You are an open book with no cover and no pages. Thus, it's not really open, but it is. — Derrick Huestis

That is true. And not. Likewise, you are an open book with no cover and no pages. Thus, it's not really open, but it is. And not. You are learning, my Padawan. :razz:

I don't really see how you're addressing what I am saying.

You are arguing that it is impossible for there to be nothing, yes?

That's incompatible with God's existence.

If God exists, then nothing that exists exists of necessity. That is, it is possible for there to be nothing.

God exists. Therefore, it is possible for there to be nothing.

To deny this you either have to deny that God exists - but you can't do that if you're trying to prove God - or you have to insist that there are some things God cannot do (namely, destroy everything). In which case the person you believe in is not God but some hobbled creature not worthy of the name. Either way, you're denying God's existence. So, if God exists, it is possible for there to be nothing.

Thanks! :up:

There is a lot there, and a lot to unpack. I will pounce on the spot where I think I can make the most headway, remember I'm trying to make the leap from this to the metaphysical realm of existence, or the "beyond the cosmos." One thing I found myself thinking about a lot today is randomness. You mention some physicists as viewing randomness as the "bedrock of reality." Some quick research into this topic showed that apparently this concept of randomness was at odds with the views of Einstein. Reason is leading me to take Einstein's position, and it also places me in a good spot to promote the "omnificence" concept.

For this, I pose the question: Can randomness occur without being deliberate? Zeilinger argues that light reflecting off a mirror or being absorbed is a completely random phenomenon. But if it is truly random, then it could be the case that no light is absorbed, or all light is absorbed, and everything in between. But we don't see variation in the reflectivity of a mirror, so while it may be random at the individual level, it is patterned at the macro level, and what governs this to ensure that this "randomness" is patterned in such a way?

But really, there is no "random" at a macro level anywhere, everything is deliberate. Even human acts of obtaining "randomness" such as rolling a dice revolve around a deliberate act. At a macro level, there is randomness nowhere, but at a micro-level there seems to be randomness everywhere, and the governance of this--to my knowledge--is not fully known.

There is no "true" random, and presuming this statement is true, there is no "random" to the Big Bang and universe either. Everything is patterned, organized chaos. Even the logic we have been discussing demonstrates a necessity for pattern. But where things really get ambiguous is where the patterns are no longer necessitated by any logic, and yet they are patterned anyway. Here I find a kind of border line where arguing "omnificence is necessary" can be done. But if you have omnificence, you have a mind, you have a force that can create patterns, designs, uniqueness, etc. It organizes the "chaos" that exists out of necessity into a pattern that keeps changing and morphing but never dissolving back into chaos.

It is the odd thing about this universe, everything that is "chaos" can be zoomed out of far enough to look beautiful. Black holes are one such example...So, back to the original question, can randomness exist without being deliberate? Especially when there seems to be two choices: random or patterned, and patterns seem to be the far more common choice than random.

God can't do anything, and he can't do everything either for that matter. It is a commonly upheld religious belief, the quick example I'll give for that before delving into the philosophy around it is found in 2 Tim 2:13 "If we believe not, yet he stays faithful: he cannot deny himself."

The simple philosophy is, if God is all powerful (omnipotent), and God uses that to wipe away his power (omnipotence), then he wouldn't truly be all-powerful. In other words, baked in the cake of the word is the built-in recognition of he can't take away his own power, or any of the other omni's either for that matter.

God can do anything. That's the essence of omnipotence. All things are possible with God. Thus God can destroy himself. He wouldn't be all powerful if he couldn't. It is manifestly absurd to maintain that you and I have powers that God lacks. We can destroy ourselves, yes? So God can too. If we find ourselves lacking that power - that is, if we find ourselves unable to destroy ourselves - then we have not discovered that we are more powerful than we'd previously believed, but less so. Yet it seems that you think that if God is unable to destroy himself, that makes him more powerful?!? How does that work?

Bible passages are not evidence. But Jesus said "with God all things are possible", did he not? And the word 'cannot' is ambiguous - so the passage you cite is entirely consistent with what I have said if 'cannot' is interpreted expressively (and that's how you'd need to interpret it if you're not to convict your holy book of containing contradictions).

Ok, I will go about this the other way that seems to confuse the living daylights out of half of the people on this forum. "God can do all things," "no thing" is not a thing, thus he can't turn "all things" into "no thing."

Destroying everything is something he can do, yes?

Yes, of course. Destroying everything is something God can do - it is an action, and it is an action that God can perform, because God is omnipotent. To suppose him unable to destroy everything is to suppose there to be something over and above God that constrains what he can do - which is confused.

Thus, from something nothing can come.

"Destroy" typically means to remove the order or structure. If I bulldoze a house, the house is gone but the material that went into it still exists. This seems to correlate to how God destroys in most religions. It isn't the creation of a "nonexistence," going back to that fun contradictory word.

There is getting to be some repetition here which is wearing me out, but for what it's worth this thread has convinced me a different angle of approach might be better. When you say nonexistence is a concept, you're saying it is something which creates a contradiction. The whole word and every use of it creates endless contradictions. The point of this introductory statement was to show the absurdity of it, thus negate the possibility thus we must accept the concept of an infinite existence. Concepts are ultimately things, as I have previously stated, so even when you talk about things that don't exist, all you're saying is they don't exist as a material reality, but they will always exist as a concept. — Derrick Huestis

I'm a bit confused about the whole issue but here's some further analysis:

Redness exists & Non-redness exists.

Redness is a state/quality that red objects display. Non-redness is a property that (say) blue objects have.

Existence & Nonexistence.

Existence exists means simply that there's a state/quality - existence - that some objects like men, cars, stones possess.

Nonexistence exists, in similar fashion, describes the state/quality - nonexistence - of some objects like unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns.

A little bit more about, nonexistence exists. This statement doesn't amount to a contradiction because "nonexistence" refers to a quality/state and "exists" implies that quality/state is one in which some objects are in. True, no? It doesn't amount to saying a nonexistent object exists in which case it would be a contradiction.

You're not answering the question, just caviling over words.

Is there anything God can't do? If you answer yes, you don't believe in God. The answer has to be no.

That's all that's needed. Draw as many distinctions as you like between different senses of 'destroy'. It is of no avail. The fact remains that God can take everything and anything out of existence if he so chooses. He's not restricted to rearranging the furniture of reality. He can remove it all. Again, to deny this is to hold that the existence of some things depends not on God, but something else - which is heretical and confused.

I just see a blanket statement, not an argument. "God can do anything" is not the same as "God is all powerful." And "all powerful" is very different than the human conception of power. For example, the ability to create is far greater than the ability to destroy. It can take 40 years to create a cathedral, but 1 day to tear it down. So--which one is more difficult, or requires more "power?"

"God can do anything" is not the same as "God is all powerful." — Derrick Huestis

Yes they are. But even if they are not - and they are - it would be absurd to insist that a person who is constrained is nevertheless all powerful. For one can just posit a person who is not constrained in that way and that person would have more power than the constrained one - and what clearer contradiction could there be than to maintain that the person with less power is the more powerful one?

And "all powerful" is very different than the human conception of power. — Derrick Huestis

What do you mean? Do you mean that real power - power of the kind God has - involves 'not' being able to do things?

Anyway, you have said I have not argued anything - on the contrary, here is my argument:

1. God can do anything
2. If God can do anything, God can destroy everything
3. Therefore, God can destroy everything
4. If God can destroy everything, then it is possible for there to be nothing.
5. It is possible for there to be nothing

So I have clearly argued something. You, however, have not addressed my question: are there things God cannot do?

You mention some physicists as viewing randomness as the "bedrock of reality." Some quick research into this topic showed that apparently this concept of randomness was at odds with the views of Einstein. Reason is leading me to take Einstein's position, and it also places me in a good spot to promote the "omnificence" concept. — Derrick Huestis

I didn’t go for ‘random’ at first, but I came to realize that there can’t be any specific input or design going into the Eternal Existence that has no Beginning, nor anything going into it, for that matter, and so what would be its nature given that its bedrock can’t have a pre-definition?[/quote]

For this, I pose the question: Can randomness occur without being deliberate? Zeilinger argues that light reflecting off a mirror or being absorbed is a completely random phenomenon. But if it is truly random, then it could be the case that no light is absorbed, or all light is absorbed, and everything in between. But we don't see variation in the reflectivity of a mirror, so while it may be random at the individual level, it is patterned at the macro level, and what governs this to ensure that this "randomness" is patterned in such a way? — Derrick Huestis

The probabilities in QM results are unitary, in that they add up to one. This is like a pattern. When quantum systems don’t interact with something they are deterministic. Maybe it is that since we can’t take the whole universe into consideration during quantum experiment we get probabilities.

But really, there is no "random" at a macro level anywhere, everything is deliberate. Even human acts of obtaining "randomness" such as rolling a dice revolve around a deliberate act. At a macro level, there is randomness nowhere, but at a micro-level there seems to be randomness everywhere, and the governance of this--to my knowledge--is not fully known. — Derrick Huestis

Quantum probability ‘randomness’ averages out at the macro level, which is called decoherence. This use of “deliberate” suggests that there is mostly determinism at the macro level, which I would agree with. Others flat out won’t like it, emotionally, but the alternative is ‘not determined’, which is even harder to take. No one has ever been able to say what the ‘free’ in free will is supposed to refer to, other than the trivial sense that the will is usually able to operate. We are left with other non-starter notions such as one being a mini self cause, which wouldn’t know anything, or ‘random’, which would hurt the will, and never help it. Maybe some ‘randomness’ at rare times creeps in, but I hope that one is not standing at the edge of a cliff when this happens, or the ‘random’s vote gets swamped out but the majority votes. All in all, the fixed will grants consistency. Learning provides for new and better fixed wills to come along that have a wider range of intelligence behind them.

There is no "true" random, and presuming this statement is true, there is no "random" to the Big Bang and universe either. Everything is patterned, organized chaos. Even the logic we have been discussing demonstrates a necessity for pattern. But where things really get ambiguous is where the patterns are no longer necessitated by any logic, and yet they are patterned anyway. Here I find a kind of border line where arguing "omnificence is necessary" can be done. But if you have omnificence, you have a mind, you have a force that can create patterns, designs, uniqueness, etc. It organizes the "chaos" that exists out of necessity into a pattern that keeps changing and morphing but never dissolving back into chaos. — Derrick Huestis

Minds emerge later on, where there is more complexity. Look to the future for even higher human beings. In the past, we ever see but simpler and simpler things.

Determinism is still on, though, in presentism, as one ‘now’ leads to the next ‘now’, it getting consumed, and even more so, in a way, in eternalism, since it is all pre-determined.

It is the odd thing about this universe, everything that is "chaos" can be zoomed out of far enough to look beautiful. Black holes are one such example...So, back to the original question, can randomness exist without being deliberate? Especially when there seems to be two choices: random or patterned, and patterns seem to be the far more common choice than random — Derrick Huestis

The leftover relic of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation shows some minor variations. What we see in the universe as galaxies could be the quantum fluctuations writ large. From a very great distance out, the universe seems to be pretty smooth.

A Black Hole exists at the center of our galaxy. We are nowhere near this core but well safe from its harm out on the Orion Arm.

Again, what would be the nature of the forced Eternal Necessary Existence?

Random?

Everything, either as linear or all once?

A default for what is partless to have to be tiny?

I hear you, hopefully I can get you to understand it as intended and then maybe it will make more sense.

I'm using the word "nonexistence" as a state of being that is permeating and all-encompassing. So, think of a "great abyss." In this great abyss all forms of existence are gone. So no space, no time, no ideas, no physical matter, no God either if you believe in that. Now, if you try to explain the properties of this abyss you begin to have problems. How big is it? Well, there's no space in it, so none. How long does it last? Well, time doesn't exist to it, so none. What ideas does it impress upon your mind? Well, none, it vanished from my mind after realizing it had no size and no time component to it, there is nothing to say here.

It really is beautiful you keep stumbling upon the contradictions the Bible presents clear as day as a necessary truth. I suppose that is to say, perhaps the Bible is both logical and philosophical? But anyway, Christians at the very least do believe that the "more powerful" are "less powerful" and vice-versa. The first will be last and the last first as they say.

But it is worth saying, at this point the only real answer to give as you hammer your point in without strong logical points to explain the contradictions you create, God did "constrain" himself in Christianity by becoming man and dying. So yes, technically God died, so that constraint is over with.

But still, I don't see much logical argumentation to be had here.

hear you, hopefully I can get you to understand it as intended and then maybe it will make more sense.

I'm using the word "nonexistence" as a state of being that is permeating and all-encompassing. So, think of a "great abyss." In this great abyss all forms of existence are gone. So no space, no time, no ideas, no physical matter, no God either if you believe in that. Now, if you try to explain the properties of this abyss you begin to have problems. How big is it? Well, there's no space in it, so none. How long does it last? Well, time doesn't exist to it, so none. What ideas does it impress upon your mind? Well, none, it vanished from my mind after realizing it had no size and no time component to it, there is nothing to say here. — Derrick Huestis

"...there is nothing to say..."

Then whence God?

It really is beautiful you keep stumbling upon the contradictions the Bible presents clear as day as a necessary truth. — Derrick Huestis

I don't read the bible - never have. I don't care what it says. I care only what Reason says.

But you care what it says. And Jesus - whom you believe to be God, yes? - said "with God all things are possible". So Jesus and I have something in common: we understand what omnipotence involves. It involves being able to do anything. Like wot Jesus said.

You mention necessary truths. Oh dear. More heresy. There are none. If God exists, then there are no necessary truths. For if God exists, then nothing exists of necessity and nothing happens of necessity, as God can destroy anything and everything at any point, thus all existences are contingent.

I presented a deductively valid argument with premises that cannot reasonably be denied, and you insist that I have argued nothing? Perhaps 'argument' is another word you do not understand.

Again: is there anything God cannot do? If so, why call him God? If there is not, then you are refuted as God can do anything including making it the case that there is nothing.

Again, what would be the nature of the forced Eternal Necessary Existence?

Random?

Everything, either as linear or all once? — PoeticUniverse

As odd as it might be to say, I have a sort of meshed view with eternalism and linear time, although I can't say this idea is well formed. I would say that anything which is to become an existing thing anytime in the future carries the property of existence in a sort of eternal sense, even before it is created. But, I also view the future as changeable and non-determined (not the same as indeterminate!), so what those things are which exist but haven't come into being yet can't always be known, even with "omniscience." I view this as necessary, but would prefer not to get into an argument with Bartricks over it!

Now, in explaining this, I've also negated my personal belief the concept of randomness.

The views of "determinism" and "indeterminism seem to leave out the possibility of "continued determinism." To explain this concept, I'll go back to the idea of omnipotence. If there is an omnipotent force, and that omnipotent force extends it's reach out to determine all things for all time, then it has done two things: 1. make time finite as it reached the end and 2. make itself be not omnipotent any longer, it would become past-tense: it made it so, but doesn't continue to do so. It just follows the path.

Thus, there can be "determinism," but it is a continuous process by which all the future isn't decided, and this is necessarily so.

This further edifies my point that there must be an infinite creative source, omnificence, but this is not the same thing as "randomness."

"Randomness" can achieve repeats, and this can happen for randomness on a macro-level as well. But a repeat isn't a change, and so a repeat of the universe can lead to the question if time continued or went back. If it can't be decided if time continued or went back because "randomness" led to a repeat, then we pose another interesting problem we can explore. But infinite creativity entails within it that there be no repeat thus this problem wouldn't occur.

There is much to say on this topic, I'm unsure if my words have done justice to my position here, I'm finding myself exhausted for today!

Reality is we aren't even using the same terms, we would have to agree upon that before getting anywhere, we are simply not using the words the same at all.

I can't do much more arguing for tonight, but the general concept is we get rid of the concept of nonexistence, accept existence is infinite and eternal, then establish the universe isn't completely infinite and eternal and thus establish there must be something greater than the universe which is this "infinite existence." We then attribute qualities to it which would ensure that it exists for all time and with no end that's where we pull in the omni's and then say it has all the descriptors of God, thus it is God. That is how it is supposed to go anyway, currently trying to strengthen the metaphysical portion of this argument with PoeticUniverse.

Really? Well, an 'argument' is a chain of reasoning. I presented one.

God is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person.

To be omnipotent is to be maximally powerful. You are not maximally powerful if you lack the power to do something.

Thus, God - being all powerful - is able to do anything. And that means God can destroy anything, including himself.

And that means that it is possible for God to take all things out of existence.

And what be the case if God did that? Why, nothing would exist. Which you seem to think means a thing called 'nothing' has existence. Which is just silly. But even if it wasn't silly - and it is - it would not prove God. All it would mean is that nothing can exist. How would that get you to God? That is, let's reify nothing and say that it can have existence. Okay. Where's the problem with that?

I can't do much more arguing for tonight, but the general concept is we get rid of the concept of nonexistence — Derrick Huestis

Sorry that you don't seem to be a condition to discuss the matter further. I'll leave you with something to ponder upon if you care to. What is your definition of existence?

I've already written it in this thread and put it in the video. Has to do with space, time, affect and effect, for further explanation look at past posts.

You are not maximally powerful if you lack the power to do something — Bartricks

That is your definition, not mine, and is riddled with contradictions.

Sure, I could kill myself but is that a power?

I've had 15 foster kids in my home, and many struggled with the issue of power. Sure, an 8 year old can present himself as powerful lighting houses and schools on fire, but now at age 11 they still keep that kid locked up. Doesn't seem to be a power to me. And the teenager who put many holes in my walls and trashed my house, all it got him was more detention, more constraints, and less freedom. Again, doesn't sound like a power to me.

I've already written it in this thread and put it in the video. Has to do with space, time, affect and effect, for further explanation look at past posts — Derrick Huestis

So, an X exists IFF X is in space, in time, and x participates in causality? Am I right?

Then, if God exists, God is in space, in time, and God is part of causality. However, you said that space and time are finite; isn't that why only God could be existentially infinite and eternal. How then, can God, an infinite, eternal being exist in space and time? :chin:

:up:

if God is "in" those things he is finite. Perhaps a better phrase is permeate, expand across, or even say those things exist within him. Either way, for the argument to work he would have to be the greatest existence with no limit.

I would say that anything which is to become an existing thing anytime in the future carries the property of existence in a sort of eternal sense, even before it is created. — Derrick Huestis

(Just this first point for now…)

Your view might somehow help with a problem with presentism, which is:

The turning of a ‘now’ into the next ‘now’ sits on the thinnest knife edge imaginable, the previous ‘now’ wholly consumed in the making of the new ‘now’ all over the universe at once in a dynamical updating—the present now exhausting all reality. (Or at least just locally, according to Rovelli, which we can look at another time.) It’s not that the incredibly short Planck time couldn’t be the processing time, but… I don’t know.

The present undergoes a dynamical ‘updating’, or exhibits a quality as of a fleeting swoosh, and this additional dynamical aspect is what threatens the substance of the debate between the presentist and an eternalist opponent.

What is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as ‘to be’ or ‘has been’ is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of what is, and so presentism has no true ‘nonexistence’ of the future and the past—which means that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class.

In other words, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as to be or has been is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of What IS, and so it has no true ‘nonexistence’, for this as ‘Nothing’ cannot be. This is saying that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class.

!
!
V

The unborn future is inherent in the past,
Its ‘will be’ is real, with no unreal contrast class,
As there’s no opposite to existence—no Nil;
It’s not just that future is going to exist.

The present ‘now’ undergoes an updating,
In a fleeting swoosh that passes it away,
For the ‘now’ fades, consumed, as future becomes,
Yet, what will become past can’t just non-exist.


Presentism's 'now' occurring everywhere at once is also severely bedeviled by Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity.

Lee Smolin is one of the few who are for presentism, calling it ‘Temporal Naturalism’:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8539.pdf

To Be or To Become

Being or becoming: that is the question
That haunts Existence’s investigation:
Whether ’tis simpler for the All to offer
The slings and vectors of a told fortune
All at once, in a marble monument,
Or to perform in the sea of actions,
And by disposing ever create them?

That is your definition, not mine, and is riddled with contradictions. — Derrick Huestis

It's not 'my' definition, whatever that means. What on earth do you understand being 'all powerful' to involve if not being able to do anything? 'Not' being able to do some things?? Look, if you want you can define being all powerful as being a cabbage - but what's the point in that, given then all you're doing is seeking to prove a cabbage exists? So, either you're talking about God with a capital G, or you're talking about someone or something else. But if you're talking about God, you're talking about an omnipotent person, and an omnipotent person can do anything. I mean, even those silly theists who think otherwise admit that they need to argue their case (which they do by insisting that being able to do the logically impossible is no ability at all - that's not a good case, my point is that they nevertheless recognize the need to present one).

Omnipotent - it means 'all powerful'. Which means you have the power to do anything, for if you didn't, then you'd lack a power.

Sure, I could kill myself but is that a power? — Derrick Huestis

Yes.

I've had 15 foster kids in my home, and many struggled with the issue of power. Sure, an 8 year old can present himself as powerful lighting houses and schools on fire, but now at age 11 they still keep that kid locked up. Doesn't seem to be a power to me. And the teenager who put many holes in my walls and trashed my house, all it got him was more detention, more constraints, and less freedom. Again, doesn't sound like a power to me. — Derrick Huestis

A constraint is a constraint - it stops you doing something. So, if you are constrained, you lack power. The power to place oneself in constraints is, however, a power.

Anyway, your case has been refuted: God can do anything and thus everything that exists is capable of not existing - which means that a state of 'nothing' is possible.

And again, even if one allows you to reify nothing and predicate existence of it, that generates no contradiction. For nothing would now simply be a state that has the property of existence.