Thoughts on this needed!

[Comet]

monism is similar to pantheism right? and if your asking if you can counter their first argument then you counter all of them i would agree also why does god not apply to this rule?

GOD is what is in question here... a DEITY God of Christian belief or a Monistic view of GOD... I argue that for being there is anti-being, as particles have anti-particles... as Being denies but cannot stop "lack of being". Pantheism is theism! I agrue against theism... BEING is not all that is for nothing is something OR the belief in theism by #1 is wrong with their given beliefs of 2-5 also being true. If #1 is true as they admit and said to me, then I argue the rest of the points against their stance, or they admit that NOTHING is SOMETHING and that #1 is wrong...

 

[PolyHedral]

From the argument in the OP, 5 does not follow from 1-4. Something other than God could have created the rest of creation.

 

[Iti oj]

GOD is what is in question here... a DEITY God of Christian belief or a Monistic view of GOD... I argue that for being there is anti-being, as particles have anti-particles... as Being denies but cannot stop "lack of being". Pantheism is theism! I agrue against theism... BEING is not all that is for nothing is something OR the belief in theism by #1 is wrong with their given beliefs of 2-5 also being true. If #1 is true as they admit and said to me, then I argue the rest of the points against their stance, or they admit that NOTHING is SOMETHING and that #1 is wrong...

even dawkins says pantheism is just sexed up atheism.
i would go with the nothing is something. less parts to get countered

 

[Comet]

I argue that all is one as nothing. They argue that God is the Ultimate as a BEING who created All else. It is an argument of Monism (not understood) versus Christianity via a philosophical and Christian philosophy/belief manner.

I have stated 1-5 and my points in ABCDEF. They stated to me that #1 was true. They believe Christian wise that the other #'s are true as well.... They BELIEVE #1. I do not take a Theist viewpoint. Nothing can be something or something can come from NOTHING is my argument. Half of them admit to see that all there was was "X", than "X" could be NOTHING for there is nothing else to compare it to. Yet, they argue against Monism for God created from nothing (Biblical) and God is the Ultimate Reality.....

 

[Comet]

From the argument in the OP, 5 does not follow from 1-4. Something other than God could have created the rest of creation.

AH, please explain given that "God" is the view point of a Christian philosopher... thus God is the Christian God..... This is what I argue against... so as a Christian, how do you argue against your God?

 

[PolyHedral]

Remember that while it's true that something cannot come from nothing in that way, there was never nothing; there was always something existing.

AH, please explain given that "God" is the view point of a Christian philosopher... thus God is the Christian God..... This is what I argue against... so as a Christian, how do you argue against your God?

The statement is not substantiated. It doesn't really matter who's doing the arguing; it doesn't follow from established premises.

 

[Comet]

even dawkins says pantheism is just sexed up atheism.
i would go with the nothing is something. less parts to get countered

With 1-5 and that gives to ABCDEF.. they must admit that F is not true, which they said to be true.... Nothing is something which they deny.... ONE of my points they had to admit to admit they are wrong and I am sound logically in my argument against them

 

[Comet]

Remember that while it's true that something cannot come from nothing in that way, there was never nothing; there was always something existing.

The statement is not substantiated. It doesn't really matter who's doing the arguing; it doesn't follow from established premises.

They admit also that if there was ONLY ONE THING: THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO COMPARE IT TO SO IN A SENCE IT IS INDEED NOTHING! They admit that! Is that not an admission that nothing is a something with nothing to compare it to? Again, by their definition it is something regardless of how you look at it.... and they admit so.

 

[Comet]

Remember that while it's true that something cannot come from nothing in that way, there was never nothing; there was always something existing.

The statement is not substantiated. It doesn't really matter who's doing the arguing; it doesn't follow from established premises.

I should restate what I said just before....

 

[Comet]

They admit that something cannot come from nothing. They admit that God is. They admit that we are and creation is. So again, look at my 1-5 and my ABCDEF.... They admit by such that 1,2,3, 4, and 5 are all true. What then is the argument against ABCDEF? Please explain for I'd love to hear a good explanation. A frubal a day for the statement that makes mine go away!
Thank you all so much for the replies! This really is about my learning and understanding, I care less what others get from it all.... insight is good for me now.

If only one thing existed, there is nothing else to compare it to... and they admit that in that sence the ONE is nothing indeed....

 

[Comet]

No further comments? So I am sound in reason and logic while arguing faith points?

 

[Iti oj]

I think I should bring in my "OPTIONS" part here now, what my A-F was arguing....
Given what I proposed in 1-5 (again arguing against Theologists and Philosophers who are Christian):

A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be falsee
d is the only viable reasoning
e im not sure why do you say that?

 

[Revoltingest]

This deals not with Atheism vs Theism, though it appears to be so. This is a conversation about NOTHING indeed. I would love the thoughts of all of my RF friends on this "proof of nothing"! It is a Monist arguement in a conversation I am having with the Theology/Philosophy department at my University.

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something IS and nothing is not something, therefore nothing is not what something is
3. God is, therefore God is something and not nothing
4. Creation is, therefore creation is something and not nothing
5. God created creation
Please draw your own conclusions and post.... I left out my ABCDEF arguments from this post, but gave the insights thereof to the University. Please comment, would love others insights from all different walks of life/spirit. :yes:

1) I don't know about that.
2) I don't even understand.
3) See #2
4) Huh?
5) Who knows?

Pretty useless, ain't I?

 

[Comet]

1) I don't know about that.
2) I don't even understand.
3) See #2
4) Huh?
5) Who knows?

Pretty useless, ain't I?

Not useless at all if you read the argument and point thereof.... If #1 is said to be true I argue against it.... you seem to agree...

 

[Comet]

I think I should bring in my "OPTIONS" part here now, what my A-F was arguing....
Given what I proposed in 1-5 (again arguing against Theologists and Philosophers who are Christian):

A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be falsee
d is the only viable reasoning
e im not sure why do you say that?

E: if something can't come from nothing then 2,3,4, OR 5 must be false... For God is either nothing or God created from nothing (which would be something since nothing comes from nothing and something only comes from something) so one of the other arguments/points must be false (though they hold them all to be true)

YOU SAY D is the only OPTION that creation created God, so again it argues against their point that God created all... (by their logic)

 

[Comet]

1) I don't know about that.
2) I don't even understand.
3) See #2
4) Huh?
5) Who knows?

Pretty useless, ain't I?

Had two agree with that #1 is false now, but given those against me say it is TRUE: am I sound in my logical argument against them?

 

[Iti oj]

E: if something can't come from nothing then 2,3,4, OR 5 must be false... For God is either nothing or God created from nothing (which would be something since nothing comes from nothing and something only comes from something) so one of the other arguments/points must be false (though they hold them all to be true)

YOU SAY D is the only OPTION that creation created God, so again it argues against their point that God created all... (by their logic)

Yeah that all seems sound.