The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[metis]

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.

The above is a very good point, imo, and where I first ran across it was with the Buddhist monk and former scientist Matthieu Ricard. On of his points is that if there's a creator-god, then this deity must change at least somewhat because one must change at least a bit in order to bring about change. And if this creator-god changes even a smidgen, then something outside of itself must prompt it in some way to change.

It's certainly not proof in and of itself, but it is logical, and what else do we have to work with?

 

[Ouroboros]

The above is a very good point, imo, and where I first ran across it was with the Buddhist monk and former scientist Matthieu Ricard. On of his points is that if there's a creator-god, then this deity must change at least somewhat because one must change at least a bit in order to bring about change. And if this creator-god changes even a smidgen, then something outside of itself must prompt it in some way to change.

It's certainly not proof in and of itself, but it is logical, and what else do we have to work with?

Awesome.

Right. It's not a proof, but it is a disproof. It disproves the idea that there must be one and only one single first cause and nothing else before it. We just don't know and currently can't know based on our knowledge of this world. One day we might, but not right now. It's up in the air. Anyway, why should we have to prove God's existence at all with some strange and complicated philosophical argument? Shouldn't God's existence be obvious from nature and every single instance of experience and moment of time? God shouldn't be hiding.

 

[Thief]

Awesome.

Right. It's not a proof, but it is a disproof. It disproves the idea that there must be one and only one single first cause and nothing else before it. We just don't know and currently can't know based on our knowledge of this world. One day we might, but not right now. It's up in the air. Anyway, why should we have to prove God's existence at all with some strange and complicated philosophical argument? Shouldn't God's existence be obvious from nature and every single instance of experience and moment of time? God shouldn't be hiding.

You know an Artist by his handiwork.

 

[Thief]

The above is a very good point, imo, and where I first ran across it was with the Buddhist monk and former scientist Matthieu Ricard. On of his points is that if there's a creator-god, then this deity must change at least somewhat because one must change at least a bit in order to bring about change. And if this creator-god changes even a smidgen, then something outside of itself must prompt it in some way to change.

It's certainly not proof in and of itself, but it is logical, and what else do we have to work with?

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point allowed.

That change would be the allowance of a secondary point.
With it comes infinity.

Try thinking of God as the Primary singular item....THEN...
the creation as the secondary.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point allowed.

That change would be the allowance of a secondary point.
With it comes infinity.

Try thinking of God as the Primary singular item....THEN...
the creation as the secondary.

Huh? A singularity is already infinite....

 

[Thief]

Huh? A singularity is already infinite....

Nope....not at all.
Two points would have distance.
Distance can be divided.....infinitely.

Note the word....singular.
No secondary.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Nope....not at all.
Two points would have distance.
Distance can be divided.....infinitely.

Note the word....singular.
No secondary.

A singularity is called so because it is a point where there is an infinite mass and no volume, it has very little to do with the concept that you are trying to draw out as it is singular. You can have multiple singularities and it is theorized that one exists within every single black hole.

 

[Ouroboros]

Huh? A singularity is already infinite....

True.

A singularity is infinite in time. And a singularity is natural. To call it God is to call Nature God.

 

[Thief]

True.

A singularity is infinite in time. And a singularity is natural. To call it God is to call Nature God.

False.

Time is not real.
Time is a calculation, a measurement, a quotient.
A cognitive device created by Man to serve Man.

It is not a force or substance.

 

[Thief]

A singularity is called so because it is a point where there is an infinite mass and no volume, it has very little to do with the concept that you are trying to draw out as it is singular. You can have multiple singularities and it is theorized that one exists within every single black hole.

No volume?.....good for my viewpoint.
Not for yours.

Volume is a measure of space.
A measure.

Measure is created by Man.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No volume?.....good for my viewpoint.
Not for yours.

Volume is a measure of space.
A measure.

Measure is created by Man.

It still has mass...but no volumn, but it has density which is a ratio of mass and volumn.

As your volume decreases your density increases. That is what a singularity is. It's not meaning "singular" in the way that you're trying to push it.

I don't see how it supports your views besides you claiming it. You do realize that you don't control reality right? That you can't just assert something into existence merely because you believe it? That you can't just appropriate science to fit your own little pocket universe?

 

[Thief]

Did you say ...control....?

As in creative ability?

 

[metis]

Anyway, why should we have to prove God's existence at all with some strange and complicated philosophical argument? Shouldn't God's existence be obvious from nature and every single instance of experience and moment of time? God shouldn't be hiding.

By chance, have you ever read anything by or about Baruch Spinoza, who Einstein considered his mentor? To him, "Nature" was another name for God, and he believed that our universe and God are inseparable, which is the pantheistic approach that Einstein also leaned towards.

As for myself, whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and pretty much leave it at that.

 

[Ouroboros]

By chance, have you ever read anything by or about Baruch Spinoza, who Einstein considered his mentor? To him, "Nature" was another name for God, and he believed that our universe and God are inseparable, which is the pantheistic approach that Einstein also leaned towards.

Yup. It's Spinoza's view that inspired my view. To me, Nature is another name for God.

As for myself, whatever caused our universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and pretty much leave it at that.

Sure. For me, cause and God doesn't work. But that's just me.

 

[metis]

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point allowed.

That change would be the allowance of a secondary point.
With it comes infinity.

Try thinking of God as the Primary singular item....THEN...
the creation as the secondary.

"Singularity" only applies to the tiny speck that was our universe prior to the Big Bang. Where this speck came from is undetermined, and there are different theories that have been put forth by cosmologists and quantum physicists about what may have existed before the BB.

Secondly, if everything supposedly has a cause(s), then why would anyone assume that God didn't? What evidence, including logical "evidence", can be brought forth?

If one says "God didn't have a cause but always was", there's two problems with that. One is that it defies cause-and-effect, and another is where's the evidence?

Infinity, which is slightly older than I am, is very much a viable concept amongst cosmologists and physicists, but there simply is no way to provide evidence for its hypothetical existence. It's logical, but logic is certainly not sufficient evidence to say that it exists.

So, to me, I take position of "Whatever happened, happened".

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Did you say ...control....?

As in creative ability?

As in your assertions are just assertions. Keep it to your religion I see no value in trying to reconcile your personal
Beliefs with the world.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"Singularity" only applies to the tiny speck that was our universe prior to the Big Bang. Where this speck came from is undetermined, and there are different theories that have been put forth by cosmologists and quantum physicists about what may have existed before the BB.

Secondly, if everything supposedly has a cause(s), then why would anyone assume that God didn't? What evidence, including logical "evidence", can be brought forth?

If one says "God didn't have a cause but always was", there's two problems with that. One is that it defies cause-and-effect, and another is where's the evidence?

Infinity, which is slightly older than I am, is very much a viable concept amongst cosmologists and physicists, but there simply is no way to provide evidence for its hypothetical existence. It's logical, but logic is certainly not sufficient evidence to say that it exists.

So, to me, I take position of "Whatever happened, happened".

He seems to be trying to say that the singularity refers to a single cause...I'm not sure where they are drawing that conclusion besides well you know just the word.

 

[Thief]

"Singularity" only applies to the tiny speck that was our universe prior to the Big Bang. Where this speck came from is undetermined, and there are different theories that have been put forth by cosmologists and quantum physicists about what may have existed before the BB.

Secondly, if everything supposedly has a cause(s), then why would anyone assume that God didn't? What evidence, including logical "evidence", can be brought forth?

If one says "God didn't have a cause but always was", there's two problems with that. One is that it defies cause-and-effect, and another is where's the evidence?

Infinity, which is slightly older than I am, is very much a viable concept amongst cosmologists and physicists, but there simply is no way to provide evidence for its hypothetical existence. It's logical, but logic is certainly not sufficient evidence to say that it exists.

So, to me, I take position of "Whatever happened, happened".

According to Dr. Kaku......infinity is a problem.
I've seen the fellow demonstrates a problem having solution of ....
infinity plus infinity plus infinity.....etc.

He then makes a thoughtful pose for the camera.
Seems infinity is NOT an item appreciated by theoretical physicist..
Infinity doesn't fit well into their universe (or universes).

logically....that speck would be inappropriate.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
NO volume.
NO distance.
As soon as a secondary is allowed....infinity is simultaneous.
(and there's that problem...again)

BANG!


Now...if you want to equate God and nature as simultaneous......ok.
But in no means does that take away anything I have ever said.

Someone had to be First.
Someone is in Charge.

Substance obeys it's Creator....here we are.

If substance begets spirit....all of life is a mystery and terminal....the grave awaits.
If Spirit First...then all of Man is possible life after death....judgment awaits.

 

[metis]

According to Dr. Kaku......infinity is a problem.
I've seen the fellow demonstrates a problem having solution of ....
infinity plus infinity plus infinity.....etc.

He then makes a thoughtful pose for the camera.
Seems infinity is NOT an item appreciated by theoretical physicist..
Infinity doesn't fit well into their universe (or universes).

logically....that speck would be inappropriate.

For the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
NO volume.
NO distance.
As soon as a secondary is allowed....infinity is simultaneous.
(and there's that problem...again)

BANG!


Now...if you want to equate God and nature as simultaneous......ok.
But in no means does that take away anything I have ever said.

Someone had to be First.
Someone is in Charge.

Substance obeys it's Creator....here we are.

If substance begets spirit....all of life is a mystery and terminal....the grave awaits.
If Spirit First...then all of Man is possible life after death....judgment awaits.

I have one of Kaku's books and have caught him on a fair number of science programs, and I quite positive that you don't understand what he actually says. BTW, you can't add infinity onto infinity because just one "infinity" never ends.

Singularity doesn't in any way discount M-Theory or String-Theory, or the possibility of both there being a multiverse and/or possibly parallel universes, all of which Kaku states are hypothetically possible.

Also, this doesn't make sense, so maybe you can try and clarify: "As soon as a secondary is allowed....infinity is simultaneous." What are you trying to say here?

BTW, Kaku is not a theist (he's agnostic), so I think you'rte barking up the wrong tree.


Edited: on the 2nd line of my response, I accidentally wrote the word "can" whereas it should have been "can't".

 

[shawn001]

Here Dr Kuku, is quoting Woody Allen on enternity.

"Eternity is really long, especially near the end."
Woody Allen

Death of The Universe | How the Universe Works

[youtube]3prCWdw49DM[/youtube]
Death of The Universe | How the Universe Works - YouTube