It is. An existent nothing is a contradiction, not a cause. It cannot exist to be a cause after all.
An absolute state of nonexistence is not only inconceivable, its a logical contradiction and thus an impossibility. state of nonexistence = state that exists
G-d is Actus Purus, the very act of existing, anything that can be said to exist is antecedent to Him.
This seems like a panentheistic notion - if God is the act of existing, then God is in everything yet transcends any defined thing that exists. What, exactly, is the act of existing? Is your God physical? Is your God something that is the essence of existence? If not, I fail to see how your God is an entity at all, let alone one capable of exhibiting specific qualities such as personality, intention and creativity.
Actually the reverse has been true for most of human history. Hasn’t it?
Observed phenomenon is physical by definition, so its not just a fair bet, its a certainty. That’s not very hard at all. Its an entirely different thing for a scientist to claim something is impossible because he doesn’t understand how it was done…which is what so many people do when they deny the Biblical miracles.
You are almost exactly right! …except for the word “natural”. You are assuming a “natural” cause. When I make this argument I use the word “intelligible” because there is no such thing as magic. He means there is an intelligible cause for things we do not understand, not that such causes must be natural in the sense of “physical”. When someday we find out how the wider reality operates, then it will make sense, just like knowing how the physical world operates helps make sense of events.
Can’t you understand facts and grasp principles which are independent of time and space?
We are “pan-en-theists” actually. Its more pronounced in the Orthodox Church, I think because the word is so close to pantheism that people are hesitant to say it for fear of being taken as something other than monotheists. G-d is in the world and transcends the world, but is not himself the world. He is logically necessary, the world is logically contingent. That is the difference between Christian pan-en-theism, and the formulation that you have mentioned.
What - that supernatural explanations have trumped natural ones?
What do you define as ‘observed phenomena’? Is this, according to your belief, everything we experience, or is there a line drawn between certain types of experience?
This depends upon how you define ‘physical’ - we have ample reason to suppose that we are physical beings, and that such explanations as are intelligible to us are physical. It is highly debatable as to whether we may even conceive of anything that is not ‘physical’ - that is, defined by certain boundaries that we understand in terms of space, time and measurement; how, then, can we meaningfully conceive of God except in physical terms? And if not in physical terms, in what terms?
It’s entirely possible that we arrived at the same place from different starting points. And you’re right - convergent evolution of thought is an indication (if not a proof, as such) that all thought tends towards truth, in the sense that truth is a measure of the correspondence of perception to reality…
What does this mean? What things are necessary - for what/to whom? I’ve seen the terms necessary and contingent used in apologetics but never found out what they mean in context.
Yeah, the false supernatural/natural dichotomy based on those logical contradictions called empiricism/verification/falsification-isms have created an artificial situation where physically observable explanations are preferred over others. That’s a relatively recent idea.
When you say observable, you mean physical don’t you? I don’t think we should draw such lines, but I am left with little choice because others insist on using logical contradictions as the basis of reason.
I don’t feel that I have any problem making those conceptions without reference to the physical. The terminology is the same used everyday as far as I can tell. I think you may mean more than I am getting from this paragraph.
Interesting. Aren’t you up rather late? I usually don’t talk to you this time of day when we are on the same thread.
Hi James,What does this mean? What things are necessary - for what/to whom? I’ve seen the terms necessary and contingent used in apologetics but never found out what they mean in context.
Aren’t necessary things necessitated by something else, therefore in our minds their character/nature/meaning is at least contingent?
Also, something that is perhaps necessary but not contingent is God! Risky argument to play…?
Because the necessity can’t help but exist, no matter what.
This begins to dip into modal logic. In every possible world, a square has four sides, that is not contingent. In every possible world, Bill Clinton may or may not exist, so Bill Clinton is contingent.
Kind of, while the analytic/synthetic distinction plays into this, I was just using examples are easy to follow and those happen to be tautological.
Well, if you want to talk about Physics, we have to cease talking about Metaphysics =)
Well, we can, but it quickly loses the meaning people usually intend it to have. “Something came from Nothing” quickly turns into “Something came from Something else” which is an entirely different matter.
lol2 atheists teaching each other metaphysics…G-d is great.
What does this question have to do with why transcendence requires hindsight? Please answer my question.
Exactly my point. That is present-sight, not hind-sight. The transcendant sees everything in an eternal present. There is no hindsight and no foresight. Everything is present-sight.
A college kid that goes by the name Evid3nce argues otherwise and I thought he did a pretty good job of explaining it. He actually explores 2+3=5, but the concept still applies. If you’ve got the time check out a video he made on it! Time marker 6:10 - 9:12
