Total Posts:265|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Challenge To Theists

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 2:26:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I, too, am curious. In view of everything we know, or believe we know, about science, reason and logic, why is such a question even posed? Why should it not simply be disregarded as silly?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 2:28:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 2:26:51 PM, Radar wrote:
I, too, am curious. In view of everything we know, or believe we know, about science, reason and logic,

For instance......

why is such a question even posed? Why should it not simply be disregarded as silly?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 2:43:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 2:26:51 PM, Radar wrote:
I, too, am curious. In view of everything we know, or believe we know, about science, reason and logic, why is such a question even posed? Why should it not simply be disregarded as silly?

So you have no justification for the notion that something cannot from nothing, and you presuppose your position, and an include a fallacious appeal to ridicule as well....Interesting observation indeed. However, we are still left wondering why we should believe that something cannot come from nothing. I see a pattern of useless posts without any substance from you on a continuous basis.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:26:51 PM, Radar wrote:
I, too, am curious. In view of everything we know, or believe we know, about science, reason and logic, why is such a question even posed? Why should it not simply be disregarded as silly?

So you have no justification for the notion that something cannot from nothing, and you presuppose your position, and an include a fallacious appeal to ridicule as well....Interesting observation indeed. However, we are still left wondering why we should believe that something cannot come from nothing. I see a pattern of useless posts without any substance from you on a continuous basis.

You're proposing the idea that something can come from nothing--something even no physicist does (potentiality is not nothing). Isn't the burden supposed to be on you? That, anyway, is what theists are always told.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:26:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 3:17:54 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:43:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:26:51 PM, Radar wrote:
I, too, am curious. In view of everything we know, or believe we know, about science, reason and logic, why is such a question even posed? Why should it not simply be disregarded as silly?

So you have no justification for the notion that something cannot from nothing, and you presuppose your position, and an include a fallacious appeal to ridicule as well....Interesting observation indeed. However, we are still left wondering why we should believe that something cannot come from nothing. I see a pattern of useless posts without any substance from you on a continuous basis.

You're proposing the idea that something can come from nothing--

This is a straw-man. I'm not proposing the idea that something can come from nothing. I'm proposing the idea that the notion that something cannot come from nothing, is unjustified. That doesn't mean that I'm making the positive assertion that something can come from nothing, that would be a non-sequitur on your behalf if that was your implication.

something even no physicist does (potentiality is not nothing). Isn't the burden supposed to be on you?

What does physics have to do with this? This is switching the burden of proof as well. I didn't start the thread to defend the notion that something can come from nothing, I'm here to see why theists think anybody should accept ex nihilo nihil fit. So far, all I see from them is the simple assumption that it's true. Obviously, that shouldn't going to convince anybody, or else we could argue anything as true with that standard.

That, anyway, is what theists are always told.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:00:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

Cause and effect, that's how I understand our universe to work.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:03:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:00:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

Cause and effect, that's how I understand our universe to work.

That's how things seem to work in our universe on a macro scale.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:08:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:03:47 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:00:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

Cause and effect, that's how I understand our universe to work.

That's how things seem to work in our universe on a macro scale.

I understand it works that way on a micro scale as well, we just don't understand the intricacies enough to define what was caused and what was effected.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:13:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:00:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

Cause and effect, that's how I understand our universe to work.

Cause and effect may just be something that applies within the universe pertaining to it's parts, that doesn't mean cause and effect applies to the universe as a whole. This seems like a fallacy of composition.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:20:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's kinda funny. Usually it's the theistic doctrine of ex nihilo that comes under attack. Why can't anti-theism make up its mind? Is it simply to stir up controversy?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:29:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:20:41 PM, Radar wrote:
It's kinda funny. Usually it's the theistic doctrine of ex nihilo that comes under attack. Why can't anti-theism make up its mind? Is it simply to stir up controversy?

Who are you calling an anti-theist? I'm an agnostic. Also, many people believe different things, you cannot just group everybody under one "anti-theist" umbrella as you did. Hope that cleared a few things up for you. I don't think I have ever argued against creatio ex nihilo.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:29:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:20:41 PM, Radar wrote:
It's kinda funny. Usually it's the theistic doctrine of ex nihilo that comes under attack. Why can't anti-theism make up its mind? Is it simply to stir up controversy?

Who are you calling an anti-theist? I'm an agnostic. Also, many people believe different things, you cannot just group everybody under one "anti-theist" umbrella as you did. Hope that cleared a few things up for you. I don't think I have ever argued against creatio ex nihilo.

So it's simply to stir up controversy?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:33:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:13:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:00:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

Cause and effect, that's how I understand our universe to work.

Cause and effect may just be something that applies within the universe pertaining to it's parts, that doesn't mean cause and effect applies to the universe as a whole. This seems like a fallacy of composition.

To assume the universe started in a different way than cause and effect would be to discredit science wouldn't it?
Science tells us that all things have a cause and effect even if we don't know what the cause was or the effect is.
glassplotful
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:51:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, something can come from nothing. Krauss explains it in the video.

The Uncertainty Principle implies there is always some uncertainty about properties of any region of space - specifically, how much energy it contains over a given period. Quantum physics tells us that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space.

Quantum mechanics allows and requires temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles, which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 4:54:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:33:26 PM, Radar wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:29:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:20:41 PM, Radar wrote:
It's kinda funny. Usually it's the theistic doctrine of ex nihilo that comes under attack. Why can't anti-theism make up its mind? Is it simply to stir up controversy?

Who are you calling an anti-theist? I'm an agnostic. Also, many people believe different things, you cannot just group everybody under one "anti-theist" umbrella as you did. Hope that cleared a few things up for you. I don't think I have ever argued against creatio ex nihilo.

So it's simply to stir up controversy?

No, to get a reason why anyone should believe Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. Have you not been paying attention?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:04:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:33:42 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:13:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:00:17 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

Cause and effect, that's how I understand our universe to work.

Cause and effect may just be something that applies within the universe pertaining to it's parts, that doesn't mean cause and effect applies to the universe as a whole. This seems like a fallacy of composition.

To assume the universe started in a different way than cause and effect would be to discredit science wouldn't it?

Not at all. We know that science assumes causality within a spatio-temporal frame, but there is nothing in science that could tells us whether the universe as a whole had a cause or not, unless there is more nature past the boundary of the universe.

Science tells us that all things have a cause and effect even if we don't know what the cause was or the effect is.

Science is applicable within a spatio-temporal frame, which equates to within the universe assuming there is no more nature beyond it. Using scientific principles that apply to within the universe pertaining to the parts, to try to necessitate a truth with regards to the universe as a whole, once more, is a fallacy of composition. Even if everything that began to exist within the universe had a cause, that wouldn't mean that the universe as a whole did. This in no way violates any scientific principles, if it does, then this just means you believe the laws of science stretch past the limits of the universe. I'm not sure how that helps the theists case much.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:55:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.:

What does come from nothing? The answer is easy. I am going by the same evidence you are, that's all we see.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 5:59:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:55:02 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.:

What does come from nothing? The answer is easy. I am going by the same evidence you are, that's all we see.

This doesn't address what justification there is for the notion that something cannot come from nothing. How does observation from within space-time entail necessary truths about nothing?
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 6:07:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:51:32 PM, glassplotful wrote:
Actually, something can come from nothing. Krauss explains it in the video.

The Uncertainty Principle implies there is always some uncertainty about properties of any region of space - specifically, how much energy it contains over a given period. Quantum physics tells us that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space.

Quantum mechanics allows and requires temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles, which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

I've seen the video. It's a good example of how to be ridiculously disingenuous and look smart at the same time. What he's really saying is that nothing isn't really nothing and that form (actuality) comes from formlessness (potentiality). Like I said before: to look his part as a philosopher he needs a big red nose and a fright wig.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 6:13:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 4:51:32 PM, glassplotful wrote:
Actually, something can come from nothing. Krauss explains it in the video.



The Uncertainty Principle implies there is always some uncertainty about properties of any region of space - specifically, how much energy it contains over a given period. Quantum physics tells us that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space.

Quantum mechanics allows and requires temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles, which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

He isn't actually talking about nothing though. He is talking about a quantum vacuum or something of that nature.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not a theist, but I was tempted to take this debate on this topic when I seen you set it up RT, so I'll just provide a rough outline of the kind of argument I'd have used.

We'll call it the argument from potentiality.

The point is really simple. If we're defining nothing as "no-thing", then it seems not just radically counter-inutitive, but logically incoherent to talk about the denial ex nihilo nihilo fit.

Let's call nothing "X". Now, assuming the law of identity is true, X=X, and, all things being equal, always will do. The problem this causes is that without any things (mechanism, material, etc) to affect change, X will always equal X. X becoming Z without even any potential for change is another way of saying that the law of identity is false. Nothing can't become something without change any more than a chair can stop being a chair without change.

Just to preface a quick objection, suppose you say:

"If nothing exists, the laws of logic don't exist and thus cannot prevent a something from nothing."

My first point would be to point out that this would make logical laws self-contradictory - they would have to flout their own rules to come into existence (see above).

Second, logical laws aren't things which exist. They describe the nature of all things that could exist. To put it another way, they're not things with an essence, they are the essence of all things.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:28:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 5:59:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 5:55:02 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.:

What does come from nothing? The answer is easy. I am going by the same evidence you are, that's all we see.

This doesn't address what justification there is for the notion that something cannot come from nothing. How does observation from within space-time entail necessary truths about nothing?:

How can ignoring your eyes and common sense validate your question?
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
glassplotful
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:18:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 6:13:15 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 4:51:32 PM, glassplotful wrote:
Actually, something can come from nothing. Krauss explains it in the video.



The Uncertainty Principle implies there is always some uncertainty about properties of any region of space - specifically, how much energy it contains over a given period. Quantum physics tells us that the very space around us is seething with subatomic particles, popping in and out of empty space.

Quantum mechanics allows and requires temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles, which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

He isn't actually talking about nothing though. He is talking about a quantum vacuum or something of that nature.

It depends on how you define nothing. If you define nothing as 'nonexistence,' then quantum mechanics does in fact show us that something can come from nothing. How long it stays is another topic.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:47:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 6:37:37 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I'm not a theist, but I was tempted to take this debate on this topic when I seen you set it up RT, so I'll just provide a rough outline of the kind of argument I'd have used.

We'll call it the argument from potentiality.

The point is really simple. If we're defining nothing as "no-thing", then it seems not just radically counter-inutitive, but logically incoherent to talk about the denial ex nihilo nihilo fit.

If "nothing" exist, then no laws of logic exist either. Thus, applying the laws of logic to "nothing", is unjustified.


Let's call nothing "X". Now, assuming the law of identity is true, X=X, and, all things being equal, always will do. The problem this causes is that without any things (mechanism, material, etc) to affect change, X will always equal X.

Why?

Also, when you say 'x' you are basically providing a variable which would be filed in with "something". This presents a huge problem, because we are strictly talking about "nothing".

X becoming Z without even any potential for change is another way of saying that the law of identity is false.

It wouldn't man that the law of identity is false, just that it doesn't necessarily apply with regards to "nothing". For you argument to work, you would have to explain why the laws of logic must exist, if "nothing" does (which doesn't seem like a feasible position). Also, your potentiality argument can backfire. If "nothing" equates to no potentiality, then this means that if "nothing" exists, then there is no potentiality for no universe that begins to exist. One could just claim that the universe is logically necessary, based on the same potentiality argument. Of course, it doesn't matter, because there is no reason why the laws of logic exists, if "nothing" does.

Nothing can't become something without change any more than a chair can stop being a chair without change.

False-analogy. Like I said above, when you can fill the 'x' variable with "something", this is where your whole argument falls apart. A chair is "something", not "nothing". Acting like they are the same, actually destroys your argument.


Just to preface a quick objection, suppose you say:

"If nothing exists, the laws of logic don't exist and thus cannot prevent a something from nothing."

My first point would be to point out that this would make logical laws self-contradictory -

No they would't. It would just make logical laws useless when dealing with "nothing". If you are claiming that the laws of logic can exist, if "nothing" does, then this means the laws of logic = "nothing". Arguing that the laws of logic = "nothing", craps on logic a lot more than my argument.

they would have to flout their own rules to come into existence (see above).

This does not follow....


Second, logical laws aren't things which exist. They describe the nature of all things that could exist.

Either they are something or nothing. If they are something, then how can they exist if "nothing" exists? If they are "nothing", then it's the same as non-existence, and you just threw logic out the window.

To put it another way, they're not things with an essence, they are the essence of all things.

How can "nothing" be the essence of all things? If the laws of logic are not "nothing", then how can you say they hold if "nothing" exists?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:49:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 7:28:45 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/14/2013 5:59:51 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 5:55:02 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.:

What does come from nothing? The answer is easy. I am going by the same evidence you are, that's all we see.

This doesn't address what justification there is for the notion that something cannot come from nothing. How does observation from within space-time entail necessary truths about nothing?:

How can ignoring your eyes and common sense validate your question?

We have never observed "nothing". Thus, there is nothing we have observed with our eyes within space-time that could lead to the conclusion that something cannot come from nothing. Also, if "nothing" exists, then neither do any rules of common sense. If anything, expecting "nothing" to adhere to "common sense" when "common sense" doesn't exist if "nothing" exists, ironically, goes against common sense lol
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:50:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:21:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

If "nothing" exists, then The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason do not exist. Why should "nothing" adhere to principles that don't exist?
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:11:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:50:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:21:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

If "nothing" exists, then The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason do not exist. Why should "nothing" adhere to principles that don't exist?

Those are not things, they are abstract ideas.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:15:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:11:28 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:50:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:21:12 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/14/2013 2:04:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
To justify cosmological arguments for God, theists will often argue that something cannot come form nothing. I'm just curious, what could possibly be offered to support that conclusion as necessary, or even plasusible? Thank you.

The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason

If "nothing" exists, then The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason do not exist. Why should "nothing" adhere to principles that don't exist?

Those are not things, they are abstract ideas.

They are not ideas, but prohibitors.

Also, if they are nothing, then that equates to non-existence (that is what "nothing" actually is). You just basically destroyed The First Law of Thermodynamics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason, by inadvertently arguing they do not exist.