Leibniz' Contingency Argument

Maybe.

Obviously the something is in some way equal to the nothing.

it's just a semantic trick. If you make the explanation necessarily be called God, then you can say god exists. If I call my dog God, then i can say God exists. But you know the word "God" means something different to most other people, so you're just equivocating.

What if we're a simulation meant to find the logical course God?

We know what a cup of coffee is, we understand its function, we can measure it, when it breaks we can replace it.

its a product of externalization, whereas we live within the universe, we do not know its form or function, its not replaceable as far as we know, therefore it is incorrect to claim it is an object.

futhermore, materialism implies solidity. there is no evidence of this; extrapolating onto something we know very little about is fedora tipping.

no
the ultimate redpill is that i and i alone is what you call god and the "simulation" is my maya

>you can't proof the nonexistence of something that is not something you've already seen

Why would whether or not I've seen something (presumably what you mean is a version of it) make any difference in the evidence required to prove its existence?

I said that I can imagine a cup that doesn't exist. I can also imagine a goblin/elephant hybrid that doesn't exist, and I've never seen one either in the real world or in fiction.

You might argue "but it might exist somewhere," but this is irrelevant, because the one I'm imagining is here, which is therefore separate from any others, and therefore nonexistent.

If you've imagined it, it exists to some capacity

True non existence is by its nature unobservable or unfathomable

Anyway something cannot come from nothing, infinity exists and space-time is nested within it, in a sense, you're already dead

All this argument says is that we could not disprove the universe's existence if the universe didn't exist.

Ultimately it's irrelevant to the Liebniz argument.

>in some capacity
In what capacity does it exist, and how is this capacity relevant to the Liebniz argument?

It exists in your mind
It relates because its existence in your mind is existence within the universe
We aren't foreign to the universe you know champ

But these nonexisting things you claim, are based on imagination, images of things you've seen. Even the idea of God are based on our human experience.

Again, what matters for me is logic. How can you proof the nonexistence of something, like the universe, when even the logic that we have (and our minds as well) are part of the universe. How can we prove something beyond this?

That's the point. I believe that this universe exist and it couldn't have not existed. Leibniz talks about it when he says this is the best reality possible.

2nd premise isn't necessarily true.
To my knowledge there hasn't been an adequate argument against the possibility of a universe necessarily existing.

T. Christan

I don't think God, as but in faith as the new testament mages Him out to be, would put in logical arguments that remove the necessity for faith at all. Our universe, and our ability to rain are constructed such that atheism and theism are both reasonable beliefs.

leibniz was an order of magnitude smarter than i am, so why should i question his logic?

I thought that's what you would say.

You're flirting with a counter-argument that was rebuffed by the Ontological Argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=xBmAKCvWl74

Ultimately however, admitting that something that exists in a mind has some form of imagination-existence does not refute Leibniz at all. It simply says imaginary things have some trivial form of existence.

If you wish to argue that their existence is non-trivial, then you have to deal with the fact that many imaginations believe in a real, personal God. However, if we cannot imagine the nonexistence of something that we've never seen (as argued on this thread) then those who believe in no God cannot successfully imagine God's nonexistence, and therefore God exists.

If you reject that and believe instead that some people do successfully imagine a non-God, then you're now arguing for relative realities, which is one of silliest worldviews of all.

You're pushing God out so far that it doesn't matter what you call it, since its existence has no relevance to the universe whatsoever.

Scientific progress slowly severed every tie between the biblical God and the universe, yet a bunch of dumb memers first deists now "agnostics" cling to an abstraction so hollow so empty, one must wonder why do they bother at all.

Miracles had relevance in life, worshipping strong deities, who brought magic and civilization into the world had meaning. These entities interfered regularly and their nature was understood through mythology.

You're talking nothing about nothing. If you have no knowledge about something that may or may not exist is the telling sign that you should stop thinking about it entirely.

Now that you got that off your chest - do you have any actual argument against Leibniz'?

I'm not actually arguing against Leibniz here though

I believe in God.

>you claim, are based on imagination, images of things you've seen...

You've never seen my imagination, yet you are imagining that you know some of its properties. Do you see how this rebuffs your own argument?

>prove the nonexistence of something

You haven't demonstrated why proving something's nonexistence is imperative to the success of the Liebniz argument. If you do that successfully I'll try to engage the idea further.

I have nothing new. Russel and the gang said everything I'd say.

Yes, we have no idea how "far" the universe stretches, but first of all saying that something is beyond the universe is an oxymoron. The "universe" is a pretty dumb word for EVERYTHING. If it exists, it's part of the universe. We don't know whether or not the physical laws we experience are truly universal, maybe there are other forms of matter and existence.

But why do you even use the word God? God was a deity. He was a spirit, a strong, powerful being, lord of mankind. These were the gods. What you're meming about isn't a God. It's an external something that caused many things to somehow sort of happen.

Well done. This is truly nothing. It has nothing to do with anything real and tangible. Abstractions, numbers have a meaning for us. Your God doesn't.

All Leibniz has done is state that the explanation of the Universe's existence would be correctly termed "God." However, if you've been conditioned be uncomfortable with the term God, you can substitute it with "the extremely powerful uncaused necessarily existing non-contingent non-physical immaterial eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it."

>But why do you even use the word God? God was a deity. He was a spirit, a strong, powerful being, lord of mankind. These were the gods. What you're meming about isn't a God. It's an external something that caused many things to somehow sort of happen.

Is "the extremely powerful uncaused necessarily existing non-contingent non-physical immaterial eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it" aka God not therefore "a strong, powerful being?" Is that what you're arguing? Or are you not arguing, but simply ranting emotionally? On Cred Forums its often hard to tell the difference.

Wrong. God is typically depicted as an intelligent being, and nothing Leibniz argues for in your semantic interpretation of his argument implies intelligence.

You've missed the point of my argument thoroughly.

>why is there something instead of nothing
>because there is something else

That's a circle.

Are you going to argue that "the extremely powerful uncaused necessarily existing non-contingent non-physical immaterial eternal being who created the entire universe and everything in it" is not intelligent?

Since you've brought intelligence into the discussion as a key attribute, can you define it for us?

Again, you are referring to God as a "something." This is not a rational label, since if things in the Universe can be called "somethings" then that which lies outside of it could not.

Are you seriously going to turn a proof for God into a weak semantic agreement to avoid admitting that the strong Verizon (that Leibniz intended) is inconclusive?

So you think a chemical reaction that results ultimately in the creation of more viral pseudo cells is intelligent?

You know I'm just using the word "thing" as a placeholder for whatever the fuck, right? I'm NOT implying this thing to be within the universe.

You can't explain EXISTENCE with the EXISTENCE of another thing.

> non-physical
Why? Do you feel like spacetime is non-physical because it isn't "made" of anything?

> uncaused
Why? Can't the driving force of the universe have a cause? For example, comsological physicists in the know think that before the big bang, there was just a soup of QFD (quantum field dynamics / quantum vaccum) which over time coalesce to a bubble of spacetime (aether), the medium of our universe, and what is present in our vacuum. That's a cause.

> extremely powerful
Meaningless.

> eternal
Imagine if the universe was a physical process involving the buildup of energy, say it's like a lightning strike (lightning created from ""nothing""), that would be the opposite of eternal. Incredibly transient.

> being
Meaningless. If a star is a 'being', I guess, meaning its a separate entity from the things around it.

This is like calling the force that brings water downhill "Charlie" and saying that what Charlie really likes is to get closer to the ground. What's the use? If it can be understood as a process, why does it need an identity? Just 'cause it's comfy?

But that's what Leibniz did, if you wish to refer to God as a "thing."

However calling God a "thing" is so sloppy as to be essentially the opposite of correct. It simply illustrates why you're having trouble understanding Liebniz' argument.

He's right.
In fact, Leibniz was right about pretty much everything.

If you try to explain existence generally by the existence of God then you still have re-inserted the notion of existence -- that which was to be explained -- in the explanation itself, which is a circle.

You would have to explain existence from non-existence.

At this point you're just being obtuse as fuck.

I don't know it but I agree.
Leibniz was right in absolutely everything.

No it's not powerful. Because it doesn't exist. The Universe doesn't necessary have to have any boundary. By definition the Universe is everything, it is "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things".

If God exists, it's part of the Universe. If the Universe is everything, and BY DEFINITION it's everything, then there can't be anything beyond it.

There can be something beyond we can ever experience. There might be such a thing, there might not be such a thing. But it won't be beyond the abstraction that we named "Universe".

Your """god"""" is the infinity+1 number. A logical error, utterly meaningless.

Even when you create an abstract idol of "A Great Thing That Caused Every Other Thing", it will remain just that, an abstraction. A "god" has meaning if we actually know something about it, if he has relevance to our lives. He makes miracles, speaks to the people, makes laws, gives his gifts to his followers.

Your "god" is just a last, dead fragment of a long tradition of superstition and primitive understanding.

>The Universe doesn't necessary have to have any boundary
The fact is that it has. Space, time and matter are boundaries. The universe is not infinite because it can be divided in finite parts.

Whatever created Time, it must be eternal.

Turtles all the way down.

You're missing that causality implies time. Whether time is real in any sense or merely an abstraction, time links causal events.

Time (aka causality) cannot exist as an infinite regression. Are you going to argue that it does?

Leibniz is stating that God exists outside of the regress of time, which itself had a beginning (aka a cause).

God is therefore the uncaused cause.

Also, of course He has relevance, because we are his image, and absolutely all human actions are some kind of imitation of God and ends up expressing some kind of love towards the creator.

Calling the uncaused cause of the universe "God" should not be such a difficult pill to swallow. You might state that people have attributed anthropomorphic aspects to God that do not belong, but that's a different discussion.

Do you believe that time regresses infinitely?

One of the primary motivators for relativity is that time is merely the distance it takes for things to interact with each other. You can even exist outside of time, inside our universe. As you approach larger masses, your exposure to time decreases. If you could hang out at the event horizon of a black hole, you could essentially exist outside of time. It would be like being in an underwater cave that has an air bubble in it -- the tide keeps moving, but you are insulated from it.

> it must be eternal

Imagine, just for funsies, that the CAUSE of the universe's beginning was a buildup of energy over time that quickly released. Imagine it like a lightning strike. That's really the opposite of eternal, but in this thought experiment, it created time.

That was a terrible way to say "God exists because I say so".

Didn't prove a thing other than that he imparts his own viiews as to how something he has no concept of should behave.

These questions are bigger than people, you cannot explain them away.

Philosophy student here.
Is he saying that explanations exist in the world regardless of human mind? Because that smells like Plato and his world of ideas. That everything has a connection to some plane of existance where explanations exist like articles in Wikipedia. The reality is that explanations do not exist but are created by human mind. And so they are always have some purpose of their own - mainly to quench the curiosity of people. And so many different explanations can exist depending on the level of curiosity and un-easiness of the asking person. Explanations can be false or true, broad and narrow, direct or vague.
So explanations exist contingently in the human realm and are not necessarily to the Universe.

To follow, how can he say that God is immaterial?

He has neither met nor spoke with God, he hasn't travelled the universe.

How does he know God isn't chilling somewhere out there?

Im still dont see how the universe has to have a reason to exist. We can follow causality back to a certain wall we have no idea before that.

For all we know we are victims or perspective and this has always been and always be. Maybe time is an illusion. Things simply are and our consciousness is an illusion passing through this static thing.

The space was also created. When you imagine "nothing", imagine it smaller than your fingertip.

This is stupid, this video makes baseless asumptions

>that pic
The answer is "no one knows." Claiming that, because you don't know the answer, it must be because God did it is horse shit.

If the cause of the universe was a buildup of energy over time, then it could not have been the first cause. It may have been the cause, but it wasn't the first cause. The problem is that it happened "over time." Which means it was not first.

Whatever caused it first, i.e. initiated causality itself - was itself by necessity causeless.

Think a little more.
Time is the principle of movement. Whatever created time, must not be moved, because it's anterior, this "energy" you're talking about is the divine logos (word), unmoved by nature, because it didn't create the universe but keeps creating until it's inevitable end.

Time, as we know it, is only an effect of the medium that we are in. Time is only defined by the distance between interacting events. Imagine you have two bowling balls, 1 mile apart, in perfectly empty vacuum (spacetime). They are (weakly) attracted to one another through gravity (their displacement of spacetime).

Through magic, you make one of these balls vanish. How long until the other ball feels the force pulling it disappear? Instantly? No.

It happens at C, like pulling the ball off a trampoline, the disturbance is propagated, a "ripple". For a while, the other ball experiences the tug from an object that isn't there. So, there really is no "time", just relations.

I'm not sure what you mean by regresses infinitely. Like, you could go back an infinite number of seconds? I'm not sure. But I am sure, there are different scopes, contexts, and kinds of time just in our observable universe. Why wouldn't there be outside? We are suspended in a great mass of jelly called spacetime -- in the same way that sound has different upper limits in different mediums, we have an upper limit in our medium. I think it's reasonable to conclude that there could certainly be "time" outside our universe, and I am not the only one.

Explanations are just relationships of states, which would exist independent of a thinking mind. Would mathematics as an abstraction still exist? Even if there were no thinking things, 1 and 1 would still yield 2. A boulder would still roll down a hill according to how much energy it has.

Even if the relationships between things, which is all ideas are, can't be named, they're going to exist as long as the things themselves do. We just recognize the patterns in the world, not create them.

No, you're just Canadian.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Because there's something.

That's not circular. T hat's observational.

Roko's Basilisk

All the video is saying is that to argue "the universe doesn't need a reason" is unscientific, because it's not a standard we apply to anything else. If everything else requires an explanation, then there is no reason to assume a special exception for the Universe.

In fact, arguing that the Universe should get a special exception is (ironically) a form of religious dogma.

Time is not a principle of movement. At all. In fact, it doesn't even exist. It's just a mass consensual perceptual hallucination we all buy into.

Y'all are some smart motherfuckers, thanks for posting.

Is this discussion essentially grounded in physics?

Time, space and matter are the only thing that can make finite things exist in reality. Time is just the result of a series of finite movements, or the perception of it. That's it.

Most of this is irrelevant. Calling time a "distance between events" doesn't undermine Liebniz and certainly doesn't solve the problem of the infinite regress paradox. Your discussion of gravity propagation is also irrelevant.

You don't need to consider "time" abstractly to apply the infinite regress paradox, as I alluded before. You can consider time to be a chain of causal events. Do you believe that a chain of causal events regresses into an infinite past, or that the chain had a first "link?"

>God exists by necessity of his own nature
Where does that nature come from? Who defined it?

Its the frame though. And honestly I would rather argue that you cannot argue shit because the universe is the frame all our rules exist in. We have observable phenomena that we study until we develop scientific theory and logic. All of it built within the frame.

You leave the frame you cant take your tools with you we have no fucking clue. And honestly even the question breaks down and is it formed off the logic we built inside the frame. Inside the frame things are created and change and are destroyed. Outside who the fuck knows.

And even then only our choice of description makes things need a reason to exist. If I make an object I really am only transforming something that was here long before me. Everything has been transforming since the start.

But even that is suspect. What if nothing is changing and our perspective is merely moving along one dimension.

Basically only our perspective might be enough to create the illusion of time.

I often wonder in exasperation why Western Philosophy must employ such convoluted language to explain things. Likewise it's always a favourite of PoP-Philosophy to couch explanations in After School TV themes. Why isn't there an ordinary language explanation that doesn't assume either an esoteric, intellectual elite, ludicrously complex description *OR* one that assumes it's audience are window licking retards. Leibniz has a point but to claim a place in the Pantheon of Classical pre-Enlightenment Philosophers, he necessarily had to couch his arguments in the most contorted language possible. It's as if 18th Century European intellectuals and academics required there peers to have attention spans that stretched out for eternity or they were the most vainglorious popinjays who ever lived It would explain their taste in clothes I suppose.

Basically the argument from necessity is that for there to be *Nothing* would be impossible. However *Nothing* has to be defined. *Nothing*, for the sake of this Abstract *concept* is the complete and absolute absence of *Anything*, including even the consciousness required to observe and experience it. In effect what is being proposed is an abstract situation which even in this definition could not exist for something to be able to assert it's *NON*- Existence. Once you can grasp this the next step is to accept the premise that this state or condition of Absolute *Nothing*, would out of sheer necessity, require an anti-thesis; Or 'A' *Something*, to counter it with the only thing that could, A State of Absolute *Everything*.

Thus where there is *Something*, there must, out of necessity, be *Everything*.

>Philosophy student here.
Who do you even plan to be with this, тoвapищ? Professional thinker on the meaning of burger flipping?

you sussed it but did you stop shy of acknowledging God?

You are mixing the laws of nature and explanations. Because explanation is the more broad term that contains the laws of nature but is limited or even to them. Explanation "X is because god" or "I am tired" is not the law of nature and cannot be placed in the same row with laws of nature. Even the laws of nature how we express them are very abstract and very arbitrary. Paul Feyerabend wrote a lot about it.

>bit is NOT limited to them or even to them
fix

>a buildup of energy over time
>created time as a result
Really made me think.

The esoteric language was usually because philosophers during that time were often occultists as well.

Teacher. Just like Uebermarginal maybe i will move to USA at some point. Check out his channel, it really makes you think.
youtube.com/channel/UCJ10M7ftQN7ylM6NaPiEB6w/videos

It is relevant because you are giving me a reference frame which contains two states. "Time exists", and "before time exists".

I am making the case that there is no such distinction, and that the "before time exists" category is paradoxical -- how is there a "before" if time doesn't exist?

Truthfully, time is an abstraction we use to delineate continuous events. We know for a fact that time is not "either 0 or 1" but a continuum. You are imposing an arbitrary constraint by saying that there is no time before the creation of our observable universe (big bang event), and that time was 'instantiated' when space was born.

> Do you believe that a chain of causal events regresses into an infinite past, or that the chain had a first "link?"

Imagine if you will that there is a great void outside of our universe. And this void, through reasons I won't get into, has this strange property of creating bubbles of this 'spacetime jelly' if left alone for long enough. So was the 'pop' of spacetime jelly into existence the first link? I think that makes sense, you could call it that. But, there is still 'time' before that incident, which allowed that incident to occur. So yes, it had a first link (for us), and yes, it can be infinitely regressed.

>So explanations exist contingently in the human realm and are not necessarily to the Universe.

But thats the whole point of Philosophy and OUR (Humanities) search for purpose and meaning. If you remove yourself from this through some vain self-expulsion because you think it's a silly pointless exercise you're making a mistake of enormous proportions. The immensley disappointing explanation is that every single person who's ever made an impression on human society and left some kind of an imprint on history *decided* (yes, DECIDED), that this was the the most earth shattering discovery that can be made and to have been able to conceptualise and proove it to yourself means you are one of only a few to have worked it out.

These people include Moses, Jesus, the Buddha and Mohammed.

Seriously, if a young person figureds this out and manages through youthful vanity to dismiss it they are moving toward a dark night of the Soul and possibly madness.

Thats bullshit. Its just playing with words and funny philosophical definitions.
Can you say absolute nothing is inconceivable? Wouldnt that be a quality that describes its non existence?

Dream on !

or it is just us* from the future

*by us I mean the superior slavs

>So, there really is no "time", just relations.

Some terms are de-facto our subjective interpretation of phenomena. The word "relations" may be on of those quirks of human language within we are trapped by way of communicating abstract or Real concepts.

You shouldn't toss out something simply because it fails an objectivity test, in the final analysis we can't communicate in Objective states.

So philosophy is just narcissism.
Well i agree

You aren't getting it, my bongfriend.

The idea that there are two states, "before time", and "now time has started" is antiquated. No one thinks that anymore. The beginning of our universe did not create time, time is just a consistent effect of things being separate from one another.

Even in our universe, time can be stopped or accelerated. Time can be asymmetric.

Imagine a billards table set up for 8ball. A cue ball comes whizzing in, and through all the steps of collisions and transfers of energy, the balls spread out over the table in a certain pattern. Now, if you were to apply those same forces to each one of the balls in those positions, but in the exact opposite direction, they would form a triangle which would kick the cue ball towards you. That's because these are easy, Newtonian interactions.

Not so with time. Events happen in the forward direction which are not symmetric.

There IS time outside our universe. It's the understanding of referential frames in time that prevent most people from seeing it.

>That's it.

The problem I predict for you is if you dismiss good explanations it prevents you from exploring the implications of those explanations. If you've really figured these things out and not just regurgitating someone else you need to press on with the enquiry till you hit a wall.

I say it will be a recognition and awareness that God is Real.

>if life is a simulation
>then there must be a real world
>therefore simulation is irrelevant since you live within the real world

Well said. I don't mean to suggest we "throw out" time because it is not "physically present". You are completely correct when you say we can't communicate objective states.

What I mean to say is that time is an effect and not a cause. It is certainly not 'on' or 'off' as many people seem to suggest.

I didn't said that explanations don't have a point or that we should stop doing philosophy. Philosophy has many applications and one of them is criticizing philosophy itself.
And you are imlying that everyone shares this value of the desire of leaving an imprint on history. Not everyone wants that, because it requires more sacrifices from the person than we can imagine and for the sake of something we would never expirience or know.

It seems reasonable

Not a bad point but it may make it clearer if I take your argument that a conception of this State of Absolute Nothing would necessitate even the absence of a consciousness to conceive it. For the sake of this discussion we have to allow that we can *conceive* it but then you have to admit that *WE* actually Exist and are therefore in a dimension which allows this.

It's not bullshit. This argument is philosophically sound if you can comprehend it without dismissing something because it makes you incredulous.

Not "time exists" and "before time exists."

"Causal" and "causeless."

Everything you state is simply an extension of a causal regress. Whether or not the universe is caused by a bigger part of a wider Universe solves nothing. It merely extends the regress.

You're avoiding my question: does causality have a start, or do you posit an infinite regress?

Also, in effect it *IS* inconceivable because if there is something able to conceive it, something would need to exist.

NO

Philosophy is as close we can coem to God AND keep our physical properties.

But you're beginning to strike me as a wise ass.

Underrated.

>There IS time outside our universe

I'd say it's more accurate to argue there is time beyond *our* perception. Time passes at a different rate for us than for other consciousnesses. A dog or a fly, for example have a very different perception of Time than we do.

would you agree?

Also to describe an event such as you did with reversing that event is an interesting conceptual experiment but it doesn't have much baring on this *our* reality. I mean to say, all the balls moving as if in a reversing video couldn't actually happen *in Reality*.

Although it's totally irrelevant to the Liebniz argument and I feel a bit like I'm feeding a troll here...

I wonder if you're aware that the relativity theory you are postulating has yet to be proven.

>muh clocks slowing in space
Doesn't prove anything about the nature of time, only the nature of clocks.

>leaving an imprint on history

Some people do it on accident and some others again do it despite not wanting to.

What about the elephants? ha didnt think so buddy check mate :^)

because in itself nothing is something, ask kek

>call yourself a doctor in philosophy
>disable comments on your youtube videos

Truly the next Socrates

>Not a single one of us actually exist
>The whole Universe is just a simulation that a brain of some comatose user created in a desperate attempt to let him experience the normal life he will never have
Really makes you go hmmm...

Though you may try to escape it, "causal" (time proceeds) and "causeless" (before this there was no time) are exact synonyms for what I have described. You are still demanding that the state of time is completely 1 (causality) or completely 0 (a made up world where there is not causality).

You are a very clever guy. You must be able to see the absurdity of the question "does causality have a start". How can it have a 'start' if there is no causation?

I answered your question by proposing an infinite regress, inside of which finite events like our universe can occur. So, our universe may have a 'starting link', but that doesn't really matter because causation existed independent from that event.

Remember that photons do not experience time. They exist outside of time, and only appear as timelike curves to us.

A message for those with the ears to hear and the capacity to understand.

A couple of years ago Christianity planted a flag in the virtual plane that Cred Forums inhabits. It wasn't evangelical and it wasn't traditional either. It was a voice that sought to ground the regulars to Reality. The unchallenged hatred, bigotry and scapegoating by the cowards spewing hatred from a 'safe space' retreated a little. The pain of neo-Nazis was expressed in the tone of posts plaintively asking for Christian threads to be removed. Demands that they should be banished to /x/ were ignored. Gradually a character began to be carved out of Cred Forums's vile face that gave some real hope. Jesus began to be memed albeit in a very unconventional and irreverent way.

The expression of this reverence for God and Christianity was like a pulse. It relaxed and surged, waxed and waned, rose and fell but like a breast rising and falling with breath, it never abandoned this profane virtual insane asylum. Despite being attacked relentlessly by the big mouthes and small minds, occasionally, Christianity made this place Shine. Now we can see the ultimate expression of frustrated human desires being brought to life by those same empty voices, desperate for the nightmare of War, the application of blame and the profane sanctity of shedding responsibility.

MAKE NO MISTAKE.

The effervescent joy and enthusiasm with which Pepe is being embraced is Idolatry. The frightening speed it has been promoted, tacitly, by the mainstream media is a mistake. If the mainstream media fails to notice and mention the presence here of God's light it will be complicit in accelerating the growth of this Idolatry and will have failed utterly in it's responsibility *and* a chance to discredit it.

I'm not holding my breath.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thus it comes to pass, that in idolatry all crimes are detected, and in all crimes idolatry.

Tertullian

What we actually refer to as God is pure mythology.

But to persue it like some meaning of life - is a lot different. We always lived in the dark night and madness is what we call order of normal things.
We are moving toward a dark night of the Soul and possibly madness but not because its .

nonsense

...

Indeed belief in God is nonsense.

>imply that the doctor of philosophy isn't open to debate
>doesn't know that the doctor of philosophy has debated more atheists, anti-theists, and agnostics in public on camera that almost anyone alive.

>But to persue it like some meaning of life - is a lot different.

but Im convinced it is *some* people purpose TO pursue it. Jesus for example of others of the prophets. To be perfectly honest I think it's within all of us to some degree but for many of us the distractions work before we've even become aware ofthe possibility we may be the next messenger of God.

That basically makes you a flat earther. I had given you more credibility than that. The nature of clocks? You mean, the nature of cesium atoms? Come on, bro.

Just even this year in June general relativity was absolutely proven by empirical experiment. Hard proof of GE goes back as far as early 1900s with gravitational lensing around our sun.

Thorndike, Sagnac, interferometry has basically proved SE (special) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Saying that relativity hasn't been proven is exactly like saying "WHERES THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN HUMANS AND APES?". Please.

>>imply that the doctor of philosophy isn't open to debate

Apparently not, or else he wouldn't disable his comments

The logical argument has not been proved true.

If you believe in a "God" of any sort and use the Liebniz Contigency argument, then you aren't a religious nutcase.

However, the cosmological argument cannot answer "What was the cause of God's existence?" In other words, if the universe was made by God, who made God argument cannot be answered. The funniest defense against this was one man who said that someone made God and to infinum but this person surely do not understand what infinity means.

In my opinion saying that this chain of someone created God that goes on forever occurs because the argument is not complete.

newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm

Eventually you'll conclude what the Roman Catholics figured out a looooooog time ago

Do you believe in God (for want of a better way of asking)?

Brainlets cant learn my friend

Also, it starts out with there must be a cause for there to be an effect.

Which is an assumption that is believed to be true. But this isn't necessarily true. What about disorder and randomness? The assumption is baseless which further discredits the entire hypothesis.

>inb4 someone tells me randomness doesn't exist.

Some people probably were convinced also but we don't know about them. What if there was another martyr of Jesus-level who died and we just don't know about him because all information was abolished. Why did he die if we all forgot about him? For what? We are ungrateful because many of people have died even among our ancestors - people of our blood(literally) and we forgot about their names, even though we continue their bloodline. Maybe they also believed in something great, did something sencere and changed world for the better - but we forgot. Even Jesus, the Buddha and Mohammed.could have died and we would forget about them if not for some circumstances.

...

I have always seen this as a problem of definition.
What exactly is God anyway? Nobody seems to be able to clearly define "God".

Why not define
God = Universe

Time is irrelevant.

There is only cause and effect. Within or without a time bound universe.

When TRUE
Then ACTION

IF Y THEN X

These causes and effects exist in software before it is compiled and run - that is time is applied.

Yet if this randomness in fact existed the dense layer of casual relations required for us to breathe would not be true and we would not be here,

Except they aren't at all synonyms, which is why you keep attempting to restate them using new terminology and metaphors.

If causal events are an infinite regress, then an infinite number of causal events preceded this discussion. Is that your position?

>photons
Neither does the number 5. Not relevant.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

If randomness does not exist explain the cause of the position of an electron in electron clouds?

In randomness does not exist then how is it possible for an electron to be a few picometers from the atom's nucleus to millions of kilometers away? Its not probable but it can happen. i.e. Randomness.

Explain Heisenberg's principle.

Explain any of quantum physics without randomness.

Explain thermodynamics

No, it doesn't say anything about cesium atoms. Only the nature of clocks. This is basic logic. All that any of the relativistic experiments have ever proven is that the clocks tested slow down at speed.

To argue that this proves anything about "time" is simply untrue. To argue that it does say something about "time" is an irrational leap.

I'm sorry that this redpill is difficult for you.

Who cares.

The ultimate redpill is absurdism:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Design.

>le spaiis-time-matter

Absolute philistine detected. Do you get your understanding of physics from yt videos?

There's no "outside the universe", we can only perceive a physical world constricted by the logic of space and time, but that doesn't mean that something is "out there", or what's "out there" doesn't have similar laws.

Maybe we're living in only one of many cosmic bubbles created by "big bangs", but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with God.

And once again, BY DEFINITION the universe is all existence. Not region of space/time that has some connection by cosmogenetic determination or some other physiconomical relation. Universe was the name people gave to THE EVERYTHING.

No, it doesn't say anything about cesium atoms. Only the nature of clocks. This is basic logic. All that any of the relativistic experiments have ever proven is that the clocks tested slow down at speed.

To argue that this proves anything about "time" is simply untrue. To argue that it does say something about "time" is an irrational leap.

I'm sorry that this redpill is difficult for you.

Here's something for you to have some fun with: youtube.com/watch?v=n8VBvx-TM34

Bingo. That and discoveries yet to be made.

If God created everything, Who created God?

this

Yes.

What I have said before is fact, what follows is my personal feeling.

I believe the fundamental impetus of the universe is not only the Newtonian machinations of objects crashing into one another and the thoughtless movement of energy from one place to another like water circling a drain.

I believe that outside the universe is a great void of QFD, an infathomable wonton soup in which spacetime-like jellies like our universe float around, are born, and dissolve back into nothing.

I am not sure, but I think it is possible, these jellies like ours represent massive collections of Bloch spheres which may encode consciousness. That's a leap I wouldn't put it in the "nope" category, because reasons.

I also believe there is nothing particularly special or pre-designed about humanity, and in our system, clouds of hydrogen left alone for long enough become stars and planets and cells and eventually the hydrogen becomes smart. I think it would be silly and inconsistent to suggest we are the only products of that process which occurs everywhere in our observable universe. As above, so below.

here is a picture of a moth which has learned to look exactly like the shit of the bird that eats it. the moth has no conceptions of birds or shit -- the bird has literally painted it's concept of what it's shit looks like onto body of the moth, because it recognizes it as something it doesn't want to eat. i am 75% sure our universe is alive, and it's having a great time.

Try string harmonics oscillaton you clown.

I detect a reddit tier 'sceientist'

I'm sorry. Would you continue arguing with someone who says the earth is 6,000 years old? You refuse axioms which are absolutely fundamental and without them, there is no way we can continue.

You are like a flat earther. I will keep responding to you, but you have completely damaged your credibility beyond any hope of recovery.

Look at that video you sent me. Instead of addressing his critique of special relativity interferometry experiments, let me include this image, which will demonstrate there is no need.

"Things that exist necessarily" are just concepts, and can't really do anything. Even if there had to be a cause for the universe, there is no reason to assume it's God.

But what is God?
What do you mean when you use that word?

I use the common definition of the word. I don't see any need to complicate this.

/thread

>(((Leibniz)))

I have never heard any definition that is not vague and/or not "just concepts".

Axioms which are fundamental to what? Give me an example of a technology that fundamentally relies on relativity.

The video is only a demonstration of Sagnac, which you alluded to, not me.

That you are incapable of separating the experiment you referenced and its conclusions from a YouTube personality who happens to present it shows a great deal about your intellectual rigor.

>image
Are you now arguing that, historically, the state of mainstream science has not been one of dogma to the exclusion of outside concepts? If you agree that it has, what is your evidence for the current state of affairs being any different? Oh, of course, you are immune to dogmatic thinking.

I became a lawyer with it.

Ok, forget about the word "god", it's not really important. My point is that we can't really ascribe ANY quality to this "cause of the universe" because the only thing we really know about it is that it created the universe(if we're supposing Leibniz' argument is valid). Therefore, it's ridiculous to assume it would fit any definition of the word "god".

The prime mover
That which began the casual chain

If God
Everything

Forget the universe.

Dimensions themselves.

>technology that fundamentally relies on relativity

Electromagnets

It is an attribute of God
That does not disprove God

I'll add that geocentricity has some validity to a point: to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun is simply a false simplification. The two revolve around each other. Or will you now argue that the Earth exerts no pull on the sun?

>muh minute size

Irrelevant. That they pull on one another is a fundamental point of gravity. Gravity never exerts influence on an object that doesn't exert influence back. This is in fact a key point of those who refute relativity - light cannot "bend" due to gravity if it is massless, yet it is expected to bend around stars (gravitational lensing). This is a contradiction in logic that can only be solved by imagining a new non-entity - that of space-time. Which itself is entirely dogmatic and can never be demonstrated scientifically.

In no way requires the theory of relativity.

>The Universe couldn't have come from nothing, therefore God created it

>Who created God? He came from nothing, obviously

Does it not seem terribly redundant then?
In fact, why insist upon a causal chain in the first place?

Because it is logical.

I think the fedora tip goes to the one who wrongly summarizes an argument in an attempt to straw man it, and then fails to posit a better argument.

The answer is God has always been. No matter which way you cut it you will come to that which is a prime mover and initiated the casual chain. From that came everything.

Note one implication is that dimension were formed as part of a casual chain and therefore

*may be created*

He says that the universe exists contingently not necessarily, but doesn't give a good explanation for it, Leibniz probably did but not the narrator. He pretty much says that all the things in the universe contingently exist, so the universe must contingently exist.

Let's make a dimension

We need some energy or matter (same) and the correct frequency or it to make a standing harmonic wave that creates the Cred Forums dimension.

Then we can send /x there.

Can someone phone CERN and tell them we need a load of it?

I actually agree with you. Not sure this video does the actual argument complete justice, but it deserves a better explanation.

>The answer is God has always been
If you accept that God exist can exist without a creator, then you have to accept that the universe can exist without a creator. You can just argue causality and then claim "but the rules don't apply to my guy!"

Remember, 14 billion years is only the amount of time that the universe has been expanding. Not the age of the universe itself. Who's to say that the Universe hasn't been expanding and contracting forever?

>What ever created the universe must exist outside of time and space
How the fuck does something that exists outside of the presence of time "cause" anything? "causing" something requires time to exist already.

Also why exactly can the universe not "necessarily exist"? He simply claims that it can't and moves on.

The universe is such a laughable small matter in the chain of creation that your fixation on it is a little alarming. We are discussing something that exists outside of time and therefore outside of casual relationships that was the prime mover. Think harder.

As the prime mover exists outside of time and set the chain of events that caused time to be it existed before time and is outside it.

Why not eliminate God altogether and say that the universe has always been? Or choose to equate God with the universe.

After all, the fact that something exists is that which prompts us to bring up "God" in the first place. As if the ultimate purpose of this entity is to explain creation with a creator, instead of admitting openly that creator and creation are one.

>expanding and contracting forever

In this scenario, there would be an infinite amount of time in our past history. How long would it take to get to this moment?

Forever. Which means we would have never actually gotten to "now," we'd still be somewhere in the "forever." In fact, no specific point in time would ever be achievable, since every point would necessitate an infinite amount of prior time (or prior events if you prefer).

This is the mathematical paradox of an infinite past, and is one of the major reasons physicists and mathematicians are hellbent on having a beginning.

What caused the dimensions and time to come into being?

See

>As the prime mover exists outside of time and set the chain of events that caused time to be it existed before time and is outside it.
How does something "move" something or "cause" something without the presence of time? You can't have events like "moving" or "causing" without time.

Time cannot be "caused" to come into being. Time must already be present in order for something to be "caused". It's like asking what "caused" a circle to exist. The concept of a circle does not require the presence of time. It exists simply as a necessity of logic.

Then how does that paradox not apply to God?

Not if God is the causeless cause, or in other words is outside of time.

Did you not watch the video? All of this should be obvious by now...

They simply are?

We ahev for the sake of analogy a piece of code saying

If X then Y

The prime mover executes it. The causal chain can exist outside of time

That is one aspect of God.

Enjoy

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

Try and realise that you neck beards are trying to get your head around something the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church got to in 1274.

How can God "cause" the universe if he exists outside of time?

LOL

As you 'simply' are?

Silly. They are just as much of a causal chain as you are.

If you accept that a causeless cause can exist, then you don't believe in the fundamental tenets of causality

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Its disingenuous.

"If X then Y" has nothing to do with causality though.

If I say "If the radius of a circle is 1 then the circumference must be 6.28" does that imply to you that the radius of a circle "causes" the circumference to be a certain length?

>If X then Y

The cause and effect can exist before execution.

See God

see

I fucking love Leibniz.

>How long would it take to get to this moment?

Again, this presupposes that we are actually "going" anywhere, and that we started "somewhere".

The better question is: what do we call the entity that initiated causal time, knowing that without a cause, time is an impossible paradox?

We call that entity God.

Now you're asking "how can God..." However, that is not the purpose of the Leibniz argument and is well outside its scope. It is a simple proof only concerned with the first cause.

Is it does - precisely.

Take a cause and effect, define them and then remove time and you have if x then y waiting to go.

Its a perfectly good analogy especially for a board ridded with coders,

>what do we call the entity that initiated causal time
As I said, you cannot "initiate" causal time, because time must eslready exist for events to occur such as "initialisation". The question is no better, it has the exact same problem.

No, it is presupposing that we never started. That was the whole point. If we never started, we have an infinite regress, which is a paradox.

No you are either choosing to ignore what I have described or you are trying not to understand it.

It's not a debate I'm afraid. You can either understand it out you tap out and go to reddit.

Done

>knowing that without a cause, time is an impossible paradox?
that's a specious claim

Without a cause, God is an impossible paradox.

>Take a cause and effect, define them and then remove time
you can't remove time. Cause and effect are both dependant on the concept of time.

It's like trying to trying to define the concepts of acceleration and deceleration and them remove the concept of moving.

>you cannot initiate causal time
Of course I can't. I never claimed to be God, or the uncased cause (if you prefer).

I meant logically, time cannot be initialised. Events cannot occur without the presence of time.

Wtf are you smoking you dirty potato nigger?

I believe that paradox only aplies if the events happens in a continuous manner, the idea is that the universe is in a infinite closed loop.

Best leaf post I've seen in months.

>without a cause, God is an impossible paradox

You'll have to support this with logic. Can you?

We've already defined God as the causeless cause of the universe. This is in fact the only non-paradoxical explanation. That's the whole point of the Leibniz argument...

>that's a specious claim
I was a bit sloppy with my wording, but I think you understand what I mean. Time itself isn't the paradox, but being in the "now" is. Which means our existence is, as explained earlier. This is only assuming an infinite regress...

BTW the formula for the circumference of a circle is not a conditional operator and not a casual effect.

As regards what I smoke.

Marlboro lights.

Thanks for asking.

Causality. The only thing certain in the universe.

>We've already defined God as the causeless cause of the universe.
If that's what God is, then where did space and time come from?

And God.

>BTW the formula for the circumference of a circle is not a conditional operator and not a casual effect.
No shit sherlock. That was my point.

God is another name for causality.

Then you are arguing for an infinite regress of time (time has always been).

Which means you are now in the infinite regress paradox.

And Knuckles

WOW GUYS

how do you not know that

d/dx(f(x)) = lim x=> a f(x) - f(a) / x - a

>This is in fact the only non-paradoxical explanation
no it isn't

If you can accept that God exists without cause, then you have to accept that anything can exist without cause. You can't use causality as proof of something that contradicts causality.

t. epistemist.
Go back to the very biginning, drop notions of big bang or physics.
Either there is a first cause or there is an imfinite chain of causes.

>Then you are arguing for an infinite regress of time
No

Part of the causal chain along with everything else.

Grand job.

From that which caused them, which we are calling God.

The causal chain can only exist when time already exists though.

What I am trying to point out is that there is no infinite past because there is no such thing as the past in the first place. There is only the present. That is, you are always in the "now".

So you nee a conditional operator to have an analogy with a casual effect outside time.

If God
Then everything.

Execute.

Then you.

Hello.

Get to mass you little shit!

how can "time" be "caused". How can you cause something when time does not yet exist?

look into cellular automata
There are examples where a set of very simple rules suddenly generates a very complex and seemingly chaotic structure. There are also examples where a very regular structure can turn into chaotic one and start expanding.

My theory is that the Big Bang is really just a start of such chaotic expanding structure from a relatively regular state, and the Universe might be much older (infinitely?) than this, our Big Bang is just a local event

That is existing

Leibniz is arguing that the Universe was caused, as was everything in it. Simply saying "but you can't" doesn't refute the logic. That's why Leibniz' argument has been around as long as it has. If you think "no you can't" is adequate then you just don't understand the argument. I'm sorry about that.

The whole point is that the Universe's cause is outside the Universe, that is how it is able to cause the Universe. It is therefore outside of time since time is an attribute of causality.

No, the argument has multiple holes in it. For instance, math would not exist without the universe existing. Also, the concept of creation itself and the concepts spoken in the argument did not exist until the universe existed. The universe is where beings are, it is where math is, it is where CREATION is. You not use it's self to explain itself, which is what a creator is.

You are struggling with the place of times creation in the causal chain. Think about it.

The argument you are presenting is trite.

You arrive back at a prime mover.

Science in no way disagrees.

Causality is inherent to science.

That's an objectively stupid argument.

Necessity existence is fucking retarded as it literally states it exists because it exists, thus destroying the entirety of the rest of his argument.

Also, God can not be a necessity as the universe does not NEED to be made, therefore if he only exists to create the universe then he may as well be part of it, and what made God for this purpose?

>So you nee a conditional operator to have an analogy with a casual effect outside time.
Which was a terrible analogy because it didn't make sense.

>If God
>Then everything.
>Execute.

This is a programming metaphor? In programming that means you are running the program as a series of instructions. That's what a program is. To be able to "execute" a program, time must exist. Even if you are just running it in some hypothetical manner, each line of code must run in a defined order. That requires time to be present.

It's retarded to assume that universe can't exist "out of necessity" meanwhile "God" can.

The universe is actually impossible without dimensions and time.

I still think its wonderful the fact that the popping into existence of the dimensions means that if the conditions were mirrored and altered we could create new dimensions.

>math would not exist without the universe

Evidence?

This

You can't say the assistance of one thing is because of necessity and turn around to demand an explanation for another.

Yes he may be in it now but he was before anything. Thus the prime mover.

*Existence

Math needs consciousness.
Dogs cant into matrix theory

If the prime mover can exist outside of causality, then anything can exist outside of causality.

Causality itself might be a paradox, but it isn't proof of God. If you need to break your only rule (all effects have causes) in order to explain existence, then your philosophy is inconsistent.

YES

To execute it time must come into being.

But time is not required for the conditional operator to exist prior to execution.

LET THERE BE LIGHT

If there was nothing there wouldn't be an argument about it's existence. It's fucking easy.

Mathematics have many uses across any possible universe to be created.

If god was simply made to create the universe he is not an entity of necessity thus he should not exist.

Jeb!

You can because time pops into existence as part o the causal chain. That's where it ends. At the prime mover who exited outside time is and always has been..

True to a degree, but 1+1 still makes 2 no matter what is in the universe

So 2+2 =/= 4 before consciousness evolved?

Also, you are assuming that the causeless cause has no conscious. Leibniz does not address this specifically to my knowledge in this argument, but the use of the term "being" is certainly suggestive.

We are back to there being a prime mover that instigated time. It is one attribute of God not the sole attribute.

>But time is not required for the conditional operator to exist prior to execution.
My point exactly. You can describe these things without time, but you can never "run the program" without time. It's like trying to run a program to start your computer, on the computer itself which cannot run any program until it's turned on.

Again you lack the critical conditional operator for an analogy with a causal relationship.

In essence though you are correct. Outside time 2+2 is just sitting there waiting for the prime movement before it can later due to nature of creation have the answer 4.

>The universe exists
>Everything has an explanation
>The explanation for the universe is God
>Math is a concept of necessity

Does the universe need to exist?
If No:God does not need to exist
If Yes:Why?

Sometimes it makes 10.

2+2=4 does not require the presence of time m8

Correct.

You still have a prime movement. Time is relative to what?

It does require some predefined axioms though.

>Time is relative to what?
Time must start before the time movement. If that's what you're asking.

Actually we only know 2+2 to not equal a for example random or infinite number because we reflect the non chaotic nature of the universe in our reasoning.

I don't disagree

Time is relative to everything.

The observer is the answer.

Time is relative to the observer.

>we only know 2+2 to not equal a for example random or infinite number because we reflect the non chaotic nature of the universe in our reasoning.
wat

We're pretty confident that 2+2=4 m8

what do you mean by "relative" in this context?

easy. there are atomic facts about the world that either were always there or were subject to change. Perhaps energy is a variable that changes depending on "realms".
Energy exists in space-time, but energy is a physical entity we label. This something may be "nothing" to another being.
Entities have identities. They preserve certain structures, isomorphisms. they are descriptions of a singular environment. nothing (amorphous) and something (sharp). Boils down to philosophy of language.

Actually we know 2+2 to equal whatever we want it to equal. But using the commonly defined axioms of natural numbers we know for a certainty that 2+2 equals 4. Not 3 or 5. 2 and 6 are completely out of the question.

Just runs the contingency argument back another step, it doesn't address the problem. It is an unnecessary step. It may be a true step, but not a necessary step, since whether we are a simulation in a computer in another Universe, we could as well be a 'simulation' in the mind of disembodied God and the physics in our Universe would look the same.

>>ITT: I just saw "The Matrix"

Savage movie in fairness

So given that God exists what can we know about God?

1)The conditional aspect of causality existed outside of time
2)The first observer of time was that which contained the conditional aspect of causality prior to execution

He's wrong when he states that abstract objects cannot cause, this means that god has some competition, and in fact, he may just be the competition. You see, the reason why people can say our universe may be a simulation is because we can represent everything as information. Because of this, the objects themselves are necessarily the information they contain since one implies the other, they are two sides of teh same coin. Due to this, people may assert that this is a simulation, but this causes infinite regression of possibilities, and not to mention that information is just processed data. The string of numbers 10110 can mean two different things to two different processors (10110 vs 22) , or alternatively that the shape of the molecules in your body, when processed, are a simulation of something. Just because there is no monitor to show you the mapping from data to information, this does not mean that the information doesn't exist, just that it isn't accessible. This essentially means is that any data set can be any information if the mapping or construction from the data to the information is sufficient (try mapping natural numbers to the reals, but notice how you can still construct the reals from the naturals). The natural numbers can form by starting with an empty set (aka something from nothing) and then finding the power set of the universe to create the set that contains the empty set, and then the set that contains that set and so forth mapping these sets to 0, 1, 2 and so forth. My proposition is that this naturally occurring set is the data set from which the universe's information is processed from, after all, even an omnipotent being needs data to create information.

Does pure logic as metaphysical concept exist without matter or energy or time?

Honestly The Universe was created by a force that exists by necessity, and I would consider this God. Essentially God must exist.

Yes.

Your rules only work in a Universe in which existence is.

this leaf gets it. makes liebniz look kinda retarded

>Hey guys, what if "God" is the big bang? I'm not an atheist! I just redefine the word "God" to be something that is not an omnipotent intelligent being that has a direct interest and influence over human affairs.

You are saying: "Universe must always exist because otherwise I wouldn't be here to observe it not existing." And that's retarded. Non-existence does not need anything to confirm that it is in fact so.

Besides, it is completely possible that our whole universe has a total energy of 0. It is possible that we are simply a temporary error in total emptiness. The total emptiness itself clearly has some rules, though, but maybe it's a 0 of its own bigger whole too.

I'm not sure why this was directed at me, but ok...

There is something rather than nothing because there *must* be something.
Speaking of nothing is actually nonsensical in the first place, as there cannot be a state of affairs in which there is not something.
You can create a linguistic token for the opposite of something - a not-something - but it can't be substantiated. It's not just simply that there *is* something, since you could argue "well why couldn't there also be nothing?". It's that there *MUST* be something *NECESSARILY*.

Imagine a box. The box is so empty that it contains nothing. We now have an imaginary entity of nothing, proving your first point wrong. Nothing forces that nothing to be nothing else than nothing, therefore there must not necessarily be a must for something.

That nothingness is inconceivable actually lends it credibility. That is in fact an excellent quality to describe its non-existence.

A conception of this State of Absolute Nothing would necessitate even the absence of a consciousness to conceive it.

Hence nothingness is a possible state.

There's something in that scenario - namely the box - because something must necessarily exist in any describable state of affairs.

>That nothingness is inconceivable actually lends it credibility
Bruh...

>1+1 still makes 2 no matter what is in the universe
That's the intuition most people have, but it's far from being so clearcut. A whole branch of philosophy studies these questions, look up mathematical platonism and nominalism for a start.

Why would it be necessary for nothingness to be inconceivable? It's not, that's stupid.

>but it's far from being so clearcut
So describe for me a circumstance in which 1+1 =/= 2, where those tokens all mean exactly what they are understood to mean.

Feel free to not imagine the box then. Or do this: imagine only one thing. Now imagine that the one thing is not there.

You still don't even begin to get what I'm saying.

So I'm imagining something.
Where's the nothing, exactly?

>where those tokens all mean exactly what they are understood to mean.
Those meanings are called axioms. Probably Peano axioms, about 10 of them. And with those axioms there is absolutely no such circumstance where 1+1 != 2. Not even an omnipotent god could come up with such a circumstance.

Nowhere if your imagination is not running wild.

You still don't get the Leibniz argument, I'm afraid.

If God were responsible for logic (and He would be if indeed He created everything) then He could presumably have made the world in such a way as to make 1+1 =/= 2 by our understood meanings of those tokens.
But I don't think either that He either did or that He will change anything, so it's fairly irrelevant for our purposes.

>nothing is nowhere
Because something is necessary~

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
easy.

We were born in the something, the nothing must exist outside of it.

I'd rather say that the universe is impossible to deform, fracture, or damage, since it composes all things in their fluous states of orbits and collisions, there's nothing to damage that far out except the basic laws of force and attraction.

Imagining the nonexistance of the universe implies understanding the basic laws to point of being able to postulate and envision what their lack or deformation would cause.

And a broken universe, that is, a separate universe wherein the laws are something else entirely is far more difficult to imagine than some Seussian daydream

Logic does not work that way. A set of axioms defines how things are and how they conclude. If god uses those same axioms, it doesn't matter how powerful he is or how he defines logic. For him 1+1 is still going to be 2.

And the fact that the definition of nothing is in your head does not mean that the nothing itself has to be somewhere. Just because nothing is nowhere does not mean that something is necessary. Nothing starts from a non-existing point and radiates outwards until it contains all of the nowhere. It is nothing and it is nowhere.

Space time is deformed all the time. And black holes can be considered fractures and damage to spacetime.

saved

Let me refine it to even simpler terms:

>We began in some thing; no thing must exist outside it

More simply:
we = are
are != not

Star Ocean Till the End of Time was a terrible game and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You don't have to necessarily accept any given axiom. They're axioms.
God doesn't necessarily use those axioms - He can use (or not use) any He pleases. We can as well, though we generally abide by ones innate to logic because they produce sensible outputs.

Not-something cannot be instantiated m8.
There has never been a not-something, nor will there ever be a not-something.

SO3 was a great game.

deformation of spacetime is a natural consequence of gravity, baryonic force is a law, and from what I understand of the models of black holes, a temporary fracture of spacetime is one explanation of how the phenomena is supposed to work

spacetime itself is not an intrinsic law if you can imagine it breaking without the whole universe becoming something different entirely, it's simply a structural medium afaik

now tell me how to deform gravitation force and I'll give you some acknowledgement, actually, that hurts to think about because I don't really understand what goes into the problem

Unfortunately it all falls down when you realize that Leibniz has no way to prove that the existence of the universe is contingent on something else. If his theoretical god exists necessarily, why couldn't the universe?

We had already made the assumption that god understands numbers as we do, i.e. axiomatically. And we do not define axioms based on logic. Logic is simply the procedure of following those axioms to their conclusion. It is the process itself. How sensible or nonsensical it is depends on the axioms, which were already fixed.

If you are still following along, you'll note this logic means "no thing" does not exist. Once it is part of our experience, it is a thing. Diogenes has a great quote about this.

>About 'emptiness'

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea’ of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups. “I can see the cups on the table,” said Diogenes, “but I can’t see the `cupness'”. “That’s because you have the eyes to see the cup,” said Plato, “but”, tapping his head with his forefinger, “you don’t have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness’.” Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, “Is it empty?” Plato nodded. “Where is the `emptiness’ which precedes this empty cup?” asked Diogenes. Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato’s head with his finger, said “I think you will find here is the `emptiness’.

This seems true, but the appeal is simply that the "it just is" argument is viewed as absurd when applied to anything else, so it should be absurd when applying it to the Universe.

If the Universe gets a special exception, then this is in fact a new religious dogma. It is not scientific.

what if his theoretical god exists necessarily because it is contingent upon the universe?

Because the sum of our understanding of physics and natural processes tells us that everything has a beginning and an end, so how could the universe as a thing which exists defy all the laws we can observe within it?

God must have created the universe

>diogenes
the precursor to all imageboard bantz

>We had already made the assumption that god understands numbers as we do
I didn't. You did.
God precedes and is responsible for every fiber of epistemological, methodological, and metaphysical framework we can possible imagine or not imagine, and can warp them to His whim in ways we very well may not be able to conceive. Denial of such is a denial of omnipotence.
Propositional logic contains axioms. The entire framework of "if... then" is based on a commitment to axioms that do indeed determine "if... then".

came here to post this

This is why I posted way above that referring to God as "a thing" is an absurd contradiction and displays the inability to comprehend Leibniz' argument.

Clearly God is not a "thing." The Universe, however, is.

>Because the sum of our understanding of physics and natural processes tells us that everything has a beginning and an end
Good point.

Except that's not at all true.

Leibniz was Christian.

>the more you know

God is literally defined as a "being" in that video. How is a being not a thing?

checked

What if the multiverse theory is true, and like math for one universe to exist another opposite must as well.

For to have the number 6 you must have 12345789 etc.

The theory goes that there is a universe because of the existence of no universe.

Good argument, except you didn't offer one.

Do we know of anything that exists that doesn't have an end? No, and since beginnings and ends are contingent upon each other, we can infer that there was a beginning, and something outside of the beginning must have set the initial spark.

Oh for fucks sake. You can't join a conversation and start from a clean slate. Yes, I defined that if god understands numbers as we do, then 1+1=2. Of course he can define numbers in other ways and get different results, but so can I. Basing your argument on that is really damn retarded.

>not at all true
Name a natural process that hasn't at all a beginning or an end.

I swear, it's like kek is thumbing his nose at me, the way I get while posting the most inane comments.

expansion of space time does not have an end based on our best theories.

You're the one who jumped in to a conversation. You responded to me, while I was posting in response to someone else entirely.
My point is that God can make 1+1 =/= 2 by the *very same* understanding we have of those terms. If He couldn't He would not be omnipotent.