Not really sure yet? I guess if we explore a little more, we may or may not find out
I know which is my strongest, but I was wondering which
you supposed was my strongest.
That is my question... When I ask you if the 'universe' is eternal, I'm essentially asking...
Did some form of the 'universe' always exist, and it merely changes form at differing 'moments'? (i.e.) the Big Bang may be a descriptor or place-holder term to state, "a moment in the passed where the 'universe' changed it's current state."
Sounds like you are describing something like the theorized collapse/expand cycle of the universe. This to me is impossible for two reasons: 1. One is that it is basically an excuse not to admit to a beginning --it is just another form of infinite regression, which is 'repugnant to reason', to say the least. It is just more kicking the can down the road. 2 The other is that matter/force/'whatever naturally is', and the principle by which it operates, are both mechanical fact. Mechanical fact does not explain existence. It cannot cause existence. It cannot come into being on its own. Nor can it be self-existent, but must be caused.
And in regards to the definition of the 'universe', I guess we can start simple and see where this goes... 'All known material'.
Long ago, an assertion was made that 'matter' can neither be 'created' nor 'destroyed'. Maybe this is true? And maybe 'matter' has never been created, but has always existed?
This refers to matter as we observe it now. It was not meant describe whether or not, nor how, it came to exist in the first place.
'First cause', at thing point, means little to me. Why? If it should turn out that 'material stuff' always was, then to assert a 'creating agent' seems silly.
I'll cut to the chase here...
If the 'universe' always was, then the assertion for creationism seems unnecessary. If the 'universe' did have a true beginning, (and 'began to exist'), then you still have ALL your work ahead of you to prove YHWH, verses another force(s)
Won't be the first time nor the last.
I could say, "If God, i.e. First Cause, i.e. Omnipotence, 'always was', everything falls into place, including existence itself, as proceeding from God, and not God from it.
But the proof that it is the result of First Cause is simple. Follow the chain of Causation. First Cause, by definition, must be Omnipotent, and further development of the thought leads to necessary Intent. I don't have the time nor inclination to write here the whole matter, as when I do, not only does my audience wander, but my mind does, lol. And every step along the way, if the readers haven't left, I have to demonstrate that what is obvious to me, is not mere assertion, and there are more objections always raised than I care to deal with. But anyway, as development of thought continues, the intent and attributes of this First Cause are step by step identical with the Abrahamic God. Admittedly, there are some surprising things about the Abrahamic God that are reasonable within the scope of attributes found philosophically, but would probably not have been thought of by mere philosophical development. But I have not heard of any developed by philosophical pursuit of the attributes of First Cause, unless they contradict other philosophical findings, that the Bible does not use or mention outright.
Hence, I ask you again... If you should come to find out that material stuff never 'began', would your notion/assertion/other for God be weakened? It's a simple yes or no question, which will fundamentally answer your very top question (i.e.) "Which one are you supposing is my strongest?"
Lol. No, actually, that doesn't show which is my strongest. It may show in part why I believe what I do in, but not the whole thing. To avoid the argument that raised so much hay in another thread, I will not here go on about the proposing of a logically self-contradictory hypothetical, than to just say that is what you are doing here, because it is impossible that "that material stuff never 'began'".
But to entertain your question, I will go with, 'what if I became convinced that', instead of 'what if I found out that'. If somehow I became convinced that matter never began, then I would have already given up on the notion of God. But I have to say, as I did on another thread just the last couple of days, that if I gave up on the notion of God, then it would not be by intellectual honesty, but for expedience sake for the pursuit of ungodliness.
Please let me re-state my question more clearly here. Even if we were to discard materialism, and only assume some opposing 'realm' where God exists, my question is simple...
Theists state God is omnipresent. Presence implies dwelling in 'something', whether it be in a A: material arena, B: a transcendent arena, C: or maybe another unknown arena. If everything had a beginning, except God,
where did God dwell BEFORE He created it ---> (A:, B:, and/or C?)
Not sure here what you mean, here, that presence implies dwelling "in" 'something', but I will try to go with the imprecision --I don't know that I could do better than you did to get the idea across.
Your "BEFORE" I will try to understand as merely a word for lack of a better one, seeing as God is not time-dependent as we are. And I hope this doesn't come across as too cryptic, but God 'just is', as he said, "before Abraham was, I AM."
'Before' or any other use of 'time' is our thinking. I also want to say that 'before' or any other use of 'cause' is our thinking, but that is a step beyond what I know. I hope I don't run too long here, but to me, for God to be God, ALL fact is his 'invention' or 'proceeds from him'. HE made logic, math, principle, fact, and they are all of his nature. They are OF HIM, or he is not God. He is not subject to them as to an external force.
