The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[idav]

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.

It isnt just guessing, we dont have to when we have plenty of evidence. I just assume that multicellular animal species dont just pop out of the ground which is what evidence suggests.

 

[Thief]

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.

Man as a species....Day Six.
Male and female, no names, no law, no garden,....
go forth and be fruitful....dominate all things.

Chapter Two is a story of manipulation.
Chosen specimen....ideal living conditions.....a petri dish.
alteration, cloning, and release into the environment.

Cain would have to choose from the inhabitants not in the 'alteration' event.

 

[metis]

go forth and be fruitful....dominate all things.

And it's this that has caused so much harm over the centuries.

 

[Thief]

And it's this that has caused so much harm over the centuries.

And we would have over run the planet and it's resources long before the development of spirit.....

had it not been for that alteration in the garden event.

 

[1robin]

It isnt just guessing, we dont have to when we have plenty of evidence. I just assume that multicellular animal species dont just pop out of the ground which is what evidence suggests.

Your defending claims which include great detail about things which occurred millions of years ago by using generalities. The evidence suggests life began to exist, and it also suggests life only comes from life. That is reliable. Inventing ways left handed proteins all got lined up without a single right handed one is faith based speculation. All we know is life began to exist and it has no natural explanation at this time and that it apparently had evolved to some extent. That is what science knows and all they should claim. Without God you are assuming life "popped" out of the ground, with him you need not resort to such absurd assumptions.

 

[cottage]

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.

But explaining it a thousand times doesn’t make it correct! Things in the world don’t begin to exist from nothing, which is the principle you are continuously and falsely attempting to apply to a creation of the world ex nihilo. Things in the material world simply mutate and alter their form. So you can’t jump from that fallacious argument to demand a cause of for the world.

You may of course say the world needs a cause it does not contain, whether true or not, and that is to assert as a general principle that all existent things must be caused, which may or may not be true. But if it is the case that all things that exist need a cause, and God is proposed as an existent thing, then God requires a cause; which of course makes God impossible.

And I’ve given you an argument that I’ve repeated on numerous occasions here to show that the Christian God is constrained anthropomorphically and bound necessarily to the world, which contradicts the concept of self-sufficiency.

 

[metis]

But explaining it a thousand times doesn’t make it correct! Things in the world don’t begin to exist from nothing, which is the principle you are continuously and falsely attempting to apply to a creation of the world ex nihilo. Things in the material world simply mutate and alter their form. So you can’t jump from that fallacious argument to demand a cause of for the world.

You may of course say the world needs a cause it does not contain, whether true or not, and that is to assert as a general principle that all existent things must be caused, which may or may not be true. But if it is the case that all things that exist need a cause, and God is proposed as an existent thing, then God requires a cause; which of course makes God impossible.

And I’ve given you an argument that I’ve repeated on numerous occasions here to show that the Christian God is constrained anthropomorphically and bound necessarily to the world, which contradicts the concept of self-sufficiency.

The above is well said, imo, and let me just add that it really makes no sense for one to argue against infinity and then turn around and claim that God goes back into infinity. For one to make such an assertion is nothing more than just guesswork since in order to actually know God goes back into infinity, one would have to themselves be able to go back into infinity. In order to supposedly know that God has no cause would necessitate us to be able somehow to go back into infinity to realize God has no cause. I'm old, but I ain't that old.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying there is/are no God or Gods, but that so many people make so many assumptions about God(s) that simply are based on blind beliefs, and then they all too often "double-down" on this by elevating their beliefs to the level of absolute facts.

 

[1robin]

But explaining it a thousand times doesn’t make it correct! Things in the world don’t begin to exist from nothing, which is the principle you are continuously and falsely attempting to apply to a creation of the world ex nihilo. Things in the material world simply mutate and alter their form. So you can’t jump from that fallacious argument to demand a cause of for the world.

You may of course say the world needs a cause it does not contain, whether true or not, and that is to assert as a general principle that all existent things must be caused, which may or may not be true. But if it is the case that all things that exist need a cause, and God is proposed as an existent thing, then God requires a cause; which of course makes God impossible.

And I’ve given you an argument that I’ve repeated on numerous occasions here to show that the Christian God is constrained anthropomorphically and bound necessarily to the world, which contradicts the concept of self-sufficiency.

What I explained is exactly what philosophy claims. If you wish to reject philosophy that is fine by me. However you can't retain it and deny what I have said. If my explaining a thing does not make it true (which I have never claimed it does), then claiming it not to be true a thousand and one times has no power to accomplish that goal either. My exasperation with explaining it a thousand times was not because it was not adopted but because it seems to not even be comprehended or reckoned with.

I have never said things in the world begin from nothing. I have consistently said the exact polar opposite. It is true they have been observed to come into existence. I have given at least one example of that very thing. The thing they do not do, is come into being uncaused. They do come into being, yet always have a cause. Before I move on what exactly is your position. We have things. They either have always existed or come into existence. You must chose one. I believe you have denied both and so I fail to observe your dog in this race nor comprehend what your cheering for. Your position only seems to be the denial of other positions.

The universe either contains a bunch of eternal things or things that require causes according to every known observation. There is no Buddhist middle knowledge here. It is either X or Y. It is not X and Y, nor is it (X or Y)'.

You say I my claiming a thing a thousand times does not make it true, yet your last paragraph is an example of the opposite. I have responded to what you have stated in your final paragraph and find no reason to consider it binding on God at all.

 

[1robin]

The above is well said, imo, and let me just add that it really makes no sense for one to argue against infinity and then turn around and claim that God goes back into infinity. For one to make such an assertion is nothing more than just guesswork since in order to actually know God goes back into infinity, one would have to themselves be able to go back into infinity. In order to supposedly know that God has no cause would necessitate us to be able somehow to go back into infinity to realize God has no cause. I'm old, but I ain't that old.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying there is/are no God or Gods, but that so many people make so many assumptions about God(s) that simply are based on blind beliefs, and then they all too often "double-down" on this by elevating their beliefs to the level of absolute facts.

This is exactly why I must say things a thousand times. It makes absolute and perfect sense to bind nature with natural law and philosophy. It makes no sense what so ever to bind the non-natural with what restricts the natural. You cannot make a more fundamental mistake. Also if you knew the philosophy that applies here it would be apparent and obvious that a uncaused first caused is a necessity not a possibility. My claims is that God is the best candidate for the first cause but a first cause of some kind must necessarily exist if the universe stands in a causal relationship. What is it you know of that has no ultimate cause? Do you drive a car that is ultimately explainable by a blue print and metallurgy. Trace anything back far enough and an uncaused first cause is a necessity. An infinite regression of causation is impossible.

I did not say I know God is the cause. I said the universe does not contain it's cause. There is nothing blind in the cosmological argument. It has existed in the minds of the brilliant since the Greeks and is still just as strong today even if those minds have no faith at all. This argument is exasperating. No matter how many times I or the Greeks, Romans, or even the Muslims state it, the argument it, never addresses it. I have to believe this is unintentional but so frequent it is hard to. Do you wish to me to state the formal argument again as it has existed for 2500 years so we are on the same page?

 

[shawn001]

This is exactly why I must say things a thousand times. It makes absolute and perfect sense to bind nature with natural law and philosophy. It makes no sense what so ever to bind the non-natural with what restricts the natural. You cannot make a more fundamental mistake. Also if you knew the philosophy that applies here it would be apparent and obvious that a uncaused first caused is a necessity not a possibility. My claims is that God is the best candidate for the first cause but a first cause of some kind must necessarily exist if the universe stands in a causal relationship. What is it you know of that has no ultimate cause? Do you drive a car that is ultimately explainable by a blue print and metallurgy. Trace anything back far enough and an uncaused first cause is a necessity. An infinite regression of causation is impossible.

I did not say I know God is the cause. I said the universe does not contain it's cause. There is nothing blind in the cosmological argument. It has existed in the minds of the brilliant since the Greeks and is still just as strong today even if those minds have no faith at all. This argument is exasperating. No matter how many times I or the Greeks, Romans, or even the Muslims state it, the argument it, never addresses it. I have to believe this is unintentional but so frequent it is hard to. Do you wish to me to state the formal argument again as it has existed for 2500 years so we are on the same page?

"It makes no sense what so ever to bind the non-natural with what restricts the natural."

What non-natural? There is no such thing scientists know of called non natural?

 

[metis]

What non-natural? There is no such thing scientists know of called non natural?

And that's an excellent point, imo.

To me, it seems more logical to picture "Nature", to use Baruch Spinoza's alternative name for God, as being a reflection of God and not something that God just made on the side that somehow is different than He. Since we cannot be absolutely certain how our universe came about, theistic details about God or the Gods and how God(s) supposedly created all really is nothing more than speculation on top of even more speculation. We were all there at creation because we're part of it, but my memory going back 13.8 billion years ago ain't so good.

"Something" must be infinite, whether that be sub-atomic particles, strings, God, Gods, or whatever. Since none of us can remember back that far, I would suggest that we all need to take a modesty pill and realize that we simply do not know what and exactly how our universe/multiverse came about, thus my position of whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and pretty much leave it at that.

 

[1robin]

"It makes no sense what so ever to bind the non-natural with what restricts the natural."

What non-natural? There is no such thing scientists know of called non natural?

Scientists are not the arbiters of reality. If they were Ptolemy' would have had the Sun circling the Earth. You do not only adopt reality as a scientist feeds it to you. If your on Jury duty do you call a time out and a call Hawking? You have compounded the error of binding the super-natural by the natural, by accessing the supernatural through the natural. Where is this going to stop? However let's back up a minute. I was not so much talking about a thing measured in a lab but a concept spoken of throughout history and experienced by hundreds of millions. It is conceptually foolish to apply gravity or time limits to the supernatural. The same way that that Newtonian physics was not applicable to the quantum long before a scientists knew of it's existence.

 

[idav]

Scientists are not the arbiters of reality. If they were Ptolemy' would have had the Sun circling the Earth. You do not only adopt reality as a scientist feeds it to you. If your on Jury duty do you call a time out and a call Hawking? You have compounded the error of binding the super-natural by the natural, by accessing the supernatural through the natural. Where is this going to stop? However let's back up a minute. I was not so much talking about a thing measured in a lab but a concept spoken of throughout history and experienced by hundreds of millions. It is conceptually foolish to apply gravity or time limits to the supernatural. The same way that that Newtonian physics was not applicable to the quantum long before a scientists knew of it's existence.

We didn't know about it but QM is natural. So what we are finding is that time and space can be circumvented naturally without having to call it supernatural. Supernatural is just a placeholder for the unknown. And on top of that the supernatural we see, like on the paranormal movies, doesn't happen, or the ghosts are just too clever to get caught on cameras and smartphones. Regardless anything that exists in a way we can detect must be interacting in a natural realm.

 

[cottage]

What I explained is exactly what philosophy claims. If you wish to reject philosophy that is fine by me. However you can't retain it and deny what I have said. If my explaining a thing does not make it true (which I have never claimed it does), then claiming it not to be true a thousand and one times has no power to accomplish that goal either. My exasperation with explaining it a thousand times was not because it was not adopted but because it seems to not even be comprehended or reckoned with.

If by ‘rejecting philosophy’ you mean rejecting the Kalam Cosmological Argument as amended by William Lane Craig, then, yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing.

I have never said things in the world begin from nothing. I have consistently said the exact polar opposite. It is true they have been observed to come into existence. I have given at least one example of that very thing. The thing they do not do, is come into being uncaused. They do come into being, yet always have a cause. Before I move on what exactly is your position.

Step 1. Now be sure to keep in mind what you’ve agreed above, which is that things come to exist by being caused but they do not begin to exist from nothing. Okay so far.

We have things. They either have always existed or come into existence. You must chose one. I believe you have denied both and so I fail to observe your dog in this race nor comprehend what your cheering for. Your position only seems to be the denial of other positions.

Step 2. Following on from the above, things in the world come into existence by being caused by other things.

The universe either contains a bunch of eternal things or things that require causes according to every known observation. There is no Buddhist middle knowledge here. It is either X or Y. It is not X and Y, nor is it (X or Y)'.

Step 3 and the conclusion: So, and in you’re your words, ‘the universe contains a bunch of things that require causes according to every known observation’; and once again that is to assert as a general principle that all existent things must be caused, which may or may not be true. But if it is the case that all things that exist need a cause, and God is proposed as an existent thing, then God requires a cause, and by your own rationale it cannot be the case that everything that exists requires a cause if that makes God impossible. And you can’t jump from ‘everything that begins to exist’ (which is false, as I’ve already explained) to the ‘universe requires a cause’, because that is begging the question (circular reasoning). So all you can do now is to plead God’s eternal existence, and against that there are three objections to consider, the first two are logically possible hypotheses and the third invites a direct contradiction.

1. The world is eternal and has always existed as an infinitesimally dense particle of matter, which at the occurrence of the Big bang expanded rapidly to become what it is now.

2. The world is uncaused, and all causes and their effects began with the world (no contradiction).

3. If God, as a personal, conscious and self-sufficient being created the world then he must have a purpose or reason for doing so; and Biblical theism informs us that this purpose is God wanting a relationship with created beings. But that reason or purpose cannot be for God’s own sake or benefit, for as the Supreme Being his nature cannot be augmented further and nor can he profit or gain from causing the existence of lesser beings.

You say I my claiming a thing a thousand times does not make it true, yet your last paragraph is an example of the opposite. I have responded to what you have stated in your final paragraph and find no reason to consider it binding on God at all.

I have given you the argument (above, 3) so many times now and not once have you been able to answer the contradiction that obtains.

 

[cottage]

This is exactly why I must say things a thousand times. It makes absolute and perfect sense to bind nature with natural law and philosophy. It makes no sense what so ever to bind the non-natural with what restricts the natural. You cannot make a more fundamental mistake.

With respect the fundamental mistake is yours. The cosmological argument tries to straddle both experience and pure reason, with the unsatisfactory result that it can neither be one thing nor the other. And instead of presenting a self-evident truth, an ontological argument, which cannot be denied without self-contraction, the cosmological argument tries to argue backwards, by inference, from the world of experience. An unfortunate consequence of this is the unintended claim that all worlds are as ours; so that what is true of our world, for example the phenomenon of cause and effect, is also true of God. So, on this account God is absurdly dependent upon the material world for his existence and is therefore part of it. And thus if the material world need not be, the same can be said of God.

Also if you knew the philosophy that applies here it would be apparent and obvious that a uncaused first caused is a necessity not a possibility. My claims is that God is the best candidate for the first cause but a first cause of some kind must necessarily exist if the universe stands in a causal relationship. What is it you know of that has no ultimate cause? Do you drive a car that is ultimately explainable by a blue print and metallurgy. Trace anything back far enough and an uncaused first cause is a necessity. An infinite regression of causation is impossible.

A first cause does not necessarily exist in order to explain a series of causes and their effects!

I did not say I know God is the cause. I said the universe does not contain it's cause. There is nothing blind in the cosmological argument. It has existed in the minds of the brilliant since the Greeks and is still just as strong today even if those minds have no faith at all. This argument is exasperating. No matter how many times I or the Greeks, Romans, or even the Muslims state it, the argument it, never addresses it. I have to believe this is unintentional but so frequent it is hard to. Do you wish to me to state the formal argument again as it has existed for 2500 years so we are on the same page?

Yes, please state the argument formally (instead of arguing from authority), for then it can be formally rebutted.

 

[1robin]

And that's an excellent point, imo.

To me, it seems more logical to picture "Nature", to use Baruch Spinoza's alternative name for God, as being a reflection of God and not something that God just made on the side that somehow is different than He. Since we cannot be absolutely certain how our universe came about, theistic details about God or the Gods and how God(s) supposedly created all really is nothing more than speculation on top of even more speculation. We were all there at creation because we're part of it, but my memory going back 13.8 billion years ago ain't so good.

I will leave Spinoza's insanity alone for the moment.

"Something" must be infinite, whether that be sub-atomic particles, strings, God, Gods, or whatever. Since none of us can remember back that far, I would suggest that we all need to take a modesty pill and realize that we simply do not know what and exactly how our universe/multiverse came about, thus my position of whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call "God", and pretty much leave it at that.

I believe you are right to say something must be infinite but also if you are referring to the ultimate explanation of the universe here it must be independent of time, more powerful than is comprehensible, more intelligent that is comprehensible, personal, space less, non-material, and there are may probable in addition to these necessities. You do not need along memory or a slide rule to determine these things which is why they have existed in philosophy for thousands of years.

I can explain the necessity of each one of these as needed but will wait until asked but none of them are avoidable. There are no known natural infinities and good reasons to think they are impossible. Only non-natural concepts contain this potentiality.

If you add up those necessities above and compare the description of Go given thousands of years ago they are identical. They would not have known what to fake so how do you explain modern philosophies requirements for the ultimate cause and it's description of it and the description of ancient man's depiction of God?

 

[1robin]

To everyone: I have been unable to post for quite a while. I will just pick up again at this point but if there were any posts where I left anyone hanging let me know.

 

[Thief]

Naw...that's alright.

We got it.

 

[1robin]

If by ‘rejecting philosophy’ you mean rejecting the Kalam Cosmological Argument as amended by William Lane Craig, then, yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing.

I will take a philosophical board members opinion who holds many degrees in philosophy on what is philosophically valid over yours and should. So my accusation still stands.

Step 1. Now be sure to keep in mind what you’ve agreed above, which is that things come to exist by being caused but they do not begin to exist from nothing. Okay so far.

Natural things. Who knows what supernatural things may or may not do.

Step 2. Following on from the above, things in the world come into existence by being caused by other things.

I must have posted this 3000 year old argument 2 dozen times. I am quite familiar with it and what it entails.

Step 3 and the conclusion: So, and in you’re your words, ‘the universe contains a bunch of things that require causes according to every known observation’; and once again that is to assert as a general principle that all existent things must be caused, which may or may not be true. But if it is the case that all things that exist need a cause, and God is proposed as an existent thing, then God requires a cause, and by your own rationale it cannot be the case that everything that exists requires a cause if that makes God impossible. And you can’t jump from ‘everything that begins to exist’ (which is false, as I’ve already explained) to the ‘universe requires a cause’, because that is begging the question (circular reasoning). So all you can do now is to plead God’s eternal existence, and against that there are three objections to consider, the first two are logically possible hypotheses and the third invites a direct contradiction.

In faith decisions we must make the best conclusions given the evidence. In science you can wait until you die for evidence if you wish but it does not work that way in faith. I have every possible reason to think everything natural that exists has a cause and no reasons to think they did not. I however don't know for a fact which is true. I make no plead what so ever. I simply agree with a proposition made long before anyone knew what questions it answered or explained.

1. The world is eternal and has always existed as an infinitesimally dense particle of matter, which at the occurrence of the Big bang expanded rapidly to become what it is now.

This according to everything known is impossible. There cannot be an infinite number of fluctuations in that particle and it either would have expanded an infinite time ago or never if no mind or choice is involved.

2. The world is uncaused, and all causes and their effects began with the world (no contradiction).

That defies every observation ever taken of anything.

3. If God, as a personal, conscious and self-sufficient being created the world then he must have a purpose or reason for doing so; and Biblical theism informs us that this purpose is God wanting a relationship with created beings. But that reason or purpose cannot be for God’s own sake or benefit, for as the Supreme Being his nature cannot be augmented further and nor can he profit or gain from causing the existence of lesser beings.

No he must not Have to have a purpose. Thinking beings do things they cannot explain the purpose of all the time. However there exists no difficulty with God creating a world to allow human to use freewill to choose a life with him in heaven or deny him and loose that life they were given. Nothing was violated in that process. God needs no relationship with us. The relationship is for our benefit and as long as I would choose it over annihilation it is of value and profit.

I have given you the argument (above, 3) so many times now and not once have you been able to answer the contradiction that obtains.

That is like quoting the alphabet and telling me I can't find a number in it. I must have said I see no contradiction in it (similarly as many of the greatest philosophers of faith in history) every time you have stated it.

Maybe an analogy would help.

If I created a hunting dogs paradise and then created a dog. I said "dog you can choose to live in this paradise and have faith in me and even though you die you will yet live on with me in an infinitely greater paradise forever, or you can choose to deny me and I will restore your previous non-existence" No contradiction, and yes there is profit the same way a man born blind would profit from having eyes to see. A dog would profit from having all of his senses and things to appreciate with them.

The law of non-contradiction is a rule to eliminate things that can't occur however everything I described could occur so is no contradiction.

 

[1robin]

With respect the fundamental mistake is yours. The cosmological argument tries to straddle both experience and pure reason, with the unsatisfactory result that it can neither be one thing nor the other. And instead of presenting a self-evident truth, an ontological argument, which cannot be denied without self-contraction, the cosmological argument tries to argue backwards, by inference, from the world of experience. An unfortunate consequence of this is the unintended claim that all worlds are as ours; so that what is true of our world, for example the phenomenon of cause and effect, is also true of God. So, on this account God is absurdly dependent upon the material world for his existence and is therefore part of it. And thus if the material world need not be, the same can be said of God.

The cosmological argument has two parts. The cosmology part which is natural is examined by natural law. Philosophy bridges that natural understanding with the supernatural through principles that have no natural dependence. It is obviously a grand and valid argument because the most brilliant among us (even those that reject it) have written on it for thousands of years. It can't be snuffed out by misapplied technicality by a poster in a forum. It will be just as profound and discussed a thousand years after we are dust.

A first cause does not necessarily exist in order to explain a series of causes and their effects!

Yes it does, and it does so necessarily. An impossible infinite regression of causation will never produce anything..

Yes, please state the argument formally (instead of arguing from authority), for then it can be formally rebutted.

The original by plato, etc... is a prime mover theory.

First Kalam:
1.Everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Second Aquinas: A version of the cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2.A causal loop cannot exist.
3.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

Then Craig:

According to the argument, the existence of the Universe requires an explanation, and the creation of the Universe by a First Cause, generally assumed to be God, is that explanation.

In light of the Big Bang theory, a stylized version of argument has emerged (sometimes called the Kalam cosmological argument, the following form of which was created by Al-Ghazali and then strongly supported by William Lane Craig):[9]
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.The Universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause.



Finally Leibniz:
The basic Leibnizian argument has the following steps:

(1) Every contingent fact has an explanation.

(2) There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.

(3) Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact.

(4) This explanation must involve a necessary being.

(5) This necessary being is God.

That last step is the only one open for debate. It is by far theh best conclusion available but is not made necessary by the previous steps.