Not answering the question


It is an interesting phenomenon of this age that some people think the answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing” to be more something. The atheist/naturalist has adopted the short-sighted nature of being satisfied with something. But, they have not answered the question. They just posit more something for the question to consume. The Christian is not satisfied with something, that would be illogical, neither is he satisfied with nothing, that would be meaningless. In short, he does not give an answer that isn’t an answer, like some people of this age. The Christian, and any other person who wants meaning and logic, seeks the source of all the somethings that make up everything. “Why”, He asks, “Why the whole thing? Why is there anything you can think of that is something instead of just nothing?”

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Not answering the question

  1. So many premises, so little proof… The Christian is not satisfied until he can construct a reason to answer with “God” – which is illogical AND meaningless, but hey, at least he’s not satisfied, because there is no good reason to do so.

      1. What does this have to do with “god”? I said, god (or the concept of god) is illogical and meaningless. But what has such an illogical and meaningless concept to do with the source of everything?

      2. The source of everything is what Christians call God. It’s not that God is some “existent” who just happens to create all other existents. God is, as in equals, the source, the origin of everything, every existing thing, every something. To call God illogical and meaningless is to call the source of everything illogical and meaningless. So, again, show me how the source of everything is illogical and meaningless.

        What is illogical is to posit a “something” as the answer to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” The question seeks an answer for every something, so to posit more something is illogical. To say that the answer is nothing is illogical, since nothing has no creative relationship with anything.

        To posit a source of everything is to posit what Christians call God. What is your answer to the question, Atomic Mutant?

      3. So, again, show me how the source of everything is illogical and meaningless.

        You have not dealt with your assumption. Unless you do, then it won’t work.

        The source of everything is what Christians call God.

        It’s a meaningless statement.

        “The source of everything is what the Jedi call the Force.”
        Um….ok.

        “The source of everything is what Hogwarts call magic.”
        Ah, yes. Hmmm.

        None of these statements mean anything.

      4. Cedric,

        Both the “Force” and magic, if they were real features of this world, are used by people. As a hypothetical part of reality, they are something to be used. Somethings cannot be the answer to the question.

        Anything part of reality is natural, and therefore having a nature. Anything having a nature is ordered to have that nature by another. The source of everything does not have a nature or it would be ordered by another and therefore not the source of everything.

        Also, with the force and magic, there is causality from the world to them. There can be no causality from the world to the source of everything. If there was, it would not be the source of everything.

      5. Both the “Force” and magic, if they were real features of this world, are used by people. As a hypothetical part of reality, they are something to be used. Somethings cannot be the answer to the question.

        You are now tying yourself in knots.
        It’s just nonsense. You can’t argue this way and expect people to take you seriously.
        Abandon your premise. It won’t work.

        Whatever argument you want to make for your brand-name god has to be something different from what some other apologist for some other brand-name might be able to say.

        The source of everything is what Christians call God.

        Right from the get go, you have torpedoed yourself.

        “The source of everything is pixie dust.”

        There’s nothing there. It’s empty.

  2. Why is the sky blue?
    Magic.

    Why is the sky blue?
    God.

    Remarkably similar.

    Where did we all come from?
    Magic.

    Where did we all come from?
    God.

    Yep, very similar indeed.

    Your belief system is geography-based. You would not accept exactly the same claims from some other religion from another region.
    Your own beliefs are sheltered and carefully protected from criticism.
    The other religions do the same.

    Banning won’t work. It’s not just me. It’s the arguments you put forth that are flawed. Anybody could point them out the same way. There’s nothing new here.

  3. Wow! Did not intend to write so much. Hope you don’t mind, Dan.

    Cedric needs to read a little more logic. To say the term “God” and “Pixie Dust” are equivalent is to ignore the meaning of the words.

    Who built the Model T? Henry Ford. If you answer Chrysler your answer is wrong. The two terms are not equivalent.

    The term “God” has a meaning although it is not and can never be exhaustive. Most simply put, God is the Efficient Cause from which all subsequent causes arise. God’s existence is super-dimensional outside both time and space; therefore, His existence can only be inferred from logic and observation. This condition is not as detrimental for the theist as materialist like to assume. But how can you “observe” God’s effect on the world? We’ll get to that in a moment. Start by thinking “Dark Matter.”

    Most fatal to Materialism, to my mind, at least, is that materialism asserts a proposition which it cannot prove. That matter is all there is and only what can be proven by the scientific method is true. Yet this proposition cannot be proven. Not by the scientific method and not by human experience. In fact, nothing relative to human consciousness can be proven by the scientific method, as both Descartes and Kant demonstrated and Hume seemed to revel in.

    Nothing important to our existence as human beings can be proven to exist by the materialist proposition. Not love, not joy, not freedom, not creativity, not personality, not any aspect of human consciousness at all. Consciousness, and all its attributes, can only be inferred by its effects on the world. And if I reject the inference of you, you had better never make me mad or I just may infer a right to kill you.

    I rejected both materialism and (atheistic) Buddhism when I came to the realization (satori) that neither one offered anything but an empty plate to a starving man.

    Recently I was reading the book, The God Problem, by Howard Bloom, and he made a statement that startled me and changed many of my perceptions. He said (totally from memory so I’m probably doing worse than paraphrasing), “What most people don’t realize is, physics is easy. All you have to do is watch objects bounce into one another and then do the math. You can’t do that with chemistry. Or biology. Cause and effect get lost in all the unknowable variables.”

    Physics is easy. What an amazing idea. Yet materialism is grounded in physics.

    The most influential argument for God’s existence for me? Aquinas’ argument from desire. I experience a desire which nothing in this world can satisfy. How can this be? I desire Meaning. Purpose. Transcendence. The World Is Not Enough to Satisfy My Heart. Therefore, there must be Something More.

    Within the concept of the infinite-personal God revealed in the Bible and by Logic (the Logos), (Thank you, Thomas) satisfies my soul’s deepest desires.

    What’s funny is that is the exact same conclusion the atheist Gene Roddenberry came to (as did Carl Sagan in the movie “Cosmos”) and immortalized in (if only we could bury it) Star Trek The Motion Picture.

    V-ger had collect all the knowledge in the universe and still wasn’t satisfied. “Is this all that there is? Is there nothing more?” Spock asked with tears in his eyes.

    “What else is there but the universe,” the emotional McCoy asked. The logician Spock answered, “Other dimensions which cannot be proven logically, therefore V-ger is incapable of believing in them.”

    I would argue they CAN be proven logically, but not materialistically. Which is what Aquinas did. No one has yet demonstrated how nothing can give rise to something. Yet the universe is made up of something, it had a beginning. Matter is not eternally existent, as the old Soviet apologists used to argue in The Atheist Bible.

    Which is where Dan came in.

    I know of a polymath with a Ph.D. in abstract mathematics who created a (peer reviewed) mathematical model of Christianity. He asserts his model is a valid scientific model and therefore Christianity could be taught in public schools as a valid theory of the universe, using his model. His problem is, normal people (epsilon sub-morons like me) can’t even begin to decode the math.

    I believe it was Albert Camus who said the absurdity of life was that it ends. Unless it doesn’t.

    “God has given to us eternal life and this life is in His Son.”

  4. Cedric needs to read a little more logic. To say the term “God” and “Pixie Dust” are equivalent is to ignore the meaning of the words.

    Ok, so what’s the meaning of Pixie dust?
    Or are you ignoring that?

    Who built the Model T? Henry Ford. If you answer Chrysler your answer is wrong. The two terms are not equivalent.

    Which is great for Ford and Chrysler.
    Unfortunately, your analogy is false.
    Ford is…real.
    They have a phone number and everything.
    Same deal with Chrysler.

    Some god or other? Not so much.

    The term “God” has a meaning although it…..

    Let me help you with that.

    The term “Baal” is a meaning although it is not and can never be exhaustive. Most simply put, Baal is the Efficient Cause from which all subsequent causes arise. Baal’s existence is super-dimensional outside both time and space; therefore, His existence can only be inferred from logic and observation. This condition is not as detrimental for the theist as materialist like to assume. But how can you “observe” Baal’s effect on the world? We’ll get to that in a moment. Start by thinking “Dark Matter.”

    See?
    Spot the assumption.

    It works just as well for Pixie Dust too.
    And vampires.
    And any other god or goddess throughout the ages.
    It’s nothing new.

    This condition is not as detrimental for the theist as materialist like to assume.

    Theist=/= Christian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s