Which of course completely contradicts the whole point of faith. Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." You can't turn a rationalist into a person of faith by showing him observational evidence. Faith is believing without evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The "something can't come from nothing" argument
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
I will rephrase. There are hundreds of millions of natural counter claims.
Supernatural can not even be shown to exist in any coherent manner. That's a major problem, the other being that we just keep finding nothing but naturalistic explanations.
That supernatural does not exist in the natural realm. Supernatural is like saying you have to break natural laws. If no natural laws are broken then what? Square circles and stuff, that's supernatural. Nature would have to fail to be nature, I just don't see it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
That is not true. Theological faith is defined by that theologies teachings. The bible teaches that Christ did miracles and nature alone contains so much evidence for God that no man is without excuse. In philosophy faith's only burden is that it has no defeaters. I raise that bar to the best conclusion given the evidence but I do not actually have that burden.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Are you trying to say there is a natural counter claim to every one of the hundreds of millions of supernatural experience claims? If not you have lost me.
It is perfectly coherent. In fact it makes nature coherent.
No square circles are logical impossibilities, the same as a self caused universe. Once you show me no natural law has ever been broken then you can use that as a premise.
"Faith and rationality are two modes of belief that exist in varying degrees of conflict or compatibility. Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence"
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Faith_and_rationality.html
If you claim "nature alone contains so much evidence for God that no man is without excuse" then you are a rationalist going by "evidence" and not faith, which is belief in inspiration, revelation or authority and is applicable regardless of any evidence you might find in nature. Faith would be applicable if you didn't find any evidence in nature but had faith anyway.
Last edited:
Law of thermodynamics. Self existence is a necessity for all of existence, whether god or creation. Regardless it is something from something, you cant say anything cant be self caused without destroying the concept of god in the process. That is nothing like a square circle which is contradictory because of the nature of a circle and a square. What about parting the red sea, I have seen natural explanations for even that. There is always going to be a skeptic making a counter claim even way back when. The supernaturalist has to eliminate every natural explanations because there are a heck of a lot more for nature.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I'm confused - aren't you disproving your own position with that statement? How would a self caused creator god not be a logical impossibility?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
potential, property, and no cause....inert.
That takes the well known pronouncement..."I AM!".....into what?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Who said logic had anything to do with creation?
Ask an artist what he is doing......
But I do see logic....
Kinda hard to say...."I AM!".....with no evidence of it.
Therefore.....'Let there be light!'
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I was quoting from 1robin's comment.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
That's ok.....and the question remains.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well if you are asking me what logic has to do with creation, well the answer would that logic invalidates creation.
If there must be a creator, then the creator must have a creator and so on - positing a first cause is illogical.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
No con there, I agree - but then I wouldn't credit you with supernatural powers of prophecy, either.
Sadly, the willingness of people to sacrifice their lives for a cause is no guarantee of the truth or worth of that cause.
I would be interested to read straightforward prophecies (verifiably written before the event) which describe in accurate detail what is to happen, where and when, and which require no special pleading or metaphorical interpretation to be seen to be fulfilled.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Thief
Rogue Theologian
technomage
Finding my own way
By the same token ... what caused the Big Bang?
A "first cause," at least in the temporal or causative sense, is not necessarily illogical. While I reject the concept of a primium mobile, in the Aristotelian sense, I can accept the assertion that _something_ had to come first, and that infinite regression of cause is problematic since we do not have an infinite regression of time.
As a side note ... I keep wanting to squash the bug crawling on my screen when I see your posts.
Then we simply say the universe caused itself and eliminate the redundant god.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
By the same token ... what caused the Big Bang?
A "first cause," at least in the temporal or causative sense, is not necessarily illogical. While I reject the concept of a primium mobile, in the Aristotelian sense, I can accept the assertion that _something_ had to come first, and that infinite regression of cause is problematic since we do not have an infinite regression of time.
As a side note ... I keep wanting to squash the bug crawling on my screen when I see your posts.
Who claims the Big Bang to be the beginning of everything?
Unlike religion, science has no problem saying "I don't know".
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Now you are left with nothing more than special pleading.
I mean, you made an exception to your cause and effect for your favorite deity, why can't the universe be an exception?
Why does your favorite deity get a free pass?
I suspect the free pass is because you are actually trying to use your favorite deities free pass as evidence for your favorite deity.