You mean like a universe springing from nothing.
Nahhh… “co-dependence” implies that neither existed before the other, thus no creation from none before, unless both got created simultaneously.
If the Cause existed without the Effect, it wouldn’t be the Cause of the Effect.
Maybe. But also the opposite. The thing is, any of the ways people can claim to know these things one way or another are something less than observationally. I don’t honestly think that there’s any reason to worry about it. Maybe there was something maybe there was nothing. It’s all too religious for me man.
James, I didn’t imply I don’t think a 50 50 qualitative co dependence. I meant that the dependence of
The Created on the Creator is 100%, whereas God is Dependent on His Creation, as the validation of the reason, for not giving into the the excuse not to create.
To be orbe not. that is the question. The eternity of this realization, has to be answered in light of the concept of parallel universes, where perhaps in one of them, there is still paganism going on.
There may, after all still be universes where there are many Gods, much more literally understood…
The cause of an effect can never exist without its effect also existing.
Parallel universes is 100% fairy tale.
Are you saying that there was no creation, ever?!
It is impossible because you cant build up to an infinity, and time is relative but finite. Start counting backwards and you can keep going, but you’ll never get any closer to infinity.
edit:
If we say that the cardinality of time is only in our minds, then that time is an eternity, we have to then account for what constitutes change in the world. If ‘change’ is something different to time ~ which it necessarily would be if eternal, then eternal time isn’t representative of change. Really we are only renaming things, either we call change time, or state that time is not change. In which case time [as not change] is irrelevant to universe i.e. Is non-existent.
then again, eternal time could be like a line which change wraps itself around at some random point? then we have the same creation issue as with finite time?
_
Yes. Or more accurately, creation is always happening. “God” is what they call the Cause of that. So there wasn’t “a Creation” at one point long ago where from all things appeared.
In order to have to build up to an infinity, you must begin with a finite or zero. If you presume that the universe was zero or finite at some point in the past, then it could not be infinite now (that isn’t entirely true, but good enough for now).
The problem is that the universe was ALWAYS infinite and thus could never have become finite.
Infinite universes may be found using the large Hadron Collider, some researches believe.The fact that the origin of this here universe has not been finally decided, the former is not too much of a stretch.
And just how would one propose to discover an “infinite universe” and know that he had, especially when he can’t even figure out if this one is?
Oh, I’m all for trying, James. And, besides, this has nothing to do with dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. So at least someone can get it right. 
It all begins by understanding what “infinity” really means concerning homogeneity.
Is it at all possible to ever have infinite homogeneity? No. Logic/math explains why.
Absolute nothingness, “before the beginning”, represents a state of absolute homogeneity, which has absolutely zero possibility of being the state of even the smallest portion of space.
Of course, if you cannot follow or believe in logic/math, such an argument is not very convincing.
The social question is, “How many people does it take being convinced before something is proven?” 
We are limited by the speed of light and therefore can never look at infinity. For that reason I consider this debate rather fruitless. And I like fruit.
What debate??
James, come on.
Everything always begins with everyone else understanding that what everything means is that which you assert it to mean. I get that part my friend. What you don’t seem to get though is the gap between what you claim to believe is true “in your head” and a capacity on your part to provide an argument that can actually be tested [empirically, say] such that others are not required to just believe that everything begins with what you claim that it means.
Unlike, for instance, folks like Bryan Magee and myself.
Can you demonstrate more substantively that what you say is true? Or are we basically required to accept the reasoning that you give in your analysis? Reasoning that in my view revolves largely around the meaning that you give to the words.
This of course has always been my complaint about you.
But at least here it would seem that an objective either/or answer is [perhaps] actually available.
Yet, again, regarding questions this profoundly enigmatic [re Magee’s point above], it may well be something that the human mind is not even capable of resolving. That deep, deep mystery embedded in the very nature of Existence itself.
It is in fact this very mystery that allows an atheist [like me] to cling to the small hope that the part after death is also embedded in what we can never be absolutely certain about.
The part that [I presume] the Real God plays for you.
Any discussion with you is over.
The whole idea thing with the mode of categorical understanding of not only time and space , but of
Transcendence and the ethical imperative, then can be tossed out the window?
just because man’s inhumanity to man is a fact, that death it’s self is a fact, is no real motive or reason to disclaim the purpose of higher aspirations of man.
Cliches like ‘fellow man’ or the brotherhood, may be examples of the extension of the naive family organization creating a pretty picture for their familial progeny, and that is what hope is all about, right?
But, again the most reductive cliche I can think of is the awesome though of the dilemma ‘to be or not,to be’. What presumption can man take upon himself to decide this issue?
How can athiests declare the facts pointing to lack of purpose, of organization, behind what evolution seems to dictate? This authoritarian view of decomposing will to live, has it’s sources in the disappointments over the enlightenment’s early promise and hubris. Ever since than, parallel with this optimism, the usual scepticism tried to put brakes on a very healthy trend. Pessimism grew out of the very early Greek school, and disappointment
Of the young at heart have taken a very serious turn:
The effort to sustain that familiarity of almost childish wonder, having become under pressure, to expose it’s logical flaws, it rebounded with a vengeance the the very early Greek school of the skeptics.
Atheism is just another form of pessimism, which is basically results in the truncation of the will. It is not in the light, sort of speak. But in the shadow, which is only the effect of.
All affirmative schools including those of the Buddha, point exactly to this, the ego is what places fear of life on the pedestal of worship. The new deity is the
Fear and trembling over what will happen next, and I am with Khrishnamurti, when he declares, he does not believe in re-incarnation.
It is the feeling that somehow, the individual me matters very little, because, the “I” matters very little in the grand scheme of things if there is one.
There is one, because, it is right before our eyes. If the other were to be true, then we would be able to experience non existence, and recall our,own death. but all there is, all that there seems to be, is existence, being, and the pursuit of the essential things in life to sustain this illusion if notmformourselces, then for others. I am thinking of Zoot tonight, and could not sleep formfear ofmhavingmtomhave hurt him in some fashion which escapes me, and if Your listening sometime, if I had hurt You in any modicum of the understanding of that word, forgive me.
I think that our humility tomdiscussmthese grandmtooicsmismsorelynlacking, but at the same time also, some measure of humoring, in order to let the teaching of philosophy progress unhindered, that is those, who still think there is purpose in it.
This type of above phrased argument is the apologist, and henceforth will make it a project today to re read the Apology to see if I can learn something new from it, if there is at all anything relevant that can tie into the thoughts of today, re: the firm belief that thoughts are immortal, literally carried upon the wings of doves.
you know, discussion, discourse, parley, dialogue; argument, counterargument, dispute, wrangle, war of words, argumentation, disputation, dissension, disagreement, contention, conflict, negotiations, talks, confab, powwow…
Here is a quote from a book entitled ‘Many infallible proofs’ by Arthur Tappa Pierson.
When Plato came to Socrates he thought wisdom, Socrates had a dream.
He thought, a pure dove white as snow, flew to
his bosom and took refuge there, among the warm
folds of his tunic. He thought he watched it from day to day, and saw it’s feathers grow, and it’s wings develop and it suddenly expanded it’s pinnacles and
soared away till lost from sight, away among the
clouds of heaven.
james
Interesting notion. I agree at least that something has to be perpetual, and that thing whatever it is would be at base. I would envision that thing to be ‘time’ rather than God [even if God exists [which i think a creator god does]], because it must be existential in some way, and at the same time transcend individual existences including universe/s. This would be a universal entity, hence we and all things possess it at the fundamental level.
I see. I could envision infinite lines which twist into one another giving an approximation of finiteness [like knots], so i think i agree here. come to think of it, particle cycles/rotations can be expressed as knots too.
The whole thing requires a new language really. …math is soooo finite.
_
Time is our measure of the relative changing that is going on. God is the Cause of the changing that is going on, also known as the Underlying Principle, or “First Principle”, “First Cause”. It’s just a label.
To understand the real universe it helps to use Hyperreal math, which references multiple levels of infinity.
It’s like an inconceivably low frequency wave or pulse that keeps pulsing over and over again. It’s the material matrix of existence. Each pulse pushes into existence an amount of energy that moves around and creates time, then it slows down and disintegrates and a wave is collapsed. Where do some particles go that collide with another particle… sometimes the fragments equal less mass than the particle the fragments came from. You never thought of that. Run a check on that James, and no distorting the facts to push your AO agenda.
What happens to that mass that tries to run and tries to hide? I think it has to break on through to the other side yeah.