A question for atheists and agnostics

[OphidiaPhile]

God is existence. By the fact existence exists, He does. He is the necessary Being.

Occam's razor, hence no god.

 

[MaxP]

Uh, OK. I'll pretend that made sense.

Do you honestly expect to be able to understand what existence is?
It is not nothing, it is not something, it is not everything, it is nothing, it is everything, it is something. That's existence. Everything and nothing.

 

[MaxP]

Occam's razor, hence no god.

Occam's razor goes so far as to say that existence always existed. Necessary Being is a different issue. Occam's razor could also say the simplest explanation for my computer is magic.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Occam's razor goes so far as to say that existence always existed. Necessary Being is a different issue. Occam's razor could also say the simplest explanation for my computer is magic.

Occam's Razor does not pertain to mythology.

 

[Skaloop]

Then what causes it into existence?

Nothing. Because there is nothing to cause anything. If there was something to cause it, then there would already be existence, not non-existence.

Last time I checked, absence does not cause presence. Just makes the heart grow fonder.

Then absence causes the presence of fondness in the heart.

And absence can indeed cause things. The absence of light causes my pupils to dilate. The absence of energy causes water to freeze.

 

[Skaloop]

Do you honestly expect to be able to understand what existence is?
It is not nothing, it is not something, it is not everything, it is nothing, it is everything, it is something. That's existence. Everything and nothing.

You previously said it can't be, since something cannot exist and not exist.

And none of this addresses nor necessitates God in any way.

 

[MaxP]

Nothing. Because there is nothing to cause anything. If there was something to cause it, then there would already be existence, not non-existence.

Exactly.

Then absence causes the presence of fondness in the heart.

And absence can indeed cause things. The absence of light causes my pupils to dilate. The absence of energy causes water to freeze.

Only because your eyes and water are used to "something," your points in fact support my thesis that something can not come from absence. You point to the absence of something in something in something else causing the something to change; when absence in fact has no active role, what has an active role is the something leaving, ie the kinetic energy leaving the water. Absence has no active role.

 

[MaxP]

You previously said it can't be, since something cannot exist and not exist.

"Something," is different than "existence."

And none of this addresses nor necessitates God in any way.

No, it doesn't. That's about 20, 30 pages back.

 

[Skaloop]

"Something," is different than "existence."

Existence is something. I don't mean is to mean that they are synonyms, but rather that existence is part of the set encompassed by the word "something." Just like a poodle is a dog, but "poodle" means something different than "dog."

 

[Skaloop]

Do you honestly expect to be able to understand what existence is?
It is not nothing, it is not something, it is not everything, it is nothing, it is everything, it is something. That's existence. Everything and nothing.

It's not the concept that is causing me the trouble, it's your writing. You had random commas, missing words, and wanton use of semi-colons. Perhaps if you re-write it into a series of coherent statements, that would help.

 

[MaxP]

Existence is something. I don't mean is to mean that they are synonyms, but rather that existence is part of the set encompassed by the word "something." Just like a poodle is a dog, but "poodle" means something different than "dog."

No, in this case existence would be "dog" and something would be "poodle."

 

[MaxP]

It's not the concept that is causing me the trouble, it's your writing. You had random commas, missing words, and wanton use of semi-colons. Perhaps if you re-write it into a series of coherent statements, that would help.

HEIL SKALOOP!

 

[Tinker Grey]

God is something, not nothing, so God creating things would be something from something.

No. Christianity typically posits that God made something from nothing ... not something from something. The whole point of ex nihilo is that God is not dependent on pre-existent matter.

When a potter makes a pot and when we say he made that pot from something, we don't mean he made it from himself. We mean he made it from clay. If God made the universe from something what is that something?

If God exists, God is something. But, how does positing an omnipotent being get around the fact that there is no logical handle for anyone or anything no matter how powerful creating something out of nothing.

It is a logical impossibility -- unless, of course, you want to posit ex Deo which just means you're bailing on the something from nothing concept.

If you think it is possible to create something from nothing but cannot give any mechanisms about how this should be, then you are special pleading. You are merely declaring without evidence or logic that it should be so.

God is just an ad hoc explanation for what we do not know. It's God of the gaps all over again. "Perhaps it is possible that something arises from nothing ... but God makes it happen!"

 

[MaxP]

No. Christianity typically posits that God made something from nothing ... not something from something. The whole point of ex nihilo is that God is not dependent on pre-existent matter.

God created the universe by His own power; something from something.

When a potter makes a pot and when we say he made that pot from something, we don't mean he made it from himself. We mean he made it from clay. If God made the universe from something what is that something?

His power, He is existence.

If God exists, God is something. But, how does positing an omnipotent being get around the fact that there is no logical handle for anyone or anything no matter how powerful creating something out of nothing.

It's not nothing; it is form His own power, which is existence. He simply created new things; it was with not prior substance to change, but not without a thing from which to spring.

It is a logical impossibility -- unless, of course, you want to posit ex Deo which just means you're bailing on the something from nothing concept.

If you think it is possible to create something from nothing but cannot give any mechanisms about how this should be, then you are special pleading. You are merely declaring without evidence or logic that it should be so.

I don't.

God is just an ad hoc explanation for what we do not know. It's God of the gaps all over again. "Perhaps it is possible that something arises from nothing ... but God makes it happen!"

God of the gaps... I love that. People point to examples of where science ha "beaten" God, but in fact in God was never working miraculously in those places; He was simply assigned there. What He really is has never changed.

 

[Wyzaard]

Because in order for that which is not lack to come form complete lack, that which is not lack would have to be able to lack(to come into existence from the lack) and not lack(to be something), which is parodoxical.
Why must this happen? Because nothing is lack, something is presence. In order to progress form one to the other you must be able to possess properties of the origin to progress to a conclusion. The origin in this case, however, has no properties.

And thus to paraphrase Kant, neither nothingness nor being are proper objects of philosophical inquiry. The former is non-senical, the latter an ontological given.

 

[MaxP]

And thus to paraphrase Kant, neither nothingness nor being are proper objects of philosophical inquiry. The former is non-senical, the latter an ontological given.

Alright, since you seem pretty ground in your ideas, something only arises when it has the potentiality to arise. In order for something to move into actuality, it must come from potentiality. Nothingness has no potentiality.

 

[Wyzaard]

Alright, since you seem pretty ground in your ideas, something only arises when it has the potentiality to arise. In order for something to move into actuality, it must come from potentiality. Nothingness has no potentiality.

You're still talking metaphysic-speak. Define 'arises', 'actuality', and 'potentiality'... methinks we again have either nonsensical or blunt givens.

 

[quatona]

Alright, since you seem pretty ground in your ideas, something only arises when it has the potentiality to arise. In order for something to move into actuality, it must come from potentiality. Nothingness has no potentiality.

...but sophistry has.

 

[Skaloop]

No, in this case existence would be "dog" and something would be "poodle."

So there's something that exists but is not something?