Do you believe in God?

I'm not supposing anything at all, I'm just following his "logic".

Apparently nothing cannot create something.

So what created god?

The point I made was that your question supposes that God was created. How do you support that assumption?

But if what he meant when he wrote, "God is just a word" was, that the word, "God, was just a word (as you say he did) then what is it you think he meant by that? Surely you don't think he was telling people that the word, "God" is just a word. Why would he tell anyone that?

You've never heard of that expression before? Generally if someone says, "X is just a word"

Why would he tell anyone that?

As for what you write about creation, to say that we have never seen any creation ex nihilo is really to beg the question, since some people point to the universe and say that is creation ex nihilo.

In the second place, even if it does not happen, that does not show that it is impossible for it to happen.

After all, if you insist that it could not have happened, you are inviting the question, what explains the existence of the universe?

You asked this, seemingly bewildered,



and I simply gave you reasons for why he would say that. It strikes me as odd that you would ask this question knowing what the expression meant. Perhaps you should go back to my post, pick one of the many reasons someone may use that expression, and then try to match a usage to his context. I did. Or, like you said, you can just wait for him to clarify again.



And I don't understand why people do this. Perhaps you can explain this to me. If I pointed to the universe and said this is the case of someone vomiting (that is, someone vomited the universe out), what would I be saying? It seems just as nonsensical. What about creation ex matrix? I suppose this is a possibility also.



Indeed you are correct. But we have no evidence for it happening, so we should not assume it can happen. Sure, we can entertain it's possibility, but I can also entertain the possibility that we're the product of vomit. So what? As far as I know, we have evidence that matter is never created or destroyed, things just change form. And the law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant. But I suppose it's argued that our universe is not a closed system. In fact, it's still expanding, so it appears it may not be. But the universe's expansion does not imply "creation", whatever this would mean. I think people are taking the artifice/artificer relationship way too far.



Clearly vomit.

And I don't understand why people do this. Perhaps you can explain this to me. If I pointed to the universe and said this is the case of someone vomiting (that is, someone vomited the universe out), what would I be saying? It seems just as nonsensical.

Let's focus on this first



What makes creation ex nihilo socially accepted, and something like my vomit theory, not?

The vomit answer was a joke. I don't know if the question is illegitmate, nor can I explain why something exists instead of nothing. What I'm most interested in is why people cling to this "creation" theory. I'm thinking it has something to do with religion. What do you think?

Most interestingly, if I deny this theory, I'm begging the question. However, I have no other answer, nor do I know if the question at hand is illegitimate. What should I do? I suppose just leave the thread as I cannot contribute in any manner meaningful.

And not reject the question if you have no reason to.

What are the reasons to not reject the question? Or, what are your reasons for not?

It seems to me that if you reject the question as illegitimate, then it is you who should have reasons for asserting the question is illegitimate. If I ask, for example, why water freeze at a certain temperature, and you reject the question as illegitimate, should you have some reason for doing so? Is it up to me to reject a question I am asking?

I am asking your reason for considering it a legitimate question. I have noted that I don't know if it's legitimate or illegitimate. I'm simply inquiring about your perspective.

I'm not supposing anything at all, I'm just following his "logic".

Apparently nothing cannot create something.

So what created god?

I agree (but not with your examples). But I did not maintain that all words refer to something. Far from it. I just pointed out that there is a difference between a word and whatever thing it purports to refer to, even if there is no such thing. So, when you say that God is only a word, that is false. The word "God" is only a word. And the word "God" is not God (if there is a God). You are confusing words with things, as I said. The word, "mermaid" is not a mermaid. And protons existed way before the word, "proton" existed. The word is not the thing, and conversely.

"Love" is the name of an emotion. And "shame" is the name of a feeling. But, "although" is not the name of anything since it is not a name at all.

I'm not supposing anything at all, I'm just following his "logic".

Apparently nothing cannot create something.

So what created god?

What power has revelation to stuff a mouth with words pronounced as truth having no proof...

Why do us as humans immediately discard the bible as proof

Why do us as humans immediately discard the bible as proof