The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Ouroboros]

I have been telling him for years that he needs a new song and dance...

He should sing:

What came first your consciousness or your body?......

Think about it........

.....

Your body ........... came first.......

 

[Thief]

He should sing:

What came first your consciousness or your body?......

Think about it........

.....

Your body ........... came first.......

Correct.
It took several years before I knew my own name.
Same for you.

 

[Bunyip]

Specifically.....what lie are you inferring?

Well there are a great many examples. The example I gave before, and that you dismissed because Moses was old (apparently) was genesis having plants before the existence of the sun.

An example from the parable of Adam and Eve would be the idea that humanity all emerged from a single pair of individuals, which is proveably false.

 

[Thief]

Well there are a great many examples. The example I gave before, and that you dismissed because Moses was old (apparently) was genesis having plants before the existence of the sun.

An example from the parable of Adam and Eve would be the idea that humanity all emerged from a single pair of individuals, which is proveably false.

I think the details you are asking for were given as much as they could be received.

Any adult when teaching a child can do so much on any given occasion.

You think Moses could be made to understand?
E=mc2.....and the speed of light.
Cellular construction.....viral infection.
Even the simple cause and effect notion might prove elusive.

THEN take that back down the mountain and give it to a wandering nation.

I don't think so.

For that matter.....
believing a story about cutting a rib from a man...and he lived?
even more so.....do it while he sleeps?
and again....make a woman of that rib?

Have you the ability to shift you're perspective...by shifting your sense of being?

Can you not see the problem? of saying.....'I AM!'

A disembodied Voice speaking out of a burning bush?
PLEASE!

Now tell me if you can......how would you know if Moses was lying?

Did he.....or was that God?

 

[Bunyip]

I think the details you are asking for were given as much as they could be received.

Any adult when teaching a child can do so much on any given occasion.

You think Moses could be made to understand?
E=mc2.....and the speed of light.
Cellular construction.....viral infection.
Even the simple cause and effect notion might prove elusive.

THEN take that back down the mountain and give it to a wandering nation.

I don't think so.

For that matter.....
believing a story about cutting a rib from a man...and he lived?
even more so.....do it while he sleeps?
and again....make a woman of that rib?

Have you the ability to shift you're perspective...by shifting your sense of being?

Can you not see the problem? of saying.....'I AM!'

A disembodied Voice speaking out of a burning bush?
PLEASE!

Now tell me if you can......how would you know if Moses was lying?

Did he.....or was that God?

Your'e not making sense, what on earth has the speed of light and theory of relativity got to do with Adam and Eve?

 

[gnostic]

Your'e not making sense, what on earth has the speed of light and theory of relativity got to do with Adam and Eve?

Thief never understand what he is saying, mixing astrophysics with biology, is clear demonstration that he doesn't understand the science behind either. All he has demonstrated is expose his own ignorance.

Attempt to educate him on evolutionary biology has been total failure, because you can't teach someone not willing to learn without biases, hiding behind the dogma of creationism. He refused to understand the difference between scientific theory and informal definition of theory. He refused to objective look at scientific evidences.

I say let him wallow in his ignorance. There is no value in teaching him when he refuses to learn what he doesn't understand.

 

[Yerda]

An example from the parable of Adam and Eve would be the idea that humanity all emerged from a single pair of individuals, which is proveably false.

All of humanity descends from a single individual. Of this we are almost certain.

 

[Bunyip]

All of humanity descends from a single individual. Of this we are almost certain.

Citation?

The earliest known human ancestor ' mitochondrial Eve' was a human, and descended from a long line of human ancestors, so she is not the first human. She was also one of many women alive at that time, many of whom are likely to have descendants alive today. The fact remains that humanity did not emerge from a single breeding pair, but from a species changing slowly over time.

That we can all trace our ancestry back to mitochondrial Eve , does not mean that she was the first human, or that humans emerged from a single individual.

 

[Yerda]

The earliest known human ancestor ' mitochondrial Eve' was a human, and descended from a long line of human ancestors, so she is not the first human. She was also one of many women alive at that time, many of whom are likely to have descendants alive today. The fact remains that humanity did not emerge from a single breeding pair, but from a species changing slowly over time.

That we can all trace our ancestry back to mitochondrial Eve , does not mean that she was the first human, or that humans emerged from a single individual.

Sorry, the single individual wasn't I referred to wasn't mitochondrial eve. It was LUCA and I was agreeing with you.

 

[1robin]

This thread and the government have shown that nothing can come from something, but I have not seen anyone get something from nothing yet. When is the "Statue" of limitations up on that claim?

 

[Bunyip]

This thread and the government have shown that nothing can come from something, but I have not seen anyone get something from nothing yet. When is the "Statue" of limitations up on that claim?

Isn't your religion based on a creator god who came from nothing and made the universe out of nothing but breath?

If not, where did god come from? And from what did he make the universe?

 

[McBell]

This thread and the government have shown that nothing can come from something, but I have not seen anyone get something from nothing yet. When is the "Statue" of limitations up on that claim?

I don't know, perhaps after people like yourself stop trying to use that particular strawman?

 

[Thief]

Isn't your religion based on a creator god who came from nothing and made the universe out of nothing but breath?

If not, where did god come from? And from what did he make the universe?

Maybe the questions are inappropriate.

If you were given that info.....would you not be?....one with God.
and expected to perform as you are able.

You up for that?

 

[Bunyip]

Maybe the questions are inappropriate.

If you were given that info.....would you not be?....one with God.
and expected to perform as you are able.

You up for that?

Sorry Thief, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

 

[1robin]

Isn't your religion based on a creator god who came from nothing and made the universe out of nothing but breath?

If not, where did god come from? And from what did he make the universe?

Nope. I must have explained this a thousand times in this one thread. Only things that begin to exist require causes. Not only my God but philosophes God are beings that have always existed and require no causal explanation. Not only is that perfectly logical but also necessary. Infinite causal chains are impossible. If x exists then at some finite point in the past it had an uncaused first cause. An infinite temporal string od causation would never produce an X to have to begin with. God would not be God if he required a preexistent substance to change into the substance being described. That is what nature does, not what the supernatural does. Why are you confining the supernatural concept with what binds the natural. That, by necessity is meaningless.

 

[1robin]

All of humanity descends from a single individual. Of this we are almost certain.

Who did that first individual mate with to produce the third? The only thing we are certain of is a lack of certainty.

 

[idav]

Who did that first individual mate with to produce the third? The only thing we are certain of is a lack of certainty.

For all the divergence evidence we can find in fossil records, we can be certain that their were enough individuals to procreate the fossils we see, except for asexual species, it takes at least some sort of colony of that species.

 

[1robin]

For all the divergence evidence we can find in fossil records, we can be certain that their were enough individuals to procreate the fossils we see, except for asexual species, it takes at least some sort of colony of that species.

That's a generalization that serves little functionality. When we cannot agree how many people were in the greatest attack of the civil war that occurred less than 160 years ago with dozens of eye witness battle reports nor predict the weather with much accuracy in advance I take what occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago lightly, millions with skepticism, and billions with derision. Certainly we have ancestors but getting too specific about time frames and numbers beyond maybe ten thousands years is just guessing.

 

[metis]

And if we want to look at a similar question in theology, where did Cain's wife come from?

If taken as some sort of literal history, the creation accounts really don't make much sense, but since they're likely of Babylonian origin and used as a "myth", then it makes much more sense in terms of how we probably took that narrative and reconstructed it to reflect our own morals and values.

 

[1robin]

And if we want to look at a similar question in theology, where did Cain's wife come from?

That is a very easy and common mistake that has an easy answer. The names in the bible of that period were given for two reasons (as a genealogy to establish linkages or relevance). It does not even hint that it records every name of every person alive except twice and I don't believe it was being literal then. The bible says that there were many sons and daughter at that time that were not mentioned by name. Now this is probably going to bring up a inbreeding argument that I can handle as well, but I will await it first.

If taken as some sort of literal history, the creation accounts really don't make much sense, but since they're likely of Babylonian origin and used as a "myth", then it makes much more sense in terms of how we probably took that narrative and reconstructed it to reflect our own morals and values.

That is a good reason not to take it as literal. I myself have never been able to decide what it was meant to convey. It could be literal, symbolic, semi literal, or even analogy. My guess is semi-literal but I don't know.