**The Necessary Reality Argument**

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In theory, the universe can be eternal. Thomas Aquinas believed the finitude of the universe could not be proved via philosophical reasoning. He differed from Bonaventure sinificantly in that respect.
 
All of you are believing in the premise that in the beginning there was absolutely nothing.
I’m questioning this premise.
What if matter has always existed?
 
Last edited:
Thank you.
I think the best position for atheist to take is that the universe is eternal because that is what we observe in science. Something can not be destroyed to nothing therefore things will continue to exist infinitely. Nothing can become something. Therefore things have existed infinitely in the past.
 
ratio1 said:
Thank you.

I think the best position for atheist to take is that the universe is eternal because that is what we observe in science. Something can not be destroyed to nothing therefore things will continue to exist infinitely. Nothing can become something. Therefore things have existed infinitely in the past.
Click to expand...
If one intends to defeat the argument they have to challenge premise 1. Everything that follows rests on that premise.

But i don’t see how one can do that without obliterating reason and falling into complete absurdity…
 
Last edited:
The atheist position does not need to contradict statement 1.
To defeat the atheist position you have to show there must be absolutely nothing to begin with.
 
I’m personally indifferent to whether the universe is eternal or finite, because in either case it still requires explanation. Both Bonaventure and Aquinas have solid arguments.
 
ratio1 said:
To defeat the atheist position you have to show there must be absolutely nothing to begin with
Click to expand...
I don’t see why. Especially considering that i never said that there has to be absolutely nothing to begin with.
 
I’m actually trying to say that the one “thing” that permeates all the universe and may have caused it into existence is space-time.
Space-time may be as close to nothing as there is in reality… But it’s not the philosophical nothing.
Space-time, on its own, has zero energy… Summing things up, it seems our universe has zero energy.
Coincidence, or reminiscent of preposition 1?.. From nothing, comes nothing… Conservation of energy, zero energy before, zero energy after.
All of this philosophy is based on the premise that the universe has non-zero energy… Astrophysics says otherwise.
 
pocaracas said:
I’m actually trying to say that the one “thing” that permeates all the universe and may have caused it into existence is space-time.
Click to expand...
So this "space-time"you are talking about is not a part of the universe; it existed before it insomuch as it caused the universe to exist?. Why do you call it space-time?
 
Last edited:
It is the reality through which all other realities are possible. This is what i mean.
 
It is conceivable, although not proven (and it might not be possible to prove), that our universe exists on a portion of space-time.
Or is it not?
 
You have to explain what you are talking about. Why do you call it space-time?
 
IWantGod said:
That something is the absolute antithesis of nothing and is the source of all reality.
Click to expand...
You are assuming what you want to prove. You assume that there is a source which is the antithesis of nothing. The antithesis of nothing could be something without a source.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
The antithesis of nothing could be something without a source.
Click to expand...
What does that mean and why does that contradict what i am saying?

By source, i am talking about the being by which all other potential beings are possible. The necessary being is the source. Why is that an assumption in the context of premise 1 followed by premise 2?
 
The opposite of nothing is something. I agree with that. However I don’t see where that implies that a source must absolutely and necessarily exist.
Also I don’t see the definition of the terms absolutely exist and necessarily exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top