The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[gnostic]

Apologetics Press -

Here is a scientific reply to abiogenesis. God is outside of our world and can create and did create time and everything we see. He has no limits. God can't be put in the box we as humans have since He is supernatural Himself. Thus outside of our natural world since He created it.

All I can say, Jeff Miller is utter moron.

There are so many things wrong with his article, and it definitely demonstrated that he has no understanding of evolutionary biology, let alone abiogenesis.

And what the hell is "atheistic theory"?

How then can atheistic theories like Darwinian evolution be considered acceptable?

Why is evolution the only one that "atheistic"?

I have read a number of theories, in physics, in chemistry, and in biology. In astronomy, geology, electronics, computer science, etc. None of these mentioned a divine being, referred to as "god", why aren't in any of theories in these called "atheistic".

I am quite sure that none of the biochemistry textbooks (I have not read any biochemistry books) say anything about Abrahamic deity, should these books be labelled as "atheistic"?

What make any branch, field or sub-field of science, "atheistic" or "theistic"?

Like I said, Miller is an utter moron.

 

[johnhanks]

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.

Ironically in the context of this exchange, you are the one being over-literal. By "picture" I meant "conceive of".

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...

It does not make the text incomprehensible. Read literally, the text makes perfect sense: it foretells a military ruler of Israel who will defeat the Assyrians; it just happens to be mistaken, that's all.

... and inconsistent with every single teaching of Christ.

Circularity again: you are using the conclusion that the text refers to Christ to justify the textual interpretation leading to that conclusion.

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.

Only the pre-conceived meanings brought by apologists are rendered nonsensical. In the Micah case, the literal interpretation makes perfect (if mistaken) sense.

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.

So let's concentrate on those.

We are not [debating the outcomes of prophecy].

Really?

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.

Easy, perhaps - certainly for your side of the debate. More relevant? We are discussing Genesis 16:12, I believe:

And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

I see no mention of texts there.

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?

Well, killing lots of people and taking their land must run it close. Yes, Arabs did that; but Christendom left them standing...

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.

Over history? I doubt this is easily quantifiable, but I think it credible that more Jews have suffered at the hands of European Christians than at the hands of Arabs.

 

[Thief]

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.

YOU are spirit.

Now move to self denial....if you can.

There's another RF'er that does the same ploy.

I tell him the same thing.....bang your head on the wall til you bleed.
Then say it ain't real.

Denying you are spirit is pointless.

Unless of course you are dead set about following your carcass into the box and the box into the ground.

Your meaningless spirit might then dissipate.
THEN someone else can declare FOR you that (your) spirit does not exist.

 

[johnhanks]

Entertaining as our exchange on biblical prophecy has been, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pretend it has anything to do with the "something can't come from nothing" argument (even less with Evolution vs. Creationism). Accordingly I have started a thread in the Biblical Debates section of Scriptural Debates, and hope you will agree to continue the discussion there. I do not intend to make any more posts on biblical prophecy in this thread.

 

[McBell]

YOU are spirit.

Now move to self denial....if you can.

There's another RF'er that does the same ploy.

I tell him the same thing.....bang your head on the wall til you bleed.
Then say it ain't real.

Denying you are spirit is pointless.

Unless of course you are dead set about following your carcass into the box and the box into the ground.

Your meaningless spirit might then dissipate.
THEN someone else can declare FOR you that (your) spirit does not exist.

A simple "no, not right now" would have been suffice.

 

[1robin]

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.

This is a little surprising coming from you so let me make sure you are claiming what it looks like you are. Are you actually stating that everything is composed of eternal stuff that has always existed in some form? I am almost cringing anticipating your going to say yes.

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

God. Moral truth. Philosophic principles of many types, etc.... My claim was about the natural world and was that it does not contain anything that is uncaused, you then ask me to provide examples of what I said does not exist in the natural. Why? I ask that making the easy assumption you are going to equate my answer's being in the inconvenient category of the supernatural as being false because it is not in the beloved category labeled natural.

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)[

I did not take your claim as some kind of specific application to Craig's argument because I did not make Craig's argument. I made my own. In fact Craig's argument is not Craig's. I am not going to look it up but I think he adopted Leibniz' argument. He may state it in a unique way but there is little tat is unique between his claims and the Greeks. I have technical problems in my lab and have run out of time. I will try and get to the rest of this soon. Sorry.

 

[Thief]

A simple "no, not right now" would have been suffice.

The you read the post....and you still desire your denial?

If not right now....later for sure.

 

[cottage]

This is a little surprising coming from you so let me make sure you are claiming what it looks like you are. Are you actually stating that everything is composed of eternal stuff that has always existed in some form? I am almost cringing anticipating your going to say yes.

Blimey Robin, you sure are are hard work! Of course I’m not saying ‘everything is composed of eternal stuff’! What I said could not possibly be plainer:

‘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.’


Everything in the material world is composed of pre-existent matter and matter is subject to movement and mutation; so nothing in the material world begins to exist but simply changes form.Therefore if* the world as a whole, as an existent thing, needs a cause and God is existent, then God is caused. And remember I have shown that there are no special conditions that remove God from being subject to and dependent on the contingent principle of causation.

*But as the premise that everything in the world begins to exist and requires a cause for its existence is false, then the premise cannot demonstrate that the world beginning to exist as a whole requires a cause for its existence.


In sum there are two, and only two, conclusions: 1) that God himself is subject to causation, which is self-contradictory, or 2) that the world is uncaused, which is not self-contradictory. Both conclusions make God an impossible concept.

God. Moral truth. Philosophic principles of many types, etc....

‘Moral truths’ imply no contradiction by their denial, and philosophical principles are concepts, not existents.

My claim was about the natural world and was that it does not contain anything that is uncaused, you then ask me to provide examples of what I said does not exist in the natural. Why? I ask that making the easy assumption you are going to equate my answer's being in the inconvenient category of the supernatural as being false because it is not in the beloved category labeled natural.

It is all very simple.

I said: ‘All existent things are caused’

You replied: ‘That’s not true. Only things that begin to exist require a cause.’

So I’m saying to you if it is not true that all existent things are caused then give me an example of anything existent that is uncaused?

I did not take your claim as some kind of specific application to Craig's argument because I did not make Craig's argument. I made my own. In fact Craig's argument is not Craig's. I am not going to look it up but I think he adopted Leibniz' argument. He may state it in a unique way but there is little tat is unique between his claims and the Greeks. I have technical problems in my lab and have run out of time. I will try and get to the rest of this soon. Sorry.

Well I’m sorry but I really have no idea what it is you are saying, or how it’s supposed to address what I’ve said.

 

[McBell]

The you read the post....and you still desire your denial?

If not right now....later for sure.

My denial?

:biglaugh:

Your transference is comical.

Present something coherent to deny.

Or are you content with claiming non-acceptance as denial?

 

[Thief]

All righty then!.....

Spirit First....substance as creation.

Unless of course you can support a denial in the face of the laws of motion.

An object at rest will remain at rest until 'Something' moves it.
( I just love to capitalize that word!)

 

[McBell]

All righty then!.....

Spirit First....substance as creation.

Unless of course you can support a denial in the face of the laws of motion.

An object at rest will remain at rest until 'Something' moves it.
( I just love to capitalize that word!)

How about you support your bold unsubstantiated "spirit first" claim instead of trying so hard at diverting from the lack of support by claiming others of denial?

 

[Thief]

How about you support your bold unsubstantiated "spirit first" claim instead of trying so hard at diverting from the lack of support by claiming others of denial?

Spirit first...of course.
Substance first would place all of life as dependent on chemistry....and terminal.

THAT places Man as a complete mystery without purpose or resolve.

You might as well stop asking for 'proof'....

 

[McBell]

Spirit first...of course.
Substance first would place all of life as dependent on chemistry....and terminal.

THAT places Man as a complete mystery without purpose or resolve.

You might as well stop asking for 'proof'....

So you have absolutely nothing to support your claims?

 

[Thief]

So you have absolutely nothing to support your claims?

Spirit first.
It's an obvious item.

 

[McBell]

Spirit first.
It's an obvious item.

You did not answer the question.

 

[Thief]

You did not answer the question.

Let's make an assumption you have only one acceptable response.
Let's hear it.

 

[Ouroboros]

All righty then!.....

Spirit First....substance as creation.

Unless of course you can support a denial in the face of the laws of motion.

Now you're doing it again!

Newton's Laws of Motion are about Physical/Natural forces that are Not Supernatural.

So the laws of motion do NOT show "Spirit First".

They show "First Physical Causes" at best (note plural and not singular, and physical not supernatural).

An object at rest will remain at rest until 'Something' moves it.
( I just love to capitalize that word!)

That Something is a Something in this World.

So then you are a pantheist after all!

 

[littleoldme]

Let's make an assumption you have only one acceptable response.

no, that would be you...with
"Spirit first"

you need to prove that assertion, are you able to understand that simple concept?

make a claim, prove it, if you are interested in being taken seriously...
thus far you seem like a court jester...
:yes:

 

[McBell]

Let's make an assumption you have only one acceptable response.
Let's hear it.

Assume all you want.

Still waiting for you to present something other than wishful thinking in support of your claims.

I am not going to hold my breath.

I have only been asking the same thing for the last like 5 years....

 

[Thief]

Now you're doing it again!

Newton's Laws of Motion are about Physical/Natural forces that are Not Supernatural.

So the laws of motion do NOT show "Spirit First".

They show "First Physical Causes" at best (note plural and not singular, and physical not supernatural).


That Something is a Something in this World.

So then you are a pantheist after all!

No...really.

My postings do only the one thing you can't do.
I take science right up to the 'point' of choice.

At that 'point' it should be obvious.
Spirit first.
Separate of substance.
Creator... THEN.... the creation.

Something caused the singularity and the universe to came of it.

But you...have to make the choice to believe.