God and Void

[irichc]

Every uncaused element must generate, during a certain time, void in its surroundings. Otherwise, it would be in contact with other elements and, therefore, it wouldn't be uncaused.

However, what does set the full extent and duration of this enclosing void?

a) It can't be the interference of other elements, since void is presented, at least during an indefinite period of time, as an irresistible force against all them.

A resistible force –it may be added- would imply the possibility of a cause and, therefore, an effective cause, unless we admit that space preexists matter, or that it can be created contingently from it (which is ridiculous, as far as, if there isn’t space between A and B, is because both elements are mutually in contact).

b) We are also inclined to desestimate the uncaused element as a temporal limit of void, in the case that, being self-determined, it entered in the chain of causality. Thus, if by means of this way of proceeding, it caused some phemomena in the other bodies, it would be reciprocally and at the same time a caused and an uncaused element, that is to say, something self-contradictory.

Premise #1: Void, then, as soon as every restrictive factor is excluded, should be infinite and eternal. For the same reason, the uncaused element that enabled or avoided it would be an eternal one.

Premise #2: However, it has been seen that the very instant of inactivity (= acausality) of one body upon the rest of bodies equals to an unconditioned right of aniquilation on all the existing things.

Conclusion: If this right can’t be limited by anything in the universe, and the uncaused element exists in and with the world, then it is limited by something outside of time. Ergo, in the first place, the universe and what is uncaused, acausality and causality, identify themselves dialectically as one and the same thing. In the second place, He who prevents such a world from obliteration is eternal.

Corollary: We must assume, moreover, that this non-physical Being is omnipotent, that is, that He has the possibility of creating “ex nihilo” and in time, without a cause. Since this possibility is actualized, we attribute Him an understanding.

Therefore, if some uncaused element exists, God, the eternal Being, which is omnipotent and infinitely wise, exists.

Greetings.

Daniel.

[Rave7pt0]

You read Heidegger?

I think you're right, but as I've said before, is anyone struck by how every religion says the same thing?

Think of this in terms of Christianity.

Then Zen Buddhism.

Then Hinduism.

It's a wonder to behold that in this one logos, we have not only an explanation of religion, but a model of how it might work. This is totally right, and yet totally nonsensical all at once.

[Pooeypants]

That doesn't make any sense to me. Infact, are you talking about the strong and weak nuclear force in some mystical manner? Someone please decypher.

[SlySpy]

Ugh, not you again!
Irichc, please stop posting the same post on every possible forum you see. If you have an opinion, please stay, have some coffee, and chat with us. Please don't just run off.
What's the use, he's probably not gonna respond to this anyway.

Now, the whole basis for you argument is faulty, because there cannot be such thing as an uncaused cause (please prove me wrong.)
I'd love to respond to the rest of your syllogism, but just responding to what I've just written will be a step in the right direction.

[Rave7pt0]

Why do you find it so hard to imagine that outside the human paradigm of logic, causality means nothing, and so causality and acausality are one and the same?

[SlySpy]

Originally posted by Rave7pt0, Why do you find it so hard to imagine that outside the human paradigm of logic, causality means nothing, and so causality and acausality are one and the same?

This sounds like fluff. What your stating is contradictory so you are conceding that it is illogical?

[Rave7pt0]

Concede is such a dirty word. What I'm doing is questioning logic itself. Assuming logic is simply a device within a larger universe, would you concede that causality and acausality are the same?

I really don't want to type out the Heidegger essay I'm thinking of, but it's called "What is Metaphysics?" if you're interested.

Rock, I found a link:

http://www.msu.org/e&r/content_e&r/texts/h...degger_wm2.html

[samsara15]

Void would seem to me to either be the vacuum or a zero-dimensional space.