Nope, that’s not my argument. My argument is simply that you haven’t disproved that possibility.
The same place that your supposed God came from…it has always existed.
It didn’t…it has always existed. To ask what existed before time and space existed is a meaningless question. You simply can’t ask what existed “before” time existed.
True
You, me, the planets and stars are not what metaphysicists call “forms.” They are, more properly speaking, material substances. And material substances are a composite of prime matter and a substantial form. Various material substances differ from each other because they have different substantial forms.
You’re welcome. Those are really very good questions, because they lead you right to the existence of God. For God is the Unseen Cause of matter. But scientists do not pursue that line of reasoning because, as scientists, they do not want to carry their search outside the realm of the sensible world. However, as philosophers, we are compelled to assert the existence of an Unseen Cause because it is a necessity of reason, a logical necessity. As you said, matter exists, but also could not have existed. Therefore, if matter exists, then something has to explain its existence here and now. If matter cannot explain its own existence, then there has to be Something outside matter, to which existence belongs of necessity, and which is the cause and explanation of matter’s existence.
What you presented in your posts are three good design arguments taken from science. What you are basically saying is that there are evidences from science that the world is designed. But don’t expect the scientist, as scientist, to say, “Aha! Therefore, there must be a Designer!” The scientist is simply not interested in an Unseen Designer of the world. However, even the scientist, as philosopher, could make that conclusion. In fact, there are many scientists who do, because their interest is not limited to science and, thinking as philosophers, they have made the conclusion that a Designer is required.
I wouldn’t say “violently” but I personally would counter that in a multiverse of infinite possibility it was inevitable.
If that’s the case, then we are now at the end of an infinite series of real events. But by definition, it is not possible to reach the end of an infinite series of infinite events. Therefore, none of those theories can be true.
Violently is a bit strong. Zealously in an almost religious manner is closer.
Not really. If someone is asked if they believe in God and say ‘no’, then they are an atheist. If they are asked if God exists and they say ‘no’ then they are an atheist. If they are asked if it’s possible that God exists and they say ‘yes’ then they are agnostic.
Me too! Don’t forget to tell the college.
‘Who caused it?’ implies a supernatural cause. I don’t believe in the supernatural so the question makes no sense. It would be like me asking you which type of magic spells will cure my hangover. So I didn’t ignore it. That would have been rude. I explained why I could not answer it.Welshrabbit:
Your questions are very good and they do make sense even to the atheists. They just choose to ignore it. But ignoring or dismissing the question does not make the question disappear. They just leave it unanswered.
You can choose to ignore the question, if you like, but it is incorrect to say that the question makes no sense. The only questions that really make no sense are those that don’t mean anything, such as the question, “Why is biology perpendicular to music?” All the terms of the question are meaningful, but the question itself makes no sense because it is just a meaningless juxtaposition of meaningful words. But the question “Why does matter exist?” is a meaningful question that scholars have attempted to answer for ages.
Now, to the question, “What or who caused it to exist,” you said, “Nobody knows.” But how did you know that? Did you listen to everybody and hear what each has to say?
Of course, existence is eternal, because existence is the very nature of God. I think that what you meant to say is that you tend to think that matter is eternal, right? Actually, that is also what many scientists think. They don’t prove it, though. They just postulate it as true without proof.
That’s not correct. In a cyclical universe, there is no chain of events. The same event - the big bang, just repeats itself.YHWH_Christ:
If that’s the case, then we are now at the end of an infinite series of real events. But by definition, it is not possible to reach the end of an infinite series of infinite events. Therefore, none of those theories can be true.