Well, God apparently popped into existence from nothing before pulling the Universe out of his hat, so why not skip a step and say that the Universe came to be in the same way that you think God came to be?
-
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
Well, God apparently popped into existence from nothing before pulling the Universe out of his hat, so why not skip a step and say that the Universe came to be in the same way that you think God came to be?
Skwim
Veteran Member
Sorry, but the notions of a biomechanical engineer, Dr. Miller, don't impress.
And just because creationists have grabbed onto an old observation made by Louis Pasteur that living things come only from other living things, doesn't make it true. Nor does calling it a "law" make it one. Ptolemy's law of refraction was eventually found to be in error and replaced by Snell's law. Then there's the formula known as Newton's sine-square law of air resistance that was found to be incorrect. The problem with creationists, as has been pointed out time and again:
Last edited:
Well, first let me welcome you to the forums, Jafa.
As for your post, I don't think the boundary between life and non-life is as sharp as you may think it is, and the "life from life" adage was more about spontaneous generation (eg: maggots from rotting meat and such) than the origins of the first life. I mean, if you concede that there was once a time of no life, then obviously life arose from non-life at some point.
I'd be interested in why you conclude that the concept that living things change over time --evolution -- is 'barking mad. Do you understand the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution, and the concepts and evidence upon which these are based?
As for your post, I don't think the boundary between life and non-life is as sharp as you may think it is, and the "life from life" adage was more about spontaneous generation (eg: maggots from rotting meat and such) than the origins of the first life. I mean, if you concede that there was once a time of no life, then obviously life arose from non-life at some point.
I'd be interested in why you conclude that the concept that living things change over time --evolution -- is 'barking mad. Do you understand the difference between evolution and the theory of evolution, and the concepts and evidence upon which these are based?
Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone proposing that "something came from nothing" without also proposing that God Did It. Oddly, they usually do not mention God himself as an example.
Atheists and other people who do not share that view generally simply do not claim that something came from nothing.
Atheists and other people who do not share that view generally simply do not claim that something came from nothing.
1) What is your evaluation of what constitutes science based upon?
2) There is no such thing as "scientific fact". A fact is by definition true. Any qualifiers are almost always extraneous.
I'm not sure what you refer to here (nor am I an atheist), but working as a scientist and having studied religion (not just through sciences but the ol' fashioned way- learning Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and other languages to a lesser extent to read primary texts as well as modern languages of biblical studies and theology), I could understand how the historical, linguistic, textual critical approach to religion could be compared to the sciences but that is not religion. It is merely the study of it form a certain perspective. So what do you mean by "your religion"?
I've heard it. I've seen no evidence for it (or perhaps I should say I have seen exactly as much evidence for it as I have that the Yeti is best friends with the Loch Ness Monster). "Evidence of absence..." and all.
Dogma?
Scientific theories are based on actual observation and experimentation, Jafa; on evidence. They're always being retested and tweaked. They're not writ in stone, and are subject to revision as new evidence appears.
Space dust can't form into rocks? Rocks can't amalgamate into planets? Life can't form on Earth? Yet here we are in a rocky planet with life. The scientific mechanisms proposed are our best guesses at the mechanisms involved, based on observed evidence.
"Goddidit" offers no mechanism. It doesn't really propose a mechanism, it's just an assertion of agency. It relies on no observation, no facts, no testing. It's an a priori proposal of magic.
That is just not accurate, among other reasons because we can not know that something does not ever happen.
Particularly when you are talking about something that just might have happened, and which research has strongly suggested to have, in fact, happened. We may even not be too far from actually creating life in laboratory.
That, too, is not really true. Evolutionism is about change in lifeforms among generations, not about the origin of life itself.
At most it hints of a possible origin of life, but that is very collateral.
No need for one. Unless I happen to be a creationist, it seems.
Did I point this out? I must have missed that.
In fact, a thing can be both a theory and a fact: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
I place my "faith" in facts as well, so I don't see where we're disagreeing in this. Rocks exist. Earth exists. Life exists. How are we to account for this if not by examining the pertinent facts? Where do we disagree?
In fact, a thing can be both a theory and a fact: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
I place my "faith" in facts as well, so I don't see where we're disagreeing in this. Rocks exist. Earth exists. Life exists. How are we to account for this if not by examining the pertinent facts? Where do we disagree?
I'm confused. My 'theories' are those of science -- I go where the evidence leads me.
What is it then? Are you defining science differently from me?
So can the results of a magic 8-ball. A fact is by definition true. If I make a guess that I not only think is wrong but is also based on no evidence and which I have plenty of counter-evidence against, it can be fact. The only criterion for something to be a fact is for it to be true.
My field is neuroscience with a focus on complex systems, systems sciences, cognition, and computational neurobiology. My reading of the literature in the life sciences, evolutionary psychology, astrobiology, medical sciences, etc., leads me to believe that evolution is perhaps the most supported model in the entirety of the sciences, and certainly among the top-most.
Am I an evolutionist? If so, in what way is "evolution...about whatever" I "want it to be" vs. the research of the past ~150 years?
The evolution theory has nothing to do with the origins of life, Jafa. Origins is a whole different field.
Obviously life initially originated from non-life, and no scientist disputes this.
I don't quite see where you're going with this dogma thing. I'm a cat person, myself, so I might need some more context.
As you haven't defined life, I can't say whether I've seen evidence of it at all. I can say that I've seen no evidence that millions of identified organisms known and observed to exist actually do, or even that there is a place called Cornwall in which residents have a particular accent. I have seen absolutely no evidence that the two most successful theories of physics are true (quantum physics and relativistic physics) and one of them has inherent within it ratio of uncertainty guaranteeing that I will never see the kind of evidence I seek and the other negates the idea of so basic an observation as that of gravity.
So if your understanding is so fundamentally limited you cannot even express your dismissal in ways coherent with pathetically limited high school formulations of the sciences, then perhaps you may wish to refer back to the ways in which the sciences formulate models, theories, etc., and what these consist of.
Is this serious? Given your completely inaccurate description of "science" that is so ridiculously wrong I can't be sure you aren't joking, your assertion that "this refutes evolution" is so utterly illogical and without any epistemic foundation I can't help but wonder if it too is a joke. Surely your understanding of argumentation, logic, reasoning, and critical analysis is not so thoroughly lacking that you mean the above seriously (if so, of course, I apologize for the description, but would also recommend educating yourself)?
From the OED (and I have the LSJ too if you wish to go back that far)
"1. An opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a church or sect. Also: an imperious or arrogant declaration of opinion.
1534 tr. Erasmus Enchiridion Militis Christiani (1981) vi. xiv. 151 The Bragmanyes Cynikis Stoikes be wonte to defende their dogmies [L. dogmata] and doctryne styfly with tothe and nayle.
a1600 R. Hooker tr. T. Stapleton in Of Lawes Eccl. Politie (1648) viii. sig. X4, Power to proclaim, to defend, and..to preserve dogmara [1666 dogmata; L. dogmata] the very Articles of Religion themselves.
1638 T. Herbert Some Yeares Trav. (rev. ed.) 267 The grosse fanatick Dogmataes of the Alcoran.
1640 G. Watts tr. Bacon Of Advancem. Learning iii. iv. 145 Those Dogmaes and Paradoxes are almost vanisht.
a1652 J. Smith Select Disc. (1660) Pref. Disc. §1. 11 Learn not..too zealously to propugne the Dogmata of any sect.
1676 R. Dixon Nature Two Test. 21 Prophane Dogms and impure Worship.
1714 T. Hearne Ductor Historicus (ed. 3) I. iii. 400 Their Dogmata and Astrological Doctrine..we shall not enlarge upon them.
1795 J. Ogilvie Let. 3 July in T. Jefferson Papers (2000) XXVIII. 402 Men whose minds are philtered by the Classic charm and darkened by the dogmas of Antiquity.
1844 J. Ruskin Mod. Painters (ed. 2) I. Pref. p. lii, The dogmata of the schools of art.
1874 J. R. Green Short Hist. Eng. People v. §3. 229 To assert the freedom of religious thought against the dogmas of the Papacy.
1928 Amer. Mercury Oct. 169/2 Everywhere there is growing discontent with the thundered dogmas that were formerly the principal beguilements of the mid-Western night.
1971 G. Urang Shadows of Heaven iv. 166 In the fantasy of Lewis, Williams, and Tolkien traditional dogmas about eternity and time have resulted in a distorted representation of present actuality.
2005 N.Y. Times Mag. 5 June 48/2 The long-accepted academic dogma, the so-called efficient-market hypothesis..was coming under at least mild assault.
2. The body of opinion, esp. on religious matters, formulated or laid down authoritatively or assertively; systematized belief; tenets or principles collectively; doctrine.
1791 E. Burke Three Mem. French Affairs (ed. 2) 6 The present Revolution..is a Revolution of doctrine and theoretick dogma.
1856 R. W. Emerson Eng. Traits xiv. 250 If, going out of the region of dogma, we pass into that of general culture.
1870 J. M. Carlyle in Fortn. Rev. July 18 It places character on the pedestal where Puritanism places dogma.
1893 J. Orr Christian View God I. 26 (note) , Dogma I take to be a formulation of doctrine stamped with ecclesiastical authority.
1945 A. Koestler Yogi & Commissar iii. i. 121 Typical examples of socially approved split-mind patterns are the Astronomer who believes both in his instruments and in Christian dogma [etc.].
1976 H. Montefiore in Christian Believing 154 Even in granting as much as this to doctrine and dogma, I have to enter into the cloud of unknowing and assert the Church's apophatic tradition.
2006 Tin House Winter 222/2 Casanova believed in the eighteenth-century philosophical doctrine of libertinage based on independence from and disregard for Christian dogma."
I didn't say there was.
You didn't answer my questions. Are you incapable of doing so?
An assessment you base upon...?
which is?
I teach and do research, I am not a student.
Look up the etymology of nebulous before comparing clouds to clouds.
Are we going to get into an argument over the definition of "created?" I agree there was a time of no life and now there is life, but what does this have to do with the ToE?
The ToE is about how already existing life changes over time.
Germ theory of disease: Theory -- and fact.
Heliocentric solar system: Theory -- and fact.
Evolution theory as conspiracy? Where are you coming up with this? Who's conspiring? What's their agenda?
And I'm still wondering what your explanation for all this is, and your evidence.
You asked for a definition and I provided one from the most comprehensive source available. Your utter inability to even approximate a knowledge of science aside, the fantastically ridiculous failure to mimic the mere semblance of logic would be comical if, as I hoped, you were joking.
See Rosen and Essays on Life Itself for some exposure to actual science while relating to the topic of life. In fact, go back as far as Schrödinger's What is Life? or really anything to acquaint yourself with something resembling actual science.
It would seem that you cannot. However, luckily I have a background there too (and not merely a consequence of a secondary major in classical languages but a realization that the sciences should be informed by philosophy). If you can "do philosophy" please do so. It would be a refreshing reprieve from your descriptions of whatever you seem to think "science" is.
Not you specifically. To me your are just one among countless others who spout the same nonsense I get tired of addressing (in fairness, some of these are researchers in the sciences). However, you do stand out as one fantastically driven to illustrate how thoroughly, completely, and steadfastly determined to remain ignorant of anything remotely resembling not even the sciences but critical thinking, reasoning, and logic themselves. It would be a tremendous achievement but for the fact that these are all contrary to any and all possible utility.
Your simply a clone of many others I've encountered who spout nonsense regarding topics they know so little of they are incapable of even evaluating how incomplete their knowledge is.
I admit it is rare that I find someone so completely bereft of anything resembling useful (let alone approximately accurate) commentary about so wide a range of topics in so few posts of so little length. If you take pride in standing out as one who can so thoroughly communicate such a wide ignorance in so short a period of time and via so little sharing of information, then you have achieved something you can indeed be proud of.