Am merely suggesting that God provides for the appearance of "no-thing," in order that we might learn of "some-thing." Even in a void, the principle of the void must also exist, as do the principles which give rise to everything else. Either that, or you will have to explain to me how something can come from nothing.
The Bible also tells us that the world was created (literally) in six days. Can you be quite certain that something other than this wasn't meant? Oh, and since the story outlines that Adam and Eve didn't die immediately afterwards (albeit they lost their spiritual perspective), do you think it's possible it could have meant something else?
So, then, the answer is "no"; you do not understand that the argument you just gave invalidates your own world view. Mmmmmkay.
So, a void can only be a void if it is not, in fact, a void, but a container of some sort.
As soon as you explain how the "principles of the void" came from nothing.Either that, or you will have to explain to me how something can come from nothing.
Or, perhaps "we" just don't understand its terminology too well?
An altered state. Perhaps in the way a piece of fruit exists while basking in the light of the sun, before dropping below and geting consumed by all the microbes in the soil? Which, would be comparable to "a death" of sorts.
Well, at the very least, I think Adam and Eve were probably very naive and, that this would account for why they fell. They were only the fruit of the tree, and not the tree itself.
I'm saying that such a thing is not possible, are you?
But you are the one who said that a void must contain the principles of the void! Are you retracting that now? Or where did they come from? If it is a void, did they come from nothing? If they came from something, how can it be a void? Are you simply re-defining things again, or had you simply spoken before you really thought about what you were saying?
Indeed, look at the symbol of the Yin and Yang, which contains something, in contrast with nothing, contained within a singularity. So, if you take away this something versus nothing "thingee," the singularity (of which the something and nothing are comprised) still remains.Right.
Which is to say, it can only be a void relative to something.
Which is to say, your definition of "void" is separate and distinct from a definition of "nothing", which makes your whole line of argument moot.Right.
Which is to say, it can only be a void relative to something.
Only in the sense that there was never a time when there was ever nothing of its own accord.
It suggests that the overall principle of reality exists as "a whole."
Are you finally agreeing that time-space is, in this universe, linked, and that there was no "before the big bang"? I certainly hope so.
It may suggest that, but your interpretation of it as "something, in contrast with nothing" is quite flawed. Rather, it shows a filled space and a blank space (not even blank for those versions with the dot in the middle). And there is a universe of difference between "empty space" and "nothing".
And where was God all this time that they were listening to the snake?
And what if some "other" Universe existed besides this one? Would time continue to tick in that one, regardless of whether this Universe existed?
Yet if you happened to be in the midst of that "nothingness" (depending on how vast and deep it is) how would you know otherwise that "something else" didn't exist?
Presumably. But we could never know. And it would have no bearing whatsoever on time-space within this universe.
If you are in the midst of it, it is not "nothing". Indeed, if it can be said to have a "midst", it is not "nothing". If it can be described as "vast and deep", it is not "nothing." You continue to think of "nothing" as having dimensions, as occupying space. Sorry, empty space is something.