Something can't come from nothing

[nobspeople]

Recently I saw someone elsewhere make the comment, in regards to how 'the universe came to be', that you can't get something (the universe as it is today) from nothing (from before the universe existed), only to go on and say something similar to 'god is the beginning and the end', in reference to creating the universe.
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').

For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

[bjs1]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

That may be; it would be the first time I've heard that caveat made.
Seems to me, if this was the case, there's a distinction between natural and supernatural world. This would seem to indicate that the two worlds are 'too different' to exist together (simply by making such a grand distinction). Yet, we have the supernatural seeming to correlate, in some fashion, with the natural.
I wonder if this 'distinction' is another means of excusing the unknown ('well, for god, it doesn't work that way') without even knowing how exactly it works? Not to mention defining 'god' as it relates to this scenario.
That said, if god is supernatural and created the natural world, then something (natural world) did, indeed, come from nothing natural (god aka supernatural). So the natural world did come from something: the supernatural world. So, to make a statement of something can't come from nothing is incorrect.
And what did god come from?
I suppose this is 'Monday circular reasoning' at its best ....

[1213]

...
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').

Maybe it is not accurately said. Should be, if in nature there is a way to spontaneously get life, or something from nothing, we should be able to observe it in nature. If life could come out of non-living material on its own, we should see it, or be able to do it in laboratory. God is not exactly same as material stuff, because it is said that God is spirit. Therefore the same rules don’t necessary apply, which is why it is a different issue. Obviously, what God is or can do is a matter of belief.

For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
...

By what the Bible tells, I believe God has always existed and is outside of time. How? Difficult to know. But, maybe the problem is with time. Time is only basically frequency of changes. If nothing changes, time doesn’t exist. By what the Bible tells, God doesn’t change, which makes Him timeless. How it is possible? I don’t know. That is only what I believe at this point of time.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I think accepting that the universe "came to be" is already conceding too much to the theists. Causality applies to entities inside the universe, why apply it to the universe itself? Especially when time itself is said to have started with the big bang. "Cause and effect" implies a pre- and post- status, what does causality even mean outside the context of time? Having said all that, I am not opposed to the idea of a cause to the universe, just pointing out it's not something to be taken for granted.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I think accepting that the universe "came to be" is already conceding too much to the theists. Causality applies to entities inside the universe, why apply it to the universe itself? Especially when time itself is said to have started with the big bang. "Cause and effect" implies a pre- and post- status, what does causality even mean outside the context of time? Having said all that, I am not opposed to the idea of a cause to the universe, just pointing out it's not something to be taken for granted.

This was one of the contra arguments of Russell in his debate with Copleston.

Russell states his world view in the clearest possible way: "should say that the universe its just there, and that's all".

Russell accused Copleston of committing the Fallacy of Composition.

Russel said: "I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exist has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously human race does not have a mother -that's a different logical sphere".

A similar criticism was made by David Hume. This is the idea that qualities of all the components are not necessarily shared by the whole.
A wall made out of red bricks will be red, but a wall made out of small bricks won't necessarily be a small wall.

Therefore, just because the universe is made out of contingent things, it doesn't follow automatically that the universe is a contingent thing.

[Veridican]

You don't get the "How?" That's not a logical question when referring to the monistic entity. Once you understand that God must be the Monistic Entity, that's it.

If God didn't exist, "nothingness" would be the state, and it could have never changed. So, there is no such thing as "nothing." You will not find a state of "nothing" anywhere, ever.

"Something" cannot pop into being out of "nothing." To think so is called "magical thinking" and we understand magical thinking to be irrational and absurd.

I refer you to the Veridican Argument for the Existence of God for more clarification on this topic

[Sherlock Holmes]

Recently I saw someone elsewhere make the comment, in regards to how 'the universe came to be', that you can't get something (the universe as it is today) from nothing (from before the universe existed), only to go on and say something similar to 'god is the beginning and the end', in reference to creating the universe.
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').

For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

There are things we call "laws" in physics, invariances, no matter what does happen certain things (apparently) never change, the conservation of mass-energy is such a law, the quantity of mass-energy is fixed constant, if there was a time when there was no mass-energy or less mass-energy then for "something to come from nothing" is to abandon the law, so fine if you want to abandon laws of physics then on what basis can you argue science? how can you scientifically explain something if you have to abandon the very laws that such an explanation rests on?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

That may be; it would be the first time I've heard that caveat made.
Seems to me, if this was the case, there's a distinction between natural and supernatural world. This would seem to indicate that the two worlds are 'too different' to exist together (simply by making such a grand distinction). Yet, we have the supernatural seeming to correlate, in some fashion, with the natural.
I wonder if this 'distinction' is another means of excusing the unknown ('well, for god, it doesn't work that way') without even knowing how exactly it works? Not to mention defining 'god' as it relates to this scenario.
That said, if god is supernatural and created the natural world, then something (natural world) did, indeed, come from nothing natural (god aka supernatural). So the natural world did come from something: the supernatural world. So, to make a statement of something can't come from nothing is incorrect.
And what did god come from?
I suppose this is 'Monday circular reasoning' at its best ....

The way I express this is that there cannot be a material (scientific) explanation for the presence of the material, that's it - you cannot use matter, energy, fields, laws to explain how these things arose.

If you really want to explain how, why these things even exist you must abandon science, it cannot be used, you must adopt some other explanatory means and that is why "God" comes up.

Only a thing that is no material can give rise to material, only a thing that is not subject to laws can give rise to laws.

A thing that can do things yet is not subject to laws is non deterministic, will, we can all understand will because we all have it.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

If I understand it correctly, the argument is that something cannot come from nothing within the natural world. Therefore, there must exist Something outside of time and space which is not subject to natural laws and capable of creating something from nothing. The title we give to this creative Something that is outside of time and space is “God.”

That may be; it would be the first time I've heard that caveat made.
Seems to me, if this was the case, there's a distinction between natural and supernatural world. This would seem to indicate that the two worlds are 'too different' to exist together (simply by making such a grand distinction). Yet, we have the supernatural seeming to correlate, in some fashion, with the natural.
I wonder if this 'distinction' is another means of excusing the unknown ('well, for god, it doesn't work that way') without even knowing how exactly it works? Not to mention defining 'god' as it relates to this scenario.
That said, if god is supernatural and created the natural world, then something (natural world) did, indeed, come from nothing natural (god aka supernatural). So the natural world did come from something: the supernatural world. So, to make a statement of something can't come from nothing is incorrect.
And what did god come from?
I suppose this is 'Monday circular reasoning' at its best ....

The way I express this is that there cannot be a material (scientific) explanation for the presence of the material, that's it - you cannot use matter, energy, fields, laws to explain how these things arose.

If you really want to explain how, why these things even exist you must abandon science, it cannot be used, you must adopt some other explanatory means and that is why "God" comes up.

Only a thing that is no material can give rise to material, only a thing that is not subject to laws can give rise to laws.

A thing that can do things yet is not subject to laws is non deterministic, will, we can all understand will because we all have it.

God does tend to 'fill in the gaps', but the gaps only exist because people haven't been able to test and fill them with experiences and data yet IMO.