In the beginning God or nothing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe time is for reasons I have already covered, and our space
I'm not sure about.
Kelly

But do you agree that your arguments regarding time necessarily apply to space as well and you must either reject your arguments or accept and infinite space (and thus eternal universe).

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you didn't look at what I said closely if that was what you got
out of it.
Kelly

Can you restate it then?

Your very first post said: "Without God there is nothing acting upon nothing to give everything a reason for being, ..."
I could have misunderstood the context, or the meaning behind that claim, but it sure looks like a dichotomy argument to me.

Originally posted by vistesd
Now, I’m not sure that an infinite regress is necessarily illogical.

I am less convinced that infinite regress is necessarily illogical. What are your views regarding the future? Do you think an infinite future is necessarily illogical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am less convinced that infinite regress is necessarily illogical. What are your views regarding the future? Do you think an infinite future is necessarily illogical.

I think I said that wrong? I don't think an infinite regress is necessarily illogical. But I hedged a bit, because I haven't thought it out.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have dismissed what model, the something from nothing model, the
something from we don't know model, what model have I rejected?
Look at the title of this thread, "In the beginning..." what has been
offered so far hasn't touched the beginning of anything other than
the, this is where we want to start marking time model.
Kelly

In our case we are not in front of "something from nothing" -we are in front of a model according to which our kosmos, and of course spacectime, emerged out of the point singularity, and this model is scientifically and philosophically accepted. This very model is the one you dismiss, and you attempt to establish that it is equivalent with the speculation that "god is the agent behind the point singularity".

Since this speculation fails due to the fact that there are no elements of reality available which they could drive us towards the direction that you point, why you dismiss a model which is well backed up by the science and the philosophy and you prefer to offer a speculation that is dismissed by both of those fields?
😵

Originally posted by daniel58
God's existence doesn't need time Ge can exist outside the realm of time, what did He need time for? He won't ever die, or eat, or go to bed.

…what did He need time for?
….

To “exist" because to “exist” means existing at at least one point in time (for example, if I don’t “exist” at any point in time then “I” simply never “existed” and don’t “exist” and will not ever “exist“!)
If something is “outside” of time then that something doesn’t exist at any point in time and so we would normally say it “doesn’t exist“ with the normal usage of the word “exist“.
What is the premise for your belief that something can “exist” without time and in what sense can something “exist” without time?

But, much more importantly, bear in mind that without time there could be no processes or change with something because any ‘processes’ or ‘change’ obviously require time -right?
(note that any process requires change such as change of position or state etc)
-so, given the fact that any thought process is a “process“, anything “outside” time (assuming there can be such a thing in some sense) cannot have any thought process thus if any “God” “exists” outside time then, logically, “he” cannot have any thought process thus “He” would be without reason!!! -I think this property of being without reason (and therefore mindless? ) would be at odds of what is usually meant by a “God”!

Similarly, to “do” something requires “doing a process” that requires some interaction and ‘change’ so if something does exist outside time then it logically cannot “do” anything because “doing” something would require “doing a process” and there can be no “process” without time!

Originally posted by vistesd
I think I said that wrong? I [b]don't think an infinite regress is necessarily illogical. But I hedged a bit, because I haven't thought it out.[/b]

My mistake actually. Now that I read it again, I see I misread it.

Originally posted by vistesd
But, if we’re going to truncate it by fiat, then it seems that you and I are just doing it one step before the theists.

I must point out that Kelly does not truncate it by fiat. His argument requires infinite regress and thus concludes that God is eternal.

Originally posted by vistesd
Actually, we’re the same. If I were to ask you what God “generated itself” from—you would likely say: “Nothing. God always was.”

I am saying the same thing with regard to the totality: the all-of-all-of-all-of-it. I am not saying that it has always been as it is. It is that “as-it-isness” that had a beginning (at the singularity). I do not t ...[text shortened]... that it makes sense to say that there must have been a something before the first something![/b]

According to bka' brgyud pa, a well developed tsonpo needs at least another five years of special training in order to become able to create and to handle efficiently his personal creatures during the shifting of his personal point of his conceptual and non-conceptual awareness. Furthermore, there are incidents of well trained tsonpa that they were found slaughtered by their own creations -so the poem that you offer is meanigfull to me regarding more than one aspects🙂

Regarding the rest material of your post, I think I will stick with my endless body sensations, thought and emotion experiences in succession with "no me" in there and with "no world" out there until they become "not my sensations, thoughts and emotions" right here right now. All these appearances that I characterise as thoughts, emotions and sensations are a dream of mine, and my "life" at every level of experience is a string of "empty" appearances; If I believe in existence I lack of intelligence, and if I beleive in non-existence I am am even more dull
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Actually, we’re the same. If I were to ask you what God “generated itself” from—you would likely say: “Nothing. God always was.”

I am saying the same thing with regard to the totality: the all-of-all-of-all-of-it. I am not saying that it has always been as it is. It is that “as-it-isness” that had a beginning (at the singularity). I do not t ...[text shortened]... that it makes sense to say that there must have been a something before the first something![/b]

I've never claimed that God had a beginning, where as people tend
to acknowledge that our universe had one. I also reject that God is
all in all when it comes to our universe too, but instead is the author
of it, which is two very different things. So I'm at least in agreement
with most here that the universe did have a beginning just not the
one they think occured, well if they had a clue on the how or why it
did, so far no one have ventured a guess as to how it began they only
talk about the mighty breakdown and shrink of the current model, not
how it began.
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
Actually, we’re the same. If I were to ask you what God “generated itself” from—you would likely say: “Nothing. God always was.”

I am saying the same thing with regard to the totality: the all-of-all-of-all-of-it. I am not saying that it has always been as it is. It is that “as-it-isness” that had a beginning (at the singularity). I do not t ...[text shortened]... that it makes sense to say that there must have been a something before the first something![/b]

I did enjoy that quote too by the way, he has a point.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course the radius increases. That is part of the analogy is it not? The claim is that it does get bigger and thus has a greater radius. But they key factor is that a drawing on the balloon is able to get bigger without moving across the surface of the balloon. It is the surface itself that is stretching, not the objects contained on it. Within the dime ...[text shortened]... re living on the surface of the balloon, you would be denying the possibility that it is finite.

It increases because it is getting larger, not sure why you refuse to
see that, if there wasn't an area for it to grow in, it would not grow.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But do you agree that your arguments regarding time necessarily apply to space as well and you must either reject your arguments or accept and infinite space (and thus eternal universe).

I don't believe that one has to follow the other, as we discussed early
on with someone's life, they were formed, born, lived, died and during
all of those stages time ticked on, and time ticked on before that
whole process, during that process, and afterwards. The universe would
be no different, it is ether eternal, which case it is timeless, or it had
a beginning and unless you think it self generated out of the great
nothing there is more going here than just our universe.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can you restate it then?

Your very first post said: "Without God there is nothing acting upon nothing to give everything a reason for being, ..."
I could have misunderstood the context, or the meaning behind that claim, but it sure looks like a dichotomy argument to me.

The first post was begging for answers, because I "nothing" could do
it! You have not given any cause, and only speak about the great
"no before" which again has what there?
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
In our case we are not in front of "something from nothing" -we are in front of a model according to which our kosmos, and of course spacectime, emerged out of the point singularity, and this model is scientifically and philosophically accepted. This very model is the one you dismiss, and you attempt to establish that it is equivalent with the speculati ...[text shortened]... osophy and you prefer to offer a speculation that is dismissed by both of those fields?
😵

It is a cop out nothing more, the singularity came from what?
All that does is state the universe was here it just looked different that
it does now, it doesn't talk about where it came from.
Kelly