Why doesn't God make their existence more obvious?

[shnarkle]

I don't know.

Justifiably - if nothing existed we wouldn't be able to ask the question.

To say that nothing exists or that nothing existed is also a contradiction.

Well, yes - in order for anything to exist, there must be a property called existence.

Very good. Although I don't know why you would feel this need to define it as a property unless it is something that belongs to someone. Now you just need to look at the fact that it is incoherent to claim that existence could cease to exist, and once you've seen that this is impossible, you should be able to see that existence has no beginning or end. To claim otherwise is to make contradictory claims which are not valid claims.

OK - now prove that nothingness could not possibly exist.

By definition, nothingness never did, doesn't and never will exist. To claim otherwise is to violate the law of non-contradiction, and I'm not interested in making incoherent or contradictory claims. The burden of proof is upon you if you think this is something that is a possibility. Of course, this is only going to result in more incoherent or contradictory claims.

 

[Eightcrackers]

To say that nothing exists or that nothing existed is also a contradiction.

Why?

Very good. Although I don't know why you would feel this need to define it as a property unless it is something that belongs to someone.

You must mean it in the sense of "all that exists".
I didn't.

Now you just need to look at the fact that it is incoherent to claim that existence could cease to exist

If existence is read as "all that exists", why could it not cease to exist?
Why must it have always existed?

By definition, nothingness never did, doesn't and never will exist.

Prefacing a claim with "by definition" does not prove it.

To claim otherwise is to violate the law of non-contradiction, and I'm not interested in making incoherent or contradictory claims.

The law of non-contradiction states that both A and not-A cannot be true at the same time.
How would this be violated if nothing at all existed?

The burden of proof is upon you if you think this is something that is a possibility.

I have made no claim, I incur no burden.

 

[shnarkle]

Why?

Because to say that existence doesn't exist is a contradiction. You're equating existence with non-existence and they're not equal or synonymous at all. They're opposites. Existence is the opposite of non-existence. They are antonyms

You must mean it in the sense of "all that exists".

Nope. I'm referring to existence, not anything that exists or all that exists.

If existence is read as "all that exists",

It isn't. All that exists is due to the fact that existence exists, but there's no need to go over all of this because you already claimed to understand this distinction.

why could it not cease to exist?
Why must it have always existed?

Because to claim that existence does not exist is a contradiction. Existence is not equivalent to non-existence. There can be no beginning or end to existence.

Prefacing a claim with "by definition" does not prove it.

Agreed. I don't have to prove it because it's a GIVEN! It is self-evidently true.

The law of non-contradiction states that both A and not-A cannot be true at the same time.

Correct.

How would this be violated if nothing at all existed?

Because nothing (i.e. no thing) doesn't exist. By definition. To then claim that non-existence exists is a contradiction.

I have made no claim, I incur no burden.

You've made a number of claims as well as a number of contradictory assumptions or questions which are inherently contradictory. Moreover, I am in no way taking YOUR position that a proof is necessary to begin with. I don't need to prove YOUR contradictory claims, e.g. "prove that nothingness could not possibly exist." when the obverse is blatantly impossible, and contradictory. You've already conceded this point when you noted that it was impossible.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Because to say that existence doesn't exist is a contradiction.

I agree.
And I'm not saying that.

Why is it contradictory to say thay no thing existed?

Because to claim that existence does not exist is a contradiction. Existence is not equivalent to non-existence. There can be no beginning or end to existence.

Why couldn't everything have come into existence?
Why can't it go out?

Agreed. I don't have to prove it because it's a GIVEN! It is self-evidently true.

To you.
It is self-evidently true to me that no god exists, so here we are.

Because nothing (i.e. no thing) doesn't exist. By definition.

Again, "by definition" does not make a thing true.
Nor does "self-evident".

Moreover, I am in no way taking YOUR position that a proof is necessary to begin with.

Then you are essentially saying

"the god I believe in is real, and I don't need to prove it".

You are not arguing at all; you are merely stating your beliefs, which is what literally every believer in here does.

 

[shnarkle]

I agree.
And I'm not saying that.

Are too.

Why is it contradictory to say thay no thing existed?

We've already been through this. You're basically moving the goalposts. Non-existence or "nothing" doesn't exist. This is the commonly accepted definition of the term. No one is claiming that things don't exist.

Why couldn't everything have come into existence?
Why can't it go out?

See above.

To you.

Logic, try it some time.

It is self-evidently true to me that no god exists, so here we are.

Again, moving the goal posts. No one is claiming your gods exist.

Again, "by definition" does not make a thing true.
Nor does "self-evident".

When the definition precludes any other possibility and the empirical fact is that there is something rather than nothing, it's true. The burden of proof is upon you to refute the definition.

Then you are essentially saying

"the god I believe in is real, and I don't need to prove it".

False. Nowhere am I claiming belief in any of these gods you keep obsessing over.

You are not arguing at all; you are merely stating your beliefs, which is what literally every believer in here does.

False. I'm presenting a cogent argument which you are completely ignoring. I am not stating any beliefs whatsoever. You're claiming that it's possible for nothing to exist even though you admitted that this was impossible, then claiming it's my responsibility to prove your contradictory claims. smh

You admitted that it's impossible to prove that nothing exists, then ask me to prove it.

I have explicitly pointed to the Genitive of Possession as the crux of my argument which you continue to ignore claiming that I'm attempting to prove God exists. You're either willfully ignoring these facts or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Please note the purpose of the apostrophe e.g. "God's..." Do you know what the purpose of that apostrophe is for??? It denotes possession or belonging.

I am pointing out that existence obviously exists and logically cannot begin or end without articulating contradictions. I provided you with examples which you can't seem to even begin to comprehend, but must instead ignore and rant on projecting your own beliefs onto others.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Non-existence or "nothing" doesn't exist.

Currently.
That doesn't mean that it never did, or never will, which is what "existence is eternal" entails.

You admitted that it's impossible to prove that nothing exists, then ask me to prove it.

No, I didn't
I said I didn't know.

I have explicitly pointed to the Genitive of Possession as the crux of my argument which you continue to ignore claiming that I'm attempting to prove God exists.

You have not proven that any object or entity possesses existence itself.

 

[shnarkle]

Currently.

Yep.

That doesn't mean that it never did,

Nothing necessarily cannot exist ever. By definition.

or never will,

Nothing necessarily cannot exist ever. By definition.

which is what "existence is eternal" entails.

Fallacy of moving the goalposts. You're conflating "non-existence" with "existence". You're contradicting yourself and you don't even know it. If you'd like to back up your claims with an argument, evidence, etc., that would be great.

No, I didn't
I said I didn't know.

You admitted that: "if nothing existed we wouldn't be able to ask the question." post #20

You then turn right around in the very same post and say: "now prove that nothingness could not possibly exist."

Your whole argument is one big giant incoherent self-excluding contradiction.

You have not proven that any object or entity possesses existence itself.

It's not my claim either. It's your claim, e.g. : "I claim that I exist." post #4

You then clarify this claim with this: "Existence is a property possessed of things that exist" Post #8

This clarifies that you are claiming your own existence as a property possessed of things (in this case you) that exist.

YOU have not proven this claim, and yet you turn around and accuse me (FALSELY!) of what you yourself are guilty of. smh. We're still waiting for you to prove YOUR claims...

 

[Eightcrackers]

You admitted that: "if nothing existed we wouldn't be able to ask the question." post #20

If nothing existed right now.
The existence of nothingness in the past and/or future would not preclude our asking.

 

[shnarkle]

If nothing existed right now.
The existence of nothingness in the past and/or future would not preclude our asking.

LOL!!! By definition, nothing doesn't exist. Setting aside your proclivity for articulating contradictions, note that nothingness precludes the possibility of asking anything due to the fact that there is no one to ask anything and no one to answer the question in the first place. That's how it works when there is only nothingness.

 

[Eightcrackers]

LOL!!! By definition, nothing doesn't exist.

"Doesn't".
Not "hasn't" or "won't".

note that nothingness precludes the possibility of asking anything due to the fact that there is no one to ask anything and no one to answer the question in the first place.

Current nothingness.
Not past or future nothingness.

That's how it works when there is only nothingness.

"Is".
Not "was" or "will be".

Your error is in assuming/asserting "by definition" that something existing now means that something has always existed and will always exist.

 

[shnarkle]

"Doesn't".

Correct.

Not "hasn't" or "won't".

False. Can't ever without violating the law of non-contradiction.

Current nothingness.
Not past or future nothingness.

Prove it. You can't without contradicting yourself, and contradictory statements cannot win an argument. Someday existence will become non-existent is a contradiction in terms. Existence is not non-existence. By the same token nothing cannot begin to exist without redefining the term.

"Is".
Not "was" or "will be".

see above.

Your error is in assuming/asserting "by definition" that something existing now means that something has always existed and will always exist.

False. Fallacy of Moving the Goalposts. I'm not talking about things that exist to begin with, but existence or being which you are ignoring.

I'm not assuming anything other than the commonly accepted definitions of words and noting that the law of non-contradiction is violated when someone claims that nothing could someday exist which is incoherent nonsense. Moreover, you yourself admitted that it's impossible to prove when there is no one to prove it and no one to prove it to.

The fact is that by definition, nothing doesn't exist, never did, and never will. The fact is that existence or being does exist, and to claim that at one time it didn't exist is to claim that at some time in the past or future existence doesn't exist which is a blatant contradiction.

 

[Eightcrackers]

False. Can't ever without violating the law of non-contradiction.

If there were nothing, the law of non-contradiction would not be violated.

Prove it.

I'm not asserting anything.
I am pointing out your unwarranted assumption that, if anything exists now, something must have always existed and must always exist.

I'm not assuming anything other than the commonly accepted definitions of words and noting that the law of non-contradiction is violated when someone claims that nothing could someday exist which is incoherent nonsense.

Why is it incoherent to say that everything that currently exists may, some day, no longer exist?

The fact is that by definition, nothing doesn't exist, never did, and never will.

Not by definition, and not by the law of non-contradiction.

The fact is that existence or being does exist, and to claim that at one time it didn't exist is to claim that at some time in the past or future existence doesn't exist which is a blatant contradiction.

So you assert, but do not prove.

 

[Exeter]

Act 17:18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods," because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.

Quote from Alfred Barnes Bible Commentary regarding "the babbler".

What will this babbler say? - Margin, “base fellow.” Greek: σπερμολόγος spermologos. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means “one who collects seeds,” and was applied by the Greeks to the poor persons who collected the scattered grain in the fields after harvest, or to gleaners; and also to the poor who obtained a precarious subsistence around the markets and in the streets. It was also applied to birds that picked up the scattered seeds of grain in the field or in the markets. The word came hence to have a twofold signification:
(1) It denoted the poor, the needy, and the vile the refuse and offscouring of society; and,
(2) From the birds which were thus employed, and which were troublesome by their continual unmusical sounds, it came to denote those who were talkative, garrulous, and opinionated those who collected the opinions of others, or scraps of knowledge, and retailed them fluently, without order or method. It was a word, therefore, expressive of their contempt for an unknown foreigner who should pretend to instruct the learned men and philosophers of Greece. Doddridge renders it “retailer of scraps.” Syriac, “collector of words.”

 

[shnarkle]

If there were nothing,

Nothing doesn't exist.

the law of non-contradiction would not be violated.

The fact is that there is something, i.e. existence.

I'm not asserting anything.

Yes, you are. You're asserting that nothing could exist which is blatant nonsense.

I am pointing out your unwarranted assumption that, if anything exists

False Strawman argument. I'm not referring to things which may or may not exist. I'm pointing to the fact of existence or being regardless of any things which may or may not exist.

Why is it incoherent to say that everything that currently exists may, some day, no longer exist?

It isn't. I'm not making that claim. See above.

Not by definition,

False. Here's the definition for your edification. Please make a note of it for future reference.
noth·ing
[ˈnəTHiNG]

PRONOUN

1. not anything; no single thing:
   "I said nothing" · 
   [more]
   synonyms:
   not a thing · not a single thing · not anything · nothing at all · nil · zero · nowt · nought · naught

non·ex·ist·ence
[ˌnänəɡˈzistəns]

NOUN
non-existence (noun)

1. the fact or state of not existing or not being real or present:

and not by the law of non-contradiction.

To claim that nothing exists is a contradiction. It is a blatant violation of the law or principle of non-contradiction.

So you assert, but do not prove.

There's nothing to prove. It's a GIVEN. BY DEFINITION. Your assertions cannot be proven due to the fact that they're incoherent and contradictory. You have to redefine the definitions of words to do so. Even then, it's still going to be incoherent and pointless.

 

[Eightcrackers]

To claim that nothing exists is a contradiction.

I agree.
To claim that, at one time, nothing may have existed, is not. Nor is claiming that, at some future time, everything may cease to exist.

There's nothing to prove. It's a GIVEN. BY DEFINITION.

The definition of "nothing" is "the absence of anything".

This is present tense - "there is nothing in the box" is not "there is, was, and always will be nothing in the box".

 

[shnarkle]

I agree.
To claim that, at one time, nothing may have existed, is not.

You'll have to elaborate on this subtle distinction you keep making which you evidently believe makes sense.

Nor is claiming that, at some future time, everything may cease to exist.

I'm not claiming that everything may not cease to exist. I'm pointing out that existence or being has no beginning or end and that it is impossible to claim otherwise without contradicting oneself. You've proven this to be the case repeatedly.

The definition of "nothing" is "the absence of anything".

This is present tense -

Correct. It is also true regardless of whatever tense one chooses to use.

"there is nothing in the box" is not "there is, was, and always will be nothing in the box".

Correct, and moving the goalposts. I'm not referring to things that exist. I'm referring to existence and non-existence which are mutually exclusive propositions. They are not equivalent regardless of your inclusion of time into the equation.

 

[Eightcrackers]

You'll have to elaborate on this subtle distinction you keep making which you evidently believe makes sense.

It is contradictory to say that nothing exists - granted. If nothing exists, you can't make the claim.

You are asserting that non-existence is a permanent state of affairs - that if there is nothing at Time X, there was nothing before Time X and there will be nothing after Time X.

I'm not claiming that everything may not cease to exist. I'm pointing out that existence or being has no beginning or end

"Existence has no end" is the same as "everything may not cease to exist".

 

[shnarkle]

It is contradictory to say that nothing exists - granted. If nothing exists, you can't make the claim.

Yes! Exactly!

You are asserting that non-existence is a permanent state of affairs

False. I'm asserting that non-existence is NOT equivalent to existence. I'm also asserting that existence is not equivalent or synonymous with non-existence. By Definition.

"Existence has no end" is the same as "everything may not cease to exist".

False. Things come into existence and cease to exist, but existence or being has no beginning or end, and to claim otherwise cannot be logically articulated without contradiction.

 

[Eightcrackers]

but existence or being has no beginning or end

Prove it.

 

[shnarkle]

Prove it.

I did. BY DEFINITION!!! AND the fact that to claim otherwise leads one to violate the law of non-contradiction. You've made these contradictory claims already which proves my point. Thanks, but there's nothing left to prove.

To claim that existence doesn't exist is a contradiction! Likewise, to claim that nothing exists is also a blatant contradiction. Q.E.D.
I'm not the one making contradictory statements here. You are. Now it's your job to refute what I've proven. Go for it dude.