metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Based on what? There are other possibilities, which is not to say or imply that you are wrong, but why should we jump to just one conclusion at the expense of other possibilities?
-
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
Based on what? There are other possibilities, which is not to say or imply that you are wrong, but why should we jump to just one conclusion at the expense of other possibilities?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
You are begging the question.
How do you know that the Universe has a cause?
Ciao
- viole
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In brief, two other possibilities, with one being that sub-atomic particles and/or their components, such as strings ("string theory") always have existed, and the other being that time itself started at the BB, thus asking what was there prior to it or what caused it would likely be moot questions. Both are considered viable hypotheses according to both the research cosmologists and quantum physicists.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
It is a question which is not asked by those familiar with these debates. God is a concept. The Christian concept of God (among most of the major faiths) is what has been discussed here and he is an eternal being. In the same book that led me to experiencing that God I also find his description. If you yell prove it at every faith issue which has no burden and makes no offer of proof then the debate with not progress very far. Historical and theological claims are usually decided by the best explanation for the evidence, not certainties.
Let me try and type slower.
1. Only things which begin to exist have a cause.
2. God did not begin to exist.
3 The question of what caused God is meaningless.
What? Purposes nor ponds were the issue or even mentioned in this discussion.
The universe beginning to exist is what the most modern cosmology suggests. A God without beginning is what men 5000 years ago described God in terms of. I find neither proof but I do find reality and my faith (as usual) in perfect agreement. If your asking for certain proof then by that standard everything you believe about anything is null and void. Only that you think, alone, is known. demanding of faith what even science does not provide and requiring a cause for a causeless concept will make for a meaningful debate.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Nothing moves until.....Something...moves it.
Linear existence....there was a beginning.
gnostic
The Lost One
thief said:
I actually believe in cause-and-effect, just that the cause doesn't require a supernatural deity or a intelligent designer. It doesn't required divine intervention, because A) there are no evidences to support deity (or deities) or intelligent designer, and B) the god(s) are man-made invention, invented by people who has no understanding of how the world or the universe work.
What is surprising, in this day and age, people are still superstitious, and still believe in primitive books they called Bible or Qur'an, as if they have the secrets. You, yourself, are still living in the Dark Ages, and still can't distinguish between theory and hypothesis, proof and evidence, belief/faith and evidence.
This "god did it" is a symptom of blind faith and utter ignorance of reality...nothing more, nothing less.
To say that all things existent in the world have a cause of their existence is an empirically true premise. And to say the world needs a cause it does not contain, whether true or not, is to assert as a general principle that all existent things must be caused. But to parachute God into the equation is to contradict yourself and say there is no such principle, that things may exist uncaused and the principle of causation, by which you mean to argue from god to the world, is thus rejected arbitrarily. And it is a greater speculation to argue for an eternal uncaused God, a God which cannot be proved to exist, than it is for an uncaused world, a world that is proven to exist. And there is no question of binding God; the concept is either possible or it is not, and I believe Ive shown that, on a number of the classic arguments, the latter conclusion is the case.
We were arguing whether the world as an existing thing needs God as a cause. You are arguing that it does.
I said if All existent things need a cause is true, and God exists, then God needs a cause. You replied: Thats not true. Only things that begin to exist require a cause.
But you are arguing that God is an existent thing!
So then I ask you to give an example of any existent thing that is uncaused? And your answer was: God!! That is a very obvious circuit.
The world is all that is the case (everything that can be stated or conceived of, objects and concepts). Therefore the absence of the world is the equal of nothing. (See also my comments at the foot of the page). The laws of thought are a feature of mind, as the term informs us, and the mind being a species of something cannot conceive of nothingness, but only of words to describe that lack of conception such as blank spaces, and that is because there are no minds nor any laws of thought in nothing. It might be said that The moon is the moon is true even if no one is looking at it. But to say the moon is the moon we have to know there is a moon. And so the principle of identity in this case is only true of the moon if it exists, which requires knowledge and is, in every respect, mind-dependent. Even the abstract conception of a moon requires thought. We are able to say things exist because we are aware of them or because we have, or have had, direct or indirect knowledge of them, or because we can conceptualise them, which we do by compounding ideas from experience. So things in the external world are said to be true because they are, or have been, experienced in some sense, and we are led by inductive reasoning to believe the future will be like the past and that things that are will continue to be. But in all cases human experience and thought are necessary for such.
So the laws of logic are informational and we cant apply them and expect to give meaning to what is unintelligible. The present King of Franc e = the present King of France is as meaningless an utterance as can possibly be imagined, and yet it is entirely intelligible as an analytical proposition. But to say nothing = nothing (A = A) is an indirect reference to its being something, or something and nothing at the same time which is incoherent. And then there is this: Nothing is the same as itself. There are two contradictory meanings in that sentence, and one of them appears to negate the very principle of identity. Now while that example may be an interesting demonstration of semantics, just as it is with the traditional belief that nothing = nothing is a coherent statement of something, it still remains the case that there are no logical principles in nothing - not even the contradiction Ive just used to turn the principle on its head! We are only able to use the term nothing in association within the meaning of something. For sure we can come up with various explanations such as when were asleep or where a thing is absent, and to use my own example we can think of the world at some point as not existing. And in the case of that example we appeal to the ubiquitous state of affairs, as a demonstration of identity, in other words as something. The principle of identity applies to anything we can distinctly conceive, and we cannot conceive of nothingness anymore than we can conceive of married bachelors or a two-eyed Cyclops, other than as a mere words - or in a colloquial sense for what we cant explain. And I believe thats where we allow ourselves to be misled. We can intuit A = A as being intelligible, but what are we to adduce from this: ( ) = ( )? Were inclined to exclaim Nothing! But thats not because we have an understanding of nothingness: on the contrary it is because no information, no analytic truth is contained within the gaps of that equation, thus making it incomprehensible. And to demonstrate the absurdity more profoundly here is that equation once more, but this time minus the parentheses and the equal symbol: ________________
The world was the traditional philosophical term for everything, that is to say everything that can be observed, understood or conceived. It can be further qualified or specified as the material world or the phenomenal world etc, if that is how one means it to be understood. I generally make a point of not using the term universe because although strictly speaking it means the same as Ive explained in the first sentence above, it is too often used in rather restricted cosmological terms of space and time etc.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Bull ****.
You been promoting the same hall of mirrors for the last five years.
Stating your opinion as fact doe snot make it fact.
Nice try though.
You would do goo to take your own advice...
Thief
Rogue Theologian
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Opinion stated as fact.
Another opinion stated as fact in support of your previous opinion that was stated as fact.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And what evidence can you show to indicate that this is the case?
And what evidence could you show to indicate that this is not the case?
You just keep repeating this over and over and over and over .....
Repetition is not evidence. Desire is not evidence. Do you have any evidence?
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Another thing too, even if (let's say for sake of argument) that God did exist without having a cause. He/she created the universe with a purpose. He/she must've had some kind of idea, plan, thought, blueprint, reason for the creation. This means a sequence of thoughts for the planning. That sequence of thoughts must've had a beginning. So the act of causing the universe wasn't the "First Cause" but rather that "First Thought." But... did God really not think about before that? Was that thought just a random thought? Like "Oh, I havent' thought about this before, but maybe I should create something, perhaps a universe? What is a universe? Let's think about that for a second." Well. Then the actual first cause was random! So at some point either we get a random event or we have an eternal/infinite regression.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In the process of saying this, you actually contradict yourself. If everything has at least one cause, then you have just given logical support for infinity, which is what most research cosmologists that I have read lean in the direction of.