| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"James Norris" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2007 06:12:29 PM |
| Object: |
A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
.
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
21 Jun 2007 09:51:58 PM |
|
|
"James Norris" <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Then how do you explain the Seinfeld Show?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
21 Jun 2007 11:26:58 PM |
|
|
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iPGei.6642$tb6.6535@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"James Norris" <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Then how do you explain the Seinfeld Show?
It no longer exists, except in reruns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
28 Jun 2007 10:41:55 PM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LJidncD3F-EW0ubbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iPGei.6642$tb6.6535@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"James Norris" <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Then how do you explain the Seinfeld Show?
It no longer exists, except in reruns.
But it once did exist even though it was nothing to begin with. Just like in
the Bible creation. Does that mean that our existence is a rerun?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
29 Jun 2007 01:16:12 AM |
|
|
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7c%gi.2058$tj6.1974@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LJidncD3F-EW0ubbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iPGei.6642$tb6.6535@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"James Norris" <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Then how do you explain the Seinfeld Show?
It no longer exists, except in reruns.
But it once did exist even though it was nothing to begin with. Just like
in the Bible creation. Does that mean that our existence is a rerun?
Didn't they use that idea on Futurama or some other
science fiction animation show? The people of Earth
were descended from the dregs of all worlds and
were only allowed to exist as a tv show without
knowing this. Only, the show is about to be cancelled
and the Earth destroyed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
01 Jul 2007 10:54:26 PM |
|
|
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:AZ6dnbkB7t00PhnbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com...
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7c%gi.2058$tj6.1974@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LJidncD3F-EW0ubbnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:iPGei.6642$tb6.6535@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"James Norris" <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Then how do you explain the Seinfeld Show?
It no longer exists, except in reruns.
But it once did exist even though it was nothing to begin with. Just like
in the Bible creation. Does that mean that our existence is a rerun?
Didn't they use that idea on Futurama or some other
science fiction animation show? The people of Earth
were descended from the dregs of all worlds and
were only allowed to exist as a tv show without
knowing this. Only, the show is about to be cancelled
and the Earth destroyed.
And there the resemblance ends?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
21 Jun 2007 06:17:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> writes:
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
Lynn Margulis, in "Acquiring Genomes" uses the phrase
"the fallacy of misplaced concreteness".
(she attributes it to someone, but I can't recall who at the moment)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
22 Jun 2007 05:51:23 AM |
|
|
James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
One of the common arguments that arise between religionist and atheist is
that the religionist is considered presumptuous for claiming "God
exists"; while the religionist sees it as similarly presumptuous for the
atheist to say "God doesn't exist".
As a religious person, I'd fully accept the more usual (and rational)
atheist argument that "there's no evidence for God, so no reason to
assume He exists". That's fine. At that point, belief in God or gods
becomes a matter of one's *personal* reasons: an individual choice, which
is how it should be. But I'd still question claims of absolute knowledge
("God doesn't exist") where there should be only logical reasoning
("There's no reason to assume God exists, therefore I do not believe").
Similarly, your argument here claims absolute knowledge where there can
be none - and in this case, even logical reasoning fails us because the
subject of your argument is what (if anything) might exist or might have
existed beyond the boundaries of our universe. You state there is
nothing 'in which our universe dwells'. I assume that to mean that there
is nothing 'outside' our universe in any direction in space or time or
anything else - that reality and existent things, including time and
space, simply stop once the boundaries are reached.
I have to ask you, then, how you think you know that? All questions of
'God' aside, what knowledge do *you* have that science does not? As far
as I'm aware, and you may correct me if I'm wrong, of course, the
attitude of science is that the boundaries of space and time as we
perceive them are the very limits of our knowledge and our potential
knowledge. Science does not ask the question of whether anything
happened, for example, before the Big Bang, because that would be a
question that could not be answered. But if these are truly the limits
of our knowledge, then an absolute claim that nothing existed beyond them
is as much a statement of belief as any claim that God exists. All
hypothetical possibilities for the run-up to the Big Bang are equally
valid because even the rules of reality at that time and in that place
are unknown. Of course, the possibility that there was *no* run-up -
that there was no time and no place - must also be afforded equal merit.
You might argue that this is completely different from the matter of
whether there is a God - but of course it's actually closely related:
Abramic religion claims that God 'just exists', and atheists often argue
that He cannot - the creator *must* have been created. Nothing can just
be without a cause to bring it into being. Yet, if we presume to know
that nothing - no space, no time, no anything - existed before the
universe then we are faced with a universe that 'just exists': an effect
without a cause.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the universe had some sort of
cause. I think it's also reasonable to assume that we might never know
what it was. I think it's slightly less reasonable to make absolute
claims one way or the other about something we simply can't know.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Okay - for an atheist. It's a matter of faith, or the absence thereof.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Well, speaking for myself, 'God' is far from 'nothing'. 'God' (I don't
use the term myself outside of Usenet, but it saves lengthy explanations)
is *everything*. God exists because the universe exists - this world we
see plus whatever other realms and regions might be out there in any
direction. All are 'God'.
But focusing on monotheistic religion, particularly the Abramic religions
which are usually the true target of anti-religious appeals to atheistic
reason, whether God simply exists 'outside' space and time is difficult
to say. It's said God is eternal - but that doesn't mean that God does
not experience time or that He is held apart from it. A person can stand
in a stream without being swept along with the flow. He can even wade up
and down and from side to side - but he's still in the stream.
Besides, the fact is that, as with gravity and light, we don't truly
understand what time *is*; so it's difficult to know exactly how a
creature with a greater understanding of it than ours might be able to
manipulate it. We don't really know what sort of environment it truly is
and what manner of entity might exist within it.
You choose to believe that nothing exists that you can't see or haven't
seen, and that's fine. Our world needs stern rationalists. But it would
be a humdrum and dispiriting world indeed if we *all* fell into that
category.
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
22 Jun 2007 08:55:40 AM |
|
|
"Midwinter" <midwinter_m@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns995778E6CE08Emidwintermhotmailcou@216.196.109.145...
James Norris <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
One of the common arguments that arise between religionist and atheist is
that the religionist is considered presumptuous for claiming "God
exists"; while the religionist sees it as similarly presumptuous for the
atheist to say "God doesn't exist".
As a religious person, I'd fully accept the more usual (and rational)
atheist argument that "there's no evidence for God, so no reason to
assume He exists". That's fine. At that point, belief in God or gods
becomes a matter of one's *personal* reasons: an individual choice, which
is how it should be. But I'd still question claims of absolute knowledge
("God doesn't exist") where there should be only logical reasoning
("There's no reason to assume God exists, therefore I do not believe").
That indeed is the position of the "weak" atheist or Agnostic.
If god is defined in a way that puts him outside of our objective reality ..
then does it make sense to say that god actually exists. Doesn't exist mean
that something is within,or part of, our objective reality?
[snip]
Yet, if we presume to know
that nothing - no space, no time, no anything - existed before the
universe then we are faced with a universe that 'just exists': an effect
without a cause.
And no need for a creator.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the universe had some sort of
cause.
Why? Then the creator needs a cause.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe,
In that case .. is it actually existing?
If god is outside time and the universe, then can it be said god exists?
Maybe theists and atheist are both correct :)
Well, speaking for myself, 'God' is far from 'nothing'. 'God' (I don't
use the term myself outside of Usenet, but it saves lengthy explanations)
is *everything*. God exists because the universe exists - this world we
see plus whatever other realms and regions might be out there in any
direction. All are 'God'.
Pantheism
But focusing on monotheistic religion, particularly the Abramic religions
which are usually the true target of anti-religious appeals to atheistic
reason, whether God simply exists 'outside' space and time is difficult
to say. It's said God is eternal - but that doesn't mean that God does
not experience time or that He is held apart from it.
Which would mean God waited for an eternity (an infinite amount of time)
before creating the universe .. what was he doing for that infinite amount
of time .. what was he god of?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
22 Jun 2007 09:24:55 AM |
|
|
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
That indeed is the position of the "weak" atheist or Agnostic.
I wouldn't even go so far as to insist on agnosticism. I have no
objection to someone following the logical path from "no reason to
believe" to "I don't believe". And someone who doesn't believe isn't an
agnostic - they're an atheist. I've got no problem with atheists.
But it's an individual choice - and when someone, atheistic or religious,
starts to act as though the choice they've made is the one everyone else
should be making, then I have a problem with them. More so when they
start treating those who haven't reached the same conclusion as though
they're idiots simply because they don't see things in quite the same
way.
If god is defined in a way that puts him outside of our objective
reality .. then does it make sense to say that god actually exists.
Doesn't exist mean that something is within,or part of, our objective
reality?
I'd approach this point in much the same way that I deal with the term
'supernatural'. What exists is real. What doesn't exist is not real.
What exists is natural, and nothing supernatural exists. None of which
is to say that something can't exist because it doesn't conform to
reality as we think we understand it.
Common sense tells us that vampires (to take an example at random) don't
exist. They're not real. There's never been any convincing evidence for
their existence. So it's not unreasonable to say "there's no reason to
believe, therefore I don't believe". But that's not the same as saying
that they can't exist *because* they're not real. If one was found, then
our reality - our understanding of what is - would have to be amended to
incorporate them.
Yet, if we presume to know
that nothing - no space, no time, no anything - existed before the
universe then we are faced with a universe that 'just exists': an
effect without a cause.
And no need for a creator.
If the universe indeed 'just exists', then you're right: there'd be no
need (or room) for a creator. But the possibility still raises a
question. If an atheist is willing to entertain the possibility that the
universe simply sprang into being from nothing and for no reason, then
can he credibly mock the religionist for imagining that the creator of
the universe might have similarly appeared from nothing?
I think it's reasonable to assume that the universe had some sort of
cause.
Why? Then the creator needs a cause.
If I suppose that the universe was deliberately created then I would also
suppose that the entity that created it was itself somehow created.
Maybe it is a limitation of mine, but I do not recognise the possibility
of something appearing without cause from nothing - especially when the
'nothing' in question includes the non-existence of time.
I believe that something caused the universe to come into being - and
until science can tell me what that cause was or confirm that there was
none (something I personally don't expect it ever to tell me) then any
hypothesis presented warrants equal consideration.
Well, speaking for myself, 'God' is far from 'nothing'. 'God' (I
don't use the term myself outside of Usenet, but it saves lengthy
explanations) is *everything*. God exists because the universe
exists - this world we see plus whatever other realms and regions
might be out there in any direction. All are 'God'.
Pantheism
Yes, I believe so.
But focusing on monotheistic religion, particularly the Abramic
religions which are usually the true target of anti-religious appeals
to atheistic reason, whether God simply exists 'outside' space and
time is difficult to say. It's said God is eternal - but that
doesn't mean that God does not experience time or that He is held
apart from it.
Which would mean God waited for an eternity (an infinite amount of
time) before creating the universe .. what was he doing for that
infinite amount of time .. what was he god of?
I don't see that what I said leads to the conclusion that God waited an
eternity before any act of creation. Why do you believe it does?
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
22 Jun 2007 02:29:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:12:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris
<JimNorris01@aol.com> in
<1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
That is ok as far as it goes, but you miss much of the point. Yes, by
current physics time is a dimension and like the spatial ones expands
with the Horrible Space Kablooie. That does not mean that nothing
caused Universe, just that it makes no sense to speak of before the
Universe. To make my point quite clear, science does not assert that
nothing existed before the Universe: science asserts that *science*
can't speak of time before T = 0.*
*Well, not really 0, more like 10^-23 seconds, but that is close
enough to 0 for my taste.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
Now that is just a word game, an equivocation. You are trying to
solve an empirical question, the existence of something, by playing
word games.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean?
Of course not. So clearly you are no longer discussing theistic views,
you are dealing with a strawman.
If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Nope. Theists believe that some willful entity, an entity (at least
somewhat) unconstrained by nature** intervenes in the Universe.
**That is to say, regularities in behavior.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Norris" |
|
| Title: Re: A: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
02 Jul 2007 02:36:47 AM |
|
|
On Jun 22, 8:29?pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:12:29 -0700, in alt.atheism , James Norris
<JimNorri...@aol.com> in
<1182467549.287590.147...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
That is ok as far as it goes, but you miss much of the point. Yes, by
current physics time is a dimension and like the spatial ones expands
with the Horrible Space Kablooie. That does not mean that nothing
caused Universe, just that it makes no sense to speak of before the
Universe. To make my point quite clear, science does not assert that
nothing existed before the Universe: science asserts that *science*
can't speak of time before T = 0.*
*Well, not really 0, more like 10^-23 seconds, but that is close
enough to 0 for my taste.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
Now that is just a word game, an equivocation. You are trying to
solve an empirical question, the existence of something, by playing
word games.
Not really. I'm not trying to solve a question, I'm providing a
logical argument that people who think God exists outside the universe
might agree with.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean?
Of course not. So clearly you are no longer discussing theistic views,
you are dealing with a strawman.
You say of course not, but have you asked any? Ther God is pretty
much defined as being incomprehensible to our pathetic human minds -
wouldn't something that could exist and not-exist at the same time be
quite a reasonable thing for a theist to understand God to be?
If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
Nope. Theists believe that some willful entity, an entity (at least
somewhat) unconstrained by nature** intervenes in the Universe.
Some theists believe that, but some think that God set up the universe
to run by itself.
You say 'Nope' as though you are some sort of authority on atheists'
beliefs as well - have you ever asked any if they believe in an
'existent' nothing? My bet is that they would all say they don't
believe in such an illogical thing - self-professed atheists are often
very proud of their logical thought processes, you know.
**That is to say, regularities in behavior.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
I
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
21 Jun 2007 07:04:21 PM |
|
|
Sure 'god' exists - in the imaginations of man!
"James Norris" <JimNorris01@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182467549.287590.147410@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
There is no such thing as an 'existent' nothing. Phrases such as
'outside the universe' and 'before time began' conjure up the
impression of an amount of physical 'nothingness' in which our
universe dwells, but there is no such thing.
From an atheist's point of view, God doesn't exist, so God is not a
thing - God, pixies, nothingness are all similarly nonexistent. There
are lots of linguistic and philosophical quibbles that can be made
about that, but the main point is that, for an atheist, God and
nothing are equivalent - neither exists.
Theists reckon that God exists outside time and the universe, so God
is therefore what us heathen scientific atheists would call nothing.
So it seems that theists believe in an 'existent' nothing. I can see
that there is a certain weird logic to the idea that God (who can
supposedly do the impossible) can somehow 'be' nothing - but is that
what theists mean? If so, an important difference between atheists
and theists is that unlike theists, atheists don't believe in an
'existent' nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'nothing' doesn't exist B: God doesn't exist A+B = ?? |
22 Jun 2007 05:12:53 AM |
|
|
"Bill M" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Sure 'god' exists - in the imaginations of man!
Bill, your arguments aren't very inspiring at the moment, even by your
usual standards. You particularly pushed for time, or something?
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
