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

[shunyadragon]

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

I answered your post please respond: 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.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

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.

If your logic works, then it easy to assume that: God governs temporal things, therefore God is temporal

[Truthseeker]

If your logic works, then it easy to assume that: God governs temporal things, therefore God is temporal

Good point, Frank.

[37818]

If your logic works, then it easy to assume that: God governs temporal things, therefore God is temporal

God who is eternal governs His creation by way of His Son who has two natures, being both eternal and temporal.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. " -- John 1:1-3, 10.

[shunyadragon]

God who is eternal governs His creation by way of His Son who has two natures, being both eternal and temporal.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . . He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. " -- John 1:1-3, 10.

Your making a theological claim based on belief, nothing else. Still waiting . . .

[37818]

Your making a theological claim based on belief, nothing else. Still waiting . . .

That is how you understand it.

My belief is based on the word of God which you do not believe.

And so it is, ". . . He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God. . . ." -- John 8:47.

And those writings precede me. My belief therefore is not their cause.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That is how you understand it.

My belief is based on the word of God which you do not believe.

This is a circular argument, don't you think? You're saying that you believe based on that which you believe.

[37818]

I answered your post please respond: 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.

Still waiting . . .

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

What is your criteria for each type of evidence?

You have none. So what you ask is unreasonable just as you are being here.

[37818]

This is a circular argument, don't you think? You're saying that you believe based on that which you believe.

Oh, there is a circular argument for sure. But it is not because I believe what I believe. But the one "waiting" has no bases for evidence. So no matter what I answer. It will not be correct to the non existent standard.

What is eternal is immutable. What is temporal has to do with time and change. Natural Law from our human stand point seems immutable. Shuny didn't offer that. I have argued that Natural Law governs temporal things indicating that it is temporal. The evidence for our universe suggests that Natural Law also has a beginning, which would also indicate Natural Law is temporal in its origin.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I have argued that Natural Law governs temporal things indicating that it is temporal. The evidence for our universe suggests that Natural Law also has a beginning, which would also indicate Natural Law is temporal in its origin.

If by "beginning," you mean that the evidence for our universe suggests that there was a time when Natural Law did not exist, I would vehemently disagree with you. There is no such evidence.

[37818]

If by "beginning," you mean that the evidence for our universe suggests that there was a time when Natural Law did not exist, I would vehemently disagree with you. There is no such evidence.

What do you consider constitutes evidence of being eternal or constitutes evidence of being temporal?

If one was understands Natural Law in being God's word, natural revelation (Ps 19:1-4; Romans 10:17, 18), then it would have the nature of being eternal. Even as it applies to temporal things (Matthew 4:4).

[JimL]

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.

Did the one who has two natures and became human become the universe as well, or is the universe a completely different substance?

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.

That may be the way you see it, but the way you see it is purely theological and not based on empirical logic. Ask yourself why it is that you see it this way, and your only answer is because that is what you were told to believe.

[JimL]

Oh, there is a circular argument for sure. But it is not because I believe what I believe. But the one "waiting" has no bases for evidence. So no matter what I answer. It will not be correct to the non existent standard.

So you have no real, no logical case to make, regarding your assertions.

What is eternal is immutable.

Says who? What is your evidence that change can not take place within an eternally existing substance?

What is temporal has to do with time and change.

Yes, and if those temporal changes takes place within the eternal, then the eternal has to do with time (however that is defined) and change as well.

Natural Law from our human stand point seems immutable. Shuny didn't offer that. I have argued that Natural Law governs temporal things indicating that it is temporal. The evidence for our universe suggests that Natural Law also has a beginning, which would also indicate Natural Law is temporal in its origin.

Natural law could just as well be eternal. You only understand natural law in the manner in which it manifests itself in our particular and temporal universe, but that does not mean it is temporal in itself. If the multiverse theory of quantum mechanics is correct then the natural laws would manifest themselves differently in accordance to the particular makeup of each universe.

[37818]

Did the one who has two natures and became human become the universe as well, or is the universe a completely different substance?

Do you believe Jesus Christ became the universe?

That may be the way you see it, but the way you see it is purely theological and not based on empirical logic.

Emperical logic, what has that do do with metaphysical issues?

Ask yourself why it is that you see it this way, and your only answer is because that is what you were told to believe.

I as a Christian know God as a person, on the account of trust in His Christ who died for sins and is acclaimed to have risen bodily from the dead.

So you have no real, no logical case to make, regarding your assertions.

What am I asserting?

Says who? What is your evidence that change can not take place within an eternally existing substance?

What eternally existing substance do you have evidence of?

Yes, and if those temporal changes takes place within the eternal, then the eternal has to do with time (however that is defined) and change as well.

What are you talking about? Temporal has to do with time.

Natural law could just as well be eternal.

So that assertion is OK with you.

You only understand natural law in the manner in which it manifests itself in our particular and temporal universe, but that does not mean it is temporal in itself. If the multiverse theory of quantum mechanics is correct then the natural laws would manifest themselves differently in accordance to the particular makeup of each universe.

And you Know this because?

[JimL]

Do you believe Jesus Christ became the universe?

Of course not, neither do I believe that he is God or the son of God.

Emperical logic, what has that do do with metaphysical issues?

It has everything to do with it unless you are willing to accept any notion about the nature of existence.

I as a Christian know God as a person, on the account of trust in His Christ who died for sins and is acclaimed to have risen bodily from the dead.

You know God as a person? Really? Whats he like as a person? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but really, lots of people from many differing religions think they know God as a person, accept they are all different Gods. The person of God who you think you know, and talk to, is more likely a creation of your own imagination, and probably a very nice God.

What am I asserting?

The whole Biblical spiel is naught but an assertion. One substance with two distinct natures?

What eternally existing substance do you have evidence of?

Answering a question with a question usually means that you have no answer to the question asked. Answer my question first, then I will attempt to answer yours.

What are you talking about? Temporal has to do with time.

And do you know how to define time? Is it possible that what we know of as time is eternal? We understand the temporal aspect of things as thier duration in time, but we don't really understand time.

So that assertion is OK with you.

That was not an assertion. What I said is that Natural law, like the universe itself could be eternal.

And you Know this because?

Again, I didn't say that I know this, just that it is possible. The laws, the way in which they manifest themselves, are dependent upon the makeup of the universe itself. That doesn't necessarily make the laws themselves temporal, it makes the way that they manifest themselves temporal.