How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree it doesn’t make sense to our intuition. But since we have already established that our intuition leads us to completely incorrect beliefs about the universe. I don’t see this as a problem.

Ok, but the “nothing” that you are talking about there could not by definition have ever existed. So why would we care about it???

Exactly, " nothing " is the absence of being, the absence of any type of existence, it is no place, no space, no waves, energy ( or any other category of being that science or the human imagination can dream up ). And that is the point. The pied pipers who are running around writing books, holding debates, and peddeling their wild eyed theories to young heads full of mush should make that absolutely clear. " No " means " no " and " nothing " means " nothing, " it is the privation or contrary of " something. " There is nothing philosophical about it, it is the meaning and usage of ordinary language.

It may well be impossible to get from a philosophical "nothing"to a universe, because we can’t get anywhere from a condition which cannot exist. Just as per my previous post, there is no change you can make to a square-circle to turn it into a triangle. That doesn’t mean we we posit some “magical triangularifier” which explains how to get a triangle from a square-circle. It just means that the question is nonsensical and thus can be ignored.

Certainly it is true that it would be " impossible to get from a philosophical ( i.e. commonly understood concept, not peculiar to philosophy ) ’ nothing ’ to a universe, " not because it is a " condition which cannot exist, " because that possibility has not been disproven, indeed the evidence points to such a condition. The evidence is that there is no sufficient reason for anything in the universe to exist, it cannot account for its own existence. To assume that some derivative of matter has eternally existed without explanation is not only unreasonable but unscientific not to mention unphilosophical.

You have outlined the possibilities yourself. Nothing can come from nothing ( shades of Aristotle and the Greek philosophers ). So the choices are that mindless energy has existed eternally, in the configuration of a " space " approximately 10 x -26 of a centimeter in size ( Alan Guth, mit.edu/newsoffice/2014/3-q-alan-guth-on-new-insights-into-the-big-bang.html) and suddenly decided, one day, to explode and organize itself into the present configuration of the universe, including thinking, willing, knowing creatures. A truely amazing feat, something one would expect from a God. The other choice is, of course, that an eternally existing, all intelligent God created it all out of nothing, along with space and time.

You choose to take the " matter can do anything " route, I and most here choose to take the God route. Which seems a more reasonable route, which has been reinforced by our personal experience with that God.

Physicists are using “nothing” as in “no mass, no energy, no fields, etc” which is as close to the philosophical nothing as could actually exist. And showing that you can get from THERE to our universe.

Oh, I agree with what they have done, though they have not always defined it clearly. But they certainly have not shown that we can get from there to here. Indeed, that is not even a reasonable possibility.

Preaching? I don’t believe I’ve done any of that, just in case I have…

ANYONE READING THIS, PLEASE DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING, FACT CHECK ME AND CHALLENGE ME ON ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

Thank you for making that clear.

The idea of an atheist hating gods is more than a little absurd. I might as well accuse you of hating the Loch Ness monster.

Yes indeed.

I can’t alas forget about these god concepts alas, I live in a society in which people are constantly trying to justify things on the basis of the concepts. This bothers me because it causes real harm and real suffering to people in the real world.

Oh, come on, you don’t really believe that. If you do, you are a very poor student of history.
What is the real reason for your defection? People don’t do that without a reason and there can be many, but not any good ones. Mostly, it is a process of trying to rationalize something which cannot be rationalized.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

Ok, then the state which you are talking about could not possibly have ever existed. So there is no need to work out how to get from that state to one where our universe exists.

Lawrence Krause deals with how to get to a universe from nothing - that is a “real” nothing - a void. You can argue all you want that it doesn’t get you from an impossible state of affairs to a universe, but who cares where you can get to from an impossible state?

You seem to be asking a question akin to “starting from a square circle, how many corners do you need to add to get a triangle”. It’s a meaningless question because there is not and cannot be a square circle. So you cannot do anything to one to get to a triangle.

In the same way if “nothing” cannot exist then it’s impossible to get a universe from that state because you couldn’t ever reach that state in order to transition from there to a universe.

It seems to me like this is a confused equivocation as to the meaning “exist.” If all existential propositions are false, then we have “nothing.” That does not mean that nothing is a state which “exists” (states are conceptual entities which are not ontologically fundamental, so to say that “there is a state which is nothing (ie. all existential propositions about which are false)” does not commit us to “nothing” as a real entity, and therefore does not contain any contradiction akin to a square circle or married bachelor.

A sea of virtual particles does require quantification of real entities, virtual particles. So Krauss’s nothing is not nothing. What is being disputed, then, is premise 1, that the universe began from (philosopher’s) nothing 13.8 billion years ago.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The idea of an atheist hating gods is more than a little absurd. I might as well accuse you of hating the Loch Ness monster.

I can’t alas forget about these god concepts alas, I live in a society in which people are constantly trying to justify things on the basis of the concepts. This bothers me because it causes real harm and real suffering to people in the real world.

The idea of an atheist hating God(s) is not at all farfetched. The atheists have been as hateful toward God as anybody could be. That they hate Someone they cannot prove does not exist ought to tell you that the hate is real and palpable.

As for causing what you call “real harm and real suffering to people in the real world,” read some history of the 20th Century and ask yourself is there were not some really God hating atheists throughout the century.

This is not to say that there are not hateful Christians in the world too. But they ought to know better than to be hateful. because Jesus never taught any such thing.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A sea of virtual particles does require quantification of real entities, virtual particles. So Krauss’s nothing is not nothing. What is being disputed, then, is premise 1, that the universe began from (philosopher’s) nothing 13.8 billion years ago.

this pretty much sounds like the difference between creatio ex nihilo (the philosophical nihilo) and creatio ex materia. When this came up in the original thread KingCoil stated that it is a non-issue for his argument. Whether the universe was created by materia or not he was going to get at God being the one responsible for the event that resulted in the formation of the universe(see Experimenting on God post #17).

 

[KingCoil]

Thanks a lot for your replies, dear fellow posters here.

The title of the thread is: “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

What I am trying to achieve here is to get us all to first concur on the concept of God, no not the existence of God, just the concept: for if you do not concur to any concept of God, but bring in comparisons which show how you denigrate God instead of focusing first on the concept of God, it is useless for you to discuss at all to the end of denying that God exists, because you are not concerned with God as per concept understood by theists, or to focus on one particular group of theists, by Christians.

And therefore you are not into intelligent thinking grounding yourself in logic and in facts.

You are being un-intelligent, you would be no different from folks who talk to deny the existence of protein but they don’t have a concept of protein, least of all the concept of protein which folks concerned with a balanced and adequate diet take the care to insure that they eat foods rich in protein.

So, dear atheists here, do you have a concept of God so that we who are knowers of God existing can examine to see whether it is the same concept of God we have?

And please, do not go into comparisons by which you denigrate God but do not present your concept of God, for then you are being emotive but not being cognitive.

We are engaged in a cognitive enterprise, not in an interaction where people atheists don’t think, do not conduct themselves cognitively but emotively, hurling insults against God, and theists Christians exclaim: "Praise God, the all good, the all powerful, the creator cause of the universe and everything else not Himself.

I will now just ask atheists so that we will not be into a useless and nonsensical undertaking at least from your part, oh atheists, two questions:

1. Do you understand at all that we must work together to first agree on a concept of God, before on our part as knowers of God existing, we do know what we know about, and from your part, oh atheists, that you do hit the correct object by which you deny to exist, otherwise you are being nonsensical for denying something you don’t have a concept of – mind you and again, please do not say that you don’t need to have a concept of anything you deny to exist, because that is precisely what is nonsense, namely, when people talk to affirm and on your part, oh atheists, to deny the existence of something they don’t have a concept of, meaning, they do not know about what it is and its role in the universe or even just in society.
2. Next, okay, tell us what is your concept of God, and mind you, oh atheists, don’t go into hurling insults on God but shunning altogether using your cognitive faculty instead of being emotionally hostile (emotive) by acting from anger and hatred against God, by which also ironically you do by your insults betray that you do have the concept of God which is what we knowers of God have, namely, first and foremost God in concept is the cause of the universe.

Okay, oh atheists, I will rewrite the two questions into brief ones, so that you can answer with a yes or no.

1. Do you understand that you must have a concept of anything at all in order to talk about it at all intelligently? yes or no.
2. Do you have a concept of God at all, please in cognitive terms (not in emotive bursts of insults)? yes or no.

So, oh atheists, please answer the two questions above, that is the way for us all to have a concise and precise focus on the thrust of this thread, first work on concurring on the concept of God.

KingCoil

ANNEX

http://i58.tinypic.com/x3x3pw.jpg

 

[Oreoracle]

That they hate Someone they cannot prove does not exist ought to tell you that the hate is real and palpable.

So the fact that the hate is real tells us that it’s real? Not circular at all.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What I am trying to achieve here is to get us all to first concur on the concept of God, no not the existence of God, just the concept: for if you do not concur to any concept of God

Okay, if you present a god-concept then I’m sure people will be willing to discuss it, even if it is not their own god-concept.

So, dear atheists here, do you have a concept of God so that we who are knowers of God existing can examine to see whether it is the same concept of God we have?

Many religious and non-religious people have been introduced to many god-concepts. However…

And please, do not go into comparisons by which you denigrate God but do not present your concept of God,

By definition an atheist don’t believe that any of the god-concepts with which she has been acquainted to be existent. She may be able to list the characteristics of many god-concepts that she doesn’t think to exists. How would one select which one to describe here? If I restrict considerations only to what might be inspired by a King James Edition of the bible there are many mutually exclusive conceptions of Yahweh that one may form based on how the stories are interpreted, based on which stories are considered literal or metaphors, so on…

So for the above I’ll assume that you are asking for familiarity with any monotheistic god-concept for the sake of trying to be more logically consistent.

1. Do you understand at all that we must work together to first agree on a concept of God, before on our part as knowers of God existing, we do know what we know about, and from your part, oh atheists, that you do hit the correct object by which you deny to exist, otherwise you are being nonsensical for denying something you don’t have a concept of

From reading the above it sounds like you are specifically talking about strong atheist; those are the ones that assert that no gods/deities possibly exists. I think most of the ones you will find in this forum are agnostic atheist; they don’t think it is impossible for there to exists god(s), but they don’t currently hold a positive belief of him/her/them.

Okay, oh atheists, I will rewrite the two questions into brief ones, so that you can answer with a yes or no.

1. Do you understand that you must have a concept of anything at all in order to talk about it at all intelligently? yes or no.
​

Sure (yes).

in the following bold text is my own:

1. Do you have a/[any] concept of God at all,

Yes, though none that I assert to exists. I am (non-exhaustively) familiar with god-concepts that have been presented to me by some followers denominations of the Abrahamic religions.

So, oh atheists, please answer the two questions above, that is the way for us all to have a concise and precise focus on the thrust of this thread, first work on concurring on the concept of God.

Well, I’ve answered. But I think it would help for you to present the god-concept that you wish to discuss. If I randomly select from one of the god-concepts that I’ve encountered chances are it’s not the one that matches what you have in mind. It would be like me asking you to think of the number that I am thinking about right now (between 0 and 1,073,741,823).

ANNEX

I’m curious, why do you include a screenshot of previous messages? They are still accessible to us in the thread. The screenshot seems a little redundant.

If you want to refer back to a specific post you can give the post number (#1 in this case), provide a quote from something you want to emphasize, or insert a link to it. It’s a little easier to read that way.

Some people in this forums also are reading on mobile devices. Screenshots don’t reflow properly and will be harder to read for some people while the other methods I mentioned should be readable to all.​

 

[CandideWest]

Exactly, " nothing " is the absence of being, the absence of any type of existence, it is no place, no space, no waves, energy ( or any other category of being that science or the human imagination can dream up ).

Sure, that is one use of the term, the philosophical use. There are many others. The most common usage of the term in English in practical terms means “some air and other assorted stuff of little significance to me at present”.

There is nothing philosophical about it, it is the meaning and usage of ordinary language.

Incorrect, it IS explicitly a philosophical term when used that way, as we’ve already covered. The philosophical term cannot (by it’s very definition) have a referent. It only has meaning as a concept and so has no use outside of philosophy. As such it is not relevant when discussing the origin of a physical object. Hence it rather makes sense that physicists aren’t worried about it with regards to the origin of the universe.

… The evidence is that there is no sufficient reason for anything in the universe to exist, it cannot account for its own existence.

??? Not sure what you’re aiming at here? Are you trying to suggest that there is some evidence that non-existence was at some point a condition which existed?

If so, how do you resolve that apparent contradiction in claiming the existence of a state of non-existence? And what evidence are you referring to?

To assume that some derivative of matter has eternally existed without explanation is not only unreasonable but unscientific not to mention unphilosophical.

Sure and I would reject that assumption too.

You have outlined the possibilities yourself. Nothing can come from nothing

If you are talking about the philosophical nothing then I disagree. Nothing cannot do anything, because it cannot be. If it could be then it would not be nothing. You’re back to saying “square-circles can only make square-circles, not triangles”.

Square circles cannot exist, so there is no need to work out how to get from them to any real shapes.

So the choices are that mindless energy has existed eternally…

I’ll stop you there, currently I have no reason to suppose some period of existence prior to the universe. Do you?

If the universe is all that exists then there is no “before” the universe. There’s just the universe and there is no philosophical “nothing” filling some other prior period. The universe comes into existence from nothing (the physicists nothing) and that is the beginning of time. There is no eternal period prior to that point.

The other choice is, of course, that an eternally existing, all intelligent God created it all out of nothing, along with space and time.

… Or it emerged from a dream, or it was given birth to by an enormous snake, or it formed from the union of two gods or… Etc. if you wish to bring in supernatural explanations then we can sit here all day listing off creation myths of cultures from all over the world. Of course none of them have any more evidence for or against them than the Christian one. I discount them all on that basis.

Oh, I agree with what they have done, though they have not always defined it clearly. But they certainly have not shown that we can get from there to here. Indeed, that is not even a reasonable possibility.

Incorrect. This is why the work of Lawrence Krause was such a massive breakthrough. Because it HAS shown that it is possible. We don’t yet know if that is what actually happened. But we know it COULD be what happened.

Just like we don’t know how abiogenesis actually happened, we just know a few ways it could have happened.

Thank you for making that clear.

My pleasure.

Oh, come on, you don’t really believe that. If you do, you are a very poor student of history.

This has nothing to do with history. It has to do with the harm and suffering being caused RIGHT NOW in the world because of people’s beliefs in these concepts. I won’t go into it here, but Greta Christina gave a good talk called “why are you atheists so angry” which covers many of my own reasons for caring so much. It’s freely available on youtube and well worth watching if you really interested in why some atheists take an interest.

What is the real reason for your defection? People don’t do that without a reason and there can be many, but not any good ones. Mostly, it is a process of trying to rationalize something which cannot be rationalized.

Not quite I was trying to come up with a good justification for my belief in God. I went looking, REALLY looking and couldn’t find one, so I asked others and researched and discovered that I couldn’t find ANYONE with a good justification for belief in God.

And I discovered that I couldn’t maintain my belief in the absence of any justification for it.

 

[CandideWest]

It seems to me like this is a confused equivocation as to the meaning “exist.” If all existential propositions are false, then we have “nothing.” That does not mean that nothing is a state which “exists” (states are conceptual entities which are not ontologically fundamental, so to say that “there is a state which is nothing (ie. all existential propositions about which are false)” does not commit us to “nothing” as a real entity

Exactly, and that’s the point. It cannot be a “real entity”, we can notionally make up a state in philosophy where all existential propositions are false, but that state cannot ever obtain. So why would anyone be trying to get from that impossible state/entity/condition to the existence of our universe? It is nonsensical.

I see this used as an argument quite often. People saying “oh that’s not a REAL nothing, a REAL nothing is this thing which is impossible. Why don’t you show how to get from that impossible state to a universe???”

Well if the state is impossible then you’ll never be able to reach it in order to proceed from there. But why would you care?

A sea of virtual particles does require quantification of real entities, virtual particles. So Krauss’s nothing is not nothing. What is being disputed, then, is premise 1, that the universe began from (philosopher’s) nothing 13.8 billion years ago.

But we both believe that is impossible… don’t we?

 

[CandideWest]

The idea of an atheist hating God(s) is not at all farfetched. The atheists have been as hateful toward God as anybody could be.

Then I’m afraid you don’t understand what an atheist is.

Your claim here is absurd, you cannot hate someone you do not believe to exist. After all, who on earth would you direct that hate at?

That they hate Someone they cannot prove does not exist ought to tell you that the hate is real and palpable.

I fear you also misunderstand the burden of proof. Most atheists (myself included) are simply rejecting the claims of theists. We have no need to disprove them.

As for causing what you call “real harm and real suffering to people in the real world,” read some history of the 20th Century and ask yourself is there were not some really God hating atheists throughout the century.

This is not to say that there are not hateful Christians in the world too. But they ought to know better than to be hateful. because Jesus never taught any such thing.

I’ve read plenty of history thank you and Christianity has horrors enough in its history to point to if we wanted.

If all the issues were historical I wouldn’t be worried about people’s beliefs right now. But I used the present tense when I said “it causes real harm and real suffering…” Because these things are going on RIGHT NOW. That’s what makes me care about these god concepts people hold. Because there are cases every single day of some horror or other being performed on the basis of someone’s belief in some god concept. That matters to me, I’d like to see that stop.

 

[CandideWest]

1. Do you understand that you must have a concept of anything at all in order to talk about it at all intelligently? yes or no.

Yes, we would need to have some concept of god in order to discuss that concept. Agreed.

1. Do you have a concept of God at all, please in cognitive terms (not in emotive bursts of insults)? yes or no.

No, I have heard dozens of different god concepts, many of which contradict each other. But none of these concepts are mine.

Incidentally I have varying different levels of familiarity with them. I’m most familiar with the Christian ones having spent years believing in and studying the different god concepts of different denominations.

How about we use your god concept as a starting point? Maybe see if we can understand why you believe that to be true?

 

[Oreoracle]

So, dear atheists here, do you have a concept of God so that we who are knowers of God existing can examine to see whether it is the same concept of God we have?

Others have already commented on this request of yours. I would reiterate their suggestions: Simply present us with your concept of God and we can continue the discussion.

But here’s what I think, and it’s just a hunch. You are wanting us to propose a conception of God, of which there are thousands, so you can gleefully point out that it’s not your own (big surprise, considering the number of possibilities), so we atheists have misunderstood Christians the whole time! Is that somewhere in the ballpark?

If that is indeed your plan, I will direct you to a quote from one of my favorite comics, xkcd: “Communicating poorly and then acting smug when you’re misunderstood is not witty.”

 

[polytropos]

Exactly, and that’s the point. It cannot be a “real entity”, we can notionally make up a state in philosophy where all existential propositions are false, but that state cannot ever obtain. So why would anyone be trying to get from that impossible state/entity/condition to the existence of our universe? It is nonsensical.
…]
Well if the state is impossible then you’ll never be able to reach it in order to proceed from there. But why would you care?

But we both believe that is impossible… don’t we?

I didn’t say that it was impossible. To say nothing is not a “real entity” does not mean that it is senseless or incoherent to talk about (say) a time at which nothing (philosopher’s sense) existed. It means that “nothing exists” can’t be analyzed as “there is a being/state (nothing) which exists”, and must instead be analyzed as “it is not the case that there is a being which exists”. I said that that such an analysis is not contradictory in the way that married bachelors and square circles are.

(Notwithstanding the fact that (Ex)(Fx v ~Fx) can always be derived by the law of excluded middle. But most logicians seem to regard this as a weakness of standard quantified logic. The fact that some logicians, who needless to say had no theological commitments, have made free logics that are as ontologically neutral as possible seems to show that there is nothing illogical or nonsensical about conceiving of “nothing” as the negation of all existential propositions.)

I don’t think that nothing is actually possible, since I believe that God is necessary. But I don’t find it conceptually incoherent.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

we atheists have misunderstood Christians the whole time! Is that somewhere in the ballpark?

Your assumption of which Abrahamic religion might not be correct here. But that may not be of much relevance yet.

 

[KingCoil]

Post #25​

…]

I will now just ask atheists so that we will not be into a useless and nonsensical undertaking at least from your part, oh atheists, two questions:

1. Do you understand at all that we must work together to first agree on a concept of God, before on our part as knowers of God existing, we do know what we know about, and from your part, oh atheists, that you do hit the correct object by which you deny to exist, otherwise you are being nonsensical for denying something you don’t have a concept of – mind you and again, please do not say that you don’t need to have a concept of anything you deny to exist, because that is precisely what is nonsense, namely, when people talk to affirm and on your part, oh atheists, to deny the existence of something they don’t have a concept of, meaning, they do not know about what it is and its role in the universe or even just in society.
2. Next, okay, tell us what is your concept of God, and mind you, oh atheists, don’t go into hurling insults on God but shunning altogether using your cognitive faculty instead of being emotionally hostile (emotive) by acting from anger and hatred against God, by which also ironically you do by your insults betray that you do have the concept of God which is what we knowers of God have, namely, first and foremost God in concept is the cause of the universe.

Okay, oh atheists, I will rewrite the two questions into brief ones, so that you can answer with a yes or no.

1. Do you understand that you must have a concept of anything at all in order to talk about it at all intelligently? yes or no.
2. Do you have a concept of God at all, please in cognitive terms (not in emotive bursts of insults)? yes or no.

So, oh atheists, please answer the two questions above, that is the way for us all to have a concise and precise focus on the thrust of this thread, first work on concurring on the concept of God.

Dear Candide, I am asking you to reply to my two questions above.

And also in this connection what is your concept of the word transit and also of the word nothing?

You see, unless we concur on the meanings of words we use, it is useless to exchange thoughts with you: because you are then into nonsensical communication; and I am not – and no one either with intelligence grounded on logic and facts is – going to interact with you in the exchange of thoughts.

KingCoil

ANNEX Snapshot of post 25

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If all the issues were historical I wouldn’t be worried about people’s beliefs right now. But I used the present tense when I said “it causes real harm and real suffering…” Because these things are going on RIGHT NOW. That’s what makes me care about these god concepts people hold. Because there are cases every single day of some horror or other being performed on the basis of someone’s belief in some god concept. That matters to me, I’d like to see that stop.

Truth is, we don’t even have to go historical to show that there are in all likelihood today more people who have no use for God committing more heinous crimes than ever before in the history of the world. 50 million slaughtered innocents is hardly the aim of the Catholic Church in America. But you hear no end of women screaming from the hilltops that the killing of unborn children is a sacred right the challenge to which constitutes a horrible assault on womanhood. No mention, of course, of the horrible assault on the unborn child, ripping him limb from limb before he can even see the light of day.

I ask you whom you are more afraid of when you are walking down the street: the Bible toting Christian or the knife wielding alley slug who never saw the inside of a Church?

Yes, you can hate a God you believe does not exist … if that God really exists!

And no atheist can prove that God does not exist. So that certainty is dead in the water.

The causes of such hatred are many and complex. But they exist. And contrary to the view of Freud, who thought religion was a neurosis, it is more than a little likely that lack of religion is the cause of many a great and loveless neurosis.

As Bishop Fulton Sheen said, the atheist is a person without any invisible means of support.

And without that support, we are left to the wiles of our invisible Enemy.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Dear Candide, I am asking you to reply to my two questions above.

Scroll up. He already answered those.

 

[ericc]

Sure, and that’s something which is being studied and worked on as well.

Who exactly is studying/working on the source of quantum theory pre-universe? What are their findings?

Exactly true, it doesn’t make the universe “nothing”, but it does mean that you CAN get a universe from “nothing”. Which was the point.

1. It is one thing to say particles pop in/out of existence via pre-existing energies( which is not “nothing”) while extrapolating universes with all its intelligence to pop in/out of existence is another. Where is your science to support universes popping in/out of existence?
2. You have only managed kicked the bucket further down the street. Where did these positive/negative energies come from? Why and how did they come into existence? According to Stephen Hawking, in order to create a universe, “you need just three ingredients”: matter, energy and space. So the problem remains. Where did the ingredients for the universe soup comes from? There must be an Ultimate Cause of the universe.
3. If the laws of physics broke down at the beginning, one cannot use quantum law to bring about matter, which is precisely what the quantum fluctuation theory attempts to do.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil

1. Do you understand that you must have a concept of anything at all in order to talk about it at all intelligently? yes or no.

I did not see that post of yours earlier.

Okay, please react to these two questions:

1. We agree that we have got to have concurrence on the concepts of words we use in our communication? yes or no.
2. What is the most important information on the concept of God among Christian theists?

We will go later on to work together to concur on what we must understand together on the meaning of the word transit and also on the word nothing.

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Sure, that is one use of the term, the philosophical use. There are many others. The most common usage of the term in English in practical terms means “some air and other assorted stuff of little significance to me at present”

.

I disagree but its not worth debating.

Para 2 By whose authority is philosophy excluded from studying and making judgements about the physical world? Philosophy studies reality, all reality and makes judgements about the underlying principles of that reality ( its nature or essence, etc. ) and its ultimate meaning. Science studies physical reality with an eye on physical structure and composition and mathematical relationships.

And it does seem that some scientists are concerned about the orgins of the universe, Krauss seems to have been ( R.I.P. )

Para. 3 Simply stating that the material universe cannot explain its own existence by the very fact that it is physical. It is not simply a " bald fact. " It may not matter to you or those dedicated to scientism, the rest of us don’t accept that. By Faith I do know that this world had an absolute beginning in time. And even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that it existed eternally, it would still have to have had an eternal creation in time from nothing.

Para 4. The universe and every thing in it is contingent, it may be or it may not be, but since it is, it must have a cause outside of itself. Also, everything in the universe has a limited existence, it is limited in itself and every thing in it is limited in existence. That which is limited in existence must have its existence caused by that which has existence to give. That is some of the evidence.

Para 5 How can you reject it and believe what Krauss has written? You are contradicting yourself.

Para 6 Oh, I agee. Nothing does nothing. The point is that the material universe did not make itself, even if it existed eternally. It would still have had to have been created from nothing and only God can do that. In that case God would have been eternally creating. But of course, if it had an absolute beginning, that is a bit easier to see. Excuse me if I don’t remark on the color commentary.

Para 6 Nope, there was none, God is timeless, he is always ** Now **.

Para 7 All correct except the physicist’s " nothing " ( not all physicists mind you just a few ideologues ). I it is not nothing. Krauss’ universe had no absolute beginning, it was being eternally created. But even if it had an absolute beginning in time, there would have been no eternal period prior to that moment. There would only have been God, who is Now

Para 8 Ours is no myth. But if you want to cast aspersions I would certainly call Krauss’ a myth, a clever one designed to entrap those who regard themselves or wish to be regarded as sophisticated.

Para 9 Nonesense, it is nothing but highly imaginative science fiction. It did not happen and could not have. But the children follow any pied piper, if he is clever enough and promises liberation.

Para 10 Abiogenesis has been disproven I believe. At any rate, the examples given are highly speculative. And of course, even if true, it would have occurred from a previously existing matter. But this is not what we are talking about when speaking of the appearance of the universe or its very existence.

Nothing substantive left to comment on.

Linus2nd