A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

"What nothing is"... so you mean some kind of definition? Some kind of logical rule that defines what something is and what something cannot be?

Nothing is complete lack; nothing is the absence of anything.

 

[Freodin]

Nothing is complete lack; nothing is the absence of anything.

So you say. But what is it that makes this definition valid?

 

[tcampen]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

I think God can be known, but that it is a purely subjective experience. Just like a person can know love and beauty, but not expect others to all agree on what to love or find beautiful. Whether that corresponds to an immaterial reality I think is largely irrelevant, for such is completely unverifiable by any objective methodology. So when it comes to metaphysical claims, all are on equal footing and have equal credibility - so long as one recognizes it should remain personal to the individual. As such, I would no more take away the personal revelation of a born-again Christian than an enlightened Buddhist. I think both have found profound truth as it related to them personally. But the moment someone attempts to assert their personal revelation is true for everyone, THEN I have issues.

It's like arguing that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream as a true statement for all humanity. We'd be amused at such an effort for the absurdity of it. I do the same with metaphysical and spiritual claims.

 

[MaxP]

So you say. But what is it that makes this definition valid?

NO - thing.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

If something can't come from nothing, then where did G-d come from?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

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.

You previously discounted the premise that something can in fact come from nothing (or at least your interpretation of nothing) and then in the same sentence you posit that indeed something can come from nothing as long as your god concept is involved. Your logic is flawed and so is your hypothesis.

 

[MaxP]

You previously discounted the premise that something can in fact come from nothing (or at least your interpretation of nothing) and then in the same sentence you posit that indeed something can come from nothing as long as your god concept is involved. Your logic is flawed and so is your hypothesis.

You keep reading whatever you damn well please.
I have clearly stated if God exists there is not nothing; when God created the universe it was something from something, not something form nothing.

Your reading whatever you want to read, not what I write.

And what do you mean my interpretation of nothing?
talk about shifting goalposts!
Nothing:
no thing; not anything; naught

 

[Freodin]

NO - thing.

Well... try just a little more and you got it.

No-thing makes this definition valid. "Nothing" means no definitions, no logic, no rules as well.

So no matter how much you try to claim that "nothing cannot cause something to exist".... these conclusions do also not exist.

 

[Wyzaard]

I suppose in answer to you an Wyzaard, who says I need to look outside reason, looking outside reason, even in pointing to concrete facts, is wholly impossible, because one, by reason, has deduced these facts.

How does any of this verify reason as metaphysically authoritative and/or a justified self-verifier? Sounds like...

I suppose I do go on the assumption the human reason is valid; sue me. It has a decent track record(yeah, in a lot of cases, not so much, but those cases generally weren't valid).

... Hooey! What 'decent track record' for metaphysical divination has reason ever been shown to possess? I call shens, sir!!!!!

I suppose I don't see why a God would create us without an ability to know Him, or determine anything about Him, with an intellect he gave us; and I don't see why we would develop reason and intellect if we were not able to discern truth from it, about all facts of the universe.

Well, I suppose you're not very imaginative or honest with yourself. "You can't always get what you want", the Stones would say.

This glaring problem still stands: why and how should we believe that we can know metaphysical truth?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You keep reading whatever you damn well please.
I have clearly stated if God exists there is not nothing; when God created the universe it was something from something, not something form nothing.

Your reading whatever you want to read, not what I write.

And what do you mean my interpretation of nothing?
talk about shifting goalposts!
Nothing:
no thing; not anything; naught

First of all you say that god created the something present where in fact there was nothing but god as a concept would have to have come from somewhere so that would be something from nothing and something ordered and sentient from nothing is extremely implausible.

Where we see nothing there can be many things we have yet to understand such as dark matter. So it is but your interpretation of nothing.

 

[Wyzaard]

My reasoning doesn't hinge on God's existence to prove God's existence; it goes off certain truths of the universe.

And particularly the presumption that one can 'know' these 'certain' truths... because god wouldn't pull the wool over your eyes, of course.

Ergo, god? Pffft.

 

[MaxP]

And particularly the presumption that one can 'know' these 'certain' truths... because god wouldn't pull the wool over your eyes, of course.

Ergo, god? Pffft.

Yeah, I presume reason applies. Why not?

 

[MaxP]

First of all you say that god created the something present where in fact there was nothing but god as a concept would have to have come from somewhere so that would be something from nothing and something ordered and sentient from nothing is extremely implausible.

No, God always existed, He did not come from nothing. Again, you're taking conceptions you got from others and applying them to me.

Where we see nothing there can be many things we have yet to understand such as dark matter. So it is but your interpretation of nothing.

Honestly, do you even bother to read what I say?
Nothing is nothing, there is no interpretation. A place where there is something is not nothing, never was, and never will be. All of existence is something; it exists.

 

[cantata]

I think what some people are trying to point out, MaxP, is that if you really mean that once there was nothing, then at that time none of the rules like "things don't spontaneously appear" can be assumed to have existed then either. We don't have any nothingness around these days to know what happens when you do have it. So assuming that something can't come from nothing is overstepping our ability to make educated guesses.

 

[Freodin]

I think what some people are trying to point out, MaxP, is that if you really mean that once there was nothing, then at that time none of the rules like "things don't spontaneously appear" can be assumed to have existed then either. We don't have any nothingness around these days to know what happens when you do have it. So assuming that something can't come from nothing is overstepping our ability to make educated guesses.

Exactly.

Perhaps the rub is indeed the term "nothing". Well, I am not set on it. That´s why I used "chaos" instead.

And THAT is the real point - a valid alternative to the "eternal God who willed everything into existence".

 

[OphidiaPhile]

No, God always existed, He did not come from nothing. Again, you're taking conceptions you got from others and applying them to me.

That is a ridiculous premise that can only seem logical to those that rely on circular reasoning.

Honestly, do you even bother to read what I say?
Nothing is nothing, there is no interpretation. A place where there is something is not nothing, never was, and never will be. All of existence is something; it exists.

I most certainly read what I say and you cannot for a fact quantify nothing as a complete absence of anything since science cannot even do that.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not from nothing but by nothing.

"By nothing" implies that nothingness has an active role; it does not.

Various means;
~ http://www.ratical.org/radiation/NRBE/NRBE3.html

That article briefly overviews critical fission reactions (that is, radioactive decay which triggers the fission of other, nearby, fissile material). With regards to our discussion, we need to be more accurate as to what's going on: the nucleus before absorbing a neutron is 'stable' only insofar as it has a very low probability of radioactive decay; the nucleus after absorption is 'unstable' insofar as it has a very high probability of decay. Classically, one might see this as the absorption event causing the decay event, but this is not what's actually going on: all absorption does is raise the probability of decay.

So I ask you again: what event causes the decay of a radioactive particle?

I'll take a bit from an analysis of Parmenides.

"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."

Absurd. Do you really think that the human mind can comprehend everything? Do you really think that, if I can't think of it, it doesn't exist?

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.

On the contrary, we have 'nothingness' to 'somethingness'. And it's worth pointing out that any analogy is fundamentally flawed here: there is nothing in human experience comparable to nothingness.

The apparently causeless items would not occur unless certain conditions were met; they have basis.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Above.

The above proves nothing. It merely asserts, once again, that something can't come from nothing.

Anything that can be or not be is caused, or moved.

Yet another unjustified assertion.

It does not care if it exists or not.

'Care'? I think you should be careful (no pun intended) when conflating nebulous colloquialisms with well-defined philosophical terminology.

Yes, but the chain of causation continues for the breeze; existence is different.

Why?

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.

The scientific community disagrees with you. It's worth pointing out that physics often finds that reality is counter-intuitive: the speed of light is constant, matter is made of atoms, we see only a small fraction of EM radiation, the fundaments of reality are probabilistic (as opposed to deterministic), etc. This trend continues in other scientific fields: all life on Earth (including the human species) is descended from a single common ancestor, the Earth is unfathomably old, the Moon is receeding, bats are mammals, there are things larger than infinity, etc.

So what 'seems impossible' is by no means an indication of what is actually possible. The unvierse is far queerer than we might suppose, or than we can suppose.

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?

Preciesly. So why, then, are you so insistent that something can't come from nothing? Is it not possible that there is much more to the universe beyond out current understanding?

From something.

And what is that something?

Not necessarily, there is more than one way to think teleologically. You can point to the universes causation, the fact a cause would not cause unless it meant to, infer that cause must have been purposeful, then try to determine if the universe is also.

That's what I said: teleology refers to design and purpose. You, however, are deferring to the cosmological argument to determine whether it has a cause at all.

Because that would defeat the purpose of a first cause.

Not really. These 'prior substances' could not have any events pertaining to them, or be part of a wholly seperate chain of cause-and-effect, or could indeed constitute the First Cause itself. Who's to say it isn't some esoteric machination?

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.

Then show how 1) the concluded entities must be omnipotent, and 2) there can only be one ominpotence (or otherwise that these ominpotences are one and the same).

I don't claim to grasp the physics behind it, I'm no good that way.

Then why on Earth

Again, randomness in the realm of something does not prove something can come from nothing.

Right. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

 

[TeddyKGB]

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 is more properly the system of determining argumentation and inference. I would not in all cases equate sound logic with "right thinking."

Logic and reason are integral in every aspect of everything we do, like it or not.

More or less.

I meant a valid means of deducing truths.

Deduction is a minor part of our reasoning repertoire; new information is only attainable via induction.

They do, but the question was whether we can know about metaphysical truths.

I am not sure we have sufficiently defined "metaphysical truths" to the extent that we can comfortably treat it as an empistemic category.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I am not sure we have sufficiently defined "metaphysical truths" to the extent that we can comfortably treat it as an empistemic category.

I think this deserves repeating. I for one do not believe that religion in general, and the concepts of mysticism from early human animism and beyond has properly established that their use of the term deserves merit.

 

[cantata]

As an aside: I'm pretty sure you couldn't have two omnipotent beings, as they would severely infringe on one another's omnipotence.