(August 7, 2018 at 2:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(August 7, 2018 at 2:34 pm)SteveII Wrote: No, "the lack of thought" is to say that God was surrounded by a void. That makes no sense. The correct understanding is that all that existed was God--an immaterial mind.
A void doesn't make sense, but an immaterial mind does?
It seems your definitions of "making sense" and "correct understanding" and mine, drastically differ.
Please provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support your claim that an immaterial mind is even possible. Once you accomplish that, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument that it actually does exist.
A reasoned argument? How about a basic Cosmological Argument from Contingency:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
This is a perfectly logical inductive argument. The premises are based on legitimate conclusions (each one can be easily defended with a surprising lack of defeaters). Even if you don't find the argument convincing--what you cannot say is that the notion of God's existence does not make sense or is irrational. We logically infer what attributes must a first cause have: uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.
This is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." Wikipedia.