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
Similarly, why does it not need to be caused? Is there not equal reason to argue either viewpoint logically?Why does it need to be caused? — 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.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. — Relativist
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
The universe can exist without being caused. — Jackson
Yes, because, nothing comes out of nothing. — SpaceDweller
But I don't see how his argument is against "nothing comes from nothing" — SpaceDweller
The fact that never anything come from nothing is proof of itself. don't you think?My argument is that is has never been proven. It is just a tenet. — Jackson
The fact that never nothing come from nothing is proof of itself. don't you think? — SpaceDweller
One way to think about nothingness is to associate it with randomness. Things occur without without being caused by prior events. — Jackson
nothing doesn't even require a creator, because it's not a thing. — SpaceDweller
Reality didn't come into existence.
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. — Relativist
Reality didn't come into existence.
If material reality is the totality of reality, then it exists uncaused, and at all times. — Relativist
Reality didn't come into existence. — Relativist
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.Right, "IF", but what is your argument for eternal universe. — SpaceDweller
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.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
Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it. — Relativist
Naturalism implies the world is not an intended consequence, so there's no reason for it. — Relativist
To be clear, I'd define "eternal" as existing at all times - which does not require an infinite past. — Relativist
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.