The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[camanintx]

A universe can begin to exist and even be eternal from that point. What it can't do is have always existed. We are not debating the existence of the universe, I hope. We both agree it is here and we are in it. I claim the bible's explanation is by far the best fitting and most comprehensive and science does not include even a reliable theoretical explanation for it's existence.

Look up the word "always" and note that all definitions involve time. If time came into existence along with the universe, then by definition the universe has always existed.

I do not remember you posting what you claimed to have. I remember you talking about unbounded finites. However circles are not equivalent to seconds. While I can traverse the same segment of a circle over and over again I cannot traverse the same second over and over.

That was an example how being finite and being unbounded are not mutually exclusive concepts. The opposite, being infinite and bounded, is also possible.

I have no idea why the existence of me asking the question is meaning for your case. Apologists use that argument because by natural means there should not be a me to ask questions so only by including the supernatural could there be. See my signature line.

In order for anything to exist, something has to exist. Since everything that we know exists only exists within this universe, it's only logical to assume that the universe must exist. Any suggestion that a supernatural exists separate from the universe assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[camanintx]

For convenience sake lets say I agreed with you here (even though this disagrees wit your earlier post). To what end was it mentioned. The universe is not a necessary being because it is necessary to my existence (which it isn't if by I you mean my soul or identity). The majority of contingent things facilitate the existence of other contingent things, and yet remain contingent things. Necessary means non-contingent. The universe is contingent.

Necessary being are not contingent upon anything, including their relationship to other contingent beings. A me that asks a particular question is contingent upon other things even if I am necessary for that to occur. It may be necessary to have math and tires to have a car as we know it but that does not make either math, tires, nor the car necessary beings. I think you do not fully understand what a necessary being is. Necessary beings owe their existence to nothing beyond their own nature.

I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Take the two conditional statements:

• the universe exists
• I exist

Saying that 'A' is necessary means that 'B' cannot be true unless 'A' is true. Since there is no evidence that I can exist outside of this universe, 'A' is a necessary condition for 'B'. Sufficient means that knowing 'B' is true is adequate reason to conclude that 'A' is true. Putting these together, we can say that it is necessary that the universe exist for me to exist, and that my existence is sufficient to know that the universe exists.

 

[Thief]

I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. Take the two conditional statements:

• the universe exists
• I exist

Saying that 'A' is necessary means that 'B' cannot be true unless 'A' is true. Since there is no evidence that I can exist outside of this universe, 'A' is a necessary condition for 'B'. Sufficient means that knowing 'B' is true is adequate reason to conclude that 'A' is true. Putting these together, we can say that it is necessary that the universe exist for me to exist, and that my existence is sufficient to know that the universe exists.

And you would apply this to the existence of God as well?

 

[McBell]

And you would apply this to the existence of God as well?

Why yes, you could.
Though saying that god can only exist if the universe exists kinda kills most ideas of god...

 

[Thief]

Why yes, you could.
Though saying that god can only exist if the universe exists kinda kills most ideas of god...

How about God as Creator...and Cause...?
The creation as the effect?

So God affirms His existence by DOING something....

Spirit first....for cause and reason.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is an embarrassment of evidence for God's existence.

Well, you're absolutely right about the evidence for God's existence (or, more accurately, the lack thereof)- it is an embarrassment.

For example we all believe morals, love, ascetic value, and consciousness are true yet neither can be proven scientifically.

We do NOT all believe "morals, love, ascetic value and consciousness are true" (ignoring the obvious category mistake here)- many people, including many experts on the subject, do not believe that there are objective moral truths/facts/duties or aesthetic values, and many people (again, many experts included) believe that love and consciousness are blind physical processes all the way down.

And, of course, we should point out that what people think does not tell us what is the case; I just wanted to point out that, so far as your claim even goes, it is not accurate. Also, let's just note, for about the umpteenth time, that the existence of moral facts/truths/duties or aesthetic qualities does not implicate the existence of God anyways, so this is sort of a moot point to begin with.

That is why a supernatural explanation fits so well and nothing else does. God requires no space time.

IF explanations are propositional AND mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), THEN X neither explains nor justifies why things happen, and is ethically and metaphysically vacuous. To wit, "God did it" is not an explanation.

It is science and philosophy that indicate whatever created matter, space, time, and energy must be independent from them.

They indicate the opposite; a transcendent causal agent is incoherent, an entity who transcends all conditions and relations transcends all being, but causal agency entails being- and an entity causing the universe or existence to come to be is also incoherent, since any such creation event entails an antecedent state to being.

They are pure speculation dressed in academic language. They just make me tired and even less trustful of theoretical scientists.

Two very likely possibilities here:

1. Your pre-existing bias and overriding commitment to particular religious beliefs, come what may, requires you to reject anything which conflicts with these beliefs, even expert testimony and credible science.

and/or

2. You're simply not in a position to reasonably assess their work as you are a layman in the relevant field.

I suspect a combination of the two.

 

[McBell]

How about God as Creator...and Cause...?
The creation as the effect?

So God affirms His existence by DOING something....

Spirit first....for cause and reason.

Now all you have to do is present convincing evidence of both god and spirit...

Good luck with that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How about God as Creator...and Cause...?

Spirit first....for cause and reason.

How about it?

IF explanations are propositional AND mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos), THEN X neither explains nor justifies why things happen, and is ethically and metaphysically vacuous. To wit, "God did it" is not an explanation.

Also-

... an entity which transcends conditions/relations transcends being and can only entail non-being; such an entity standing in causal relations with the world is contradictory... a "creation event" of spacetime/the universe involving a causal agent is incoherent no less than "north of the north pole"...

"causing existence[or the universe]" assumes a prior antecedent state for such an agent to exist in, but prior to existence, nothing exists. But a causal agent must exist, by definition. This is essentially the same problem with a transcendent agent; agency and transcendence are mutually exclusive, as is agency and non-existence (but again, creating/causing existence once again assumes an antecedent state of non-existence).

So much for God as "first cause".

 

[shawn001]

Very good points.

A theoretical scientists can be as wrong as Caesar is dead and there is in many cases no way to ever know. You have to wonder about the integrity of someone who wants to sit around guessing about things that have no way to verify. No arena beyond maybe celebrities is as conducive to arrogance than academia, and no group within that arena is more prone than theoretical science. Yet this most unreliable of all areas is exactly where every contention with the bible comes from.

Engineers and technicians do not have the luxury of making sweeping unjustified claims. We must create something that works (at least eventually). However even using verifiable scientific principles and using them on things that can be tested and we are still wrong far more than right. Makes me wonder if theoretical scientists are ever right or if they would ever know one way or the other. Can't feed to many people with theories about multiverses but you can certainly achieve celebrity intellectual status and a mountain of grant money.

"you have to wonder about the integrity of someone who wants to sit around guessing about things that have no way to verify."

You posted this!!!

Vilenkin's claim: "God more necessary but fantasy is hardly worth discussing."


Who like Einstein?

We are now working on ways to verify things we could not before because we didn't have the technology. The CMB could give clues for one and help verify some new theories.

You mention supernatural evidence, but is any of it falsifiable? Every supernatural claim so far has been found to have a natural explanation.

Then you say I think at least, you could use supernatural evidence in court? Did I hear that right?

Like the good old witch trials?

Name any instance of using the supernatural in science or any court room.


"However even using verifiable scientific principles and using them on things that can be tested and we are still wrong far more than right"

The theories of evolution, the big bang and QM have worked out so far exceptionally well. Darwin although not technically first, lived in the 1800 and his theory has been modified and back up by every science on the planet. That is a good theory.

Science is about testing and observations and getting things wrong to find out whats right.

 

[shawn001]

This is what it has meant since the Greeks. Do you think defending nothing being used to indicate something is a defense of their claims? I have hated grammar forever and used to think it was useless and arbitrary. One day I was discussing this with a national merit scholarship winner and a NASA Engineer (family members) they told I was probably right except for one important thing. The definition of words are necessary so that contracts and legal concepts can be founded on common ground. Usually only those without honor need to redefine words. Clinton and his what does is mean, the lawyer who gets his known to be guilty client off based on a procedural objection, every formal debater who was defeated, etc.. It is always the side without a case that begins to redefine everything. I do not care if they say "nothing" means pink submarines, gravity, or quantum fluctuations it is something not nothing. That is the whole point. Cosmology posits the finite existence of everything natural. They are trying to smuggle in what did not exist to explain what exists by calling it nothing. They are wrong. I get exactly what your saying and what they are doing and I condemn both in this context.

Agreed but that fluctuation began to exist when the universe did and so is not the creator of the universe, same with gravity, energy, and everything else that is natural.

I am pretty sure you mention an oscillation model, however let's discuss it whether you did or not. Oscillations, cycles, recurrences, etc.... are never perfectly efficient. They always lose energy in the effort. That means if the universe had been contracting (which by the way can't be because it's rate of expansion is increasing and not near enough mass exists to reverse this) for eternity it would have ceased to do so an infinite time ago. The same way an infinitely old battery will always be dead.

Vilenkin did not rule out multiverse specifically. Mainly because multiverses all to conveniently are no accessible. They are a theory which can't be falsified which by the way means it is also not scientific. They are a fantasy and do not deserve inclusion in any debate. They also make God more likely with each successive universe. If you have a infinite number of them God becomes a certainty and the only kick the creator problem down the road. They truly are nothing. They are not concrete things any more than blue elephants on Rigal 7.

I would not object to that in general but I also think the universe is supervised in a sense. It certainly has form and structure. My point was to distinguish between intent and non-intentional arrangements of things. Information for example has no known source outside of an intentional mind. The universe is rational, lawful, and full of information that has no comprehensive natural explanation. Science attempts to coax the rationality out of nature. Who put in in there?


I agree if left to it's self it will die a heat death. However like the creation I think it will not be allowed to operate as it is now. The same way something made everything from nothing, he will make order and benevolence out of cold indifference in a sense. This also is a little over eager even scientifically. It is as if we took a photo of a freeway and attempted to predict the future of that freeway in a billion years. It is just too ambitious. I do agree with their reasoning, I just believe their reasoning will be superseded based of faith. Faith in past events and current events is evidenced based, faith in future events can be, but many times it is strictly faith based.

" Agreed but that fluctuation began to exist when the universe did and so is not the creator of the universe, same with gravity, energy, and everything else that is natural. "

Its a natural possible explanation. They don't know yet. Your ruling out something they are still working on.

"I am pretty sure you mention an oscillation model"

Nope, the standard definition of it requires a big crunch and that is not looking at this time how its working by observations.

That is not what I was talking about to someone else in regards to an oscillation model.

Right now the leading theory with very good science to back it up and reasons to think so is the "big freeze."

"They always lose energy in the effort. "

The Big Freeze, which is also known as the Heat Death, is one of the possible scenarios predicted by scientists in which the Universe may end. It is a direct consequence of an ever expanding universe. The most telling evidences, such as those that indicate an increasing rate of expansion in regions farthest from us, support this theory. As such, it is the most widely accepted model pertaining to our universe’s ultimate fate.

The term Heat Death comes from the idea that, in an isolated system (the Universe being a very big example), the entropy will continuously increase until it reaches a maximum value. The moment that happens, heat in the system will be evenly distributed, allowing no room for usable energy (or heat) to exist – hence the term ‘heat death’. That means, mechanical motion within the system will no longer be possible.


Big Freeze


Mulitiverses

"They are a theory which can't be falsified which by the way means it is also not scientific. "

Yet, but if they exist it could be very possible.

One way and I am only mentioning one at the moment, is to use the data from WMAP and now the new Planck Data coming in.

New Map of Big Bang Light Hints at Exotic Physics

"And getting to the bottom of the other anomalies in the Planck data may point to even more radical conclusions, such as the idea of multiple universes and bubble universes created by areas of the primordial universe that inflated at different rates.

It turns out that collisions between these bubbles of space-time are one possible explanation for why inflation might not have proceeded uniformly in all directions."

New Map of Big Bang Light Hints at Exotic Physics | Planck's CMB Map | Space.com

You use Vilenkin and when he says "fantasy" he is referring to using a "God did it" explanation.

"They also make God more likely with each successive universe."

No they don't, but if you want to go there why not a different God in everyone one of them and why one, why not a bunch in each one?

God is not falsifiable with science.

"The universe is rational, lawful, and full of information that has no comprehensive natural explanation."

The universe follows its own natural laws. What do you mean the "universe is rational" Huh?

Lawful, well you better not go faster then light or the light police will pull you over. Yes it is full of information, in fact all the information contained within it of itself.

However, things like stars are born die and then are reborn. Which by the way is why the Sun and Earth and life is here. We came from decaying stars. Was it rational for a planet the size of Mar's to hit the earth and almost wipe the Earth completely out and then formed our moon?

The universe is extremely chaotic as well as beautiful.

 

[Thief]

How about it?
So much for God as "first cause".

It's easier than you insist upon.
Substance first or Spirit first.

Choose substance and your chemistry is all that you are...and terminal.
Choose Spirit and you've got a shot at something more.

I prefer a more positive approach.

 

[fantome profane]

It's easier than you insist upon.
Substance first or Spirit first.

Choose substance and your chemistry is all that you are...and terminal.
Choose Spirit and you've got a shot at something more.

I prefer a more positive approach.

And as I have said before, what you prefer or don't prefer has no bearing on reality.

You keep repeating this fallacy over and over.

 

[Thief]

And as I have said before, what you prefer or don't prefer has no bearing on reality.

You keep repeating this fallacy over and over.

Reality will 'prove' one way or the other.

Are you assuming you have no choice?

 

[fantome profane]

Reality will 'prove' one way or the other.

Are you assuming you have no choice?

What I want reality to be will not change what reality is.

 

[Thief]

What I want reality to be will not change what reality is.

No chance of continuance beyond your last breath?
7billion to none?

 

[fantome profane]

No chance of continuance beyond your last breath?
7billion to none?

I am telling you that my preference will have no effect on this. And neither will yours.

And neither do our preferences have any effect on what happened in the past.

 

[Thief]

I am telling you that my preference will have no effect on this. And neither will yours.

And neither do our preferences have any effect on what happened in the past.

Preference is the fulcrum here.

The initial choice of belief is important.
And with no 'proof' at hand ( the nature of faith).....
You are at liberty your preferences.

I don't believe death is final.
So....I then believe in favor of life.
That is a choice AND a preference.

Why you might lean to a terminal choice? (is that correct?).....
seems to be less than optimistic.

Having chosen to favor belief in Spirit....I place Spirit first.
Makes good sense to me.
I prefer good sense.

 

[fantome profane]

Preference is the fulcrum here.

The initial choice of belief is important.
And with no 'proof' at hand ( the nature of faith).....
You are at liberty your preferences.

I don't believe death is final.
So....I then believe in favor of life.
That is a choice AND a preference.

Why you might lean to a terminal choice? (is that correct?).....
seems to be less than optimistic.

Having chosen to favor belief in Spirit....I place Spirit first.
Makes good sense to me.
I prefer good sense.

I prefer to avoid the kind of logical falacies you seem to revel in.

 

[fantome profane]

Preference is the fulcrum here.

The initial choice of belief is important.
And with no 'proof' at hand ( the nature of faith).....
You are at liberty your preferences.

I don't believe death is final.
So....I then believe in favor of life.
That is a choice AND a preference.

Why you might lean to a terminal choice? (is that correct?).....
seems to be less than optimistic.

Having chosen to favor belief in Spirit....I place Spirit first.
Makes good sense to me.
I prefer good sense.

Your language is so convoluted that it is barely recognizable, but I believe that Pascal's Wager is buried in there somewhere.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's easier than you insist upon.
Substance first or Spirit first.

Choose substance and your chemistry is all that you are...and terminal.
Choose Spirit and you've got a shot at something more.

I prefer a more positive approach.

Its easier than you insist upon. Either you are a billionaire, or you are not.
Choose being a billionaire and you have alot of money.

I prefer a more positive approach.

Notice anything? Wanting to believe something because it is "more positive" doesn't make it any less false; I am not a billionaire, regardless of how positive that would be. Darn reality for not obliging our preferences, eh?