Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't see how the assertion nothing can be everything makes any sense.You are simply to deeply set in your "traditional" thinking. Of course it is nonsensical! There can be no sense in "nothing".
But that does not mean that what I said is untrue.
But when we look at facts we use our reason when we believe they are true. As is noted in skepticism, what is to say we actually exists beyond the fact we can think? And what is the "science of right thinking," but logic? Logic and reason are integral in every aspect of everything we do, like it or not.One does not deduce facts; one may use facts to deduce a conclusion, but what we call facts are most often empirical things.
I meant a valid means of deducing truths.I don't understand what it means to say reason is valid. If what you mean is not "always true," then it would be more accurate to say reason is useful or, as Hume would acknowledge, inevitable.
They do, but the question was whether we can know about metaphysical truths.No idea. But I think you have overstepped the question of whether reasoning and intellect require God at all.
My reasoning doesn't hinge on God's existence to prove God's existence; it goes off certain truths of the universe.
My reasoning is correct, therefore God exists.
I don't see how the assertion nothing can be everything makes any sense.
If I have a space on my counter with no breadpan on it, what's stopping it from being a space with a breadpan on it? NOTHING! By gee, chaos.
Oh wait, no it's not.
Not from nothing but by nothing.Long post. Be ye warned...
Nevertheless, that something arises from nothing.
Various means;And what, pray tell, might that event be?
fun fun fun.Well, no, but we're discussing that at a later point.
I'll take a bit from an analysis of Parmenides.Invalid? Wholly impossible? Such bold claims require bold proofs: what is your disproof of 'something from nothing'?
Nothing is absolutely nothing; something comes about always from non-being to being; not-tall to tall, etc. But nothing is absolute there is not not-tall(or anything) from which to progress being; no change can occur in that which has nothing to change.His point is that one cannot conceive of what is not, since one can neither think nor speak about nothing. Nothing cannot be, therefore, since it cannot be conceived, and only what can be conceived can be.
The apparently causeless items would not occur unless certain conditions were met; they have basis.A basis? Whatever are you on about?
Above.Says you. What proof do you have that nothing can arise from nothingness?
And don't use the "Well, what proof do you have?" counter. You make claim, you provide the proof.
Anything that can be or not be is caused, or moved.Only if your presumption is correct, which the evidence does not support.
It does not care if it exists or not.And what do you mean, 'indifferent'? Are you referring to potentiality? Agency? Causality?
Yes, but the chain of causation continues for the breeze; existence is different.A stiff breeze that blows a ball off a cliff performs the same function, so I don't see the significance of this 'indifference'. But you could argue that the breeze is the cause itself, right?
I'm no quantum physicist, but random events within the realm of something don't seem impossible; and most definitely are not something from nothing.While that's true, there are nonetheless uncaused events: quantum tunnelling, for instance. A quantum particle sitting in a potential well doesn't have enough energy to overcome said potential, yet its associated wavefunction 'leaks' through. Since the potential is finite, there is a finite (albeit abysmal) chance that the particle can be found outside the well.
Alrighty then.This is in stark contrast to classical mechanics, wherein a particle in a potential well must have sufficient energy before it can escape.
Yes, but when those conditions are not met it is a guarantee they will not appear. Anyway, how can you call an event causeless and go home? Is it not possible there is much more to the universe beyond our current understanding?Actually, they are: though they require certain conditions, meeting them is not a guarantee that they will spontaneously appear. The whole point of spontaneity is that there is no cause.
From something.But if they're not a case of "something from nothing", then whence do they come?
Err... no. Teleology concerns design and purpose. This 'indifference' you keep mentioning doesn't seem to have anything to do with the teleological argument. To summarise it:
- The appearence of design in something is proof of the existence of its (intelligent) designer.
- The universe appears designed.
- Therefore, the universe has a (intelligent) designer.
Because that would defeat the purpose of a first cause.Who says there's no prior substances? If this nebulously defined 'God' exists, why can't other nebulous things?
Nope, Aquinas arguments tie the things together by proving each aspect must be all-powerful(btw, prime mover and first cause are the same), and to say they are seperate would be contradictory.Actually, it's not. First, I never mentioned the Christian God. Second, I was pointing out that Aquinas never explained why the entities concluded in each of the arguments are, in fact, one and the same.
We have a Prime Mover, a First Cause, an Intelligent Designer, etc. You seem to just assume that these are all the same being, which you call 'God'.
I contend that this is just another assumption you have to make for Aquinas' arguments to works.
I don't claim to grasp the physics behind it, I'm no good that way.Perhaps, but these events are truly random. I don't think you quite grasp the physics behind it, but I assure you that, quantum mechanically, the universe is probabilistic.
The point was the absence of a breadpan - suppose the breadpan is something.That is what I meant with the "traditional" meaning... what you have in this case is "no breadpan" - not nothing. You have "a space on my counter" - is that "nothing"?
When you first read about these arguments (and forgive me for assuming you didn't come up with them on your own) were you already a believer? Did these merely reinforce what you thought? Have you ever seen these arguments through the eyes of a skeptic?
Of course I didn't come up with them.
Did you come up with half the things you argue for?
In answer to your questions, yes, yes, yes/no.
As do I, I just find certain arguments compelling. I put my own spin on them also.Depends on what you mean by come up with. More often than not I'm typing from my own thoughts on the matter, not quoting anything specific. I've read a lot of books, and have been influenced by those. But I usually try to put everything into words of my own.
What?The thing is, as I said, if God didn't exist, your argument fails. It doesn't matter if your reasoning is sound, it does rest on God existing. If he didn't, then there would have to be another explanation. It also rests on our current understanding. If we learned more, we might be able to scientifically refute some of the reasoning.
As do I, I just find certain arguments compelling. I put my own spin on them also.
What?
So you're saying if my conclusion is false, the argument fails? OF COURSE!
That's true with anything, and does not make it circular.
And you refer to future knowledge to refute God; why?
I have stated there is a measure of faith involved; but that saying God is an invalid fairy tale is not true.Actually, all I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't conclude with 100% certainty, because clearly it is not a 100% proof. I'm also saying that a lot of arguments for the proof a God, such as the Uncaused Cause argument, do rely on our lack of knowledge. If we gained the knowledge, the argument could fail.
I don't know if God exists or not, but I'm sure that none of these "proofs" have convinced me.
I have stated there is a measure of faith involved; but that saying God is an invalid fairy tale is not true.
The point was the absence of a breadpan - suppose the breadpan is something.
The absence of it does not imply that absence will cause the breadpan.
Because your model causes nothing from something. Nothing can only beget nothing. Nothing implies nothing; nothing itself is the bar to something existence.But that point is incorrect. We are talking about "nothing"... not a space without breadpans.
Of course the absence of breadpans does not cause a breadpan to exist... but that is because there is something that prevents a breadpan from existing.
What you present here is an ordered state where a single item is non-existent. In my model, this ordered state does not exist. So how can your point be of any relevance to my model?
Nothing is absolutely nothing; something comes about always from non-being to being; not-tall to tall, etc. But nothing is absolute there is not not-tall(or anything) from which to progress being; no change can occur in that which has nothing to change.What makes you state that "nothing can only beget nothing"?
Nothing is absolutely nothing; something comes about always from non-being to being; not-tall to tall, etc. But nothing is absolute there is not not-tall(or anything) from which to progress being; no change can occur in that which has nothing to change.
Nothing. As in what nothing is.You make some absolute statements here... "no change can occur in that which has nothing to change".
But what do you base these statements on?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?