Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[37818]

The assertion is that there is more than only one substance, that of an uncaused nature and that of a caused nature. If they are of the same substance then there is no distinction to be made between the two, between the caused and the uncaused, they are one and the same thing. It is true that uncaused existence is eternal with respect to itself, but caused existences are also eternal with respect to their cause, and if, as you seem to believe, that there is no such thing as nothingness, then the caused and the uncaused are one and the same.

Only if they are the one and the same uncaused.

If we define the universe as "everything that exists." The individual things are not the whole. Only the whole of everything is the universe. The parts which make up the universe, none of them are the whole.

Uncaused is eternal. A cause is temporal. There is a difference between caused causes and an uncaused cause. All caused causes are not eternal. Only an uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal.

Understand?

[shunyadragon]

Read, "Actually you could included 'Existence' as contingent on 'Existence' existing."


Then Natural Law is then fundamentally the "self existent existence."

Now it is either "self existent" or contingent on the "self existent." The only thing that is self existent is itself. So unless Natural Law is identified as the "self existent existence" it is not "self existent."

Not a problem, Natural Law is defined as 'self-existent' and the uncaused cause of everything.

[37818]

Not a problem, Natural Law is defined as 'self-existent.'

And that which is self existent needs no God or gods.

[shunyadragon]

And that which is self existent needs no God or gods.

Correct, by the evidence, God(s) are not necessary.

[37818]

Correct, by the evidence, God(s) are not necessary.

Then logically there is no God.

[shunyadragon]

Then logically there is no God.

The problem of human logic, is that it is too often used to justify what fallible humans believe. Ultimately God is neither logical nor illogical, God is God.

[37818]

The problem of human logic, is that it is too often used to justify what fallible humans believe. Ultimately God is neither logical nor illogical, God is God.

You really do not know that. And your supposed evidence, you do not know that either.

I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil. -- shunyadragon

[shunyadragon]

You really do not know that. And your supposed evidence, you do not know that either.

Not really a coherent answer.

Of course not, neither do you in reality KNOW what you believe.

I base the problems of fallible human logic by the evidence. Tweb is great example of this foolishness.

[37818]

Not really a coherent answer.

Of course not, neither do you in reality KNOW what you believe.

I base the problems of fallible human logic by the evidence. Tweb is great example of this foolishness.

[shunyadragon]

:clueless

Your Duck, Bob and Weave failure to respond is noted.

[37818]

:clueless

Your Duck, Bob and Weave failure to respond is noted.

You leave much unsaid. Which which makes it hard to know what you mean.

[shunyadragon]

You leave much unsaid. Which which makes it hard to know what you mean.

My posts have been clear and concise.

Example: Natural Law could very possibly be the uncaused cause of everything and eternal. It is also possible that God is eternal and uncaused cause of everything. What evidence could you present that would make one more feasible then the other. The only thing you have presented so far is 'I believe it is so.' This is very clear and concise.

What's you problem?

[37818]

My posts have been clear and concise.

Example: Natural Law could very possibly be the uncaused cause of everything and eternal. It is also possible that God is eternal and uncaused cause of everything. What evidence could you present that would make one more feasible then the other. The only thing you have presented so far is 'I believe it is so.' This is very clear and concise.

What's you[r] problem?

I've been concise and explicit. You just think you have. And you have presented no evidence for your assertions about "Natural Law."

There is uncaused existence. Self existent existence to be precise. Natural Law in order to exist . . . is contingent that there be existence prior to it. Existence uncaused is of itself. Does not need Natural Law to be.

[JimL]

Only if they are the one and the same uncaused.

If we define the universe as "everything that exists." The individual things are not the whole. Only the whole of everything is the universe. The parts which make up the universe, none of them are the whole.

Uncaused is eternal. A cause is temporal. There is a difference between caused causes and an uncaused cause. All caused causes are not eternal. Only an uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal.

Understand?

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the whole and the parts thereof are of one and the same substance, then the parts are just changes in form within the whole, and therefore one and the same as the whole. Thats why I said that things which begin to exist, though temporal with respect to themselves, are also eternal with respect to their cause. Unless the caused thing is of a different substance than that of the cause, then the only distinction between the two is in the forms, the changes that take place within the whole. If it be the universe or greater Cosmos, then the parts of that Cosmos are the changes in form that it takes,. If you are a pantheist, then what we call the Cosmos would be God, and its parts, or the changing forms therein, would be parts of God.

[shunyadragon]

I've been concise and explicit. You just think you have. And you have presented no evidence for your assertions about "Natural Law."

I've been concise and explicit. You just think you have. And you have presented no evidence for your assertions about "God."

There is evidence for 'Natural Law.' Simply all the objective evidence available determines that Natural Law is the only known cause for anything.

There is uncaused existence. Self existent existence to be precise. Natural Law in order to exist . . . is contingent that there be existence prior to it. Existence uncaused is of itself. Does not need Natural Law to be.

Please present the evidence that would support the above highlighted assertion.