Existence is the default

[Roseeurekacross]

But we experience motion. We know that things has started from Big Bang. Who does take care of all motions?

This is not what you are building a Case for in the previous thread.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Nope to this thread or another one? Have you been following the other thread?

Keep things in one thread.

 

[STT]

You can’t thread jump like this. It’s invalidating discussion in that thread. We were not discussing existence as a default. We were discussing when time started.

That is another obvious conclusion. To me it deserves to be published and discussed in another thread.

I have already answer the question of when time started in another thread. In simple word, there cannot exist any theory to answer that since we use time to say when things start.

 

[STT]

Keep things in one thread.

It is possible that someone has another argument in favor of the topic (like JK). I would be interesting to see how his argument follows.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Even if I were to cede a partial allowance for that statement, and I wouldn’t, that explanation is ultimately insufficient to explain why things exist in the current way at all, why one configuration over another, etc… Hence the only thing tgat follows as truly necessary existence for which it would be logically impossible to be without is that which we refer to as God.

Regardless of what you “allow,” the logical possibility of a state where nothing exists does require argumentation; argumentation that is seldom undertaken by theists.

It certainly isn’t sufficient to explain why things are the way they are, but that is rarely the thrust of theistic arguments. Typically, once they establish that God is responsible for creation ex-nihilo, they consider themselves done.

If you would like to bring up the “why aren’t things different” question, I will begin by pointing out two problems with the theistic position in this regard.

1. Physicists/physical cosmologists have always led theology, not the other way around. That is to say: theology has never made any predictions about the way the world is that would later be confirmed by physicists\cosmologists. The most common objections to this are A) creation <-> big bang and B) the fact that there are physical laws at all. I will note that A is not a settled issue in several respects (on both the theological and physics side), and that B became a fashionable thing to believe right around the time people started having success describing the world in terms of mathematical laws. That would make B and instance of the problem in #2:
2. Theistic explanations are entirely post-hoc. They all take the form “See how things are? That’s how God made 'em!.” The problem with this is obvious: it could be given as an explanation of absolutely anything, such as other logically possible universes, the “nothing exists” universe, and even mistaken views about how this universe is.

Now, these objections don’t address the need for an explanation, all they do is point out why theologists tend to stop after they provide the explanation for something/nothing: the pragmatic problem that they can’t actually use their theology to explain any features of the world.

 

[worldwideweary]

When I say that existence is the default, I mean that “why is there something instead of nothing” …

Again, the original post refers to existence as default. I say Existence is necessary, as Existence refers to God, ergo it is not default since default implies non-necessity in its being the case. If this is wrong, I’m all ears (or eyes in this case, er well, just say I’m sensitive). Now, changing the subject ever so slightly into existence of the the non-necessary:

It seems to me the question regarding time is moving toward the more primal:

Questions for meditation
What was the first change to exist, and what function did it serve, if any?
Was its function in and of itself or must it be related to another change or non-change to serve that intended function, whatever it was/is?
How do you reconcile, in your way of thinking, change with the necessary?
How is the non-necessary brought into being without change?
Dun Dun Dun. . . . .

Is it possible that there be some sort of eternal change or a sort of what we call change without time?
How can this even be talked about at all in time, especially since it goes against the reasonable Pure Actuality of God?
To what exactly does change refer when abstracted from entities and their configurations?
How can one reconcile by way of language the Divine Simplicity and the experience of change?

For the Catholic Christian, is it possible that the doctrine of eternal generation/procession gives a hint as to how any of this is the case?
It seems the idea of the Trinity gives rise to the conception of a quality that is a pre-cursor to non-necessary change.
Anyways, as usual, these are just a bunch of questions to chew and probably have already been chewed on time and again.



Ciao for now.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It is possible that someone has another argument in favor of the topic (like JK). I would be interesting to see how his argument follows.

In favour of which question exactly? This or the other on the other thread.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Why that (bold part) is true?

Suppose it were true that “the state where nothing exists” exists.

I then ask the question: “In such a state, does the state where nothing exists, exist?”

If you answer yes, then something exists, and “nothing exists” fails to describe the state.

If you answer no, then we’ve denied the premise.

 

[ericc]

Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic (this is discussed in this thread). Therefore existence is the default.

I am confuse.

1. Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic. I fail to see how that conclusion is supported in your statement. You ought to restate it so that your conclusion follows your premise. First, I don’t see a problem with creation. Secondly, there was a non-existence state prior to existence.
2. Therefore existence is the default. Therefore (a) there shouldn’t be anything rather than something as the default
   (b) unless there was a Cause.

 

[STT]

In favour of which question exactly? This or the other on the other thread.

In favor of this thread. Please read post #28.

 

[STT]

I am confuse.

1. Nothing could not existed since the act of creation is problematic. I fail to see how that conclusion is supported in your statement. You ought to restate it so that your conclusion follows your premise. First, I don’t see a problem with creation. Secondly, there was a non-existence state prior to existence.
2. Therefore existence is the default. Therefore (a) there shouldn’t be anything rather than something as the default
   (b) unless there was a Cause.

(1) The act of creation is logically impossible (this is discussed in another thread)
(2) This means that we cannot have something out of nothing
(3) Things exist
(4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that nothing cannot exist
(5) Therefore existence is the default.

 

[ericc]

(1) The act of creation is logically impossible (this is discussed in another thread)

Since when did you PROVED that? When you change post, at least have the courage to list down the objections to your assertions in other posts.

(2) This means that we cannot have something out of nothing

Already proven wrong. We did have the Big Bang. There is nothing before Big Bang.

(3) Things exist

Before Big Bang, it didn’t

(4) From (2) and (3) we can deduce that nothing cannot exist

From (2) and (3) you can deduce nothing existed before Big Bang.

(5) Therefore existence is the default.

Your conclusion is based upon faulty logic.

 

[STT]

Since when did you PROVED that? When you change post, at least have the courage to list down the objections to your assertions in other posts.

I would be happy to discuss this in another thread. You still didn’t answer to my post.

Already proven wrong. We did have the Big Bang. There is nothing before Big Bang.

This arises from the definition of creation.

Before Big Bang, it didn’t

We are talking about the state of existence now.

From (2) and (3) you can deduce nothing existed before Big Bang.

No. You need to read premises carefully.

Your conclusion is based upon faulty logic.

The conclusion follows.

 

[jcrichton]

I am so sorry to say that I don’t understand how what you said is related to the topic of this thread.

Hi!

…sorry to have derailed your thread…

I thought that the argument was that everything owes its existence to no cause because everything simply existed and existence being its default: existence therefore need no Beginning.

I attempted to show that there is a definite point where there was an absence of existence and “being” was caused to exist.

…there’s an old song that states: “…nothing from nothing leaves nothing…”

Your proposal seems to demand that there’s no Creator because the natural state of existence is existence.

Yet, we know that that which exists has had a source/origin and has been Created–as the monetary exchange system.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

When I say that existence is the default, I mean that “why is there something instead of nothing” is the equivalent of asking “why are triangles triangular instead of round?”

That is to say, “a state where nothing exists” is logically impossible, just like a round triangle. Therefore, there is no demand for any higher explanation of why something exists instead of nothing, just like we don’t need any higher explanation of why a triangle isn’t a round triangle. “The alternative is logically impossible” IS the sufficient explanation.

Hi!

…but what if the values placed on the circle would be that of a rectangle… it wouldn’t work would it… how would pi be consistent, and tangents… it seems that the rule/law existed prior to its discovery/understanding… yet, what caused the rule/law to be understood in that very precise relationship to the circle and not the rectangle?

Vacuum is not a space that can be used to negotiate unknowns… yet, unknowns are revealed/unfolded with a Created precision that cannot be denied.

Existence as a vacuum cannot be it’s own default since everything would remain as a vacuum: nonexistence.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

Hi!

…sorry to have derailed your thread…

I thought that the argument was that everything owes its existence to no cause because everything simply existed and existence being its default: existence therefore need no Beginning.

Do you have any argument against that?

I attempted to show that there is a definite point where there was an absence of existence and “being” was caused to exist.

…there’s an old song that states: “…nothing from nothing leaves nothing…”

Lets assume so. There is a problem in the model of creation that you are proposing. You need time to create the universe. That is however problematic since time is an element of universe. The problem is that time requires time to start to exist. This is discussed in depth in another thread.

Your proposal seems to demand that there’s no Creator because the natural state of existence is existence.

Yes. Unless that act of creation is illogical (time could exist in order to create time).

Yet, we know that that which exists has had a source/origin and has been Created–as the monetary exchange system.

Maran atha!

Angel

What do you mean with “monetary exchange system”?

 

[jcrichton]

Do you have any argument against that?

Yes–see my next post (the one previous to this one).

Lets assume so. There is a problem in the model of creation that you are proposing. You need time to create the universe. That is however problematic since time is an element of universe. The problem is that time requires time to start to exist. This is discussed in depth in another thread.

Yes. Unless that act of creation is illogical (time could exist in order to create time).

Yet, that’s an issue of perception… have you noticed how nature does not depend upon regulated time?:

• universe, stars, planets, comets…
• weather patterns
• precipitations
• cycles
• earthquakes and volcanos
• plant and animal life…

Only man is dependent upon a linear time-frame which is based on observation of the natural cycles of things (remember the term “sun up/down?”); so an argument about existence dependent upon a time reference is only demonstrating the flawed observation of man and his need to fit everything in the box he’s labeled: knowledge/understanding.

What do you mean with “monetary exchange system”?

That was offered as an example of “created” things which did not yet exist until its creation.

Currency as was developed into an exchange of credits, coins, and notes, attests to the fact that that premise is wrong since there was a time when it did not exist–unless you mean to infer that a cow/horse/goat is exactly the same as dollars/pounds/euros… (if that makes it complicated: computers, cars, airplanes, submarines, bombs, cool whip, xbox…); either existence is the default or it is not…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ericc]

I would be happy to discuss this in another thread. You still didn’t answer to my post.

This arises from the definition of creation.

We are talking about the state of existence now.

No. You need to read premises carefully.

The conclusion follows.

You have been answered by myself as well as several posters. You couldn’t seem to accept our rebuttals. So what is the point of further prolonging the discussion? And since so many of us didn’t agree to your assertions, you can’t claim victory and continue has if you have won the argument. You haven’t but you are entitled to hold on to your opinion. Perhaps you need to enlist further support for you position other than repeating the mantra. Just because you have difficulty in understanding some concepts of creation need not lead you to the conclusion that you have established proof. You haven’t and at the least agree to disagree with us. But please, don’t assume you have won the argument. Far from it. So it is not meaningful to move on to this succeeding topic at all. I just want to state for the record we didn’t agree to your conclusions to the other post so as not to mislead others those who are not in the know. That’s why I said it would be better to list the objections to your premises before making sweeping statements.

 

[STT]

Yes–see my next post (the one previous to this one).

Lets see.

Yet, that’s an issue of perception… have you noticed how nature does not depend upon regulated time?:

• universe, stars, planets, comets…
• weather patterns
• precipitations
• cycles
• earthquakes and volcanos
• plant and animal life…

Only man is dependent upon a linear time-frame which is based on observation of the natural cycles of things (remember the term “sun up/down?”); so an argument about existence dependent upon a time reference is only demonstrating the flawed observation of man and his need to fit everything in the box he’s labeled: knowledge/understanding.

What is your understanding?

That was offered as an example of “created” things which did not yet exist until its creation.

Currency as was developed into an exchange of credits, coins, and notes, attests to the fact that that premise is wrong since there was a time when it did not exist–unless you mean to infer that a cow/horse/goat is exactly the same as dollars/pounds/euros… (if that makes it complicated: computers, cars, airplanes, submarines, bombs, cool whip, xbox…); either existence is the default or it is not…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[STT]

You have been answered by myself as well as several posters. You couldn’t seem to accept our rebuttals. So what is the point of further prolonging the discussion? And since so many of us didn’t agree to your assertions, you can’t claim victory and continue has if you have won the argument. You haven’t but you are entitled to hold on to your opinion. Perhaps you need to enlist further support for you position other than repeating the mantra. Just because you have difficulty in understanding some concepts of creation need not lead you to the conclusion that you have established proof. You haven’t and at the least agree to disagree with us. But please, don’t assume you have won the argument. Far from it. So it is not meaningful to move on to this succeeding topic at all. I just want to state for the record we didn’t agree to your conclusions to the other post so as not to mislead others those who are not in the know. That’s why I said it would be better to list the objections to your premises before making sweeping statements.

Could you please define time and act of creation?