Quote from stu:
Hans, some interesting points made there which I would like to follow up on .
I understand in what you have previously said, that meanings and definition does matter.
I that regard, firstly would you care to explain why include that #2 scenario as possible, considering your statement preceding it.
The Universe would have to be in some form or other before it could evolve into anything else.
2) The Universe came from nothing or from a series of somethings the first of which came from nothing;
From there what I gather is, you seem to be suggesting (in a role of God advocate), that everything fits into one category of fantastic (exceedingly great or Ludicrously odd), just when or because it is not known.
So a Universe which can be observed and measured and known to an extent which confirms the observations outside of concept only, is as fantastic to the same degree as God, which in comparison cannot be observed or measured or known in that same substantial way and remains only a concept.
I don't advocate a Great Fairy cosmogony but do suggest that the concept of a supernatural being as originator of the Universe is on an equal footing with either of the other options in terms of possibility given that they are all fantastic explanations, all defying logic and/or common sense
I respectfully suggest you do advocate a 'Great Fairy cosmogony'.whenever a supernatural being as originator is proposed as being possible.
Gaps left by unfathomable or scary stuff are readily filled with explanations of the supernatural. But it is trivial surely, and there for the comfort or amusement that provides. Not something to be categorized along with things like a Universe which has a firm basis in much more of a different considerable reality.
Many thanks,
stu
Hello, Stu.
Certainly definition is unavoidable if there's to be any discussion. Consider "He is.". There's a great deal of definition in this minimal sentence - as you undoubtedly understand.
Alternative explanation 2 addresses the manner of becoming that derives its meaning from and gives meaning to alternatives 1 and 3. If the Universe has not always been or was not conceived in some supernatural manner the only alternative ( that I can see ) is something-from-nothing which some people advocate based on what has been observed by scientists to be the spontaneous appearance of particles in our timespace.
So, according to #2 the universe, in some form or other, would spontaneously appear from absolute nothingness and then begin evolving into the Universe we have today. If we define nothing, or nothingness as the absolute absence of anything, including anything not supernatural that could cause the universe to be, #2 would be fantastical but can't be ruled out as a possibility because it can't be proved that it's impossible and because the alternatives are also fantastic.
The availability of the Universe to our senses is irrelevant since this is after the fact of the Universe's becoming or being; the question I'm addressing is the manner in which this sensate Universe came to be.
The progression from nothingness to Universe is, if anything, even more bizarre than the progression from Divine Will to Universe; I say this because the God explanation at least provides a possible reason for the coming into being of the Universe ( Divine intent ).
There's an important difference between the supernatural and nothingness, that difference being that the supernatural allows for a possible cause while nothingness doesn't.
I say the alternatives are equally possible because there is no way to judge their respective possibilities, all of them, being as they are, fantastic, and yet at least one of them ( IMO ) explaining the being of the Universe.
And no, I don't agree that allowing for the Great Fairy as a possibility is a form of advocacy. GF can't be ruled out for the same reasons 1 and 2 can't be ruled out. Bear in mind that in my argument I define GF in the most minimal terms - namely, as a supernatural cause. GF must be accepted as a possibility because, like the alternatives, it can't be proven to be impossible. If we rule out GF then we also must rule out 1 and 2 as possibilities. IMO given that the Universe exists, at least 1 of the alternatives must be valid.
In earlier posts I've defined GF slightly more fully but here I'm reverting to absolute basics in order to provide a base from which to begin again.
