worldview. History attests to an almost infinite number of 'right religions'.

But they are counterfeits of the original. Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it. The way is shut up in Jesus only. My hope is that you will sell all that you have acquired and count it as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus.

Not really, the faith needed to be-lie-eve the things you have come to except is based on a lot of hear say and historical glasses that are darkly colored, the stand that the bi-bull is literal history is being revealed to be false, the death of that letter is the first step to grasping that there is no fear in Love.

Galatians 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, Genesis 32:30, the God you want to put in a box, "temples made with hands in history" is the false on, the only Christ conscience that anyone can experience is in the temples made without hands, All things become one when that light comes on within us, labels become intellectual barriers and theology breeds mental egocentric wedges that prevent the camel from passing through the gate called the eye of the needle.

The Bi-Bull is all about the human mind not some historically based nation that is disputed to have done the things recorded in symbols and figurative allegory based on prior legends and myths meant to teach the inner truth perverted and hid by exclusive religion.

Damian
November 8th, 2014, 05:57 PM
In one sense, 'God' is necessary,.....in another 'God' is not. Only what is truly necessary or essential to being itself, is intrinsically so, yet a created 'God' or 'god-concept' may be totally 'unnecessary', 'problematic' or in the extreme....'insane'.

Sounds like you're wavering between theism and atheism (o ye of little faith).



The "my god is better than your god" looks rather dismal a party line, since it is by one's own criteria and qualifications that he enamors and worships his 'god', however defined.

"God is that being of whom no greater can be conceived." - St. Anselm

That's the basis for "perfect being" theology. So, if I can rationally demonstrate that my concept of God is more perfect than yours, then my theology trumps yours. That's how it works. (If you don't like the rules, then you shouldn't play the game.)

WizardofOz
November 8th, 2014, 08:36 PM
Why is there something rather than nothing? (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all)

Great article :thumb:

freelight
November 9th, 2014, 04:58 AM
Then we will continue to disagree. If anything is self-evident, there is no need for God.

Consciousness itself is self-evident, self-reflecting and self-authenticating. It is in fact the only 'thing' we can know as existing most fundamental to any existence or reality we are experiencing. The "I" of consciousness is first cognizer of all,...all other objects or subjects arise within relationship to and within the reflection of the light of that "I". This light of consciousness is all there is. 'God' is the Light and substance of thereof.

I don't get your logic above, since we are affirming the truth of awareness, as the proof of 'being'. We can only fundamentally know our own 'being', which exists because of 'God' its source, as 'God' is the Universal Consciousness pervading all, we being individual expressions thereof, facet-points thru which the One Light experiences itself. 'God' is the light and reality of the 'Self', the "I" behind all consciousness and creation, in all its forms and modifications. 'God' or 'Consciousness' is the sole reality. Recognzing the 'atman' (individual soul-awareness) within one's own being as being non-separate or non-different from 'Brahman' (the universal consciousness) is not so much a need, as much as it is a 'realization' that there is Only One Reality, no matter what variations of perception and interpretation arise.



All that is would still exist without your awareness or the awareness of any and all humans on the earth if God wills it to be so. Your whole point is not self-awareness, it is self-worship.

This is a misconception on your part, since true self-awareness of one's real source does not serve a false-worship of the ego-self, but only the truest appreciation and realization of the divine Self (atman). To correct your 'assumption' of a negative spin on 'self-worship',....recognizing one's true nature as 'pure consciousness' enhances one's recognition of 'worth', which is what worship(worth-ship) is. When I realize 'God', I innately and naturally serve Him and His will, seeing that 'God' in one and all as the sole and divine value. Living from the view of 'God-consciousness', I radiate only God.


You can believe that if you want. I prefer to believe God when He speaks. He spoke everything into existence, He didn't dream it. It happened for real. When I became a man, I put away childish things.

How do you know when God speaks or has spoken? How do you know that God has not spoken other worlds into existence besides this one, and even all these are still an endless string of pearls unfolding in eternity, without beginning or end, as a ceaseless procession of cyclic existence.



Ok, now that I have commented from my 'party line' and you have done the same, let me say that I understand, in general terms, your reasoning and beliefs. It is rather common these days. There was a time when I gave all this airy fairy stuff the time of day but no longer. In my opinion it is just another way to deny Jesus and look clever.

I can hold and explore these observations of reality and NOT deny Jesus,...it is only your religious interpretation and assumption that my philosophic liberties might do that, but that's according to your definitions and qualifications how I might be "denying" him. A good chunk of religious mythology and Christian soteriology could be dismissed by a purely non-dualistic perspective, since if I assume that consciousness is all there is,...and that I Am already one with God, or of the same essence, energy and awareness that God is, then there is no one needing to be saved, neither is a blood-atonement necessary by any means.


The war is between objectivism and subjectivism. I am on one side and you are on the other. Subjectivism is a license to print your own religious currency and sell shares in a religion/worldview. History attests to an almost infinite number of 'right religions'.

I recognize that consciousness is the fundamental reality, the basis of all existence, experience, perception, knowledge. Creation is an information-play, that is all....its an illusion of light in motion. Truth itself is prior to and beyond any human concept of 'right' or 'wrong'.


But they are counterfeits of the original.

Only 'God' is original by nature and identity.


Narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it.

Truth is only narrow in that it is precisely what it is, and is nothing else or in addition to. Its all-inclusive, immediately being, fully present as Life itself.


The way is shut up in Jesus only.

Can you show evidence for this? I don't think truth is 'shut' up anywhere, neither limited to one personality.


My hope is that you will sell all that you have acquired and count it as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus.

I appreciate the concern, with the Pauline nomenclature and all, but I've my own views on Paul shared amply elsewhere (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2516163&postcount=135).



pj

freelight
November 9th, 2014, 05:11 AM
Sounds like you're wavering between theism and atheism (o ye of little faith).

No wavering, just being courageous enough to see the possibilities based in the observations presented. My statements stand. While we can identify pure consciousness as 'God', we must recognize that this cannot necessarily compare or be identical in definition or conception with a traditional-orthodox Christian 'image' of 'God', or other 'god-concepts' that may be more or less imaginary, problematic or insane.

Where 'faith' enters into the equation is debatable ;)



"God is that being of whom no greater can be conceived." - St. Anselm

Well, all that tells us is that 'God' is 'inconceivable' ;)


That's the basis for "perfect being" theology. So, if I can rationally demonstrate that my concept of God is more perfect than yours, then my theology trumps yours. That's how it works. (If you don't like the rules, then you shouldn't play the game.)

But that's just it, ...its a 'game'...with some slight modifications given to the rules per your definitions. My contributions to the discussion are not me playing along,...but engaging a better exploration thereof.



pj

freelight
November 9th, 2014, 05:13 AM
Not really, the faith needed to be-lie-eve the things you have come to except is based on a lot of hear say and historical glasses that are darkly colored, the stand that the bi-bull is literal history is being revealed to be false, the death of that letter is the first step to grasping that there is no fear in Love.

Galatians 4:24, Luke 17:20-21, Genesis 32:30, the God you want to put in a box, "temples made with hands in history" is the false on, the only Christ conscience that anyone can experience is in the temples made without hands, All things become one when that light comes on within us, labels become intellectual barriers and theology breeds mental egocentric wedges that prevent the camel from passing through the gate called the eye of the needle.

The Bi-Bull is all about the human mind not some historically based nation that is disputed to have done the things recorded in symbols and figurative allegory based on prior legends and myths meant to teach the inner truth perverted and hid by exclusive religion.


:) gotta love those acronyms.

It all depends on how consciousness interprets and relates the information.





pj

Damian
November 9th, 2014, 08:50 AM
No wavering, just being courageous enough to see the possibilities based in the observations presented. My statements stand. While we can identify pure consciousness as 'God', we must recognize that this cannot necessarily compare or be identical in definition or conception with a traditional-orthodox Christian 'image' of 'God', or other 'god-concepts' that may be more or less imaginary, problematic or insane.

You either believe in God or you don't. If you can't make up your mind on this issue, then you're wavering. (It actually appears to me that you are trying to play both sides of the fence on this issue by not actually taking a position.)



Where 'faith' enters into the equation is debatable ;)


Faith enters the equation in regards to the "Urantia Papers." That's the real reason you're upset. I clearly demonstrated that its doctrine of annihilation renders its concept of God as less than perfect.



Well, all that tells us is that 'God' is 'inconceivable' ;)


The concept of infinity is inconceivable, but that doesn't preclude us us from employing it in mathematics. In like manner, while Anselm's statement may be construed as depicting God as inconceivable, it doesn't preclude us from employing it in theology. In fact, it is the basis for doing "perfect being" theology.



But that's just it, ...its a 'game'...with some slight modifications given to the rules per your definitions. My contributions to the discussion are not me playing along,...but engaging a better exploration thereof.


You want to play the game by playing by both sides of the ball. I afraid that will not be permitted. If you can't take a position, then you will be relegated to the sidelines. There you can act as a passive spectator, but you're barred from actively participating in the debate.

Damian
November 9th, 2014, 10:00 AM
Why is there something rather than nothing? (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all)

Great article :thumb:

A couple of points:

1) I asked "why there is something rather than nothing." I did not ask "how nothing became something." These are entirely two different issues.

2) Nothing is actually nothing, not something. "Nothing" in the arcticle actually refers to "something" because "nothing" cannot be inherently unstable.



"Their admittedly controversial answer is that the entire universe, from the fireball of the Big Bang to the star-studded cosmos we now inhabit, popped into existence from nothing at all. It had to happen, they say, because "nothing" is inherently unstable."

(source: "Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing (http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all)" by Robert Adler, "Earth," BBC.com)

WizardofOz
November 9th, 2014, 10:36 AM
A couple of points:

1) I asked "why there is something rather than nothing." I did not ask "how nothing became something." These are entirely two different issues.

Strange, since the title of the article is literally "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Just like your thread title...:think:

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable.



2) Nothing is actually nothing, not something.

Define nothing. It's not that simple.



"Nothing" in the arcticle actually refers to "something" because "nothing" cannot be inherently unstable.

On the contrary - "Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing" is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation. As Krauss puts it, "The laws of physics as we understand them make it eminently plausible that our universe arose from nothing - no space, no time, no particles, nothing that we now know of.""

Even the most perfect vacuum is actually filled by a roiling cloud of particles and antiparticles, which flare into existence and almost instantaneously fade back into nothingness...

...So it's not just particles and antiparticles that can snap in and out of nothingness: bubbles of space-time can do the same...

It's not our known quantum field that is nothing as there is no such thing as "nothing" in the known physical universe. Where these particles, etc pop from and back to is as close to an actual nothing as they are simply gone.

...Inflation also gave cosmologists the measuring tool they needed to determine the underlying geometry of the universe. It turns out this is also crucial for understanding how the cosmos came from nothing...

...It turns out that a flat universe is crucial. That's because only a flat universe is likely to have come from nothing...

Or to sum it up succinctly; the unmoved mover.

See my motto...;)

It seems that my motto would apply to your back and forth with freelight as well; whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name :think:

Damian
November 9th, 2014, 11:16 AM
Strange, since the title of the article is literally "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Just like your thread title...:think:

The question that I posed in the OP is actually beyond the purview of science. Science asks "how" questions, not "why" questions. "Why" questions are the domain of philosophy and religion, not science. :think:



Why is there something rather than nothing? Because "nothing" is inherently unstable.

It is not possible to provide a physical explanation for how nothing became something (not even in theory).



Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything").[5]

(source: Wikipedia: A Universe from Nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing))



Define nothing. It's not that simple.

I already have. Nothing is nothing, it is not anything. It's that simple. And if you cannot intellectually grasp that, then there is no point to continue this discussion. It would prove to be nothing but an exercise in futility.



It's not our known quantum field that is nothing as there is no such thing as "nothing" in the known physical universe. Where these particles, etc pop from and back to is as close to an actual nothing as they are simply gone.

That's exactly my point. If you actually have evidence that physical things are spontaneously popping in and out from nothing at all, then you have evidence for a supernatural event. (In theology, this is called "creation ex nihilo" - i.e. creation out of nothing.)



It seems that my motto would apply to your back and forth with freelight as well; whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name :think:

He's confused; I'm not.

WizardofOz
November 9th, 2014, 11:37 AM
The question that I posed in the OP is actually beyond the purview of science. Science asks "how" questions, not "why" questions. "Why" questions are the domain of philosophy and religion, not science. :think:

Your OP was rather simple and the question posed is one that scientists seek to answer per my linked article. They might not explain why philosophically but they will certainly seek to explain why scientifically.

Can science tell us why the earth rotates around the sun? Of course. Facts are facts.



It is not possible to provide a physical explanation for how nothing became something (not even in theory).

I disagree. The picture may be incomplete at this time but that doesn't mean there are not physical mechanics behind what we observe.



I already have. Nothing is nothing, it is not anything. It's that simple.

No, that's just circular logic and explains nothing. Pun intended. ;)



And if you cannot intellectually grasp that, then there is no point to continue this discussion.

I'm trying to get you to "intellectually grasp" that there is no such thing as nothing. More on that in a bit when we get to the Krauss critic.


It would prove to be nothing but an exercise in futility.

An exercise in futility is something and not nothing. This reminds me of the Never Ending Story. :D



That's exactly my point. If you actually have evidence that physical things are spontaneously popping in and out from nothing at all, then you have evidence for a supernatural event. (In theology, this is called "creation ex nihilo" - i.e. creation out of nothing.)

And now it is being observed scientifically. Exciting, no?



He's confused, I am not.

Meh, you're just talking past each other.

Philosopher of science and physicist David Albert, in a review for The New York Times, said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his use of the term nothing to refer to a quantum vacuum instead of a "philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized 'nothing'" (i.e. instead of having the meaning "not anything").[5]

(source: Wikipedia: A Universe from Nothing)

See my own critique of Krauss' "nothing" theory Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2499386&postcount=167)

Quantum fluctuations are Krauss' "god". While a brilliant scientist his theological views leave much to be desired. He's another Dawkins-esque blowhard in that regard.

We likely agree on more than not, you're :box: demeanor notwithstanding. :cheers:

Damian
November 9th, 2014, 11:57 AM
WizardofOz,

You haven't refuted anything that I have argued. And since you seem incapable of understanding what "nothing" means, there is no point to continue this debate.

WizardofOz
November 9th, 2014, 01:29 PM
WizardofOz,

You haven't refuted anything that I have argued.

:idea: Oh! You're here to argue. Here I thought we were having a conversation.

Silly me.



And since you seem incapable of understanding I am incapable of defining what "nothing" means, there is no point to continue this debate.

:wave: Suit yourself.

freelight
November 10th, 2014, 03:33 AM
You either believe in God or you don't. If you can't make up your mind on this issue, then you're wavering. (It actually appears to me that you are trying to play both sides of the fence on this issue by not actually taking a position.)

Being non-committal in a 'belief' or 'non-belief', but approaching and playing with the subject as a fun exploration, does not necessarily indicate wavering or 'confusion',...since its an exploratory exercise. It might be that your 'insistence' for definite terms or conclusions might be at issue here (stressing 'logic' over other tenable methods of analysis), when you could lighten up a little. I'm about 'creative dialogue' remember? Being more flexible, I'm free to give up 'positionalities' as these can have their own 'trappings'. I don't know anything, but that there is awareness. This 'awareness' includes all concepts of 'nothing' and 'everything'. I'm not stressing over it. Could you relax and just enjoy the dialogue, wherever it goes?


Faith enters the equation in regards to the "Urantia Papers." That's the real reason you're upset. I clearly demonstrated that its doctrine of annihilation renders its concept of God as less than perfect.

Oh yes,..the Urantia Papers champion the principle of faith in 'God', and my 'faith' would be more appropriately directed to God himself, rather than a book, although there are many good religious writings out there to be inspired by.

I'm not upset over your claim of conquest over the concept of 'soul-death',...because its just a 'concept' among other concepts of soul-destiny, even if it might appear I favor or prefer one 'view' over another (at any point in time or reference-context),...I'm not so 'positional' over things, as points of view are subject to change. A thing may be more or less true, or unknowable. The Urantia Book just happens to offer a detailed view of soul-death. I could also reference other religious sources for a similar view.

I've maintained a respectful level of communication over the years, as a fellow theist having some similar and familiar education and spiritualist tendencies among the various schools, so would never 'breach' that trust (of original goodness, integrity), although recently for sport and a bit of 'zest' am proposing a bit of 'tweaking' on your 'terms' of the game-rules here. In the matter of constructive dialogue, I'd welcome such, and challenge my own points of view and assumptions about things.



The concept of infinity is inconceivable, but that doesn't preclude us us from employing it in mathematics. In like manner, while Anselm's statement may be construed as depicting God as inconceivable, it doesn't preclude us from employing it in theology. In fact, it is the basis for doing "perfect being" theology.

I agree, .......was just prompting some humor towards the quote, to get a rise out of you,...a playful gesture. While theology can be a serious subject, I'd hope you can enjoy some humor and fun too. Is that permissible? Or is proving that your 'God' is greater than another's 'God' more important? You can see how that looks on a superficial level, even if you have your own logic, rationale, and presupposition pre-loaded in the conclusion.


You want to play the game by playing by both sides of the ball. I afraid that will not be permitted. If you can't take a position, then you will be relegated to the sidelines. There you can act as a passive spectator, but you're barred from actively participating in the debate.

Well, hows that for one-upmanship of the discussion? I see this as a trend as of late.....as the rule-maker becomes a 'dictator' of sorts. There are reasonable grounds for establishing some rules or guidelines for a discussion or 'game' of course, but at some point amendments are bound to be made.





pj

Zeke
November 10th, 2014, 10:34 AM
:) gotta love those acronyms.

It all depends on how consciousness interprets and relates the information.





pj

I heard Kate use it first, it is a telling type of phonics when one sounds out words and breaks the restrictive spell of spelling, seeing sounds can be used to create emotional responses within a certain culture to control minds, and produce a false sense of fear for easier control of the herd.

Damian
November 10th, 2014, 11:51 AM
Being non-committal in a 'belief' or 'non-belief', but approaching and playing with the subject as a fun exploration, does not necessarily indicate wavering or 'confusion',...since its an exploratory exercise. It might be that your 'insistence' for definite terms or conclusions might be at issue here (stressing 'logic' over other tenable methods of analysis), when you could lighten up a little.

Analysis requires rational thought. That's the only tenable method here.



I don't know anything, but that there is awareness.

We're having a metaphysical debate. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. The methodology of philosophy is rational analysis. If you believe that metaphysics is a waste of time, then I suggest you find another forum to share your "knowledge."

freelight
November 10th, 2014, 09:17 PM
I heard Kate use it first, it is a telling type of phonics when one sounds out words and breaks the restrictive spell of spelling, seeing sounds can be used to create emotional responses within a certain culture to control minds, and produce a false sense of fear for easier control of the herd.

Yes,.....the creativity of 'logos' is at the heart of all information-exchange, with powers and potentials thereof, to guide and influence along any chosen course, good or evil. Hence our power as 'speakers' and 'writers' is intrinsic in the phonics of language, which shows our responsibility in 'creation'. How words affect our experience of reality or fashions its conditions is a wonderful study, if we would harness the power of logos :)



pj

musterion
November 22nd, 2014, 07:45 PM
The idea that the Bible is inerrant is just ridiculous.

-- Damien

freelight
November 23rd, 2014, 12:29 AM
freelight:

Being non-committal in a 'belief' or 'non-belief', but approaching and playing with the subject as a fun exploration, does not necessarily indicate wavering or 'confusion',...since its an exploratory exercise. It might be that your 'insistence' for definite terms or conclusions might be at issue here (stressing 'logic' over other tenable methods of analysis), when you could lighten up a little.




Analysis requires rational thought. That's the only tenable method here.

Of course, and my observations of the subject and epistemological/metaphysical issues related to it hold, unless they can be stretched, expanded, modified with better insight/knowledge/information. While 'rational thought' is good for a number of subjects, it is limited. One cannot claim that 'rational thought/reason' is the one absolute key to all truth, for this would squelch the stream of 'pure revelation' which occasionally streams from the Spirit itself, transcending both 'reason' and 'logic'. (this was part of the debate with Deists and spiritualists, the former emphasizing reason alone, denying revelation. Both reason and revelation are essential in the realm of total-truth-comprehension).

I see a more composite influx of elements illumining the mind as we study reality, as if that should surprise anyone :)


Originally Posted by freelight:

I don't know anything, but that there is awareness.


Damian:

We're having a metaphysical debate. Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

Very good. I might remind you however, that my statement above refers to what is observable as a matter of fact. I was just emphasizing that if I assume to know 'anything',...what is more original to that is that I certainly KNOW that I AM aware. I know that there is awareness, which is most fundamental to my being, and the existence of the world. All arises in this awareness. This 'knowledge' is more original and fundamental than any other that the mind may engage itself in.


The methodology of philosophy is rational analysis.

Of course, but that's not all. Some schools may emphasize reason/logic over other keys such as intuition/revelation, it depends on what school or tradition of philosophy you follow or adhere to.


If you believe that metaphysics is a waste of time, then I suggest you find another forum to share your "knowledge."

Well,....one could be tempted to respond to this 'statement' in so many ways. First off, I don't think you'll find anywhere in freelight's illustrious career here :crackup:, where he ever believed 'metaphysics' was a waste of time, since hes often identified as one of the more liberal 'metaphysicians' on the board, a pioneering eclectic in his own right.

Secondly, as a fellow spiritualist with gnostic/mystical/esoteric leanings and some similar spiritual studies which we've engaged in over the years, I'd assume a mutual respect between us, in both 'agreements' and 'differences', and learn from each other on those in the spirit of 'creative dialogue', which is what I've been about from the beginning, honing my craft along the way. All is an exploration of consciousness. While being serious in discussions, I see the place for art, creativity and humor. So sometimes you have to lighten up, as too much logic or locking oneself into certain 'definitions' and 'positionalities' can stifle or retard one's learning/progress and make one appear as rigid, short-tempered, terse, or just plain rude.

Its also a ploy of the 'ego' to assume it knows all there is to know about a subject and stubbornly resist correction or learning. As a former student of ACIM, I'd gather you're familiar with the concept ;)

Again,....right here, right now....all I intimately KNOW...is that I AM. There is awareness. An "I" arises out of this awareness and identifies as an 'individual', assuming a body/mind/personality complex. There is only a world existing while the "I" exists to see and know it. If you want to assume awareness as being 'something', so be it. In this awareness....all 'things' appear. In this awareness....there is both 'no-thing' and 'every-thing', essence and forms. I don't know why this IS, but that it IS. Is this good enough? :idunno:



pj

RobertoKarr
February 20th, 2015, 02:36 PM
When you stand before God on judgment day, you will be ashamed of the fact that you never acknowledged Him. That will be a shame, but it will be set, if you do not repent before your death.

Not for a second! If I'm ever in front of god I will have a couple of things to tell him. And if that will grant me a place in Hell , I'll gladly take it, I prefer burning for eternity than licking the boots of a heartless dictator for eternity

RobertoKarr
February 20th, 2015, 03:10 PM
The modal cosmological argument (contingency version) proves God using a similar concept. The universe either has to be contingent (caused by an external cause) or necessary existing as a result of its own nature. The universe has to have an explanation for its existence. Atheists have to show how and why it is impossible for the universe not to have existed. Good luck.

Then theists have to prove how and why it is impossible for God not to have existed, good luck with that.

Why does the universe has to have and explanation?? Explanations are imaginary constructs of the human brain. Things that exist do not "need" an explanation to exist.

RobertoKarr
February 20th, 2015, 03:20 PM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

.. the whole mistake in this argument is considering that "reason" is a necessity of existence. That things "need a reason to exist". However "reason" is one of the results of the functioning human brain, but not the only one; and certainly "reason" is not the cause, but the consequence of human existence.

PureX
February 20th, 2015, 03:22 PM
Why does the universe have to have an explanation?? Explanations are imaginary constructs of the human brain. Things that exist do not "need" an explanation to exist.To deny such a question is to deny your own humanity. The universe produced us; to witness it. To wonder at it. And to inquire about how and why it exists. We are how the universe becomes self-aware. To deny that is to deny the essence of your own being.

What a sad, sad thing to do to yourself!

Ben Masada
February 20th, 2015, 03:34 PM
Because, some thing has always existed.

And to exist is contagious. Then the thing that has always existed gave the command to grow and multiply. (Gen. 1:28) And today the universe is crowded with many things.

RobertoKarr
February 20th, 2015, 03:49 PM
To deny such a question is to deny your own humanity. The universe produced us; to witness it. To wonder at it. And to inquire about how and why it exists. We are how the universe becomes self-aware. To deny that is to deny the essence of your own being.

What a sad, sad thing to do to yourself!

Again with the reasons for existence: "the Universe produced us", I agree up to that point, but..

"The universe produced us "TO"something something"...NO!

The universe did not have a "plan" for us to become its eyes and ears... .we happened to become that, eventually... through millions of years of wonderful evolution... I don't see how that point of view is sad.. I quite rejoice on it...and in the universe which produced it.

I also rejoice in all the imaginary questions my brain comes up with, the fact that they are unreal does not make them less beautiful, meaningless, "intention-less", "unreasonable" but beautiful, as existence itself

freelight
February 21st, 2015, 12:34 AM
Not for a second! If I'm ever in front of god I will have a couple of things to tell him. And if that will grant me a place in Hell , I'll gladly take it, I prefer burning for eternity than licking the boots of a heartless dictator for eternity

:)

We would assume that a Deity that is Love itself, would conduct itself by the law or nature of its own 'character', so this 'God' would not be a heartless dictator, but the essence of Love itself (however it exists as 'personified' or not). Imagine that.

We would also add that 'love' by its own nature and will will always allow 'space' and 'time' for one to 'repent' or 're-turn' to reality, since it is love's will for all its offspring to awaken to their true natural state and 'unity' with Spirit. Creator and Creation are One.

Kudos for your 'zestiness', since all our concepts of 'God' ought to be ever re-examined, for truth does not suffer from honest research. I would be happy to drop any wrong or mistaken concept of 'God' as any other erroneous concept, if proven valueless, unreal or imaginary,.....or at least accept that my own views, opinions and concepts of 'God'...are just that. Reality itself, however is what IS. What actually exists, the heart-source, the living being-ness that allows all things to 'be' and 'be-come', that which we witness and experience as 'life' within this great field of movement we call 'creation'. This is what is. This is reality full stop. Here. NOW. its what is timelessly so, and includes all space and time. This is it.

You cannot deny what IS. (This 'Is-ness' is always Be-ing). It is absolute. Your thoughts, concepts, opinions, assumptions arise as mind relating various perceptions about what IS, those thoughts being 'relative' to this or that, but the universal reality at the heart of all, ever remains, as absolute reality. This is what is. This is all. All else is the mind's naming and claiming....and the various ego-engagements that make for its amusements. All these images or appearances....come and go. Reality remains (yet includes the play of illusion).

Such is maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(illusion)).



pj

freelight
February 21st, 2015, 12:47 AM
And to exist is contagious. Then the thing that has always existed gave the command to grow and multiply. (Gen. 1:28) And today the universe is crowded with many things.


To 'exist' is one of those wonderful things, an expression of the creative mind or spirit which wills or naturally out of its own inherent power to create, unfolds itself along the lines of a productive law, to be fruitful and multiply. IT does this thru various beings and personalities who are but individual reflections of Itself, given similar creative powers to 'be' and 'be-come', which makes 'creation' all the more marvelous.

Sure we have the mythology and human 'stories' trying to explain and articulate it all, but we must go deeper, eh?

The thread-title question might be irrelevant or inconsequential. What is, is :idunno:

I know it, I observe it,...there exists an intelligence that recognizes LIFE as being. Its simply so. It just is. What is,....is prior to reason or explanation.



pj

patrick jane
February 21st, 2015, 12:50 AM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

maybe the most ridiculous question ever. yet, legitimate. a question that can and will, never be answered in any lifetime on earth. prove me wrong - :Patrol:

patrick jane
February 21st, 2015, 01:16 AM
To 'exist' is one of those wonderful things, an expression of the creative mind or spirit which wills or naturally out of its own inherent power to create, unfolds itself along the lines of a productive law, to be fruitful and multiply. IT does this thru various beings and personalities who are but individual reflections of Itself, given similar creative powers to 'be' and 'be-come', which makes 'creation' all the more marvelous.

Sure we have the mythology and human 'stories' trying to explain and articulate it all, but we must go deeper, eh?

The thread-title question might be irrelevant or inconsequential. What is, is :idunno:

I know it, I observe it,...there exists an intelligence that recognizes LIFE as being. Its simply so. It just is. What is,....is prior to reason or explanation.



pj

although it can be liberating and pleasurable, IMAGINING existence in any way OTHER than God and God's Will, God's Expression of Creation and The WORD Of God, is a circular process. which = nowhere. OR God. Knowing that God IS, we must HEAR what God has to to say. Not energy or light. Not imagination or Total Free Spirit, which IS Prideful, Arrogant and Selfish, at best. imagining or BELIEVING, that YOU or ME, or ANY One person, is so special and such a spirit "being," that they stand alone, or unique. Believing any connection to anything, OTHER than God, who Is Christ Jesus, is pitiful - sorry, not pitiful. Unique ? - :Patrol:

freelight
February 21st, 2015, 01:35 AM
although it can be liberating and pleasurable, IMAGINING existence in any way OTHER than God and God's Will, God's Expression of Creation and The WORD Of God, is a circular process. which = nowhere. OR God.

Where the Spirit is, is liberty already. God is Spirit. The movement of creative evolution is apparently 'circular', its 'cyclic'...yes.


Knowing that God IS, we must HEAR what God has to to say. Not energy or light.

Sure,...Spirit speaks, and we discern spiritual things spiritually.


Not imagination or Total Free Spirit, which IS Prideful, Arrogant and Selfish, at best.

Eh,...I wouldn't go that far or assume such. There is no reason to. Remember, where the Spirit of the Lord is, is liberty. Where is the Spirit? Does God's Spirit dwell in you? Is the Spirit of God omnipresent? Is 'God' infinite? Or do we just worship some human finite concept of a 'god', customizing our 'theology' as we go along? And is there an angry wrathful self-aggrandizing 'God' that is going to punish us if we don't follow a 'pre-scribed' outline or particular religious 'regimen'?


imagining or BELIEVING, that YOU or ME, or ANY One person, is so special and such a spirit "being," that they stand alone, or unique.

God is unique, special, one of kind, holy,....sure. So is his creation. That includes us....or better yet....is US. All there is.....is 'God' and the 'creation' of 'God'. Nothing else. God is ONE. Indivisible. A manifold One.


Believing any connection to anything, OTHER than God, who Is Christ Jesus, is pitiful - sorry, not pitiful. Unique ? - :Patrol:

Well,.....'God' is the only reality that makes any connection or anything possible, so how could one be separate from 'God'? :)

I think that 'God' being omnipresent, being all in all NOW...is an awesome reality. no pity involved in what is really being. 'God' is the allness of Being NOW.....no time needed for this to be so, but 'God' of course is pervading and present in all time-sequences, past, present or future,...because 'God' is INFINITE. Is this not so?

Perty awesome eh? :)



pj

Ben Masada
February 21st, 2015, 03:51 PM
To 'exist' is one of those wonderful things, an expression of the creative mind or spirit which wills or naturally out of its own inherent power to create, unfolds itself along the lines of a productive law, to be fruitful and multiply. IT does this thru various beings and personalities who are but individual reflections of Itself, given similar creative powers to 'be' and 'be-come', which makes 'creation' all the more marvelous.

Sure we have the mythology and human 'stories' trying to explain and articulate it all, but we must go deeper, eh?

The thread-title question might be irrelevant or inconsequential. What is, is :idunno:

I know it, I observe it,...there exists an intelligence that recognizes LIFE as being. Its simply so. It just is. What is,....is prior to reason or explanation.

pj

And that's all part of reality. I totally agree with your positive approach to life.

Daedalean's_Sun
February 21st, 2015, 04:52 PM
"Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

I suppose another way to look at it would be to say "Is nothingness possible?", If nothingness is impossible then that is why there is something. There is something because nothing is impossible. If nothingness is possible, then why is there something? It is puzzling indeed.

The multiverse has been proposed, it may go to explain this. If there is an infinite number of parallel universe exhibiting every array of possibility, then indeed there might be whole universes of nothingness, but there would be no sentient observer to remark on the fact.

I'm not sure I buy into the multiverse, but it is worthy of consideration I think.


Just some food for thought.

RobertoKarr
March 3rd, 2015, 09:10 AM
:)

We would assume that a Deity that is Love itself, would conduct itself by the law or nature of its own 'character', so this 'God' would not be a heartless dictator, but the essence of Love itself (however it exists as 'personified' or not). Imagine that.

pj

To assume the existence of something does not automatically renders that something into reality. Even more, what we call reality is itself a construction of the mind, and it is in itself an assumption. Which will only lead us to the complete uncertainty of the existence of everything, INCLUDING the Deity that supposedly created itself as pure love.

Which takes me to this thought: A being which is itself the essence of love has an inherent incapability of hating, hurting or creating anything evil, and it is therefore NOT all powerful. Being pure love and being all powerful are mutually exclusive. We need to choose: is God pure love? or He is all powerful . Is God love only? or He is all, THE WHOLE , everything that can and cannot exist (including evil).



We would also add that 'love' by its own nature and will will always allow 'space' and 'time' for one to 'repent' or 're-turn' to reality, since it is love's will for all its offspring to awaken to their true natural state and 'unity' with Spirit. Creator and Creation are One.
pj

Repent from what? Repent from disobeying? Repent from using a tool for evil, which was designed by the same Deity who punishes its usage?




Kudos for your 'zestiness'

pj

I have no idea what that phrase means, I hope it's not bad



since all our concepts of 'God' ought to be ever re-examined, for truth does not suffer from honest research. I would be happy to drop any wrong or mistaken concept of 'God' as any other erroneous concept, if proven valueless, unreal or imaginary,.....or at least accept that my own views, opinions and concepts of 'God'...are just that.
pj

Agree




Reality itself, however is what IS. What actually exists, the heart-source, the living being-ness that allows all things to 'be' and 'be-come', that which we witness and experience as 'life' within this great field of movement we call 'creation'. This is what is. This is reality full stop. Here. NOW. its what is timelessly so, and includes all space and time. This is it.

You cannot deny what IS. (This 'Is-ness' is always Be-ing). It is absolute. Your thoughts, concepts, opinions, assumptions arise as mind relating various perceptions about what IS, those thoughts being 'relative' to this or that, but the universal reality at the heart of all, ever remains, as absolute reality. This is what is. This is all. All else is the mind's naming and claiming....and the various ego-engagements that make for its amusements. All these images or appearances....come and go. Reality remains (yet includes the play of illusion).
pj

Yes I completely agree, as Lamarck said: the only true thing is the fact, all the rest are mere opinions.

oatmeal
March 3rd, 2015, 09:15 AM
I'm asking a philosophical question and I expect a philosophical response. Why don't you actually attempt to think for your self rather than simply citing biblical verses.

Why don't you think for yourself and cite God's words instead of being deceived by men's philosophies and vain imaginations?

Why hold the created creatures ignorant opinions higher than the Creator's words?

God created the heavens and the earth, you and I nor anyone else had any input.

The fact you are even present is certainly not your doing, the ground you stand on is not your doing, the heavens and the earth are not your doing

Think

Appreciate what God has done that you are even alive

PureX
March 3rd, 2015, 09:20 AM
I suppose another way to look at it would be to say "Is nothingness possible?", If nothingness is impossible then that is why there is something. There is something because nothing is impossible. If nothingness is possible, then why is there something? It is puzzling indeed.

The multiverse has been proposed, it may go to explain this. If there is an infinite number of parallel universe exhibiting every array of possibility, then indeed there might be whole universes of nothingness, but there would be no sentient observer to remark on the fact.

I'm not sure I buy into the multiverse, but it is worthy of consideration I think.


Just some food for thought.Good post.

I don't think the "multi-verse" theory matters much. It's really just a conceptual extension of what we already call the "universe", to something beyond this particular cosmos.

I would be more skeptical of it if the "Big Bang" had not already flown in the face of my skepticism. :)

False Prophet
March 3rd, 2015, 09:21 AM
Sounds like duality.

RobertoKarr
March 3rd, 2015, 09:22 AM
Why don't you think for yourself and cite God's words instead of being deceived by men's philosophies and vain imaginations?

Why hold the created creatures ignorant opinions higher than the Creator's words?

God created the heavens and the earth, you and I nor anyone else had any input.

The fact you are even present is certainly not your doing, the ground you stand on is not your doing, the heavens and the earth are not your doing

Think

Appreciate what God has done that you are even alive

Theological morals in a nutshell: "Praise the all powerful because He is all powerful. He can give you an eternal reward or eternal punishment, and that's why you should praise Him. Forget about the powerless and the weak, and focus on getting the favours of the powerful ".

Daedalean's_Sun
March 3rd, 2015, 10:58 AM
A being which is itself the essence of love has an inherent incapability of hating, hurting or creating anything evil, and it is therefore NOT all powerful.

If I were to argue the counter, I would say that such being wouldn't by necessity be incapable, just unwilling.

oatmeal
March 3rd, 2015, 11:13 AM
Theological morals in a nutshell: "Praise the all powerful because He is all powerful. He can give you an eternal reward or eternal punishment, and that's why you should praise Him. Forget about the powerless and the weak, and focus on getting the favours of the powerful ".

As you see it, with your perspective

However, since God is the Creator and the results of my believing His words are evidenced in my life, your perspective remains very, very limited.

That is your choice.

God cares for my life far more than any scientist, doctor, social worker, parent, politician, agnostic, atheist or believer ever did or could.

God is more real to me than the earth I live on, than the air I breathe.

Daedalean's_Sun
March 3rd, 2015, 12:40 PM
Why don't you think for yourself and cite God's words instead of being deceived by men's philosophies and vain imaginations?

Determining what constitutes 'God's Words' is a matter of men's philosophies.

PureX
March 3rd, 2015, 12:59 PM
Determining what constitutes 'God's Words' is a matter of men's philosophies.I would pos-rep this, too, if I could.

RobertoKarr
March 3rd, 2015, 03:16 PM
As you see it, with your perspective

However, since God is the Creator and the results of my believing His words are evidenced in my life, your perspective remains very, very limited.

That is your choice.

God cares for my life far more than any scientist, doctor, social worker, parent, politician, agnostic, atheist or believer ever did or could.

God is more real to me than the earth I live on, than the air I breathe.

Then again you like Him because He provides favours that nobody else can. You're only interested in what you get from the all powerful instead on focusing on what you are giving to the powerless.

RobertoKarr
March 3rd, 2015, 03:25 PM
If I were to argue the counter, I would say that such being wouldn't by necessity be incapable, just unwilling.

Unwilling to explore that part of its own nature, and although perfectly capable of destroying all evil from existence (because He is all powerful), He decides to let it be, let evil be explored by others, just so that some can be called by His side, but not all...

Daedalean's_Sun
March 3rd, 2015, 11:38 PM
Unwilling to explore that part of its own nature, and although perfectly capable of destroying all evil from existence (because He is all powerful), He decides to let it be, let evil be explored by others, just so that some can be called by His side, but not all...

I was speaking only to your suggestion that benevolence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Simon Baker
March 4th, 2015, 12:03 AM
Where the Spirit is, is liberty already. God is Spirit. The movement of creative evolution is apparently 'circular', its 'cyclic'...yes.



Sure,...Spirit speaks, and we discern spiritual things spiritually.



Eh,...I wouldn't go that far or assume such. There is no reason to. Remember, where the Spirit of the Lord is, is liberty. Where is the Spirit? Does God's Spirit dwell in you? Is the Spirit of God omnipresent? Is 'God' infinite? Or do we just worship some human finite concept of a 'god', customizing our 'theology' as we go along? And is there an angry wrathful self-aggrandizing 'God' that is going to punish us if we don't follow a 'pre-scribed' outline or particular religious 'regimen'?



God is unique, special, one of kind, holy,....sure. So is his creation. That includes us....or better yet....is US. All there is.....is 'God' and the 'creation' of 'God'. Nothing else. God is ONE. Indivisible. A manifold One.



Well,.....'God' is the only reality that makes any connection or anything possible, so how could one be separate from 'God'? :)

I think that 'God' being omnipresent, being all in all NOW...is an awesome reality. no pity involved in what is really being. 'God' is the allness of Being NOW.....no time needed for this to be so, but 'God' of course is pervading and present in all time-sequences, past, present or future,...because 'God' is INFINITE. Is this not so?

Perty awesome eh? :)



pj

Perhaps Patrick Was Being Gentle. GOD IS INFINITE GOOD. Key Word Good. You Cannot Approach God Unless You Know Christ. You Will Arrive At This Conclusion In A Way That You Do Not Expect Or Imagine. When GOD Speaks, We Listen. Some Do Not Listen. God Wants Us PURE. ONLY In Christ Is That Possible. Now Or Later, You Will Understand

freelight
March 4th, 2015, 01:08 AM
To assume the existence of something does not automatically renders that something into reality. Even more, what we call reality is itself a construction of the mind, and it is in itself an assumption. Which will only lead us to the complete uncertainty of the existence of everything, INCLUDING the Deity that supposedly created itself as pure love.

Indeed, yet I spoke earlier of the reality that is at the root, source and heart of everything (All That Is).....as being the universal, timeless, infinite reality....while else is but a relative reflection of that. Absolute reality ever remains what IS....since it is absolute. I find the teachings of non-duality/non-dualism (Advaita Vedanta and other schools) as being the most direct pointers to that infinite reality as 'Brahman' of which our soul (atman) is non-seperate from (being of the same essence)....since God is one......the only One Being. In this context we use the word 'God' to refer to truth, reality, all that is, the infinite, etc.


Which takes me to this thought: A being which is itself the essence of love has an inherent incapability of hating, hurting or creating anything evil, and it is therefore NOT all powerful. Being pure love and being all powerful are mutually exclusive. We need to choose: is God pure love? or He is all powerful . Is God love only? or He is all, THE WHOLE , everything that can and cannot exist (including evil).

I agree that God as pure love.....could only love, if God is limited to only what God is. We've treated the mystery of evil elsewhere. God as 'The All' or 'The Totality' would include both light and shadow, as reality also includes 'maya'.....as an aspect of illusion in the play of creation.


Repent from what? Repent from disobeying? Repent from using a tool for evil, which was designed by the same Deity who punishes its usage?

I used 'repent' meaning changing, renewing or transforming the mind. A procress of returning to Source, re-turning attention to Spirit.


pj

freelight
March 4th, 2015, 01:25 AM
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][B]Perhaps Patrick Was Being Gentle. GOD IS INFINITE GOOD. Key Word Good. You Cannot Approach God Unless You Know Christ.

Yes....most of us theists believe God is infinite good. Dont forget this 'God' is omnipresent, so how could anything be seperate from God? If you insist you are seperate from God, you'll have to prove it, and at the same time disprove his omnipresence.

The concept of 'knowing Christ' can be defined or explained differently depending on who you ask.


You Will Arrive At This Conclusion In A Way That You Do Not Expect Or Imagine. When GOD Speaks, We Listen. Some Do Not Listen. God Wants Us PURE. ONLY In Christ Is That Possible. Now Or Later, You Will Understand.

Well, thats a belief which may or may not be true. Remember God's omnipresence? 'God' already is the one reality always being. God includes the conclusion already in his timeless state. I Am already that....I Am already there.

Can anything exist outside of God?


pj

RobertoKarr
March 22nd, 2015, 08:22 AM
I was speaking only to your suggestion that benevolence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Is not only omnipotence that I'm talking about, because God is supposedly "omni-everything" (I know that's redundant but go on reading), he is: omnipresent, omnisapient, omniprocreative ... He is everywhere and He is everything. Everytime the sun comes up, there's god; everytime cancer grows, there is God; everytime someone is burnt to death, there is God; everytime a serial killer gets a new victim, there is God... In a universe where evil, pain and death exist the omni-being cannot be all-benevolent

freelight
March 22nd, 2015, 10:31 PM
Is not only omnipotence that I'm talking about, because God is supposedly "omni-everything" (I know that's redundant but go on reading), he is: omnipresent, omnisapient, omniprocreative ... He is everywhere and He is everything. Everytime the sun comes up, there's god; everytime cancer grows, there is God; everytime someone is burnt to death, there is God; everytime a serial killer gets a new victim, there is God... In a universe where evil, pain and death exist the omni-being cannot be all-benevolent

This takes us back to the 'mystery of evil' of course, where such a 'duality' exists in this conditional realm of existence, this material realm. We've treated 'evil' on other threads, so this problem is resolved variously by different viewpoints. However, of course...if we hold to the absolute allness/omnipresence of 'God' in a pure pantheistic sense,...then yes....'God' includes all, because He is all.

What appears as evil, suffering, pain, death, etc....is all a part of the play of creation, the current of evolution, the path of Nature and her universal laws of birth, death, rebirth. In this eternal cycle of conditional existence,....the full spectrum of potential for both good and evil exist simultaneously. Now how we explain, synthesize or resolve the issue of evil, with the 'concept' of God being both omnibenevolent and omnipresent, depends on one's own philosophical preference and rationale. Its all POV (point of view).

From a purely metaphysical POV, I often come from a pantheist/pan-entheistical world view, so saying that 'God' is One, 'God' is all, is very natural to me, since 'God' is the Totality of All That IS, and more, since He includes all that can be known and all that is unknown,....being The One INFINITE. I can just as well entertain 'God' from a more relational, dual, finite perspective in the world of relationships, where souls think of themselves as separate from 'God', and have many different personifications of 'God', but its all made up of the same universal consciousness, which is the substance of all. When you reduce all things back to their source,....there is but that one essence of which all is made....from IT comes all substance and forms. There is only 'that'.





pj

RobertoKarr
May 8th, 2015, 08:25 AM
However, of course...if we hold to the absolute allness/omnipresence of 'God' in a pure pantheistic sense,...then yes....'God' includes all, because He is all.

pj

Well going back to the original question, we agree that: everything that exists IS God, (call it God's thoughts if you want). Then, if God has always existed and everything that exists IS God... then ALL that exists has always existed along with God.

Then the question on how the Universe was created is senseless, because the Universe is God and it was uncreated: Everything that exists must therefore be uncreated. (Which contradicts the Bible and the myth of creation, but the Bible contradicts itself all the time, so I'm not getting into that).




What appears as evil, suffering, pain, death, etc....is all a part of the play of creation, the current of evolution, the path of Nature and her universal laws of birth, death, rebirth. In this eternal cycle of conditional existence,....the full spectrum of potential for both good and evil exist simultaneously. Now how we explain, synthesize or resolve the issue of evil, with the 'concept' of God being both omnibenevolent and omnipresent, depends on one's own philosophical preference and rationale. Its all POV (point of view).

pj

I have always found it puzzling when the laws of Nature are mentioned in a discussion about God. Are the laws of Nature above God's will?. Is it that not even God can break those laws? . I have heard this argument a couple of times: Evil is the human nature. But wasn't it God who designed human nature along with all Nature and its laws?.

Or is it that "Nature and her universal laws of birth, death, rebirth" are God's Nature. As well as Evil and Good are God's dual nature and dual will (because God CAN always control his own nature at WILL).

Which makes me feel uneasy about this God. I can forgive anyone for having an evil "nature" but not for having an evil "will". Nature (such as instincts) are sometimes uncontrollable, but having an evil "will" is rather scary.



From a purely metaphysical POV, I often come from a pantheist/pan-entheistical world view, so saying that 'God' is One, 'God' is all, is very natural to me, since 'God' is the Totality of All That IS, and more, since He includes all that can be known and all that is unknown,....being The One INFINITE. I can just as well entertain 'God' from a more relational, dual, finite perspective in the world of relationships, where souls think of themselves as separate from 'God', and have many different personifications of 'God', but its all made up of the same universal consciousness, which is the substance of all. When you reduce all things back to their source,....there is but that one essence of which all is made....from IT comes all substance and forms. There is only 'that'.


pj

Same thoughts, now remove intelligence, conciousness and will from that source of everything, add physical properties like energy and movement and you have Materialism.

freelight
May 11th, 2015, 01:24 AM
Well going back to the original question, we agree that: everything that exists IS God, (call it God's thoughts if you want). Then, if God has always existed and everything that exists IS God... then ALL that exists has always existed along with God.

Well,...this gets into the deeper metaphysical question whether God the Infinite existed before the inception of a finite creation, and as you know, this is the classical traditional orthodox theist position, that 'God' is the Creator of all, but has always existed as a 'Being' prior to space-time-creation.... so ever maintains an eternal priority of Being before any finite material creation. The Infinite ever IS.....while finite forms and expressions arise from within the context of infinity.

Indeed, we assume God IS, and Alone is absolute, infinite, eternal, ultimate, supreme, etc. - yet there has come into being the movement of creation (the evolution of life in-form-ation) as a creative expression of That Which IS. In such movements and their relations is the whole field of creation, and its various inter-actions....all arising within the Infinite. Space and time are but relative measurements and forms engaging the senses. As long as there is anything to 'relate', all perception and even knowledge is 'relative', dependent upon something else to exist or function.

The essence of pure awareness itself however, if it is the light of the Absolute Being....is pure radiance which is beyond any relation, yet includes the play of relationships in its totality of expression.


Then the question on how the Universe was created is senseless, because the Universe is God and it was uncreated: Everything that exists must therefore be uncreated. (Which contradicts the Bible and the myth of creation, but the Bible contradicts itself all the time, so I'm not getting into that).

As touched on above,.....we would ask if its still possible that an uncreated reality can still be the origin or source of a finite, limited, progressive, evolving CREATION. My view includes the context of non-duality and the apparent duality of the visible world as a totality, so that the infinite can co-exist and inter-act simultaneously with the finite, as well as eternity with time. Its a wonderful mystery, a paradox.


I have always found it puzzling when the laws of Nature are mentioned in a discussion about God. Are the laws of Nature above God's will?. Is it that not even God can break those laws?

From a non-dualistic view, there is no separation between 'God' and 'Nature', unless we make a distinction. In any case,...the laws of nature would not go against or contradict God's law, who is nature's maker and source. If we consider the constitution of God, then His very nature and will are wholly true to his Being and the character thereof.


I have heard this argument a couple of times: Evil is the human nature. But wasn't it God who designed human nature along with all Nature and its laws?.

If we consider God as Infinite Good, wholly pure and divine...then man must create his own explanations for the evil experienced by man (i.e. The Fall, disobedience, pride, selfishness....) and lay the blame of 'sin' on man, or some deceiver or evil entity such as satan, Lucifer, the devil, etc.


Or is it that "Nature and her universal laws of birth, death, rebirth" are God's Nature. As well as Evil and Good are God's dual nature and dual will (because God CAN always control his own nature at WILL).

These are questions I still ponder, and research :)


Which makes me feel uneasy about this God. I can forgive anyone for having an evil "nature" but not for having an evil "will". Nature (such as instincts) are sometimes uncontrollable, but having an evil "will" is rather scary.

Yes, for having an evil will....shows there is motive, the very intention to inflict evil for its own sake, for its own sick pleasure or cruelty. However, I think we could be splitting hairs over an evil 'nature' and/or 'will',....since if one has an evil nature, they likely will express that evil thru the faculty of their soul, which includes 'will'. You don't know a person is evil, until he ACTS that evil out, intending it.

See our former discussion on evil here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2906531&postcount=31). (it includes links to 2 threads on 'evil').


Same thoughts, now remove intelligence, conciousness and will from that source of everything, add physical properties like energy and movement and you have Materialism.

Yes, I don't agree with an extreme view of gross materialism, since you cannot separate the reality of consciousness, energy or spirit from matter, neither does creation arise and interact without intelligence. It just so happens that materialism cannot exist on its own, as some independent entity apart from consciousness. There are some convincing proponents of the primacy of consciousness in the field today, and it is self-evident even beyond any theory or its supports,...that consciousness is the fundamental reality.



pj

RobertoKarr
December 10th, 2015, 10:10 PM
...and it is self-evident even beyond any theory or its supports,...that consciousness is the fundamental reality.
pj

That is basically the same as saying: "my view is self-evident even against all evidence", in other words, "I'll believe what I want, no matter what others say, no matter what experience says"

From my point of view, what we call "reality" is a construct made from the very limited experience we can have of a world that just "is".
"Reality" is a judgement that a healthy brain uses to classify thoughts, memories, etc: Real thoughts, real memories or unreal ones. However the universe cannot "judge" if something is real or not. In fact there is only one thing the Universe can do:

To "be" is the only fundamental verb, not "to think", not to "judge" not to "will", not to "be conscious", no "to plan", not "to care" ...those verbs are far too complicated for the fundamental action "to be".

The universe, as a whole, can only do one thing: to be. Yet there are small parts of the universe which can do some more complicated stuff... in particular, a tiny tiny part of the universe, called the human species, can think, plan, will, be conscious, care, etc.

As Carl Sagan put it "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself"

False Prophet
December 10th, 2015, 10:27 PM
God created everything with the word of his mouth.

steko
December 10th, 2015, 10:43 PM
OP: Why is there something rather than nothing?

Cuz' if there ever was nothing, there wouldn't be something.

patrick jane
December 10th, 2015, 10:45 PM
Cuz' if there ever was nothing, there wouldn't be something.

:chuckle:

freelight
December 24th, 2015, 11:53 PM
~*~*~

Hello all,

I was just chatting with Damian on Facebook, so thought to find some common threads between as us and thought to resurrect one of them here ;) - we've engaged in many older threads, like on 'A Course In Miracles' (ACIM) and other eclectic subjects, but those are no longer extant.

He's doing fine but busy at another forum, much more liberal I might add, and has no plans to return here. I must admit he got a little short at times and a bit snippy, but you know the territory.

With that in mind as to any further discussions on whats been shared here so far.....have a Merry Christmas! :)

Ben Masada
December 25th, 2015, 09:06 AM
Why is there something rather than nothing? The sufficient reason...is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself." - Gottfried Liebniz

Because, if it was not so but any other way, you would not be here today asking this question.

Aimiel
December 25th, 2015, 02:05 PM
God is so Good that He created others to share His Love with. He is so full of love He overflows into us all.