Creation ex nihilo challenge

[justlookinla]

No, I said "changed form". That isn't the same thing as "came forth".

Ok, the universe changed form to produce all we observed today?

No, the universe isn't acting on itself. That doesn't even make sense.

The universe existed in a form different from today, according to the theory. The universe then suddenly changed form due to something occurring within the form of universe which existed before the big bang. All the process was the universe acting within itself.

No, the universe isn't causing anything. The universe simply is.

You don't assign a cause to life suddenly appearing a few million years ago?

Except that the universe isn't creating anything which was part of your claim that either "something created everything or nothing created everything"

Because you're uncomfortable with the term "created", I dropped it and am using your more palatable "changed form". Something changed form, the universe, and everything is from that form change of the something (the universe). Replace "something created everything" with 'something changed form which yielded everything'.

 

[Queller]

Ok, the universe changed form to produce all we observed today?

Yes, that seems to be the basics of what the theory states.

The universe existed in a form different from today, according to the theory. The universe then suddenly changed form due to something occurring within the form of universe which existed before the big bang. All the process was the universe acting within itself.

The bold above is where you are still missing the point. Nothing is happening due to something else.

You don't assign a cause to life suddenly appearing a few million years ago?

I do, this particular theory does not.

Because you're uncomfortable with the term "created", I dropped it and am using your more palatable "changed form". Something changed form, the universe, and everything is from that form change of the something (the universe). Replace "something created everything" with 'something changed form which yielded everything'.

The problem is that "changed form" doesn't mean anything similar to "created". Therefore you can't simply changed a couple of words and have the phrase still mean the same thing.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, that seems to be the basics of what the theory states.

The bold above is where you are still missing the point. Nothing is happening due to something else.

I do, this particular theory does not.

For an event to happen, there must be a causation.

The problem is that "changed form" doesn't mean anything similar to "created". Therefore you can't simply changed a couple of words and have the phrase still mean the same thing.

At the end of the day, something which didn't exist before now exists. You didn't exist, now you exist. I didn't exist, now I exist. Something caused that. In this case, the universe caused it therefore we are the universe and the universe is us....and everything else which exists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

For an event to happen, there must be a causation.



At the end of the day, something which didn't exist before now exists. You didn't exist, now you exist. I didn't exist, now I exist. Something caused that. In this case, the universe caused it therefore we are the universe and the universe is us....and everything else which exists.

The problem with this theory which is what I think you are seeing too is that the universe is a physical entity that is a cause and effect universe that must come from the same and all of it had to have a cause. The eternal universe is still not escaping the initial cause point of origin due to its physical nature.

 

[justlookinla]

The problem with this theory which is what I think you are seeing too is that the universe is a physical entity that is a cause and effect universe that must come from the same and all of it had to have a cause. The eternal universe is still not escaping the initial cause point of origin due to its physical nature.

Exactly. Dependent upon one's viewpoint, either the universe is eternal, no beginning, no end and is the cause of all existence today or something else is eternal, no beginning, no end, and is the cause of all existence today.

Identifying the eternal cause is key, IMO.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly. Dependent upon one's viewpoint, either the universe is eternal, no beginning, no end and is the cause of all existence today or something else is eternal, no beginning, no end, and is the cause of all existence today.

Identifying the eternal cause is key, IMO.

I agree. IF the eternal cause is naturalistic or physical in being it has to have a cause itself. IF something is not physical in being it is not under the same cause and effect as the physical world is.

 

[justlookinla]

I agree. IF the eternal cause is naturalistic or physical in being it has to have a cause itself. IF something is not physical in being it is not under the same cause and effect as the physical world is.

Yeppers.

 

[Queller]

For an event to happen, there must be a causation.

Google "uncaused cause"

At the end of the day, something which didn't exist before now exists. You didn't exist, now you exist. I didn't exist, now I exist. Something caused that. In this case, the universe caused it therefore we are the universe and the universe is us....and everything else which exists.

No, the universe didn't "cause" anything to happen. Everything that is in the universe is a result of the nature of the universe.

 

[Queller]

The problem with this theory which is what I think you are seeing too is that the universe is a physical entity that is a cause and effect universe that must come from the same and all of it had to have a cause.

Why?

The eternal universe is still not escaping the initial cause point of origin due to its physical nature.

And yet you claim that God does just that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why?

And yet you claim that God does just that.

No I don't. God is not a physical being limited to the universal physics.

 

[Naturalism]

I agree. IF the eternal cause is naturalistic or physical in being it has to have a cause itself. IF something is not physical in being it is not under the same cause and effect as the physical world is.

But then how does a non-physical (god) supposedly cause a physical?

 

[Naturalism]

No I don't. God is not a physical being limited to the universal physics.

Now we're onto to just asserting stuff. A non-physical caused the physical how?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But then how does a non-physical (god) supposedly cause a physical?

You see this as a problem?

 

[RickG]

Now we're onto to just asserting stuff. A non-physical caused the physical how?

I'm not sure what he means by "non-physical". Perhaps some elaboration will ensue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm not sure what he means by "non-physical". Perhaps some elaboration will ensue.

He is a she.

 

[RickG]

He is a she.

I apologize.

Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I apologize.

Thanks for the reminder.

No problem. Just wanted to let you know.

 

[CabVet]

I'm not sure what he means by "non-physical". Perhaps some elaboration will ensue.

It is just a way of dodging the "everything has a cause" argument made to support the existence of God in the first place. Here: everything has a cause (except God, because he is not physical).

 

[Naturalism]

You see this as a problem?

I most certainly do.

How would you explain it?

How does the immaterial act on the material?

 

[RickG]

It is just a way of dodging the "everything has a cause" argument made to support the existence of God in the first place. Here: everything has a cause (except God, because he is not physical).

Which is what I'm not quite understanding about "not physical". I would think God would have to be physical, which is not the same as "no physical evidence" for.