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?

[Goat]

[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.”

One thing about the concept of 'nothing' is that the physicists concept of 'nothing' is not the same as the philosophers concept of nothing.

What are the properties of nothing? If nothing exists, then nothing has no properties, and anything can happen.

[William]

...
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.

Do you agree that this universe is something which once didn't exist?

[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.

Do you agree that this universe is something which once didn't exist?

I make no claims regarding the age, or "creation", of the universe.

If one proposes some god entity "always existed", and is the "cause" of the universe, I challenge em to show they speak truth.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #93]

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.

Do you agree that this universe is something which once didn't exist?

I make no claims regarding the age, or "creation", of the universe.

Nonetheless, claims have been made regarding that Joey - so my question to you has to do with your position on the matter.

Do you think that belief that the universe had a beginning and has been estimated by scientists to be around about 13.8 billion years old, is a logical and therefore acceptable belief?

[JoeyKnothead]

I make no claims regarding the age, or "creation", of the universe.

Nonetheless, claims have been made regarding that Joey - so my question to you has to do with your position on the matter.

Do you think that belief that the universe had a beginning and has been estimated by scientists to be around about 13.8 billion years old, is a logical and therefore acceptable belief?

I reject arguments that require the universe having been "created", or having a "beginning", when they're based on "but my God doesn't require being created, and / or always existed".

The age of the universe is of little interest to me, so I don't care how old folks think it is.

[William]

I make no claims regarding the age, or "creation", of the universe.

Nonetheless, claims have been made regarding that Joey - so my question to you has to do with your position on the matter.

Do you think that belief that the universe had a beginning and has been estimated by scientists to be around about 13.8 billion years old, is a logical and therefore acceptable belief?

I reject arguments that require the universe having been "created", or having a "beginning", when they're based on "but my God doesn't require being created, and / or always existed".

The age of the universe is of little interest to me, so I don't care how old folks think it is.

Then I reject your assertions that "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
and
"Only special pleading'll work here."

as being actual valid statements of argument.

Rather I accept the statements as simply unsupported personal opinion.

Or - if you feel inclined to change you mind, and have the means to do so - Please offer some means by which we can confirm truth in this matter.

To kick that off;
Re: your statement "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
Q: Why does something which has not been shown to have had a beginning, have to be assumed it ever had one?

Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?

[Athetotheist]

[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.”

One thing about the concept of 'nothing' is that the physicists concept of 'nothing' is not the same as the philosophers concept of nothing.

What are the properties of nothing? If nothing exists, then nothing has no properties, and anything can happen.

The definition used by philosophers is accurate. Materialists commit a fallacy of equivocation when they change it.

If nothing exists, then one of the properties lacking is existence; therefore, nothing can happen.

[JoeyKnothead]

I make no claims regarding the age, or "creation", of the universe.

Nonetheless, claims have been made regarding that Joey - so my question to you has to do with your position on the matter.

Do you think that belief that the universe had a beginning and has been estimated by scientists to be around about 13.8 billion years old, is a logical and therefore acceptable belief?

I reject arguments that require the universe having been "created", or having a "beginning", when they're based on "but my God doesn't require being created, and / or always existed".

The age of the universe is of little interest to me, so I don't care how old folks think it is.

Then I reject your assertions that "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
and
"Only special pleading'll work here."

as being actual valid statements of argument.

Then the claimant should be able to show the universe was created, without invoking some entity that's immune to the requirement of having been created itself.

Rather I accept the statements as simply unsupported personal opinion.

I contend my argument stands to logic, where folks claim the universe was created, they should be able to show it was.

Or - if you feel inclined to change you mind, and have the means to do so - Please offer some means by which we can confirm truth in this matter.

To kick that off;
Re: your statement "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
Q: Why does something which has not been shown to have had a beginning, have to be assumed it ever had one?

It disregards the universe existing in a prior form.

Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?

I don't think it should. Where one proposes a god's involvement, they should be expected show that's what happened.

[Athetotheist]

I make no claims regarding the age, or "creation", of the universe.

Nonetheless, claims have been made regarding that Joey - so my question to you has to do with your position on the matter.

Do you think that belief that the universe had a beginning and has been estimated by scientists to be around about 13.8 billion years old, is a logical and therefore acceptable belief?

I reject arguments that require the universe having been "created", or having a "beginning", when they're based on "but my God doesn't require being created, and / or always existed".

The age of the universe is of little interest to me, so I don't care how old folks think it is.

Then I reject your assertions that "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
and
"Only special pleading'll work here."

as being actual valid statements of argument.

Then the claimant should be able to show the universe was created, without invoking some entity that's immune to the requirement of having been created itself.

Rather I accept the statements as simply unsupported personal opinion.

I contend my argument stands to logic, where folks claim the universe was created, they should be able to show it was.

Or - if you feel inclined to change you mind, and have the means to do so - Please offer some means by which we can confirm truth in this matter.

To kick that off;
Re: your statement "This raises the question of wherefrom comes the creator."
Q: Why does something which has not been shown to have had a beginning, have to be assumed it ever had one?

It disregards the universe existing in a prior form.

Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?

I don't think it should. Where one proposes a god's involvement, they should be expected show that's what happened.

Whether the universe had a beginning or not, the logical impossibility of the universe being the source of its own existence suggests a source beyond it.

[Miles]

Whether the universe had a beginning or not, the logical impossibility of the universe being the source of its own existence suggests a source beyond it.

How about a conversion from one state of existence into another, like electromagnetism where an existing electrical state is converted into a magnetic field?


.