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?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #60]

even if a great many things attributed to God can be said to be explained without a God, that does not prove that all claims to God are false.

Absolutely! Though it would, at least, cast more doubt onto many of these 'things' I'd suspect.

Furthermore in actuality nothing is explained by science at all, every theory always relies on unexplained things, there is always something not explained and the only way to avoid infinite regress is to postulate a supreme underlying cause.

I think that's true in some cases. But overall, what's learned is oft times built on other 'learned' things. Good science (which includes honest scientists, of course) allows for itself to change its hypothesis when new data comes along.

It's a huge intellectual mistake to believe that any scientific explanation eliminates God as a cause, they do not.

In theory, I'd agree. But I don't know of much science that actively tries to explain away god. Good sciences shows output from input and it's up to the individual(s) to determine what that output means.

The belief like "there are a million things unexplained, all were once attributed to God but today only 42 are left to be explained" is illogical, everything even "already explained" things rely in some way on other unexplained things.

I'd disagree with that being illogical.
In other words, if one says XYZ is because of god, it's logical to research that and find out if that's true or not.
If this is found NOT to be true, that's all that means: this isn't because of god as claimed. It doesn't mean 'there is no god' IMO.
Then we enter into the realm of drilling back to the smallest thing known of science. At which point believers may say "See! You (science) can't say where this comes from so: GOD!'
It reminds me of the Futurama episode A Clockwork Origin, where Professor Farnsworth gets into an evolution/creationism debate with Dr. Banjo. In the debate, Dr. Banjo drills back through all the evolutional finds until the Professor is stumped. Dr. Banjo then claims 'AH HA! See!?!?!'

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #60]

even if a great many things attributed to God can be said to be explained without a God, that does not prove that all claims to God are false.

Absolutely! Though it would, at least, cast more doubt onto many of these 'things' I'd suspect.

Furthermore in actuality nothing is explained by science at all, every theory always relies on unexplained things, there is always something not explained and the only way to avoid infinite regress is to postulate a supreme underlying cause.

I think that's true in some cases. But overall, what's learned is oft times built on other 'learned' things. Good science (which includes honest scientists, of course) allows for itself to change its hypothesis when new data comes along.

It's a huge intellectual mistake to believe that any scientific explanation eliminates God as a cause, they do not.

In theory, I'd agree. But I don't know of much science that actively tries to explain away god. Good sciences shows output from input and it's up to the individual(s) to determine what that output means.

The belief like "there are a million things unexplained, all were once attributed to God but today only 42 are left to be explained" is illogical, everything even "already explained" things rely in some way on other unexplained things.

I'd disagree with that being illogical.
In other words, if one says XYZ is because of god, it's logical to research that and find out if that's true or not.
If this is found NOT to be true, that's all that means: this isn't because of god as claimed. It doesn't mean 'there is no god' IMO.
Then we enter into the realm of drilling back to the smallest thing known of science. At which point believers may say "See! You (science) can't say where this comes from so: GOD!'
It reminds me of the Futurama episode A Clockwork Origin, where Professor Farnsworth gets into an evolution/creationism debate with Dr. Banjo. In the debate, Dr. Banjo drills back through all the evolutional finds until the Professor is stumped. Dr. Banjo then claims 'AH HA! See!?!?!'

I never said science "tries to explain away God", I was referring to the complaint often raised that creationists always argue "God of the gaps" that is the attempt to show that because some things have been explained further without God then therefore every claim that "God did it" can be dismissed.

Further as I mentioned nothing has been explained really, God is never removed when something gets explained, feel free to offer a counter example for me to consider...

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]

I never said science "tries to explain away God", I was referring to the complaint often raised that creationists always argue "God of the gaps" that is the attempt to show that because some things have been explained further without God then therefore every claim that "God did it" can be dismissed.

And I was not saying this is your POV, only discussing what comes to mind about the subject.
As far as dismissing (or not) any claim of 'god did it', I've found for most believers, no amount of proof, data, facts will sway their faith of 'this or that' in their god. I find that alarming and frightening, but that's just me. People will believe in (or not in) what they want, regardless of proof or lack thereof.

Further as I mentioned nothing has been explained really,

A POV I don't share in total.

God is never removed when something gets explained,

I think that depends on whom is being asked.

feel free to offer a counter example for me to consider

Not my place or desire; see above bolded comment.

I find it's easier to find fault in things than to exercise one's ability to research said things.
In other words:
'You can't explain XYZ so it's not true' or 'You can't explain XYZ so god must have did it' or ''You can't explain XYZ so you're wrong'
And this goes for both believers and non-believers. The one key difference is believers rely on faith (which can't be shown to be true or false or even real in regards to true output) while non-believers have to rely on facts and data more, much of which is missing from humanity.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #62]

I never said science "tries to explain away God", I was referring to the complaint often raised that creationists always argue "God of the gaps" that is the attempt to show that because some things have been explained further without God then therefore every claim that "God did it" can be dismissed.

And I was not saying this is your POV, only discussing what comes to mind about the subject.
As far as dismissing (or not) any claim of 'god did it', I've found for most believers, no amount of proof, data, facts will sway their faith of 'this or that' in their god. I find that alarming and frightening, but that's just me. People will believe in (or not in) what they want, regardless of proof or lack thereof.

Yes, and every evolutionist I confront behaves in a similar way, conviction can be a strong force.

Further as I mentioned nothing has been explained really,

A POV I don't share in total.

God is never removed when something gets explained,

I think that depends on whom is being asked.

feel free to offer a counter example for me to consider

Not my place or desire; see above bolded comment.

I find it's easier to find fault in things than to exercise one's ability to research said things.
In other words:
'You can't explain XYZ so it's not true' or 'You can't explain XYZ so god must have did it' or ''You can't explain XYZ so you're wrong'
And this goes for both believers and non-believers. The one key difference is believers rely on faith (which can't be shown to be true or false or even real in regards to true output) while non-believers have to rely on facts and data more, much of which is missing from humanity.

No, everyone relies on faith, trust, we trust that the laws of physics really are laws and don't simply appear to be laws, we trust that because every time we test X we get Y that whenever we test X we'll always get Y - trust, faith, belief, all totally unprovable.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #64]

Yes, and every evolutionist I confront behaves in a similar way, conviction can be a strong force.

I've always said human belief is a powerful force! But remember, quantity doesn't mean anything other than that!

No, everyone relies on faith, trust, we trust that the laws of physics really are laws and don't simply appear to be laws, we trust that because every time we test X we get Y that whenever we test X we'll always get Y - trust, faith, belief, all totally unprovable.

Yes and no.
To me, trust is different than faith. To me, faith only lies in the realm of the supernatural, mystical and the like.
Example:
If someone tells me 'the sun will rise tomorrow morning' and I've never experienced that, that would be faith.
Once I experience that, it changes from faith to trust.
If someone told me a flying pig will fly over my house at noon tomorrow, I have to have faith that will happen and until that happens
So faith is unprovable because once it's proven, it stops being faith. But trust can be proven.
At least that's my 2¢ on it

[brunumb]

Further as I mentioned nothing has been explained really, God is never removed when something gets explained, feel free to offer a counter example for me to consider...

The reality is that God is not even on the table to get removed. God is just an invented answer. When the existence of God has been established as fact, then we can consider if any phenomena are the result of natural causes or the intervention of God.

[brunumb]

'You can't explain XYZ so it's not true' or 'You can't explain XYZ so god must have did it' or ''You can't explain XYZ so you're wrong'
And this goes for both believers and non-believers. The one key difference is believers rely on faith (which can't be shown to be true or false or even real in regards to true output) while non-believers have to rely on facts and data more, much of which is missing from humanity.

For the average punter the argument goes: "Science can't explain everything, therefore God".

[Veridican]

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.

Very well said, my friend. I wish I knew who you really were. At least I know that in your heart, you are not an atheist, and you are not an atheist for very sound reasoning. That's rare--if no one ever told you so.

[TRANSPONDER]

It was not well said, my friend.

"Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 7:52 pm

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"

This immediately fields the very common fallacy of declaring an unknown impossible. Until we know why and how there is matter, we cannot assert that there can be no materialist/physical reason for it.

It is just the same with abiogenesis. It is asserted that Life from non life is impossible, but because we are far closer to knowing how life came to be (and with no need for a god (1) that argument is more clearly seen as trying it on; a fallacy, attempting to dismiss anything other than Goddunnit, and with absolutely no justification than personal Faith - not even 'opinion', as that implies that there's some evidence behind it.

All we have here are appeals to limited human perception (which Creationists love to toss out if it relates to the proofs of science - unless they support the Bible, or can be fiddled to look as though they do) and Theists are only too ready to dismiss limited human perception where it suits them.

These apologetics are not even bad arguments; they are used as slogans, 'Nothing cannot come from nothing', 'Life cannot come from non -life' There is increasing reason to think that such can indeed be the case, and the Theist does not know. As best, they can only appeal to traditional human understanding, and that is very limited.

No, that argument was not well done, and even if it had been able to support some kind of Creator, you still have to show 'Which one'.

(1) quite apart from, even if one could point to God starting off life before cells and graptolites, the Cambrian era and the age of fishes etc, that is totally unlike what the Bible says.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #69]

These apologetics are not even bad arguments; they are used as slogans, 'Nothing cannot come from nothing'

This is neither a slogan, or a bad argument.

To believe that everything came from nothing and state such as if true, is a silly belief. One may as well believe in the magical existence of feisty leprechauns riding giant pink unicorns.

It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed