Christianity

[Harbal]

You're already assuming a "universe" with "material" and a bunch of "principles" floating around in it, and maybe "life" to boot. So you haven't explained its origin at all...you've just jumped straight past it.

Explaining it is beyond me. Have you explained it?

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that any more than you do.

[Belinda]

Ah, yes...I'm sure they were all a bunch of far-sighted proto-Socialists...and no doubt, much better people than you and I. Far more moral, far more pure, far more nature loving, uninterested in "self." Yes, I'm sure.

Whatever they were they certainly were not "primitives" (To quote IC).

Yeah, actually...by definition, they certainly were.

No strike against them. Every society was once primitive.

No society was ever primitive. There is no objective way to evaluate societies.

[promethean75]

kay here's my take in it. when that question is aksed - why something rather than nothing - it expects of the ordinary meaning of the word 'nothing' when we use it in non-philosophical everyday language to stand to characterize the universe or lack thereof, itself, in an ontological and metaphysical sense.

when i say 'nothing is in the cupboard' i mean there's no soup in there, not that there are no atoms and subatomic particles in there.

when the something rather than nothing question is aksed, your brain immediately imagines a giant cupboard to get a conceptual orientation on a would-be visual field of some space with no soup in it... only in the model in your head it's atoms and particles instead of soup. 

there really can't be 'nothing'. if something has existed or exists now, there could have never been 'nothing' prior to this moment... and there can't be 'nothing' in the future.

now if there wuz always nothing, it wouldn't be impossible to believe i don't reckon. wait a minute how could i believe 'nothing' existed if i didn't. nevermind. anyway you know what i mean; the problem with the 'nothing' theory is that there is something right now, and you'll have a helluva time explainin that away in either direction... forward in time or backward.

[Immanuel Can]

You're already assuming a "universe" with "material" and a bunch of "principles" floating around in it, and maybe "life" to boot. So you haven't explained its origin at all...you've just jumped straight past it.

Explaining it is beyond me. Have you explained it?

I think so.

If a thing exhibits the features of design, then it argues for the existence of a Designer. That's the most obvious explanation, and the one to which everybody instantly tends, since the vast majority of the world is some kind of "religious." They see design, and presume there must be a Designer. That's the obvious move.

So it's up to the Materialist, or Physicalist, or Naturalist, or whichever, to prove that design can happen with no Designer. If they can't, then they don't have the most plausible explanation for what we all see...namely, design.

And that can't really be done.

[Immanuel Can]

No society was ever primitive.

You've been conditioned by the liberal set to believe that. But you should travel more. You'd change your mind.

Live for a week in a village in the hills of Central America or the out in the wilds of Canada (I have, by the way). And tell me afterward that nothing is "primitive." You'll see.

[Dubious]

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

...because clearly and obviously there was never any such thing as nothing to begin with. Nothing yields nothing; one can't even conclude that with "forever" because time would exist either.

[Harbal]

Explaining it is beyond me. Have you explained it?

I think so.

If a thing exhibits the features of design, then it argues for the existence of a Designer. That's the most obvious explanation, and the one to which everybody instantly tends, since the vast majority of the world is some kind of "religious." They see design, and presume there must be a Designer. That's the obvious move.

I don't agree that the universe exhibits features of design. I don't see design, and presume there was no designer. It is irrelevant what you say the "vast majority of the world" thinks, because you don't know what they think, and even if they agreed with you, that doesn't mean they are right.

So it's up to the Materialist, or Physicalist, or Naturalist, or whichever, to prove that design can happen with no Designer. If they can't, then they don't have the most plausible explanation for what we all see...namely, design.

I disagree again. Science does not suggest there is design, and science is based on an immense amount of study and research, so I would say it is up to those who dispute science to come up with the proof for their alternate view. They need to present their vast amount of study and research.

Also, when a thing has the appearance of having been designed, it is usually possible to work out the purpose for which it was designed, so that is something else you need to think about before you can even start claiming to have the "most plausible explanation". Next, of course, you need to come up with an explanation of how the design was realised. What are your thoughts on the manufacturing process involved in creating a universe?

[Age]

Explaining it is beyond me. Have you explained it?

I think so.

If a thing exhibits the features of design, then it argues for the existence of a Designer. That's the most obvious explanation, and the one to which everybody instantly tends, since the vast majority of the world is some kind of "religious." They see design, and presume there must be a Designer. That's the obvious move.

I don't agree that the universe exhibits features of design. I don't see design, and presume there was no designer.

PRESUMING either there was, or was not, a so-called "designer" will only get in the way of learning and seeing what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

It is irrelevant what you say the "vast majority of the world" thinks, because you don't know what they think, and even if they agreed with you, that doesn't mean they are right.

Being "religious" has NO bearing what so ever on what is ACTUALLY True or NOT.

So it's up to the Materialist, or Physicalist, or Naturalist, or whichever, to prove that design can happen with no Designer. If they can't, then they don't have the most plausible explanation for what we all see...namely, design.

I disagree again. Science does not suggest there is design, and science is based on an immense amount of study and research, so I would say it is up to those who dispute science to come up with the proof for their alternate view. They need to present their vast amount of study and research.

A split-second of enlightenment can outweigh a lifetime of study and research. But a split-second of enlightenment can also take longer than a lifetime to explain.

By the way, it is usually 'science' that ends up being the one disputing, and refuting, 'science', (itself), anyway.

Also, what we have here is ANOTHER example of "immanuel can's" most NONSENSICAL but completely DECEPTIVE way of 'arguing'.

NO one has PROVED, irrefutably, that there is 'design' in relation to the Universe, Itself. So, it is NOT up to ANY one to prove that design can happen with no Designer.

If 'you', "immanuel can", want to CLAIM that there is 'design', and/or a 'Designer', then it is up to 'you' to FIRST PROVE them to be true.

Where, EXACTLY, do these so-called "religious" see 'design'?

If 'you' do not even explain this "immanuel can", then where 'you' have been deceived "yourself" becomes clearer.

Also, when a thing has the appearance of having been designed, it is usually possible to work out the purpose for which it was designed, so that is something else you need to think about before you can even start claiming to have the "most plausible explanation".

The actual purpose of, and for, 'things' become much clearer and obvious, as one comes to learn, or see, and understand what the True and Right Picture is here.

Next, of course, you need to come up with an explanation of how the design was realised. What are your thoughts on the manufacturing process involved in creating a universe?

The Universe, contrary to popular belief, hitherto the days when this was being written, was NOT 'created'. But, 'It' is, in a sense, 'in creation'.

When what thee Mind actually is, and how thee Mind actually works, is learned, and fully understood, then how the Universe, Itself, is 'IN CREATION' also becomes fully understood.

[attofishpi]

kay here's my take in it. when that question is aksed - why something rather than nothing - it expects of the ordinary meaning of the word 'nothing' when we use it in non-philosophical everyday language to stand to characterize the universe or lack thereof, itself, in an ontological and metaphysical sense.

when i say 'nothing is in the cupboard' i mean there's no soup in there, not that there are no atoms and subatomic particles in there.

when the something rather than nothing question is aksed, your brain immediately imagines a giant cupboard to get a conceptual orientation on a would-be visual field of some space with no soup in it... only in the model in your head it's atoms and particles instead of soup. 

there really can't be 'nothing'. if something has existed or exists now, there could have never been 'nothing' prior to this moment... and there can't be 'nothing' in the future.

now if there wuz always nothing, it wouldn't be impossible to believe i don't reckon. wait a minute how could i believe 'nothing' existed if i didn't. nevermind. anyway you know what i mean; the problem with the 'nothing' theory is that there is something right now, and you'll have a helluva time explainin that away in either direction... forward in time or backward.

Well said (apart from that I felt compelled to reply as everyone appears to have ignored u!)

[Nick_A]

You're already assuming a "universe" with "material" and a bunch of "principles" floating around in it, and maybe "life" to boot. So you haven't explained its origin at all...you've just jumped straight past it.

Explaining it is beyond me. Have you explained it?

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that any more than you do.

It will become easier to understand once you become familiar with the triune God. Christianity believes God is triune—one being, eternally existing in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), all equally God. From this perspective God is simultaneously "no thing (pure potential)," "every thing" (manifested potential,) and the energy which unites no thing and every thing. It cannot be explained by dualistic reason but requires conscious contemplation.

[Immanuel Can]

Explaining it is beyond me. Have you explained it?

I think so.

If a thing exhibits the features of design, then it argues for the existence of a Designer. That's the most obvious explanation, and the one to which everybody instantly tends, since the vast majority of the world is some kind of "religious." They see design, and presume there must be a Designer. That's the obvious move.

I don't agree that the universe exhibits features of design. I don't see design, and presume there was no designer.

Well, B. and others have been arguing that they do, but they think there's still no designer. And oddly enough, even as Atheistic a person as Dawkins thinks the universe at least *looks* designed. He insists we have to believe it isn't that, but he admits that it looks that way.

So it's up to the Materialist, or Physicalist, or Naturalist, or whichever, to prove that design can happen with no Designer. If they can't, then they don't have the most plausible explanation for what we all see...namely, design.

I disagree again. Science does not suggest there is design

Actually, it does.

Science depends on patterns, regularities, harmonies, laws, consistencies and so forth. Absent them, science itself would simply be impossible. So science actually begins with the belief that we can expect and analyze such regularities.

Also, when a thing has the appearance of having been designed, it is usually possible to work out the purpose for which it was designed

Not really. Often it's possible to see that a thing was designed, but not know what purpose it has. Here's an example, below. Chances are, you don't know why it exists; but you do know it is designed.

index.jpg

It's actually called a "whip finisher," if you want to look up what that is. But one thing you know, even before you know its purpose: it's a piece of designed material. You can tell a thing is designed because of things like that its parts specify something, its construction is not found randomly in that order, and the interactions of its parts is irreducibly complex...you don't need to know what its specific purpose is, to recognize an object as designed.

What are your thoughts on the manufacturing process involved in creating a universe?

You'd have to ask God about that. It's above my pay grade to know such things. But Genesis says God spoke the universe into existence. The details, you'll have to ask Him for.

[attofishpi]

I don't agree that the universe exhibits features of design. I don't see design, and presume there was no designer.

(I don't believe God created the universe btw - I beleive it formed its intelligence from it, and then our reality)

Who built the Moon? - by Christopher Knight

I haven't got around to reading it all, I've had it on my shelf for years. I really enjoyed Knight's research re Freemasonry - in his book The Hiram Key.

The reason that I didn't really bother to read the entire book *the Moon one - was that prior to purchase, I read a summary - relating to all the anomalies of this moon - the largest moon in the Solar System btw.

Anyway, I just found this interview with Knight in one of those wacky mags - I only skimmed, but I think you may find some interesting perspectives.

https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/article ... her-knight

[Harbal]

Well, B. and others have been arguing that they do, but they think there's still no designer. And oddly enough, even as Atheistic a person as Dawkins thinks the universe at least *looks* designed. He insists we have to believe it isn't that, but he admits that it looks that way.

I assumed we were specifically talking about consciously intentioned design, rather than things like natural selection, as in the case of living organisms.

Science depends on patterns, regularities, harmonies, laws, consistencies and so forth. Absent them, science itself would simply be impossible. So science actually begins with the belief that we can expect and analyze such regularities.

I didn't say there were no laws, patterns and regularities in nature, of course there are.

Not really. Often it's possible to see that a thing was designed, but not know what purpose it has. Here's an example, below. Chances are, you don't know why it exists; but you do know it is designed.

It's actually called a "whip finisher," if you want to look up what that is. But one thing you know, even before you know its purpose: it's a piece of designed material. You can tell a thing is designed because of things like that its parts specify something, its construction is not found randomly in that order, and the interactions of its parts is irreducibly complex...you don't need to know what its specific purpose is, to recognize an object as designed.

Yes, you are quite right, there are many small, simple, all-in-one-piece items that it would be almost impossible to identify the purpose of, unless you had some specialist knowledge to start with. Such items are quite often just components of more complicated things. I was thinking of the more complicated things, like cars, or pianos,or universes.

You'd have to ask God about that. It's above my pay grade to know such things. But Genesis says God spoke the universe into existence. The details, you'll have to ask Him for.

I'm a little surprised that you refer to Genesis. The first few pages of Genesis are the only bit of the Bible I have actually read for myself, and if I were trying to make an argument that God created the world, I would certainly not draw attention to what it says in Genesis. I would also hope that whoever I was trying to convince didn't mention it, either.

[Dontaskme]

Or, in plain philosophical language, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

In plain language it is absurd to even verbally state the possible idea there is a thing called ''nothing''. It doesn't even make any sense to make the claim for nothing.

Nothing is an impossible thing. It's like say the impossible exists.

All we know are what the words inform, but words are just sound...so in essence what we are attempting to describe is undescribable...and so it is as and though the use of our words, that we have perhaps unknowingly self-created the illusion of a human knower.

In reality there's just THIS and no one knows what this is. Except as concept in this conception.

We can only find the answers to all our questions in silence. And in silence there we will find only one question to all our answers. That's what Non-duality is pointing to. That idea you reject.

[Harbal]

Anyway, I just found this interview with Knight in one of those wacky mags - I only skimmed, but I think you may find some interesting perspectives.

The fact that the Sun and the Moon appear to be almost exactly the same size in the sky used to make me wonder how such an amazing coincidence could have come about. It was when I heard someone say that the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth, and so it would have looked even bigger in the past, but will look smaller in the future, that I realised the only coincidence is that I happen to be living in the time when the apparent sizes of the two objects happen to match.