3 ms·
"It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of d
by technothrasher 5y ago
"It's pretty neutral and sensible to call "everything" the creator, as Spinoza apparently did, cuz "nothing" sure didn't make the universe. And as a matter of definition, that would be God."
There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing. Either way, reality cannot have been created. Perhaps there was an external cause of the universe as we currently know it, but that would have to be shown, not just asserted. While that would be useful to know, it would not solve the problem of first cause, but simply push it back one level. Further, calling this unestablished cause a "creator" and/or a "God" is smuggling in a lot of baggage about intentionality that dovetails into all kinds of other religious beliefs. This is confounding at best, and disingenuous at worst.
- kaiwen1 5y ago> There are only two choices, either something always existed or something came from nothing. Another possibility is that time is a property of our universe, but not a property of the larger reality from which it originated. That reality may have properties utterly unfathomable to human minds, and no amount of speculation will ever move us one iota closer to a hint of what it is. In that case it's neither "always existed" nor "something came from nothing". Such statements don't apply. "Always", "something", "nothing"... these might be just parochial terms that are deep and important here, but have no context in that larger reality.