The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[viole]

To start with because you are intelligent and infinite regression of causation is a logical absurdity that would never produce anything, and I have never heard even a liberal or atheistic scholar hint that it was possible. I hope I was not wrong in believing you agreed.

I am not saying that infinite causation occurs in nature. i don't even think that there is such a thing as causation outside some thermodynamical/macroscopic contexts, lol.

But I really fail to see the absurdity of it. With absurdity I mean a logical contradiction of any sort.

I can even think of infinite regressions that take finite time, without seeing a contradiction.

So, where is this absurdity I allegedely believe exists?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

I can even think of infinite regressions that take finite time, without seeing a contradiction.

A circle is a representation of an infinite regressions. The curvature, it bends constantly, at every infinitesimal small point (basically an infinite number of tangents), but it has a finite circumference and finite space.

--edit

And I forgot pi of course. It's an infinite regression that can be expressed with many different algorithms (most of them expressed in recursive form) that are technically infinite (recursion without end/exit condition).

 

[1robin]

An error, in retrospect, imposed by time constraints; though in fact three links.

Ok

Not quite. You were keen to impress upon us that European culture and values were shaped by Christianity; I was pointing out that Europe was at its bloodiest when Christianity was at its most all-powerful. I might also have pointed out that the bloody expansion of the British Empire was sustained in large part by pietistic religious sentiment. The decades of internal peace in Europe since WW2 have coincided with its widespread secularisation.

Is statistics there is a huge gap in between causal agents and coincidental agents. For example is the far more effectual agency that causes peace by war having not been developed where it is prohibitive. There is much less of a tendency to fight a war if even if you win you die. It is also much more relevant that monarchies and fiefdoms have gone away and democracy has replaced them. Religion had almost nothing to do with Napoleon, WW1, or WW2. Those wars were fought for secular reasons mostly about pride and land. Nor has even the theory that modern Europe is more peaceful the more meaningful claim. Atheism took far more absolute hold farther east than in Europe and that is where the 20th centuries truly abhorrent bloodletting have occurred. I can and will indicted Christianity where it is at fault but you will have a lot more work to do before you can lay anything specific at it's feat. Also keep in mind that even Christianity's actual faults would not be the fault of the bible but man's perpetual abuse of whatever they ascribe to. I primarily defend God and the bible, and only insist that truth be taken into account about Christianity. I do not defend men as a general rule.

Your religious (and I suspect political) convictions require that for you this must be true, whatever the evidence indicates. And what it indicates is that - to take just a few indicators - atheists and agnostics have lower divorce rates than religious Americans; that women in conservative Christian households experience higher rates of domestic violence; that secular nations such as those in Scandinavia donate the most money and supportive aid, per capita, to poorer nations. In addition there are studies that show that, during the Holocaust, secular people were more likely to rescue and help persecuted Jews. (Some of this text is pasted directly from the source.)

Sorry, Robin, but secularisation does not equate to moral decline. Trends suggest that, if anything, the opposite is true.

Ok you have called down the thunder, statistic wars have commenced.

From 1901 to 1970, the divorce rate increased by 700%. In 1900 there were 56,000 divorces in America; in 1992 1.2 million, a 700% increase, adjusted for population growth (Insight 6/17/96, p. 14)

From 1970 to 1992, the divorce rate increased 279%; the number of children with a divorced parent increased 352%, the cohabitation population increased 533%, which means 2.7 million unmarried households, 40% of them containing children. (Stanton, pp. 2-3)

Within six months of their marriage, 50% of newlyweds begin to doubt the marriage will last, 39% report "big fights" at least once a week and 4% had already separated for at least one night. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 1994)

"Between 1970 and 1995, . . . the percentage of married couples with children dropped by a third, but single-parent families nearly doubled." (Larry Witham, "New data on American family offer few hopeful signs," WT National Edition, March 11-17, 1996, p. 1)

In 1960, 243,000 children were living with a single parent who had never married; by 1993 this figure had risen to 6.3 million.

1.2 million children per year are born into fatherless homes. America has 1.8 million "latchkey" kids. (Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, p. 118)

20 years ago, 17% of American children grow up without a father; today, 36% do.

In 1960, 8 million children living only with their mother; in 1995, 23 million.

Three fastest growing forms of the family in the US, 1980-95: 1. Single mother families; 2. Blended families (step-parents); 3. Divorced families (the family left over after divorce). (Stanton, p. 1)

Divorce is the leading cause of childhood depression. (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development)

75% of adolescent patients at chemical abuse centers are from single-parent families. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

63% of youth suicides are single-parent children. (Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA)

70% of teen-age pregnancies are single-parent children. ("Children in Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally Disadvantaged" - Committee for Economic Development )

75% of juveniles in youth correction facilities are from single-parent families. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988)

Children of divorce are 5 times more likely to be suspended from school; 3 times as likely to need psychological counseling; 2 times as likely to repeat a grade; are absent from school more, late to school more often; show more health problems.( . Dr. Gene Brody - Study of Competence in Children and Families; Gormely, Newburgh, NY)

The Kinsey Institute - Sexuality Information Links - FAQ [Related Resources]

As I said I am only familiar with US statistics specifically. The US has had a very apparent departure from theism in the 50's and is very diverse so is as good a sample as they get. I have posted the links to all these before so I will only mentioned them here. Since the secular trend in the late 50's:

1. Incarceration is up.
2. Teen pregnancy is up.
3. Gangs and crime is schools are up.
4. Gambling debts are way way up.
5. Kids without two parents are up over 400%.
6. Sexual disease is up. BTW if statistics are good enough to condemn then you should condemn homosexuality. The 4% of us that are homosexual produce 60% of aids cases.
7. Drug addiction is up.
8. Violent crime is up.
9. Divorce is way up.
10. Abortion has skyrocketed. This statistic alone is enough to counter all other moral statistics you may link to Christianity combined (even if I did not even check to see if they were accurate).

Please search for where I provided hundreds of similar stats and links to thousands more in the forum. I just can't re-post them all again.


However a much more apparent and intuitive way to view this is simply comparing any weak in TV programming from 1950 to 20??. We have gone from Leave it to beaver and Bugs bunny to Sex and the City and Freddy Kruger.

 

[idav]

Doesnt matter that standards are more lax, that says nothing of a decline on morality. It is people who have been the issue and needing a sky daddy to tell us whats what is a sad state of affairs. Now our attitude is if we arent harming anyone then leave us the hell alone, which god has been very keen on doing himself so it is very much up to us.

 

[1robin]

But it doesn't, it pushes teh answer back. I simply accept things for what they are, no paradox necessary.

What? My chain of causation ends exactly where it must and does not continue indefinitely backwards. Mine ends as all actual reality must with one uncaused first cause. Yours just fades into past oblivion, mine abruptly ends.

Yes the convenient exception, I know. That doesn't answer anything or how.

Don't subject an answer given in one context to a whole host of others in order to claim it came up short. I can answer what without any need to answer how. I can absolutely posit a cause without knowing the slightest thing about how it occurred. If I see a computer I can know for a fact that intelligence is the cause even if I did not understand how a single component worked or was created and you do this exact same thing every single day a hundred times. We were not discussing the how's (which by the way your faith does not address at all), so I have no burden to have supplied any.

I have no need for a creator for non-created existence.

Quite true but you unfortunately have a creation in need of a creator. You cannot deny philosophic principle by declaration. You have a universe that began to exist and so have the need of an explanation which your faith does not include but mine does.

Yes as the ultimate explanation such as existence itself.

The exact same necessity is presented by the universe. Every molecule or planet is devoid of the explanation of it's existence. I must have an explanation hat goes beyond molecules, laws, forces, or anything natural. I have it, you do not.

I simply don't have to just look at the narrowly defined universe but at existence itself. Of course existence itself is uncaused at some point which counts god with is the product of everything that is and will be. I have no issues with that. It's the super intelligent designer I have issue with, there is no need for it and that is what people like Hawking are finding.

Existence is a property not an entity. Existence is an abstract quality not an object that requires an explanation. However all objects that have existence do require an explanation and existence is not an explanation of existence alone. Existence requires agency. My faith has an agent that meets all he demands existence requires. Your has an (quasi) agent devoid of everything necessary to explain existence of anything. There most certainly is the need for intelligence. Intelligence is the only source ever know to produce rationality and information. We have a universe full of both, again your faith can't explain this and mine can perfectly.

 

[idav]

Quite true but you unfortunately have a creation in need of a creator. You cannot deny philosophic principle by declaration. You have a universe that began to exist and so have the need of an explanation which your faith does not include but mine does.

Existence is a property not an entity. Existence is an abstract quality not an object that requires an explanation. However all objects that have existence do require an explanation and existence is not an explanation of existence alone. Existence requires agency. My faith has an agent that meets all he demands existence requires. Your has an (quasi) agent devoid of everything necessary to explain existence of anything. There most certainly is the need for intelligence. Intelligence is the only source ever know to produce rationality and information. We have a universe full of both, again your faith can't explain this and mine can perfectly.

No just to call it a creation is assuming something that need not be assumed. It just exists, that simple, it doesnt go back indefinitely, that isnt the only way to be uncaused.

Existence is more than an attribute, it is the only thing inherent in something rather than nothing.

You claim existence requires agency which throws your premise into infinite regression. Like saying intelligence requires intelligence, so your agency requires agency if thats the only solution for intelligence. Your speculation isnt a solution it makes it worse.

Edit: my faith is no different than you just assuming god just exists, it doesnt explain how the heck intelligence can just exist. I assume existence exists, that requires no faith cause I can see existence exists

 

[idav]

Fuurther we have no justification to assume intelligence is default, we dont even see a hint of intelligence (aside from my quantum argument) until we see hints of life forming out of a non-intelligent sludge.

 

[johnhanks]

Religion had almost nothing to do with Napoleon, WW1, or WW2. Those wars were fought for secular reasons mostly about pride and land ... you will have a lot more work to do before you can lay anything specific at Christianity's feat.

As I indicated before, I believe most wars are fought for strictly earthly reasons to do with material and territorial gain. Religion's role is as the great, unarguable casus belli, the ultimate justifier of aggressions that would otherwise be hard to sell.

Ok you have called down the thunder...

Forgive me if I fail to tremble.

[Statistics noted, but snipped for brevity] The US has had a very apparent departure from theism in the 50's ...

Very apparent to whom? According to a 2011 Gallup poll, more than 9 in 10 Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?". This does not suggest much of a departure from theism. By any measure, American theists form a far greater proportion of the population than in northern European countries - which lag far behind the US in (for example) homicide and divorce rates, but lead it by a good margin in foreign aid donations as percent of GDP. (The US ranks 19th on the latter criterion; most of the top ten donor nations are also among the most secular, including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and the UK.)

However a much more apparent and intuitive way to view this is simply comparing any weak in TV programming from 1950 to 20??. We have gone from Leave it to beaver and Bugs bunny to Sex and the City and Freddy Kruger.

I hold no brief for either Kruger or SitC, but neither am I convinced that either is a clear indicator of moral decline.

 

[1robin]

I am not saying that infinite causation occurs in nature. i don't even think that there is such a thing as causation outside some thermodynamical/macroscopic contexts, lol.

So I was right and you do not believe in an infinite regression of causation. I disagree with why you believe that but my statement was just as correct after all. BTW cause and effect was established to be consistent with every observation ever made thousands of years before thermodynamics was comprehended and it holds true even in the microscopic even though the causes were different in nature to macroscopic they were always present.

But I really fail to see the absurdity of it. With absurdity I mean a logical contradiction of any sort.

Think of any analogy involving an infinite regress of causation and you should easily be able to see hat it would never produce anything. If you have anything there must be an uncaused first cause.

I can even think of infinite regressions that take finite time, without seeing a contradiction.

Well I would not brag about that too much.

So, where is this absurdity I allegedely believe exists?

I said you did not believe it, you asked why I thought that, then you said you do not believe it, then you said you did not believe in anything about it, then you say you could imagine it even at it's most illogical, now you ask where is what you believe. Your taking the long way round the barn aren't you? Your like looking at a blurred imagine. Simply state what you believe and lets move on.

Ciao

- viole

Chow is god bye, what is Viole?

 

[1robin]

Doesnt matter that standards are more lax, that says nothing of a decline on morality. It is people who have been the issue and needing a sky daddy to tell us whats what is a sad state of affairs. Now our attitude is if we arent harming anyone then leave us the hell alone, which god has been very keen on doing himself so it is very much up to us.

I could not possibly think of a more relevant proof in the decline of morality that the lack of standards. If that is not evidence what could be? It is infinitely worse for those that deny the only possible source of objective standard and instead substitute the opinion of the only creature that systematically destroys its self and calls it progress.

 

[idav]

I could not possibly think of a more relevant proof in the decline of morality that the lack of standards. If that is not evidence what could be? It is infinitely worse for those that deny the only possible source of objective standard and instead substitute the opinion of the only creature that systematically destroys its self and calls it progress.

Society, intelligence and empathy are what dictate morality. It doesnt just fall from the sky.

 

[1robin]

No just to call it a creation is assuming something that need not be assumed. It just exists, that simple, it doesnt go back indefinitely, that isnt the only way to be uncaused.

No to call it the creation of any specific being involves a little assumption. I suggest it came into being as the result of a source it doe snot contain is consistent with every fact ever known.

Existence is more than an attribute, it is the only thing inherent in something rather than nothing.

That is completely wrong. Height, mass, length, and a thousand other properties belong only to existing things and not non-existing things. In fact non-being and being have almost no sharable traits what so ever.

You claim existence requires agency which throws your premise into infinite regression. Like saying intelligence requires intelligence, so your agency requires agency if thats the only solution for intelligence. Your speculation isnt a solution it makes it worse

.Nope, my comments were made in naturalistic context. We were talking about naturally existence not God. My comments do not have any coherent application to an entity that contains it's own explanation. Please quit taking comments made in one context, applying them to a completely different one, and crying foul.

Edit: my faith is no different than you just assuming god just exists, it doesnt explain how the heck intelligence can just exist. I assume existence exists, that requires no faith cause I can see existence exists

I feel like I am engaged with uncle Remises tar baby here. Every single post I have written to you includes almost exclusively deductions, inescapable logical principles, and evidence. There is some assumption involved in aspects of my faith but not in this discussion. Yours, however has not only been compete assumption but assumption that defies the evidence and necessity of reality.

 

[1robin]

Society, intelligence and empathy are what dictate morality. It doesnt just fall from the sky.

It is absolutely impossible for society, empathy, or any other relative human opinion to ever have created a single moral truth, ever. Your talking about legality not morality and even the basis for morality is rooted in objective moral principles not opinions.

 

[1robin]

Fuurther we have no justification to assume intelligence is default, we dont even see a hint of intelligence (aside from my quantum argument) until we see hints of life forming out of a non-intelligent sludge.

Hundreds of quotes from the most secular of scientists must be denied to even begin to hint at what you claimed. It as if you have forgotten what I quoted and stated just 5 minutes ago. This discussion is exasperating.

 

[idav]

It is absolutely impossible for society, empathy, or any other relative human opinion to ever have created a single moral truth, ever. Your talking about legality not morality and even the basis for morality is rooted in objective moral principles not opinions.

So why does the book of the dead have the ten commandments. God go to egyptians first? Society has been making laws and then their culture and morality are the influences for it. Many cultures have figured this out without a magic bush needing to tell them. Heck all we need is the golden rule and that is all you need to dictate morality, which Buddha already advocated thousands of years before Christianity jumped on the band wagon. These things are thought about and logically deduced, the morality doesn't just fall from the sky, morality books don't just fall from the sky, someone writes them. No finger of god necessary.

 

[1robin]

As I indicated before, I believe most wars are fought for strictly earthly reasons to do with material and territorial gain. Religion's role is as the great, unarguable casus belli, the ultimate justifier of aggressions that would otherwise be hard to sell.

Even if I granted what you stated (which I do not) it was about what is used to justify and act already commenced or determined by secular reasons and so is not relevant. It matters far more why something is done than why something was claimed to be done. If I take your house because I am greedy I have only proven the bible not contradicted and God nor religion is actually responsible even if I used it as a defense.

Forgive me if I fail to tremble.

Dang-it.

Very apparent to whom?

I would far rather list who it was not apparent to. It would take far less time. I do not have time to explain things so obvious they are almost a universal given. I do not even know what argument could drive your questioning of this.

According to a 2011 Gallup poll, more than 9 in 10 Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?". This does not suggest much of a departure from theism. By any measure, American theists form a far greater proportion of the population than in northern European countries - which lag far behind the US in (for example) homicide and divorce rates, but lead it by a good margin in foreign aid donations as percent of GDP. (The US ranks 19th on the latter criterion; most of the top ten donor nations are also among the most secular, including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and the UK.)

Your getting causal agents and coincidence confused again. The majority of our (and we definitely have them) moral failures is far more easily explained by our greater adherence to personal freedom and things like our legal philosophy of innocent until proven guilty, etc..... It is the height of absurdity to blame the faith that condemns divorce as the cause of it, that condemns murder as the cause of it, That fight abortion as it's root, etc.... I will see your gallop poll and raise you hundreds of statistical charts about Church attendance:


https://www.google.com/search?q=dec...&ei=2GvJU9OfPMrjsAS07oKoCg&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQsAQ

Not only are there more there but they are the more effectual. If there is a sharp decline in the roll of faith in governing lives there is necessarily an increase in secular influence. I will also add that while actual faith is on the decline it still remains the "right" answer to a poll question. It is like asking if you think you are a good person in a poll in a Christian influenced country.

I hold no brief for either Kruger or SitC, but neither am I convinced that either is a clear indicator of moral decline.

Your response is the best evidence I could produce. What is more indicative of moral decline than the lack of moral clarity and standards. This is by far the more influential. Once Stalin rejected the only basis for human life having inherent worth, sanctity, and dignity on what basis can you call what he did murder or wrong. How is wiping out biological anomalies wrong. I am not asking you why you think it I. I am asking how you can PROVE or justify it with reason. How do you have more value that a grasshopper unless God exists. Without him that is speciesm not morality. As Dostoevsky said if God be not all things are permissible. I have no basis on which to disagree other than flimsy preference.

 

[1robin]

So why does the book of the dead have the ten commandments. God go to egyptians first? Society has been making laws and then their culture and morality are the influences for it. Many cultures have figured this out without a magic bush needing to tell them. Heck all we need is the golden rule and that is all you need to dictate morality, which Buddha already advocated thousands of years before Christianity jumped on the band wagon. These things are thought about and logically deduced, the morality doesn't just fall from the sky, morality books don't just fall from the sky, someone writes them. No finger of god necessary.

Good grief talk about changing subjects. God is absolutely necessary for moral truth to ever exist. No one ever said the ten commandments invented morality nor that God's declaration did. We have a God given conscience that as usual has no explanation apart from God. Molecules are not moral agents. The ten commandments were God's stamp of approval and officially traced to it's source. IOW God was confirming what he had already written in the heart of man so as to be without question. No offense but you do not seem to have enough understanding of Christina doctrines to have denied them rationally. Your not arguing against Christianity but a caricature of it you have made.

I did not say man could not invent a system of ethics without God. I said not a single ethic in that case would represent a single objective fact. The kids in Lord of the flies developed ethical systems, but not a single one of them were true or even good unless God exists. In fact the truth categories of good and evil no longer even have any objective meaning without him.

 

[idav]

God is absolutely necessary for moral truth to ever exist. No one ever said the ten commandments invented morality nor that God's declaration did. We have a God given conscience that as usual has no explanation apart from God. Molecules are not moral.

See I can understand it being written in our hearts but what you say above makes no sense cause frankly this moral giver doesnt exist enough to even intervene. Molecules are not moral(strawman) intelligent knowledge is. It isnt just good morals though, wisdom is about knowing right and wrong, I having I think doesnt guarantee a person will do the right thing.

 

[1robin]

See I can understand it being written in our hearts but what you say above makes no sense cause frankly this moral giver doesnt exist enough to even intervene.

That is a self contradictory statement. A moral law giver has already intervened. By the law of non-contradiction either one or both of your claims must necessarily by false.

Molecules are not moral(strawman) intelligent knowledge is. It isnt just good morals though, wisdom is about knowing right and wrong, I having I think doesnt guarantee a person will do the right thing.

What? Wisdom (nor any other word you use that actually boils down to opinion) can ever create a single moral fact. Of course moral objectivity doe snot guaranty you will do the right thing. Once again this is perfectly explained by my faith. We have freewill and are fallen creatures who chose often to rebel and once again I can't even imagine anything in Pantheism that can explain this at all. Nature (molecules or any collection of them) does not have the capacity to generate a single moral truth. This can be seen by the fact hat 99.99999999% of the arrangements of molecules have no moral property what ever. Only those creatures associated with God do. Even animals do not murder when they kill or rape when they forcibly mate. You will no more get a moral fact that a single molecule appealing to nature alone.

Got to go, see ya.

 

[idav]

That is a self contradictory statement. A moral law giver has already intervened. By the law of non-contradiction either one or both of your claims must necessarily by false.

What? Wisdom (nor any other word you use that actually boils down to opinion) can ever create a single moral fact. Of course moral objectivity doe snot guaranty you will do the right thing. Once again this is perfectly explained by my faith. We have freewill and are fallen creatures who chose often to rebel and once again I can't even imagine anything in Pantheism that can explain this at all. Nature (molecules or any collection of them) does not have the capacity to generate a single moral truth. This can be seen by the fact hat 99.99999999% of the arrangements of molecules have no moral property what ever. Only those creatures associated with God do. Even animals do not murder when they kill or rape when they forcibly mate. You will no more get a moral fact that a single molecule appealing to nature alone.

Got to go, see ya.

Morality can only be as objective as the knowledge we have. Things have consequences and when we understand that we implement morality.

Have a nice one.