Why is there Something Instead of God?

[Speakpigeon]

Remember, though, we're talking about creationism and the tangential question of 'why there is something instead of nothing.' It's a question creationists like to ask in an attempt to argue that without their magic spaceman there would be 'nothing.'

The point of the thread is to state that both god and nothing are just language when compared to an actual something, like the universe or any part thereof, because neither concepts are demonstrable like the universe is demonstrable. The two concepts that underpin creationism therefore are just fantasy compared to the universe.

So, no, not kidding.

Hope that clarifies.

No, it doesn't.

As I already said but you seem to understand zilch of my French English, if you're not interested in actually replying to something I said then just don't pretend to reply. You keep pretending replying but then keep to irrelevant considerations that have fuck all to do with what I said. Are you that far away from your shoes?

As to your OP, I already commented on it. I made clear its value was zero. What you've said since doesn't change my assessment. You driving a tight ship. Bravo captain!

The worrying part is that you should not be kidding.

OK, let's stop there, it's really too idiotic.
EB

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Remember, though, we're talking about creationism and the tangential question of 'why there is something instead of nothing.' It's a question creationists like to ask in an attempt to argue that without their magic spaceman there would be 'nothing.'

The point of the thread is to state that both god and nothing are just language when compared to an actual something, like the universe or any part thereof, because neither concepts are demonstrable like the universe is demonstrable. The two concepts that underpin creationism therefore are just fantasy compared to the universe.

So, no, not kidding.

Hope that clarifies.

No, it doesn't.

As I already said but you seem to understand zilch of my French English, if you're not interested in actually replying to something I said then just don't pretend to reply. You keep pretending replying but then keep to irrelevant considerations that have fuck all to do with what I said. Are you that far away from your shoes?

As to your OP, I already commented on it. I made clear its value was zero. What you've said since doesn't change my assessment. You driving a tight ship. Bravo captain!

The worrying part is that you should not be kidding.

OK, let's stop there, it's really too idiotic.
EB

Okay then. Thanks.

 

[untermensche]

It's not that anybody can prove gods are not out there.

It's just that some are so human-centered with human traits it is laughable to think something like that is out there.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's not that anybody can prove gods are not out there.

It's just that some are so human-centered with human traits it is laughable to think something like that is out there.

Even the word is new, and comes to us from a root word which means to cry out.

So god never was god to begin with. It's better understood as a category of human behavior.

 

[George S]

Those who think gods are real might ask, "Where did the Universe come from?" Or they might ask, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" So I thought to ask, rather rhetorically, the obvious question, "Why is there something instead of god?"

For me the answer is simple. First of all, things like gods and ghosts aren't real. Secondly, somethingness is obviously the default setting of the universe. So the universe is here and gods are not. "Nothingness" or nothing is just semantics, a word like ghost, not something real.

So I'm quite content to observe the universe, know it's real, and know that it doesn't need an invisible cosmic magician to poof it into being.

Something "poofed" into existence. Reality --with or without gods who can violate natural law at will.