The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Ouroboros]

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.

Earlier posts in this thread? I will take a look later.

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.

Miracles are by definition contradiction to natural phenomenon. So miracles are non-scientific.

Science has not proven the earth will not endure.

Except that 2 Peter states the opposite, that it will be gone.

So which one is the scientific one? Eccl or 2 Pet?

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.

Not sure where you're going with that...

You're saying the Bible doesn't contradict science, but I still maintain that miracles are supposed to be non-natural. And science is based on naturalism.

If miracles confirm science or matches science in any aspect, it would mean that miracles could be studied scientifically. Or...?

 

[1robin]

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.

Adam can easily be understood to be the first primate with a soul, a completely analogous example of the human condition, or the first human being yet one that has no date given for creation. Do you know which interpretation is the one intended? For the first five books there are no historical records to compare with. I almost ever use them as proofs nor consider them theoretically counter-able except in very generalized terms. The ten thousand years does not come from verse that mention Adam. They come from very unreliable traditions concerning genealogy. Jewish genealogies are extremely confusing. They omit people to get groups f 14's, they only lists patriarchs, some exclude women, some include the. IOW that tradition is not scriptural nor do they have to with the age of the earth anyway.

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

There is much evidence of great flooding but many take the story as allegorical and a type and shadow of Christ not literal. Do you know which interpretation is right? Others suggest that apocalyptic language use could have been speaking about a local flood is superlative terms for impact. Point being if you want to know if the bible is accurate why are you picking exclusively on the parts that have no clear interpretations. If you move along a bit you will come to far more certain verses that pertain to things that have historical records to check with. Maybe that is the point.

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.

Again that depends on a certain interpretation. Regardless it is a fact whether evolution is true or not that all species came from an original member. There must be first one of each type by necessity.

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.

The only thing you did was assert an interpretation had been debunked you did not show any interpretation in particular was correct nor did you prove any of them wrong either. Claiming evidence exists somewhere is not an argument. There are countless scientists who are Christians who have found interpretations of genesis and evidence lines up perfectly. Did I win?

 

[1robin]

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.

No it isn't. It is to clarify the exact nature of science. Science is the study of natural law and natural phenomena. It has no capacity to even understand the entirety of the rule much less it's exceptions.

 

[1robin]

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

Funny you said so. Where I live snow was predicted for yesterday morning and people stayed home yet none came. The missing snow was to clear up yesterday afternoon yet we got 2" - 8" and people were stuck at work over night. I used to constantly hunt year round and had to know the weather. I finally gave it up and just accepted what occurred. I think a study proven the farmers almanac was far more right about events predicted using only past data that meteorological predictions.

 

[1robin]

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.

I know what both are quite well and also know they are not only inherently incoherent they are not actually followed consistently by anyone because they can't be. The existence of a word or label is not proof of either a concept of faith in it. I have never seen any human being placed under sever distress (and I was in the military for many years and saw them in that situation from all over the world) that did not abandon all such superficial claims and assume belief in what we all commonly do unless mentally incapable of it.

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.

It most certainly is if those people have access to what they claim and agree in large majorities. Governments are based on that principle, life and death decisions in all courtrooms rely on it, and businesses like medical professions live or die based on it. You denying this is patently absurd. Once again we have the amplification of some relative uncertainty into non-relevance in spite of reality operating the exact opposite way.

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.

I agree yet that was what has been done in many cases.

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.

I will as soon as you tell me what gravity is? I did not say God was not mysterious, I said that was no basis for dismissing a claim. Is the quantum not a mystery? I gave extremely sufficient reasons for claiming God did it that are completely lacking for claims that non-existent nature brought nature into existence.

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.

I did not claim God is not mysterious so the whole premise for this is shot. I said he is no objectively more mysterious than multiverses or dark energy.

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

That has nothing what so ever to do with what I said. That was complete crap. I said the creator of time can't possibly be dependent on time. I said nothing about his not being dependent on his own existence. What the heck are you doing?

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.

I need appeal to nothing that science does not claim are it's standards to condemn what I have. Incorrect critiques of my critiques are less than meaningful. I use exactly the same methods that their peers use to examine their claims. Give me a break. You literally attempt to semantically label reality into existence. I am far too lazy to do anything that pointless.

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.

You mean like when Hawking said philosophy is dead and offended his fellow scholars, and then of al things spent 50% of the rest of the book relying on philosophy and mangling it beyond recognition?

This is becoming unjustifiable.

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.

What I described is the core principle all three adhere to. I got it from Craig. I have never even read Aquinas on modal being. I know Craig agrees and since you say his view is based on Plantinga (which I doubt, he uses Plantinga's ontological argument not his necessary being definition) then that means planting also agrees.

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.

Ditto, and also don't add insult to injury by slapping facepalms on incorrect claims. I have just about run out of patience today with it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I know what both are quite well and also know they are not only inherently incoherent

Bare assertion.

they are not actually followed consistently by anyone because they can't be.

Bare assertion, not true, and irrelevant. Wow.

It most certainly is if those people have access to what they claim and agree in large majorities.

You're seriously going to sit here and argue for argumentum ad popularum as a legitimate form of argument?

I agree yet that was what has been done in many cases.

Such as? Can you give me one specific example?

I will as soon as you tell me what gravity is?

The force of attraction between all matter, which we can specifically quantify. Can you give an account of God, and of creation, that is at least comparably clear to what an elementary school student could tell you about gravity? (obviously not)

I did not claim God is not mysterious so the whole premise for this is shot. I said he is no objectively more mysterious than multiverses or dark energy.

That's pretty clear wrong, but we don't have an accepted multiverse theory so the comparison is moot anyways. In any case, God is mysterious, as are his ways, and so my argument holds- God does not explain nor justify anything.

That has nothing what so ever to do with what I said. That was complete crap. I said the creator of time can't possibly be dependent on time.

I think you need to go back and read what you said. The fact remains that a causal agent which transcends the universe (which would be required to create or cause the universe) is incoherent no less than "north of the north pole" or "before the beginning of time".

I use exactly the same methods that their peers use to examine their claims. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure that dismissing, out of hand, opinions of credible experts on a subject you are a complete layman in, is not the method scientists use to examine the claims of their peers. Not 100% on that, but pretty close.

You mean like when Hawking said philosophy is dead and offended his fellow scholars, and then of al things spent 50% of the rest of the book relying on philosophy and mangling it beyond recognition?

Yeah, actually, its quite a bit like that.

What I described is the core principle all three adhere to.

No. Plantinga would likely reject what you wrote, as he disagreed with Aquinas. I honestly don't know what Craig says on the subject, because he isn't particularly interesting to me.

Ditto

Don't worry on that count. You may notice that I restrict my posting to a very stict range of subjects, almost all pertaining to the philosophy of religion, which is my field of expertise. And what I'm not sure about something, I generally note that as well. You probably should just cut your losses and admit that you've made a rather simple and unimportant error- but I'm starting to wonder whether even that is beyond you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Funny you said so. Where I live snow was predicted for yesterday morning and people stayed home yet none came. The missing snow was to clear up yesterday afternoon yet we got 2" - 8" and people were stuck at work over night. I used to constantly hunt year round and had to know the weather. I finally gave it up and just accepted what occurred. I think a study proven the farmers almanac was far more right about events predicted using only past data that meteorological predictions.

Wow, so the snow they predicted in the morning came in the afternoon??

They were waaaay off.

 

[Thief]

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.

So...back to topic then?

Science won't be able to approach the something from nothing experiment.

Seems this thread has gone ever direction but to the 'point'.

If you're waiting for science to step up...you will wait forever.

Picture the experiment....you start with nothing.
NO cause and effect.
and no physical apparatus to apply.

But science can and DOES 'point' to the singularity.
Science has been pushing to the 'point' for a long time.
But when it gets to the 'point'.....it cannot go further.

No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

From that 'point' ....all things that we know.

Something from Nothing?......apparently so.

 

[shawn001]

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.

"I agree many of the supernatural claims are just that and can't be confirmed or denied by science."

When you talk about Mutilverses you dismiss them instantly, even though there is a good possibility they can be confirmed or ruled out by science.

""I agree many of the supernatural claims are just that and can't be confirmed or denied by science."

I also noticed how you worded this wrong.

Let's try this

"no supernatural claim in all of history have been confirmed by science, none not one."

You would know absolutely nothing about the true mechanics and laws of nature of the beginning of the universe if it were not for science.

Your belief does not change the facts.

Your doing your best though at special pleading though by the cosmological argument for God.

Lets be totally honest, Neither you or I, or anyone knows how the universe came to be. I am not sure why your interested in it, if you have already come to a conclusion about it. "God did It" I am also quite sure its the God of YOUR religion you personally believe in of course.

"Science has not proven the earth will not endure"

Wow

"My claim was that science does not contradict the bible and that is correct."

First they were't the first to come up with almost the exact same creations stories, the Babylonians who had a different religion.

So is there religion right as well?

Second, were birds created before land animals?

 

[johnhanks]

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

Done.

 

[camanintx]

Semantics. The words we use to describe things have no effect upon them.

Words are given their meanings for a reason, and in a debate forum such as this, they are the only thing you have. If you're going to reject an argument based on semantics only, they we have no reason to be here.

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.

Even in modal logic, how is the statement "the universe exists" not a trivial statement? After all, in what possible world can the universe not exist?

I think our primary conflict comes down to our differing approach to the question. We both agree that something must exist, yet while I start with what we know exists and work backwards, you try to start with what must exist and work forward. Since we know almost nothing about the initial conditions of our universe, which method do you think will be more productive?

 

[McBell]

Since we know almost nothing about the initial conditions of our universe, which method do you think will be more productive?

That's easy.
the one he thinks supports his beliefs.

 

[1robin]

Bare assertion.

So you assert. In a sea of assertions why point that out?

Bare assertion, not true, and irrelevant. Wow.

An assertion meant to complain about assertions is pretty pathetic.

You're seriously going to sit here and argue for argumentum ad popularum as a legitimate form of argument?

Done with the face palms. I leave you to it.

 

[1robin]

Wow, so the snow they predicted in the morning came in the afternoon??

They were waaaay off.

It was a forecast given in the am. I know that because we were all up watching it, as if it was going to help. I looked at all three networks face book pages and they paid a heavy price for claiming to know what they didn't. It literally cost companies millions.

Let me change the subject.

I am a big military historian. I know more than most that there is constant disagreement concerning the most well known battles of a war that occurred 150 years ago. They have hundreds of battle reports to review, historians by the hundreds have scoured them all, archeologists and laymen have combed every battlefield, and 150 years of straining out mistakes and reviewing diaries and even sketches made by eye witnesses have produced more disagreements that certainties. They cannot even agree if the most famous attack that occurred had 11,000 men or 15,000, and who composed it. I have debated the simplest of issues like whether stonewall Jackson was a good commander or an idiot at civil war round tables.

You expect me to grant reliability to claims about events that occurred billions of years ago with no witnesses, no reports, no sketches, no data of any kind? Come on? Especially given that I work in the far more reliable application of science and have 100% failure so far. Even concerning drop in replacement of less advanced instruments like multiplexors, several entire redesigns had to occur to have functionality. Your claims require more faith that I have.

 

[1robin]

"I agree many of the supernatural claims are just that and can't be confirmed or denied by science."

Yes that is true but it still leaves thousands that can and have been corroborated. The bible is not lacking in corroboration.

When you talk about Mutilverses you dismiss them instantly, even though there is a good possibility they can be confirmed or ruled out by science.

I dismiss them based on they fact they are not science. I work in application science and know how fallible it is, yet theoretical science is hyperbolically unreliable, and multiverse theories may be the most unreliable of that type. I do not write them off as far as existing. In fact the more universe we have the more likely God exists. I just think they are not worth discussing because they have no and probably will never have any confirming evidence. You might as well posit blue elephants or that a cosmic Wal-Mart explains reality.

I also noticed how you worded this wrong.

Let's try this

"no supernatural claim in all of history have been confirmed by science, none not one."

Don't remember making that statement at all. History and science can support or deny supernatural claims but science is not capable of evaluating supernatural claims directly. Science deals with the natural not the supernatural.

You would know absolutely nothing about the true mechanics and laws of nature of the beginning of the universe if it were not for science.

So? It was in most cases a man of faith who decided based on faith that the universe must be rational since it was created by a rational being and set out to find that rationality that I know of these things. Christians more than any other single cultural group have made the great scientific breakthroughs but I do not get your point.

Your belief does not change the facts.

My beliefs are not in contradiction to any facts.

Your doing your best though at special pleading though by the cosmological argument for God.

Your doing your best to get rid of an inconvenient argument by trying to declare it to be special pleading. That argument has been claimed philosophically valid not only by those who have mastered the subject for the past several thousand years but by those who pioneered philosophy to begin with. It is probably the most theologically related philosophical claim currently. It is not special pleading and has a philosophical justification for it's step in it's premise except maybe one aspect of the very last.

Lets be totally honest, Neither you or I, or anyone knows how the universe came to be. I am not sure why your interested in it, if you have already come to a conclusion about it. "God did It" I am also quite sure its the God of YOUR religion you personally believe in of course.

Of course we do not, and if we do not even know that what in the world are we doing talking about other universes we have no access to? The cosmological argument is solid and uncontestable, that does not make it right. Faith does not rest of certainties. Mine however rests on the best explanation or fit for the evidence and I claim it more than meets that demand.

"Science has not proven the earth will not endure"

Wow

Science can't prove what the weather will be in a week.

"My claim was that science does not contradict the bible and that is correct."

First they were't the first to come up with almost the exact same creations stories, the Babylonians who had a different religion.

That is not true but even if it were it is not an argument. You do not have to be first to be correct. The OT testament's documents are based on oral traditions that go back as far or father than any other. This also has nothing to do with science and the bible.

So is there religion right as well?

My faith is founded upon the Gospels and my personally experiencing Christ not a creation story.

Second, were birds created before land animals?

Are you saying the bible says this and it is wrong or that you were there 500 million years ago, know what happened, and the bible is wrong. I thing you are confusing a simple list concerning creation with a chronology concerning creation. Your also assuming the story is literal.

 

[1robin]

Words are given their meanings for a reason, and in a debate forum such as this, they are the only thing you have. If you're going to reject an argument based on semantics only, they we have no reason to be here.

Are you suggesting I am against words? I must have posted 250,000 of them so far. I am against words used to force something into a mold. As I said a bear is going to do what he wishes no matter what you label him. Labels are descriptions not prescriptions. God cannot be bound by anything as trivial as our word for time. In fact he exists in a place and way that do not have words to convey them. I have no word for duration outside of time. We must simply do the best we can and try and see what the other means.

Even in modal logic, how is the statement "the universe exists" not a trivial statement? After all, in what possible world can the universe not exist?

I do not remember making any comments about triviality. I said the universe is not and cannot be a necessary being.

I did say to make X being dependent on Y an argument for Y's necessity as being trivial. I said this because necessity as it is commonly used in philosophy and theology is about a beings being non-contingent on anything else. You did not use it that way. You used it in a way that does not have any relevance and caused confusion. X's being dependent on Y does make y necessary in respect to X but NOT in respect to modal logical. Y is still as contingent a being as it ever was even though X depends on it, y is no less dependent on something else.

I think our primary conflict comes down to our differing approach to the question. We both agree that something must exist, yet while I start with what we know exists and work backwards, you try to start with what must exist and work forward. Since we know almost nothing about the initial conditions of our universe, which method do you think will be more productive?

My approach is the philosophical approach. Necessary beings in philosophy pertain to beings that are not contingent on anything else. The way you have illustrated is true but not meaningful. The fact that the universe is necessary for us to contemplate it adds no meaningful information to the discussion. The universe is no more necessary philosophically that it was and still requires a cause. So no matter whether you claim was true or false we still have a universe that both needs an explanation and that does not contain it. Unless you think I am arguing that the universes does not exist I have no idea what the point was. The universe is exactly where I started with it, needing a cause it does not contain.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

So you assert. In a sea of assertions why point that out?

Because making bare assertions doesn't cut the mustard in a debate or discussion setting. Simply saying something doesn't make it so.

An assertion meant to complain about assertions is pretty pathetic.

Not really.

Done with the face palms. I leave you to it.

Nice cop-out. You excuse yourself from backing up the BS you like to go around claiming... Only, guaranteed we go through this cycle again- you making the same assertions, claiming to be be able to back them up, then finding a convenient excuse to avoid doing so when the time comes.

 

[metis]

I have some doubts that something can come from nothing, even considering what we now know (or should I say, think we know) about quantum mechanics. Yes, sometimes a sub-atomic particle may appear to come out of nowhere, but I'm very reluctant to go to that being a clear-cut indication that there is no cause behind it.

BTW, to be clear, this is also why I have strong doubts about there being a single creator-god, if there's any at all. Our experiences tend to tell us that is something happens, something(s) has caused it to happen, even if we don't always know what it was.

 

[Avi1001]

I have little doubt that something can come from nothing. If the net energy of the universe is zero, then the positive energy that we can see and feel must be balanced by negative (dark) energy. It's just a math problem.

I have some doubts that something can come from nothing, even considering what we now know (or should I say, think we know) about quantum mechanics. Yes, sometimes a sub-atomic particle may appear to come out of nowhere, but I'm very reluctant to go to that being a clear-cut indication that there is no cause behind it.

BTW, to be clear, this is also why I have strong doubts about there being a single creator-god, if there's any at all. Our experiences tend to tell us that is something happens, something(s) has caused it to happen, even if we don't always know what it was.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was a forecast given in the am. I know that because we were all up watching it, as if it was going to help. I looked at all three networks face book pages and they paid a heavy price for claiming to know what they didn't. It literally cost companies millions.

They were off by a couple of hours. And you're trying to use that to say they can't predict the weather at all? Give me a break. That's quite a stretch. It snowed on the same day they were reporting that it was going to snow, correct?

I am a big military historian. I know more than most that there is constant disagreement concerning the most well known battles of a war that occurred 150 years ago. They have hundreds of battle reports to review, historians by the hundreds have scoured them all, archeologists and laymen have combed every battlefield, and 150 years of straining out mistakes and reviewing diaries and even sketches made by eye witnesses have produced more disagreements that certainties. They cannot even agree if the most famous attack that occurred had 11,000 men or 15,000, and who composed it. I have debated the simplest of issues like whether stonewall Jackson was a good commander or an idiot at civil war round tables.
You expect me to grant reliability to claims about events that occurred billions of years ago with no witnesses, no reports, no sketches, no data of any kind? Come on?

I don't know where you get the idea that there's no data of any kind.
And you’re certainly content with the idea that the Bible is basically 100% accurate in its description of events, including the supernatural ones. Aren’t you the one always talking about double standards? Hmmm.

Especially given that I work in the far more reliable application of science and have 100% failure so far. Even concerning drop in replacement of less advanced instruments like multiplexors, several entire redesigns had to occur to have functionality. Your claims require more faith that I have.

Hate to point it out, but maybe you're not very good at what you do then, if your failure rate is 100%.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faith is required to believe in supernatural claims. You have all the faith cards in your hand, I’m afraid.