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

[37818]

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.



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

"Natural Law" is in evidence. But evidence is "Natural Law" is temporal. Cause is temporal. Your assursion that that "Natural Law" is uncaused is unfounded.

Now what is your assursion as to what my assursion is about there being "God?"

[37818]

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.

That a part is also the whole is insane. You make no sense. I am a theist, not a pantheist.

[shunyadragon]

"Natural Law" is in evidence. But evidence is "Natural Law" is temporal. Cause is temporal. Your assursion that that "Natural Law" is uncaused is unfounded.

By the objective evidence there is no known cause other then 'Natural Law.' What evidence is there that Natural Law is temporal? Still waiting.

Now what is your assursion as to what my assursion is about there being "God?"

There is no objective evidence for this claim. Only an assertion of belief based on 'faith.' If you have any other objective evidence please present it.

[37818]

By the objective evidence there is no known cause other then 'Natural Law.' What evidence is there that Natural Law is temporal? Still waiting.

Temporal has to do with time and finite things. The explicit evidence is Natural Law has to do with time and finite things. There is nothing in evidence that Natural Law has anything to do with anything eternal.

There is no objective evidence for this claim.

What claim?

Only an assertion of belief based on 'faith.'

Not true. Prove otherwise. I do not believe something is true simply because something is believed.

If you have any other objective evidence please present it.

You have no evidence for your assertions.

What objective evidence do you want for what claim? Be specific.

Existence exists. We experience caused existence. And yes that caused existence is under "Natural Law." Natural Law is temporal. No evidence otherwise.

[shunyadragon]

Temporal has to do with time and finite things. The explicit evidence is Natural Law has to do with time and finite things. There is nothing in evidence that Natural Law has anything to do with anything eternal.

All the evidence indicates that Natural Law is the source of all cause and effect known. Still waiting . . .

What claim?

That God exists as the uncaused cause of everything.

Not true. Prove otherwise. I do not believe something is true simply because something is believed.
You have no evidence for your assertions.

Your the one making the assertions. Still no evidence, still waiting . . .

What objective evidence do you want for what claim? Be specific.

That God is the uncaused cause of everything.

Existence exists. We experience caused existence. And yes that caused existence is under "Natural Law." Natural Law is temporal. No evidence otherwise.

We experience existence. We do not experience the cause of existence except 'Natural Law.'. There is no evidence that Natural Law is temporal. Still waiting . . .

[seer]

That God exists as the uncaused cause of everything.

Shuny, what are you arguing about. You already believe that God is the uncaused Creator.

[37818]

All the evidence indicates that Natural Law is the source of all cause and effect known. Still waiting . . .

What are you waiting for? Natural Law is temporal.

That God exists as the uncaused cause of everything.

An uncaused cause is contradiction of natures. Uncaused is eternal. A cause is temporal. Natural Law is temporal. Now what did I argue regarding "God exists" and an "uncaused cause?" Quote me. And give the link where I said what.

Your the one making the assertions.

Quote my assertion.

Still no evidence, still waiting . . .

I'm waiting for you sir. You maked assertions alleging "Natural Law" being uncaused without evidence sir. You want me quote you?

That God is the uncaused cause of everything.

OK. What is your criteria for the evidence you want? The Hebrew scriptures state, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now only if that is true, then the known universe is empirical evidence. Natural Law being a key part of the known universe.

We experience existence. We do not experience the cause of existence except 'Natural Law.'. There is no evidence that Natural Law is temporal. Still waiting . . .

Prove that Natural Law is eternal. It is in evidence that Natural Law is temporal. There is nothing physical in the universe that is not temporal. Spacetime and matter are all temporal!

[Truthseeker]

When God created the universe, the order of the universe was created atemporally. May we not identify the order as your Natural Law?

[37818]

Shuny, what are you arguing about. You already believe that God is the uncaused Creator.

Shuny was accusing me of this. But he claiming Natural Law is the uncaused cause.

[37818]

When God created the universe, the order of the universe was created atemporally. May we not identify the order as your Natural Law?

Created atemporally is a contradiction, is it not? Since all cause and effect are always temporal.

[Truthseeker]

Created atemporally is a contradiction, is it not? Since all cause and effect are always temporal.

I don't know. Effects can be considered to be in time. The Universe was an effect of . . . I am not sure what to call it. "Action" is not the same for God as it is for humans and other animals. Let me try again. The universe was an effect of an uncaused cause. Causes can be either uncaused or an effect.

[JimL]

That a part is also the whole is insane. You make no sense. I am a theist, not a pantheist.

If you are a theist, then contrary to your previous statement, you do indeed believe in nothingness. If the universe was created by a God, then it was created ex-nihilo, i.e. from out of nothing.

[37818]

If you are a theist, then contrary to your previous statement, you do indeed believe in nothingness. If the universe was created by a God, then it was created ex-nihilo, i.e. from out of nothing.

Silly. There never was nothingness. God creating out of nothing, ex nihilo, means not to create from something that already has existence. God did not make creation out of Himself, so creation was not ex deo. God always was, so there was never nothingness.

Now are you still confused about creation ex nihilo?

[37818]

I don't know. Effects can be considered to be in time. The Universe was an effect of . . . I am not sure what to call it. "Action" is not the same for God as it is for humans and other animals. Let me try again. The universe was an effect of an uncaused cause. Causes can be either uncaused or an effect.

What is uncaused is indeed eternal. All causes, regardless, are temporal. Action involves change. Change is temporal. And an uncaused cause would have to be an eternally existing temporal entity. It being both eternal, immutable and temporal, an action, a change which causes change and yet one entity. Two natures in one entity.

[Truthseeker]

To 37818, you misspelled your sig, did you not? "Nihilitatis . . . " i, not the last a.