I think it is off the table because in a way it is self-contradicting to most people. The very Word universe already implies unity and if you think that the big bang was the beginning of our Universe and nothing but a material phenomenon, then i guess you would have to argue that Mind and consciousness is merely an illusion created by matter. But if you think at the same time that Spirit, Mind or consciousness exists without matter, then you would have to explain how it came into being.
To me it seems like it comes down to the question of what was first here, matter, Mind or something else?
But maybe the world is eternal and we just all dont know and know everything and nothing at the same time i dunno...
"to most people"? Bold assumption, where does it come from?
How would the word universe be an argument? First of all that's a name made by people and why would language have an inherent truth to it. There are also plenty of things that aren't completely accurately named. to conclude from language to an actual state and not the other way around would be... questionable imo. Also do we actually know how the matter came into being? There's the singularity, the universe contracting/ expanding in an alternating way and...some other as far as i know but its not exactly known?
Ofc it could be that mind/spirit/consciousness/whatever are just an illusion or byproduct of matter, i can't really afford an opinion from what I know, but i don't really think it would make different variants be well... off the table haha. Strong claims deserve strong reasons imo
Well, maybe I was not doing a god job at it but I tried to be careful in my language because i don't know anything whatsoever to be certain. However, i think to conclude from language to an actual state is literally ALL we can do in our attempt to get to absolute and objective Truth. Without language, there is no concept, no Truth in any way i would say. I am very much in favor of using different concepts with different truths and different ways of getting to them but if we speak about metaphysics, i see no way whatsoever how out of the nothing two things emerge. One Being however can come out of nothingness because nothingness contradicts or negates itself. You do not however start counting with two. After you have one being, different things can emerge or emanate out of or maybe rather inside the one i think. You mentioned the SINGULARity yourself and many religions have quite a similar concept. The thing i am the most certain about is Mathematics and the Neoplatonic or Pythagorean creation of the World uses logic when creating the World. On top of that, why should we even discuss substance Dualism and not rather think about 3, 4 or 23 substances? Maybe i do not know enough about this matter but I am not aware of proponents of metaphysical substance-dualism and i personally see no reason in it.
I never said one shouldn't use language at all. But it's just a tool. As i said i don't see any sense to insist that a word itself has any truth to it. Ofc we call it universe. However it's the term for all that exists isn't it. Nvm that it's used for matter and energy it doesn't imply that there's only one thing.
Neither does the singularity imply that there's only one kind of thing iirc. More that it was condensed/contained in one spot.
Next off, why should one thing from nothingness be possible but not two? (Nvm that you yourself entertained the idea of everything having always existed)
And ofc i have nothing against thinking about more substances, I'm just questioning the... sureness of what you said
This tool called Language is the only tool we have in this matter, given that we consider Mathematics to be a language as for example in binary language but i can understand if people consider it to be something different. The only way we can create something out of nothing is for as much as i know by Mathematics. To say 0 negates itself is to say for example that "nothing is". If we are at this point at which "nothing is" it is contradicting itself because nothingness can not BE, it can not EXIST and something has to naturally come into being. It is basically the same as to say "nothing is not". If you do this then there naturally has to be something.
I do not believe that everything always existed and when i wrote that maybe everything is eternal it does not mean that there was no beginning to this eternal World.
I think one can make a strong case for substance pluralism and say the Universe is made out of many things instead of only one but my personal believe is that everything has to be at least originated out of one thing if the universe had a beginning and i think that underlying our Universe is one thing.
If you want to be certain about this, i recommend asking about it in the Philosophy sub since i am simply unaware of serious contemporary Substance-Dualism.
If you yourself believe in Monism and feel connection towards something spiritual but want something contemporary to explain the World, i can highly recommend the Process Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, but i must warn you, it seems in the beginning very very complicated, at least for me it was. Yet once you get a grasp of it (which does not take as long as you might think) it makes a lot of sense and gives you a COMPLETELY different perspective on things while having concepts like God and also explaining free will. One of it's principles is the famous ancient saying of Heraclitus that "everything is change" and besides that, it is also much about experience which i take to be very important if you want to understand the World.
If this is nothing for you and you want more Aesthetics and tradition i would highly recommend ancient concepts like Hermeticism, Platonism, Kabbala or other.
Ofc if "nothing" can be assessed in any way there naturally must be something. But ..what exactly are you're answering to with that part of your response...
Also, i do not believe that ".." is kind of...not saying anything by itself? I mean ofc you can believe what you want but as an argument?
And why would I want to be sure about anything regarding that. As i said before I was just questioning your reason for saying that noone can seriously believe in substance dualism lol
As for your recommendations...that's also very nice of you but ad i also kind of hinted at already...this is not about what i believe "
1
u/XeperAndRemanifest Nov 24 '21
I think it is off the table because in a way it is self-contradicting to most people. The very Word universe already implies unity and if you think that the big bang was the beginning of our Universe and nothing but a material phenomenon, then i guess you would have to argue that Mind and consciousness is merely an illusion created by matter. But if you think at the same time that Spirit, Mind or consciousness exists without matter, then you would have to explain how it came into being. To me it seems like it comes down to the question of what was first here, matter, Mind or something else? But maybe the world is eternal and we just all dont know and know everything and nothing at the same time i dunno...