RE: God is in semantics.
December 4, 2015 at 10:30 pm
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2015 at 10:33 pm by Whateverist.)
(December 4, 2015 at 9:15 pm)Dooker Wrote: The Universe exits. It is here and was probably created by the big bang( even christians acknowledge this). If that is so, than something made that happen. That "something" is god. This comes to a semantic definition of "something". Suffice it to say, if "something" didn't cause the universe to be, none of us would be here. I don't know how you reconcile that "something" as being anything but a god. This is where I think Christians et al, are wrong in thinking that my statement here agrees with them. They don't have a monopoly on god. Just because I believe there was a prime mover of the universe doesn't mean I think it was Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or any other human derived deity.
Anyways, thoughts on the semantics of "something"?
I have no problem with limitless regress. Unless you've already decided to go with a first cause, it is the obvious alternative. The only reason we shrink from limitless regress is thermo dynamics. But that only applies to closed system and we're in no position to assume the universe is truly unitary and therefore closed. What we know as our universe may very well fit within a superstructure which we may never be able to verify.
For my money I am willing to grant prior necessary and sufficient causes but a first one seems more absurd to me than the idea of infinite priors.
That there would be some thing (my bolding on your quote by the way) is no problem. But that the idea that this thing would be a 'subject' has no appeal whatsoever apart from the way it ties into ancient folklore. I'm certainly not giving that any creedence. Are you?
