A reasoned argument to suggest that God probably exists

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, I thought you might question that definition So how would you define 'nothing'? Because the only workable definition I could think of was 'that which doesn't exist'. It seems to me that any other definition would make 'nothing' into 'something', which would undermine your entire argument.

The definition of nothingness is when no thing exists.

Simply by definition, to be able to test if 'something can come from nothing', we would have to have a state of nothingness to begin the test, which I'm saying is a logical impossibility bearing in mind that the state of nothingness I'm trying to imagine (even though it's nonsensical), can have no space, no dimensions, no time, no light, no laws, no nothing, it can't even have observation, so yeah, for that reason I don't see testing it as extremely difficult, I see it as impossible, because we're talking about 'nothingness' after all, it just doesn't exist.

I agree that 'having' a 'state' of nothingness precludes testing, but I disagree that that is the only way to test the idea.

Why does 'nothingness' not exist? Again, you're going to have to give me your definition of what 'nothingness' is, because maybe you have a different way of defining it?

If everything that exists no longer existed, the result is nothingness (the limits of English tenses notwithstanding).

 

[underpressure]

The definition of nothingness is when no thing exists.

Okay, we're on the same page, and so we can agree that a state of nothingness, at this moment anyway, does not exist?

I agree that 'having' a 'state' of nothingness precludes testing, but I disagree that that is the only way to test the idea.

Any other suggestions then?

If everything that exists no longer existed, the result is nothingness (the limits of English tenses notwithstanding).

How can a state of nothingness exist though, because if nothing truly existed then not even nothingness can exist in these conditions, it just seems to me a logical impossibility and a nonsensical idea.

Even if the above doesn't make sense if we agree that our existence proves the state of nothingness does not exist at this moment, how can we know if nothingness can ever be a possibility?

No matter how much knowledge we acquire, you'd never be able to say with certainty that 'this' came from nothing, because we might just have a gap in our knowledge, and this idea kind of feels to me like how theists use God to fill in the blanks, but it's even worse, because at least with the God idea there is a sliver of hope that as our knowledge expands we might stumble upon evidence of an intelligent creator, where as this idea, I don't know how it would even be possible to stumble upon evidence of 'nothingness'.

I take your point though that this idea can't be completely ruled out, but it wont ever be ruled in either, so it makes me think this idea in particular is not worth anyone spending any time thinking about, but it is interesting though!

And the thing is, you could come up with the craziest batchit ideas imaginable and there would still be a possibility that any of those crazy thoughts could be proved true no matter how remote, but this idea, I don't see how it can be proved to be true, which maybe makes it the craziest of all ideas...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, we're on the same page, and so we can agree that a state of nothingness, at this moment anyway, does not exist?

Maybe. Saying it does not exist implies that it's a discrete thing that might exist; it's like saying numbers don't exist - they don't, but the phrase carries unwanted implications.

Otherwise, yes, we're on the same page.

Any other suggestions then?

Nope. But the onus isn't on me.

How can a state of nothingness exist though, because if nothing truly existed then not even nothingness can exist in these conditions, it just seems to me a logical impossibility and a nonsensical idea.

See above. Nothingness isn't a 'thing' that can or can't exist, it's the name we give for the idea that no thing exists.

Even if the above doesn't make sense if we agree that our existence proves the state of nothingness does not exist at this moment, how can we know if nothingness can ever be a possibility?

Because, unless disproven, it's a possibility by default.

No matter how much knowledge we acquire, you'd never be able to say with certainty that 'this' came from nothing, because we might just have a gap in our knowledge, and this idea kind of feels to me like how theists use God to fill in the blanks, but it's even worse, because at least with the God idea there is a sliver of hope that as our knowledge expands we might stumble upon evidence of an intelligent creator, where as this idea, I don't know how it would even be possible to stumble upon evidence of 'nothingness'.

I take your point though that this idea can't be completely ruled out, but it wont ever be ruled in either, so it makes me think this idea in particular is not worth anyone spending any time thinking about, but it is interesting though!

You say it's not worth thinking about, yet we've both been doing a lot of thinking about it, no?

And the thing is, you could come up with the craziest batchit ideas imaginable and there would still be a possibility that any of those crazy thoughts could be proved true no matter how remote, but this idea, I don't see how it can be proved to be true, which maybe makes it the craziest of all ideas...

The point about this idea, though, is that it succinctly answers the question of "Why something rather than nothing" - if nothing, then something. If something, then something. Either way, something.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

He's also assuming that any causation for this 'beginning' must be God. No reason to think such.

Get out of here, 2 facts that will lead to us to Factual conclusions, and note I'm only using facts. The Cause of the universe is Timeless and Spaceless as started Space and Time and at least can exist without them. since Timeless, is Changeless as no time = no change.

Since Changeless is Immaterial, as Changeless material cannot cause anything and material is ever changing.

Since Timeless and Changeless is Eternal and Beginningless as a Beginning means a cause and a cause is a change. since Beginningless is Uncaused. which is basically The First Uncaused Cause.

1, Matches God's description to a tee.

2, First Uncaused Cause Directly Caused the universe, God is a First Uncaused Cause who Directly Caused the universe.

3, Fine Tuning proves The Cause is Intelligent.

4, Can be only one of 2 Immaterial Properties, Abstract Objects such as numbers, or a Mind. Abstract objects do not cause anything, therefore a Mind.

5, Scientific or Personal explanations, no science before universe, therefore Personal Cause.

6, 2 types of causes, Purpose or Accident. Accidents require a prior cause, The First Uncaused Cause has no cause, therefore caused on Purpose.

7, Failure of any "naturalist" theory as "naturalism" is impossible, as 1, The Cause created nature, therefore Supernatural, and 2, Nature did not exist before big bang.

-universe did not cause itself as it would have already have had to exist in order to cause.

-nothing causes, nothing, and the Quantum Vaccum is not empty space, therefore the Quantum Mechanics of the gaps is destroyed.

7, Creation ex nihilo Confirms The Bible Creation as a Fact, God exists and God is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Because, unless disproven, it's a possibility by default.

Nope, actually Impossible as nothing can only Factually cause, nothing. nothing is, nothing. your "nothing causes nothing" is a Scientifically disproven myth, and you call yourself a physicist...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nope, actually Impossible as nothing can only Factually cause, nothing.

Prove it.

nothing is, nothing.

Indeed, but I don't think you quite grasp the concept.

your "nothing causes nothing" is a Scientifically disproven myth,

By all means, cite your proof.

and you call yourself a physicist...

You've figured that much out, I'm impressed.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Prove it.

1, Never has it been observed that something can come into being out of literally nothing.

2, When something comes into existence it has a reason, the reason is the cause, the cause is therefore something and not nothing as something needs to be caused by a property already in existence.

nothing causes nothing, it has no property to do so. so the only thing nothing can cause is the properties it already has, nothing!

God on the other hand does, as He can make anything possible, proven when He therefore can and did create the universe, out of nothing. He's Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived and therefore can create out of nothing.

nothing however is just that, nothing, so if as you claim "nothing would cause something" then it needs an external property, but 1, nothing has no property and 2, nothing has no eternal property, so your "nothing causes something" is impossible.

There you go, you can either admit nothing causes, nothing or that nothing could cause something with an external property rendering it to be something rather than nothing.

You've figured that much out, I'm impressed.

Whoever certified you as a physicist needs their license revoked as you are extremely unscientific and do damage on this forum and the scientific community, trying to ruin peoples faith with disproven "naturalistic" myths or you're just not really a physicist but just some "atheist" on the internet acting smart, because I'm always beating you in debates, if you were a physicist you would #1 be Theist and #2 beat me in debates.

I'll choose the latter. if you're a physicist then I'm Einstein.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1, Never has it been observed that something can come into being out of literally nothing.

Prior to 1900, wireless telecommunications hadn't been observed, either. Clearly "I haven't seen it, therefore it's impossible" isn't a valid argument.

0/1.

2, When something comes into existence it has a reason...

Prove it.

0/2

nothing causes nothing, it has no property to do so. so the only thing nothing can cause is the properties it already has, nothing!

Incorrect. The fact that there are no properties to be a cause, just means there's no discrete cause. That there is no thing means there is no thing to prevent spontaneous creation. The onus is on you to prove that properties and things are absolutely always required - an onus you've thus far failed to meet.

0/3

God on the other hand does, as He can make anything possible, proven when He therefore can and did create the universe, out of nothing. He's Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived and therefore can create out of nothing.

The ontological argument is a clever argument, but you are aware that it doesn't work, right?

0/4

nothing however is just that, nothing, so if as you claim "nothing would cause something" then it needs an external property, but 1, nothing has no property and 2, nothing has no eternal property, so your "nothing causes something" is impossible.

Only if your claim, "it needs an external property", is true, which you've yet to prove.

0/5

There you go, you can either admit nothing causes, nothing or that nothing could cause something with an external property rendering it to be something rather than nothing.

Since you haven't proven anything of the sort, I'm still waiting.

Whoever certified you as a physicist needs their license revoked as you are extremely unscientific and do damage on this forum and the scientific community, trying to ruin peoples faith with disproven "naturalistic" myths or you're just not really a physicist but just some "atheist" on the internet acting smart, because I'm always beating you in debates, if you were a physicist you would #1 be Theist and #2 beat me in debates.

Ad hominems are the last resort of a desperate man.

 

[Tiberius]

1, Never has it been observed that something can come into being out of literally nothing.

Ever heard of virtual particles or quantum vacuum fluctuations?

2, When something comes into existence it has a reason, the reason is the cause, the cause is therefore something and not nothing as something needs to be caused by a property already in existence.

What causes an atom to break down in radioactive decay? That has no cause.

nothing causes nothing, it has no property to do so. so the only thing nothing can cause is the properties it already has, nothing!

By this logic, two gases can't combine to form a liquid, but hey, water.

God on the other hand does, as He can make anything possible, proven when He therefore can and did create the universe, out of nothing. He's Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived and therefore can create out of nothing.

This sounds like a slogan, not anything that can tell me anything useful...

Anyway, I can think of something greater than God.

nothing however is just that, nothing, so if as you claim "nothing would cause something" then it needs an external property, but 1, nothing has no property and 2, nothing has no eternal property, so your "nothing causes something" is impossible.

On what do you base this conclusion?

There you go, you can either admit nothing causes, nothing or that nothing could cause something with an external property rendering it to be something rather than nothing.

False duality.

Whoever certified you as a physicist needs their license revoked as you are extremely unscientific and do damage on this forum and the scientific community, trying to ruin peoples faith with disproven "naturalistic" myths or you're just not really a physicist but just some "atheist" on the internet acting smart, because I'm always beating you in debates, if you were a physicist you would #1 be Theist and #2 beat me in debates.

What qualifications do you have to make this judgement?

I'll choose the latter. if you're a physicist then I'm Einstein.

Reduced to childish insults now?

 

[Ken-1122]

Get out of here, 2 facts that will lead to us to Factual conclusions, and note I'm only using facts. The Cause of the universe is Timeless and Spaceless

How do you know the Universe has a cause?

Ken

 

[super animator]

What causes an atom to break down in radioactive decay? That has no cause.

Sorry, buts that's technically incorrect, it's the result of an unstable nuclei because it doesn't have enough binding energy to hold it together permanently.
Source

 

[Tiberius]

Sorry, buts that's technically incorrect, it's the result of an unstable nuclei because it doesn't have enough binding energy to hold it together permanently.
Source

Yes, but you cannot predict when it will happen. There is no event which causes the decay of an atom to occur at the moment when it does.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry, buts that's technically incorrect, it's the result of an unstable nuclei because it doesn't have enough binding energy to hold it together permanently.

Err, actually, that's incorrect. They have enough binding energy - if they didn't, they wouldn't be bound. The issue is that quantum tunnelling allows them to escape the potential well into which their bound, without going up the hill - they tunnel through it.

Source

High school physics is necessarily simplified for the audience it's aimed at, and in this case, the conceptually difficult nuances of quantum decay is removed for the audience. For a more complete understanding, read a peer reviewed paper (such as this or this). If you can't, or won't, even Wikipedia gives a better explanation:

"Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type)."
​

In other words, there is sufficient energy to hold on to the particles, but only by a very small margin. That margin is small enough that vacuum fluctuations can provide enough of an 'umph' to cause the decay event. The actual moment of decay is therefore unknown, and more importantly, unknowable.

In other words, the chain of causality abruptly ends, contrary to classical philosophy (and all manner of theological arguments).

 

[super animator]

For a more complete understanding, read a peer reviewed paper (such as this or this). If you can't, or won't, even Wikipedia gives a better explanation:

"Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type)."
​

In other words, there is sufficient energy to hold on to the particles, but only by a very small margin. That margin is small enough that vacuum fluctuations can provide enough of an 'umph' to cause the decay event. The actual moment of decay is therefore unknown, and more importantly, unknowable.

In other words, the chain of causality abruptly ends, contrary to classical philosophy (and all manner of theological arguments).

You know you can't expect people to read those peer review sources if we had to buy them you know.
Regardless, I disagree that just because we couldn't determine or will never determine means that it doesn't have a cause.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You know you can't expect people to read those peer review sources if we had to buy them you know.

I keep a subscription open, peer reviewed papers are fascinating. And besides, they present the abstract so you can see the overview of the experiment and the conclusions they got. You can't read the nitty-gritty, but you can read the important bits, at least with regards to the discussion. I also cited Wikipedia, which, despite what critics predict, is noted for its scientific and mathematical accuracy.

That is, even the abstract, which is given for free, demonstrates my point.

Regardless, I disagree that just because we couldn't determine or will never determine means that it doesn't have a cause.

Science begs to differ.

Quantum mechanics really does conclude that it's not just a case of technological limitation - it's that such facts don't exist.

One of the uncertainty principles says that there is a finite limit to just how accurately you can simultaneously measure a particle's position and momentum. "It has a distinct position and momentum and we just can't measure it due to technological limits" - that's incorrect. It really doesn't have single hard values for its position and momentum.

So, to disagree that there isn't a cause, that it's all just a human limitation, is kind of the wrong way to look at things. It really is the case that no cause exists, it really is the case

 

[super animator]

Science begs to differ.

Don't act arrogant on this, were just disagreeing on this.

One of the uncertainty principles says that there is a finite limit to just how accurately you can simultaneously measure a particle's position and momentum. "It has a distinct position and momentum and we just can't measure it due to technological limits" - that's incorrect. It really doesn't have single hard values for its position and momentum.

I remember reading on the origin of principle, and I know that it's uncertain due to to that fact that it's so sensitive to energy that it changes the outcome when we measure it. In this case it's nature that prevent from measuring accurately.

So, to disagree that there isn't a cause, that it's all just a human limitation, is kind of the wrong way to look at things. It really is the case that no cause exists, it really is the case

That the case you like to be, not necessarily is. Why it so difficult that we simply can't determine the cause, because of it's indeterminate nature?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't act arrogant on this, were just disagreeing on this.

I'm not acting arrogant. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the full body of modern physics.

It's like disagreeing that general relativity works. You can disagree all you want, but you're disagree with much more than just my own opinion, and the fact remains that Sat Navs do indeed function because of general relativity.

I remember reading on the origin of principle, and I know that it's uncertain due to to that fact that it's so sensitive to energy that it changes the outcome when we measure it. In this case it's nature that prevent from measuring accurately.

If your reading is anything like the previous source you cited, it's sadly just as overly simplified. It's easy to explain to kids that uncertainty principles arise out of sensitivity, just as it's easy to explain to them that electrons are little balls that whizz in nice circles around the core of atoms. The truth is conceptually and mathematically more difficult.

I fear you're over-relying on over-simplified information. I've already given you more up-to-date information - even Wikipedia offers this.

That the case you like to be, not necessarily is. Why it so difficult that we simply can't determine the cause, because of it's indeterminate nature?

It's not difficult at all - it's just simply untrue. It's not difficult to imagine that classical mechanics reigns the universe, but the fact is it doesn't. It's not difficult to imagine a world where drinking a cup of tea completely cures every disease from cancer to amputation - but the fact is, that's not the case.

And likewise, though it's easy to imagine that uncertainty in quantum mechanics is a technological limitation, the fact is, that's not true.

 

[Tiberius]

You know you can't expect people to read those peer review sources if we had to buy them you know.
Regardless, I disagree that just because we couldn't determine or will never determine means that it doesn't have a cause.

It's not a matter of "There might be a cause, we just haven't found it yet." it's a matter of quantum mechanics telling us that it is impossible to predict accurately.

We'll never be able to say, "This atom will decay in 3... 2... 1!" We aren't lacking some knowledge that will allow us to do it. Quantum mechanics tells us that it is always going to be impossible to determine, even if we had all the knowledge in the universe. At the tiniest levels of reality, events are probabilistic, not causal. There's a huge amount of experimentally observed data that shows that quantum mechanics is correct.

 

[super animator]

It's not a matter of "There might be a cause, we just haven't found it yet." it's a matter of quantum mechanics telling us that it is impossible to predict accurately.

We'll never be able to say, "This atom will decay in 3... 2... 1!" We aren't lacking some knowledge that will allow us to do it. Quantum mechanics tells us that it is always going to be impossible to determine, even if we had all the knowledge in the universe. At the tiniest levels of reality, events are probabilistic, not causal. There's a huge amount of experimentally observed data that shows that quantum mechanics is correct.

You and wikca seemed to misunderstand me... I never stated "There might be a cause, we just haven't found it yet." I stated "Even though we could never predict it accurately, and/or never find the cause it doesn't necessarily mean there's no cause at all.

 

[Tiberius]

I fear you are misunderstanding me.

Quantum mechanics tells us very clearly that there is no specific cause. It is probabilistic - we can only ever determine the probability of the atom decaying.