Why is there anything? (Introduction)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, April 01, 2012, 23:01 (4597 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, April 01, 2012, 23:45

Matt: On the quantum level we've demonstrated that there is a "fabric" of reality and that it exists everywhere.
> 
> Really? What is outside the universe? Nothing. All that is expands into nothing. The fabric of reality is our reality, but no more.-Here's the kicker: There's no such thing as being "outside" the universe. The universe IS existence. The only alternative to existence is non-existence. More on that shortly...-> > 
> > Nonexistence, is literally "non-being" which is where the real dilemma begins. The short of it is: "Being" is the only possible state of the universe. 
> 
> Right, when it comes into being. Who caused that? -I'm going down a different rabbit trail for that one right now. 
But my answer in place at the moment would be: who knows?-> > 
> > When you bring God into it--as David does--this complicates things. A panentheistic God literally IS the universe, because at a minimum, the universe is contained within it. But that means that for the universe to exist... God must exist, and these two things *cannot* be separate. 
> 
> Right on. 
> > In other words: If God created the universe (either panentheistically or as an act of "special creation" than by definition--the universe came from something. Something from nothing is impossible, even when you invoke a deity. 
> 
> How do you justify that statement. A universal mind can will the universe into existence.
> > -A mind... IS something. A universal mind *is* something. So, either you agree with Blackmore that mind is a delusion, or a mind *is* something. You can't have this both ways.-[EDITED]
The corollary is then, you can shift the question from "What created the Universe?" to "What created God? All the same argumentative absurdities still apply.-I never quite got to the non-existence piece. The universe encompasses *all* phenomenon. That's why we call it the "universe." It is *everything.* The universe, is *existence.* Saying something exists outside leads you down to only two paths:-1) The traditional Judeo-Christian notion that God is a completely separate and transcendent existence that is entirely separate from the universe. This rejects panentheism by definition. -2) If the universe *is* existence, then the universe includes God. God is not separate from the universe, God is *part of* the universe. This encompasses both panentheism AND Vedic notions of God. (Pantheism.) -In the case of panentheism, you try to state that the universe exists *within* God. Here's the problem. If mind exists, mind is also part of the universe. So the boundary between a universal mind and the universe is false, because they both exist. (The universe is all *existence.*) To me, this argues that panentheism is a false notion. -So in this case, being "outside" the universe means... entering nonexistence. "outside" the universe literally means passing into complete nonexistence, literally, beyond God.-[FURTHER EDIT]-So now we have the question: "Why something rather than nothing?" This is a question that only has any meaning, if you follow the Judeo-Christian notion of God. Otherwise, our only choices are existence, or nonexistence. In panentheism [and pantheism], our universe is as old as God, because in both cases... God is the universe. Same for pantheism. Only in the Judeo-Christian notion do you gain a cosmogony where that question is valid. That's the only one that can truly start with "void" and end with "something.""

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum