Jackson

I do not think that. One way to think about nothingness is to associate it with randomness. Things occur without without being caused by prior events.

My argument is that is has never been proven. It is just a tenet.

Old argument which cannot be proven. For another perspective look at Leibniz's argument that God could have left the universe is a state of nothingnes...

The problem of infinite regress. If you use the logic of design then the question is who designed the designer.

Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular.

Yes, that could be a belief of theists.

Perhaps, but I do not think so. The universe exists, we know that. Whether it has a cause is not as certain.

Why does it need to be caused?

The universe can exist without being caused.

Not a hallucination, We don't see it as continuous, just imagine it.

It is fine to discuss your interests. I was only referring to proofs of God failing to prove anything.

This is not my question nor topic of thread. But discussion of your interests is fine.

No, you did not misread.

Some of us actually read philosophy. Not you, eh.

You will be ignored from now on.

If God exists and does not want to be discovered, then there is nothing to talk about.

Why is nothingness expected?

What theocratic government has been successful?

Because theocracy never works.

To prevent theocracy.

I do not know what "the circle is closed" means.

Yes, I am saying there is not evidence.

Agree with that.

Moral values are "often" shaped by religion, But where do religious values come from? That is the unanswered question.

Bad metaphysics. They made existence into a question.

Yes, agree.

Hegel brought this to my attention. The ancient greeks asked what the nature of God is. The Christians (Moderns) made God into a proposition about whe...

God explains why there is existence.

As Plato would say, it is good to be good. God is the Platonic idea.

Yes, agree with that argument.

Theological arguments assume existence must have a cause.

That than which nothing greater can be conceived. But also, the falacious argument that existing is better than not existing, there fore God exists.

What is that?

Proofs for God were used by early Church theologians to get people to convert to their religion. Now, why would they want--force--others to convert?

If God is powerful and could prevent suffering then he is cruel. If God is not powerful and cannot prevent suffering then he is impotent.

Good times.

Alive in the sense of being a creative process. Where intelligence is natural and artificial.

Computer processes things. If the universe is a process then where do its inputs come from. A difference machine which has randomness in it.

Good, I agree. Leibniz was to the first of think of the entire universe as a computer. Feeding off itself.

I reject the logic of creation.

Yes, and this I contest.

Why does there have to be a reason?

If the universe always existed then why does it need a reason?

What science says the world always existed?

That's nice.

How do you know there was? Just a Christian dogma.

There was no creation.

Not true.

I am not sure about your use of potential to refer to form. Aristote never talks that way.

In the Physics he names four causes. Material, Formal, Efficient, Final. Anything physical has a material and formal cause.