If someone says you don't understand, that is not an ad hominem argument. It's not even an insult. — T Clark

It is.

My new philosophical position, a modification of Occam's razor - When you have two equal theories about some aspect of reality, choose the one that is less annoying. — T Clark

funny hahah :grin:
but infinite universe and finite universe are not equal theories.

Why is there anything if the first existent could not be? — val p miranda

What does this mean? (Hint: The word "existent" is an adjective, not a noun, as used here.)

either nothing exists or something exists. — val p miranda

The expression "nothing exists" has no meaning, by definition: "Nothing" means "not anything; no single thing.". So nothing cannot exist, and thus there's no choice (to be made) here, as this statement implies.

As a result, the whole construct of this thesis falls apart. Sorry! :sad:

If someone says you don't understand, that is not an ad hominem argument. It's not even an insult.
— T Clark

It is. — Jackson

Nunh unh. You should look it up.

but infinite universe and finite universe are not equal theories. — SpaceDweller

I didn't say anything about infinity. I said that, perhaps, the universe has always been here and always will be. I think that way of seeing things and it's opposite are equal in that they are unverifiable.

Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. That would mean something made God.
— Philosophim

What can make God? — chiknsld

That's not what I proposed, that's what you proposed. I stated if there was some prior causality for God, then something made God.

And if you believe God had no prior reason for its existence, then I'll post the original point I was referring to again.

When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. — SpaceDweller

If anything could have been a first cause, then it is not logically necessary that this first cause be a God.

And if you believe God had no prior reason for its existence, then I'll post the original point I was referring to again. — Philosophim

Dead matter needs a creation. Eternal intelligence doesn't.

Dead matter needs a creation. — Haglund

Why? And if matter is dead, wouldn't that mean it was once alive?

Dead matter needs a creation. Eternal intelligence doesn't. — Haglund

You did not address the point I made. If you want a discussion, or to have your point be taken seriously, address the point I made please. If you don't understand the point I made, feel free to ask.

Why? And if matter is dead, wouldn't that mean it was once alive? — Jackson

Dead matter indeed was once alive matter. But matter is not intelligent enough to cause itself. It's too dumb, perfectly created as it might be (it contains the seed of life!).

Dead matter indeed was once alive matter. But matter is not intelligent enough to cause itself. It's too dumb, perfectly created as it might be (it contains the seed of life!). — Haglund

Why is matter dumb?

You did not address the point I made. If you want a discussion, or to have your point be taken seriously, address the point I made please. If you don't understand the point I made, feel free to ask. — Philosophim

You took the words out of my mouth! You're right. I don't see (get) your argument. So I ask you indeed!

Why is matter dumb? — Jackson

Good question! Ill reflect. Too much at once...

Why is matter dumb? — Jackson

ahahah :rofl:

If anything could have been a first cause, then it is not logically necessary that this first cause be a God. — Philosophim

it's extremly difficult to conceive anything else. moreover it difficult to define it or to describe it somehow.

it's extremly difficult to conceive anything else. moreover it difficult to define it or to describe it somehow. — SpaceDweller

The inability or difficulty to comprehend reality does not mean reality does not exist. You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God?

Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim

God is well defined, what is the definition of your first cause thing or being?
I don't even know what I'm supposed to imagine.

Why is matter dumb?
— Jackson

ahahah :rofl: — SpaceDweller

:rofl: all innocent too.

The inability or difficulty to comprehend reality does not mean reality does not exist. You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim

Why do you treat God as anything else?

Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld

What do you mean?

What do you mean? — Philosophim

You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim

Why do you treat God as anything else?

You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God?
— Philosophim

Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld

I'm still confused chiknsld. Can you expand on your point a bit more?

I'm still confused chiknsld. Can you expand on your point a bit more? — Philosophim

Well most people understand God to be by very definition an omniscient entity beyond all conception, etc., etc., but here you are trying to apply the same logic to God as to other things. So are you trying to redefine God as having equals?

Well most people understand God to be by very definition an omniscient entity beyond all conception, etc., etc., but here you are trying to apply the same logic to God as to other things. So are you trying to redefine God as having equals? — chiknsld

A God can't be entirely beyond conception, otherwise you couldn't conceive of a God right? If we're referring to the idea that something can exist without prior cause, but is able to interact with the universe, then why does this have to be God? If something has no prior cause for its existence, then there is no cause that necessitates it exist. I created another thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins that may explain it better.

Nothing and eternity are concepts the meaning of which have no existence. Something always existed because nothing does not exist. Why should we have many discussions about non-existents? Nothing cannot be. The first existent just existed. Time, again, is a concept, too, that the meaning of which has no existence.

Wait, that's your answer? I thought you just wanted an explanation. :cool:

You wanted an explanation that is subsumed in the question so that you could address the explanation? (And yet, you speak about people skipping your questions) :) Therefore you leave me no choice...

Your answer to my question:

Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld

...

A God can't be entirely beyond conception, otherwise you couldn't conceive of a God right? — Philosophim

Yea sure.

If we're referring to the idea that something can exist without prior cause, but is able to interact with the universe, then why does this have to be God? — Philosophim

Who said it did? Is that why you treat God as anything else?

If something has no prior cause for its existence, then there is no cause that necessitates it exist. — Philosophim

Okay?

I created another thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins that may explain it better. — Philosophim

Philosophim, so far it looks like your answer to my very simple question that you had trouble with, "why do you treat God as anything else?", is that since God can exist without prior cause then we can imagine something else that can exist without prior cause.

But I suppose after all that effort, you'd still be treating God as anything else. :)

I suppose I shall never get my answer. Btw I'm jk, I understand that your conception of God is crude.

I think time is the universe as a whole. We can only think in parts, but have an understanding of time, which although vague, represents the unity and movement of the universe in eternal time. You seem to make the universe necessary, instead of a continuous revolution with no member first and no necessity to its existence

Older than I or older than me. In the second case, than becomes a preposition. Parts of speech apply to usage in the grammatical construct. That is the whole point: something must exits since nothing does not exist. Analysis should not replace reason. Perhaps, you do not like a natural view of the origin of the universe, responder Piskas

I think time is the universe as a whole. We can only think in parts, but have an understanding of time, which although vague, represents the unity and movement of the universe in eternal time. You seem to make the universe necessary, instead of a continuous revolution with no member first and no necessity to its existence — Gregory

Agree with that.

Time, again, is a concept, too, that the meaning of which has no existence. — val p miranda

Time does not exist? So then how do you explain a baby growing into a teenager? It takes time to develop. How do you explain memories of the past? Watching an old movie like, 'Pulp Fiction' on tv? It's a movie that existed in the past, there could be actors that are no longer alive. What about listening to Mozart? Surely that music existed in the past right? How can you explain any of these experiences without time?