I can try for others. I see it. We cannot really have anything from nothing before, even though some say math does not apply. A field that produces anything is still something, not nothing. But what is necessary existence, by the definition of its necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere, there must be the existence, and arbitrary limits are excluded, by the logic of the definition. This describes nothing found in the universe, though many can see the design to the universe.
I say it's a being, not that it has to be included in consideration of necessary existence that is not the universe, but that I myself find it fits best. I explain it as well as I can. It could be some keep up a barrier to seeing this.
Yes, we can discuss necessary existence in this forum for creation and evolution within physical science, what we won't discuss is why believe passages of the Bible, or any religious texts, for it. This is a matter of faith, it is certainly alright to have it, but it is not for discussing here. Why update the term necessary existence? I didn't understand the reasoning for that, I do understand the term already. If you or others don't, I did not mean for any to be left in the dark, and I will explain it further hoping to do so better. I hope to understand you more clearly. You want to discuss what necessary existence is, but not have any discussion of a supreme being because that depends on a text? Is that it? Because though it is my faith that there is the supreme being that is not based on text. I already have faith there is the supreme being before consideration of any text.
I can try for others. I see it. We cannot really have anything from nothing before, even though some say math does not apply. A field that produces anything is still something, not nothing. But what is necessary existence, by the definition of its necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere, there must be the existence, and arbitrary limits are excluded, by the logic of the definition. This describes nothing found in the universe, though many can see the design to the universe.
I say it's a being, not that it has to be included in consideration of necessary existence that is not the universe, but that I myself find it fits best. I explain it as well as I can. It could be some keep up a barrier to seeing this.
This is just based on a field that can generate things. But that is not nothing, either. And it is not uninterrupted limitless necessary existence, itself, as you give consideration to quantum existence for things generated, and would depend on some other, whether you call it being or thing.
Speedwell said:That's all very well, but it sheds no light whatever on the question of creation v. evolution. I continue to wonder why the question of the existence of a supreme creative entity (God, if you like) even comes up in this forum.
SelfSim said:In general, dwelling on faith based notions, (ie, in your words: 'alright to have it'), actually stands in the way of performing tests designed to find out what's out there. We humans are quite capable of ruling out certain notions when these notions sound outrageous coming from a faith based paradigm.
That's how language works. Its us humans who decide what we consider as 'existing' (or what is 'real'). After all, its our language and so its up to us to manage it.
Yes .. you have followed the belief-based process I mentioned in my earlier post in coming up with what you'd like it to mean.
The other way of deciding what 'necessary existence' is, is via the objective testing process. The two are completely distinct from eachother. The way any of us arrive at what terms and phrases mean when researching the unknown, is usually more significant than the end result.
There's a classic example of what I mentioned above, ie: faith based notions, standing in the way of taking actions aimed at trying and find out something .. Eg: 'Under what conditions might an apparently theoretical universal quantum field be constrained?' becomes moot if one simply believes that the fixed and unchanging definition is sufficient.
You're using what you think the term means, (derived from your belief (or faith-based) paradigm), as the basis for arriving at a conclusion of: 'necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere' .. but we have no hard objective data/evidenced basis for knowing that .. so we update what 'necessarily existing' means, when we have that objective data/evidenced knowledge (and not before that).
No .. we can understand the theoretical model which includes a universal quantum field, then go and devise tests and make predictions based on that model .. that's all.
Kylie said:That's a no then.I can try for others. I see it. We cannot really have anything from nothing before, even though some say math does not apply. A field that produces anything is still something, not nothing. But what is necessary existence, by the definition of its necessarily existing, cannot not exist anywhere, there must be the existence, and arbitrary limits are excluded, by the logic of the definition. This describes nothing found in the universe, though many can see the design to the universe.
So it's just a guess on your part?I say it's a being, not that it has to be included in consideration of necessary existence that is not the universe, but that I myself find it fits best. I explain it as well as I can. It could be some keep up a barrier to seeing this.
No, some, as it seems so for you, cannot be shown. It is too bad for you. But others would see, nothing can come from nothing. If there is anything existing, there was always something, and what it would be would be enough to explain it, all of it. That which is necessary existence must exist and necessary existence doesn't not exist anywhere, being necessary existence would be continuous without limit, everywhere and always. And this existence will be explanation for all else existing. That cannot be shown to not be true.
It is the best explanation I can find. No one has shown me a better one. So I trust this.
Yes, they do. But whether they believe in a supreme being or not really has little to to with whether they accept theory of evolution is a viable scientific theory or not. The two questions are not logically related. It only becomes an issue when believers in a creator being make falsifiable statements related to biological evolution, which not all believers do.Do you really wonder? It is Creation and Evolution forum. Creation being discussed involves the supreme being behind it. It would make sense discussing that, many trust there is the creation from the supreme being.
FredVB said:Do you really wonder? It is Creation and Evolution forum. Creation being discussed involves the supreme being behind it. It would make sense discussing that, many trust there is the creation from the supreme being.
Among those rejecting there would be the supreme being from which there is the creation, which includes our world, they find things they do in patterns, and can have those inform them how evolution happened for explaining all of it. They can take remains of what used to be among all that is living that are not around, now, as support of that. This is one way. But it can't account for the beginning of all things of known existence. And it does not exclude the supreme being, as there still needs to be necessary existence for explanation.
Speedwell said:Yes, they do. But whether they believe in a supreme being or not really has little to to with whether they accept theory of evolution is a viable scientific theory or not. The two questions are not logically related. It only becomes an issue when believers in a creator being make falsifiable statements related to biological evolution, which not all believers do.
FredVB said:One can have personal faith, and still do objective tests and studies of the physical reality. Great scientists in the past did that, while they were people of faith. Some are different, but I myself dd not throw away my mind, with faith I came to have, and still look and study certain things accessible to me, being as objective as I can be. I am certain, for example, about anthropogenic climate change, and that we should all responsibly live in different ways to avoid great disasters that we will come to with this, and not have any coming into administrative office that would contribute further to the worsening, which comes from contribution to it in many ways.
No, some, as it seems so for you, cannot be shown. It is too bad for you. But others would see, nothing can come from nothing. If there is anything existing, there was always something, and what it would be would be enough to explain it, all of it. That which is necessary existence must exist and necessary existence doesn't not exist anywhere, being necessary existence would be continuous without limit, everywhere and always. And this existence will be explanation for all else existing. That cannot be shown to not be true.
Kylie said:So you claim that a necessary being is required to explain why there is something and not nothing, but you freely admit that you can't show that. All you can do is provide a logically flawed argument. And then you wonder why there are many people who don't accept your argument?
FredVB said:It is the best explanation I can find. No one has shown me a better one. So I trust this.
Kylie said:Argument from incredulity.
No, that is something that you are forcing into the discussion. What you are doing is arguing about the existence of God with with atheists (who happen to accept evolution) but the only one setting up the existence of God in contrast to the theory of evolution is you.There was no claim arguing contrary to this. This is still in the Creation and Evolution forum, and the subject of creation does involve the supreme being and is set up in contrast to evolution, which is argued here contrary to the supreme being that is dismissed here.
Scientific theories are never proven. Epistemologically they are not subject to proof, only provisional confirmation. Proof takes place in the context of axiomatic formal systems like math and logic, as these are based on deduction. Scientific epistemology is based on inductive logic and so scientific conclusions are provisional pending further evidence.If speaking of the supreme being as creator is making falsifiable statements contrasted with facts it is not the same as being contrasted with the theory of evolution, which though having real arguments for it is yet not proven though accepted. But my statements would be the issue here.
I think I've noticed you say something about this previously. Why? Are you one of those who still thinks cosmologists argue that the universe came from nothing? If so you need to get seriously updated. You are on weak ground with pretty well all your arguments. Adding the "Something cannot come from nothing" argument to your repertoire will just make you look silly.What do you think it would take to show something cannot come from nothing?
No, that is something that you are forcing into the discussion. What you are doing is arguing about the existence of God with with atheists (who happen to accept evolution) but the only one setting up the existence of God in contrast to the theory of evolution is you.Scientific theories are never proven. Epistemologically they are not subject to proof, only provisional confirmation. Proof takes place in the context of axiomatic formal systems like math and logic, as these are based on deduction. Scientific epistemology is based on inductive logic and so scientific conclusions are provisional pending further evidence.
I think I've noticed you say something about this previously. Why? Are you one of those who still thinks cosmologists argue that the universe came from nothing? If so you need to get seriously updated. You are on weak ground with pretty well all your arguments. Adding the "Something cannot come from nothing" argument to your repertoire will just make you look silly.
Ophiolite said:Do you want to try that again? In English this time.
From AV's Pool Challenge thread...
Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...
Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"
Is the third person right?
One would need to take into account the reputation
for honesty of the writer. If they had a history of
fabrication. Or if they had motive to lie that would
potentially ruin their future reputation.
In Illinois, a large number of scientists signed onto
research supporting Cold Fusion. They were seeking
to be famous, but it turned out that the researcher
had falsified his findings. A bad gamble on the reputation
of a co-worker.
All historical events are a matter of faith.
If anything was there before what exists of the universe, what was there before exists necessarily, that is, there is necessary existence. It is understandable.
["The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their view.
Well me oh my don't lots of churches do just that .
they do it with doctrine in the bible. they alter it to fit THEIR own preconceived idea .
So do many in the world.
For the ABSOLUTELY say truth is not absolute . Yeah , let it sink in a bit.
Sadly lots of false ones do say that . heck look at our churches.
twisting doctrine to suit THEIR OWN MAN MADE THEOLOGY.
My advice we better read the bible for ourselves daily and hours daily
Their aer still some who will preach the truth the way it should get said.
But even these must be tested always . My advice , READ the bible for yourself
and seek HIM with all the heart . Ps, I stay out of the creation versus etc camp.
HECK no I don't support evolution in the least . But my mission is to preach JESUS
and remnd all, HE aint no minister of sin either . His sayings obeyed and loved. ALL of them.
its so simple
If anything was there before what exists of the universe, what was there before exists necessarily, that is, there is necessary existence. It is understandable.
It may put us as necessary for God to be aware of God. At least that's how the mystics would put it.How does your argument fare if Humans exist necessarily? Doesn't that put us as equivalent to God on how necessary we are?
From AV's Pool Challenge thread...
Now, I looked at this and thought that the situation wasn't taking into account everything it should have. So I presented an alternative situation...
Let's say someone broke, and then a second person wrote down a statement claiming that he had not broken, but had simply placed the balls in this position. Later, a third person comes in, reads the documentation and concludes that the documentation MUST be right, and anyone who says the balls reached this position as a result of regular play is terribly wrong. The third person refuses to consider any alternative, and claims, "The documentation says it, that settles it!"
Is the third person right?
I get your point, but the problem with the way you framed the question is that you gave us absolute knowledge that the 2nd person was wrong. So did AV's scenario, though the person was wrong in the opposite direction. Isn't the better scenario walking into the room, seeing how the table is set, and having no a priori knowledge of how it came to be? What would privilege one explanation over the other?
My answer would be that when no evidence is available, our experiences and what we trust tips the balance.
Or has someone already pointed this out?
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?