OphidiaPhile
Well-Known Member
- Sep 26, 2008
- 2,919
- 188
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Occam's razor, hence no god.God is existence. By the fact existence exists, He does. He is the necessary Being.
Do you honestly expect to be able to understand what existence is?Uh, OK. I'll pretend that made sense.
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, hence no god.
Occam's Razor does not pertain to mythology.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.
Then what causes it into existence?
Last time I checked, absence does not cause presence. Just makes the heart grow fonder.
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.
Exactly.Nothing. Because there is nothing to cause anything. If there was something to cause it, then there would already be existence, not non-existence.
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.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.
"Something," is different than "existence."You previously said it can't be, since something cannot exist and not exist.
No, it doesn't. That's about 20, 30 pages back.And none of this addresses nor necessitates God in any way.
"Something," is different than "existence."
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.
No, in this case existence would be "dog" and something would be "poodle."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."
HEIL SKALOOP!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.
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 is something, not nothing, so God creating things would be something from something.
God created the universe by His own power; 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.
His power, He is existence.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?
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.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.
I don't.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 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.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!"
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.
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.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.
...but sophistry has.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?