(August 31, 2016 at 9:05 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Apologies if I'm covering discussions from earlier i the thread but quite a few things jump out on me here.
(August 30, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: Easily.We'll see...
Quote:Most of the old creations stories begin before creation with an infinite undifferentiated substance. The Greeks called this "chaos". The Egyptians called it "Nu". In Hinduism, the body of Brahma is an infinite ocean. In Babylonian myth the fresh and salt water gods come out of a previously undifferentiated watery state.Let's put the mythology on hold for a moment.
Quote:The necessary being is "stuff", matter, extant-ness, substance. Pure being is matter taking up all space. In atomic matter 99.999999% of the space of the atom is not taken up by matter. There is hardly anything there to "be" at all....yet here we are, made of them.So we're talking about the 'singularity' then? The proposed 'concentration' of all universal matter/energy & space/time? Given we don't comprehend the state of the universe before Plank time, how can we possibly describe, with such confidence, the necessities of that state? Further, we don't know if other 'worlds/universes' actually exist so how can we do more than postulate the attributes, let alone the necessities? And I'm assuming there that necessities could apply to those other possible worlds; I can imagine universes which exist with neither matter/energy nor time/space (e.g. proposed quantum potential universes) where substance is not an applicable attribute. The necessities of those could not possibly be anything like those of universes similar to our own.
It is before the "first cause". The first cause is what causes cavitation of this substance into stable void spheres aka universes.
As for first cause, if we can neither describe the state of the universe before Plank time or the cause of universal expansion, how can you so positively assert that the consequence was cavitation? I mean, you may be working on the cutting edge of both quantum & cosmological physics here and maybe I'm woefully under-informed but there are a lot of barriers to acceptance of your statements.
The point here is that since it's nigh-on impossible to accurately define 'necessary' or 'being' and almost equally difficult to describe what triggered the expansion of our universe, nothing you've said brings us any closer to an honest proposition of a theistic god (e.g. Yahweh, Brahma, Ymir, Zeus, Aten...).
He just opens his mouth, and stuff comes out. I don't think he even knows what he's going to say in the seconds before he types it.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
