• Jackson
    1.8k
    If someone says you don't understand, that is not an ad hominem argument. It's not even an insult.T Clark

    It is.
  • SpaceDweller
    474
    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.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k

    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:
  • T Clark
    13k
    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.
  • T Clark
    13k
    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.2k
    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.
  • Haglund
    802
    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.
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    Dead matter needs a creation.Haglund


    Why? And if matter is dead, wouldn't that mean it was once alive?
  • Philosophim
    2.2k
    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.
  • Haglund
    802
    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!).
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    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?
  • Haglund
    802
    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!
  • Haglund
    802
    Why is matter dumb?Jackson

    Good question! Ill reflect. Too much at once...
  • SpaceDweller
    474
    Why is matter dumb?Jackson

    ahahah :rofl:
  • SpaceDweller
    474
    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.
  • Philosophim
    2.2k
    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?
  • SpaceDweller
    474
    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.
  • chiknsld
    285
    Why is matter dumb?
    — Jackson

    ahahah :rofl:
    SpaceDweller

    :rofl: all innocent too.
  • chiknsld
    285
    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?
  • Philosophim
    2.2k
    Why do you treat God as anything else?chiknsld

    What do you mean?
  • chiknsld
    285
    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?
  • Philosophim
    2.2k
    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?
  • chiknsld
    285
    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?
  • Philosophim
    2.2k
    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.
  • val p miranda
    195
    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.
  • chiknsld
    285
    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?


    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.
  • Gregory
    4.6k


    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
  • val p miranda
    195
    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
  • Jackson
    1.8k
    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 existenceGregory

    Agree with that.
  • chiknsld
    285
    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?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment