The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[metis]

if something can't come from nothing
that's like saying god came from nothing, right?
lets think about this; we have empirical evidence the universe exists
we don't have empirical evidence anyones definition of their god exists

Yes, that's a point, but there's another that goes something like this: just because something happened, how can we attribute that to God and not maybe some other cause(s)? For example, is there any evidence that connects God with the Big Bang, and if supposedly so, where is it?

Some claim there cannot be infinity, and yet at the same time they say God goes back into infinity (iow, always was).

 

[1robin]

No moral principle is absolute; so of course there is no such thing. But the assertion is propositional, and if you’re claiming that morality is an absolute God-given law then the statement is either true or false. And since there is no contradiction in stating that it is false then the proposition cannot be held to be true, and we know that to be the case empirically or in ‘reality’. ‘Murder’ is a subjective term because killing can always be justified as necessary or deserved as if to excuse the term, and so murder cannot be demonstrated as objectively wrong. Britain and the US bombed German cities during WW2 killing huge numbers of innocent civilians (Germany also bombed British cities, of course). The justification for total war was that the conflict would be brought to its end more quickly, which it undoubtedly was. But it is still the case that innocents were killed. So it was justified subjectively.

I do not remember claiming moral principles were absolute in the sense they are absolutely enforced. However you have no way of knowing they are not. If we all must face God at the judgment then these morals are absolute. The only moral evidence there is, is that there is a virtually universal comprehension of an objective moral realm. There is no proof available but all the evidence suggest morals are absolute in a transcendent context. Murder as absolutely wrong is what almost everyone believes. Your making the exact same mistake I mentioned in what you responded to. The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory claims to absolute truth cannot both be true. IT DOES NOT STATE that anything that is free of contradiction is true. Murder is not subjective if God exist. He knows the absolute truth of whether killing was justified or not. Our remonstrations have no relevance here. Law and our experience suggests there is a right and wrong to murder regardless of whether we can determine that ourselves. All laws about murder are based on it being absolutely wrong even if whether we can determine that or not ourselves. Our rules and laws that separate murder from justifiable homicide are thought to be an attempt to reflect absolute truth.

The application and proof of what we call morality is induction: what we see happen to others can also happen to me and mine. So the notion of what we call ‘morality’, our generally accepted view of what is right, is based on a need to safeguard ourselves and our kin and to co-exist harmoniously with our neighbours for our own security. And an empathetic view is developed from the necessary element of self-interest, but as a general principle it works exceedingly well for the world at large. This behavior is even observed in animals.

I am weary of other explanations for morality that ignore universal givens. They never work but require a lot of discussion to bear out. I have covered every ting you said above plus everything you would say if you expanded on that topic plus much more in previous posts. I do not care how good a word smith anyone is morality without God is not true. It is opinion based preference and turns our perception of moral truth into a ambiguous and insufficient list of conduct that only amounts to social fashion. It would and even has produced the moral insanity that can be seen in almost every moral statistic since the secular revolution in 1950 US. It is one of the greatest evils I can imagine and hundreds of millions of innocent lives have been taken in the womb and laid on the insane alter of PROGRESS. Please review my exhaustive reply's to previous comments similar to yours.

Don’t confuse ‘objective’ with what is objectionable. Moral codes have their foundation in experience and not in some god-given law, which in any case is reduced to an absurdity by the Problem of Evil and God-condoned, cause of suffering. As sentient creatures we suffer and we see others suffer, and since it is in our interest not to suffer and for others not to suffer we are as one in finding it abhorrent.

I can make entire catalogues of mistakes and willingly admit it. I can't imagine I have ever confused objective with objectionable. Where do you ever get that from? As I have said above I have written volumes countering these alter explanation for morality. They are one of the most desperate theories I am aware of. Please see my previous posts on it. I just can't bear to start over again now.

The above is patronizing. Let me ask you a question in response to yours. As an atheist I argue that morality isn’t objective in the way that you understand it, but do you honestly think in holding that view I’m not moved by my fellow humans’ suffering or not outraged by the actions and vileness of some of my fellow beings? Murder is wrong, and it is wrong not because it has been ordained as such by a supposed deity but because it is observed to cause immense suffering and distress. Neither god-belief nor non-belief is a prerequisite for moral behavior as some of the worst excesses have been perpetrated by adherents to both views. It is a pseudo-argument.

I did not link anything moral about your with what I said. You have no cause to feel slighted. I said what is perfectly true about atheism as a world view. It is true whether God exists or not. The denial of objective foundations frees morality to float around based on preference. I will not apologize for the truth of a world view. I would apologize if I had specifically linked you with immorality but I have repeatedly and emphatically stated time after time that what is true of atheism is not true of all atheists. An objective standard is an absolute necessity for moral behavior because only with it is what is moral knowable and fixed. For example Hitler's insane devotion to Nietzsche and the type of social Darwinism taught by Huxley allowed for genocide to become the new good. Hitler and his cronies actually and sincerely they actions were good and would benefit men in the long run. If an objective fact of the matter is not in the way there exists no other hurdles beyond personal opinion or tradition to this mindset.

“From a sociological point of view, education is a process by which and through which behavior changes are brought about in the individual in relation to the group in which he lives and comes into contact” (Kunzer, 1939, p.140). Looking at Nazi education through this sociological framework, one is better able to understand not only how Hitler rose to power, but how the sweeping changes he made to the educational system allowed for the systematic indoctrination of a nation.

Hitler did not get his morals from the old testament or at least he did not view the OT as the objective standard for morality. He got them from these views:

Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.[2]


“”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.[2]
Educational Theory of Adolph Hitler

Stalin got his morals from a book on Nietzsche sent him by Hitler and the same evolutionary and self preservation ideals that can easily be extrapolated from morals taken from a theory. He stripped morality of any objective truth, and men from possessing any transcendent worth, value, or sanctity. He and evolution make men a biological anomaly of no more importance than the insects you destroyed going to work this morning. Why not wipe out millions of these? after al there is no eternal accountability and no actual moral truth. Even if you disagree with their extrapolations from these sources without an objective criteria even possible in atheism it is only your opinion versus theirs with no actual right answer. Dangerous in the extreme.

Now take the opposite example. I can say based on objective fact if God exists the Popes who ordered the crusades were wrong. I have the basis by which to do that, an atheist does not.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

We’re arguing whether the world as an existing thing needs God as a cause.

MY primary claim is that the universe needs a cause it does not contain. My secondary claim is that God is the current front runner for that cause. What we actually argue about the most is the meaning of words or rules you take from philosophy and try your best to bind God with. You do it better than most but the task is impossible.

I said if ‘All existent things need a cause’ is true, and God exists, then God needs a cause’.

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

But that is not what I said. I said that things that begin to exist require causes, not things that merely exist (even though most do). God if he exists would necessarily be uncaused.

So then I ask you to give me an example of anything existent that is uncaused?

And your answer was: ‘God’!!

MY answer was God plus quite a few more examples.

Brilliant! (I’ve saved this discussion on my computer to use as a classic example of a circular argument.)

I made sure it was not circular before I stated it. Your paraphrasing my arguments into what I did not say in order to produce circularity. I have pointed your mischaracterizations out many times. A fault you must labor to produce is not a fault I actually have.

And if the universe didn’t exist, i.e. if there was nothing, then nor would concepts such as the laws of thought and analytical concepts such as 2 + 2 = 4, ‘natural law’ or anything. I’ve a lot to say on this pet subject of mine but I’ll reserve it for when I have your response. The absence of the universe does not necessitate the absence of anything. If God exists then I would expect to find concepts in the natural that are not dependent on the natural. That is exactly what I find. The point being things independent of the natural do not go away with the naturals dependence even if no humans exist to comprehend them.

‘World’s history’? (!)

A few of you guys use the word "world" for what the "universe" has traditionally been used to convey. That is why I used world here.

 

[1robin]

if something can't come from nothing
that's like saying god came from nothing, right?
lets think about this; we have empirical evidence the universe exists
we don't have empirical evidence anyones definition of their god exists

Again that argument has been said to be the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. God did not begin to exist so the question of where or what God came from is meaningless. Only things that begin to exist require causes. The universe began to exist, God did not.

 

[metis]

Again that argument has been said to be the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. God did not begin to exist so the question of where or what God came from is meaningless. Only things that begin to exist require causes. The universe began to exist, God did not.

Stated as if it were a fact.

 

[Ouroboros]

Stated as if it were a fact.

And it was stated by someone who didn't want to agree with it. Apologists love to turn the table on arguments. "It's not me, it's you! I don't have to prove God because I'm so special!"

There's an even worse counter argument in the history of western philosophy, and that's the argument that the argument is the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. It's a useless argument to say that an counter-argument is useless.

 

[1robin]

Stated as if it were a fact.

It is an absolute and objective fact that the concept of God as it exists in Christianity has that property. If your discussing some other concept of God then it would not apply but this conversation has been about the Christian God and if he exists he exists without the need for a cause. BTW most other forms of God even the philosophers God requires no cause. A God that needs a cause is a trivial concept and not one that matches most major theologies.

 

[1robin]

And it was stated by someone who didn't want to agree with it. Apologists love to turn the table on arguments. "It's not me, it's you! I don't have to prove God because I'm so special!"

There's an even worse counter argument in the history of western philosophy, and that's the argument that the argument is the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. It's a useless argument to say that an counter-argument is useless.

How in the wild wild world of the desperate non-theists did you get anything above from anything I said? I see now why the ignoring became an issue.

 

[wannabe]

Yes, that's a point, but there's another that goes something like this: just because something happened, how can we attribute that to God and not maybe some other cause(s)? For example, is there any evidence that connects God with the Big Bang, and if supposedly so, where is it?

Some claim there cannot be infinity, and yet at the same time they say God goes back into infinity (iow, always was).

in order to attribute anything to God, God has to be defined.
And since there are many definitions for God attributing it as a "cause" is still problematic

 

[wannabe]

Again that argument has been said to be the worst argument against God in the history of western thought.

thank you.

God did not begin to exist

how do you know? Or is that too much of a loaded question for you?

so the question of where or what God came from is meaningless.

I don't see why, I'm consistently questioning everything...The idea of God included. So perhaps for you, you can't question the idea of God, but I certainly can, as that is my right, right?

Only things that begin to exist require causes.

hmmm, What would be the purpose of a pond?

The universe began to exist, God did not.

Your unverifiable claims are still unverifiable.

 

[cottage]

Hello Cottage. What do you mean by the bolded statement above? Do you mean that that things must have causes and there for nothing exists without a cause, or do you mean that absence of being does not require a cause?

If the former I can only say that only things that come into being require causes. Anything that was eternal by definition would not be a caused thing. Caused things have a temporal beginning. If time was eternal there is no second zero or one. Of course that is non-sensical and one of the reasons why natural infinites seem impossible. However God as the Christian concept is explained does not have a cause and couldn't have a cause. He did not begin to exist.

There is only one legitimate argument, which is that if all existent things require a cause of their existence then nothing can exist uncaused. And if that is the case then God would require a cause, which would invoke the infinity problem and make God impossible. But if you want to argue as a special plea for an eternal God that is outside or beyond any such causal principle then the qualifier ‘all’ is rejected along with the principle of causation itself. And the Kalam argument, as amended by Craig, that everything that begins to exist requires a cause, is a fallacious argument, since no objects in the phenomenal world begin from nothing, and therefore it does not follow from that premise that the world as a whole requires a cause. So both approaches fail to infer the existence of an uncaused creator being.

I posted what is wrong about it. In quantum physics particles have been seen to come into existence. They come into existence but they do not do that without a cause. Fluctuations in the quantum energy fields and their potential differences create energy densities that result in matter. I could also have said that arrangements are new entities in themselves. They may be composed of pre-existing things but have never existed together in arrangement X before and are new entities. We all call what we get at the deal a new car and know it was caused to come into being. Does not matter if it is composed of preexisting elements or not. Something I thought fascinating about the quantum is that particles do not disappear and reappear in new places as was originally claimed. According to them the information that built a particular particle is somehow transferred to another location and mysteriously constructs a new particle. Interesting and just as weird and bizarre as any miracle I have ever heard of.

Rather than ‘post what is wrong about it’ you’ve confirmed what I stated!

If you do not have a position then from what perspective are you arguing. I believe the world has a beginning, you admit it probably does, and that is consistent with God and the totality of what my argument was. Why are you contending with that?

My position has consistently been.

1. The world (universe) began to exist and so must have a cause and that cause it does not contain.
2. The only candidates outside the natural are supernatural. The Christina God being the front runner.
3. That God never began to exist and so does not have a cause.

1. is false (as per the argument I gave you in my previous post) and therefore 2 and three do not follow.

 

[cottage]

There is far more evidence for God than for dark matter. I think you meant to say there is no proof of God. That is the only way what you stated would even be anywhere near the truth. I credit you with being a rational debater but occasionally you betray that estimation. Evidence is reliable information, which the inclusion of makes the proposition more likely. You know very well there is mountains of evidence that makes God more likely. Beyond even this there is inexhaustible proof, however this proof is not objectively available for scrutiny. I consider remarks like this beneath you.

Then kindly give me this ‘mountain of evidence’ and ‘inexhaustible proof’; and please, don’t just allude to it or give me sweeping statements in your usual fashion of appealing to authority or popularity or dropping names. Give me evidence of an omnipotent being that exists and intervenes in the world.

I am quite sure you said something identical to what I stated, however in the interest of time and length lets just drop it.

Instead of speaking of the top of your head why don’t you look back at our discussions and check the facts? I have never, ever, ever claimed the world is eternal.

I am quite aware that non-theists love ambiguity instead of firm fixed truth positions. I actually think it is a motivation. If I wished reality to be what I desired my first impulse would be to obscure what reality actually is. If I can blur actual reality then I can select whatever truth I wish to substitute for it. You can see the effect in science, history, reason, but most obviously in morality. The modern secular trend in philosophy is to deny truth as a category even exists at all. Then the door is open for any thing desired. As famously stated "God is truth" and "without God all things are permissible". I was not making any specific remarks about you in particular, just linking what you said with a general observation so obvious as to be readily apparent.

Sorry, the above is just waffle.




Again solely in the interest of time, simplicity, and length I will soften what I said a bit but it will remain just as emphatic a flaw. Instead of a direct contradiction I will instead claim that any hint the universe was uncaused is a violation of reasoned based deduction.

In many areas and science in particular the lessons of the rules are applied to unknowns. There exists every reason to extrapolate that everything in the universe requires a cause so the universe does as well. There exists no reason of any kind to conclude the opposite is true. You seem to oscillate back and forth but if you have ever even hinted the universe is causeless then you have abandoned reasons and have stepped into complete speculation based on nothing what ever.

I do not ‘oscillate back and forth’; I think you’re in discussion with so many people you forget or confuse me with others’ arguments. I’m not a dogmatist, having to defend a committed belief, but I have been entirely consistent in outlining what is logically possible and what is absurd. Unlike you I don’t begin with the answer and try and make it fit reality. Yours is pure speculation based on dogma, which leads to a contradiction, whereas my speculative metaphysical argument is not contradictory and therefore may even be true. So, if anything, I think I have the edge on what counts as reason.







Permit me remind you of your argument once again:

• Everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence
• The world began to exist
• The world requires a cause for its existence.

Premise 1) is false. No things in the physical world begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place. The synthesis occurs as a change or variation in the form of existent physical matter. A graphic example will help. My argument isn’t to imagine a blank square, and then a blank square with an empty circle, and finally that circle filled with dots, as if there was nothing, then the world came into being and then things in the world began to appear (or popped into being). The ‘world’ is the entirety of whatever it is. So first there was nothing (the blank square), and then there was the world (the circle replete with its dots). In other words, the world and its things (the dots) began together as the atoms and the fundamental constituents of all other things. So the argument that ‘things that begin to exist in the world need a cause of their existence’ is false prospective because nothing in the world begins to exist, and therefore cannot be used speciously as an argument to explain the beginning of the world.


Thesis: The world began to exist and there was nothing before the world began to exist (The Big Bang Theory.) The world has not always existed; there was nothing before the world and with no necessary existence it may one day cease to be. Hence there is no infinite regression or infinite progression of causes. The world is finite, and uncaused since there is no contradiction in denying any necessity in cause and effect, which being a contingent principle belongs to the phenomenal world; and nor is there any necessity or empirical evidence for acts of creation, it being nothing more than an arbitrary act of the mind. On this understanding the world neither created itself nor was it produced from nothing, but appeared where no thing existed previously; and causality being a worldly phenomenon began and will end with the world. [/quote]

I believe I have countered most of this above and am in a hurry so I will assume I have anyway.

Forgive me but you've not answered it.

 

[cottage]

I do not remember claiming moral principles were absolute in the sense they are absolutely enforced. However you have no way of knowing they are not. If we all must face God at the judgment then these morals are absolute. The only moral evidence there is, is that there is a virtually universal comprehension of an objective moral realm. There is no proof available but all the evidence suggest morals are absolute in a transcendent context. Murder as absolutely wrong is what almost everyone believes. Your making the exact same mistake I mentioned in what you responded to. The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory claims to absolute truth cannot both be true. IT DOES NOT STATE that anything that is free of contradiction is true.

Well of course a statement isn’t true by virtue of it being non-contradictory, and we certainly don’t need shouted capitals to make that point! But if P is stated and there is no contradiction in stating that not-P (possibly false), then P isn't demonstrable; so P in this case cannot then be held as if it were an absolute truth. And what everybody believes to be absolutely wrong of murder depends upon their understanding of ‘murder’. One man’s terrorist, to give a similar example, is another man’s freedom fighter.

Murder is not subjective if God exist. He knows the absolute truth of whether killing was justified or not. Our remonstrations have no relevance here. Law and our experience suggests there is a right and wrong to murder regardless of whether we can determine that ourselves. All laws about murder are based on it being absolutely wrong even if whether we can determine that or not ourselves. Our rules and laws that separate murder from justifiable homicide are thought to be an attempt to reflect absolute truth.

Well I think what you’ve written here serves to confirm for us that ‘murder’ is a subjective term. And the Problem of Evil excludes God as some kind of moral arbiter, since if God exists murder is only possible because he made it possible.

I am weary of other explanations for morality that ignore universal givens. They never work but require a lot of discussion to bear out. I have covered every ting you said above plus everything you would say if you expanded on that topic plus much more in previous posts. I do not care how good a word smith anyone is morality without God is not true. It is opinion based preference and turns our perception of moral truth into a ambiguous and insufficient list of conduct that only amounts to social fashion. It would and even has produced the moral insanity that can be seen in almost every moral statistic since the secular revolution in 1950 US. It is one of the greatest evils I can imagine and hundreds of millions of innocent lives have been taken in the womb and laid on the insane alter of PROGRESS. Please review my exhaustive reply's to previous comments similar to yours.

If you cannot address the Problem of Evil then you cannot even begin to make moral pronouncemments on behalf of God, when it comes to killing and the suffering of our fellow beings.

 

[Thief]

My scenario is completely irrelevant to your snake oil.

If your snake oil cannot stand up on its own, it is a problem with your snake oil, not with someone else's scenario.

So your blatant diversion tactic has failed.

Care to try again?

Care to render that scenario?

 

[gnostic]

Let me back up and start again.
1. Things exist.

Which I think everyone can agree on this.

2. These things require causes and explanations that nature is not known to contain.

And here is where everything falls apart, and we will disagree on the causes.

If you say god is the CAUSE and responsible for creation of everything - the universe, Sun, moon, Earth and stars, nature, plants and animals, and of course humans - then I will have disagree with you.

You can't even provide evidence for the existence of god, other than ancient belief and superstition, in a book, so how could you possibly think god is in any way responsible.

There are natural and rational and scientific explanations to (almost) everything, and none of these required "god" being the CAUSE and answer to anything.

3. They do not have and can not have an infinite regression of causation or explanation. To have something is to know that a first uncaused cause exists.

But putting god in the picture is very much like infinite regression anyway.

Putting god as the formation of the universe, is nothing more than your belief, which is the very same as your "wishful thinking".

And this "To have something is to know that a first uncaused cause exists", is nothing more than silly word game, because in essenece, it is an oxymoron.

There is no first uncaused. You are simply making thing up, or heavily re-interpreting the bible until the bible make no sense. And it make no sense, because you are trying to fit your creation myth into modern cosmology, is like trying to square block into a much smaller round hole.

4. I submit God is by far the best explanation for this cause.

That's your belief, but it is neither applicable or falsifiable in the real world, nor is there any evidence to support the existence of your god. God-did-it is not answer, just dogmatic absurdity.

5. BTW there have been things known to come into existence. In the quantum if no where else things come into being. They however do not do so without cause or explanation.

And...you have no understanding of quantum mechanics.

Please provide your sources.

 

[Thief]

The universe is the evidence.....Something caused it.

I say....God did it.

 

[gnostic]

The universe is the evidence.....Something caused it.

Then provide evidences to what cause it.

Saying "God did it", is nothing more than childish prattle, utterly meaningless and terribly dishonest wishful thinking.

Science required evidence for every cause-and effect. CAUSE required evidences too. If you can't present evidence for either the existence of the CAUSE or evidences to support god being creator of the universe, then it is not science.

Don't you even understand the word evidence? Science required EVIDENCES before any hypothesis or theory become valid and factual.

You have to date, here and in other threads, presented nothing but your useless and baseless "spirit first". And if you can't present a single shred evidence to either god or spirit, then it is not science or scientific.

Please provide credible sources or evidences for the existence of god or spirit.

Man, you don't understand science at all. Science and evidences have to go hand-in-hand, or else any idea you have, has no bearing in science or in reality, just your wishful thinking and your delusion of what you would call - your so-called high academic records.

 

[Thief]

Then provide evidences to what cause it.

Saying "God did it", is nothing more than childish prattle, utterly meaningless and terribly dishonest wishful thinking.

Science required evidence for every cause-and effect. CAUSE required evidences too. If you can't present evidence for either the existence of the CAUSE or evidences to support god being creator of the universe, then it is not science.

Don't you even understand the word evidence? Science required EVIDENCES before any hypothesis or theory become valid and factual.

You have to date, here and in other threads, presented nothing but your useless and baseless "spirit first". And if you can't present a single shred evidence to either god or spirit, then it is not science or scientific.

Please provide credible sources or evidences for the existence of god or spirit.

Man, you don't understand science at all. Science and evidences have to go hand-in-hand, or else any idea you have, has no bearing in science or in reality, just your wishful thinking and your delusion of what you would call - your so-called high academic records.

What's the matter....?
Can't handle the notion that an effect would have a Cause?
The universe IS the evidence.

 

[metis]

It is an absolute and objective fact that the concept of God as it exists in Christianity has that property. If your discussing some other concept of God then it would not apply but this conversation has been about the Christian God and if he exists he exists without the need for a cause. BTW most other forms of God even the philosophers God requires no cause.

But you were not referencing Christianity but was citing what you believe as if it were some sort of fact. You constantly do this, and then throw in a condition that was not there nor seemingly implied. Again, if you use something like "I believe...", then this would be a far better approach.

A God that needs a cause is a trivial concept and not one that matches most major theologies.

Why would that be a "trivial concept"? For example, many Buddhists believe there's a multiplicity of gods and that these gods are ever-changing, much as everything that we're aware of seems also to be ever-changing. Why is this supposedly a "trivial concept"?

 

[metis]

in order to attribute anything to God, God has to be defined.
And since there are many definitions for God attributing it as a "cause" is still problematic

Agreed, but what I would hope would happen is that when someone tries to define God that they take a modesty pill and mention that what they are saying is a belief. Unfortunately, there are some who just cite beliefs as if they're slam-dunk facts.