The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Thief]

And the cause of god is?

Self Cause.

No hall of mirrors trick here.

 

[McBell]

Self Cause.

No hall of mirrors trick here.

make up your mind.

 

[Thief]

make up your mind.

I have....and so have you.
Shall we continue....something from nothing...

Yes!...the universe is the effect.....
God is the Cause.

 

[McBell]

I have....and so have you.
Shall we continue....something from nothing...

Yes!...the universe is the effect.....
God is the Cause.

So you are not only going to continue with your hall of mirrors trick, but also the denial of it?

At least you are consistent, right?

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I believe both are true. I believe that something can come from nothing, but also mostly all things that become did not. I also believe something that is becoming can become nothing it was, and that you are changing every moment and in a constant state of becoming, even every cell in your body (which is temporary) is completely replaced every seven years and thus you actually live about 9 to 13 "lives" in one "not dead" cycle.

I also believe that those who think something comes from nothing are wrong 99.999999999 percent of the time.

I also believe two seemingly "opposite truths" can exist side by side at the very same moment, and that not only can Gods be in two places at once, but so too you and you leave "dust droppings" all over the place. And you can completely turn into star dust, then this dust spins, forms, and your soul may jump into a form.

I believe there are males, females, no genders, all genders in one, and you may be any at a given time.

I believe for "love" to exist, there must be at least two. More is better. I believe a yogi can explode his-her-it soul in many souls, one becoming many. Your "club" may indeed evolve to adapt to physical change, but that is not the only type of change, and also you may evolve simply on your own and not to adapt to anything and very soon you may simply decide to control light and become green like a chameleon, and you may decide not to evolve at all but let "guardians" around you such as technology or androids or angels evolve instead in proxy of yourself and advance without the need to adapt your form or you may decide one day to have 10 heads instead of one.

 

[Thief]

Namaste

I believe both are true. I believe that something can come from nothing, but also mostly all things that become did not. I also believe something that is becoming can become nothing it was, and that you are changing every moment and in a constant state of becoming, even every cell in your body (which is temporary) is completely replaced every seven years and thus you actually live about 9 to 13 "lives" in one "not dead" cycle.

I also believe that those who think something comes from nothing are wrong 99.999999999 percent of the time.

I also believe two seemingly "opposite truths" can exist side by side at the very same moment, and that not only can Gods be in two places at once, but so too you and you leave "dust droppings" all over the place. And you can completely turn into star dust, then this dust spins, forms, and your soul may jump into a form.

I believe there are males, females, no genders, all genders in one, and you may be any at a given time.

I believe for "love" to exist, there must be at least two. More is better. I believe a yogi can explode his-her-it soul in many souls, one becoming many. Your "club" may indeed evolve to adapt to physical change, but that is not the only type of change, and also you may evolve simply on your own and not to adapt to anything and very soon you may simply decide to control light and become green like a chameleon, and you may decide not to evolve at all but let "guardians" around you such as technology or androids or angels evolve instead in proxy of yourself and advance without the need to adapt your form or you may decide one day to have 10 heads instead of one.

I spotted the word ...guardian.

Do you believe in lines drawn?......swordplay?

opposite ideas side by side.....yeah.

I hope to be angelic some day.....sword in hand.

 

[Bunyip]

Self Cause.

No hall of mirrors trick here.

There is no 'hall of mirrors trick', the solution is simply a self caused or uncaused universe.

 

[johnhanks]

Our particular space time is the only known natural reality that exists. If it is removed there exists nothing else known to counter the nothing I submitted.

Key word there is "known". The multiverse theory is not just some crazy idea dreamed up by a few stoned postgrads - it has good theoretical foundations. How, exactly, do you picture "nothing"?

The bible does not allow that much wiggle room...

You have got to be kidding.

... but it does allow in many cases for a deeper than surface interpretation.

Only if it is to make the sense apologists need it to make. There is a circularity here: "For this text to mean what I insist it must mean, it needs a deeper than surface interpretation. Now, because bible verses need a deeper than surface interpretation, this one clearly means what I say it means."

Some interpretations resolve themselves. The sword is among these. Jesus was a peaceful prophet that never ever used violence even when prompted to by his followers. On what basis am I to interpret that man meant he was bringing a literal sword when he always refused to actually employ one?

More circularity. To conclude that the Micah verse refers to Jesus, you must start with the assumption that sword does not mean sword; here you are using the conclusion that it refers to Jesus to defend the assumption that sword does not mean sword.

We are not left in a 50/50 here hopelessly adrift, especially not in this type of case. It is very very easy and reasonable to see what sword means in almost every place it is used in the bible.

Mostly, it very clearly means long sharp metal blade used for killing people - or are you suggesting that Joshua and his army talked the Canaanites to death? In Micah 5, you clearly need it to mean something else in order for Micah's author to be foreseeing Jesus; but without that need, the metaphorical interpretation is unfounded. The sentence "And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." does not beg for a metaphorical interpretation unless you have a prior agenda that requires it.

Do you have any idea how hard it would be to interpret 2000 detailed prophecies in to having been fulfilled if they were not.

Yes; and given enough people badly wanting to see them fulfilled it isn't as hard as you're making out.

Interpretation is not wrong until shown to be, it is a necessity. However, again I say it is impossible to get that many false prophecies to pass anyone's muster simply by intentionally flawed interpretation. There are 350 for Christ alone. How can you interpret 350 detailed prophecies into fulfillment?

By deciding in advance that they are true, and looking for an interpretation that makes them look that way.

As I have stated it would be very hard to convince you of which side has been more tyrannical and militant, as well as not the most relevant issue. It would however be far more simplistic to debate which belief system is conducive to that violence. Deal or not?

If we are debating the outcomes of prophecy, then which side has been more tyrannical and militant is absolutely the most relevant issue. If Genesis 16:12 is the prophecy you claim it is, it is about deeds, not writings.

I did intend to link the Arabs by their own claims with Ishmael however. Where did that claim go?

I acknowledged it, if you recall. What I dispute is not the existence of mythical genealogies, but your claim that Genesis 16 somehow foretells Arab tribulations.

 

[Thief]

There is no 'hall of mirrors trick', the solution is simply a self caused or uncaused universe.

Not that simple....but simple none the less.

Spirit first?....or substance?

 

[1robin]

And the cause of god is?

That has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.

1. Only things that begin to exist require causes.
2. God did not begin to exist. He has always existed.
3. God requires no cause.

or

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either within it's self or externally.
2. The universe does not contain the explanation for it's existence.
3. God contains the explanation of his own existence.
4. The universe needs an external creator. God does not.

 

[cottage]

That has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.

1. Only things that begin to exist require causes.
2. God did not begin to exist. He has always existed.
3. God requires no cause.

1. No object is seen to begin to exist from nothing,
2. All existent things require a cause for their existence
3. If God exists then God requires a cause

or

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either within it's self or externally.
2. The universe does not contain the explanation for it's existence.
3. God contains the explanation of his own existence.
4. The universe needs an external creator. God does not.

Things in existence can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing. So if things in the world have a reason or explanation and the world itself is to have a reason or explanation for being what it is, then that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

 

[idav]

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of it's existence, either within it's self or externally.
2. The universe does not contain the explanation for it's existence.
3. God contains the explanation of his own existence.
4. The universe needs an external creator. God does not.

With all the information we have on what we think is the beginnings of the universe, you cant conclude 2 or 3, it looks like the universe is god so there is no reason to jump to unknown causes. The universe at last is known.

 

[1robin]

Key word there is "known". The multiverse theory is not just some crazy idea dreamed up by a few stoned postgrads - it has good theoretical foundations. How, exactly, do you picture "nothing"?

It is certainly a possibility an unknown will be the answer. However now you are in my camp where faith is required. You cannot at the same time hold faith in something with less evidence and condemn my faith in something with far more. I never blamed multiverses on drugs. I blame it on fantasy, faith, and as science which does not have the luxury of having a known to test it by.

I do not picture things which cannot reflect light. I do not picture the absence of light, dark matter, abstracts, energy, etc.... Our ability to picture a thing is not a test for anything except visually.

You have got to be kidding.

Not even a little bit. For example the Tyre prophecy has at least a dozen detailed predictions. Every detail multiplicatively amplifies the problems with false application.

Only if it is to make the sense apologists need it to make. There is a circularity here: "For this text to mean what I insist it must mean, it needs a deeper than surface interpretation. Now, because bible verses need a deeper than surface interpretation, this one clearly means what I say it means."

You stated no acceptable biblical exegesis rule of thumb in existence. The necessity of any text of any kind even fractionally as long, complex, and cryptic as the bible having interpretations beyond the most simplistic is obvious and uncontestable. I won't credit statements contrary to that as having any merit.

More circularity. To conclude that the Micah verse refers to Jesus, you must start with the assumption that sword does not mean sword; here you are using the conclusion that it refers to Jesus to defend the assumption that sword does not mean sword.

I do not start by that assumption. My conclusion is directly a result of the traditional meaning's making the text incomprehensible, inconsistent with the over all narrative, and inconsistent with every single teaching of Christ. This is simplistic stuff.

Mostly, it very clearly means long sharp metal blade used for killing people - or are you suggesting that Joshua and his army talked the Canaanites to death? In Micah 5, you clearly need it to mean something else in order for Micah's author to be foreseeing Jesus; but without that need, the metaphorical interpretation is unfounded. The sentence "And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." does not beg for a metaphorical interpretation unless you have a prior agenda that requires it.

It is an unavoidable fact that words very often have multiple meanings. As unavoidable as tha fact that some of them simple render otherwise consistent and coherent text into a smoking rubble of non-sense. In that case like in a billion others the alternate meanings that make sense out otherwise sensible and consistent texts are adopted. Where is the problem with what is done for every text ever written also occurring for the bible? Again this is basic stuff.

Yes; and given enough people badly wanting to see them fulfilled it isn't as hard as you're making out.

There are prophecies that can be misapplied. However many are multi layered, include exhaustive detail, and so closely line up with complex historical facts that denial becomes ludicrous. Biblical prophecy does not even have a close second. There is no parallel in human history. Even if you could make a case that a few rely on unjustifiable interpretations most will render that complaint moot.

By deciding in advance that they are true, and looking for an interpretation that makes them look that way.

I have never known anyone who did that. Once you have verified, maybe a thousand prophecies that require no significant assumptions of any kind and line up with history to consistently that denial is just nuts, assumptions about reliability in general are easily justifiable.

If we are debating the outcomes of prophecy, then which side has been more tyrannical and militant is absolutely the most relevant issue.

We are not. Prophecy is either true or false. How much damage they portend is not the issue. Even if that was relevant it would require far more time than we have. It is far more relevant and easy to examine how violent each texts demands are.

If Genesis 16:12 is the prophecy you claim it is, it is about deeds, not writings.

What more meaningful deed can there be than to write down words and claim they are God's. What can be considered greater or more evil than that? I am not backing down from the claim the Arabs have been far more troublesome to humanity than others. I am saying it would be impossible for me to convince you of something so complex in a post. However the writings or beliefs that produced the violence would not be.

I acknowledged it, if you recall. What I dispute is not the existence of mythical genealogies, but your claim that Genesis 16 somehow foretells Arab tribulations.

I made no claims about mythical genealogies, so agreement about it is irrelevant. I said the bible claims that the sons of Ishmael would trouble the sons of Isaac. If you cannot see the fulfillment of that over history, you are not looking. BTW that is not the only detail that prophecy includes that is fulfilled. However if you cannot grant the most obvious of historical truths there is little reason to examine further.

 

[1robin]

1. No object is seen to begin to exist from nothing,

This has no relevance to that universally accepted principle. The test for reality is not visibility. If it was dark matter, energy, abstract concepts, and time would all be non viable propositions.

2. All existent things require a cause for their existence

That is not true. Only those that begin to exist require a cause. They all however do require an explanation.

3. If God exists then God requires a cause

No he does not, but he does require an explanation. Your demand has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. I do not expect better from Dawkins but I did of you.

Things in existence can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing. So if things in the world have a reason or explanation and the world itself is to have a reason or explanation for being what it is, then that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

That sounds more like a tongue twister or someone yelling at cars on the freeway than an argument. I stayed with it until the last half and then you completely lost me. Are you sure it is grammatically what you intended?

 

[1robin]

With all the information we have on what we think is the beginnings of the universe, you cant conclude 2 or 3, it looks like the universe is god so there is no reason to jump to unknown causes. The universe at last is known.

We have no information about a natural cause of the universe. I think your mistaking science fiction or fantastic theories with evidence. The universe contains a million unknowns for every known. Even our own planet contains inexhaustible mysteries. You have some ridiculously high and unjustifiable view of science that has no relationship to reality. I have a degree in math and work in a scientific field. What are your qualifications for the claims you made? They are far more optimistic than even the pop eyed atheist who views science a sacred institution. Lastly your stating that a naturalistic concept has become a supernatural being does you no favors. That is not even coherent.

 

[cottage]

This has no relevance to that universally accepted principle. The test for reality is not visibility. If it was dark matter, energy, abstract concepts, and time would all be non viable propositions.

That is not the argument; this has nothing at all to do with visibility.

No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs or human and animal life begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place. The synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist and then began to exist but comprises a change or variation in the form of existent physical matter.

That is not true. Only those that begin to exist require a cause. They all however do require an explanation.

Then give me an example of an existing thing that is uncaused?

No he does not, but he does require an explanation. Your demand has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. I do not expect better from Dawkins but I did of you

.

But that’s because (as expected) you’ve not understood the case I’m making, which rejects the Kalam Argument as reformulated by William Lane Craig. As explained up the page, nothing in the phenomenal world begins to exist but is subject to movement and mutation, change in other words, in pre-existent matter. So we accept that everything in the world has a cause to explain how it comes to be the way it is. And so the principle is that all existent things have cause for their existence. Now if the world as a whole is caused, and it is by no means logically certain that it is (for if we agree that the material world isn’t logically necessary then where does the legend: ‘Everything must have a cause’ have its logical foundation? It is the case that every effect must logically have a cause only in the sense that the term ‘effect’ implies the term ‘cause’; but there is no logical necessity outside this meaning, just as we might say that mermaids are part fish, part human, but which is not to say that mermaids must exist)and we apply the aforementioned principle, the world as a whole requires a cause for its existence, and from which it follows that if everything existent is caused and God is existent, then God requires a cause. And a special plea cannot be made to God as a necessary being while at the same time making him dependent upon a contingent principle, for that argument wants to demonstrate its truth in logic alone, but then exigently calls upon the material world for support, which is contradictory.

That sounds more like a tongue twister or someone yelling at cars on the freeway than an argument. I stayed with it until the last half and then you completely lost me. Are you sure it is grammatically what you intended?

Have I lost you again? It is that final clause that is crucial and it is the summary of an argument (the Principle of Sufficient Reason) that I’ve given you at least half-a-dozen times before, which you’ve never been able to answer. Do you need me to lay the argument out once more in full?

 

[Thief]

Really people....it is quite simple.

Spirit first?...or substance.

Choose.

 

[Ouroboros]

Really people....it is quite simple.

Spirit first?...or substance.

Choose.

What's the equation in physics that includes spirit?

 

[shawn001]

We have no information about a natural cause of the universe. I think your mistaking science fiction or fantastic theories with evidence. The universe contains a million unknowns for every known. Even our own planet contains inexhaustible mysteries. You have some ridiculously high and unjustifiable view of science that has no relationship to reality. I have a degree in math and work in a scientific field. What are your qualifications for the claims you made? They are far more optimistic than even the pop eyed atheist who views science a sacred institution. Lastly your stating that a naturalistic concept has become a supernatural being does you no favors. That is not even coherent.

"We have no information about a natural cause of the universe."

LOL the universe isn't natural?

We have no information on any supernatural cause.

Information is different even then empirical evidence of course.


The new discovery even supports inflation if confirmed and hence

""It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a news conference in March 2014 concerning the gravitational waves discovery. (Guth is not affiliated with that study.)

"It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking (the idea of) a multiverse seriously."

What Is the Big Bang Theory? | Space.com

 

[McBell]

Really people....it is quite simple.

Spirit first?...or substance.

Choose.

Really Thief...it is quite simple.

Present a meaningful and or useful definition of "spirit".

I am not asking you to show this "spirit" exists.

That comes AFTER you can meaningfully and or usefully define the term.

For five years you have been asked.

And still you dodge and weave the request.