Thoughts wanted on this:

[Comet]

I have a post in the Debate Forum, but I wanted to ask Atheistic types about this as well. I am having a discussion with the Philosophy/Theology department at my University. They are all Christian, I am a Monist. I would love an Atheistic/Humanist view on this for an outside perspective:

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
Therefore:
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
Thanks and YES I GET THE HAWKING ARGUMENT THAT 1 IS FALSE... other insights or extention upon that?

 

[lunakilo]

1. Something cannot come from nothing

I don't know. Idon't have any exmples of something that came from nothing, but that is not actully proof that it cannot happen.

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

Hmm, if (A=something, B=nothing), then
1) A IS
2) B != A

So something has the property that it IS
nothing is not the same as something, but that does not men that something nd nothing cannot share some properties as far as I can see.

Unless you by 'nothing is not something' men that nothing is the complete oposite of something.
that is,
2) B = not A
Then I suppose if A has the property IS then B should hve the property not-IS...

Hmm, I don't know. I am not sure what it means that something IS.

I assume you mean that anything, either IS, that is it exists or it ISN'T, that is it does not exist.
In this case something is what you call stuff which exist, and nothing is what you call that which does not exist

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

If we assume God has the property IS, and that would put God in the something-category.

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

Same as 3.

5. God created creation

That is nice to know

Therefore:
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

@A: Could be, nowhere in points 1-5 does it say that God was the only something
@B: Also in accordence with points 1-5
@C: Well if God already existed then, then something existed and there ws no reason for creation to be creation of something out of nothing.
@D: I don't see how that could be concluded from points 1-5. Point 5 says the oposite.
@E & F: Possibly I didn't understnd the mening of point 1 because I don't see any contradiction between 1 and (2,3,4,5)

Thanks and YES I GET THE HAWKING ARGUMENT THAT 1 IS FALSE... other insights or extention upon that?

The main question here seems to be: can you create something (for example the universe) out of nothing or does the creation of something (fx. the universe) require something (fx God or an everlasting universe) to exist.

Interesting question. I don't know the answer

 

[Reptillian]

This reminds me of Spinoza's attempt to axiomatize religion. You should read up on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems to see why that isn't necessarily a good idea.

 

[Comet]

This was actually posted in another thread as it deals with a conversation I've been having with my professors. They said #1 was true, the believe #3 and #5... so I came up with this "proof of nothing" for them. Hope that better explains given they submit that #1,3, and 5 are true before I gave them this...

 

[confused453]

I always thought that nothing means to a human, not possessing some objects (money, property, etc.).

I believe some people think that nothing is a total absence of time, space and atoms, like a perfect vacuum?? As far as I know, such state does not exist. There's always something everywhere in the universe.

We create stuff out of already existing stuff; just rearranging the molecules to our liking

 

[s2a]

I have a post in the Debate Forum, but I wanted to ask Atheistic types about this as well. I am having a discussion with the Philosophy/Theology department at my University. They are all Christian, I am a Monist. I would love an Atheistic/Humanist view on this for an outside perspective:

1. Something cannot come from nothing

If modern theoretical physics has any merit in your mind, then that conclusion is known to be untrue. I sure hope the rest or your premise isn’t based upon this first premise alone...

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

Um… Santa? Is that you?

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

Santa, you’re just toying with me now, right?

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

Well, I doubt that even most scientists would argue against the cosmos as being an untestable or unobservable nothing...

5. God created creation

Well…that is a popular claim/belief

Therefore:
A: God created something out of SOMETHING else other than God, so God is not the only something

If God can just “happen”, so much for the “nothing from nothing” argument…

B: God created out of his self, so all creation is God himself

Getting almost kinda kinky, and sorta sad...

C: Creation does not exist for something cannot come from nothing

The notion of “purpose” may account for the “invention” of religion…as perhaps answer to the conundrum you hope to offer as logic here...

D: Creation exists and created God

I would simplify that “1+1 math”, and say that a sentient mankind “invented” god/gods to lend answers to questions that otherwise defied natural explanation to ignorant people 3500 years ago with no scientific insights of any kind whatsoever. Does that seem an unreasonable explanation?

E: If 1 is true then 2, 3, 4, or 5 must be false

And if 1 is not true?

F: 2, 3, 4, and 5 are true so 1 is false

So, you doubt the word of Santa now??

Thanks and YES I GET THE HAWKING ARGUMENT THAT 1 IS FALSE... other insights or extention upon that?

Well, despite the somewhat nagging conclusion that Hawking provides as a “disproof” of a any claimed “GOD”, in so doing he also allows a disproof of his conclusion…as any decent scientist of a merited testable hypothesis would.

Let’s recall that Hawking only “proves” that no claimed supernatural force/entity/deity is requisite to explain the existence of the cosmos as mat be observed today.

It is now difficult for “‘God did it’ theorists” to scientifically disprove his provided conclusion. Hawking has simply lent a natural explanation of how/why supernatural explanations are unnecessary, or just moot.

If you wish to argue that “God” is requisite as explanation of nature and the observable cosmos, I believe the forum remains open to your own presented, evidential, and testable morsels of invalidation of Hawking’s disproof

*rubs hands together*

 

[s2a]

Threadkiller extraordinaire...lives on to zombify yet another thread...

 

[Alceste]

I have a post in the Debate Forum, but I wanted to ask Atheistic types about this as well. I am having a discussion with the Philosophy/Theology department at my University. They are all Christian, I am a Monist. I would love an Atheistic/Humanist view on this for an outside perspective:

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
Therefore:
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
Thanks and YES I GET THE HAWKING ARGUMENT THAT 1 IS FALSE... other insights or extention upon that?

I reject all five of your assertions on various grounds. 1. We don't know really what "something" is at all, let alone whether or not it can come from nothing. Both words only represent abstract concepts, which we know (thanks to leprechauns and unicorns) can often be completely independent of material reality. 2. See number 1. 3. "God is", is bald assertion, unless you can demonstrate that unicorns and leprechauns are also "something". 4. is a tautology based on arbitrary definitions established by the first two dubious assertions. 5 is another bald assertion, which can not logically be any more (or less) true than saying "leprechauns created creation" or "unicorns created creation".

Therefore: A: unicorns created God and something is nothing after all
A: Leprechauns created unicorns out of God.
A: Creation somethinged God and unicorns are leprechauns
A: A, A, and A are true and XVI is false, or
A: A, A, A, and A are false and 42 is the answer to the question we forgot.

 

[Alceste]

And that's why I don't get theology.

 

[lunakilo]

I reject all five of your assertions on various grounds.

That reminds me of a math class I had in highschool.
The teacher the teacher had written some axioms on the black board and started his proof based on these axioms.
When he was done I asked him how he knew the axioms were true.
He gave me a reprimand. "You do not discuss the axioms! The axioms are taken to be true!"

1. We don't know really what "something" is at all, let alone whether or not it can come from nothing. Both words only represent abstract concepts, which we know (thanks to leprechauns and unicorns) can often be completely independent of material reality. 2. See number 1. 3. "God is", is bald assertion, unless you can demonstrate that unicorns and leprechauns are also "something". 4. is a tautology based on arbitrary definitions established by the first two dubious assertions. 5 is another bald assertion, which can not logically be any more (or less) true than saying "leprechauns created creation" or "unicorns created creation".

Therefore: A: unicorns created God and something is nothing after all
A: Leprechauns created unicorns out of God.
A: Creation somethinged God and unicorns are leprechauns
A: A, A, and A are true and XVI is false, or
A: A, A, A, and A are false and 42 is the answer to the question we forgot.

Apart from that I of course agree with you (as always it seems )
But what IF you pretend for a moment to accept all five assertions, what does that tell you about A,B, C, D, E and F?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

My thoughts are summarized thusly:

3, 4, and 5 are baseless claims.
1 and 2 are logically consistent, but the terms are vague and might negate that consistency if improperly defined.

Note: not an atheist

 

[HonestJoe]

There is a common argument from some (not very smart) theists that no form of uninteligent, unguided creation is possible because "something can't come from nothing" and so they propose God as a starting point. They never address the obvious questions of "Where did God come from?" and "Why must it be the God you belief in?".

More generally, the kind of logical issues you raise are often answers with a slightly less flippant version of "God just did it - he's magic!". There isn't much you can do with that "argument".

 

[Alceste]

That reminds me of a math class I had in highschool.
The teacher the teacher had written some axioms on the black board and started his proof based on these axioms.
When he was done I asked him how he knew the axioms were true.
He gave me a reprimand. "You do not discuss the axioms! The axioms are taken to be true!"


Apart from that I of course agree with you (as always it seems )
But what IF you pretend for a moment to accept all five assertions, what does that tell you about A,B, C, D, E and F?

Well, I think A, B and D encounter the problem of infinite regression. Whether God created creation out of himself, something else, or creation created God, you still haven't addressed the question of where the something that creation is made of came from. C was dealt with to my satisfaction by Descartes, as long as I define "creation" as "the phenomena I perceive".

E and F are both sound conclusions, a far as I can see.

 

[Comet]

Threadkiller extraordinaire...lives on to zombify yet another thread...

Again, I started with premise #1 since those I argue against stated that it is TRUE! THEY SAID IT IS TRUE, so I started there! :clap

 

[Comet]

And that's why I don't get theology.

Oh you get it! :clap

 

[Comet]

Well, I think A, B and D encounter the problem of infinite regression. Whether God created creation out of himself, something else, or creation created God, you still haven't addressed the question of where the something that creation is made of came from. C was dealt with to my satisfaction by Descartes, as long as I define "creation" as "the phenomena I perceive".

E and F are both sound conclusions, a far as I can see.

Thank you for those who read the post.... They take #1, #3, and #5 as true... My point of the "proof" is to make them deny what they believe and state in one manner or another. If you can see the point of it, then YES! E or F are sound conclusions I tried to make them see... that E or F is true so they cannot argue with me about 1,3,5 et al.... :angel2: