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

[37818]

s

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

I didn't think so. I also doubt that you understand the Christian's reasons for believing the man Jesus of Nazareth to be God in the flesh or the reason's he is believed to be the Son of God.

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

A self existent existence is a metaphysical belief. Not an empirical one. The only emperical evidence we have is spacetime which seems to have began 13.8 billion years ago.

You know God as a person? Really? Whats he like as a person?

God is not a human. And being that He is Spirit and omnipresent. Your experience of God is indistinguishable from space. And God is not space. But He is knowable. Consider the words attributed to Jesus, ". . . If anyone is willing to do His will, he can know the teaching whether it comes from God, . . ." (John 7:17). Two things, one has to be willing to do God's will, and one has to know what it is to be done. According to Jesus one can then know.

. . . 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.

Imaginary God or gods are not real.

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

The traditional belief in the incarnation of God in Christ. Teaches just that. For the Christian that is not a mere assertion.

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.

Which question is the question you want me to answer first? And if you ask for evidence, define what you will accept as evidence.

And do you know how to define time? Is it possible that what we know of as time is eternal?

I personally believe there is an eternity before spacetime creation.

We understand the temporal aspect of things as their duration in time, but we don't really understand time.

We do have some understanding about time and spacetime.

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

What could be is just as much as an assuring as not.

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.

How do you know "it is possible?" It is just as possible that what we call "Natural Law" is no more than natural revelation of the word of God. [Which I happen to actually hold is the case.]

We can disagree. And we can find points to agree on too. I think one must start with self existence. Even if natural law is eternal in some way, it is contingent on there being a self existence. Shuny argues natural law to be self existent.

[37818]

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

One substance has to do with the Persons in the Godhead being that they are the one God. The two distinct natures has to do with the Son of God being one person having two natures. Let us not get these two concepts confused.

[shunyadragon]

One substance has to do with the Persons in the Godhead being that they are the one God. The two distinct natures has to do with the Son of God being one person having two natures. Let us not get these two concepts confused.

I do not believe this line of reasoning contributes to the argument as to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Our dialogue so far has lead you to the point that you claim that 'There is something,' because you believe that there would not be anything unless your God Created everything. You have cited scripture and religious belief to support this. This argument results in the tightly circular argument that 'It is so because I believe it so.'

Is there anything else of substance you can offer to support your belief our existence and Natural Law cannot'possibly'be infinite and eternal?

[JimL]

One substance has to do with the Persons in the Godhead being that they are the one God. The two distinct natures has to do with the Son of God being one person having two natures. Let us not get these two concepts confused.

One substance having two natures is a contradiction prima facie. That is religious gobbledygook lacking any evidence to back the assertion.

[Truthseeker]

One substance having two natures is a contradiction prima facie.

One may have a shirt made of cotton. Ditto pants. They are denim but not the shirt. (Maybe 37818 won't like this analogy.)

[37818]

One substance having two natures is a contradiction prima facie. That is religious gobbledygook lacking any evidence to back the assertion.

If that is how you feel about it. The truth as understood by Christians, is that God is one, and there are three Persons who are that One God. And the Person of the Son, is one person who has two natures. To make this mean something Christians do not believe, is not going to change the how it is understood by Christians. It just is not.

One substance has to do with the Persons in the Godhead being one God.. The two natures only has to do with the Son of God, being one person who is both that substance and NOT that substance.

". . . the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[37818]

I do not believe this line of reasoning contributes to the argument as to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Our dialogue so far has lead you to the point that you claim that 'There is something,' because you believe that there would not be anything unless your God Created everything. You have cited scripture and religious belief to support this. This argument results in the tightly circular argument that 'It is so because I believe it so.'

OK, that is how you take what I have argued. Let me make this clear, there is a difference between cause and being. And there is a difference between caused being and uncaused being. Now uncaused being, if it is not the identity of God, then there is none, nor is a god needed.

Is there anything else of substance you can offer to support your belief our existence and Natural Law cannot'possibly'be infinite and eternal?

Now the "possiblity" of natural law being somehow infinite and eternal is not the same assertion as it being infinite and eternal. It is not the same assertion.

[shunyadragon]

OK, that is how you take what I have argued. Let me make this clear, there is a difference between cause and being. And there is a difference between caused being and uncaused being. Now uncaused being, if it is not the identity of God, then there is none, nor is a god needed.

No problem, in fact there has never been a problem from my perspective. There is a difference between cause and being, and caused being and uncaused being. IF Natural Law is the uncaused cause of everything then yes, it is not necessary that God exists.

Now the "possiblity" of natural law being somehow infinite and eternal is not the same assertion as it being infinite and eternal. It is not the same assertion.

Yes, it is not the same assertion, because this remains an unknown. You are the one that that is asserting that it is not possible. I am open to possibilities, and not constrained by religious presuppositions that define what is possible regardless of whether God exists or not.

It is possible that Natural Law is co-eternal with the existence of God, and the nature of God. It is also possible that God does not exist and Natural Law is the infinite and eternal uncaused cause of everything.

The problem is that your argument is based on 'belief' and is very circular, and not convincing to those who do not believe.

[37818]

No problem, in fact there has never been a problem from my perspective. There is a difference between cause and being, and caused being and uncaused being. IF Natural Law is the uncaused cause of everything then yes, it is not necessary that God exists.

'Not anything causes uncaused being. What we call natural law is more and/or other than uncaused being.

Yes, it is not the same assertion, because this remains an unknown. You are the one that that is asserting that it is not possible. I am open to possibilities, and not constrained by religious presuppositions that define what is possible regardless of whether God exists or not.

It is possible that Natural Law is co-eternal with the existence of God, and the nature of God. It is also possible that God does not exist and Natural Law is the infinite and eternal uncaused cause of everything.

How do we qualify infinite and/or eternal?

The problem is that your argument is based on 'belief' and is very circular, and not convincing to those who do not believe.

So you think. I have presented more than one argument. What is my starting premise? And explain why this starting premise is circular and in need of proof?

[shunyadragon]

'Not anything causes uncaused being.

True.

What we call natural law is more and/or other than uncaused being.

Assertion based on 'belief.'

How do we qualify infinite and/or eternal?

we do not qualify Infinite and eternal. It is simply infinite and eternal by definition. IF Natural Law is the uncaused cause of everything, a being as the uncaused cause is not necessary.

So you think. I have presented more than one argument. What is my starting premise? And explain why this starting premise is circular and in need of proof?

Starting premise: An uncaused cause being you call God exists.

[37818]

Assertion based on 'belief.'

And how was this belief of yours derived?

we do not qualify Infinite and eternal. It is simply infinite and eternal by definition. IF Natural Law is the uncaused cause of everything, a being as the uncaused cause is not necessary.

Natural Law if uncaused has its own being, and then is the necessary cause if all else.

Starting premise: An uncaused cause being you call God exists.

Not so. You have not paid attention. Allcauses are temporal ih my view. Uncaused is to be eternal. Two different enities, eternal and temporal, as one entity uncaused being eternal. And then what makes them being one constitues a third.

[shunyadragon]

And how was this belief of yours derived?

Good question everyone must answer for themselves from the Hindu to the Baha'i.

Natural Law if uncaused has its own being, and then is the necessary cause if all else.

????

Not so. You have not paid attention. Allcauses are temporal ih my view.

This assumption would make God temporal.

Uncaused is to be eternal.

Yes, and it is possible that Natural Law is the eternal uncaused cause.

Two different enities, eternal and temporal, as one entity uncaused being eternal. And then what makes them being one constitues a third.

An assumption of belief on your part.

[37818]

Good question everyone must answer for themselves from the Hindu to the Baha'i.

I'm not asking about everyone who is Baha'l in faith. I was asking you. Thank you.

This assumption would make God temporal.

No. Since my starting premise is uncaused existence, which is eternal. All causes in my view are temporal.

Yes, and it is possible that Natural Law is the eternal uncaused cause.

Uncaused is to be eternal. To be a cause is to be temporal.

An assumption of belief on your part.

No, a deduction. Something eternal. Something temporal. And something to make something temporal also eternal. This is even required in order for Natural Law as you suppose to be possible as being both uncaused and a cause. Natural Law by default is a cause. All causes are temporal.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not asking about everyone who is Baha'l in faith. I was asking you. Thank you.

Again good question. Though you did not originally address this to me, which is a different subject then this thread. There is actually a thread in Comparative Religions.

No. Since my starting premise is uncaused existence, which is eternal. All causes in my view are temporal.

Ok, that is my premise, but as far as an effective argument you are teaching to the believers.

Uncaused is to be eternal. To be a cause is to be temporal.

True, sort of, but so what? Natural Law can possibly be uncaused.

No, a deduction. Something eternal. Something temporal. And something to make something temporal also eternal. This is even required in order for Natural Law as you suppose to be possible as being both uncaused and a cause. Natural Law by default is a cause. All causes are temporal.

No, Natural Law is not a temporal cause by default. There is no objective evidence that there is another cause other then Natural Law. What you assert is simply a statement of 'belief.'

[JimL]

If that is how you feel about it. The truth as understood by Christians, is that God is one, and there are three Persons who are that One God. And the Person of the Son, is one person who has two natures. To make this mean something Christians do not believe, is not going to change the how it is understood by Christians. It just is not.

One substance has to do with the Persons in the Godhead being one God.. The two natures only has to do with the Son of God, being one person who is both that substance and NOT that substance.

I understand that christians, if that is what they think, aren't going to change their view because of what I have to say, the point though is that you have no logical basis for thinking it, other than what you call a metaphysical belief, which is no more than a fill in the gap of knowledge that can't be proven otherwise argument.