My new philosophical position, a modification of Occam's razor - When you have two equal theories about some aspect of reality, choose the one that is less annoying. — T Clark
What does this mean? (Hint: The word "existent" is an adjective, not a noun, as used here.)Why is there anything if the first existent could not be? — val p miranda
The expression "nothing exists" has no meaning, by definition: "Nothing" means "not anything; no single thing.". So nothing cannot exist, and thus there's no choice (to be made) here, as this statement implies.either nothing exists or something exists. — val p miranda
but infinite universe and finite universe are not equal theories. — SpaceDweller
Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. That would mean something made God.
— Philosophim
What can make God? — chiknsld
When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. — SpaceDweller
And if you believe God had no prior reason for its existence, then I'll post the original point I was referring to again. — Philosophim
Dead matter needs a creation. Eternal intelligence doesn't. — Haglund
You did not address the point I made. If you want a discussion, or to have your point be taken seriously, address the point I made please. If you don't understand the point I made, feel free to ask. — Philosophim
If anything could have been a first cause, then it is not logically necessary that this first cause be a God. — Philosophim
it's extremly difficult to conceive anything else. moreover it difficult to define it or to describe it somehow. — SpaceDweller
God is well defined, what is the definition of your first cause thing or being?Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim
The inability or difficulty to comprehend reality does not mean reality does not exist. You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim
What do you mean? — Philosophim
You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God? — Philosophim
You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God?
— Philosophim
Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld
I'm still confused chiknsld. Can you expand on your point a bit more? — Philosophim
Well most people understand God to be by very definition an omniscient entity beyond all conception, etc., etc., but here you are trying to apply the same logic to God as to other things. So are you trying to redefine God as having equals? — chiknsld
...Why do you treat God as anything else? — chiknsld
A God can't be entirely beyond conception, otherwise you couldn't conceive of a God right? — Philosophim
If we're referring to the idea that something can exist without prior cause, but is able to interact with the universe, then why does this have to be God? — Philosophim
If something has no prior cause for its existence, then there is no cause that necessitates it exist. — Philosophim
I created another thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins that may explain it better. — Philosophim
I think time is the universe as a whole. We can only think in parts, but have an understanding of time, which although vague, represents the unity and movement of the universe in eternal time. You seem to make the universe necessary, instead of a continuous revolution with no member first and no necessity to its existence — Gregory
Time, again, is a concept, too, that the meaning of which has no existence. — val p miranda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.