The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[idav]

Why do you guys have to restate what I say in other ways? No you can have empathy and the rest but enacting those would not be based on moral facts. For example without God I could eliminate capitol punishment by empathy. What I cannot do is ever know if I was right. In fact I would never be right because right would not exist as there is no source for moral truth. Empathy its self nor the rest are moral in and of themselves. They can be but you need more information before they are. Atheists, and others can be right if God exists but they cannot be morally right if he does not nor can they find the moral right in Atheism. It must come from a transcendent source, humans alone can never make anything right or wrong. We can only do things that were right or wrong. Without God you can have empathy and the rest but they would have nothing to do with moral truth because moral truth would not exist. Your talking about ethics not morality.

Right is because we have an objective. If I say it is wrong to go to mars then anyone who goes is wrong. Depends on individual needs. It may be right to take a martian back to mars. One enforcer cant be true to both the earthling and martian with one moral code, everyone needs different things.

 

[Thief]

Right is because we have an objective. If I say it is wrong to go to mars then anyone who goes is wrong. Depends on individual needs. It may be right to take a martian back to mars. One enforcer cant be true to both the earthling and martian with one moral code, everyone needs different things.

I need your money......I'm right about it.

 

[idav]

I need your money......I'm right about it.

Doesnt hurt to ask. Being right isn't always enough.

 

[McBell]

Reality seems firm enough.

Except that there are loads of people who do not have even a flimsy grasp of reality, let alone a firm grip.

The creation would be a reflection of it's Creator.

Funny how this claim gets tossed out the window once the flaws start getting pointed out...

 

[McBell]

Why do you guys have to restate what I say in other ways? No you can have empathy and the rest but enacting those would not be based on moral facts. For example without God I could eliminate capitol punishment by empathy. What I cannot do is ever know if I was right. In fact I would never be right because right would not exist as there is no source for moral truth. Empathy its self nor the rest are moral in and of themselves. They can be but you need more information before they are. Atheists, and others can be right if God exists but they cannot be morally right if he does not nor can they find the moral right in Atheism. It must come from a transcendent source, humans alone can never make anything right or wrong. We can only do things that were right or wrong. Without God you can have empathy and the rest but they would have nothing to do with moral truth because moral truth would not exist. Your talking about ethics not morality.

This is a nice little sermon, but it is nothing more than bold unsubstantiated claims.
Claims you cannot substantiate outside the choir which merely agrees with the sermon.

 

[ArtieE]

Why do you guys have to restate what I say in other ways? No you can have empathy and the rest but enacting those would not be based on moral facts. For example without God I could eliminate capitol punishment by empathy. What I cannot do is ever know if I was right.

So every time you have to make a decision regarding what is the moral thing to do you have to run to your God and ask him what is right?

 

[Thief]

Except that there are loads of people who do not have even a flimsy grasp of reality, let alone a firm grip.



Funny how this claim gets tossed out the window once the flaws start getting pointed out...

And you claim to have that firm grip?
And you can see the faults of God's handiwork?
Does that include you?
Or are you perfect?

 

[idav]

So every time you have to make a decision regarding what is the moral thing to do you have to run to your God and ask him what is right?

Every rational person should have an app for that.

 

[ArtieE]

Every rational person should have an app for that.

Rational people don't need an app to know what's moral or immoral. For the irrational we have an app called "Bible". https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sirma.mobile.bible.android&hl=en Rational people understand why we should live by the Golden Rule so that's what we do, in the Bible app the major religious figure has to tell Christians to live by the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12. “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them". Some Christians seem to claim that they wouldn't know living by the Golden Rule was right, unless a religious authority figure told them.

 

[McBell]

And you claim to have that firm grip?
And you can see the faults of God's handiwork?
Does that include you?
Or are you perfect?

No
yes
yes and no
no


Now it is YOUR turn to answer the same questions.

 

[viole]

I do not have any morars so I need no morar giver. Just kidding me spelling is even worse. However there is no way possible you know we do not have a moral law giver, so I simply reject the statement. It is true that on naturalism you do not but that is my point. Without God there are no morals only opinion based ethics.

Just kidding me me spelling is even worse?

By the way: my point is that naturalism explains why we have disagreements. And with "we" I include theists too. Because there isn't any moral giver.

That had nothing to do with what you responded to. I did attempt to do what you reject there. Regardless commonality implies common design, common design implies a common designer. A terribly weak argument but more than an iota. What is an iota anyway besides a Greek letter?

Ok, but then the designer forgot to design commonality for what concerns morality. Or, at least, for a big part of them. And to say that commonality implies common design is begging the question. For I could say that no commonality implies more than one design and be a happy polytheist.

I actually find the opposite to be true. I find the most essential salvation doctrines to be the most emphatic and clear and way way down the list background details to be the least clear. I have no need to know the age of accountability....

Well, even if my ipad was broken it could serve as a moral giver. All you have to do is declare that the common morality emanates from it, whereas the not common ones does not. You can also use it for prayers: it will answers them positevely with the same frequency.

Well why is the former a fringe concept and the latter almost universally accepted. I have no idea what it is we know your referring to. Time is one of the most unknowable things there is.

Even if it was a fringe, it accounts for what we observe. The competition doesn't. There is not a universal concept of "now" because there is not a universal concept of "simultaneity". Different observers have different presents. You can do experiments that prove that. So, that little we know is sufficient to adios tensed time.

Honestly I have never heard of a Northern Baptist denomination. Southern ... I used to feel God much more often than I do now. I have more of a faith than a relationship these days.

Ok. But going from relationship to faith looks a bit like a downgrade, doesn'it?

Not really. But as it is the reconstructed Solomon's temple said to be constructed on the temple mount it never the less will take place there. God's looking into the future is not to say he is causing it exactly. BTW did you know there are serious efforts underway to collect the money to rebuild it? It is terrifying and a relief to see so many end times prophecies coming true. We have a ways to god but we are in the end times.

Here is the example I was looking for. The time between the first coming and the second is an actual infinity.

You just had to get that dismissal in there didn't you? Who cares if there is astronomical similarity across millions of claims to being born again. It is does not matter unless perfect agreement exists, unless it is any other subject. Is that about right? I am just joking but I have been at this so long these tactics have become humorous.

Well, I was joking, too. i was born again myself, so I know how it felt. Same you all feels. Now, I am waiting to be dead ... again, lol.

That is true if you start restricting assumptions based on perceptions. If you keep going you wind up with only that we think being knowable. I usually am much less demanding. I only want the same standard to be used consistently.

i lost context. Skip.

I did not interpret evolution. I said what part I can agree to as reliable IMO and what I could not. It changes so fast I would not bother interpreting it. It changes more than what it represents.

The kern does not change. We all come from fish (not necessarily tuna). Unless it is Ok for you to belong to a fringe, in this case

I disagree with everything after the second sentence though I do acknowledge that I tis what you believe. I wish you would use I believe instead of it is.

Ok. I believe that time is not tensed the same way I believe the sun curves time-space in its neighborhood. I will stop believe both of them when relativity will be found to be wrong.

That is what I conclude from divine command theory. I do not like it. It seems to convenient and ends debates but I can't see how it would ever be false. He is the standard.

Well, it does end debate. And I also don't know how it could be wrong. i think it not true...not even wrong.

I don't get why you so often confuse abstract concepts with concrete reality. I was saying there are no infinite concrete realities. You keep giving me abstracts in response....At least this example of yours is perfectly wrong.

I don't see how picking a location can turn the rest of the points into a finite set. How many of them are there? Anf if they are finite, what prevents me from picking a location between two contigous ones? I think this brings more absurdities.

Ok start mapping an infinite number of points and see how that goes. I am not waiting for infinity for the results.

This is easy. You can use one simple projection operation.

You have yet to find an infinity to cross much less to do so. You invented a non existent infinite line out of the ether that is not concrete then made a bunch of abstract assumptions about this non existent line. Let me ask you this. If there is an infinite object anywhere in reality why is it not everywhere in reality including here? Lets quit wasting time you are not aware of a single concrete infinite anything, and move on.

Well, apart from the infinity of points in an interval of space, all of space could be infinite. If you ask the average cosmologist, she will tell you that we know space is flat, but we don't know if it is infinite. She will never tell you: we know it is finite because concrete infinities cannot exist.

Now, you might ask: how is it possible that the same scientists who postulate a moment in time in which the Universe is very small and finite, are not sure whether it is infinite?

The anwer to this riddle is left as a simple exercise.

No you can't. Even in a Newtonian world (which an unjustifiable hypothetical anyway) nothing could withstand the strain of infinite speed, nothing has the infinite power to propel it, there is no infinite place for it to cross. I will give you an out. I will not object to abstract infinite concepts if you admit you have no idea where a concrete infinite is or how it could be there. You can keep it as an idea if you admit that is the only place you know it is.

This is not an out, lol. No sane person would object to abstract infinities. And I already made an example of infinities in nature. Unless you prove to me that an interval of space does not contain infinite points without the ability to add one all the time. But if you want, we can use the heavy weapons of quantum electrodynamics and Feynman integrals over the (infinite) stories of a particle.

I have no idea why you asked this. She would be forgiven. Actually if she was born again she was already forgiven but might not experience it until she repented or was resurrected if she did not. I can't imagine why you asked this.

Stupid comment from my side. Skip.

That concerns what you prefer. It says nothing about what is. No they pull the trigger the same as they normally do. They just do not push this new button as easily as they use the bullet. So you get what we have always had plus a whole new threat of extinction added to it. Thanks progress.

Still. I prefer this than being teleported in the past. I might be selfish, but i would not exchange threats of global extinction for an expected average 30 years of life for me and my kids.

I might consider being teleported to the time when people lived 600 years or something, though, as long as I get a ticket for that big boat

Let me clarify. I think nuclear war will occur and not to far off from now. The bible seems to make it inevitable. I believe that it will occur in Israel. Can you not see the seeds for that today. I believe Israel will be surrounded and in this instance will be losing because most of the world is attacking them but both sides will take intense casualties and flare ups may take place all over with mass casualties. However before Israel is over run Christ will return and destroy those who are attacking them. That is Armageddon IMO and current events seem to bare this out. I have no idea which side we are on or if we are still even around as a super power but it will not matter. God will win. Did you know every single nation Christ fights in revelations is an Islamic nation hostile to Israel today. Revelations may be the best and most ominously accurate text ever written. It certainly is quoted enough.

Well, if you believe that, i hope I will never be able to prove you wrong. Let's hope that the temple will be finished by then (did they start already?). You know, to reduce God's risks of entering a contradictory deadlock. Sorry guys, the temple is not there yet, or has been destroyed by a Hamas rocket (if they are not stupid that is where I would aim). I cannot help you, for I cannot contradict my prophecies

By the way, I am for the more secular side, obviously. I actually think Israel is a bit too soft. If Liechtenstein threw rockets to Switzerland or Germany, it would probably cease to exist (without God's help).

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

No
yes
yes and no
no


Now it is YOUR turn to answer the same questions.

So!...if you CAN see the faults of God's handiwork.....you did say yes....
Then you can also see the better portions as well.

 

[1robin]

So ... with your god how do you know that you are right? Conversations with those thought to be imaginary friends are suspect, all men are fail-able, and the bible has lots of errors that are easy to see (e.g., Pi is not equal to three).

Well there are many ways. You can compare your conclusions with scripture (the scripture that applies). I would be wasting my time to compare my actions to OT verses about attacking Canaanites that have not applied for 2000 years and only to Israel. I can pray about it. I can intuitively grasp it from a God centric point of view. I can use the witness of the Holy Spirit. I can use my God given conscience. Btw only a combination is reliable. Any one or two alone will not be reliable. However I have not really been making an I am right argument. Only that the potential to be right at all is possible with God. Without him there is no right which we are to be.


Conversations with what you may think are imaginary but which billions claim are real is not suspect until you can show it is. remember that Christian morality was not to be applied to a state but to an individual. We may vote but we are not to mandate what governments are to adopt. Fortunately smart men have used God as a template for state morality but it does not get mandated by it. So I do little to enforce my morality on others. I just make arguments about it.

The bible does have errors but even it's committed critics like Ehrman admit it is extraordinarily accurate. More so than any book, of any type, in ancient history. There is not even a close second. Almost all errors are known and they amount to less than 5%. Even Ehrman admits this 5% is not core doctrine and the errors are additions not subtractions in almost al cases. We have virtually the entirety of revelation plus a tiny bit.

The fallibility of man is the best possible recommendation for adopting an objective moral foundation. If we ever act as if secularism is true and adopt social Darwinism I hope I am dust long before it happens. We came close with Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Hitler, Mao, etc.... and their Social Darwin/Nietzsche/non-theistic Utopias. Did not work out to well.

I will give you my favorite commentary on secular morality. It is a satirical poem but based firmly in secular morality.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK

as long as you don’t hurt anyone

to the best of your definition of hurt,

and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and

after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better

despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated

And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes

UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,

Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think

His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-

at least the one that we read was.

They all believe in love and goodness.

They only differ on matters of creation,

sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing

Because when you ask the dead what happens

they say nothing.

If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its

compulsory heaven for all

excepting perhaps

Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson

What’s selected is average.

What’s average is normal.

What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.

We believe there are direct links between warfare and

bloodshed.

Americans should beat their guns into tractors .

And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.

It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.

Society is the fault of conditions.

Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that

is right for him.

Reality will adapt accordingly.

The universe will readjust.

History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth

excepting the truth

that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,

And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be

the Father of all flesh,

disaster is his rainbow in the sky

and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man

worshipping his maker.

Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

 

[1robin]

Right is because we have an objective. If I say it is wrong to go to mars then anyone who goes is wrong. Depends on individual needs. It may be right to take a martian back to mars. One enforcer cant be true to both the earthling and martian with one moral code, everyone needs different things.

That was perfectly wrong. If you forbid going to Mars not one single person would be wrong in doing so, not even you. Your stating something has no power to ever make it true. If it was not true (and no moral would ever be true without God) then every single rule made upon it would be just as untrue. Being objective has nothing to do with having an objective. It is actually the exact opposite. Being objective means to be free of the opinion of those who are bound by the claim or system. Your declarations are as subjective as subjective can get.

 

[1robin]

So every time you have to make a decision regarding what is the moral thing to do you have to run to your God and ask him what is right?

Not really. I have a God given conscience and years of study that have led to a general understanding what God is. There are exceptions but in general I can produce a reliable moral conclusion within seconds of an issue arising.

Let me kind of head all this off by saying no matter what short coming you can throw at God it would be infinitely worse in every category without him, to come up with moral systems that are factual. If there are speed bumps with God there is an infinite chasm without him, between us and moral truth.

 

[1robin]

Every rational person should have an app for that.

It is called the Holy Spirit 1.0. There is only one version as it was perfect when fielded. It's even free.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Every rational person should have an app for that. [Talking to God]

There are several.

 

[ArtieE]

Not really. I have a God given conscience and years of study that have led to a general understanding what God is. There are exceptions but in general I can produce a reliable moral conclusion within seconds of an issue arising.

And so can any moral person whether he believes in some god or not.

Let me kind of head all this off by saying no matter what short coming you can throw at God it would be infinitely worse in every category without him, to come up with moral systems that are factual.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't need to refer to your god or any god in particular for moral people to understand that what it says is moral and correct. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

[McBell]

So!...if you CAN see the faults of God's handiwork.....you did say yes....
Then you can also see the better portions as well.

You did not answer the questions.

Not that I am the least bit surprised.

i wonder what your favoured deity thinks of such dishonest?

 

[viole]

I don't. I thought I said that. I just wanted you to to know my position and move on.

Ok.

How do you know, you ever gotten a simple chemical reactor and created life from non-life then watched it evolve as you suggest. No you took it on the word of others. I doubt more than 1% of us can meaningfully evaluate all the data and theory on what occurred on the early earth. Are you in that 1%.

I am in the same percentage that covers the scientists studying these issues. They might have missed the note that they are losing their time.

Either I am too stupid to get it or you were not as clever here as you normally are. Tuna ate a prophet. I don't get it.

I don't know. Maybe tuna fish like to ingest prophets like Jonah. Maybe your sickness was caused by one of those, who knows? - I was being, or trying to be facietous -

You might do so now that we know that took place, but over the course of history and thousand of creation story I think only the Bible posits a pre-existing eternal God and a finite universe from nothing. There might be a few but most give ridiculous story's we can easily see are just wrong.

A finite Universe? Are you sure it is finite? And that it comes from nothing? Whatever "coming from" means in the context of cosmology.

About Germs you did not get it. Not only did they not get it with sheep, they did not even wash the knives between surgeries as late as the mid 19th century killing tens of thousands. These were not bronze age farmers these were the best science had to offer and in very recent times. The best science had until now has been wrong and I mean WRONG when the bible was right 4000 years ahead of them in many scientific issues. Historically it gets much much worse though much less deadly.

Still willing to get that one way ticket to the past?

It was not claimed to be prophecy at all. This type of thing is called unknowable knowledge. It doe snot predict some future event. It is systematic statements about the nature of existing things which they had no possible way to know naturally. Like I have said a hundred times you guys rely way too much on yelling fallacy. It almost never applies.

Unknowable knowledge? How can it be knoweledge if it is unknowable?

Of course we all rebel against God. My life would probably be much better if I read the bible more instead of watching Triumph the comic dog clips. We all (including all Christians rebel) and we all pay for it. I think Roman sanitation was more about convenience than disease prevention but either way the Jews preceded them by a long way.

I am not aware of a lot of aqueducts in ancient Israel.

So, if everybody is rebelling against God, then I am rebelling too. How am I paying this?

II don't think so. It is not a medical text. It fixes spiritual problems and only fixes some physical problems to re-enforce that. You may make no other demand than it be accurate when scientific.

Spiritual problems? Can you make an example of a spiritual problem?

YA bunch. The bible is not a text to end disease in this life. The next yes but not this one. It does not fail to meet intentions it does not have. This is a tactic not an argument. I do remember something of interest. One of those pope dudes said he was told to light fires around him day and night by God. He did so and did not get sick. That's just for information not argumentation. I have never verified it and do not care.

Good to know that popes communication channel with God is not disturbed. Do you really think God would really say something so silly? This is in the same league of using garlic to fight vampires.

Was this your attempt to give me an actual thing that gained complexity over time? If so it will take me some time to evaluate it. Thermodynamics is tricky.

Take your time.

Not to me. Isn't the Swedish coast part of the earth? maybe if I blew it up I would see it is really on the moon.

It is photoshop. It is meant to represent introspection, lol.

Actually I am trying not to get bogged down in a boring, contentious, and had to define scientific application of thermodynamics. I used to love it but have gotten burned out. I will look into hydrological sorting though. Good answer, no whammy's.

Burned out by thermodynamics?

I really dread getting into this. I will avoid it again hoping you will forget it. It takes so long to get into.

Forgotten. Until you use it as an argument, again.

I know well what it says. It does not even mention actual systems specifically but does apply to them.

So, how do you contemplate the possibility that all scientists might have missed obvious violations of it?

I hope you indulge my humor but you remind me of that guy driving against the traffic on the NJ turnpike and asking himself why everybody else is driving in the wrong direction.

Ok, what am I supposed to do with this? It's 4pm, I have been debating of making actual science work in my test equip all day. My brain is tired.

Ok.

Not the extrapolations from the models. The models themselves. Half suggest things are determined absolutely by conditions and some say crap happens for no known reason, and no one knows which is true. I can't shut up and certainty can not do the math. I just conclude from those that possibly can that we do not know which math to even use yet. It is revolutionary but as yet we have no reliable idea in general what will be revolutionized and in what way.

It is very clear what mathematics to use.

I think pure determinism is false as a lone explanation and true randomness does not exist. I believe choice is true. The supernatural is true, and limited determinism is true. For the quantum I do not know enough to say and I do not think anyone else does either. If anyone does I expect to find them at MIT not a forum.

The problem with that is that pure randomness seems to exist. At least it seems to give evidence of it by showing interfering patterns of all different, equally probable, possible paths of a particle. And you do not need to be MIT to know that.

Quit saying it is. Say you think or believe it is. The evidence suggests you are wrong.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

A. Guth is also an author of the tehorem. For some reason, he believes today that the Universe is eternal.

Beginnings do not. A thing coming into being depends on no natural thing.

Well, you should say that you believe that. Wrongly. Arrows of time are set by thermodynamics conditions. And what does "beginning" mean without an arrow of time?

Nope but I am not getting into subdividing the concept of homosexuality. Less destructive in the absence of sufficient merit is still unjustifiable. I have done so in a homosexuality thread but it was meaningless to my main contention, it only changed the degree of damage, it never justified it. Please see that thread if you wish. It was surprisingly one of the few arguments I thought was absolutely resolved. I kept begging for a counter to my two main contentions and finally gave it up as hopeless.

Well, you are subdividing it the moment you mention STDs as a reason against it. For natural born lesbians who do not mess around with men seem to be immune from all that.

By the way, do you think that honosexuality is a choice?

That part of the bible does not apply today and never applied outside Israel. I was stupidly thinking you meant now when we actually exist. I do not you could retroactively enforce scriptures that have not applied to anything in 2000 years. Of course now and then mean little to you. Ancient Israel is just a few feet away to you. Your bizarre as Will would say.

My point. What is morally acceptable depends on culture and time. These separation between Israel and the rest of the world plus old and new covenants just confirms that.

No they oppose it for emotional reasons. In my case it is their opinion which has nothing whatever to do with truth against the moral foundation of the universe. Fire alarm have to go.

Ach. Those pesky 21st century life saving sensors. I wonder what that pope would have done when all fire sensors go off, lol..maybe you will never get sick either if you stay put, who knows?

Ciao

- viole