
Originally Posted by
Times Roman
so your argument is it is hard for you to understand the "something from nothing" concept? Join the club. But, at the quantum scale, this is the norm. Particles pop in and out of existence all the time. So the idea of a universe arising where none existed before is along the same lines.
#1) no, that does not make him wrong, but it also does not make him right either. So, who/what is the revealer, and what is revealed? We would need to understand the nature of revelation and define it precisely to answer the question. In this scenario, it is quite possible that what is revealed is a natural phenomenon that the first individual doesn't understand in his limited state. What would happen if for a brief moment due to a rock slide that it was the sun that was revealed? Does this sun now "prove" there is life outside the cave? We would both agree it does not, yet individual one would still aggressively defend his belief, would he not?
#2) two independent situations are now present. person number two's choice not to believe has no impact on whether or not there is life outside the cave. Now, we would need to define this "something" again, wouldn't we. And also the word "revealed" again too. Because our whole conversation would hinge on what these two words mean. if by the word "revealed" you mean that this revelation somehow proves there IS life outside the cave, then at that particular point in time, there IS life outside the cave, even if just for that particular moment in time. After the event passes, there are no further assurances that life continues to exist beyond that point in time, and so therefore, once again, there may be no life beyond the cave walls other than theirs.
make sense?