The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

How do you know this, exactly?

Well mainly because the opposite would be logical insanity. If you study physics, electrical principles, or anything much at all you easily see that results come from potential differences. Not the absence of such. I can't push a car along with zero horsepower, I can't get a new logic state without any information to change states, I can't get "nothing" to expand. Potentials are properties of things. Non-things have no properties, no potentials, no anything.

The problems with the Daniel author's "prophesies" are amply discussed elsewhere on this forum; they are also usefully summarized here.

I do not think contending with a summary of the book of Daniel is practical in a thread. Claiming someone disagrees is not really an argument. I need specifics.

"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife,

This would not change the prophecies accuracy. I think the prophecy would probably apply to both.

Ephrathah. Furthermore, the "ruler" foreseen by Micah
I've read the New Testament several times, but I can never find the bit where Jesus lays waste to Assyria. Apologists' attempts to identify this "ruler in Israel" with Jesus are precisely what I mean when I refer to reliance on special pleading and metaphor.

If you allow the common usage of sword as "word" and the common analogy as "rebel" the prophecy makes perfect sense. This prophecy concerns more than Christ.

The author of Matthew was a notorious retrofitter.

That is convenient. Condemnation by classification.

1. Al fascists are wrong.
2. All authority figures are fascists.
3. All authority figures are wrong.

That is not exactly an argument. It is an intellectual punt.

I've read your Zecharaih and Psalms references, and find no mention at all of hanging people up on a cross to die. For you to call them "perfect depictions" of crucifixion is yet another excellent example of apologists' special pleading.

They are not mine. I did not invent them or any part of them. If I post from a site I am in agreement with the relevant claims of the site in the context used. I am not responsible for the adjectives used.

However if you can read:

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Why are you so far from saving me,

so far from my cries of anguish?"

or

"and they shall look on me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

and not be instantly reminded of the crucifixion it is because you do not want to. Psalm 34 is a little hard to interpret but is certainly consistent with the crucifixion.

I'll address the rest as and when I have time.

Because, obviously, you had made the claim that the prophecy as you quoted it referred expressly to Mohamed and Islam.

That is not the issue. It definitely does refer to them. It doe snot only point to them. It points to Arabs which include Muhammad and much of Islam. It is they who claim ancestry with Ishmael not me.

No.

Since you do not deny what I claimed and I included what you protested about my leaving out, then where is the problem exactly.

Your temporal chauvinism is showing here. For much of our Dark and Middle Ages, when Christian Europe could accurately have been called a cauldron of misery, the Middle East was a cradle of learning and enlightenment. A scholar in AD 1000 would have been hard pressed to interpret Genesis 16 as a prophecy of Arab misery; why should a reader in AD 2014 see it differently?

Temporal chauvinism? How am I materialistically patriotic?

1. Islam's first 10 peaceful years had about 250 converts. The next dozen bloody years when Muhammad had loot, power, and fear to sell it grew by 100,000.
2. Immediately after his death it descended into virtual civil war, It would have ended there, but Uthman and others turned the brutality outward and they plundered their way across the Mediterranean. It was covert, die, or Jizya. Claiming that produced a peaceful empire is sort of like saying the Roman empire was peaceful. It was, as long as you did not want to anything non-Roman. It is kind of defeating he point to kill off all opposition then claim what a peaceful empire you have created.
3. That period stretches all the way until the Turkish oppression of pilgrims that led to the crusades.
4. That takes us to modern car bombs.

Western culture does have it's share of violence but unlike Islam Christianity is not always a state system and bears no responsibility. It would be impossible to state which side has killed the most or why but it is possible to compare the instructions each text contains. For every verse from the Bible you can use in context to justify violence in Christianity I will supply three that do so from Islam. Deal?

 

[johnhanks]

Reasons to believe [ArtieE is] not really interested in seeing if prophecy is true are starting to mount.

1. You are not selecting them in accordance with what you said you wanted.
2. You asked me to provide them but never use one I mention.
3. You select from the most ambiguous possible. If I am interested in a texts accuracy I start with it's clearest claims that have verification possible. If you are only interested in plausible denial you select the most ambiguous and least verifiable. The latter is what your doing.
4. Even when I supply an explanation for the alternate prophecies you provide it is ignored and another ambiguous prophecy selected.

That is textbook for what a person with a pre-determined preference would do.

Whereas you and your source have no such pre-determined preference?

As far as Isaiah goes:
Pulpit Commentary
"... In that day. Not really the day of vengeance, but that which, in the prophet's mind, is most closely connected with it ... But this is scarcely what the prophet intends to speak about. He is not interested in philology. What he means is ... "Five" is probably used as a "round" number... Even if 'Ir-ha-heres stand as the true reading, the name may still have been given with allusion to Heliopolis, the prophet intending to say, "That city which was known as the City of the Sun-God shall become known as the City of Destruction of the Sun-God and of idolatrous worship generally."

Everything I've bolded here is precisely what I mean when I refer to apologists' reliance on secondary interpretation, interpolation and special pleading. Are you seriously telling us that the author of the above has no "pre-determined preference" to make the prophecy look true?

 

[McBell]

Whereas you and your source have no such pre-determined preference?
Everything I've bolded here is precisely what I mean when I refer to apologists' reliance on secondary interpretation, interpolation and special pleading. Are you seriously telling us that the author of the above has no "pre-determined preference" to make the prophecy look true?

Looks more like looking for loop holes to me.

 

[johnhanks]

Well mainly because the opposite would be logical insanity. If you study physics, electrical principles, or anything much at all you easily see that results come from potential differences. Not the absence of such. I can't push a car along with zero horsepower, I can't get a new logic state without any information to change states, I can't get "nothing" to expand. Potentials are properties of things. Non-things have no properties, no potentials, no anything.

None of this comes close to explaining how you know that "we had nothing at one point" - which is what I asked you.

I do not think contending with a summary of the book of Daniel is practical in a thread. Claiming someone disagrees is not really an argument. I need specifics.

You will find plenty elsewhere on the forum - and in the link I provided.

This would not change the prophecies accuracy. I think the prophecy would probably apply to both.

But you claimed that the prophecy "named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history." Are you now backtracking?

If you allow the common usage of sword as "word" and the common analogy as "rebel" the prophecy makes perfect sense.

Precisely the point I've been making all along. Why, apart from the need for apologists to make the prophecy fit, should we not take sword to mean sword? The prophecy makes even better sense as (mistakenly) foreseeing a military ruler of Israel who would defeat the Assyrians; only those with a vested interest in retrofit need read it differently.

That is convenient. Condemnation by classification.

It remains the case that the author of Matthew had an obsessive interest in making OT prophecies "come true".

They are not mine. I did not invent them or any part of them. If I post from a site I am in agreement with the relevant claims of the site in the context used. I am not responsible for the adjectives used.

You wrote that Psalms 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10 "perfectly depict that mode of execution [crucifixion]". You did not, then, ascribe those words to anyone else or in any way disown them. Are you doing so now?

Temporal chauvinism? How am I materialistically patriotic?

You are, rather, being disingenuous. Temporal means time-related, and the chauvinism refers to your (and other believers') tendency to ascribe special significance to the age in which we happen to live, as though the way things are now (as opposed to how they were in the past or may be in the future) is somehow "final" or "right" or "pre-destined". We saw it earlier in your confidence that the prophecy that Israel will exist for ever must be true because it has survived so far.

For every verse from the Bible you can use in context to justify violence in Christianity I will supply three that do so from Islam. Deal?

I have no idea what you mean by this. I have no interest in using verses from the Bible to justify violence in Christianity.

 

[1robin]

Whereas you and your source have no such pre-determined preference?
Everything I've bolded here is precisely what I mean when I refer to apologists' reliance on secondary interpretation, interpolation and special pleading. Are you seriously telling us that the author of the above has no "pre-determined preference" to make the prophecy look true?

I had a pre-determined purpose. To provide you with what you asked. I pretty much knew up front you did not actually want to resolve the issue but wanted to use it as a reason to reject faith. That is why no matter haw many simple and clear prophecies I gave you instead brought up some so ambiguous and obscure I had never even heard of them before. If I wanted to resolve whether science had merit or not. I would start with arithmetic and Newtonian physics. I would not profess to desire simplicity and then point out inconsistencies in quantum theory.

I do not pretend to know what was in the mind of any biblical scholar outside the few I know much about. Claims are either biblically justifiable according to very old and very fairly rules interpretation or not. I find what you bolded a fair and sincere interpretation that even covers the various possible meanings of words or readings. However this still is not the point. It is of no value to take 2000 plus prophecies and amplify any uncertainties you can invent or think exist and declare biblical prophecy meaningless. Biblical prophecies come in several categories.

1. Clear prophecies that are easily verifiable historically.
2. Clear prophecies that are historically uncertain.
3. Historical clarity that seems to parallel ambiguous prophecy.
4. Unclear prophecies that incorporate apocalyptic themes, cryptic writings, analogies, or metaphor but through reasonable interpretation can be linked with history.
5. Ambiguous prophecy that cannot be historically linked due to a lack of evidence.

You demand prophecies in category 1. Yet when given them jump straight to category 4 or 5 and then declare all categories dismissible. I can defend clear prophecy. I can debate category 2 - 4 prophecies. I cannot hold a discussion with preference overlaid on category 5 prophecies. I am not saying your objections are groundless. I am saying they all suggest resolution is not your priority. You asked for clarity and simplicity, do you actually want it or not?

 

[1robin]

None of this comes close to explaining how you know that "we had nothing at one point" - which is what I asked you.

I thought you asked how we know that nothing lacks any potential. Where the claim that we "believe" nothing existed before the big bang is multilayered.

1. The word universe means everything. In a natural context. If there was a time when everything began to exist then prior to that point there was nothing.
2. There are very good reasons to think a natural infinite impossible.
3. There are no good reasons to think a natural infinite is possible.
4. There are no reasons to think an infinite regression of causation even theoretically possible.
5. The dominant cosmological models have space, time, and matter beginning to exist at a finite time in the past.

You will find plenty elsewhere on the forum - and in the link I provided.

I think you misunderstood. You gave me more to respond to than is practical. Give me an example or two and I will address them. I cannot discuss a generalized claim that Daniel sucks.

But you claimed that the prophecy "named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history." Are you now backtracking?

No, I am very pressed for time today. So if I see a contention that would not make a meaningful difference even if granted, I did so. A prediction of either a clan or a town where Christ would be born is a prophecy. I think it likely was predicting both. However in each case it would still be true. I was getting frustrated with every prophecy I am used to discussing and uniquely familiar with being ignored, so I copied a list. I did not read every adjective or word used in the descriptions.

Precisely the point I've been making all along. Why, apart from the need for apologists to make the prophecy fit, should we not take sword to mean sword? The prophecy makes even better sense as (mistakenly) foreseeing a military ruler of Israel who would defeat the Assyrians; only those with a vested interest in retrofit need read it differently.

Because the bible does so. The bible is an extremely symbolic, cryptic, and apocalyptic book. If you rule out analogy before hand you are never going to get anywhere. Sword is constantly interpreted as the word. Why should I not interpret it that way? Assyrian as "rebel" is much more rare but including the fact your quoting extremely obscure prophecies and ignoring most of the far more clear prophecies then interpretation is a necessity. If you skip over a dozen clear predictions and settle on one of the most cryptic then yelling foul when consistent interpretations are relied upon is not justifiable.

It remains the case that the author of Matthew had an obsessive interest in making OT prophecies "come true".

That would require a volume's worth of information known to you to make the claim reliable. You must supply at least a significant amount of that historical evidence to make this claim to knowledge even debatable. This is a "that sucks" kind of claim and is not conducive to debate.

You wrote that Psalms 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10 "perfectly depict that mode of execution [crucifixion]". You did not, then, ascribe those words to anyone else or in any way disown them. Are you doing so now?

That is impossible since I had know knowledge or memory of those verses and their claims. I of course have read them but have not memorized much of anything from the OT and little from the new. Either I mangled formatting up pretty bad or more likely you are taking what I copied as my words. I have a few hundred scriptures I use enough to have memorized. Those are not among them.

You are, rather, being disingenuous. Temporal means time-related, and the chauvinism refers to your (and other believers') tendency to ascribe special significance to the age in which we happen to live, as though the way things are now (as opposed to how they were in the past or may be in the future) is somehow "final" or "right" or "pre-destined". We saw it earlier in your confidence that the prophecy that Israel will exist for ever must be true because it has survived so far.

I looked both words up. Temporal's main meaning is "relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular." Chauvinist's is "patriotism". Even if you used their secondary meanings it would sound something like temporary sexism. Either way it is a strange choice of words. I know very well we tend to transcribe what is true of our day onto history in general. I am a Christian and have a math degree but have read more history than both combined times ten. I thought I had taken care of this by describing in general Islam's history of violence.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I have no interest in using verses from the Bible to justify violence in Christianity.

Since it would be next tom impossible for me to prove more instances of Islamic violence than western violence. It is just too big a task, I thought we could at least compare the mandates to violence between he religions of the two. I guess specifics, are just not desirable.

 

[Thief]

The word universe means ......one word.

I always thought so.
Seems obvious.

 

[McBell]

The word universe means ......one word.

I always thought so.
Seems obvious.

Until you look up the definition of "verse"...

1: a line of metrical writing

2 a (1): metrical language (2): metrical writing distinguished from poetry especially by its lower level of intensity (3): poetry 2
b: poem
c: a body of metrical writing (as of a period or country)

3: stanza

4: one of the short divisions into which a chapter of the Bible is traditionally divided


Source​

 

[Ouroboros]

The word universe means ......one word.

I always thought so.
Seems obvious.

Actually, it's two words. A prefix uni means one, and verse from versus meaning "to turn". Turn everything to one. Somethibg like that. Used first in the 16th century or about. Check the etymology and let me know if I got it wrong.

---edit

1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

 

[Thief]

Until you look up the definition of "verse"...

1: a line of metrical writing

2 a (1): metrical language (2): metrical writing distinguished from poetry especially by its lower level of intensity (3): poetry 2
b: poem
c: a body of metrical writing (as of a period or country)

3: stanza

4: one of the short divisions into which a chapter of the Bible is traditionally divided


Source​

Trying to say there's no method to the handiwork of God?:thud:

 

[McBell]

Trying to say there's no method to the handiwork of God?:thud:

Nope.

merely pointing out how your dogma has led you astray.

Next comes the denial.

You are so predictible

 

[McBell]

Actually, it's two words. A prefix uni means one, and verse from versus meaning "to turn". Turn everything to one. Somethibg like that. Used cirst in the 16th century or about. Check the etymology and let me know if I got it wrong.

universe (n.)
1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn"

Wow.
Learn something new ever day....

 

[Thief]

Actually, it's two words. A prefix uni means one, and verse from versus meaning "to turn". Turn everything to one. Somethibg like that. Used cirst in the 16th century or about. Check the etymology and let me know if I got it wrong.

Thank you.
I happen to believe it was the snap of God's fingers that set the universe into spin.

The 'expansion' would have been a simple hollow pulse if it were nothing more than a 'bang'.

I've been saying for years...it's the rotation that indicates the existence of God.
Without that 'snap' BEFORE the expansion pops....
it would have been one pulse of explosion.

That is not what we see when we look up.

 

[Bunyip]

The word universe means ......one word.

I always thought so.
Seems obvious.

I'm afraid that is false.

The word universe come from unus (one) and versum (something rotated, rolled or changed). So literally everything rolled into one.

The Latin for 'word' is verbum, not versum.

 

[Thief]

Nope.

merely pointing out how your dogma has led you astray.

Next comes the denial.

You are so predictible

Now go look in the mirror....say it again.

 

[Thief]

I'm afraid that is false.

The word universe come from unus (one) and versum (something rotated, rolled or changed). So literally everything rolled into one.

The Latin for 'word' is verbum, not versum.

I'm going to hold to my view.
How many words does it take to create a universe?

How about....'I AM!'....?

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you.
I happen to believe it was the snap of God's fingers that set the universe into spin.

The 'expansion' would have been a simple hollow pulse if it were nothing more than a 'bang'.

I've been saying for years...it's the rotation that indicates the existence of God.
Without that 'snap' BEFORE the expansion pops....
it would have been one pulse of explosion.

That is not what we see when we look up.

Rotation... look at my avatar. The Ouroboros eats its own tail. Infinite, perpetual motion.

I suggest that you read Isaac Asimov's short story "The Last Question." (I think it was)

 

[Bunyip]

I'm going to hold to my view.
How many words does it take to create a universe?

How about....'I AM!'....?

So you are going to hold to your view even after it has been shown to be false? Well that would mean that you see no value in truth.

I wonder how many of your other views you hold knowing them to be false.

Why fool yourself by maintaining views you know are false? What point or value is there in deceiving yourself?

 

[McBell]

Now go look in the mirror....say it again.

*yawn*

it again.

 

[McBell]

I'm going to hold to my view.
How many words does it take to create a universe?

How about....'I AM!'....?

yet "I Am" is two words.

Thus you have shown yourself to be wrong with your "One Word" belief...