Well of course you would, as a theist. But ‘existence’ is not evidence of your god. I share that existence and I see it only as an expression of natural forces, physics and chemistry. As miracles are defined as events that suspend the natural laws of the universe you cannot produce any substantial evidence for them. Miracles always remain a claim.
I dont think so. You would need first to prove your god, Christ, Moses and any of the disciples even existed. I have valid reasons to accept they dont. I have already commented on miracles.
No I didn’t it. This is what makes it “something”.
Perhaps you need to study what “nothing” is (it is still something btw) via science.
My point?
This idea you try to describe as “nothing” - it itself (which still cannot be described) doesn’t exist in the natural universe. The natural universe is all we know - there is no “outside”.
I’ll refine the definition. My only point is that nothing isn’t anything. It has no attributes or qualities, unless you want to call having no attributes an attribute.
Some people try to define nothing as something we don’t understand that might have virtual particles or something weird and quantum. My point is that if it has that, it is not nothing, but something.
Towards the end I stopped defining every term I used. I figured most people would understand what the word future meant without much variance amongst opinions. However, if you want a definition, I will provide one. However, you get my argument.
It is not at all important to my argument that people do or do not generally accept the universe has a beginning. I gave my argument for why it does. I also defined what I mean by the universe. I will refine my definition to include anything which has dimension.
It was a significant factor of your entire argument as you admit and the point is that ‘Even if nobody in the world but me thought it’ it still might not be true except in your rarefied argument. I challenged the truth of it as you used it as an appeal to authority without evidence to prop up the rest of your logical train wreck.
To say the universe had no cause, I am saying, is to say the universe was caused my nothing. Nothing has no generative qualities, so it cannot cause. Nothing did not cause the universe, therefore something did cause the universe.
Also your use of “infinity”. Your use of it is like it’s tangible.
It’s a concept used in maths. And there are various types of infinity. You can have “infinity” within “infinity”. And scales. Scales of measurements. From the macro to the micro and cosmology …
This is your failure of understanding. You think you have something here. There is no “nothing” in reality. There has never been this that you speak of ever.
Aristotle was the father of biology, studied sleep, he wrote the taxonomy system (kingdom, phylum, class, etc) that we use today, he studied physics and planetary motion.
If you like science, you would like Aristotle. He was, first and foremost, a scientist.
I mentioned that to him as well but he denies it and insists it is an adjective. Let’s hope the second version of the argument is better than the first.
He sure goes through a whole lot of bullshit to assert that a universe could not come from nothing (By nothing he means the philosophical nothing and not the cosmological nothing.) Cosmologically speaking, we have no example of nothing anywhere. Philosophically, nothing is merely the absence of everything. Well, it makes perfect sense that in the absence of absolutely everything, nothing would be produced. Unfortunately this all boils down to a “Thought Experiment” and has nothing at all to do with actual reality or anything we actually know about reality.
