Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[ArtieE]

I think sensory is innate to existence. IOW all matter reacts to interaction with other matter.

Yeah I am not sure why something rather than nothing. IDK why this "spark" exists.

Edit: Why doesnt apply in this case and science cant tell us how.

Yes it does. "Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.' Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."
Cosmologists have constructed a theory called inflation that accounts for the way in which a small volume of space occupied by a virtual particle pair could have ballooned to become the vast universe we see today. Alan Guth, one of the main brains behind inflationary cosmology, thus described the universe as "the ultimate free lunch." What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

 

[idav]

Yes it does. "Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.' Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."
Cosmologists have constructed a theory called inflation that accounts for the way in which a small volume of space occupied by a virtual particle pair could have ballooned to become the vast universe we see today. Alan Guth, one of the main brains behind inflationary cosmology, thus described the universe as "the ultimate free lunch." What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

So the best they can figure is virtual particles popping in and out of existence? Where are these particles coming from?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So the best they can figure is virtual particles popping in and out of existence? Where are these particles coming from?

well, Pair production is an example of things popping into existance..

Pair production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to call that god, go for it? But if whatever you call god becomes well understood, explainable and studied, would you KEEP calling it god, just because it 'creates', or would you search for a different god?

 

[ArtieE]

So the best they can figure is virtual particles popping in and out of existence? Where are these particles coming from?

Very simply put: Imagine you go to outer space and remove absolutely everything existing in a certain area. Problem is, you can't. You will still have quantum field vacuum fluctuations left producing virtual particles. One second you see absolutely nothing because there's nothing there. Zero. The next second you see two particles. Call one particle +1 and the other -1. Then they cancel out each other and is gone and you have nothing again. Zero. Because +1-1 is zero and has always been zero. But the zero is unstable, it fluctuates. So sometimes you see nothing, sometimes you see nothing as +1-1 which as also nothing, zero just in a different form.

 

[idav]

well, Pair production is an example of things popping into existance..

Pair production - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you want to call that god, go for it? But if whatever you call god becomes well understood, explainable and studied, would you KEEP calling it god, just because it 'creates', or would you search for a different god?

Science ends up having to account for some sort of creative force which resides within everything and is everything. Explaining more of how it is done won't change the creative aspects of nature, it would be how nature exists at all.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your speaking duality to a monist. There never is an independent. Whatever spark that ignited it all is creation itself, the spark is still there and holds matter together within the confines of spacetime.

That's cool. If God created the universe, however, then God transcended that universe prior to its creation, as there was no universe for God to be immanent in. There's no way out; you're trapped.

 

[idav]

That's cool. If God created the universe,....

That's why I avoid using the term created. "Created" points to a consciousness which is nonsensical as a uncaused thing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's why I avoid using the term created. "Created" points to a consciousness which is nonsensical as a uncaused thing.

Replace with "cause" and the problem remains the same...

 

[idav]

Replace with "cause" and the problem remains the same...

"Create" is certainly different from "cause" and natural things are allowed to have causes. It isn't the same. All that exists is god, God is all of existence which I believe to be natural, not supernatural.

Everything needs a source except a source. Being a source in itself is not illogical. Being a source and simply changing into something else is hardly transcendent. Transcending from within hardly seems like a great feat. In fact monotheists have argued to me that my "pantheist" concept cannot be transcendent and you argue that it has to be so you can throw me in with the monotheists. I'm in the middle caught by the extreme views of atheism vs monotheism.

 

[ArtieE]

All that exists is god, God is all of existence which I believe to be natural, not supernatural.

All of existence is all of existence. Why do some people have this incessant need to call all that exists "God" while the rest of us call "all that exists" simply "all that exists"?

Everything needs a source except a source.

Do you now what a self-contradiction is? It is when a person contradicts himself and you manage to do that in a sentence of seven words. If everything needs a source then a source also needs a source because the source is something and part of everything.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"Create" is certainly different from "cause" and natural things are allowed to have causes.

Not in this respect; if God caused the universe to come to be, then there was an antecedent state to this creaton event in which God transcended the universe he would eventually become immanent in.

Everything needs a source except a source.

A. Special pleading.
B. There is nothing to say that everything does not need a source, ad infinitum- i.e. that every source has a source.

In fact monotheists have argued to me that my "pantheist" concept cannot be transcendent and you argue that it has to be so you can throw me in with the monotheists.

And yet, if your god caused the universe, then this god is necessarily transcendent, and its immanence is a function of its transcendence.

And I don't make this argument with some ulterior motive- to "throw you in with the monotheists"... As they say, if the shoe fits

I'm in the middle caught by the extreme views of atheism vs monotheism.

Your view is no less "extreme" than any other form of theism, but we've already dispensed with this talk of "extreme" as inappropriate in this context anyways.

 

[idav]

All of existence is all of existence. Why do some people have this incessant need to call all that exists "God" while the rest of us call "all that exists" simply "all that exists"?
Do you now what a self-contradiction is? It is when a person contradicts himself and you manage to do that in a sentence of seven words. If everything needs a source then a source also needs a source because the source is something and part of everything.

I don't mean everything in an absolute sense, which is why I mentioned an exception. There are always exceptions, excuse my use of the word "everything".

 

[idav]

Not in this respect; if God caused the universe to come to be, then there was an antecedent state to this creaton event in which God transcended the universe he would eventually become immanent in.

I don't see why that should be true. There would not be a universe or existence to transcend. Once god exists that is all you need for anything to exist.

A. Special pleading.
B. There is nothing to say that everything does not need a source, ad infinitum- i.e. that every source has a source.

It can't be absolute, there must be an exception.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't mean everything in an absolute sense, which is why I mentioned an exception. There are always exceptions, excuse my use of the word "everything".

Well, your "source" must either not exist, or be a part of everything so it can't be a source of everything including itself. What do you choose?

 

[idav]

Well, your "source" must either not exist, or be a part of everything so it can't be a source of everything including itself. What do you choose?

The way I see it, there must be something that's its own source. Either spawning yourself or being eternal covers it. If god isn't either the source of itself or eternal then existence can't be because it has no cause to be. Something can be viewed as eternal and still be its own cause, so for example, lets say the universe is eternal, if so what would cause a universe to be eternal? What would cause God to be eternal, it would simply be, by existing it would be its own cause.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't see why that should be true. There would not be a universe or existence to transcend. Once god exists that is all you need for anything to exist.

If God created the universe, there was an antecedent state to the existence of the universe such that God exists. But then, God is existing independent of the physical universe- because God exists and there is no physical universe. Transcendence is not defined as "existing independent of the physical universe only when there is a physical universe", but "existing independent of the physical universe" period, full stop.

It can't be absolute, there must be an exception.

Why? And if there can be an exception, then why not a multitude or even infinitude of exceptions?

 

[idav]

If God created the universe, there was an antecedent state to the existence of the universe such that God exists. But then, God is existing independent of the physical universe- because God exists and there is no physical universe. Transcendence is not defined as "existing independent of the physical universe only when there is a physical universe", but "existing independent of the physical universe" period, full stop.

Transcendence is existing independent of "creation" which is not the case for a pantheist concept. God is the only thing to exist, god being is synonymous with existence itself. There is never any independence. If god became first then became existence then that is the panentheistic concept. I say it happened at the same time, there is no difference between god being and existence existing.

IDK why you keep insisting that I'm advocating panentheism. I am not. If god was ever independent of creation/existence then it isn't pantheism.

Why? And if there can be an exception, then why not a multitude or even infinitude of exceptions?

Because there is only existence or non-existence. There is not a multitude of ways to exist, you just either exist or you don't. Existence is the only thing that will have that exception, everything else would be an effect.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Transcendence is existing independent of "creation" which is not the case for a pantheist concept.

Except if the pantheist holds that God created or caused the universe; then prior to this creation, God was transcendent.

God is the only thing to exist, god being is synonymous with existence itself.

Maybe after causing the universe to come to be. And this property can only be accidental or contingent, as it is a function of the more fundamental property of transcendence- God is only immanent in virtue of having been transcendent in the first place.

There is never any independence.

So God is immanent in the universe even when there is no universe? How's that work?

IDK why you keep insisting that I'm advocating panentheism. I am not. If god was ever independent of creation/existence then it isn't pantheism.

Then God did not create or cause the universe, and God is not God.

Because there is only existence or non-existence. There is not a multitude of ways to exist, you just either exist or you don't. Existence is the only thing that will have that exception, everything else would be an effect.

Who says existence is an effect in the first place? A rather large assumption, wouldn't you say?

 

[idav]

Enaidealukal, the fact that we are having this debate about transcendence means you know very well what this thread is about. We can only go so far back and even science ends up envoking some creative force. It is inevitable, whether eternal and/or self starting then transcendent it is. Thats why god is necessary.

 

[idav]

Who says existence is an effect in the first place? A rather large assumption, wouldn't you say?

Existing is the only uncaused. I said its the only exception. Even for god to exist then it has to be like the rest of existence otherwise gods nonexistent.