(January 23, 2024 at 11:54 am)SimpleCaveman Wrote:

(January 23, 2024 at 6:50 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Philosophical statement - It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

I think this is the best form of “argument” that can be brought up here. Make fun of the post.  Sure, it ignores the point being made, but at least it’s mildly humorous and not mean like other responses. <cough>GUBU</cough>

Frankly, snowtracks is right. Everything has to come from something. If there is a thing that doesn’t come from something else, then that thing must be eternal (meaning that it, um, doesn’t come from, um, something else.) [trying to channel the great Bob Newhart there]

Mocking and abuse don’t really get around that. They just take the conversation back to junior high.

Do you agree? Check Yes [ ] or No [ ]  

Awww does the little idiot have a sad because he has no refutation to my argument?

Get over yourself and stop wallowing in baseless self-pity.

(January 23, 2024 at 12:43 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: [ ] yes [ ] no

Are we back in middle school?

Isn't that the level of most theistic debate strategies?

Let God move the needle on my Yo, God! Detector.

Hello GUBU,

(January 23, 2024 at 8:08 pm)GUBU Wrote: Awww does the little idiot have a sad because he has no refutation to my argument?  
Get over yourself and stop wallowing in baseless self-pity.

I have to hand it to you. You are consistent in your malice.

Because of that and because I was not the one in the original conversation with you, I wasn’t going to respond. As a former fly half, I have no problem binding on to another’s maul, though, so I’ll jump in.

Here’s what I saw. Snowtracks (not me) posted:

(January 14, 2024 at 12:00 am)snowtracks Wrote: They would be convinced if the universe was created. Ref: *
---------------------
*Big Bang Theory: Evolution of Our Universe - Universe Today

Your argument was

(January 19, 2024 at 6:38 pm)GUBU Wrote: You do understand that our current model of the big bang doesn't posit a creation of matter, just the expansion of the vast majority (there are spontaneously created particles) of it from an infinitely dense singularity to the state it's in* today.

Snowtracks came back with

(January 23, 2024 at 3:25 am)snowtracks Wrote: Philosophical statement - If anything now exists, then something must be eternal or if not eternal then what exists came out of nothing.

Which is pretty much axiomatic, though I would say it differently.

(January 23, 2024 at 11:54 am)SimpleCaveman Wrote: Everything has to come from something. If there is a thing that doesn’t come from something else, then that thing must be eternal. (adding: by eternal, I mean without beginning)

You countered snowtracks by saying.

(January 23, 2024 at 9:16 am)GUBU Wrote: And what does your meaningless string of words prove?  Well aside from ghe fact that you have trouble understanding anything.

When there is ambiguity in what another says, I try not to assume that I know what they are saying without verifying. So, given the thread above, I take it that the argument for which you want a response is that because our current model of the big bang does not posit the creation of matter, just it’s expansion, then that means the universe wasn’t created. Since the universe wasn’t created, there is no reason to be convinced that God is real. Did I get that right?

Is that the direction you were going? I may have misunderstood. Let me know.

(January 24, 2024 at 8:08 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: Let God move the needle on my Yo, God! Detector.

Does it work on similar principles as an EMF ghost sensor?

(January 25, 2024 at 4:32 pm)SimpleCaveman Wrote: Snowtracks came back with

(January 23, 2024 at 3:25 am)snowtracks Wrote: Philosophical statement - If anything now exists, then something must be eternal or if not eternal then what exists came out of nothing.

Which is pretty much axiomatic, though I would say it differently.

I wouldn't say it's axiomatic, I'd say it's a proposition that needs to be supported. Time as we know it started with the initial expansion, so in that sense, at least, the universe has always existed. I think you can make a case that philosophical nothingness is impossible and has therefore never existed, does that make 'something existing' the eternal thing?

The closest to nothing physics can get is quantum foam, and it's hypothetically capable of spawning universe all day long. Does/would quantum foam count as the eternal thing that must exist if anything now exists?

Hi Mister Agenda,

How’s it going today? Hope you are staying warm.

(January 26, 2024 at 1:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(January 25, 2024 at 4:32 pm)SimpleCaveman Wrote: Snowtracks came back with
Which is pretty much axiomatic, though I would say it differently.

I wouldn't say it's axiomatic, I'd say it's a proposition that needs to be supported.

Sure. I thought it was but we can talk it through to see if it is supported. What I tried to do, because it seemed clear to me in this way, was to have two mutually exclusive types: with a beginning and without a beginning. If it had a beginning, then it came from something else. Things don’t just spontaneously come into being. If it didn’t have a beginning, I was calling that eternal. Eternal really means without end, too, but I was keeping it simple.

That seems to be to be obvious. Now let’s look at your next part and see if it still is as obvious.

(January 26, 2024 at 1:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Time as we know it started with the initial expansion, so in that sense, at least, the universe has always existed.

I agree. This makes sense. If always means “for all time,” and it seems like it would mean that, then the universe has always existed. Whether “always existing” and “eternal” are the same is another question.

(January 26, 2024 at 1:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I think you can make a case that philosophical nothingness is impossible and has therefore never existed, does that make 'something existing' the eternal thing?

I have a very hard time with ‘nothingness.’ I have always :-) been in something. Some movies try to show it as dark and empty, but even that assumes space, time and something to perceive.

Do you consider philosophical nothingness to be different than material nothingness? When I think of nothingness, I am considering the latter.  I haven’t thought through the former. For example, if God created the universe out of nothing, I think of that as no thing that was material. I think that would have to include energy since the two are connected.

(January 26, 2024 at 1:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The closest to nothing physics can get is quantum foam, and it's hypothetically capable of spawning universe all day long. Does/would quantum foam count as the eternal thing that must exist if anything now exists?

Yes, that is pretty close, but, if it turns out to work, it’s still not nothing. So, then the question is did that come from something else? If so, what? If not, then I suppose it would always exist in some sense.

Enjoy your weekend!

Things don't just spontaneously come into existence. Therefore gods came from something.

(January 26, 2024 at 3:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Things don't just spontaneously come into existence.

I agree that things don’t just spontaneously come into existence. So, where do they come from?

(January 26, 2024 at 3:03 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Therefore gods came from something.

I think the point from philosophy is that “god” is not a “thing.” Otherwise, (I’ll try to get this right) what you have is an infinite regression, which is not (right phrase?) logically consistent.

They define “god” as that non-material source of things which exist. (My words without looking it up.)

Since theists can never seem to be capable of adequately defining god, they cannot really state with certainty thing is not a defining quality.