Why not this scenario?

[STT]

I have been thinking about this for a while. Consider an unstable sort of energy which existed at the beginning of time. It simply existed so it was uncaused. It was unstable so it could cause, turns into all possible forms.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Unstable would mean changing to start with. Eternally unstable (changing).

I am ok with that, though.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I have been thinking about this for a while. Consider an unstable sort of energy which existed at the beginning of time. It simply existed so it was uncaused. It was unstable so it could cause, turns into all possible forms.

Are you planning to write a poem based on this thought or what?

 

[Gorgias]

Consider an unstable sort of energy which existed at the beginning of time. It simply existed so it was uncaused. It was unstable so it could cause, turns into all possible forms.

Being ‘unstable’ would allow you to posit that it was likely to change. However, it would not give rise to the assertion that it, itself, could be uncreated. What would be the basis of that assertion?

After all, on the face of it, that notion is no more reasonable than saying, “@STT simply exists, so he is uncaused.” Whether or not that’s true, you would have to provide substantiation for your claim… wouldn’t you?

(Incidentally, the way you’re framing this up sounds a little like the philosophical concept of ‘prime matter’…)

 

[STT]

Are you planning to write a poem based on this thought or what?

No. My English is not so good to help me to write poem. But I am serious on what is stated. I cannot discard it.

 

[Wolfie]

I’m going to paraphrase here… Thomas Aquinas said everything in nature is contingent, it cannot be its own reason for existing. In the beginning, there must be that which is not contingent on anything. An unstable energy seems to me to be like a ball that is already rolling for no reason, so that doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[STT]

Being ‘unstable’ would allow you to posit that it was likely to change. However, it would not give rise to the assertion that it, itself, could be uncreated. What would be the basis of that assertion?

It just existed.

After all, on the face of it, that notion is no more reasonable than saying, “@STT simply exists, so he is uncaused.” Whether or not that’s true, you would have to provide substantiation for your claim… wouldn’t you?

We know that STT was caused. We know that STT didn’t exist if we go back in time. What I am proposing is something which existed at beginning of time and burst because it was unstable, so it didn’t need a mover.

(Incidentally, the way you’re framing this up sounds a little like the philosophical concept of ‘prime matter’…)

Yes, but I haven’t thought of it that deep though.

 

[STT]

I’m going to paraphrase here… Thomas Aquinas said everything in nature is contingent, it cannot be its own reason for existing. In the beginning, there must be that which is not contingent on anything. An unstable energy seems to me to be like a ball that is already rolling for no reason, so that doesn’t make sense to me.

Unstable energy is not contingent. It existed at the beginning of time therefore it was its own reason for existing. In another word you could not go back in time more and ask what did unstable energy come from?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Being ‘unstable’ would allow you to posit that it was likely to change. However, it would not give rise to the assertion that it, itself, could be uncreated. What would be the basis of that assertion?

It just existed.

Well… it’s a thought, but it isn’t realistic. Do you know of anything physical that “just existed”, in the absence of having been created?

After all, on the face of it, that notion is no more reasonable than saying, “@STT simply exists, so he is uncaused.” Whether or not that’s true, you would have to provide substantiation for your claim… wouldn’t you?

We know that STT was caused. We know that STT didn’t exist if we go back in time. What I am proposing is something which existed at beginning of time and burst because it was unstable, so it didn’t need a mover.

Yes, but you’re proposing it without explanation. I could just as easily say “@Gorgias didn’t need a mover”, but that’s similarly untenable. I mean… I could say it, but it would be illogical.

 

[STT]

Well… it’s a thought, but it isn’t realistic. Do you know of anything physical that “just existed”, in the absence of having been created?

Yes, unstable energy.

Yes, but you’re proposing it without explanation. I could just as easily say “@Gorgias didn’t need a mover”, but that’s similarly untenable. I mean… I could say it, but it would be illogical.

What do you want me to explain? We have two things in here to discuss, existence and initial motion. Unstable energy simply existed as one could suggest that God also exists. The unstable energy changed since it was unstable so we have initial motion as one could suggest that God simply moved thing. We are simply playing with items/concepts in our hand a little. Do you get what I mean?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Well… it’s a thought, but it isn’t realistic. Do you know of anything physical that “just existed”, in the absence of having been created?

Yes, unstable energy.

Energy is not “uncreated.”

If you’re going to claim that “energy simply existed”, you’ll have to show proof for such a claim. Absent that proof, it’s just an unfounded opinion.

Yes, but you’re proposing it without explanation. I could just as easily say “@Gorgias didn’t need a mover”, but that’s similarly untenable. I mean… I could say it, but it would be illogical.

What do you want me to explain? We have two things in here to discuss, existence and initial motion.

Unstable energy simply existed as one could suggest that God also exists.

We do not claim that “God simply exists” by virtue of the fact of his existence – as you’re claiming with respect to ‘unstable energy’. The claim for God is that He is the Supreme Being – the “he is who is” – who is God by virtue of his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. If you want to make that claim for a bundle of energy, be my guest… but be ready to be asked for evidence that your claim is reasonable.

By the way: where’s the evidence that your claim is reasonable?

The unstable energy changed since it was unstable so we have initial motion as one could suggest that God simply moved thing.

Hang on a second, though! There’s a significant difference between “a thing’s first motion” (which is all you’re claiming) and “an unmoved mover” (which is the claim for God). If you’re pointing at a thing and claiming its inherent deity by virtue of motion, you’re severely misunderstanding the argument for God.

We are simply playing with items/concepts in our hand a little. Do you get what I mean?

I do. You’re “thinking out loud”, as it were. Unfortunately, you’re also spinning your wheels…

 

[STT]

Energy is not “uncreated.”

The energy could be simply uncreated.

If you’re going to claim that “energy simply existed”, you’ll have to show proof for such a claim. Absent that proof, it’s just an unfounded opinion.

What I am trying to say is that things has existed, from beginning of time to now. Things deform and change though but you always have the same amount of stuff. So it is reasonable to assume that the same amount of stuff existed at the beginning of time. One need to assume that the initial stuff was unstable so it could move on its own. So the picture is complete and simple.

Moreover, that is you who should show that the act of creation is logically possible. Telling that there exist a being with the power that He can create things is unsupported opinion. You don’t need to answer this question in this thread. I am going to open another thread and you are welcome to come there.

We do not claim that “God simply exists” by virtue of the fact of his existence – as you’re claiming with respect to ‘unstable energy’. The claim for God is that He is the Supreme Being – the “he is who is” – who is God by virtue of his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. If you want to make that claim for a bundle of energy, be my guest… but be ready to be asked for evidence that your claim is reasonable.

These are a set of claims. You have to prove that nothing has existed at the beginning of time and that was God who created everything at the beginning of time. Good luck with that.

By the way: where’s the evidence that your claim is reasonable?

I already argue in favor of that in the first comment.

The unstable energy changed since it was unstable so we have initial motion as one could suggest that God simply moved thing.

Yes, we have two scenarios. You cannot discard my scenario simply.

Hang on a second, though! There’s a significant difference between “a thing’s first motion” (which is all you’re claiming) and “an unmoved mover” (which is the claim for God). If you’re pointing at a thing and claiming its inherent deity by virtue of motion, you’re severely misunderstanding the argument for God.

Yes, I am aware of the difference. What I am arguing is that the outcome is similar after the initial point so there is no way to distinguish between two scenarios given the current state of beings.

 

[SalamKhan]

Order cannot come from chaos. That’s an inversion of reality.

 

[po18guy]

How can energy, stable or otherwise, be uncaused? To define such an entity is to define God. To exclude God limits the scope of investigation or intellectual exploration.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

Are you planning to write a poem based on this thought or what?

No. My English is not so good to help me to write poem. But I am serious on what is stated. I cannot discard it.

Well, perhaps, if you really have been thinking about it for a while, and you feel you are right, then it must be right! Otherwise, what would it mean? It would be absolutely inconceivable if it was not true.

 

[Kei]

Ok, here’s a thought…imagine, just an uncreated packet of ketchup…but it’s an unstable packet of ketchup, right…then this ketchup packet burst into the primordial ooze.

If you think it’s ridiculous to liken a packet of ketchup to unstable energy, the point is they are both created things. The energy might be one of the things created at the beginning, but still created nonetheless.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Energy is not “uncreated.”

The energy could be simply uncreated.

How? Nothing (material) comes from nothing.

If you’re going to claim that “energy simply existed”, you’ll have to show proof for such a claim. Absent that proof, it’s just an unfounded opinion.

What I am trying to say is that things has existed, from beginning of time to now.

OK… but that’s a different claim than “it is uncreated.” Things that have existed from the beginning of creation can be said to “have existed from the beginning of time”; that doesn’t imply that they’re uncreated.

One need to assume that the initial stuff was unstable so it could move on its own.

No, that’s not a necessary assumption at all.

Moreover, that is you who should show that the act of creation is logically possible.

You’re the one claiming that it is not. So, you’re the one upon whom the burden of proof lies.

These are a set of claims. You have to prove that nothing has existed at the beginning of time and that was God who created everything at the beginning of time. Good luck with that.

LOL. Science itself can demonstrate a ‘beginning’, and cannot posit anything prior to it.

Moreover, asking for ‘proof’ of God is a non-starter, especially since it tends to mean “show me physical proof of a transcendental being.” It’s an unreasonable request. Try coming up with a reasonable one. Good luck with that.

By the way: where’s the evidence that your claim is reasonable?

I already argue in favor of that in the first comment.

Assertion isn’t proof.

Yes, I am aware of the difference. What I am arguing is that the outcome is similar after the initial point so there is no way to distinguish between two scenarios given the current state of beings.

Hmm… that doesn’t seem to hold up to reason. It’s like arguing, “I’m alive; that oak tree is alive; since there’s no way to distinguish, therefore I must be an oak tree.”

 

[STT]

Order cannot come from chaos. That’s an inversion of reality.

I don’t understand how what you said is related to topic.

 

[SalamKhan]

It’s completely relevant, if you fail to understand that, then perhaps you aren’t ready to discuss philosophy?

 

[STT]

How can energy, stable or otherwise, be uncaused? To define such an entity is to define God. To exclude God limits the scope of investigation or intellectual exploration.

What is the problem? It just don’t have any cause. It was sitting there at beginning of time.