The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:Tar’s gonna love you for bringing the “Does God exist?” Question back into the thread.
You can’t test for proof God exists any observable possibility can be accounted for multiple hypothesis (some atheistical, some theistical). However, you can prove it by logical characteristics. Seeing as we know that an atheistical universe must stretch back effectively for eternity, without accounting for any quality of “eternity” within those systems. Basically that means seeing as there is not eternity in any object without admitting to the existence of aseity, the origin of everything becomes a catch 22, between the origin of laws, and those laws being a necessity to “allow” something, rather than nothing, to happen.
Is: confused
EDIT I just read the front page :facepalm
I will go now
Nothing is defined as no possibility, or chance, of anything happening, ever. There is no time or space. This is the state (state is a dumb word, because in nothingness, there are no “states” of existence, even defining nothingness as a state, is false) of the pre-universe at some point if your an atheist.
This means to get from nothing -> something is impossible, because to move from one “state” where no thing can happen, to where something can happen. Must mean that there was a chance for something to happen in the nothing. So it is logically not nothing. So our image now is something -> something. Which requires explanation.
So let’s talk about the something, something is anything that has any chance of anything happening (not even an object per se). A something requires explanation, as a probability is a set of variables, variables are dependant on qualities. So how do you get from nothing to something? You can define the something as having the quality of aseity (being existence itself), which means it exists consistently within, of and by itself, eternally, without change. Which means there is no thing before it, as the something is defined as everything (not to be confused with every object).
This is how a theist answers the question of the before, but if you cannot apply the quality of aseity to something, then your ability to answer the dichotomy of nothing -> something becomes impossible.
Eventually, anything that is without aseity will decay into nothing, just as protons decay into nothingness across trillions of years. So returning to our pre-universe, where time, space, dimension is non-existent: our nothing, the chance of anything happening is 0. If we say, to combat this, that the universe is eternal (either in the Yo-Yo hypothesis - Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang etc.. or as the universe is now) then we are being unscientific, as the Yo-Yo, and an eternal universe defies thermodynamics, because if protons decay into nothing across trillions of years, as does gravity, and the boundaries of our universe. As our universe (in this example) is eternal, this process would of happened an eternity ago. Likewise for each new expression of the universe from the Yo-Yo would have less and less energy available and eventually starve, Which it clearly has not, as we are here.
A lot of philosophical work (not scientific) has been done on concepts such as quantum vacuums, virtual particles (Lawrence straus’ Book), M-theory, and other spectacular ideas for the origin of our universe, they all become less and less relevant the more they “explain”. The reason is actually very obvious, they are all dependant on physics to define the origin of our universe, initially that sounds fine, but physics is a description of a something, dependant on variables and qualities of something. Yet we are dealing with nothing, where there are no variables, or qualities, or probabilities, of anything, each of these ideas traps itself by being dependant on a something to produce our universe, so the explanation for the universe in these ideas is never nothing -> something but something (laws of physics) -> something. Which doesn’t answer the question we’re dealing with I.e nothing -> something. Each of those ideas works from the present backwards something -> nothing, expanding the something we have as far back as possible, so the origin becomes too distant to be of concern, why? Because working from nothing -> something never works.
In the
summa theologica this is the problem of the mover, each object moves (the something) but only is a something that moves, because of the thing prior to it moving it. This is the issue. As each component of the atheistical universe makes up the whole which has aseity, each origin becomes dependant on the prior to function, I.e an infinite regress.
It may be countered that the laws of physics (or anything relevant to this discussion) has the quality of aseity, thus it exists as a necessity. The issue, is that when the laws of physics were defined (long ago) they were never given this quality, because it was never scientifically or logically evident, not without first assuming an atheistical origin to the universe would this quality need to be added, thus question begging.
It could further be countered that God having the quality of aseity is special pleading, however, God having the quality of aseity was defined long before these discussions on philosophy of origin with God calling himself the “I am” to Moses, defining, before philosophically known or necessary, the quality of aseity in God.
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2019 8:54 am