Have I responded to everyone? Existence is the absolute, singularity. In terms of "other," that is everything that doesn't exist. The "other" are ideas that are never created.
Then you'll have to explain the paradox of something that's created but has no beginning. Because creation literally means beginning. Can you provide a valid reference that defines creation in terms that do not involve a beginning?
"The Chicken" came from an egg. There was a time when "The Chicken" did not exist - before "The Chicken" was created.
Logic dictates that creation cannot create itself, therefore creation is eternal, immutable. Creation has always been, never caused. Creation is the chicken and we are some of it's eggs.
A discussion about this exact topic is going on over at ilovephilosophy.com My handle there is WendyDarling.
On page 1 of this thread I chose 5), the first #5, from a current definition of creation that is accurate in this case.
There is no paradox if you consider what I am referring to as THE Source of Creation, rather than A creation.
You may have responded, but you haven't answered. To wit: And your response: Note how your response doesn't actually answer any of the questions I have asked. Let's start with the first question: Why do you think tha the "primary logic is that creation itself can't create itself"? Can you provide any argument that supports this conclusion, or is it just something you want us to take as a proposition for whatever argument you are subsequently making? Your answer of "Eternal... exactly" doesn't answer this. I asked: "what is 'creation' that it is eternal?" and you have simply given a definition of "eternal". That's not an anwer, that's just you rephrasing the claim. So, again, what is "creation" that it is eternal? This requires you to actually explain what it is you think "creation" is, and not just state that you think it is eternal but to justify that claim. Now, you continue to simply make claims, if that is all you have, or perhaps you can actually try to justify your claims, and, who knows, even answer questions rather than just respond to them? Up to you entirely, but only the latter options will likely see you being taken seriously.
A flair for the non-specific, even when it comes to a link. https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=197266 You're not a cryptic hieroglyph on the ruins of a lost civilization that archeologists will invest decades trying to decipher. But would it be a stretch to predict without looking that some over at ILP regard you as like a Voynich manuscript? The latter equivalent to a highly ornamented version of a stain on the floor that possess no more information content than the latter.
Sarkus, I observe nature and evaluate off of that. Can nothing become something? If you believe that possible, give me an example rather than a theory or an example based on theory. I find no evidence of nothing becoming something. So something, all somethings equal creation('THE' source of creation, rather than 'a' creation),which has always existed to create what we observe and have yet to observe. Eternal meaning omni-present, also immutable meaning indivisible, with no beginning or end. So non-existence is solely an idea, and an impossible one at that for existence is all that is created. And there is only one logical existence encompassing everything. Thus existence, the absolute singularity. If you desire appropriate scientific/philosophic lingo, that's not going to happen for it is not necessary. Can I give you the understanding of logic? There is no paradox/es in what I am asserting. I don't claim to know the essence of creation, the 'it' factor that binds all, only that it is conscious ordering, conscious understanding. Everything that exists from a rock, tree, animal, us, started with a conscious idea evolving into a highly complex system designed to interact with other highly complex systems as observed by everything we create as well. Nature started as an idea as a book starts as an idea, then the idea evolves into ultimately forming nature or a book. As humans, we are semi-conscious, no omniscience, no omni-presence, none of the omni's. We create on a scaled down magnitude of order from materials already present, simply finding materials or rearranging materials. Materials that The source of creation already created, put at our disposal. Is anything I'm saying making sense?
Some people understand basic logic and the scientific don't, it seems. Hence, science will forever chase it's tail as designed. It's not designed to allow people to actually realize simple concepts in front of them, it is used to blind the masses with theories about paradoxes which are completely unnecessary.
If by "nothing" you mean literally absence of everything -- not just in a physical context (space, time, quantum fluctuations) but immaterial laws, principles, etc and an empty container of any kind -- then it's a given that what does not exist lacks the power to cause, and the latter concept itself doesn't apply. But who is it claiming such? Don't substitute the usual misconceived endeavor involving a "nothing" that turns out to be "something" on closer inspection.
But it's trivial unless you have examples of academic people asserting that _X_ came from their label of "nothing" that is actually "something" -- but they themselves contend otherwise or seem unaware of that. I mean, are you trying to defend the local hamlet from a real dragon or an imaginary one?
Why? Everything that exists is something which falls under the umbrella idea of existence. Nothing does not exist which also applies to non-existence in general because everything is something that exists. At this point, I can't think of any other way to make it simpler. If I do, I'll return. The source of creation cannot self-create, hence the only other logical conclusion(based off of observed reality) is that the source of creation has always existed under the umbrella of existence. The source creates every other something, but not itself(illogical). Something has to exist before it can create, this something is existence, a constant, constants never need to be created, they simply are, always. This constant morphs changing like the patterns of a chameleon. Creation(existence) cannot self-create. It can create other somethings, but not invent and create itself(illogical). I don't need a bunch of confused scientists to say squat. Their theories do not apply to existence. Their theories are fantasies because they are too blind to accept the obvious that all of existence is something.
I would dispute that.... try: Take a 3 dimensional sphere and reduce it's largest dimension to 1/infinity ( infinitesimal ) Q: What exists inside that infinitely reduced sphere? A: Nothing. So nothing can indeed exist and in fact MUST exist in 3 dimensional space...how ever that nothing is "relative" to something and not absolute. or: take a powerful microscope and magnify the target area infinitely. What would you see? or: If you sit still and observe your surroundings, note that you can only observe a constantly evolving "Now" or present moment. You can not see the past nor can you see the future. Now consider that that moment is constantly and in what appears to be a sustainable manner, a moment of self creating (present tense) NOT self creation (past tense) and explore the possibility that the only reason you can witness or observe this vista of self creating around you is because you are seeing it from a perspective of relative nothing. (Think: Unconscious of (zero dim) ==> conscious of. (3dim) ) That moment of self creating (the Now) has no beginning and no end, as it is constantly a creation in progress. Therefore the universe (existence) has never been created ( past tense ) as it is always in a state of self creating. ( present tense)
There is a squidge more rigour to philosophy than laying out a word salad of self-referential declarations full of ambiguously defined words, like 'something cant come from nothing' and 'creation can't create itself'. Fortunately, there are no wrong answers in Philosophy, so my answer is: The Fish. Hey! This is easy!
Fortunately, challenges from the public are apparently going to substitute for rescuing the gist(?) of your topic from "clouds inhabit the sky" triviality and "fighting an imaginary dragon" status.
