The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Thief]

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?

I notice your staunch confusion between reality and poor argument.
Money has something to do with this?

Focus on your last breath.....
Now tell me what you really want to hear.

 

[Willamena]

Reality exists beyond the choice;
Choice exists beyond reality.

Neat.

 

[Thief]

Reality exists beyond the choice;
Choice exists beyond reality.

Neat.

I'm not sure....are we agreeing?

Please go on...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm not sure....are we agreeing?

Please go on...

You act as if what is the case is something we can choose- and choose on the basis of which is more positive.

Whether we exist as physical entities, or whether there isn't some space magic living inside of us that persists after we die, has nothing to do with which alternative is more positive.

 

[1robin]

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.

Semantics. The words we use to describe things have no effect upon them. I have no idea why always was chosen but eternity implies some things exist independently of time. However what words mean has no bearing on reality. Whales act like whales whether we call them fish or mammals. God if he exists independently of time no mater what always means. Since the authors of words exist within time I would expect all our words to only mean within time. Curious to note that many do not. I am talking about existence outside the dimension of time as we know it, I do not care what you call it.

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

The word bounded was not part of the original issue. Time is not an unbounded infinite. It can't be. No second is ever repeated.

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.

It assumes (based on evidence) things not proven. The same with multiverses, dark matter, dark energy, cracked eggs, oscillating models, and the same with countless scientific claims. In fact many of them are not necessary and contradict evidence. If you wish to dismiss my claim much of the science used to contend with God will go away with the effort.

 

[1robin]

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.

That is a conditional necessity not modal being. If you call a being or an object necessary you mean one of two things.

1. You mean it's existence is not continent on anything else. This is modal being, and this is the category which is constantly used for theological debates. It is extremely important and constantly referred to by philosophers. This is what I, Aquinas, Plantinga, Craig, etc.... meant by necessary being.

2. You mean that since X depends on Y and that since X exists then Y is necessary. This is a trivial fact that has little meaning in theological contexts. It is a meaningless brute fact that cannot be put to any significant use. It appears this is how you were using necessary beings. I have no idea to what use this claim can be applied and has never been used in over a hundred debates I have viewed.

Please see modal being if you to understand how this term is normally applied in debate.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That is a conditional necessity not modal being. If you call a being or an object necessary you mean one of two things.

1. You mean it's existence is not continent on anything else. This is modal being, and this is the category which is constantly used for theological debates. It is extremely important and constantly referred to by philosophers. This is what I, Aquinas, Plantinga, Craig, etc.... meant by necessary being.

You should probably be more tentative about subjects you're unfamiliar with. Aquinas, Plantinga and Craig most definitely do NOT use "necessary" in the same sense. What you've described here is closest to what Aquinas has in mind, but does not characterize Plantinga's use of the term, and I would imagine that Craig is following Plantinga, not Aquinas here. (Plantinga uses it in the more ordinary sense found in modal logic- P is necessary if and only if it is not logically possible for P to be false)

 

[1robin]

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

That was too obvious and silly a comeback to get any marks at all.

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.

I think everyone with an unimpaired mental status does believe theses things and acts as if they are true. I agree that some find what they believe so inconvenient they officially deny they believe them but their actions speak much loader than their words. Regardless the over whelming majority believe these things are true. If what you said is actually true of anyone it is truly a shame. When you destroy the child like wonder the universe has you have done nothing of value. It would be in effect to watch a high definition TV through glasses that obscure and in B and W mode and claim that as progress. Remarkable.

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.

What people think does indicate what is true. In the majority of what you believe about reality comes from what people think (especially philosophy and science). It does not prove what is true but based of prevalence is a strong indicator of what is. That is where the saying two heads are better than one comes from. A simple principle in every aspect of every discourse ever held except an atheist's investigation of God.

In many cases I end discussions when these face palm things are appealed to if they do not contain substance. Yours do but that does not change the way I view these arrogant attempts at sarcasm. They have no positive effect on anything and are used where arguments should have been. Let me tell you a saying I have found to be very true. Arrogance is the hardest fault to see in our selves but the easiest and most odious to see in others.

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.

That is ridiculous. You have two choices, nature did it or God did it. NO matter what faults God did it may have, claiming nature did what nature did not exist to do infinitely worse and no less mysterious. BTW do you have some objective mystery level calculator some where? Is God more mysterious than something coming from nothing on it's own merits or properties? Your dismissal was not valid to begin with, and not true to end with. This reminds me of one of the most bizarre atheist responses I have ever heard. I think Dawkins and others said several times that God was an unacceptable answer because it did not allow any science to be done. What the heck does that mean. Are the accuracy of answers determined by how much science they allow to be done? Do answers exist to supply Dawkin's with employment?

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.

The creator of space cannot be dependent on space or he would not have existed to created space before space existed. A teenager could easily understand that. Claiming transcendent beings are incoherent is an opinion that is incoherent. On what basis does anyone know what a transcendent being could be or not. Thousands of those more familiar with philosophic principles than me or you would and have said the exact opposite. I did not say he transcends all conditions. I said whatever creates X must necessarily exist independent of X.

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

That was not worth typing. The erosion of my confidence and loss of memorization with theoretical science came long before I even stopped resenting Christianity and God. The two have no connection what ever.

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

This is irrelevant on at least two levels.

1. I can still access other experts who are in a position to evaluate these claims and I find their arguments against them very convincing and have since long before I would even tolerate faith.
2. While much of there claims are just as beyond me as they are you, I do have more than enough education to examine many other claims they make.
If I find the claims I am qualified to evaluate to completely lack merit I am sure not going to conclude that the ones I can't evaluate are all meaningful on that basis.

I suspect a combination of the two.

Suspect all you wish, you will be no more correct or relevant in the effort. I notice you did not even attempt to show anything they ever said was right. Instead you simply assumed any disagreement was a result of bias or stupidity. This is typical liberal propaganda whether you are one or not.

 

[1robin]

"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.

I like debating you but your formatting makes it very hard and confusing. Do you need any information about quoting things?

Vilenkin does not make comments on God to my knowledge hardly ever and never in the affirmative. Yet you have me saying he did. I do not understand how this came about. I usually do not make mistakes like that.

I use Vilenkin for what he is qualified to do. Derive that the universe has a finite past. At that point I am done with him.

Where did I say you could use supernatural claims in court? I have said that the Gospels meet all legal requirements for submission, and that expert testimony is legally valid.

A hypothetical scientific potential to possibly answer question at some future point is irrelevant.


I have never defended any witch trial. I condemn them.

In every single scientific arena more wrong conclusions have existed that correct ones. History makes that very very clear.

I know what science is I was educated in it and work in the higher end of the field. It is still wrong more than it is right and no objective criteria exists to indicate we are impressively advanced or languishing in ignorance. Nor does science even have the capacity to answer the truly meaningful questions in life. For every cancer cure created for profit there is a nuclear weapon that can kill a million people. Science is an unknown quantity which hurts as much as it helps in many cases but which is a necessity or desire. I have noticed an undeniable pattern of non-theist almost deifying science. Why is that?

 

[idav]

I have noticed an undeniable pattern of non-theist almost deifying science. Why is that?

Odd cause the pattern I have seen is theists ignoring science that doesn't fit in their faith. People rebuttal with real science, not because it is a religion but because of facts not based on faith.

 

[1robin]

" 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.

No it is not. Everything natural began to exist according to the latest models. It did not exist prior to it's existence to create it's self. Surely you understand this. It si also not a meaningful argument to based claims on possible discoveries sometime in the future.

"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.

I know it is not true, but I still think you made a claim that included it.

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."

A big freeze has to do with the ending (actually there is no actual ending) but we are discussing the beginning.

"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 end of the universe is not the topic at hand.

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.

I know very well what heat death is. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

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.

Hypotheticals devoid of reliable evidence are not persuasive much less pure speculation.

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."

This is pure speculation based on nothing. If another universe did exist we would have not the slightest idea what it would be like and could make no predictions about it. And if it interacted with this universe at al in what way is it another universe to begin with. This is white noise that only appeared once data backed them into a corner their lack of faith found inconvenient.

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.

I do not use Vilenkin for theology. He has no qualifications in it what so ever. I use him for science, where he is qualified.

"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?

Yes they do. If God is possible then if all possible universes exist then in one he must exist. If he exists in one then by necessity he exists in all. It is a very old and very reliable philosophic principle.

God is not falsifiable with science.

God's existence is not a scientific claim. Science only deals with a tiny fraction of the natural. By definition it has no possible role in the supernatural.

"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?

These are very common and well established claims. The universe is lawful, yet no reason for that lawfulness is known. It was in many many cases men of faith who determined based on faith the universe would contain rationality and went looking for it that led to the majority of great scientific breakthroughs.

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.

It doe snot require police for a system to be lawful. Especially since matter and energy do not have the freewill to not obey. No known source exists for information exists outside of mind. We find nature full of information it could not create. Nature struggles to construct simple order. Yet information is specified order and must have a tuned decoder to be useful. If you want more info my boss did his Phd in information theory.

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?

No it is only that carbon based life is possible with stars. In fact there is even a law or principle with no known exception in biology that life only comes from life. If you actually found any life that arose on it's own your would be on the cover time. What you described has not one single example known of any type.

The universe is extremely chaotic as well as beautiful.

Chaos depends on the expectation of order which you have no objective criteria to demand. The universe is following laws perfectly. It is not chaotic technically. What is your test for chaos and order?

 

[1robin]

You should probably be more tentative about subjects you're unfamiliar with. Aquinas, Plantinga and Craig most definitely do NOT use "necessary" in the same sense. What you've described here is closest to what Aquinas has in mind, but does not characterize Plantinga's use of the term, and I would imagine that Craig is following Plantinga, not Aquinas here. (Plantinga uses it in the more ordinary sense found in modal logic- P is necessary if and only if it is not logically possible for P to be false)

I am quite familiar with this issue and am growing weary of these your too stupid to know just how smart you are claims. I never said their claims were identical. I said they were all of a type. A type very similar to my claims and completely dissimilar to the claims of the other poster. Both of our claims were correct but only mine are commonly used in theological debates. All of those guys plus many more believe God's existence is not contingent on anything else. Some of them may import additional characteristics or add in other meanings but they are still all of the exact type I mentioned.

 

[1robin]

Odd cause the pattern I have seen is theists ignoring science that doesn't fit in their faith. People rebuttal with real science, not because it is a religion but because of facts not based on faith.

That is not only wrong, it is impossible. There is no reliable science that contradicts the bible. The bible and science are very consistent where they overlap. Every claim that is used to counter Christianity is from science fiction, not science.

This is also historically absurd. Christians on the basis of faith have added more to scientific knowledge than any other cultural group. You ever heard of Newton, Faraday, Da Vinci, Maxwell, Kepler, Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Boyle, Planck, etc. In fact if you include the scientific contributions of people who had faith in God it would dwarf what was produced by those that did not.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is not only wrong, it is impossible. There is no reliable science that contradicts the bible. The bible and science are very consistent where they overlap. Every claim that is used to counter Christianity is from science fiction, not science.

Bats are birds and mustard seed is the smallest seed? What about Jacob's method of multiplying the spotted sheep? Does it work scientifically?

And when Jesus walked on water or dead prophets coming alive in the Old Testament, those are considered miracles, not scientific events. At least that's how it sounds to me.

Oh, and in Ecclesiastes it says that Earth is forever (or something like that), while science says it will be destroyed one day.

 

[1robin]

Bats are birds and mustard seed is the smallest seed? What about Jacob's method of multiplying the spotted sheep? Does it work scientifically?

And when Jesus walked on water or dead prophets coming alive in the Old Testament, those are considered miracles, not scientific events. At least that's how it sounds to me.

Oh, and in Ecclesiastes it says that Earth is forever (or something like that), while science says it will be destroyed one day.

I have already dealt with every single one of these initial claims in earlier posts. If you can't find it I will at least provide some of them for your claims again.

I agree many of the supernatural claims are just that and can't be confirmed or denied by science. My claim was that science does not contradict the bible and that is correct. I made no claim it confirmed it all, not nor that that is even possible.

Science has not proven the earth will not endure. It has suggested that if certain predictions are accurate and things always behave as they have it will cease to remain in it's current form. That is not proof that the bible was wrong and is entirely an assumption based on only the tiny relatively microscopic snap shot we have concerning cosmology and assumes no supernatural intervention will occur which is unjustifiable and IMO against mountains of evidence. Predictions based on microscopic data sets that include assumptions based on nothing (or actually in contradiction to things) are not proof of anything. I would have infinite more faith in their predictions of the weather 48hours in advance and they are rarely very accurate. If they can't do that what they say about things billions of years from now is meaningless.

 

[ruffen]

I have already dealt with every single one of these initial claims in earlier posts. If you can't find it I will at least provide some of them for your claims again.

I agree many of the supernatural claims are just that and can't be confirmed or denied by science. My claim was that science does not contradict the bible and that is correct. I made no claim it confirmed it all, not nor that that is even possible.

Yes, many passages and parts in the Bible are contradicted by science. The genealogy of Jesus back to Adam that points to an Earth and Universe less than 10,000 years old has been proven to be wrong.

The flood is proven to be wrong. Geologic evidence shows that there has not been a great global flood.

Genetic as well as fossil evidence shows that the biodiversity on our planet (even within species like humans) cannot have come from just a few individuals of each "kind", a fact not helped if one assumes that "dog kind" gave rise to all doglike animals, foxes, wolves etc. in just a few thousand years. And if all those species were on the boat, we can prove that such a small boat could not fit that many animals.

These stories are debunked over and over and over again, so claiming that the Bible does not contradict science, is to misunderstand what science is all about.

 

[ruffen]

And claiming that any account or claim of supernatural shenanigans is beyond science's reach to debunk, is also to misunderstand the concept of science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have already dealt with every single one of these initial claims in earlier posts. If you can't find it I will at least provide some of them for your claims again.

I agree many of the supernatural claims are just that and can't be confirmed or denied by science. My claim was that science does not contradict the bible and that is correct. I made no claim it confirmed it all, not nor that that is even possible.

Science has not proven the earth will not endure. It has suggested that if certain predictions are accurate and things always behave as they have it will cease to remain in it's current form. That is not proof that the bible was wrong and is entirely an assumption based on only the tiny relatively microscopic snap shot we have concerning cosmology and assumes no supernatural intervention will occur which is unjustifiable and IMO against mountains of evidence. Predictions based on microscopic data sets that include assumptions based on nothing (or actually in contradiction to things) are not proof of anything. I would have infinite more faith in their predictions of the weather 48hours in advance and they are rarely very accurate. If they can't do that what they say about things billions of years from now is meaningless.

Weather reports made about 48 hours in advance are usually quite accurate, in my experience. Maybe you should have some "faith."

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think everyone with an unimpaired mental status does believe theses things and acts as if they are true.

Patently and demonstrably false; all one has to do is google "moral anti-realism" or "moral nihilism" to find a laundry list of writers who believe just that, and are anything but mentally impaired. Also, a plain ad hominem. Seriously, this is bad, even for you.

What people think does indicate what is true.

Nah. Sometimes what people think is true, but the mere fact that someone thinks it is not an indication, in itself, that it is true. People believe plenty of false things. What indicates something is true is evidence.

That is ridiculous. You have two choices, nature did it or God did it.

If anyone was advocating "nature did it", as an explanation, with no further specification or elaboration, it would be every bit as ludicrous as saying "God did it", and for similar reasons.

NO matter what faults God did it may have, claiming nature did what nature did not exist to do infinitely worse and no less mysterious. BTW do you have some objective mystery level calculator some where?

Ok, if God is not mysterious, tell me precisely how God does it, in such a way that we could test for evidence of that exact process. No? We have no idea how God did it? "God did it" is a stop-gap, a place holder for a real explanation? Hmm, imagine that.

Is God more mysterious than something coming from nothing on it's own merits or properties?

This is clearly a false dilemma. It's not an either/or. If "God did it" is a pseudo-explanation- as it certain is if for my previous argument stands (and it looks eminently sound, and you didn't even attempt a rebuttal, save a ludicrous claim that God is not mysterious, despite the fact that the Christian religion claims precisely that he is)- then we have to look for something else, whatever that may be.

The creator of space cannot be dependent on space or he would not have existed to created space before space existed. A teenager could easily understand that. Claiming transcendent beings are incoherent is an opinion that is incoherent. On what basis does anyone know what a transcendent being could be or not. Thousands of those more familiar with philosophic principles than me or you would and have said the exact opposite. I did not say he transcends all conditions. I said whatever creates X must necessarily exist independent of X.

Then what causes existence, must necessarily not exist. A transcendent creator is incoherent. Oops.

That was not worth typing. The erosion of my confidence and loss of memorization with theoretical science came long before I even stopped resenting Christianity and God. The two have no connection what ever.

And yet, you categorically dismiss as obvious nonsense, with plenty of appeals to incredulity, anything, including credible science and expert testimony, as fantasy, as delusion, as bare speculation, despite the fact that such claims are obviously dishonest. They show that you reject it out of bias, not because you can find anything legitimately wrong with their claims, evidence or arguments.

This is irrelevant on at least two levels.

1. I can still access other experts who are in a position to evaluate these claims and I find their arguments against them very convincing and have since long before I would even tolerate faith.
2. While much of there claims are just as beyond me as they are you, I do have more than enough education to examine many other claims they make.
If I find the claims I am qualified to evaluate to completely lack merit I am sure not going to conclude that the ones I can't evaluate are all meaningful on that basis.

When you try to dismiss entire fields of science with a mere wave of the hand, this strongly suggests you are either speaking out of ignorance, or have an ideological motivation for doing so.

I am quite familiar with this issue and am growing weary of these your too stupid to know just how smart you are claims. I never said their claims were identical. I said they were all of a type. A type very similar to my claims and completely dissimilar to the claims of the other poster. Both of our claims were correct but only mine are commonly used in theological debates. All of those guys plus many more believe God's existence is not contingent on anything else. Some of them may import additional characteristics or add in other meanings but they are still all of the exact type I mentioned.

If you're familiar with the issue, then why do you say things that are demonstrably false? What you described was Aquinas' version of necessity, and claimed that Craig and Plantinga said the same thing. Unfortunately, their views are drastically different, and for instance, Plantinga would reject Aquinas' view. Plantinga is concerned with de re necessity and modality in the contemporary modal logic sense- necessity as logical truth or entailment- whereas Aquinas is talking about de dicto necessity and the metaphysical modality of objects.

It's really simple, don't make claims about things you aren't sure about, remember hearing 3rd hand 20 years ago, and so on, and try to pass it off as fact.

 

[ruffen]

Then what causes existence, must necessarily not exist. A transcendent creator is incoherent. Oops.

Excellent post, especially the bit quoted above. Wish I could give you another frubal so soon after the previous one.