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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #116]

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.

What hasn't been established is what preexisted this iteration of matter/energy that we refer to as the universe.

Scientists are working on finding this out. IF they are correct about the infinitesimally small object which exploded and produced what we currently are experiencing as a stage in the universes unfolding, THEN at least we can identify said object as "The Seed of Origin"

What, if anything pre-existed that - is beyond our current ability to know.

You can identify the object which expanded as anything you like, but calling it "The Seed of Origin" seems to imply something more than just the beginning of this universe. The more important part is whether or not something preexisted that. We don't know. That shouldn't allow us to simply make stuff up.

If it was not 'nothing' and we know nothing about it, then how can we deduce that it involved some sort of mindful creator?

Easily enough. We know that mind is integrated with matter. Thus we have clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, even if that creator-mind is unfolding from the Seed of Origin which birthed the universe we are witnessing through experience.

Not quite. We know that mind is integrated with living organisms, not just any matter. There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.

Being that it has emerged since the germination {Big Bang} it has had a great amount of time in which to learn to effect the matter to whatever it wills, even to the point of doing so here on this planet, as we ourself bear witness, even to the degree that we refer to that as "reality".

Quite a fanciful proposition, but please present something that demonstrates the truth of it.

One can stick that on the table for consideration but there is nowhere to go after that.

There is always somewhere to go. Testing it out for starters.
If:
There is a mind behind creation
THEN:
We ought be able to communicate with it, using whatever physical devices we can create in order to do so.

Alright then, when and where has any of this communication taken place?

It's all just imaginative speculation.

How do you know that? Or are you imagining that is all that it is?

I guess I am basing it on the fact that there is no substantiation of the claims being made. It therefore seems most logical to conclude that it comes from the imagination like so many fanciful ideas humans have thought up through the ages.

When you look at this universe and everything within it, it is hard to imagine it all arising from some sort of mindful creator as far as I am concerned.

That is very understandable. However, even being that it is hard to imagine, it is not impossible. I haven't had any insurmountable problem in at least subjectively verifying It exists, or finding ways in which to communicate with It.

Not impossible does not equate with probable. Please demonstrate that your communications with 'It' are not just self-delusion.

[Edited for spelling]

[JoeyKnothead]

1: The idea that the universe popped out of nowhere is special pleading

As folks propose their God "popped out of nowhere"?

If folk claim that, then yes. Otherwise, no.

"Always existed" and "popped out of nowhere", as commonly used, just as well be synonyms in our debates.

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".

So I ask how'd this "creator" get created.

Why do you suppose this has to be the case, that you're doing the asking? Did someone claim this to be the case? If so, you would be best to direct your question to the one making the claim.

Just as you propose, in my respectful understanding, a mind is behind the universe's creation, well there we go.

Admittedly, I'm intrigued and impressed with our prior related discussions, but ultimately find the same problem, and paraphrase...

"It's obvious the universe, being it a thing, was created. By a mind I don't hold to having to've been created." I trust you'll kindly correct my interpretation - and definitely ain't trying to make your claims for ya.

Logically, the universes existence is the very thing which should show one that the universe was created.

No, the most logical conclusion is there it sits.

There it sits, is acknowledging its existence.

Without declare how it came to be.

Acknowledging its existence isn't reaching any logical conclusion as to how it got to sit there.
Also, that it 'sits' implies that it is finished - as in - complete or not going anywhere - in a state of static. Is that what you are saying?

I just meant that in terms of making the observation "it's there". I understand my wording can be cumbersome.

We have no means of knowing if it existed in a prior form.

So we have no means in which to rule that out as a possibility.

For me it goes back to "creation" implying a creator- where said creator, a thing proposed to exist as surely as the universe, not being held to the same requirement.

I never claimed the universe always existed, so hold no obligation to defend that position.

Yet that position is necessary in order for you to hold it as something other than special pleading.
It either poofed into existence, or it has always existed. If you say that it always existed, then you would not have to explain how it came into existence.

I don't make those claims.

I merely point out some declare the universe as having been created - implying a Creator, but then declaring their creator entity immune to having to've been created.

(Short snip)

Well some gods are said to have been created and others are said to have always existed. Unlike some of the non-theists, I do not bunch them altogether and claim that they all must have been created.
Are you claiming that they must have been created?

No. I just point out the logical fallacy involved in declaring one thing had to'ce been created, but it's creator doesn't adhere to the same notion. (As I consider all gods to be the product of the human mind).

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.

As you're aware, I find your argument here fascinating, but think it ultimately fails in having been "created (if shape-shifted" by something you'd then declare doesn't need it a creator.

We do not have to go far from home to observe the evidence first hand. Clearly Mother Nature herself shows us plainly enough that mindfulness is involved in the matter of biological life forms.

I find mindfulness to be a product of the physical brain.

I can't escape thinking if mindfulness extended beyond the brain, at least one dead ancestor woulda warned me about the evils of marriage.

(Nother snip)

I wasn't referring to you personally as I do not know what your position on the matter of mind is Joey. I was simply saying that the evidence is there for those who are paying attention.

It implies I reject evidence I consider speculation at best.

As I said at the beginning of this our exchange.
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.

So then, from what isn't, does this creator, which is, derive?

[quote[
That is still on the table for discussion. Unless of course, you have wall-coloring to do...

Great comeback on my "wall coloring", my friend

As always, my conversations with you tend to leave me with more questions than I showed up with. In the good way.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #122]

"Always existed" and "popped out of nowhere", as commonly used, just as well be synonyms in our debates.

No. They are opposite expressions.

"It's obvious the universe, being it a thing, was created. By a mind I don't hold to having to've been created." I trust you'll kindly correct my interpretation - and definitely ain't trying to make your claims for ya.

It is the requirement of you argument to conflate the one 'always existed' with the other 'popped out of nowhere' which is causing you the confusion.

There it sits, is acknowledging its existence.

Without declare how it came to be.

Scientists have literally done that - which is why I asked you if you agree with those observations that the universe had a beginning.

There is no declaration other than I have declared that the idea that it was mindfully done, should be kept on the table.

Furthermore, I pointed out that it isn't just sitting as something static - so 'how it came to be' has to include the acceptance of the observation that it is still becoming, so literally hasn't come to be in anything we humans have been able to fully comprehend that declarations about it can throw the idea of its being mindfully shaped, off of the table of discussion.

I just meant that in terms of making the observation "it's there". I understand my wording can be cumbersome.

Well hopefully my words will help you in that Joey...

For me it goes back to "creation" implying a creator- where said creator, a thing proposed to exist as surely as the universe, not being held to the same requirement.

And I graciously went along with that by agreeing that there is no reason why we cannot think about it in those terms. That is why I asked you what your beliefs where as to whether the universe had a beginning or not.
You said you were neutral on that - and had no statement of opinion or supported claim about it.

I never claimed the universe always existed, so hold no obligation to defend that position.
Yet that position is necessary in order for you to hold it as something other than special pleading.
It either poofed into existence, or it has always existed. If you say that it always existed, then you would not have to explain how it came into existence.

I don't make those claims.

I merely point out some declare the universe as having been created - implying a Creator, but then declaring their creator entity immune to having to've been created.

That is reasonable...

1: There appears to be significant scientific evidence suggesting that the universe had a beginning.
2: Something as material in nature as the universe, cannot logically come from nothing...cannot 'pop out of nowhere'
3: This implies that it therefore didn't.

Since the implication is there, while we cannot see through the veil of 'before the beginning' we cannot say with any certainty that whatever created the universe has or has not always existed.
So the idea of creation/creator stays on the table, and any declarations which imply such a creator 'must have been created' are attempts to try and bring in the fallacy of turtles all the way down as a mean of trying to get the idea thrown off the table of discussion and banned from the room altogether.

But there is no justification for the belief that a creator itself needs to be created. It is simply an invention which is unjustified because of its lack of logic.

So someone saying 'since the universe had a beginning it must logically follow that its creator also had a beginning' isn't logical at all.
And your not claiming the universe did or did not have a beginning, doesn't help make that argument become logical.

Well some gods are said to have been created and others are said to have always existed. Unlike some of the non-theists, I do not bunch them altogether and claim that they all must have been created.
Are you claiming that they must have been created?

No. I just point out the logical fallacy involved in declaring one thing had to'ce been created, but it's creator doesn't adhere to the same notion. (As I consider all gods to be the product of the human mind).

As I consider all human minds to be the child of the Planet-Mind and the planet mind the child of the Galactic Mind and the galactic mind to be the child of the Universal Mind...

Our considerations do not in themselves mean that we are correct or incorrect. Much more discussion is required.
For those who do not want to discuss the idea of creator/creation and think it should not be part of any discussion, they essentially have already decided - as you have done - that "all gods are the product of the human mind."

You see? It is your declaration that gods are the product of human imagination which allows for your declaration that there is "logical fallacy involved in declaring one thing had to'ce been created, but it's creator doesn't adhere to the same notion."

That simply is not good enough reason for the idea of creator/creation to be taken out of the discussion Joey.

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.

As you're aware, I find your argument here fascinating, but think it ultimately fails in having been "created (if shape-shifted" by something you'd then declare doesn't need it a creator.

Even when I show that the idea of the universe always existing, you balk at it being a mindful critter.

If anyone can show me that it is reasonable to accept that if the universe is the product of mindful creation, then its creator 'must have also been created' if will go along with that.

But for now, such a notion only manifests what is known as the fallacy of infinite regress, and thus - logic favors the idea that - while we cannot know if any actual creator of our universe was created or not we can accept that even if it were the case, eventually such would trace back to a creator who has always existed.

Since that would be the logical conclusion to draw, there is essentially no reason why we cannot make the reasonable assumption that whatever created this universe, has always existed.
But we cannot make any logical assumption that the universe was not created by some mindless adventure of circumstance whereby it simply 'popped out of nowhere'...the thread Subject...

We do not have to go far from home to observe the evidence first hand. Clearly Mother Nature herself shows us plainly enough that mindfulness is involved in the matter of biological life forms.

.

I find mindfulness to be a product of the physical brain

I am open to you showing me your findings on this.

I can't escape thinking if mindfulness extended beyond the brain, at least one dead ancestor woulda warned me about the evils of marriage.

Why should they? Is it not better for one's sense of independent self to experience that for oneself and from there, figure out if it is the case for all folk, or only for some and won't you agree that your case is not everyone's case even that it may be for the majority of cases?

I wasn't referring to you personally as I do not know what your position on the matter of mind is Joey. I was simply saying that the evidence is there for those who are paying attention.

It implies I reject evidence I consider speculation at best.

But all that does is weaken your position as you think of the science as only 'speculation'. When asked about your position on the universe's existence you are unwilling to agree that it always existed or that it had a beginning.

Therefore any argument from such a position are speculations. Yet here you are wanting to contribute to the argument anyways, even that you have no particular claim to make either way on the question of the universe "has it always existed or did it have a beginning?"

As always, my conversations with you tend to leave me with more questions than I showed up with. In the good way.

That is precisely why I continue to interact with you Joey. I think that what I have to argue is valid and if I can converse with folk who think otherwise and leave them with more questions, I am doing my job.

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #121]

You can identify the object which expanded as anything you like, but calling it "The Seed of Origin" seems to imply something more than just the beginning of this universe.

No more than calling that which germinated, "The big bang".
And since it is very apparent that seeding is involved - not only here on this planet, but in relation to Sol and The Milky Way Galaxy - referring to it as such, is in line with how nature does things.
Furthermore, information is held within seeds which - when germinated - unfolds as whatever the information held within the seed, dictates...so seeds are very reflective of natural enough events.

The more important part is whether or not something preexisted that.

Why do you say that?

We don't kno.. That shouldm't allow us to simply make stuff up.

What stuff is being made up? [Specifically in relation to what I am writing. What others 'make up' has nothing to do with my own argument].

We know that mind is integrated with matter. Thus we have clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, even if that creator-mind is unfolding from the Seed of Origin which birthed the universe we are witnessing through experience.

Not quite. We know that mind is integrated with living organisms, not just any matter.

Are you saying that the fundamental building blocks of universe forms are made up of different stuff?

There is no clear evidence that a mindful creator is involved, that's just imaginative thinking at work.

There is no clear evidence that it is just imaginative thinking at work. If there is, then present it.

Being that it has emerged since the germination {Big Bang} it has had a great amount of time in which to learn to effect the matter to whatever it wills, even to the point of doing so here on this planet, as we ourself bear witness, even to the degree that we refer to that as "reality".

Quite a fanciful proposition, but please present something that demonstrates the truth of it.

The fact of its reality demonstrates the truth of it.

There is always somewhere to go. Testing it out for starters.
If:
There is a mind behind creation
THEN:
We ought be able to communicate with it, using whatever physical devices we can create in order to do so.

Alright then, when and where has any of this communication taken place?

In the persona own subjective experience. As Morpheus said to Neo - "I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it."

It's all just imaginative speculation.

How do you know that? Or are you imagining that is all that it is?

I guess I am basing it on the fact that there is no substantiation of the claims being made. It therefore seems most logical to conclude that it comes from the imagination like so many fanciful ideas humans have thought up through the ages.

In order for anyone to write what you wrote there, they have to ignore that it has already been established that the universe cannot have just popped out of nowhere.
If you have evidence to support the notion that it did, I am more than happy to see it.

That is very understandable. However, even being that it is hard to imagine, it is not impossible. I haven't had any insurmountable problem in at least subjectively verifying It exists, or finding ways in which to communicate with It.

Not impossible does not equate with probable. Please demonstrate that your communications with 'It' are not just self-delusion.

Please demonstrate that it is just self-delusion. If you cannot do so, then your argument therein can be viewed as simply unsupported opinion and thus, invalid speculation, which can be shoved back into whatever hole it came from...

[Abigail]

I would say, of course something cannot come to exist out of nothing.

However, the human animal kingdom is not at a loss for inventing that something did give rise to all things.

Be it the deities of religious myth, or the open theory of the sciences. We have a tendency to imagine ourselves able to conquer even the inexplicable to satisfy our inate delusion that leads us to act as if we're the only intelligence that exists anywhere at all. Even when we resort to making stuff up to satisfy ourselves to think now, we "know".

We don't.

Look at what we do to ourselves and our only home now that we know for a fact.

Yet we somehow think we are able to know how we came to be here. Be it faith filled hope or theoretical science.

There's only now.

Why isn't that enough?

[William]

[Replying to Abigail in post #125]

There's only now.

Why isn't that enough?

Because it does not serve to help us change the way we have been living life as humans....those ugly bits you pointed out in your post, which just so happen to exist in the 'now' you appear to think is enough...

[Abigail]

[Replying to Abigail in post #125]

There's only now.

Why isn't that enough?

Because it does not serve to help us change the way we have been living life as humans....those ugly bits you pointed out in your post, which just so happen to exist in the 'now' you appear to think is enough...

No us all there is.
The past is evaporated as soon as it occurs. What happened then is what brings us to right now that we have to live with.

And the future is of course immaterial until we arrive.
You can plan for tomorrow. If you die right now, you're dead right now.Tomorrow doesn't exist.
Ever. Now, is all there is.

What awaits in future is of our making now. The past has brought us to right now.

[William]

[Replying to Abigail in post #125]

There's only now.

Why isn't that enough?

Because it does not serve to help us change the way we have been living life as humans....those ugly bits you pointed out in your post, which just so happen to exist in the 'now' you appear to think is enough...

No us all there is.
The past is evaporated as soon as it occurs. What happened then is what brings us to right now that we have to live with.

And the future is of course immaterial until we arrive.
You can plan for tomorrow. If you die right now, you're dead right now.Tomorrow doesn't exist.
Ever. Now, is all there is.

What awaits in future is of our making now. The past has brought us to right now.

...those ugly bits you pointed out in your post, which just so happen to exist in the 'now' you appear to think is enough...

The past and the future are moments of 'now' - to deny they have no bearing on this moment or the ugly bits you mention is counter-productive and therefore pointless.

Now is 'something' so to deny past or potential future is the same thing as saying that 'now' comes from 'nothing'...which is illogical and categorically untrue.

It simply dismisses the storyline, rendering the reality experience as null and void. AS such it is a serious act of denial...

[Abigail]

[Replying to Abigail in post #125]

There's only now.

Why isn't that enough?

Because it does not serve to help us change the way we have been living life as humans....those ugly bits you pointed out in your post, which just so happen to exist in the 'now' you appear to think is enough...

No us all there is.
The past is evaporated as soon as it occurs. What happened then is what brings us to right now that we have to live with.

And the future is of course immaterial until we arrive.
You can plan for tomorrow. If you die right now, you're dead right now.Tomorrow doesn't exist.
Ever. Now, is all there is.

What awaits in future is of our making now. The past has brought us to right now.

...those ugly bits you pointed out in your post, which just so happen to exist in the 'now' you appear to think is enough...

The past and the future are moments of 'now' - to deny they have no bearing on this moment or the ugly bits you mention is counter-productive and therefore pointless.

Now is 'something' so to deny past or potential future is the same thing as saying that 'now' comes from 'nothing'...which is illogical and categorically untrue.

It simply dismisses the storyline, rendering the reality experience as null and void. AS such it is a serious act of denial...

"Now is 'something' so to deny past or potential future is the same thing as saying that 'now' comes from 'nothing'...which is illogical and categorically untrue."

It is illogical. That's why I did not say that. You did.

I explained the role of the past that lets us to arrive at the now.

[William]

[Replying to Abigail in post #129]

It is illogical. That's why I did not say that. You did.

Wait what? Perhaps we are at cross-purposes?

Where is it that you think I said such?