Tillich inspired cosmologocal style argument

[Metacrock]

If you ask a question to which there's only one conceivable answer, isn't that a problem?

What's the explanation of the universe?
The only explanation is ENGOB.
ENGOB is by definition God.

that is nonsense do you think atheists to agree thirst's the only alternative? if theta were there would be no atheists, you sound like an atheist saying having a belief is begging the question,

Moreover I didn't ask a question i'm making a propositional statement,.

Questions can be implicit.

Which other explanation would there be for why there is anything at all, including gravity, relativistic quantum fields and the laws of QM themselves, rather than nothing at all? What else could explain all of this other than something like ENGOB? At most, atheists might explain how particles pop into existence out of these other things because they assume that the "anyTHING" in the question must be something like a particle. If you really pinned atheists down about this, the ones that had the honesty and intelligence to really respond, they'd most likely say that there is no reason why, that there's no reason to seek a reason why. This is what HRG et al on CARM said when pressed about it. They try to delegitimize the question or at least the need for the question. This is precisely what Russell said against Copleston. Even Lawrence Krauss, a hardline scientismic atheist, admits that "you can ask why forever," which implies that there's no answer to the why that he would accept.

there is nothing question begging about asking a question that has a best answer.

[Metacrock]

there can't ever be an argument that has one best answer, I just think that is wrong.It's not like asking which creator made the universe? re structure it to say7 being has to be, that;s the something,there's nothing question begging about saying being is eternal because something can't come from nothing,

[Jim B.]

there is nothing question begging about asking a question that has a best answer.

If it's a best answer, that suggests that there are others. What are the other answers? Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

[Metacrock]

there is nothing question begging about asking a question that has a best answer.

If it's a best answer, that suggests that there are others. What are the other answers? Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

what did ai say abouit other answers? I said there were none? Or did i say I didn't know them?

Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

we could, is that the est answer?

[Jim B.]

there is nothing question begging about asking a question that has a best answer.

If it's a best answer, that suggests that there are others. What are the other answers? Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

what did ai say abouit other answers? I said there were none? Or did i say I didn't know them?

There's a difference between "best" and "only". If you say that x is the best answer to y, that implies that there are other answers to y that are at least arguably true.

Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

we could, is that the est answer?[/quote]

Maybe. But that would contradict Tillich where he says that depth IS God. For Tillich, it's not another answer; it's the same answer in different words.

[met]

All S/TP that we observe seems to need causes

Okay, this is the aspect of it that quantum theory makes so doubt-able. IE the observations of "spooky action at a distance" & the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM with phenomena actually being "caused" by our observations rather than the other way around.... It's a big mess at that level.

How about no IRC, but instead a BCL ("Big Causal Loop")? Like in, oh, a whole bunch of Dr Who episodes over the years?

It is possible for spin zero particles to travel faster than the speed of light when tunnelling. This apparently violates the principle of causality, since there will be a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left. However, careful analysis of the transmission of the wave packet shows that there is actually no violation of relativity theory. In 1998, Francis E. Low reviewed briefly the phenomenon of zero time tunnelling.More recently experimental tunnelling time data of phonons, photons, and electrons have been published by Günter Nimtz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_t ... than_light

Can you just ignore this stuff?

[Metacrock]

All S/TP that we observe seems to need causes

Okay, this is the aspect of it that quantum theory makes so doubt-able. IE the observations of "spooky action at a distance" & the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM with phenomena actually being "caused" by our observations rather than the other way around.... It's a big mess at that level.

How about no IRC, but instead a BCL ("Big Causal Loop")? Like in, oh, a whole bunch of Dr Who episodes over the years?

It is possible for spin zero particles to travel faster than the speed of light when tunnelling. This apparently violates the principle of causality, since there will be a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left. However, careful analysis of the transmission of the wave packet shows that there is actually no violation of relativity theory. In 1998, Francis E. Low reviewed briefly the phenomenon of zero time tunnelling.More recently experimental tunnelling time data of phonons, photons, and electrons have been published by Günter Nimtz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_t ... than_light

Can you just ignore this stuff?

there's no empirical data to back that up. self caused causes are total bull shit,

[moksha]

All S/TP that we observe seems to need causes

Okay, this is the aspect of it that quantum theory makes so doubt-able. IE the observations of "spooky action at a distance" & the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM with phenomena actually being "caused" by our observations rather than the other way around.... It's a big mess at that level.

How about no IRC, but instead a BCL ("Big Causal Loop")? Like in, oh, a whole bunch of Dr Who episodes over the years?

It is possible for spin zero particles to travel faster than the speed of light when tunnelling. This apparently violates the principle of causality, since there will be a frame of reference in which it arrives before it has left. However, careful analysis of the transmission of the wave packet shows that there is actually no violation of relativity theory. In 1998, Francis E. Low reviewed briefly the phenomenon of zero time tunnelling.More recently experimental tunnelling time data of phonons, photons, and electrons have been published by Günter Nimtz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_t ... than_light

Can you just ignore this stuff?

there's no empirical data to back that up. self caused causes are total bull shit,

No empirical data for god either.
Why is it bull shit?
Why is IRC not an answer?

[Jim B.]

there is nothing question begging about asking a question that has a best answer.

If it's a best answer, that suggests that there are others. What are the other answers? Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

what did ai say abouit other answers? I said there were none? Or did i say I didn't know them?

Why can't we say that another answer is that being has depth, it has an abysmal power to be? And that these are necessary but not sufficient attributes of God?

we could, is that the est answer?

I just wanted to know if you knew any other possible explanations for why there's something rather than nothing. I'm not accusing you of anything. I would like to know if there are any. If we follow Tillich, I don't see any other possible explanations(?)

[met]

What I was thinking --in a Catherine Keller /MJR arc of deconstruction--was "why is something just assumed to be the opposite of nothing?" How do we oppose nullity? Is the opposite of 'none,' 'one', or 'some', or both, or either?

So, what if, instead of "something" with all its implicit unity, there were actually "some things" with no ultimate causal ground shared between them? How would that be different? (Would it be an ICR, even tho it doesn't seem like it?) and, if it's not different, how can you avoid the totalizing implications ( of the PSR) that already seems implicit in the phrase, 'ground of being'?

Also, if there are no (other) self-causing causes, as Meta says elsewhere, how can there ever be free will?