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

[JimL]

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.

Yes,and if that created universe is not within that which has always existed, if there is no other place, no nothingness, then where is it? The rest of your post is naught but assertion.

Now are you still confused about creation ex nihilo?

No.

[JimL]

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.

So, no need for a God then!

[37818]

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

Thanks. nihilitatas, That form is the feminine noun meaning nothingness.

[37818]

So, no need for a God then!

That is one plausible understanding.

[shunyadragon]

What are you waiting for? Natural Law is temporal.

Waiting for evidence that natural Law is Temporal. Something more convincing then a bald assertion. Still waiting . . .

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.

Still waiting for evidence that Natural Law is temporal.

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.

Statements of ancient scripture is a belief not evidence. Still waiting for evidence.

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!

Natural Law is not physical. There is not evidence that Natural Law is temporal. Still waiting . . .

By the way Science does not prove things. It uses scientific methods to falsify theories and hypothesis.

[seer]

Waiting for evidence that natural Law is Temporal. Something more convincing then a bald assertion. Still waiting . . .

Shuny, don't you believe that God created natural law?

[37818]

shuny,

What is the evidence of something eternal? What is the evidence of something being temporal?

What is your criteria for each type of evidence?

Otherwise your accusation of assertion, regarding something temporal being an assertion, makes no sense.

[shunyadragon]

shuny,

What is the evidence of something eternal? What is the evidence of something being temporal?

What is your criteria for each type of evidence?

Otherwise your accusation of assertion, regarding something temporal being an assertion, makes no sense.

It is an open question, there is no evidence either way concerning 'Natural Law.' There is no evidence of a temporal beginning of 'Natural Law.' I am taking the position that Natural Law could possibly be the uncaused cause and be eternal.

You are taking unverified position with no evidence that Natural Law is temporal based on your religious belief and scripture, which is not evidence that 'Natural Law' is temporal. Still waiting for evidence supporting this assertion.

[JimL]

That is one plausible understanding.

And the other plausible understanding is that there are two distinct substances, an uncaused eternal one which some take to be a God, and a caused temporal one which some take to have been created by this God and located in a place which was once nothingness. But you don't believe in nothingness, so if you are to be consistent, then the eternal and the temporal, similar to your previous discription, must be one and the same.

[Truthseeker]

It is an open question, there is no evidence either way concerning 'Natural Law.' There is no evidence of a temporal beginning of 'Natural Law.' I am taking the position that Natural Law could possibly be the uncaused cause and be eternal.

You are taking unverified position with no evidence that Natural Law is temporal based on your religious belief and scripture, which is not evidence that 'Natural Law' is temporal. Still waiting for evidence supporting this assertion.

The way you and 37818 fling around "Natural Law" makes it seem you and he regard Natural Law as more than a mere description of the way the universe evolves. To be sure, it makes sense that in a way Natural Law must precede the universe or be conceived in the same instant as the universe.

[37818]

And the other plausible understanding is that there are two distinct substances, an uncaused eternal one which some take to be a God, and a caused temporal one which some take to have been created by this God and located in a place which was once nothingness. But you don't believe in nothingness, so if you are to be consistent, then the eternal and the temporal, similar to your previous discription, must be one and the same.

No. The other view there are two who are one substance. And neither are created being the one God. The one who has two natures, became human. And the substance by which they are one constitutes a third.

God which all three are: Yahweh. The Self-Existent.
As one Person - the Father.
The one who has two natures - the Logos, the Word who became human. Was always the Son. The divine nature never changed. But in the temporal nature became human.
And the third being the Holy Spirit. Which is what God is and how the Son is and was always one substance with the Father. God is Spirit.

Again:
One entity being God - Yahweh.
The entity with two natures - The Logos - we know as the Son of God.
The one essence as a third entity and Person - The Holy Spirit.

Now that is how I see it.

The standard way of saying this: There is one God and three Persons who are the one God: The Father, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else. " -- Isaiah 45:18.

[37818]

It is an open question, there is no evidence either way concerning 'Natural Law.' There is no evidence of a temporal beginning of 'Natural Law.' I am taking the position that Natural Law could possibly be the uncaused cause and be eternal.

You are taking unverified position with no evidence that Natural Law is temporal based on your religious belief and scripture, which is not evidence that 'Natural Law' is temporal. Still waiting for evidence supporting this assertion.

I gather that is how you understand my view. But that understanding does not answer the three questions:

What is the evidence of something eternal? What is the evidence of something being temporal?

What is your criteria for each type of evidence?

[37818]

The way you and 37818 fling around "Natural Law" makes it seem you and he regard Natural Law as more than a mere description of the way the universe evolves. To be sure, it makes sense that in a way Natural Law must precede the universe or be conceived in the same instant as the universe.

I believe what we think of as "Natural Law" in regards to our known universe, is a key part of our universe's creation. Natural Law governs temporal things, therefore it is temporal, even if Natural Law is contingent upon some self evident truth which a contingent upon God.

[37818]

Yes,and if that created universe is not within that which has always existed, if there is no other place, no nothingness, then where is it? The rest of your post is naught but assertion.

What you do not understand: God is omnipresent, God's creation is no part of Him. Yet whatever God creates is going to exist within God's presence. God being the Self Existent Existence, in which all created existence must reside. Because God is everywhere.

To quote the Apostle Paul, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ."

[shunyadragon]

The way you and 37818 fling around "Natural Law" makes it seem you and he regard Natural Law as more than a mere description of the way the universe evolves.

It is more than a mere description of the way the universe evolves. Natural Law governs how the universe exists and evolves.

To be sure, it makes sense that in a way Natural Law must precede the universe or be conceived in the same instant as the universe.

Are you assuming the beginning of our universe is the beginning of everything? There is insufficient information to make that assumption. Natural Law determined everything that resulted in what our universe is including all possible universes.