Total Posts:89|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Something from nothing

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 9:24:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hate it how theists accuse atheists of believing "something from nothing" when it's them who believes clearly that. Every time I argue that the universe may of existed in different states eternally before the universe as we know it spawned they say "Nope! It came from nothing!"....However, isn't it the theist claiming you can't get something from nothing in the first place?
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 11:27:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 9:24:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I hate it how theists accuse atheists of believing "something from nothing" when it's them who believes clearly that. Every time I argue that the universe may of existed in different states eternally before the universe as we know it spawned they say "Nope! It came from nothing!"....However, isn't it the theist claiming you can't get something from nothing in the first place?

If you believe the universe existed eternally then that surpasses the laws of nature and science and makes the universe supernatural. You would then also believe in a supernatural cause for your existence just as theists do...
inferno
Posts: 10,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 12:10:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 9:24:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I hate it how theists accuse atheists of believing "something from nothing" when it's them who believes clearly that. Every time I argue that the universe may of existed in different states eternally before the universe as we know it spawned they say "Nope! It came from nothing!"....However, isn't it the theist claiming you can't get something from nothing in the first place?

How about nothing from nothing leave..................You.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 12:25:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 11:27:27 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 3/29/2012 9:24:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I hate it how theists accuse atheists of believing "something from nothing" when it's them who believes clearly that. Every time I argue that the universe may of existed in different states eternally before the universe as we know it spawned they say "Nope! It came from nothing!"....However, isn't it the theist claiming you can't get something from nothing in the first place?

If you believe the universe existed eternally then that surpasses the laws of nature and science and makes the universe supernatural. You would then also believe in a supernatural cause for your existence just as theists do...

How do you define the universe?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 1:31:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you believe the universe existed eternally then that surpasses the laws of nature and science..and makes the universe supernatural. You would then also believe in a supernatural cause for your existence just as theists do...

The Fool: WTF!!!??????? lol hahahahhahahhahhahahahahahahaha

Rewind that back

How in the world does it follow thatuniverse existed eternally surpasses the laws of nature and science? You do relies The big bang is a Theory Right. They are temporay explanation until we get more information. Quantum mechanized has many flaws. We might have a better theory tommorow, and learn more.

1. The big bang doesn't say something came from nothing. THat is a complete theological LIE!! IT never did! This is only in the US that people think that. Because of the agressive theology. The rest of the world thinks its nuts. It says that the universe was condensed into a singular piece. It could just as well have been seperated before and came together. Theologins which actually Hate science and philosophy are just taking advantage that it sound like what Christainity means. There is no universe in the original Bible nore in the Quran. They only speak of sky earth and sun. Universe is not in the original versions. They are just been reinturpreted>. Again there is Non-existence of the universe in science.

3 lastly we keep discovering new thing about the universe everyday, aka we just found dark matter and there is not reason to think we won't learn more. These finding are not part of the big bang theory. laslty you are commiting a reality vs recognization fallacy. In that there are manything we can' t see with are senses, aka magnitism, radiation, electromagnitic wave length from our every where. cell phones wireless internet. But that doesn' mean they don't exist. There may be alot more things to discover. AKA What Recognize is not all that exist. Reality. There is alot to reality to discover yet. That we don't yet recognize.

.and makes the universe supernatural laws of nature and science..

The Fool: Word??? I thi
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 1:40:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
THe universe has all ways meant all things that exist. Science decided that what is the universe is what they recognized by senses. which is complete garbage? We all have minds. we dont see that with our senses. But it for certain that is 100% exist.
And then Theologins based on science unjustified reduction add there own bit that there is an outside. THe only purpose being to have a place a to hide God. God in the Bible was originally up in the clouds in heaven. and hell was literaly underground. What ever is diccovered false.they just push it farther and farther away. They intensionally alter the bibe to fit with our new knowledge
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 5:18:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 11:27:27 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
If you believe the universe existed eternally then that surpasses the laws of nature and science and makes the universe supernatural. You would then also believe in a supernatural cause for your existence just as theists do...
You clearly are unaware of the laws of nature and science, and you couldn't be more hopelessly wrong. The laws of science SPECIFICALLY say that energy/matter CANNOT be created NOR destroyed.

******************************
At 3/29/2012 1:31:46 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
1. The big bang doesn't say something came from nothing.
You are 100% correct.

This is only in the US that people think that.
Now, now, let's chill with the snobbery. There's shortage of stupid people outside the US.

3 lastly we keep discovering new thing about the universe everyday, aka we just found dark matter and there is not reason to think we won't learn more.
Well, we didn't actually find dark matter: it's that we think that there should be more "stuff" out there and we aren't sure what it is so we call it dark matter. We could be completely wrong though.

************************************

Something from nothing is a contradiction because one of its constituents is a contradiction, namely nothingness. Nothingness is a contradiction in meaning and a terribly flawed concept. Ex nihilo, nihil fit. Furthermore, there are no scientific concepts or claims that say that something came from nothing.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 5:19:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 11:27:27 AM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 3/29/2012 9:24:54 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I hate it how theists accuse atheists of believing "something from nothing" when it's them who believes clearly that. Every time I argue that the universe may of existed in different states eternally before the universe as we know it spawned they say "Nope! It came from nothing!"....However, isn't it the theist claiming you can't get something from nothing in the first place?

If you believe the universe existed eternally then that surpasses the laws of nature and science and makes the universe supernatural. You would then also believe in a supernatural cause for your existence just as theists do...

1. Atheism is a lack of belief in God/ belief that no God exists. This doesn't exclude any other potential supernatural beliefs, for example, you could still believe in ghosts and be an Atheist (it is rare however).

2. You must provide a more firm definition of "the universe" before I can pick apart your response further.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:48:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Christians, as I understand it, believe that the universe began to exist. It was brought into existence from non-existence by God. So when the theist accuses the atheist of claiming that the universe came into being "from nothing," his accusation is not entirely misplaced. When faced with the overwhelming amount of scientific and philosophical evidence that an absolute beginning to our universe is inevitable, the atheist often retorts "well, the universe just came into existence."

The distinction here is that while theists believe that the universe was caused to come into existence from nothing by God, the atheist often claims that the universe came into being from nothing, uncaused, and is therefore making a patently ludicrous assertion.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
The distinction here is that while theists believe that the universe was caused to come into existence from nothing by God, the atheist often claims that the universe came into being from nothing, uncaused, and is therefore making a patently ludicrous assertion.
They are both ludicrous because things cannot come from non-existence into existence. This either exist or they do not: existence is the default state of the Universe.

Also, not all Christians believe what you have stated.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 6:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:51:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
The distinction here is that while theists believe that the universe was caused to come into existence from nothing by God, the atheist often claims that the universe came into being from nothing, uncaused, and is therefore making a patently ludicrous assertion.
They are both ludicrous because things cannot come from non-existence into existence. This either exist or they do not: existence is the default state of the Universe.

Also, not all Christians believe what you have stated.

Are you saying that the universe, since it could not have come from non-existence into existence, has existed forever?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:01:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Christians, as I understand it, believe that the universe began to exist. It was brought into existence from non-existence by God. So when the theist accuses the atheist of claiming that the universe came into being "from nothing," his accusation is not entirely misplaced. When faced with the overwhelming amount of scientific and philosophical evidence that an absolute beginning to our universe is inevitable, the atheist often retorts "well, the universe just came into existence."

The distinction here is that while theists believe that the universe was caused to come into existence from nothing by God, the atheist often claims that the universe came into being from nothing, uncaused, and is therefore making a patently ludicrous assertion.

So getting something from nothing is absurd to you, but getting something from nothing isn't absurd, if you pile another absurd notion of a magical being that can do anything imaginable on top of it? All you are doing is adding one outrages notion on top of another I'm afraid.

As an atheist I believe something from absolute nothing (like what a rock thinks about) is outrages no matter how you look at it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:03:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:55:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:51:51 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 3/29/2012 6:48:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
The distinction here is that while theists believe that the universe was caused to come into existence from nothing by God, the atheist often claims that the universe came into being from nothing, uncaused, and is therefore making a patently ludicrous assertion.
They are both ludicrous because things cannot come from non-existence into existence. This either exist or they do not: existence is the default state of the Universe.

Also, not all Christians believe what you have stated.

Are you saying that the universe, since it could not have come from non-existence into existence, has existed forever?

There are many different definitions of Universe, you would first have to expand on that before anybody continues this further.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:14:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:03:28 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
How else are we to explain the beginning of existence of our universe?

If The universe is all matter and energy in the space-time continuum which we inhabit, then yes you could say it "began to exist" but there is no evidence it came from nothing. You could say a chair "began to exist", however it came from wood. Based on all things we know that "begin to exist", it's illogical to claim that something can exist without coming from some pre-existing state.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:28:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, that is what I mean by the universe (space, time, energy and matter).
But then what are you left with? Postulating that, for example, a parallel universe gave rise to this universe? Or that our universe is merely an oscillating universe? Or that our universe is but a part of a mutliverse? All you are doing is merely pushing the beginning back a step and not solving anything. Sure, chairs may begin to exist, but the fundamental particles which make up the chair certainly do not exist necessarily. Besides, given our understanding of the universe and in accordance with the Big Bang theory,we know that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. There is not any state of affairs prior to it. And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 7:55:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:28:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Yes, that is what I mean by the universe (space, time, energy and matter).
But then what are you left with? Postulating that, for example, a parallel universe gave rise to this universe? Or that our universe is merely an oscillating universe? Or that our universe is but a part of a mutliverse? All you are doing is merely pushing the beginning back a step and not solving anything. Sure, chairs may begin to exist, but the fundamental particles which make up the chair certainly do not exist necessarily. Besides, given our understanding of the universe and in accordance with the Big Bang theory,we know that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. There is not any state of affairs prior to it. And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing.

"Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0."

Hold your horses there, The Big Bang doesn't go beyond the singularity, which is certainly not nothing. If you believe there was "nothing" before the singularity existed that's pure speculation on your behalf, since you cannot get something from nothing, you are most likely wrong.

"Or that our universe is but a part of a mutliverse?"

This is a straw man, I never implied a multiverse.

" It's literally the beginning of space and time."

Scientists are actually divided on this.

"The Big Bang is often thought as the start of everything, including time, making any questions about what happened during it or beforehand nonsensical. Recently scientists have instead suggested the Big Bang might have just been the explosive beginning of the current era of the universe, hinting at a mysterious past." (http://www.space.com...)

"There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time."


This is an argument from ignorance, no classical space-time and it's contents in current form don't necessarily mean absolutely nothing. If that's the case, then God doesn't exist if he's "timeless" and "spaceless", because you just said no time and space equals nothing (and nothing equals non-existence).

"There is not any state of affairs prior to it. And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing."

Once more, this is a bare assertion fallacy. The Big Bang doesn't go past the singularity, if you want to claim there was absolutely nothing prior to the singularity, then that's baseless speculation on your behalf.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 8:01:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 7:28:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Yes, that is what I mean by the universe (space, time, energy and matter).
But then what are you left with? Postulating that, for example, a parallel universe gave rise to this universe? Or that our universe is merely an oscillating universe? Or that our universe is but a part of a mutliverse? All you are doing is merely pushing the beginning back a step and not solving anything. Sure, chairs may begin to exist, but the fundamental particles which make up the chair certainly do not exist necessarily. Besides, given our understanding of the universe and in accordance with the Big Bang theory,we know that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time. Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe. There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time. There is not any state of affairs prior to it. And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing.

I'm just making the case that it's the Theist who believes you can get something from nothing, not the Atheist. This exchange is clearly proving me correct.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 9:05:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To get down to heart of it; is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo absurd? No because it doesn't contradict ex nihilo, nihil fit. The universe has a creative cause. By contrast, the atheist who asserts that the universe just sprang into being without any causal conditions whatsoever is contradicting ex nihilo, nihil fit. We can get some clarity by recalling the Aristotle's distinction between efficient and material cause. If the universe popped into being from nothing, it would lack any causal conditions whatsoever, efficient or material. If God creates something from nothing, then it only lacks a material cause. While something coming into being without a material cause may be considered as absurd by some, something coming into being without an efficient not material cause is infinitely more absurd.

In layman's terms: while the theist is claiming that the universe came into being from nothing, he at least recognizes that it was caused to come into existence by God, while the atheist merely asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2012 9:40:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 9:05:16 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
To get down to heart of it; is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo absurd? No because it doesn't contradict ex nihilo, nihil fit. The universe has a creative cause. By contrast, the atheist who asserts that the universe just sprang into being without any causal conditions whatsoever is contradicting ex nihilo, nihil fit. We can get some clarity by recalling the Aristotle's distinction between efficient and material cause. If the universe popped into being from nothing, it would lack any causal conditions whatsoever, efficient or material. If God creates something from nothing, then it only lacks a material cause. While something coming into being without a material cause may be considered as absurd by some, something coming into being without an efficient not material cause is infinitely more absurd.

In layman's terms: while the theist is claiming that the universe came into being from nothing, he at least recognizes that it was caused to come into existence by God, while the atheist merely asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused.

"In layman's terms: while the theist is claiming that the universe came into being from nothing, he at least recognizes that it was caused to come into existence by God, while the atheist merely asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused."

That is not a valid statement. I'm an Atheist and I believe something from absolutely nothing is impossible under any circumstance, rendering the discussion of cause and effect useless, because "something from nothing" couldn't happen caused, or uncaused. Also, implying a magical being who can do anything imaginable doesn't make it more reasonable, it's actually just piling on another outrages assumption.

It's like saying "It's not logical that an apple can pop into existence right now from nothing...But it is as long as there is a magical being who can do anything imaginable!"

Regardless, Atheism just means a lack of belief in God/ belief a God doesn't exist. Atheism isn't an assertion of anything else, so if an Atheist claims "something can come from nothing" he is only speaking on his personal behalf. Besides, I know no Atheists who believe you can get something out of absolutely nothing, it's only the Theist who seems believes such a thing.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 3:46:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
To clarify, when I speak on "the atheist," I'm not speaking for you nor am I claiming that you believe such things; I merely use this as a literary tool to refer to what an atheist may respond or how an atheist may react in light of arguments, propositions, etc.

Anyway, Magical Being Straw Men and an inadequate definition of the word "atheist" aside, since the universe cannot have begun to exist, at least in accordance with your rejection of something ever coming into existence from non-existence, then you are only left with the conclusions

A) The universe is eternal
or
B) The universe caused itself to come into existence

I won't bother with B as it is patent nonsense, as should be rather obvious. Yet proposition A warrants mentioning that, if accepted by an individual, then that individual is sitting in rather painfully uncomfortable opposition with modern cosmology and science, not to mention with fundamental philosophical problems on the problems of an infinite amount of past-time events.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 4:06:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/29/2012 6:55:43 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Are you saying that the universe, since it could not have come from non-existence into existence, has existed forever?

The Universe (ie all of existence) has always existed. Existence is the default state of reality: non-existence doesn't exist.

How else are we to explain the beginning of existence of our universe?
Existence doesn't have a beginning or end it simply is. Remember: non-existence does NOT exist.

How is "beginning to exist" NOT something from nothing? It is in fact the same thing: "begin to exist" means moving from "non-existence to existence" which is going from nothing to something. That is why it is incorrect to say that things begin to exist. The chair was "created" not "began to exist."

A chair can be created from something (wood, metal, plastic, etc.) and this is a transformation. It is the same with the Universe: it was transformed into what we experience today.

But then what are you left with? Postulating that, for example, a parallel universe gave rise to this universe?
I don't think so. That's stuff based on speculation on top of assumptions on top of conjecture. Not a shred of empirical evidence.

Or that our universe is merely an oscillating universe?
Perhaps, but it cannot be a perpetual oscillating universe as it would violate the laws of conservation of energy.

Or that our universe is but a part of a mutliverse?
Sam as parallel universe stuff; see above.

All you are doing is merely pushing the beginning back a step and not solving anything.
I agree, that is why I believe that time began at the Alpha State of the Universe. "Before" then, the Universe existed timelessly. The Alpha State is then an uncaused initial state from which time begins.

Besides, given our understanding of the universe and in accordance with the Big Bang theory,we know that as you trace the expansion of the universe back in time, everything gets closer and closer together. Eventually, you reach a point in which the distance between any two points is 0. You reach the boundary of space and time. Space and time can't be extended any further back than that. It's literally the beginning of space and time.
Yep.

Because space-time is the arena in which all matter and energy exist, the beginning of space-time is also the beginning of all matter and energy. It's the beginning of the universe.
I disagree; existence requires neither space nor time. What began at t=0 of the BB is time and space.

There is simply nothing prior to the initial boundary of space-time.
That is incorrect. This is why you keep claiming something from nothing. What existed "prior" to t=0 is the timeless Universe in its uncaused initial state.

There is not any state of affairs prior to it.
That is possible BUT only because ANYTHING follows from a contradiction. In other words, asking what happened "before time" is an invalid question; it's actually a contradiction. Ergo, it would be equally valid to say the opposite. Why? Because there IS no "prior."

And by that I mean there is literally nothing prior to it, not empty space, not some prior state of affairs - nothing.
Nothing cannot "be" ergo there cannot be a nothing. Until you understand that, you will never overcome this obstacle.

In a state "prior" to t=0, time has no meaning; it is not present. This is the state of timelessness in which the Universe exited.

To get down to heart of it; is the doctrine of creation ex nihilo absurd?
Yes. It is a contradiction.

No because it doesn't contradict ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Huh? Of course it does. If claim "something from nothing" that violates "only nothing can come from nothing."

The universe has a creative cause.
No, it does not. It is uncaused: existence cannot be caused.

By contrast, the atheist who asserts that the universe just sprang into being without any causal conditions whatsoever is contradicting ex nihilo, nihil fit.
Strawman: the atheist does not claim this. You have SHOWN this by more than one poster and more than one time.

We can get some clarity by recalling the Aristotle's distinction between efficient and material cause. If the universe popped into being from nothing, it would lack any causal conditions whatsoever, efficient or material. If God creates something from nothing, then it only lacks a material cause. While something coming into being without a material cause may be considered as absurd by some, something coming into being without an efficient not material cause is infinitely more absurd.
Equally as absurd because they are both contradictions and ANYTHING can follow a contradiction.

In layman's terms: while the theist is claiming that the universe came into being from nothing, he at least recognizes that it was caused to come into existence by God, while the atheist merely asserts that the universe came into existence from nothing, uncaused.
Again, that is not what the atheist claims (for the umpteenth time) and these two propositions are equally as absurd.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 4:07:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 3:46:27 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
To clarify, when I speak on "the atheist," I'm not speaking for you nor am I claiming that you believe such things; I merely use this as a literary tool to refer to what an atheist may respond or how an atheist may react in light of arguments, propositions, etc.

Anyway, Magical Being Straw Men and an inadequate definition of the word "atheist" aside, since the universe cannot have begun to exist, at least in accordance with your rejection of something ever coming into existence from non-existence, then you are only left with the conclusions

A) The universe is eternal
or
B) The universe caused itself to come into existence

I won't bother with B as it is patent nonsense, as should be rather obvious. Yet proposition A warrants mentioning that, if accepted by an individual, then that individual is sitting in rather painfully uncomfortable opposition with modern cosmology and science, not to mention with fundamental philosophical problems on the problems of an infinite amount of past-time events.

So then the universe was caused by something outside of it. What are some possibilities?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 4:11:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 3:46:27 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
To clarify, when I speak on "the atheist," I'm not speaking for you nor am I claiming that you believe such things; I merely use this as a literary tool to refer to what an atheist may respond or how an atheist may react in light of arguments, propositions, etc.
And you would be in error because that is not the atheist position.

...then you are only left with the conclusions

A) The universe is eternal
Possible, as long as you understand that it is "timelessly" eternal.

or
B) The universe caused itself to come into existence
Not possible: it's a contradiction (2 contradictions, actually.)

I won't bother with B as it is patent nonsense, as should be rather obvious. Yet proposition A warrants mentioning that, if accepted by an individual, then that individual is sitting in rather painfully uncomfortable opposition with modern cosmology and science, not to mention with fundamental philosophical problems on the problems of an infinite amount of past-time events.
That's not so because it is a TIMELESS eternal existence.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 4:46:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 3:46:27 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
To clarify, when I speak on "the atheist," I'm not speaking for you nor am I claiming that you believe such things; I merely use this as a literary tool to refer to what an atheist may respond or how an atheist may react in light of arguments, propositions, etc.

I know no Atheist who believes something from absolutely nothing is possible, only the theist seems to hold to such an irrational conclusion.

Anyway, Magical Being Straw Men and an inadequate definition of the word "atheist" aside

Something beginning to exist from no pre-existing state is magic. If you believe a being exists which can do something that illogical, you must believe in a magical being. This is not a straw man, this is clearly what you believe.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you have a different definition than the one everybody is familiar with, then please do share.

Since the universe cannot have begun to exist, at least in accordance with your rejection of something ever coming into existence from non-existence, then you are only left with the conclusions

A) The universe is eternal
or
B) The universe caused itself to come into existence

I won't bother with B as it is patent nonsense, as should be rather obvious. Yet proposition A warrants mentioning that, if accepted by an individual, then that individual is sitting in rather painfully uncomfortable opposition with modern cosmology and science, not to mention with fundamental philosophical problems on the problems of an infinite amount of past-time events.

The singularity could have been eternal "prior" to the expansion from the singularity. The singularity could have come from an eternal zero energy field which spews out universes with matter, gravity, and space-time which all offset each other. Quite frankly, it's too early to tell...However, it's irrational to think you can get something from absolutely nothing, so to claim the universe was created from nothing, is absurd.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 4:51:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 4:07:02 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/30/2012 3:46:27 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
To clarify, when I speak on "the atheist," I'm not speaking for you nor am I claiming that you believe such things; I merely use this as a literary tool to refer to what an atheist may respond or how an atheist may react in light of arguments, propositions, etc.

Anyway, Magical Being Straw Men and an inadequate definition of the word "atheist" aside, since the universe cannot have begun to exist, at least in accordance with your rejection of something ever coming into existence from non-existence, then you are only left with the conclusions

A) The universe is eternal
or
B) The universe caused itself to come into existence

I won't bother with B as it is patent nonsense, as should be rather obvious. Yet proposition A warrants mentioning that, if accepted by an individual, then that individual is sitting in rather painfully uncomfortable opposition with modern cosmology and science, not to mention with fundamental philosophical problems on the problems of an infinite amount of past-time events.

So then the universe was caused by something outside of it. What are some possibilities?

Since the universe (space, time, matter and energy) was caused to begin to exist, then it follows rationally, as you may agree, that whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be transcendent of space, time, matter and energy; an uncaused First Cause.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 5:29:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 4:51:01 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/30/2012 4:07:02 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 3/30/2012 3:46:27 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
To clarify, when I speak on "the atheist," I'm not speaking for you nor am I claiming that you believe such things; I merely use this as a literary tool to refer to what an atheist may respond or how an atheist may react in light of arguments, propositions, etc.

Anyway, Magical Being Straw Men and an inadequate definition of the word "atheist" aside, since the universe cannot have begun to exist, at least in accordance with your rejection of something ever coming into existence from non-existence, then you are only left with the conclusions

A) The universe is eternal
or
B) The universe caused itself to come into existence

I won't bother with B as it is patent nonsense, as should be rather obvious. Yet proposition A warrants mentioning that, if accepted by an individual, then that individual is sitting in rather painfully uncomfortable opposition with modern cosmology and science, not to mention with fundamental philosophical problems on the problems of an infinite amount of past-time events.

So then the universe was caused by something outside of it. What are some possibilities?

Since the universe (space, time, matter and energy) was caused to begin to exist, then it follows rationally, as you may agree, that whatever caused the universe to come into existence must be transcendent of space, time, matter and energy; an uncaused First Cause.

Cosmologists are actually divided on whether time had an absolute beginning at The Big Bang or not. Even if I did grant you that it did for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean that it was caused. We know cause and effect applies to parts within the universe, but to assume that principle must apply to the whole universe based on of a principle we know is true for the parts, is a potential fallacy of composition. Even if I did grant you a cause, why must it be external and not internal? Dark energy is pushing the galaxies further apart from within so, The Big Bang may have had an internal cause. Even if I granted an external cause for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean it has to be sentient.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 5:30:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonePickens, in the words of the great John Marston, "I dont rightly get you, friend."

Of course now that the universe exists, non-existence is not to be found. You seem to be proposing either that the universe exists necessarily or that the universe has existed forever and your listed religious affiliation as Christian hints that you believe that God merely crafted the universe from already pre-existing "stuff" (be it matter, energy, whatever). You agree that space-time began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang (which entails that matter and energy began to exist along with space-time as without space-time, there would be no medium in which matter and energy could exist in) yet then go on to make the ludicrous claim that the universe simply "existed timelessly" before this. Yet notice what you are saying: the universe (properly understood to be space-time and all its contents) began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang, yet the universe existed prior to this in a timeless state. Never mind what a "timeless state" is supposed to entail. Forget about whether the physics of this proposition are even valid. Just savor the manifest contradiction: the universe began to exist at some point t when the universe already existed.

See, this "state" of the "Alpha Universe" is merely what I call God: a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being who is the sole source of all existence. When I say that the universe was caused by God to come into being "from nothing," I am merely stating that God created the universe from not anything but from his own power to bring about existence from non-existence. Yet notice how God must exist in order for the universe to come into existence. I sense that the conflict here is merely a simple semantical misunderstanding of the nature of God's existence, which does not require space-time, energy, or matter to exist. I am merely claiming that God's existence in necessary for the universe to come into existence.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2012 5:55:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/30/2012 5:29:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Cosmologists are actually divided on whether time had an absolute beginning at The Big Bang or not. Even if I did grant you that it did for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean that it was caused. We know cause and effect applies to parts within the universe, but to assume that principle must apply to the whole universe based on of a principle we know is true for the parts, is a potential fallacy of composition. Even if I did grant you a cause, why must it be external and not internal? Dark energy is pushing the galaxies further apart from within so, The Big Bang may have had an internal cause. Even if I granted an external cause for the sake of argument, that doesn't mean it has to be sentient.

How can the universe, if it had begun to exist, cause itself to come into existence? Think about it: dark energy (or quantum mechanics or the "law of gravity" ala Hawking -- or whatever) is a phenomena that is observed in the universe and one which cannot occur in its absence. Everything that occurs in the universe occurs in the presence of space, time, energy and matter. In order to observe these events, the universe must first exist. Postulating that one of these events caused the universe to come into existence leads to the preposterous conclusion that the universe caused itself to come into existence. You'd basically be saying "before the universe came into existence, the universe existed." That is a patently nonsensical conclusion (which is strangely enough supported by Daniel Dennet; you'd expect some more critical thinking from a so-called philosopher).

I'm not sure on what you mean by "it doesn't have to be sentient."