And here we go again. The criteria for whether something exists or not is identity.
That a thing actually represents itself - - -
whatever that may be that constitutes itself.
I thought you were being sarcastic when you replied to my question about english being your native language. So, it’s become clear that some concept is not translating between us. I believe that I’m familiar enough with english to suspect that it’s an issue relating to your conception of the word “create” and how this may or may not translate in the english language. Which cuases me to be curious about what this concept is that doesn’t translate in english, but is aparently motivated by the word “create” as it relates to deities.
Actually, I wasn’t trying to debate you at that point. I was saying that if you’re going to try to correct me on a matter of FACT in a pompous, condescending manner, you’d better damn well be correct.
Hoist with your own petard, I say. Good day indeed.
It is your understanding of the word “uncreated” which is used to bring across the concept for “what always was and shall always be” without any “creation” of it involved.
As for the uncreated required to represent itself to humanity:
First of all : Why should it be a requirement?
Next: When observing creation - and merely the fact that you are created and thus able to observe it - you see the representation and manifestation of the existence of the Uncreated Creator, since without the Uncreated Creator the Creation wouldn’t exist.
I shall try to make the concept “uncreated” more clear with an example.
Science now reasons that what is called the Big Bang caused the beginning of the universe = the creation of it.
Suppose this reasoning is correct, then all matter was reduced to extreme density which must have been in complete balance before this Big Bang happened (to say it simple).
Then answer the questions:
What was the cause that this “matter” - how extremely densed it might have been - could be there in the first place.
What was the cause of this Big Bang that brought disbalance in this density and by this made it expand.
My answer to this is that the Uncreated caused both = created the conditions for both to be there and happen.
Why is it so important to you to attribute the uncreated to “God”, rather than to “What is necessary for the perception of existence.” In secular philosophy, motion and otherness are both considered uncreated… they always were. This general concept is encompassed by the word “existence” or “all that is”. “All that is” reduces ultimately to motion and otherness.
As for your physics example, talking about the Big Bang as causing the universe to emerge is not a scientific statement. There is no sound method of stating that the UNIVERSE emerges from anything. Maybe multiple COSMOSES emerge from the phenomenon that we attribute to what we call the “Big Bang”.
When people state that the universe emerges from the Big Bang, this is not a statement made by serious phycisists, it is a political statement used to alter the linguistics in order to harmonize physics with religous ‘logic’. It is a phyco-social-linguistic technique used to pacify special interests. It’s pop-culture, it’s counter-intelligence, it’s commissioned work used for this specific purpose.
Aeshines,
The physical is otherness. When someone states that it is material, it is being stated that otherness exists. When someone states that it is immaterial, it is being stated that otherness does not exist. If the universe is defined as material, then all that is, is defined by otherness. Even the prefix UNI is misleading, because if it’s material/physical otherness is being implied.
What we see as our cosmos for example could be equivilent to a single seed growing in a garden of cosmoses, a garden populated by numerous seeds. These would be multiple cosmoses, each cosmos, from the inside looking out, looks like a “big bang”. From the outside looking in, it simply looks like our “universe” is but one of many cosmoses springing up from this allegorical garden. Since the term universe is meant to be used in an all-encompassing manner for the physical, it doesn’t make sense to attribute it to only our “big bang”, whatever that may be. Not only is each cosmos material, but so is the ground from which al of these seeds that bloom cosmoses, so is the mechanism which feeds these seeds.
The difference between universe and existence is that existence describes all that is, and is also used to include a tenative abstraction of “all that is possible” or rather, “potential”. I say tenative, because if everything is wholly determined, the use of “potential” doesn’t ultimately make sense.
Aeshines,
Do you understand how, in stating that “The universe emerges from the big bang” (universe = aka otherness, aka physical, aka material) that the implication is that material COMES FROM nothing at all? There is no sound method of making the argument that something comes from nothing at all.
Another one of the science quackeries regards indeterminism. Simply stating that something is indeterminant is a determination that suggests that the conclusion refutes itself and thus refutes and purpose for stating or concluding it. This notion of “quantum indeterminancy” is self refuting. If it’s indeterminant, then you are admitting that there is no foundation to determine the stability of your statement.
These are not scientific statements, these are pop-culture political statements used to subtly change the linguistics to harmonize with religous veiws of existence.
Olanv
I need the condensed version. Did you just say, the universe has always existed, as in all that ever was, is or can be. It’s timeless. And it may be a “Big Bang” type event that caused what we physically know to exist as far as time and matter? Or are you saying something else?
IWLN,
I’m stating that a “big bang” type event does not cause motion and otherness. Motion and otherness are uncaused, required in order for a big bang to occur.