Thoughts on this needed!

[Comet]

This deals not with Atheism vs Theism, though it appears to be so. This is a conversation about NOTHING indeed. I would love the thoughts of all of my RF friends on this "proof of nothing"! It is a Monist arguement in a conversation I am having with the Theology/Philosophy department at my University.

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something IS and nothing is not something, therefore nothing is not what something is
3. God is, therefore God is something and not nothing
4. Creation is, therefore creation is something and not nothing
5. God created creation
Please draw your own conclusions and post.... I left out my ABCDEF arguments from this post, but gave the insights thereof to the University. Please comment, would love others insights from all different walks of life/spirit. :yes:

 

[Comet]

Love the insight without the arguments that 1-5 make being stated... thanks again!

 

[JustWondering]

Seems logically sound if you believe in god.

 

[Comet]

Seems logically sound if you believe in god.

Maybe I should have posted the A-F points for what I am trying to say... Thanks, makes me think that 1-5 are sound, I hope points A-F are as well...:yes:

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Technically God would be creation in that case, it didn't create something, otherwise it'd be nothing, because God is something and needs to be created.

 

[no-body]

Who knows maybe someday science will cut through this knot, in the mean time it is an amusing philosophical exercise. It ties in with my mystical beliefs nicely; eventually you have to explain the creator or you have an infinite loop and it is obviously the nothing itself, the void.

 

[Comet]

Technically God would be creation in that case, it didn't create something, otherwise it'd be nothing, because God is something and needs to be created.

Well said and one of my points in A-F not stated.

 

[Comet]

Who knows maybe someday science will cut through this knot, in the mean time it is an amusing philosophical exercise. It ties in with my mystical beliefs nicely; eventually you have to explain the creator or you have an infinite loop and it is obviously the nothing itself, the void.

Amusing philosphical exercise indeed, as I intended it to be via the discussion. Mystical beliefs? Infinite loop... nothing itself! (the void) As I said as a Monist in the discussion and was not heard... so I came up with such a "proof of nothing". :candle::bow:

 

[waitasec]

feedback has a source but the source becomes apart of the feedback



i don't know what that means...i just thought of the idea of an infinite loop

 

[Comet]

feedback has a source but the source becomes apart of the feedback



i don't know what that means...i just thought of the idea of an infinite loop

Interesting insight, thank you.... Perhaps I should post my A-F thoughts here then... but I enjoy this feedback! LOL!

 

[waitasec]

ha ha
that's funny!!!


as we continually feed each other thoughts...

 

[Alex_G]

This deals not with Atheism vs Theism, though it appears to be so. This is a conversation about NOTHING indeed. I would love the thoughts of all of my RF friends on this "proof of nothing"! It is a Monist arguement in a conversation I am having with the Theology/Philosophy department at my University.

Some thoughts of mine

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

Depends greatly on your definition, be it everyday language or technical terms. Much of front line physics especially in the field of particle physics challenges classical notions that we have become familiar and comfortable with.

2. Something IS and nothing is not something, therefore nothing is not what something is

3. God is, therefore God is something and not nothing

God 'is', in so far as anything you can put into writing 'is'. In the same way, flying double headed zebra 'is'.

4. Creation is, therefore creation is something and not nothing

5. God created creation

Just because 2 things exist or are at least proven to (which isnt even the case here) that doesn’t provide evidence that one necessarily causes the other. Post hoc ergo proper hoc (after this therefor because of this) is the logical fallacy that assumes because an event preceded another it therefore caused it. Also Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this therefore because of this)refers to the fallacy that just because 2 evens are correlated they have a causal relation.

Please draw your own conclusions and post.... I left out my ABCDEF arguments from this post, but gave the insights thereof to the University. Please comment, would love others insights from all different walks of life/spirit. :yes:

I think thats enough to break the argument as it currently stands to be honest.

 

[Comet]

Some thoughts of mine

Depends greatly on your definition, be it everyday language or technical terms. Much of front line physics especially in the field of particle physics challenges classical notions that we have become familiar and comfortable with.



God 'is', in so far as anything you can put into writing 'is'. In the same way, flying double headed zebra 'is'.


Just because 2 things exist or are at least proven to (which isnt even the case here) that doesn’t provide evidence that one necessarily causes the other. Post hoc ergo proper hoc (after this therefor because of this) is the logical fallacy that assumes because an event preceded another it therefore caused it. Also Cum hoc ergo propter hoc (with this therefore because of this)refers to the fallacy that just because 2 evens are correlated they have a causal relation.


I think thats enough to break the argument as it currently stands to be honest.

Well said, but remember I made this argument to debate the Theology/Philosophy department's argument against me.... Again, well said!

 

[Iti oj]

This deals not with Atheism vs Theism, though it appears to be so. This is a conversation about NOTHING indeed. I would love the thoughts of all of my RF friends on this "proof of nothing"! It is a Monist arguement in a conversation I am having with the Theology/Philosophy department at my University.

1. Something cannot come from nothing.
2. Something IS and nothing is not something, therefore nothing is not what something is
3. God is, therefore God is something and not nothing
4. Creation is, therefore creation is something and not nothing
5. God created creation
Please draw your own conclusions and post.... I left out my ABCDEF arguments from this post, but gave the insights thereof to the University. Please comment, would love others insights from all different walks of life/spirit. :yes:

1. false premise. space time began also i think quantum phyics shows or suggestr or theories or something like that
2.maybe but nothing is apart of everything =D
3. the universe is. Occam razor that
4. agreed
5 the universe is.

 

[Iti oj]

also isnt the universe mostly empty space and thus nothing?

 

[Comet]

I think I should bring in my "OPTIONS" part here now, what my A-F was arguing....
Given what I proposed in 1-5 (again arguing against Theologists and Philosophers who are Christian):

A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be false
F: 2, 3, 4, and 5 are true so 1 is false

 

[Comet]

From a Biblical perspective with Philosophical background of Christian Faith given the argument against me... I proposed 1-5 with 1 being the statement of FACT in retort to my Monism.... So my 1-5 is given to prove A,B,C,D,E, or F... Again my proof is called "Proof of Nothing" Either I proved nothing as they have to me, or I proved Nothing to be Something which defeats their argument against me, or they deny what they believe....

They argued that #1 is a true statement, their argument against Monism...

 

[Iti oj]

I think I should bring in my "OPTIONS" part here now, what my A-F was arguing....
Given what I proposed in 1-5 (again arguing against Theologists and Philosophers who are Christian):

A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something
B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself
C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing
D: Creation exists and created God
E: If 1 is true then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be false
F: 2, 3, 4, and 5 are true so 1 is false

ab the universe is at this point i would probably get annoyed and just start arguing for pantheism the universe is
c the universe is
d yeah i agree with that
e yeah i think i agree with that
f im not sure

 

[Comet]

ab the universe is at this point i would probably get annoyed and just start arguing for pantheism the universe is
c the universe is
d yeah i agree with that
e yeah i think i agree with that
f im not sure

Okay, so am I sound in my logical 1-5 argument given they ADMIT #1 to me as their argument against my Monism? Given 1-5, is ABCDEF the logical retort to what is given in a Christian belief admiting #1 to argue with me?

 

[Iti oj]

Okay, so am I sound in my logical 1-5 argument given they ADMIT #1 to me as their argument against my Monism? Given 1-5, is ABCDEF the logical retort to what is given in a Christian belief admiting #1 to argue with me?

monism is similar to pantheism right? and if your asking if you can counter their first argument then you counter all of them i would agree also why does god not apply to this rule?