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?

[Athetotheist]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

With nothing but a universe it's still turtles all the way down, so taking out one turtle gets you no further ahead.

No. That is trying to force ...well...in fact, a strawman argument on the atheist/materialist side. The 'new thing' (our particular universe) is accounted for by the Big Bang, and Creationists themselves have correctly asked: 'Where did the stuff come from to make the Big Bang?'

The answer is an eternal universe of 'stuff' or one that came from nothing. Both appear counter - intuitive (and a god -claim is even more so, or may I mean less so ) but none of these is 'turtles all the way down' (infinite regression). Infinite regression is question begged by postulating a god.

'Where did that come from?'

'It was eternal'

'So why can't a far, far less complex Cosmos of 'stuff' be eternal?'

Quite apart from 'Which god?'', every 'atheist stumper' directed against a natural origins position applies even more to the god -claim.

I have as an afterthought to note a tendency for the Theist side to ask the same questions again and again when they have already been refuted. Do they pick them up from a Creationist website and suppose they are new and atheists haven't seen (and answered them) before?

Don't we see the same arguments posed by the same people in the same forum and even in the same thread? I've seen it many times before.

Wasn't it Einstein who commented on the people who do the same 'experiment' over and over and hope to get a different result?

As I've mentioned before, it isn't just about regression; it's also about reduction. Even if "stuff" has always existed, what principle underlies the existence of the "stuff"? Can that question be answered with physics? (Pardon me for asking again, but I don't recall those questions ever being answered.)

[TRANSPONDER]

It isn't about that because in fact nobody knows. Do they? So it is about what belief - position do we adopt when we don't know? Suppose some physical process (underlying) that we don't know or postulate an intelligent creator? I've argued that the latter requires more logical entities than a natural 'eternal' principle or basis. If you don't want to commit to that, then 'don't know' is the answer. Whichever way you slice it, 'Intelligent Creator'is not validated by any evidence (1) or logic but only by Godfaith. And don't let anyone tell you any different. That only ever works (logically) by starting from an a priori assumption of an intelligent creator to start with. It's a well known fallacy (appeal to unknowns) to demand that science must explain and prove alternatives to God' down to the last molecule in real time and before our very eyes, or they will deny it and declare that 'God' is the default answer.

It isn't; 'don't know' is the default with the same godless natural physical processes we know about as the preferred hypothesis.

(1) trying to find the evidence of ID is another discussion.

[JoeyKnothead]

Quite apart from 'Which god?'', every 'atheist stumper' directed against a natural origins position applies even more to the god -claim.

I have as an afterthought to note a tendency for the Theist side to ask the same questions again and again when they have already been refuted. Do they pick them up from a Creationist website and suppose they are new and atheists haven't seen (and answered them) before?

Don't we see the same arguments posed by the same people in the same forum and even in the same thread? I've seen it many times before.

We see the same questions asked cause we see the same claims claimed.

As I've mentioned before, it isn't just about regression; it's also about reduction. Even if "stuff" has always existed, what principle underlies the existence of the "stuff"? Can that question be answered with physics? (Pardon me for asking again, but I don't recall those questions ever being answered.)

If I can't tell it's cause of physics, that don't mean I get to claim it was cause of God.

If we throw out every explanation we have for everything, that still don't mean God fits in it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #83

If I can't tell it's cause of physics, that don't mean I get to claim it was cause of God.

If we throw out every explanation we have for everything, that still don't mean God fits in it.

If it ain't God and it ain't physics, what's left?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #82
My point is that physics can't take us beyond the assumption of natural processes, which is an incomplete answer.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #84]

If it ain't God and it ain't physics, what's left?

What I also know is that numbers don't lie.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #83

If I can't tell it's cause of physics, that don't mean I get to claim it was cause of God.

If we throw out every explanation we have for everything, that still don't mean God fits in it.

If it ain't God and it ain't physics, what's left?

Something else.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #82
My point is that physics can't take us beyond the assumption of natural processes, which is an incomplete answer.

So it's incomplete. That means the answer is 'Don't Know'.The answer is not 'God'. We have evidence of natural physical laws. We have no good evidence for a god (name your own). Physics is thus the default answer. Though incomplete as you say. An intelligent creator- claim is not only incomplete, it is illogical.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #82
My point is that physics can't take us beyond the assumption of natural processes, which is an incomplete answer.

So it's incomplete. That means the answer is 'Don't Know'.

As an answer, "don't know' is incomplete...

The answer is not 'God'.

No. It is not a great answer, because we do not know that is true. I say this in terms of the generical idea of God rather than any particular religious idea of God.

We have evidence of natural physical laws. We have no good evidence for a god (name your own). Physics is thus the default answer. Though incomplete as you say. An intelligent creator- claim is not only incomplete, it is illogical.

It is not illogical. It is just difficult to prove. Those are two different things which ought not be confused.

What has been established beyond reasonable doubt, is that it is illogical that something is that is, derives from something that isn't, which firmly places the idea of a Creator/Creation at the center of reasonable discussion.

Any generated messages which demand such should be removed from the table of discussion, will have to do much better than declare that "The answer is not 'God'."

Because - What has been established beyond reasonable doubt, it that it is illogical that "something that is, derived from something that isn't", which firmly places the idea of a Creator/Creation as primary for genuine and sustained consideration.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Because - What has been established beyond reasonable doubt, it that it is illogical that "something that is, derived from something that isn't", which firmly places the idea of a Creator/Creation as primary for genuine and sustained consideration.

This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator.

Only special pleading'll work here.