That than which nothing greater can be conceived.

But also, the falacious argument that existing is better than not existing, there fore God exists. — Jackson

Interesting but how is it fallacious ? non existence cannot decide whether it’s greater to exist or not by virtue of not existing. One must exist first to decide whether to continue existing of bring about its own demise. Non existence as a concept can only be appreciated by that which is not in a state of non existence.

So in this sense existence trumps non existence due to the ability to reason, to choose, to ponder, to have a certain sense of free will be it an illusion or actual true free will. 0-1 points to existence over not existing

Theological arguments assume existence must have a cause. — Jackson

Can something ever be self-causing? Is a cycle not a circuit whereby outcome is the same as the original input?

Can something ever be self-causing? — Benj96

The universe can exist without being caused.

The universe can exist without being caused — Jackson

Can you elaborate on how?

Can you elaborate on how? — Benj96

Why does it need to be caused?

Why does it need to be caused? — Jackson

Similarly, why does it not need to be caused? Is there not equal reason to argue either viewpoint logically?

Is it that the set of all causes cannot include itself ? - just as a Venn diagram of all Venn diagrams doesn’t contain itself and therefore cannot be a set of all Venn diagrams.

Why is nothingness expected? — Jackson

There's no objective reason to believe nothingesss expected, but theists believe the material world is contingent - exists only because God chose to create it.

Similarly, why does it not need to be caused? Is there not equal reason to argue either viewpoint logically? — Benj96

Perhaps, but I do not think so. The universe exists, we know that. Whether it has a cause is not as certain.

There's no objective reason to believe nothingesss expected, but theists believe the material world is contingent - exists only because God chose to create it. — Relativist

Yes, that could be a belief of theists.

Ah, why is there something rather than nothing?
Because of God.
Awesome reason indeed! :up:

Your "proof" depends on the assumption that, in the absence of a god, nothingness should be expected. Can either of you defend that assumption? — Relativist

Yes, because, nothing comes out of nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

The universe can exist without being caused. — Jackson

Only if universe is eternal, that is exists since ever, there is no beginning and no end.
This is infinite regress which is not a solution to any problems.

Yes, because, nothing comes out of nothing. — SpaceDweller

Old argument which cannot be proven.
For another perspective look at Leibniz's argument that God could have left the universe is a state of nothingness but thought existence was superior. I am not supporting this argument but he does give a reason why God rejected nothingness.

Nice, it implies that existence of universe without a supreme being is inexplicable and holds no ground
https://theresidenttheologianblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/on-the-existence-of-god-leibniz-contingency-argument/

But I don't see how his argument is against "nothing comes from nothing"

But I don't see how his argument is against "nothing comes from nothing" — SpaceDweller

My argument is that is has never been proven. It is just a tenet.

My argument is that is has never been proven. It is just a tenet. — Jackson

The fact that never anything come from nothing is proof of itself. don't you think?

The fact that never nothing come from nothing is proof of itself. don't you think? — SpaceDweller

I do not think that.

One way to think about nothingness is to associate it with randomness. Things occur without without being caused by prior events.

One way to think about nothingness is to associate it with randomness. Things occur without without being caused by prior events. — Jackson

randomness requires things to manifest random behavior, nothing does not require anything since nothing is not-a-thing.

nothing doesn't even require a creator, because it's not a thing.
nothing just exists as nothing.

nothing doesn't even require a creator, because it's not a thing. — SpaceDweller

I clearly am rejecting the concept that the world was created.

Your "proof" depends on the assumption that, in the absence of a god, nothingness should be expected. Can either of you defend that assumption? — Relativist


Yes, because, nothing comes out of nothing. — SpaceDweller

Reality didn't come into existence.

If material reality is the totality of reality, then it exists uncaused, and at all times. The notion that it had to "come into existence" is incoherent, because "coming into existence" entails a time at which it didn't exist, followed by a time at which it exists.

Reality didn't come into existence. If material reality is the totality of reality, then it exists uncaused, and at all times. The notion that it had to "come into existence" is incoherent, because "coming into existence" entails a time at which it didn't exist, followed by a time at which it exists. — Relativist

Good, well said. Agree with that.

Reality didn't come into existence.

If material reality is the totality of reality, then it exists uncaused, and at all times. — Relativist

Right, "IF", but what is your argument for eternal universe.

Reality didn't come into existence. — Relativist

That's exactly the question. If material reality, thermodynamic time with a 3D space, inflates into existence automatically and periodically on a TD timeless 5D quantum vacuum spacetime structure with the right shape and virtual particles, then the question is, why does this timeless structure exist in the first place? What's the reason? Why it exists? Where did it come from, assuming it to be the only structure?

but what is your argument for eternal universe. — SpaceDweller

Why does the universe have to be caused? Not rhetorical. We know there is a universe, so why does it have to have a cause.

Right, "IF", but what is your argument for eternal universe. — SpaceDweller

To be clear, I'd define "eternal" as existing at all times - which does not require an infinite past.

Why think the "universe" exists at all times? Because nothing comes from nothing.

Reality didn't come into existence. — Relativist


That's exactly the question. If material reality, thermodynamic time with a 3D space, inflates into existence automatically and periodically on a TD timeless 5D quantum vacuum spacetime structure with the right shape and virtual particles... — Hillary

You are making a number of questionable assumptions and then demanding an explanation of "why". I'm a naturalist - but I don't pretend to know the fundamental nature of reality nor even the conditions that gave rise to the big bang. To ask "why are things as they are" implies that you believe there was an intelligent designer (or designers) who chose to create the world that exists, and therefore must have had a reason. Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it.

Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it. — Relativist

And saying the universe is a consequence only displaces the same question--Why is there God.

Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it. — Relativist

The view of the TD timeless 5D quantum substrate vacuum is mine and offers a natural underground to let two 4D mirror universe emerge, inflate, into real existence. The statement that "it just exists" robs existence of intrinsic, objective meaning or reason. Being a rationalist, I can't live with such emptiness. It takes all kinds! :smile:

And saying the universe is a consequence only displaces the same question--Why is there God. — Jackson

That's often heard but eternal intelligence doesn't need explanation. Eternal stupidity does.

eternal intelligence doesn't need explanation — Hillary

Why?

Why? — Jackson

Because a dumb material can't exist because of no reason. Eternal intelligence is the reason.

To be clear, I'd define "eternal" as existing at all times - which does not require an infinite past. — Relativist

existing at all times = eternal = infinite
correct?
if not what do you mean?