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]

[Replying to brunumb in post #140

I value the imagination enormously. When it is used to create scenarios that have no basis in reality and present them as real, then not so much.

Are you the final arbiter of what the basis of reality is?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #135]

Hey friend, here's hoping you ain't never met a biscuit you couldn't whoop.

Search "Whoop"
a loud cry of joy or excitement. give or make a whoop.
"all at once they were whooping with laughter"
It's the Southern way to say "whip".

But your use kinda fits, as we both enjoy a good chuckle.

...

That reminds me of a song I writ.



Check out the image @ 1:48

Yep, that's Henry now when I come around.

"Three fingers pointing back at you"
Quality.

"My suitcase and my sandwich"
Brings back fond memories of my traveling construction days. Always looking for that next town or state. The sandwich represents the oh so many great (and less than great) diners along the way. That line really speaks to my inner nomad.

I'm me a hillbilly, but I loves me that jazzy style. Your vocal phrasing is "on point", as the kids say.

Promised response here directly...

[JoeyKnothead]

William, you're a dear friend, but I don't preciate you making me think

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

No. They are opposite expressions.

For me they just as well be the same.

Where one declares such as "God poofed the universe into existence", I see a theist poofing their proposed god into existence, based on the paucity of confirmatory data for that god's being around to do anything.

I wanna note here that I find your Cosmic Mind on a different level than any proposed gods, just so ya know my point here's for general readership.

...
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.

Thanks for steering me back on point.

From here on I'll try to hold my comments strictly to what either of us seek to argue, or claim.

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.

For sure.

As before, I'd like to try to restrict this to our thing - while knowing we might need to bring in "outside" concepts.

...snip...

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.

I disagree on the fallacy angle.

We observe the universe. If we're to propose something always existed, that's our best candidate. I don't see any need to rely on the opinions of scientists on this matter - unless and until they can confirm either way.

It's simply the most parsimonious and logical conclusion, if we're to 'demand' that something always existed.

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.

The lack of logic comes in when we declare the universe must have been created, when at best we merely observe its expansion, but go on to declare a sentient entity should be excluded from this expectation.

Remember, I'm not claiming the universe always existed, I'm just examining a faulty argument about it.

.. snip...

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.

Plenty fair.

I propose a better explanation here is an anthropomorphic angle. By no means do I accuse anyone of deluded projection.

I propose it's human nature to think that we, accomplished intellectually and otherwise, would seek our "parent/s" out in the grand scheme.

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."

I find it hard to argue against my position, I say, sincerely trying to avoid arrogance or egotism. (8th grade dropout)

One need merely provide confirmatory evidence, or sound, logical argument to show a god exists.

In my travels, I've only ever witnessed gods as a projection of the one fancy on em.

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've 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.

So we ask those god promoters to present their gods for cross examination. Or to provide sound, logical arguments about it.

When they send me to the "home", and I carry on about evil demons and folks out to get me, I'm asked to point em out. I've even had therapists ask to speak to em. In each and every case, the end result's been my inability to do either.

My demons, my 'gods', are as surely in my head as the pretty thing won't let me buy a cannon. With my own money.

...snip...

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

I see the mind as a product of evolutionary forces. From a simple ability to perceive up from down, and dark from light, we can observe in the biological world a progression (and sometimes regression) of abilities here.

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' I will go along with that.

I might not be able to convince you of the soundness of my position, but if I can convince the reader, we there we go.

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.

I'm not certain infinite regress is as much fallacy, as a continuing examination of data that arises as we look backwards through time.

One of our former, and best posters had a sig... "Has there ever been a time when there wasn't a now?"

If a god serves to end the regression, why can't the universe (if only in a prior form)?

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.

Assumes the universe was created. An assumption not borne of fact.

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...

I thought you were of the "mindfully created" school of thought?

What am I missing here?

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

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

Research shows that thought -mindfulness- occurs within the brain. It also shows that damage to the brain can cause expected, and unexpected affects on the mind.

This data is as irrefutable as arguing with the pretty thing on the cannon buying.

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 retract the argument as unsupportable.

...snip...

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.

Cause I don't know, and find it difficult to impossible - for me - to argue either way.

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?"

I argue the position that it's illogical to say "my god, who always existed, is immune to the requirement that what exists must've been created".

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.

And you do it so well, even as I disagree.

I really do find this "Cosmic mind" fascinating, as it doesn't rely so much on what does the mind think about me, but what do I think about the mind?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #143]

I disagree on the fallacy angle.

So do I but I didn't make it into a fallacy.

We observe the universe. If we're to propose something always existed, that's our best candidate. I don't see any need to rely on the opinions of scientists on this matter - unless and until they can confirm either way.

As I said re that:
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,

It's simply the most parsimonious and logical conclusion, if we're to 'demand' that something always existed.

[Parsimonious - very unwilling to spend money or use resources.]

It isn't a case of demanding the universe did or did not always exist. It is a case of observing that it does exist, that it is unfolding and that it cannot have popped into existence from nothing and nowhere.

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.

The lack of logic comes in when we declare the universe must have been created, when at best we merely observe its expansion, but go on to declare a sentient entity should be excluded from this expectation.

I thought we had already covered this when I agreed - not that the universe was created by some unknown outside mind, but that it has a mind of its own which is involved in creating itself - or - re CCC - is mindfully manifesting itself as that which we are witnessing as "The Universe".

Thus, both mind and matter have always existed and did not pop out of nothing.

I propose a better explanation here is an anthropomorphic angle. By no means do I accuse anyone of deluded projection.

Which is wise on your part. Folk who use that argument [and its theist counterpart "Demons"] have already slammed the door shut...

I propose it's human nature to think that we, accomplished intellectually and otherwise, would seek our "parent/s" out in the grand scheme.

Without a doubt! Nature being the very instigator. It is encoded within our mind and our matter.

But like eons of sedimentary build-up - for the most part it appears that those codes are largely deactivated - 'fossilized' in a sense. Forgotten in relation to the grand scheme. A Child without any known Parent.

I find it hard to argue against my position, I say, sincerely trying to avoid arrogance or egotism. (8th grade dropout)

One need merely provide confirmatory evidence, or sound, logical argument to show a god exists.

In my travels, I've only ever witnessed gods as a projection of the one fancy on em.

Whereas I simply look at the universe, [the confirmatory evidence] and there The Mind is...interacting with me 24/7 like a doting parent.

Of course, while I can observe the Galaxies as individual parents - like mindful nests with eggs in 'em
~Understanding the correlations~
~The journey is the destination~!
- my primary focus is far more localized re the dotting parent - which is why you will always see me arguing for the planet being mindful - the evidence for that being, literally, all over the place.

So The Earth Entity [as a mindful being] is The Parent.

So we ask those god promoters to present their gods for cross examination. Or to provide sound, logical arguments about it.

And this 'god-promoter' [me] obliges and is told that the evidence is "not evidence".

When they send me to the "home", and I carry on about evil demons and folks out to get me, I'm asked to point em out. I've even had therapists ask to speak to em. In each and every case, the end result's been my inability to do either.

The therapists may well be asking the incorrect questions - or demanding the wrong type of evidence. I do not know, as they are your therapists and you might not even be able to tell me, because they might not have explained themselves to you as to why they want those things from you.

But supposing you were able to channel the 'evil demons' - in what way would that be evidence of 'evil demons' In what way can you 'point them out' which will convince the therapists that these are indeed what you say they are?

So they [therapists] seem to be asking you to do something which they also seem to know you will be unable to do. Provide them a particular type of evidence to support your claim that 'evil demons' are involved to which they know you simply cannot provide them with.

Then we have the case of Eleanor Longden who had a therapist who took a different approach and because of that, we have evidence from the fact of Eleanor Longden, that the voices were not as demonic as she once knew them as - by her interacting with them in a different manner - they became angelic.

Eleanor explains the process. Her explanation is Illuminating.

The evidence is there.

Now obviously the [demonic] voices can be secured in a padded cell where they are silenced [or at least muffled] by using different concoctions brewed up by modern day wizards called 'chemists' or they can be brought to heel by the person having to suffer them, and turned into angels, as is the case of Eleanor...but what still hasn't been established is whether these voice are real or imagined, because we really do not understand the differences between real and imagined to make the call.

But what we do know is that for those experiencing the voices, they voice are as real as anything else called "real".

We know this because there is plenty of supporting evidence.

My demons, my 'gods', are as surely in my head as the pretty thing won't let me buy a cannon. With my own money.

I have to admit, every time you speak of the 'pretty thing' a tingle runs up my brain-stem but at least she ain't 'in your head' - oh wait...

There is no reason I have been shown where ones thoughts in ones head coinciding with the thing which is outside ones head, is simply a case of an over-active imagination and the moment of realizing that what is inside my head running around as thought, is also inside that thing which I witness as being outside my head.

Which is to say that I ought not to dismiss what is in my head just because it is not outside my head because my head [and the thoughts within it] are part of what I call 'outside' and further to that, to dismiss the inside is to dismiss the self because the self is also coming from 'inside the head'.

And when the outside corresponds with the inside, why the 'sides' seem to disappear altogether.

"God" is found therein/thereout.

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

I see the mind as a product of evolutionary forces. From a simple ability to perceive up from down, and dark from light, we can observe in the biological world a progression (and sometimes regression) of abilities here.

Waxing and waning.

The Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory covers that aspect too. The universe waxes into self awareness. "Evolutionary forces" are another way of saying the same thing. They are the product of the universe, rather than something which insinuated itself into the universe from some other place outside of the universe. The process creates a type of translucence, which is the stage we are finding ourselves experiencing.

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' I will go along with that.

I might not be able to convince you of the soundness of my position, but if I can convince the reader, we there we go.

Well, we cannot say since you have yet to present your evidence - which you cannot present any more than you can present the evidence to therapists, that the voices are 'demons'.
But if we can accept the premise that both the matter and the mind exist together and either one shouldn't be treated as separate from the other, then we have something tangible to work with and present evidence for.

The idea that both have always existed and are one and the same 'thing', appears to be the way forward...

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.

I'm not certain infinite regress is as much fallacy, as a continuing examination of data that arises as we look backwards through time.

One of our former, and best posters had a sig... "Has there ever been a time when there wasn't a now?"

If a god serves to end the regression, why can't the universe (if only in a prior form)?

Have I somehow not been clear enough that I am fine with this idea?

What I am attempting to argue is that we ought not exclude the mind from the matter. They both have existed eternally and are in fact one thing...mind AND matter.

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.

Assumes the universe was created. An assumption not borne of fact.

Rather it assumes the CCC with the addition of The Mind - that what is unfolding is also mindfully made to unfold that way and that is what explains the notion [re the evidence] that it 'began' while allowing for the notion that the 'beginning' is simply the start of its latest incarnation/manifestation.

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...

I thought you were of the "mindfully created" school of thought?

What am I missing here?

You are missing the right for Mind to be included alongside and a natural part of the Matter.

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

Research shows that thought -mindfulness- occurs within the brain. It also shows that damage to the brain can cause expected, and unexpected affects on the mind.

This data is as irrefutable as arguing with the pretty thing on the cannon buying.

I sense pretty thing has good reason for not letting you buy a canon.

The brain is made of what we call matter - the stuff of the universe - a container as it were, where mindfulness can reside.

I understand the planet in the same way. It is a physical container which mind works through.

The evidence is bountiful in that regard.

It also explains why things without 'brains' - plants and such - still act as if they have awareness and intelligence.

It explains the invisible connections between leaf cutting Ants, the Plants they are cutting the leaves of, and the Mycelium they are transporting the leaves to, in order to feed it, and the food the Mycelium produces for the Ants...the connections are there even that they are not seen - just as The Mind is there in the head, but is not seen.

Search "Did humans evolve from Mycelium?"
Fungi Are Responsible For Life On Land As We Know It

It is possible that this split from being one mind into being many minds was mindfully purposeful...in that there was a reason for doing so.

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.

Cause I don't know, and find it difficult to impossible - for me - to argue either way.

Then again I ask:
"Won't you agree that your case is not everyone's case even that it may be for the majority of cases?"

I really do find this "Cosmic mind" fascinating, as it doesn't rely so much on what does the mind think about me, but what do I think about the mind?

From my own experience, it seems to go along with ones individual beliefs to the point where it is given the opportunity to unravel said beliefs through the individuals wiliness to let it do that.

It acts as a "mirror" and wants the individual to 'see' oneself as always having been a part of The Cosmic Mind - like a parent convincing the child that yes - your really are a child of mine...and then the child thus convinced, sees The Mind as really being "the parent of the individual" missing but all the while, present along the way...

Mirror-Mirror