RE: The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence
July 13, 2019 at 11:14 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2019 at 11:20 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(July 13, 2019 at 11:03 pm)8Belaqua Wrote:(July 13, 2019 at 9:33 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think that’s where my head is these days as far as philosophical positions go. It seems to me that there could never be nothing. That sentence itself is a logical contradiction. Even the word “nothingness” is an attempt to describe some thing. We try to hold a vague concept of “nothing” in our minds, but the second we attempt to use language to explain what nothing “is”, we’ve already defined it into existence. Anytime we use language like, “nothing instead of something” or “nothing is”, or, “if there was nothing”, we are talking, tacitly, about something. This is why I think that existence is necessary. I apologize in advance if none of that makes any sense, lol.
I suspect you're not going to like this but...
What you've said here is a traditional argument for a First Cause.
As we discussed before, the Aristotelian First Cause isn't a cause in time like the Big Bang. It is what needs to be -- right now -- in order for other things to be. For anything else at all to be the case, we have to have existence. Therefore, existence is the First Cause.
You have argued that there must be existence. That non-existence makes no sense. Since it is one of the main claims of traditional theology that God just IS existence, and that he is necessary because existence is necessary, you're not actually arguing against a First Cause (as described by Aristotle or Thomas).
As always, to get from this Aristotelian First Cause to the God of the Bible or the Koran requires a lot more arguing.
People would only like or not like what you say if you are somehow of any conceivable consequence to them in their minds.
In your case that consequence can only possibly have any existence in your mind, and not in those of others.
