Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nothingness

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    I don't think that follows; why could not God be always and eternally existing infinitely and always and eternally creating an infinite existence?
    Because you can't eternally create that which already exists eternally. To create something, that something can not already exist prior to its being created. And 2) if god is only a part of eternal existence, then existence itself would be greater than god.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Of course. Why do you think that has any relevance to what I said? Perhaps you are imagining I said something that I did not say. I did not say that it follows that God is always and eternally existing infinitely and always and eternally creating an infinite existence. I merely implied that it was not impossible given JimL's view.
      . . . because you referred to an 'eternally creating an infinite existence.' Creating logically refers to the action of an outside 'Source.'

      Also note Jim's response.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-15-2015, 09:00 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Because you can't eternally create that which already exists eternally.
        I think this follows if you are speaking of creation in time. Eternal creation would be rather different.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        To create something, that something can not already exist prior to its being created.
        Yes, you are speaking of creation in time, but eternal creation would not admit of prior and subsequent.

        Originally posted by JimL View Post
        And 2) if god is only a part of eternal existence, then existence itself would be greater than god.
        God would not be everything that exists, that I grant you.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          . . . because you referred to an 'eternally creating an infinite existence.' Creating logically refers to the action of an outside 'Source.'

          Also note Jim's response.
          Jim was seemingly speaking of creation in time, with temporal limitations, ie, with a before and after, but I was speaking of eternal creation. You seem to be imagining creation within spatial limitations, ie, a creator outside of a bounded space, but we are speaking of creation of an infinite existence, not a finite bounded space that has an 'outside'.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I think this follows if you are speaking of creation in time. Eternal creation would be rather different.
            But I didn't say anything about time. If there is no such thing as nothingness, which is the main topic of this thread, then it makes no sense to say that existence came to be with time. If there is no such thing as nothingness, and if, due to that fact, the something which does exist is therefore infinite, then that infinite existence can not be said to have never existed, else prior to its existing, there would have been "nothingness".
            Yes, you are speaking of creation in time, but eternal creation would not admit of prior and subsequent.
            No, I'm not, i'm speaking of the incomprehensible notion of nothingness and the resulting conclusion being that of an uncreated eternal and infinite existence. To disagree, would be to assume nothingness to be a legitimate idea. I don't think it is.
            God would not be everything that exists, that I grant you.
            If god is part of the whole of infinite existence, then in what sense is he god, and in what sense is he the creator of that which he is only a part?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              But I didn't say anything about time. ...
              I took it as implied by your use of 'already existing prior to its being created'. Prior to and subsequent to a point in time are temporal concepts.

              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              If there is no such thing as nothingness, which is the main topic of this thread, then it makes no sense to say that existence came to be with time. If there is no such thing as nothingness, and if, due to that fact, the something which does exist is therefore infinite, then that infinite existence can not be said to have never existed, else prior to its existing, there would have been "nothingness".
              But if you want to talk about the possibility of 'eternal creation' you cannot refute it by bringing up anything (or nothing) that may or may not have occurred prior to 'eternal creation'.

              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              No, I'm not, i'm speaking of the incomprehensible notion of nothingness and the resulting conclusion being that of an uncreated eternal and infinite existence. To disagree, would be to assume nothingness to be a legitimate idea. I don't think it is.
              I am not disputing the idea that nothingness is incomprehensible.

              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              If god is part of the whole of infinite existence, then in what sense is he god, and in what sense is he the creator of that which he is only a part?
              He would not be a creator of himself. I think people who speak of 'eternal creation' have in mind the idea of God sustaining all existence which depends eternally on his eternal act of creation.
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                Jim was seemingly speaking of creation in time, with temporal limitations, ie, with a before and after, but I was speaking of eternal creation. You seem to be imagining creation within spatial limitations, ie, a creator outside of a bounded space, but we are speaking of creation of an infinite existence, not a finite bounded space that has an 'outside'.
                No, I do not imagine Creation in spatial limitations, but JimL proposes that is the only way a God is possible, and yet believes that no form of God or god(s) is possible. I do not specifically define God as being inside nor outside anything. I do believe that God is distinct from God's Creation.

                JimL and I had a long frustrating sort of dialogue over this issue of whether an eternal Creation is possible here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-and-Cosmogony.

                The Baha'i belief is that Creation is co-eternal with God. As long as God has existed Creation has existed.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-15-2015, 10:45 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  No, I do not imagine Creation in spatial limitations, but JimL proposes that is the only way a God is possible, and yet believes that no form of God or god(s) is possible. I do not specifically define God as being inside nor outside anything. I do believe that God is distinct from God's Creation.

                  JimL and I had a long frustrating sort of dialogue over this issue of whether an eternal Creation is possible here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-and-Cosmogony.

                  The Baha'i belief is that Creation is co-eternal with God. As long as God has existed Creation has existed.
                  How would you define a thing that is neither inside nor outside of existence?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    No, I do not imagine Creation in spatial limitations ...
                    But you were saying that creation logically implies a source outside creation:
                    ... because you referred to an 'eternally creating an infinite existence.' Creating logically refers to the action of an outside 'Source.'


                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    ... but JimL proposes that is the only way a God is possible, and yet believes that no form of God or god(s) is possible. I do not specifically define God as being inside nor outside anything. I do believe that God is distinct from God's Creation.

                    JimL and I had a long frustrating sort of dialogue over this issue of whether an eternal Creation is possible here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-and-Cosmogony.

                    The Baha'i belief is that Creation is co-eternal with God. As long as God has existed Creation has existed.
                    It seems as if you actually agree with what I said. I fail to see any relevance of your attempt to challenge what I said.
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      I took it as implied by your use of 'already existing prior to its being created'. Prior to and subsequent to a point in time are temporal concepts.
                      Its the only logical way to explain it. If there is no such thing as nothingness, and something has always existed, then obviously the something that has always existed would be infinite, and no other thing could have existed prior to it, for the very reason that there is no such thing as prior to it.
                      But if you want to talk about the possibility of 'eternal creation' you cannot refute it by bringing up anything (or nothing) that may or may not have occurred prior to 'eternal creation'.
                      The point is that there is no such thing as eternal creation, if that which you refer to as created has always existed.
                      I am not disputing the idea that nothingness is incomprehensible.
                      Okay. Then you must admit as well that creation is incomprehensible.
                      He would not be a creator of himself. I think people who speak of 'eternal creation' have in mind the idea of God sustaining all existence which depends eternally on his eternal act of creation.
                      I think it silly to think of an uncreated and eternal existence to be in need of a personal god to sustain its existence.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        How would you define a thing that is neither inside nor outside of existence?
                        It is the nuance of word choice.

                        I would not narrowly define it as being in or out of any one place. I believe that God is distinct from the universe. This separates my Theist belief form Pantheistic beliefs where God or no God is part of or is the universe.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-16-2015, 06:09 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Its the only logical way to explain it. If there is no such thing as nothingness, and something has always existed, then obviously the something that has always existed would be infinite, and no other thing could have existed prior to it, for the very reason that there is no such thing as prior to it.
                          God does not conform to human logic.

                          The point is that there is no such thing as eternal creation, if that which you refer to as created has always existed.
                          . . . this, of course, is your atheist point.

                          Okay. Then you must admit as well that creation is incomprehensible.
                          The nature of God cannot be defined nor undefined logically from the human perspective.

                          I think it silly to think of an uncreated and eternal existence to be in need of a personal god to sustain its existence.
                          No problem with your atheist perspective, but again no one especially totally committed atheists can logically define what is possible or not possible from the perspective of God.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Its the only logical way to explain it. If there is no such thing as nothingness, and something has always existed, then obviously the something that has always existed would be infinite, and no other thing could have existed prior to it, for the very reason that there is no such thing as prior to it.
                            This merely demonstrates that your logic here is bound to a temporal framework, thus it is not sufficient to make determinations about an idea such as eternal creation.

                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            The point is that there is no such thing as eternal creation, if that which you refer to as created has always existed.
                            That point only applies to creation in time. It would not apply to either creation of time or eternal creation.

                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Okay. Then you must admit as well that creation is incomprehensible.
                            Yes, I do admit this.

                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            I think it silly to think of an uncreated and eternal existence to be in need of a personal god to sustain its existence.
                            It is meaningful for some and silly for others.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The point that there was never nothingness is that there was always existence. Uncaused existence.

                              To make the assertion that universe is that uncaused existence introduces caused things as uncaused which is false. Uncaused existence has no cause and needs no God. That the uncaused existence is the uncaused part of the universe, universe being defined as all that exists. The universe as a whole is not that uncaused existence.
                              . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The point that there was never nothingness is that there was always existence. Uncaused existence.

                                To make the assertion that universe is that uncaused existence introduces caused things as uncaused which is false.
                                There is no objective evidence that would determine that the physical existence is the uncaused cause of everything.

                                Uncaused existence has no cause and needs no God. That the uncaused existence is the uncaused part of the universe, universe being defined as all that exists. The universe as a whole is not that uncaused existence.
                                This, again, is a theological assumption on your part and is apparently a premise in your argument for the existence of God. This premise is not accepted.

                                This reminds of old cosmological arguments that our universe must have a beginning, therefore our physical existence must have a source outside our physical existence. Classic 'Begging the Question' grounded in an agenda assuming God exists a priori.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X