Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Enigma3
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:58 pm

Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Enigma3 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:58 pm

Is the cosmos the result of a one time chance or are there eternally existing entities (usually God)?

Time

Let's assume that Cosmic reality does have a beginning in time. Then, in that case, there must have been a preceding time in which no reality existed i.e. an empty time. Now, no coming to be of a thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time possesses, as compared with any other, a distinguishing condition of existence rather than of non-existence.

Nothing can ever come from nothingness. Within the world many different series of things can be said to begin, but these alterations can't be fundamental; the world of reality therefore is eternal.

Space

Let's assume the world is finite and limited in regards to space and consequently exists in an empty space which is unlimited. Things will therefore not only be related in space but also related to space. Now since the world is an absolute whole beyond which there is no object of perception, and therefore no correlate with which the world stands in relation, the relation of the world to empty space would be a relation of it to no object. But such a relation, and consequently the limitation of the world by empty space, is nothing. Bodies can't be separated from perceptions (space is merely the form of outer intuition). The world cannot, therefore, be limited in space; that is, it is infinite with respect to extension.

Individuals would stand to infinite space the way a single element would stand in relation to its ideal form; space is the possibility of intuitive outer appearances.

Therefore there is eternal and necessary being.





--

Atla
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Atla » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:00 pm

Imo eternality and infinity are of course necessary, chance and God beings aren't.

Our universe might not necessarily be infinite though, it's dimensions might be circular (in a higher dimension, so we would not be able to detect this curviture) so if you go in one direction in spacetime long enough, without changing course, you might end up where you started.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4215
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Greta » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:11 pm

Enigma3 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:58 pm
Is the cosmos the result of a one time chance or are there eternally existing entities (usually God)?
That's two options, let's keep going:

Is the universe the first?

Is the universe the only one?

Is there an internal necessary being?

Does the universe actually exist or is it the product of minds?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:47 pm

Atla wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:00 pm
Imo eternality and infinity are of course necessary, chance and God beings aren't.

Our universe might not necessarily be infinite though, it's dimensions might be circular (in a higher dimension, so we would not be able to detect this curviture) so if you go in one direction in spacetime long enough, without changing course, you might end up where you started.
And what separates the circle from infinity, considering this circular nature makes the beginning cause ever-present, as it circles upon itself without end?

Nick_A
Posts: 3465
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:05 am

Enigma3 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:58 pm
Is the cosmos the result of a one time chance or are there eternally existing entities (usually God)?

Time

Let's assume that Cosmic reality does have a beginning in time. Then, in that case, there must have been a preceding time in which no reality existed i.e. an empty time. Now, no coming to be of a thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time possesses, as compared with any other, a distinguishing condition of existence rather than of non-existence.

Nothing can ever come from nothingness. Within the world many different series of things can be said to begin, but these alterations can't be fundamental; the world of reality therefore is eternal.

Space

Let's assume the world is finite and limited in regards to space and consequently exists in an empty space which is unlimited. Things will therefore not only be related in space but also related to space. Now since the world is an absolute whole beyond which there is no object of perception, and therefore no correlate with which the world stands in relation, the relation of the world to empty space would be a relation of it to no object. But such a relation, and consequently the limitation of the world by empty space, is nothing. Bodies can't be separated from perceptions (space is merely the form of outer intuition). The world cannot, therefore, be limited in space; that is, it is infinite with respect to extension.

Individuals would stand to infinite space the way a single element would stand in relation to its ideal form; space is the possibility of intuitive outer appearances.

Therefore there is eternal and necessary being.


I would agree that there is eternal and necessary being. I like the idea of the initial unit of time defined as a kalpa in Buddhism
Time in Buddhist cosmology is measured in kalpas. Originally, a kalpa was considered to be 4,320,000 years. Buddhist scholars expanded it with a metaphor: rub a one-mile cube of rock once every hundred years with a piece of silk, until the rock is worn away -- and a kalpa still hasn’t passed! During a kalpa, the world comes into being, exists, is destroyed, and a period of emptiness ensues. Then it all starts again.
As I understand it, the process of creation takes place within NOW. Since NOW is not bounded by time and space the process of creation must take place within it. NOW provides the necessary impulse to create fractions of the whole existing within NOW as potential.

Atla
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Atla » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:07 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:47 pm
And what separates the circle from infinity, considering this circular nature makes the beginning cause ever-present, as it circles upon itself without end?
Our universe may be circular, but outside this universe everything else may exist too. An infinity of other universes and non-universe-configurations. Maybe one could argue that these aren't necessary and only this universe/some universes exist, but why would reality have such limits. It's either nothing or infinity.

Ultimately, reality is also beyond existence and nonexistence, but this is in my opinion the hardest concept to grasp.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:08 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:47 pm
And what separates the circle from infinity, considering this circular nature makes the beginning cause ever-present, as it circles upon itself without end?
Our universe may be circular, but outside this universe everything else may exist too. An infinity of other universes and non-universe-configurations. Maybe one could argue that these aren't necessary and only this universe/some universes exist, but why would reality have such limits. It's either nothing or infinity.

Ultimately, reality is also beyond existence and nonexistence, but this is in my opinion the hardest concept to grasp.
Is this circular too?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:22 pm

Enigma3 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:58 pm
Is the cosmos the result of a one time chance or are there eternally existing entities (usually God)?

Time

Let's assume that Cosmic reality does have a beginning in time. Then, in that case, there must have been a preceding time in which no reality existed i.e. an empty time. Now, no coming to be of a thing is possible in an empty time, because no part of such a time possesses, as compared with any other, a distinguishing condition of existence rather than of non-existence.

Nothing can ever come from nothingness. Within the world many different series of things can be said to begin, but these alterations can't be fundamental; the world of reality therefore is eternal.

Space

Let's assume the world is finite and limited in regards to space and consequently exists in an empty space which is unlimited. Things will therefore not only be related in space but also related to space. Now since the world is an absolute whole beyond which there is no object of perception, and therefore no correlate with which the world stands in relation, the relation of the world to empty space would be a relation of it to no object. But such a relation, and consequently the limitation of the world by empty space, is nothing. Bodies can't be separated from perceptions (space is merely the form of outer intuition). The world cannot, therefore, be limited in space; that is, it is infinite with respect to extension.

Individuals would stand to infinite space the way a single element would stand in relation to its ideal form; space is the possibility of intuitive outer appearances.

Therefore there is eternal and necessary being.





--
Necessity is not always required for existence:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23399

Atla
Posts: 1231
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Atla » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:49 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:08 pm
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:07 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:47 pm
And what separates the circle from infinity, considering this circular nature makes the beginning cause ever-present, as it circles upon itself without end?
Our universe may be circular, but outside this universe everything else may exist too. An infinity of other universes and non-universe-configurations. Maybe one could argue that these aren't necessary and only this universe/some universes exist, but why would reality have such limits. It's either nothing or infinity.

Ultimately, reality is also beyond existence and nonexistence, but this is in my opinion the hardest concept to grasp.
Is this circular too?
Could nonexistence also be circular in a way, in our "universe"?
That's the question where imo deep philosophy begins, the rest is just stamp collecting.

Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Londoner » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:54 pm

Enigma3 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:58 pm
Is the cosmos the result of a one time chance or are there eternally existing entities (usually God)?

Time

Let's assume that Cosmic reality does have a beginning in time. Then, in that case, there must have been a preceding time in which no reality existed i.e. an empty time. Now, no coming to be of a thing is possible in an empty time,...
I do not think time is some sort of location, such that things exist in it. Nor is it some sort of container, which is full or empty.

(But if we did think that, then we would already have an 'eternally existing entity'. There is no need for the rest of the argument.)

I understand 'time' as a measurement. So, when you write 'no coming to be of a thing is possible in an empty time' the situation is rather that without things to measure there can be no time. One could say the same about other forms of measurement, like length. If there is no object with extension to measure, then we don't imagine units of measurement like 'metres' still existing, independently but 'empty' of objects. In other words, to talk of 'time in which no reality existed' is like writing of 'the length of nothing'.

I think we have a lot of difficulty thinking about, or finding words for, a situation where there really is no observer i.e. no situation at all. It is like asking 'what is death like?'. To which the true answer is 'It isn't like anything, because it isn't anything'. So, because this is literally inconceivable, we tell ourselves that some things we experience when alive, like the passage of 'time', must still be going on, even if we personally are not conscious of them. Likewise, we cannot imagine the utter 'nothing' of 'no reality'. So I would say that the eternal God constructed from arguments like the OP is persuasive because we cannot quite believe in the completeness of our own personal extinction.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:48 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:49 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:08 pm
Atla wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:07 am


Our universe may be circular, but outside this universe everything else may exist too. An infinity of other universes and non-universe-configurations. Maybe one could argue that these aren't necessary and only this universe/some universes exist, but why would reality have such limits. It's either nothing or infinity.

Ultimately, reality is also beyond existence and nonexistence, but this is in my opinion the hardest concept to grasp.
Is this circular too?
Could nonexistence also be circular in a way, in our "universe"?
That's the question where imo deep philosophy begins, the rest is just stamp collecting.
True.

osgart
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by osgart » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:25 am

It would very easily be chance, if intelligent beings didn't exist, and everything was happening about mindlessly. But the mere existence of intelligence and order suggests eternal mind.

Perhaps the number of variables and constants in the universe is so large in quantities of properties that eventually complexity must narrow down into simplicity, and from simplicity comes order, and from order appears logic, and from logic appears intelligence. Sooner or later complexity must break down into simplicity.

Yet a logical purposed body with specific highly functional and discrete parts cries out for some sort of creator intelligence. Created and, not by design , by a higher intelligence. Intelligence, and love, and will could be of another dimension to reality.

How can the purely physical complexities of nature take on logical structure and purpose. Logical purpose in my definition means ' for the purposes of something'. Isn't logic a tool of purpose! Purpose being of intellect. The mere existence of math, and logical purpose presupposes a nature of intellect. Logical purpose would be nothing consequential without intelligent life.

Nothing in a mindless universe has to happen purposefully or logically. Total senselessness may reign supreme. Yet we are life, and life is bound to the traps and limits of physical existence. Physical existence appears mindless enough. So what breathed the fire of logical , purposeful intelligent life into a mindless existence?

One might imagine higher realities. It appears the quantum world doesn't operate on intuition. So intuitions of physicalism being all there is could turn out to be false. If there are higher realities, we could be one of endless many universe's that are farmed by a superintelligence that may exist outside of the norms of our universe.

So my conclusion is a superintelligence completely alien to human intelligence cultivated life. To create life the superintelligence is intrinsic to the knowledge of existence. Humans are somehow woven into the fabric of existence, yet our understandings and knowledge is extrinsic to the nature of existence.

Otherwise pure physics and total chaos broke down into order, and simplicity, and we emerged from patterns and structures. But that leaves a gap, a hole in complete logic. Vitalism is the only thing that can fill that gap. The gap is life and soul non physical. A soul is a life force of heart ( the ability to care), mind, and will. The synergy of these three components of the soul, is what we experience subjectively. I find it impossible to reconcile the subjective experience of soul with purely physical means.

I assert that the vital world, and the physical reality are intimately interwoven. And our non physical reality is bound by the limits of physics, and completely constricted by the physical. Non physical, being else existing than the physical.

Peter_out
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:23 pm

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Peter_out » Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:42 pm

I have to smile when I see such discussions, not because I consider myself knowledgeable or in any way wise but because we have these conversations from the point of view of discreet beings of an individual nature. We see ourselves variously as a body or a being expressed as or through an individual organism or one of a group or other conceptual impressions of what we are. I'm not sure of the exact number (indeed maybe no one really is) but we as human beings having these discussions are in fact a conglomeration of between 30 & perhaps 80 thousand billion cells, each individual cell working in a mindbogglingly complex cooperation to make up what we see ourselves as. How can we grasp the extent, nature, dimension or in fact any other quality of the cosmos when we can't even be aware of the real nature of our physicality even while operating & communicating through it as a complex entity that by necessity we have to consider something other than what it is in order to function coherently?

When considering the nature of the cosmos we would do well to take the conclusions of James Hopwood Jeans into consideration. I consider him to be the true father of astrophysics & cosmology, not because he is widely recognized as such but because he cut through the confusion & the vested professional interests of his contemporaries & indeed successors in such a way that if he is studied without bias much of the current activities of those two related disciplines become virtually otiose. For those unfamiliar with his work it's well worth reading. He describes what is these days called "big bang" in a much more plausible manner & in The Universe Around Us by a very rational & credible process of facts & reasoning concludes "....thereby reducing all discussion of material creation to futility"
We jump into discussions about time & space & even believe in the modern construct of "space-time" because we don't have all the information. The reality is very simple: time is what we call the result of the idea of change. Imagine for a moment a situation where all change ceases, by this I mean ALL change, no movement, no thought. . . . .in that 'instant' time vanishes, time is just our perception of the result of the idea of change. In the same manner space is only the idea of division if this idea is absent there is no space. . . . .space between what?? In this manner we can reduce the entire cosmos to just four ideas in the same way we can reduce the human body to individual cells if we are able to see it clearly in reality & not as in our normal 'imposed' delusional misidentification state we see even our very own physicality incorrectly. If we add the idea of energy to the mix we arrive at a point where the stage is set for the fourth & final idea: particles. The order in which I have given these is in fact the order in which they must come about. The idea of change must come first or nothing can happen. Naturally the second idea must be division else there would be no 'venue' (space) for the cosmos to exist in. Then the third idea, energy must come in its proper place as this is the motivating principle. Once these 3 have arisen the fourth idea, particles become possible, indeed perhaps inevitable! If we really look clearly at our reality, all is made of these four!
Of course there is also that single simple fundamental cosmic law so often over looked: 'nothing greater can come from something less', this is indisputable & when considering the seemingly endless cosmos, its source must be greater i.e. more endless :)
Much of out confusion comes from being stuck in the middle. By this I mean it is common to visualize the expansive endlessness of the cosmos by asking, when we reach a theoretical end "what is beyond that" But it is not so often visualized the other way: how small can we contract reality? It is somewhat easier to think we have mentally compressed reality to an absolute point. But of course we can always ask "what is half that size"......infinity stretches out beyond the most vastly imagines cosmos & also inwardly past the atoms & particles themselves into the realm of their origin. The other misconception: the delusion of our perception of physical reality imposes is that as we think we begin & end therefore the cosmos must also have begun & will therefore end. I am smiling again. Somehow this seems unlikely when we keep in mind the above points.
Forgive my long-windedness & please, if this seems less clear (& thus a pain) to you than it does to me please just disregard it all.

AlexW
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by AlexW » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:17 am

There are really only two options (which turn out to be one and the same):

1) Everything is limited - that includes us, humans, as well as the universe. The question arises what is outside the limited universe? Nothing? Or something?
The problem is that nothing, being outside something (e.g. the universe), automatically turns into something.
Nothing can only be nothing if there is no something, if there are no things in the first place.
Thus, if the universe is something, then the surrounding nothing turns into something and the question arises what exists outside this something... this again leads us down an infinite regression of apparent limited-ness (which negates the idea of limitedness as it merges with infinity).

2) There is only the infinite/eternal. In the infinite every apparent part is only conceptual - each part is only an idea - and only the whole IS.
Infinity knows nothing about small or large, space or time. Everything is contained in everything - there is no center - or rather, the center is everywhere. There is only infinite being appearing as this reality that we (the mind) dissects into artificial parts (you, me, tree, car...) that do not exist in infinite reality.

You chose your option :-)

Peter_out
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2018 4:23 pm

Re: Is There Eternal Necessary Being Or Is The Cosmos Pure Chance?L

Post by Peter_out » Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:48 am

Yes Alex exactly re the center in your 2nd option: We are taught & led to believe that there is a center & that the circumference is or approaches everywhere (small amount of poetic license being used) when the opposite appears to be true: the center is everywhere & the circumference is nowhere! The inverse square law is presented almost as a justification for space-time but in light of my assertions above there can be no distance inverse to the square or space & time become real things & not constructs of those cosmic ideas. In that metaphysical handbook(revelation)that has been seconded to religious scripture the 4 fundamental ideas behind all this are referred to as 'beasts' beasts because they blind the observer to clarity of perception & drag one into the illusion of a solid cosmos with set parameters. The 'beasts' are referred to as "before & behind' usually taken to mean in front & back but more aptly interpreted thus: before as in prior to & behind as in the causative factor of. I think the question is flawed: we should ask not if the cosmos is eternal & intentional or chance but rather what is true :) shooting containers into space gathering data won't do it, observation of interactions between objects & forces won't either because we're then back to gathering information of manifested objects as in the example of our delusive identification as thousands of billions of bodily cells.. The clarity of understanding we seek is quite obviously behind the atoms & thus profoundly inside us. . . . not in some vague philosophical sense but actually immanent as our real self (singular used intentionally). Throughout history we've been seeking the source of the fire by searching in the smoke!! Professionals of the physical sciences, cosmic or otherwise generally won't entertain this as a clear understanding of it would put them all out of work by the following morning!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests