The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You lost me here.

I do agree that space time did not exist before the singularity. However this is evidence for my claims so I am confused by your mentioning it.

Are you asking what natural explanation does a supernatural being have? I do not understand the question.

You mentioned time not space-time. At a singularity space-time as we know it didn't existed, so the idea of a cause is lost without those two factors. Time is dependent on space, nothing can cause something to happen, and anything outside of that would need to be able to influence the internal structure of a point where nothing would be happening.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Why not? It certainly is not no-thing? Nothing does not arc or kill people. There are only two choices. It must be a thing or no-thing.

Energy is what things have in relation to other things and their own mass. So energy isn't a thing like matter is a thing.

 

[1robin]

You mentioned time not space-time. At a singularity space-time as we know it didn't existed, so the idea of a cause is lost without those two factors. Time is dependent on space, nothing can cause something to happen, and anything outside of that would need to be able to influence the internal structure of a point where nothing would be happening.

No, we still are in need of a cause. What you are talking about is the way natural causes work as we have observed them. Even that get's a little tricky in the Quantum. However we are speaking about non-naturalistic, causes not natural ones. They have no dependence on time. Time has no application to the supernatural. I have no idea what that means but it certainly does not mean time constraints bind God. Traditionally God is independent of time, he can act within time or independently from it.

In fact nothing true of the natural is binding on the supernatural by necessity.

 

[idav]

1. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
God did not begin to exist. BTW this one has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.

Infinite regress is a terrible argument.

2. That things must have an explanation for their existence within themselves or externally. God requires no external explanation, he contains his own explanation for existence.

It can't be external to itself or you end up again with the problem of infinite regress.

In neither case are God and the natural in the same boat.

God existing by default would then be natural.

God as a concept must exist as an aspect of it's own nature. That is among the definitions of God. Does not make him true but does make him in no need of an external cause or explanation. The universe does not contain it's own explanation or cause. I can't list all the reasons why but I can supply the denial (as an impossibility) of the most popular counter claims by one of the most immanent cosmologists on Earth if you wish.

God is eternal as a concept and by revelation. There is no reasonable claim to a 15 billion year old God anywhere. The universe is widely believed to be about 15 billion years old. An eternal God did not create the universe when he began to exist because he did not begin to exist. He was described with the exact characteristics modern philosophy says must be true of whatever caused the universe by men who lived 3000 years before they were known. One of those is personal agency, which means the ability to chose to act. The universe is not a necessary creation. It could have not existed. God chose to create it. That means there was a point when God existed but it did not. BTW that would have to be true of any cause of the universe.

What you believe of god, that it must be a cause unto itself is the same thing I believe of god/existence. The universe does not need an external cause any more than god does. Especially with god being eternal and infinite, nothing can exist but God.

 

[1robin]

Energy is what things have in relation to other things and their own mass. So energy isn't a thing like matter is a thing.

I did not say it was like any other thing. I said it is a thing. I work specifically in the electronics field and my PhD boss, and his next in command with two masters will be happy to tell you energy is a thing. In fact it is the only thing speaking technically. Even matter is energy at it's core. That is why they can convert between these states so easily. Matter is matter because it has a certain energy density state.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I did not say it was like any other thing. I said it is a thing. I work specifically in the electronics field and my PhD boss, and his next in command with two masters will be happy to tell you energy is a thing. In fact it is the only thing speaking technically. Even matter is energy at it's core. That is why they can convert between these states so easily. Matter is matter because it has a certain energy density state.

Yeah I'm saying that energy is not a thing it's a property that things have. If you are just using thing in a really general way like saying that feelings are things we have sure. But energy itself is not a thing like say a chair is a thing or even an electron is a thing.

 

[1robin]

Infinite regress is a terrible argument.

Of course it is. Natural infinite causal regression is impossible. That is why I did not use it.

It can't be external to itself or you end up again with the problem of infinite regress.

No I don't but you can't help but have it without the supernatural. Every cause requires a cause in nature but not in the supernatural. God is the prime mover and is an uncaused being. The infinite chain of regression ends with him and goes no further and so is finite. Natural cause do not contain prime movers they require additional causes that never end. Your confusing what is true of nature with the supernatural.

God existing by default would then be natural.

No, the natural are events that have natural explanations expressed through natural laws. God was not a result of any natural law. Natural law is derivative not primary. In the halls of Cambridge of Oxford you would be told that God/mind is primary and everything else derivative. Natural law is not even creative. 2 + 2 never created 4 anything's.

What you believe of god, that it must be a cause unto itself is the same thing I believe of god/existence. The universe does not need an external cause any more than god does. Especially with god being eternal and infinite, nothing can exist but God.

We know without almost universal certainty the universe began to exist. This eliminates any possibility it created it's self or is self explanatory. The same is not true of God. You are making grave mistakes here. You are binding God by what is true of the natural and that is fundamentally flawed.

1. The universe began to exist, God did not.
2. The universe is governed by natural law, God is not.
3. God necessarily contains his own explanation, the universe necessarily does not.
4. The natural mandates infinite regression of causation, God does not.

 

[1robin]

Yeah I'm saying that energy is not a thing it's a property that things have. If you are just using thing in a really general way like saying that feelings are things we have sure. But energy itself is not a thing like say a chair is a thing or even an electron is a thing.

I never said anything about it being like anything else. I said it exists. Nothing is the lack of being. Energy does lack being. It is. This misunderstanding of nothing is what is ruining any chance for resolving issues. Only those that have no argument prefer to have things unresolvable.

Energy is not a chair (actually it is technically but I will let this go). However it does exist as a thing. I however will be very generous and cover this another way.

We are discussing explanation for the universe, so let us keep that context in mind.

My PhD boss gave me the IEEE authoritative dictionary and we looked up energy.

It says energy is the ability of a system to do work. So energy can be equivalent to any value with the exception of zero (nothing).

It says as is used by utility companies to provide the capacity to do work. Do the utilities charge us for providing nothing? Do they provide nothing which performs 80% of the national work done.

I won't bore you with equations and constants. It is easily seen that whatever energy is it is not nothing. You say it is not the same something as matter. Fine but what is it if not nothing or matter. The only thin left is an abstract concept. However abstract concepts can't do work. 2 + 2 never created 4 anything's. So even if merely an abstract concept it does not help with creating anything and requires mass already existence to exist anyway. And ideas are things anyway and require minds to pre-exist. They can't create minds or matter or anything else.


So we are still left with a universe that does not contain it's own explanation and no other choice but non-natural explanations.

If you give me any more trouble about energy I am going to type 100 lines of equations out of this IEEE book randomly that have nothing to do with anything but I will claim they are proof until unproven. Just kidding but I will get far more technical.

 

[idav]

1. The universe began to exist, God did not.

False

2. The universe is governed by natural law, God is not.

False

3. God necessarily contains his own explanation, the universe necessarily does not.

False

4. The natural mandates infinite regression of causation, God does not.

False

Nothing that I know of says that the universe began to exist. The big bang only says that whatever existed began to expand.

There is no reason to assume a supernatural god. In fact there is no reason to invoke the supernatural at all. Anything that is sufficiently it's own cause is by default natural, can't be any other way.

There is no reason to give only god the exception to the rule. Anything that naturally exists is sufficient cause of itself. What makes you think the universe isn't just the natural default state of affairs? Does making a super intelligent infinite being the default sound more logical. If it were possible to have such a super intelligence as default then a natural universe should have no problem being default, just to argue that it is of its own nature.

No, nature doesn't mean infinite regression of causation. As we agree that is a horrible argument. If the God is also his creation then nature does not mandate anything except being what it is naturally supposed to be.

 

[1robin]

False

This is a claim to absolute knowledge and so has the burden of proof. Good luck. Mine were qualified claims and only have the burden of reasonable evidence of which I will provide.

False

That pretty much is the definition of the natural. Are you going to assert reality into existence or even attempt to justify these hyperbolic claims to what you cannot possible know even if true.

False

See the above. You have ALL of your work ahead of you.

False

See the above. You have ALL of your work ahead of you.

Nothing that I know of says that the universe began to exist. The big bang only says that whatever existed began to expand.

Then you know little about it and nothing about philosophy as it has stood for 3000 years.

There is no reason to assume a supernatural god. In fact there is no reason to invoke the supernatural at all. Anything that is sufficiently it's own cause is by default natural, can't be any other way.

There is no reason to give only god the exception to the rule. Anything that naturally exists is sufficient cause of itself. What makes you think the universe isn't just the natural default state of affairs? Does making a super intelligent infinite being the default sound more logical. If it were possible to have such a super intelligence as default then a natural universe should have no problem being default, just to argue that it is of its own nature.

No, nature doesn't mean infinite regression of causation. As we agree that is a horrible argument. If the God is also his creation then nature does not mandate anything except being what it is naturally supposed to be.

There exists every reason to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural. That is all that is available.

1. The universe began to exist: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (pg. 176).
Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe | Debunking William Lane Craig

Now Vilenkin worked on probably the most important cosmological conclusion since the big bang, called the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin past finite theorem. It was specifically designed to be robust and independent of the fantasies associated with guesses about the singularity.

Other fantastic fictions about cracked eggs and oscillating models have many reasons to consider impossible anyway but this theory is independent of them. Links on request.

2. The universe began to exist and by every observation and every philosophic principle it requires a cause. Nothing can create nothing. Nothing has no causal and no creative potential at all.

3. The universe constitutes all natural entities and laws known. That means at one time nothing natural known existed. This leaves only abstract concepts like numbers or morality and something beyond nature. Abstract concepts are not causal. Numbers never created anything nor have morals. That only leaves the supernatural. That by the way is independent of what the cause might happen to be.

4. Whatever the cause is must be independent of time, matter, and space because they did not exist at one time. Must be a non contingent entity. It must be more powerful than all known energy combined. It must be more intelligent than anything even conceivable. It must be personal. etc.....

5. The only known concept that meets these mandates is God. A God described with those exact characteristics thousands of years before they were known to be necessary.

1 - 4 are simple and unavoidable deductions consistent with all observations and principles.

5 is the best fit explanation given all candidates by far. 5 is far more than necessary to justify faith but is still faith. Of course technically every claim ever made has a faith component beyond the fact we think.

None have any flaw and have existed for thousands of years in the minds of the greatest thinkers in history. In fact it is the most discussed theological issue in philosophy in modern times. However just of curiosity which one do you deny, AND ON WHAT POSSIBLE GROUNDS. I have no use for unjustifiable declarations in a debate.

 

[idav]

There exists every reason to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural. That is all that is available.

1. The universe began to exist: Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

When a problem is difficult, I am simply uncomfortable chalking it up to magic. That is what is said when someone requires "supernatural" for existence.

"The universe began to exist" Nobody can possibly know that, we simply have no answer to what was before the big bang or what caused an infinite amount of power and energy to exist.

And they certainly could not know that for 3000 years!

The only thing being said with "the universe has a beginning" is that is how far back our maths go and then we have to invoke a magical being. That is unsatisfactory to say the least. Anything in existence would be natural, even if god exists apart from creation, it would be its nature to exist.

 

[Skwim]

When a problem is difficult, I am simply uncomfortable chalking it up to magic. That is what is said when someone requires "supernatural" for existence.

"The universe began to exist" Nobody can possibly know that, we simply have no answer to what was before the big bang or what caused an infinite amount of power and energy to exist.

And they certainly could not know that for 3000 years!

The only thing being said with "the universe has a beginning" is that is how far back our maths go and then we have to invoke a magical being. That is unsatisfactory to say the least. Anything in existence would be natural, even if god exists apart from creation, it would be its nature to exist.

Unless one regards "the universe" as encompassing an infinite regression into the past, including any possible era before the BB, one can't say anything about "the beginning." So as a matter of conversational convenience and rationally I believe it best to limit the universe's extent from the BB forward. It's existed for 13.798±0.037 billion years, and may extend X number of years into the future

 

[Thief]

So we question the beginning as if we can't be sure of anything?

I could say....'it'......'began'.....

Did it begin as substance?...I think not.
Did it have Anything Else going for it?...apparently so!

 

[outhouse]

So we question the beginning as if we can't be sure of anything?

I could say....'it'......'began'.....

Did it begin as substance?...I think not.
Did it have Anything Else going for it?...apparently so!

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

[outhouse]

Anyone invoking spirit or any supernatural aspect is doing so because of ingrained mythology ancient men used for thousands of years.

It is so far 100% unsubstantiated scientifically.

 

[shawn001]

Before invoking any kind of "supernatural" cause because we have no facts to support supernatural causes of anything and the supernatural has been used many times before, when they then found natural explanations. Science still has many possibilities to explore that would offer natural explanations and answers to the questions, like science has done throughout all of man's history.

The answers as they stand now, if everyone were truthful.

Is there a god or gods even? No one knows, no evidence from science or facts, many hypothesizes that stem from personal belief's.

Did god create the universe? No one knows, no evidence from science or facts, many hypothesizes that stem from personal belief's.


What started the big bang natural explanations. No one knows, some evidence from science, many hypothesis

What is outside the big bang natural explanations. No one knows, some possible new evidence being explored from science,many hypothesis.

But it would seem before jumping to super nature, were not done or even close to done with nature and science. If science leads us to super nature as even one fact, I know it will be on the 6 o'clock news, because it will be a first.

 

[shawn001]

I did not think so and I agree with all of this. I could have sworn however that you were suggesting that galaxies are more ordered than the initial conditions. Maybe I misread.

Do you believe evolution negates or reverses entropy?

"Do you believe evolution negates or reverses entropy"

No not at all as humans are still evolving. However, if we survive will need a new home planet.

"If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
Here are some leading theories about the why the human brain has been getting smaller since the Stone Age."

If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I never said anything about it being like anything else. I said it exists. Nothing is the lack of being. Energy does lack being. It is. This misunderstanding of nothing is what is ruining any chance for resolving issues. Only those that have no argument prefer to have things unresolvable.

Energy is not a chair (actually it is technically but I will let this go). However it does exist as a thing. I however will be very generous and cover this another way.

We are discussing explanation for the universe, so let us keep that context in mind.

My PhD boss gave me the IEEE authoritative dictionary and we looked up energy.

It says energy is the ability of a system to do work. So energy can be equivalent to any value with the exception of zero (nothing).

It says as is used by utility companies to provide the capacity to do work. Do the utilities charge us for providing nothing? Do they provide nothing which performs 80% of the national work done.

I won't bore you with equations and constants. It is easily seen that whatever energy is it is not nothing. You say it is not the same something as matter. Fine but what is it if not nothing or matter. The only thin left is an abstract concept. However abstract concepts can't do work. 2 + 2 never created 4 anything's. So even if merely an abstract concept it does not help with creating anything and requires mass already existence to exist anyway. And ideas are things anyway and require minds to pre-exist. They can't create minds or matter or anything else.


So we are still left with a universe that does not contain it's own explanation and no other choice but non-natural explanations.

If you give me any more trouble about energy I am going to type 100 lines of equations out of this IEEE book randomly that have nothing to do with anything but I will claim they are proof until unproven. Just kidding but I will get far more technical.

It's not any trouble it's just incorrect to say that energy is a thing of course you seem to be using "thing"in a strange way. when scientist use energy they are talking about a property that is given due to the attributes that a thing has. Matter are things, and energy is what those things will have.

 

[idav]

It's not any trouble it's just incorrect to say that energy is a thing of course you seem to be using "thing"in a strange way. when scientist use energy they are talking about a property that is given due to the attributes that a thing has. Matter are things, and energy is what those things will have.

What sorta thing was energy before it became a matter type thing?

 

[Thief]

What sorta thing was energy before it became a matter type thing?

Spirit.