11 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzThis is not so . The whole point about the definition of eternity is that there never was a time (or point of non-existence) when it was not. This applies to an eternal God just as much as it would an eternal universe or bowl of blancmange. Eternal existence means the absence of nothingness altogether. An eternal something exists always and has always existed and did not come from anything.
God is surely a something from nothing.
Life is either eternally existent or eternally non-existent. If life is non-existent at some point then everything is not existent ...forever. Nothing can happen because there's nothing there. We're not just talking about a different plane of existence(eternity) but the absence of existence altogther (nothing). It's the antithesis and negation of existence. Whereas eternity is the affirmation , continuity and constancy of existence. And what do you know .....we exist!
11 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThey don't. They have found that physics is showing that the universe is finite and had a beginning , therefore the universe was once nothing. But because they are starting with the prior premise that "the universe is all that there is" they then automatically assume that there was/is no existence at all outside the universe.
Greetings!
Well if people who are smart believe in something from nothing, it must be true. 🙂
Kelly
This leads to so called evidence that the universe "came from nothing" where what they have actually shown is that the universe "once was nothing". But if you start with the premise "the universe may or may not contain everything there is" then you get a different conclusion.
The evidence for all this is the often woolly philosophical and logical ways thay talk about vaccuums of "nothing" and such like containing "potentiality". They don't really grasp what nothing really implies and are not rigorous in their application of the term "absolutely nothing".
Even smart people have pre-assumed premises which they hold unconsciously. In short , however smart you are still human with biases. It was the "smart" sophisticated people who couldn't see that the emperor had no clothes on. The simple little boy just called it how he saw it.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterConsider, KM, just how useful an eternal bowl of blancmange would be to even a hungry person. The answer is completely useless: being eternal, the bowl of blancmange simply cannot undergo any sort of change at any temporal point, which precludes its being useful.
This is not so . The whole point about the definition of eternity is that there never was a time (or point of non-existence) when it was not. This applies to an eternal God just as much as it would an eternal universe or bowl of blancmange. Eternal existence means the absence of nothingness altogether. An eternal something exists always and has always ...[text shortened]... the affirmation , continuity and constancy of existence. And what do you know .....we exist!
In the same vein, consider your eternal God. Your view of 'eternal' seems to comprise at least two main aspects. For one, God is atemporal, outside of time. For two, everything is present for Him, there is no future or past. I really don't even see how this notion of 'eternal' is coherent in and of itself. But, supposing it is, I also really don't see how being eternal is compatible with being causally efficacious. In short, I don't understand how God can be both an eternal agent and a causal agent. You seem to act like a necessary, eternal God is explanatorily powerful with respect to why contingent entities (like us, maybe) are here. But maybe you're entirely wrong. It seems to me that such a God would of course exist (being necessary), but He would also be supremely irrelevant with respect to any contingent entities; and this irrelevance is not because He is necessary but because He is eternal (under your use of that term). I fail to see how your eternal God is explanatorily useful for anything.
Life is either eternally existent or eternally non-existent.
Huh? Do you mean to say that abiogenesis is impossible?
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloI fail to see how any uncaused cause of all existence would be irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you believe you have to come up with something uncaused upon which existence rests. For scotty this is time (although he has exemptions) , for whitey this is a mathematical circle. I have not really got as far as God yet , just as far as discussing whether an uncaused cause might have a beginning or not. I would say that the ground of all existence would probably have some pretty phenomenal properties (like not being dependent on anything else , or being non-temporal ) since what we know of so far is not adequate to explain existence fullly.
Consider, KM, just how useful an eternal bowl of blancmange would be to even a hungry person. The answer is completely useless: being eternal, the bowl of blancmange simply cannot undergo any sort of change at any temporal point, which precludes its being useful.
In the same vein, consider your eternal God. Your view of 'eternal' seems to comprise at ...[text shortened]... eternally non-existent.
Huh? Do you mean to say that abiogenesis is impossible?[/b]
The only other thing I would say is that God (in the form of the trinity) is both present in 4d space/time (Son) and also beyond it (Father). This explains how God can be both transcendent but also alongside and relevant to our causal existence.
What's abiogenesis?
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree with you.
They don't. They have found that physics is showing that the universe is finite and had a beginning , therefore the universe was once nothing. But because they are starting with the prior premise that "the universe is all that there is" they then automatically assume that there was/is no existence at all outside the universe.
This leads to so called ...[text shortened]... mperor had no clothes on. The simple little boy just called it how he saw it.
Kelly
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterAs I understand the term, life from non-life. Which I'd say is impossible, but the believers of it abound. An example of it would be cool; none are available so it is faith.
I fail to see how any uncaused cause of all existence would be irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you believe you have to come up with something uncaused upon which existence rests. For scotty this is time (although he has exemptions) , for whitey this is a mathematical circle. I have not really got as far as God yet , just as far as discussing whether ...[text shortened]... scendent but also alongside and relevant to our causal existence.
What's abiogenesis?
Kelly
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloLife is either eternally existent or eternally non-existent.
Consider, KM, just how useful an eternal bowl of blancmange would be to even a hungry person. The answer is completely useless: being eternal, the bowl of blancmange simply cannot undergo any sort of change at any temporal point, which precludes its being useful.
In the same vein, consider your eternal God. Your view of 'eternal' seems to comprise at ...[text shortened]... eternally non-existent.
Huh? Do you mean to say that abiogenesis is impossible?[/b]
Huh? Do you mean to say that abiogenesis is impossible? LEMONJELLO
I have now looked it up and I see no relevance to the concept of abiogenesis to this argument at all. Abiogensis may well be possible but what has it got to do with the uncaused cause paradox. 🙄🙄🙄
11 Feb 07
3 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister😵
I fail to see how any uncaused cause of all existence would be irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you believe you have to come up with something uncaused upon which existence rests. For scotty this is time (although he has exemptions) , for whitey this is a mathematical circle. I have not really got as far as God yet , just as far as discussing whether ...[text shortened]... scendent but also alongside and relevant to our causal existence.
What's abiogenesis?
I didn't say an "uncaused cause of all existence would be irrelevant". What I said is that there is a problem of action with respect to your notion of an eternal God: He cannot be a causal factor within our temporal existence.
The only other thing I would say is that God (in the form of the trinity) is both present in 4d space/time (Son) and also beyond it (Father). This explains how God can be both transcendent but also alongside and relevant to our causal existence.
No, it doesn't explain that at all. If anything, your notion of God's being eternal is not compatible with His also being any sort of temporal agent.
11 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou stated that "life is either eternally existent or eternally non-existent" (emphasis added). Since abiogenesis is roughly the formation of life from non-life, my question is clearly relevant.
Life is either eternally existent or eternally non-existent.
Huh? Do you mean to say that abiogenesis is impossible? LEMONJELLO
I have now looked it up and I see no relevance to the concept of abiogenesis to this argument at all. Abiogensis may well be possible but what has it got to do with the uncaused cause paradox. 🙄🙄🙄
In some respects, I'm not even sure what your quote is supposed to mean. Continuously it is the case that certain life comes into being; and also that certain life ceases to exist.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloGive me a break! If you had bothered to read the thread you would know exactly what I meant by life/existence /everything......you wouldn't be being mischievously dumb by any chance now would you? Have you bothered to read any of the thread?
You stated that "life is either eternally existent or eternally non-existent" (emphasis added). Since abiogenesis is roughly the formation of life from non-life, my question is clearly relevant.
In some respects, I'm not even sure what your quote is supposed to mean. Continuously it is the case that certain life comes into being; and also that certain life ceases to exist.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, it doesn't explain that at all. If anything, your notion of God's being eternal is not compatible with His also being any sort of temporal agent. LEMON
😵
I didn't say an "uncaused cause of all existence would be irrelevant". What I said is that there is a problem of action with respect to your notion of an eternal God: He cannot be a causal factor within our temporal existence.
[b]The only other thing I would say is that God (in the form of the trinity) is both present in 4d space/time (Son) and ...[text shortened]... on of God's being eternal is not compatible with His also being any sort of temporal agent.
God is both temporal and eternal . He can enter into the temporal world (incarnation of Christ) but maintain eternal existence also. A bit like a sphere can enter into a 2dimensional plane (and be a circle) but also maintain a 3 dimensional existence simultaneously (continue to be a sphere also). The fact that a sphere can be a circle as it transects a 2d plane does not prevent it from being a sphere at the same time.
11 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterGive me a break, KM, and start saying what you actually mean. So sorry for taking your words at face value. Do you have a secret decoder ringy thingy for me so that I may have the ability to interpret your posts in the way you merely desire?
Give me a break! If you had bothered to read the thread you would know exactly what I meant by life/existence /everything......you wouldn't be being mischievously dumb by any chance now would you? Have you bothered to read any of the thread?