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?
Something can't come from nothing
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #101What evidence do you have that the philosophers are right on this? Do you have any objective and tangible evidence? Can you even define what the properties of 'nothing' are? How do you know that the philosophizers are right, and the 'materialists' are wrong? How do you know that 'nothing can happen' if nothing exists?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:42 pmThe definition used by philosophers is accurate. Materialists commit a fallacy of equivocation when they change it.Goat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:41 amOne thing about the concept of 'nothing' is that the physicists concept of 'nothing' is not the same as the philosophers concept of nothing.bjs1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:06 am [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.”
What are the properties of nothing? If nothing exists, then nothing has no properties, and anything can happen.
If nothing exists, then one of the properties lacking is existence; therefore, nothing can happen.
In fact, the statement 'Nothing exists' is self contradictory , since if it is exists, then it is something, and therefore is not nothing.
Last edited by Goat on Wed Mar 09, 2022 11:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #102Equally, the logical impossibility of the universe* having 'a source beyond it' suggests that we simply don't have the answers.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:57 pm 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.
* - "all existing matter and space"
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #103This is an intriguing issue. I'd never thought about it until Krauss mentions it in "A Universe from Nothing." I had always thought of 'nothing' from a philosophical POV, an absolute absence of anything. But, as I recall, Krauss talks about 'nothing' as containing all sorts of unformed, chaotic 'stuff' priming with potential... 'something.' I found this,Goat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:48 pmWhat evidence do you have that the philosphers are right on this? Do you have any objective and tangible evidence? Can you even define what the properties of 'nothing' are?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:42 pmThe definition used by philosophers is accurate. Materialists commit a fallacy of equivocation when they change it.Goat wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:41 amOne thing about the concept of 'nothing' is that the physicists concept of 'nothing' is not the same as the philosophers concept of nothing.bjs1 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 11:06 am [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.”
What are the properties of nothing? If nothing exists, then nothing has no properties, and anything can happen.
If nothing exists, then one of the properties lacking is existence; therefore, nothing can happen.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbk5va/what-is-nothingWhether it’s a hole in the ground or the vast swathes of space between celestial bodies, these “empty” spaces are filled with something that has physical properties. That vacuum is not nothing, at least as far as Carroll and his contemporaries are concerned.
But that’s only one way of understanding this problem. The other is even more mind-bending: the absence of space-time altogether, “empty” or otherwise.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #104[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #98]
Why do you think that is even a logical request to be demanding? The 'claim' as far as this thread subject is addressing is more a simple logical observation. Something which came into existence, cannot have logically done so from nothing.
To believe that it did, is really where the special pleading is coming from.
1: The idea that the universe popped out of nowhere is special pleading
2: The logical observation that the universe must have being made out of something must imply it was set into motion by something else. "Created".
Logically, the universes existence is the very thing which should show one that the universe was created.
Unless you can prove that the universe has always existed, I have no choice but to accept your argument as unsupported opinion, of the special pleading variety.
It is possible that the universe has always existed in this manner, but does not assume that the shape that it takes in its manifestation is simply a mindless process, rather than a mindful purposeful reinvention of itself from the one state to the next - and has been happening like that eternally as in - it has always existed as something which begins and ends and begins again ad infinitum essentially meaning that it has never begun or ended at all. All along, mindfully creating itself into whatever it wills to.
The Tanager claims that a God created the universe from nothing...he is not the only theist to makes such a claim.
But just as interestingly, there are also a number on non-theists who also believe that the universe had a beginning and that it popped into existence from nowhere.
The only minor difference between the two similar belief systems is that the theist who believes in this, claims a "God" made it magically happen, whereas the non-theist who believes in this, claims that it just magically happened.
But like I said, they both believe that it - an obvious something - came from nothing.
aka. Special Pleading by both parties.
Logically The Mind/consciousness/self awareness is therefore that which shapes the matter which we call "The Universe" - and anyone who does not think that the universe has a mind, is not paying attention to the one piece of evidence which indisputably shows that mind and matter interrelate as The Ghost and The Machine.
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.
Why do you think that is even a logical request to be demanding? The 'claim' as far as this thread subject is addressing is more a simple logical observation. Something which came into existence, cannot have logically done so from nothing.
To believe that it did, is really where the special pleading is coming from.
That is actually illogical Mr.Knothead. for two reasons;I contend my argument stands to logic, where folks claim the universe was created, they should be able to show it was.
1: The idea that the universe popped out of nowhere is special pleading
2: The logical observation that the universe must have being made out of something must imply it was set into motion by something else. "Created".
Logically, the universes existence is the very thing which should show one that the universe was created.
Unless you can prove that the universe has always existed, I have no choice but to accept your argument as unsupported opinion, of the special pleading variety.
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?
No it does not.It disregards the universe existing in a prior form.
It is possible that the universe has always existed in this manner, but does not assume that the shape that it takes in its manifestation is simply a mindless process, rather than a mindful purposeful reinvention of itself from the one state to the next - and has been happening like that eternally as in - it has always existed as something which begins and ends and begins again ad infinitum essentially meaning that it has never begun or ended at all. All along, mindfully creating itself into whatever it wills to.
Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?
Well at least we agree on that.I don't think it should. Where one proposes a god's involvement, they should be expected show that's what happened.
The Tanager claims that a God created the universe from nothing...he is not the only theist to makes such a claim.
But just as interestingly, there are also a number on non-theists who also believe that the universe had a beginning and that it popped into existence from nowhere.
The only minor difference between the two similar belief systems is that the theist who believes in this, claims a "God" made it magically happen, whereas the non-theist who believes in this, claims that it just magically happened.
But like I said, they both believe that it - an obvious something - came from nothing.
aka. Special Pleading by both parties.
Logically The Mind/consciousness/self awareness is therefore that which shapes the matter which we call "The Universe" - and anyone who does not think that the universe has a mind, is not paying attention to the one piece of evidence which indisputably shows that mind and matter interrelate as The Ghost and The Machine.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #105[Replying to Athetotheist in post #99]
Lets break your statement down to show why.
1: "Whether the universe had a beginning or not" tells us that if it has always existed , then the second part of your statement,
2: "the logical impossibility of the universe being the source of its own existence suggests a source beyond it."
becomes illogical because IF indeed the universe had no beginning, THEN there is no 'source to its existence" and therefore cannot suggest that there is "a source behind it".
Re - the unfolding of its present manifestation - it would be the source of its own intelligence - since obviously intelligence is involved.
That is not even logical.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.
Lets break your statement down to show why.
1: "Whether the universe had a beginning or not" tells us that if it has always existed , then the second part of your statement,
2: "the logical impossibility of the universe being the source of its own existence suggests a source beyond it."
becomes illogical because IF indeed the universe had no beginning, THEN there is no 'source to its existence" and therefore cannot suggest that there is "a source behind it".
Re - the unfolding of its present manifestation - it would be the source of its own intelligence - since obviously intelligence is involved.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 13970
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 904 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #106By examining the answers we do have, we cannot say that the universe is not currently mindfully unfolding itself and is therefore the cause of its own -current - manifestation.Diagoras wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:16 pmEqually, the logical impossibility of the universe* having 'a source beyond it' suggests that we simply don't have the answers.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:57 pm 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.
lets also include mind with that - since mind is demonstrably involved with the matter and space...* - "all existing matter and space"
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2672
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #107If electromagnetism and a magnetic field are both part of the universe, neither can be the source of the universe.Miles wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 8:12 pmHow about a conversion from one state of existence into another, like electromagnetism where an existing electrical state is converted into a magnetic field?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:57 pm 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.
.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2672
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #108Think of a universe with no beginning as an eternally running spring of water. Even though the spring has been running eternally, the "water" is coming from something.William wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Athetotheist in post #99]
That is not even logical.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.
Lets break your statement down to show why.
1: "Whether the universe had a beginning or not" tells us that if it has always existed , then the second part of your statement,
2: "the logical impossibility of the universe being the source of its own existence suggests a source beyond it."
becomes illogical because IF indeed the universe had no beginning, THEN there is no 'source to its existence" and therefore cannot suggest that there is "a source behind it".
Re - the unfolding of its present manifestation - it would be the source of its own intelligence - since obviously intelligence is involved.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #109Site rules indicate claims are open to challenge, no matter how many claimants refuse to honor those rules.William wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:26 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #98]Why do you think that is even a logical request to be demanding?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.
So the claimant is expected to show this aledgedly "created" universe came into existence, as opposed to having always existed, as they'd propose for their "creator" god.The 'claim' as far as this thread subject is addressing is more a simple logical observation. Something which came into existence, cannot have logically done so from nothing.
To believe that it did, is really where the special pleading is coming from.
As folks propose their God "popped out of nowhere"?That is actually illogical Mr.Knothead. for two reasons;JK wrote:I contend my argument stands to logic, where folks claim the universe was created, they should be able to show it was.
1: The idea that the universe popped out of nowhere is special pleading
As previously stated, I make no claims regarding how the universe "came to be" other'n there it sits.
I'll not be expected to proffer support for claims I don't make. I ain't doing me no special pleading.
To propose a god poofed" the universe into existence is a claim with no valid evidence in support.
So I ask how'd this "creator" get created.2: The logical observation that the universe must have being made out of something must imply it was set into motion by something else. "Created".
No, the most logical conclusion is there it sits. We have no means of knowing if it existed in a prior form.Logically, the universes existence is the very thing which should show one that the universe was created.
I NEVER claimed the universe always existed, so hold no obligation to defend that position.Unless you can prove that the universe has always existed, I have no choice but to accept your argument as unsupported opinion, of the special pleading variety.
Unlike the theist who'd claim their creator God always existed.
So I ask what evidence can be brought to bear to show there's some cosmic mind involved?William wrote: 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?
No it does not.JK wrote:It disregards the universe existing in a prior form.
It is possible that the universe has always existed in this manner, but does not assume that the shape that it takes in its manifestation is simply a mindless process, rather than a mindful purposeful reinvention of itself from the one state to the next - and has been happening like that eternally as in - it has always existed as something which begins and ends and begins again ad infinitum essentially meaning that it has never begun or ended at all. All along, mindfully creating itself into whatever it wills to.
Bonus question ;
Re the thread topic;
Q: Why should Creatio ex nihilo be accepted as something other than special pleading?
That's on them, not me.William wrote:Well at least we agree on that.JK wrote:I don't think it should. Where one proposes a god's involvement, they should be expected show that's what happened.
The Tanager claims that a God created the universe from nothing...he is not the only theist to makes such a claim.
But just as interestingly, there are also a number on non-theists who also believe that the universe had a beginning and that it popped into existence from nowhere.
That too, is on them. I won't be beholden to support claims I don't make.William wrote: The only minor difference between the two similar belief systems is that the theist who believes in this, claims a "God" made it magically happen, whereas the non-theist who believes in this, claims that it just magically happened.
But like I said, they both believe that it - an obvious something - came from nothing.
aka. Special Pleading by both parties.
So now you're saying I'm not paying attention, as if this entire exchange between us has been you carrying on with the typing, and me just sitting here coloring on the walls?William wrote: Logically The Mind/consciousness/self awareness is therefore that which shapes the matter which we call "The Universe" - and anyone who does not think that the universe has a mind, is not paying attention to the one piece of evidence which indisputably shows that mind and matter interrelate as The Ghost and The Machine.
I have been paying attention.
That's why I don't make claims regarding how the universe came to be.
It's why I don't make claims of some celestial, universe spanning mindform/s.
I pay me just enough attention until a claimant bores me with unsupported, illogical, irrational claims.
Only then do I do my wall coloring.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Something can't come from nothing
Post #110Tell that to the god squad.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 09, 2022 7:57 pm 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin