@Ola,
we are obviously having a little interpretation problem here Zetherin.
I am not writing these responses the way you are taking them, please do not take anything I post as sarcastic or condemning because they are not meant that way. I will crack a sarcastic joke once in a while but it will be obvious when I do.
The reason I say continue to support has nothing to do with any amount of posts , it just means that I noticed that you seem to support a particular conclusion. Wording it that way probably did sound condemning I guess.
It seemed that within your posts there was certain references to man creating problems whenever they try to relate to the universe by acknowledging some sort of a creator. I would go back and cut and paste to show why I see this, but lets just move on . If that is not the case I have obviously misunderstood you.
First of all, I am not sure than that I understand what you mean when you say existence does not necessitate creationism.
I take that to mean that you believe that just because something exists does not mean that it had to be created. is that correct? The old 'JUST THE WAY IT IS' philosophy?
Now to your question of me.
To my thinking logic would suggest that if something exists it had to come from somewhere in the first place. That 'somewhere' is what this whole discussion is about. Some suppose that things just appear from out of nowhere, for instance the big bang, life, etc., and I suggest that things do not simply appear from nothingness. Where there is nothing, nothing will remain.
So than, if something was the first of its kind to appear, and it could not have come from nothing, than what was there before it, what spawned it into being, and what does that say about infinity and eternity.
It is a complex dilemma that only further proves that there must be some intelligent force behind it all. There is nothing accidental about this creation in any way whatsoever to my logic.
What are the answers? That is another dilemma. Why do we need to have the answers? And why does it sound as though some of you are suggesting that if we cannot come up with the answer that this proves that our logic must therefore be wrong? Trying to come up with the answers is what created the whole religious attitude of this entire planet. The answers may not be forthcoming, but that does not mean that the answer is not there.
Existence is a reality. I am, therefore I exist. Therefore there is an answer to how I got here. My existence does not depend on whether or not any mind can solve the answer as to where I came from, or where the universe came from. I and the universe will continue to exist despite the ignorance of mankind. So those who propose that unless science can prove a thing that it is not worthy of supposition, are simply not looking at the world around them with an open mind, because here I am, existing, and despite their inability to prove why.
Now, what I have been proposing is that because our existence suggests that it comes from something instead of nothing, than that 'something' is the Force behind it all. I hope that answers your question Zeth. I cannot logically even begin to entertain the thought of nothingness, or existence just appearing from out of nothingness, or that it simply just always existed. Eternity and infinity is beyond my ability to conceive. What exists must have come from somewhere or something. And the fact that this thinking always brings us to the paradox of what came first, than I must conclude that there is some mysterious, unnatural, incomprehensible Force responsible for all of this. It cannot be defined, and cannot be restricted to the dynamics of the laws of physics that man has written. What man understands is a minuscule portion of reality.
In one of your posts in that other thread you said something about 'other universes'. Why do you suppose that there must be other boxes containing the box we are in? Why does your mind look at the universe as one of many, or as a part of something else, when you emphatically try to avoid the possibility of a 'something else', the 'external' as you call it?
On the one hand you seem to deny an external, but on the other hand you suggest that everything has an external that it resides in, another universe. I see the universe as one entity that holds everything that exists. There are no more universes other than the one that comprises existence. Whatever exists resides within this universe. That is very different than mapping galaxies and solar systems. These are all a part of existence. We live on a planet within one of them. The universe however contains them all.
But what is the universe? What is that black space that holds everything? We know what the sea is that holds the whale. We know what the dirt is that holds the tree. We even know what the solar system is that holds the planet.
But as the painter touches his brush to the canvas, where seconds before there was nothing, so also does this Force paint the canvas of the universe.
Below is the way that man will need to conform their thought process if they are ever really to understand the meaning of life and the reality of existence:
"What Force is responsible for the canvas in the first place?"
Instead of trying to determine what the canvas is, and the material aspects of it, we should be asking ourselves how this canvas can come from nowhere and nothing, when we know that something cannot come from nothing. The absurdity of it all demands a different approach than science or religion! We must stop looking at the stars and look instead at the black canvas they are painted on. There is where we will find the answer.
