Because it's utterly unjustified... wish it all you want, that still doesn't make reason metaphysically authoritative.
Upvote
0
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.
Yeah, I presume reason applies. Why not?
Not necessarily. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible. If there are two omnipotences, then it is paradoxical for one to infringe on the omnipotence of the other; thus, they couldn't do it.As an aside: I'm pretty sure you couldn't have two omnipotent beings, as they would severely infringe on one another's omnipotence.
You make the assertion. Why is it unjustified? Prove yourself.Because it's utterly unjustified... wish it all you want, that still doesn't make reason metaphysically authoritative.
Yes, it's convulted, but saying by nothing implies nothing has an active role; not nothingness itself."By nothing" implies that nothingness has an active role; it does not.
I didn't say anything caused the decay, but the radioactivity of the particle itself was caused.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?
Not comprehend but at least conceive. And yes, most probably.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?
We never have nothingness to somethingness, and yes.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.
They are not something form nothing.And what does that have to do with anything?
And it can't. When there is nothing to change, it will not. Now, why, logically, can something come from nothing?The above proves nothing. It merely asserts, once again, that something can't come from nothing.
A true one. You can be or not be, you are caused. A plant can be or not be, a plant is caused. The Earth can be or not be, the Earth is caused.Yet another unjustified assertion.
It's the definition of indifference, the lack of say in the things existence.'Care'? I think you should be careful (no pun intended) when conflating nebulous colloquialisms with well-defined philosophical terminology.
Because existence as we know it is existence; the question is how existence as we know it came to be.Why?
I didn't say it seems impossible, I said it doesn't. The universe would naturally appear random. And I didn't claim anything about the oddness of existence; but that something from nothing is impossible. Something can not develop form that which has nothing to develop. It's really quite simple.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.
Is it not impossible for something to come from nothing?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?
The eternal first cause; existence.And what is that something?
Yes, like i said there is more than one way to think teleologically, why do you try to confine me to a little box so you can argue in your comfort zone?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.
Yes really. Any prior substance would be in itself the 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?
1) first mover would have caused the universe, and possess the power to do so. What where the rest you had problem with?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).
Right. We seem to be talking past each other.Then why on Earth
Right. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
We don't need nothing; we just need to know what something is.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.
Which is what I'm trying to say: they come from nothing. There is no thing from whence they came. By not cause did they arise.Yes, it's convulted, but saying by nothing implies nothing has an active role; not nothingness itself.
Indeed. Neutron absorption doesn't cause the particle to be radioactive. Rather, it just raises the probability of decay.I didn't say anything caused the decay, but the radioactivity of the particle itself was caused.
And why should the capabilities of the human pose any limitation on the true nature of the universe? Can you conceive the singularity of a black hole? The energy of supernovae? The size of atomic nuclei? The age of the Earth?Not comprehend but at least conceive. And yes, most probably.
What makes you so sure?We never have nothingness to somethingness,
Why does a 'basis', as you call it, preclude them being something from nothing.They are not something form nothing.
Why can't something come from nothing? Logically, there is nothing to stop it. Besides, we have only your insistence that such a phenomenon cannot occur. The onus is on you to justify your assertion, not on me to uphold to null hypothesis (specifically, that any given event is possible until proven otherwise).And it can't. When there is nothing to change, it will not. Now, why, logically, can something come from nothing?
I agree that some things can either exist or not exist, but such a property doesn't mean that it has a cause. Once again, you simply assert this bonus clause.A true one. You can be or not be, you are caused. A plant can be or not be, a plant is caused. The Earth can be or not be, the Earth is caused.
Perhaps, but what's your point? 'Something from nothing' doesn't require the 'something' to "have a say" in its existence (whatever that phrase might mean).It's the definition of indifference, the lack of say in the things existence.
That doesn't explain why existence is not subject to the same argument.Because existence as we know it is existence; the question is how existence as we know it came to be.
Actually, it's not: we are not talking about development, since that necessarily requires something to develop from. We're talking about something spontaneously coming into existence without cause. We have only your word that such an event cannot occur. No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem, the universe is under no obligation to make itself understandable to we humans.I didn't say it seems impossible, I said it doesn't. The universe would naturally appear random. And I didn't claim anything about the oddness of existence; but that something from nothing is impossible. Something can not develop form that which has nothing to develop. It's really quite simple.
Sure. But my point is that we don't know. We don't know whether it is possible or not. There is no reason to think that it can't, so we must in all intellectual honesty acknowledge that it is possible. Indeed, we even have empirical evidence that supports it. Why, then, do you continue to assert its impossibility?Is it not impossible for something to come from nothing?
And what makes you think this?The eternal first cause; existence.
Because you are using non-standard terminology, and you are using it inconsistently.Yes, like i said there is more than one way to think teleologically, why do you try to confine me to a little box so you can argue in your comfort zone?
Not necessarily. It might be part of the first cause. Who's to say that there is only one thing which causes the universe? Who's to say that the universe can only be caused by one thing and one thing alone?Yes really. Any prior substance would be in itself the first cause.
Perhaps, but that doesn't bely the existence of something prior to the universe.Because we are trying to determine the cause of the universe, logically.
I make no such assertion.You make the assertion that existence is a cycle; why?
Perhaps, but one does not need omnipotence to have the power to make the first move.1) first mover would have caused the universe, and possess the power to do so.
Ah, no, it doesn't. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible: it it wants it, and it's not logically paradoxical, then it occurs. This does not preclude the existence of other omnipotences.2) Omnipotence is the concept of all-powerful, the ability to do anything, and have all the power.
I didn't say it seems impossible, I said it doesn't. The universe would naturally appear random. And I didn't claim anything about the oddness of existence; but that something from nothing is impossible. Something can not develop form that which has nothing to develop. It's really quite simple.
There is a somthing from whence they came; the conditions that must be met, although the events themselves have no apparent cause.Which is what I'm trying to say: they come from nothing. There is no thing from whence they came. By not cause did they arise.
Alrighty then. You know more about this and it's kinda off topic anyway.Indeed. Neutron absorption doesn't cause the particle to be radioactive. Rather, it just raises the probability of decay.
My point is that there is no event which determines whether a compound nucleus is radioactive because any such nucleus can decay. It's just a question of probability. The odds that [sup]238[/sup]U decays are relatively low, whereas [sup]239[/sup]U has a much higher probability. Specifically, their respective half-lives are of the order of 10[sup]17[/sup]s and 10[sup]3[/sup]s.
Yes to all.And why should the capabilities of the human pose any limitation on the true nature of the universe? Can you conceive the singularity of a black hole? The energy of supernovae? The size of atomic nuclei? The age of the Earth?
How about infinity? Aleph-zero? i?
No, it represents an impairment of lack of understanding in the one person, like a color blind person.What if one person can conceive something, but another can't? Does it only half exist?
Nothing is the lack of something. By definition, lack of something does not give rise to that something.What makes you so sure?
Because that basis is something. Thus, not something from nothing.Why does a 'basis', as you call it, preclude them being something from nothing.
You are committing a logical fallacy.Why can't something come from nothing? Logically, there is nothing to stop it. Besides, we have only your insistence that such a phenomenon cannot occur. The onus is on you to justify your assertion, not on me to uphold to null hypothesis (specifically, that any given event is possible until proven otherwise).
Yes, it does. Name something that has nothing moving it into existence. And note; those apparently causeless events are moved, by the conditions that must be met for their existence.I agree that some things can either exist or not exist, but such a property doesn't mean that it has a cause. Once again, you simply assert this bonus clause.
Yes, it does. If something was indifferent to its existence, what caused it?Perhaps, but what's your point? 'Something from nothing' doesn't require the 'something' to "have a say" in its existence (whatever that phrase might mean).
It can be, but I disregard the cycle because I don't think infinite time solves the problem of dependent existence.That doesn't explain why existence is not subject to the same argument.
All right, if you're going to disregard logic and reason in arguing, then you disregard argument. And most naturalists would disagree, fyi.Actually, it's not: we are not talking about development, since that necessarily requires something to develop from. We're talking about something spontaneously coming into existence without cause. We have only your word that such an event cannot occur. No matter how counter-intuitive it may seem, the universe is under no obligation to make itself understandable to we humans.
1) We have no "empirical evidence that supports it," so if you want intellectual honesty, not a good place to go.Sure. But my point is that we don't know. We don't know whether it is possible or not. There is no reason to think that it can't, so we must in all intellectual honesty acknowledge that it is possible. Indeed, we even have empirical evidence that supports it. Why, then, do you continue to assert its impossibility?
Because a first cause would have to be immovable in and of itself, eternal.And what makes you think this?
You have a problem with my use of teleology?Because you are using non-standard terminology, and you are using it inconsistently.
If there were two things then there would be no first cause, but continued dependent existence.Not necessarily. It might be part of the first cause. Who's to say that there is only one thing which causes the universe? Who's to say that the universe can only be caused by one thing and one thing alone?
No, it doesn't.Perhaps, but that doesn't bely the existence of something prior to the universe.
You allude to it.I make no such assertion.
Yes, if one creates everything in the universe.Perhaps, but one does not need omnipotence to have the power to make the first move.
Not everything logically possible; everything.Ah, no, it doesn't. Omnipotence is the ability to do anything logically possible: it it wants it, and it's not logically paradoxical, then it occurs. This does not preclude the existence of other omnipotences.
God is defined as the essence of existence. He is existence; the fact of existence is what "caused" Him.When my daughter was 4 years old, she asked who made all the trees, mountains, etc. My wife replied, "God." Then my daughter asked, "Who made God?" to which my wife said, "Nobody, he always existed." My daughter cocked her head to the side for a moment, and finally said, "I think think they just made him up."
Not to reduce the discussion to a pre-school level, but my daughter's intuition has merit hear. These Kalam-style arguments for God creating the universe is so riddled with problems.
Where did God come from? To arbitrarily define God as eternal begs the question. Any issues with an infinite regress of a naturally created universe applies to God as well, for if god intentionally created the universe, there would be an infinite regress of thoughts that necessarily preceeded that creation.
Yes. But this cannot be eternal, there is a natural decay in all matter an systems. If it was eternal the decay would be rampant.Furthermore, to assert an immaterial being can create material is incoherent. We have no concept of intellegence outside the brain. We have no concept of being existing that does not have a material substance. Everything we know of that creates anything is material itself using pre-existing materials.
They're not thrown out were God is concerned, but applied to Him as the first cause.To have all these rules of logic applied to this issue, but then arbitrarily tossed out when applied to God seems like special pleading at its worst. Maybe my 4 year old was on to something.
I find this to be a game of redifining words whenever a challenge cannot be adequately addressed. "Existence" is not really a thing unto itself, but rather describes the state of something else. A thing either exists or does not exist, for example, but it would not make sense to state "existence exists". Using the term existence in the way you have is incoherent.God is defined as the essence of existence. He is existence; the fact of existence is what "caused" Him.
Why must any one thing be eternal? The Second Law may certainly apply to any closed system, but not necessarily to successive systems.Yes. But this cannot be eternal, there is a natural decay in all matter an systems. If it was eternal the decay would be rampant.
But just calling something a "first cause" does not really mean anything in and of itself, and the qualities attributed to such appears arbitrary, thus special pleading. An uncaused first cause may exist in the abstract, but I've really not seen any good reasons to thing such actually exists.They're not thrown out were God is concerned, but applied to Him as the first cause.
What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?
You make the assertion. Why is it unjustified? Prove yourself.
I assume reason applies because it applies to everything else.
But the conditions themselves simply make the spontaneity observable: the generation of particle-antiparticle pairs still occurs regardless. The Casimir effect is an experiment which demonstrates such a phenomenon.There is a somthing from whence they came; the conditions that must be met, although the events themselves have no apparent cause.
Actually, it's exactly on topic: you contest radioactivity as spontaneous by say that there exists some event which causes said radioactivity. I'm pointing out that, in fact, there is no such event: everything is radioactive to varying degrees.Alrighty then. You know more about this and it's kinda off topic anyway.
Then could it not be that everyone is impaired to one particular concept? Could it not be that our fleshy brains simply cannot conceive various things?No, it represents an impairment of lack of understanding in the one person, like a color blind person.
Non sequitur. Why does the definition of nothingness mean that somethingness cannot arise from it? Why can something only arise from something else?Nothing is the lack of something. By definition, lack of something does not give rise to that something.
But this "basis" isn't the cause. It doesn't trigger any event. The event occurs regardless of what's going on around it.Because that basis is something. Thus, not something from nothing.
That is simply your take on the origin of physical laws. It is by no means the only one, nor indeed the correct one. Indeed, even if you're right, this does not mean that things cannot pop into existence ex nihilo: who's to say what the laws governing electrons in such a situation are?You are committing a logical fallacy.
You assume since something comes along with rules to govern it, such as it cannot come from nothing, then if something does not exist those rules will not. Wrong. These laws are attached to the nature of something; it cannot come into existence ignoring those rules, or else it would violate itself.
Since we've never experienced nothingness, what makes you so sure?You assume the absence of something also means the absence of the rules of how something exists, but it doesn't. If something was to exist or come into existence, then it must follow its own laws for existence. Something doesn't ignore it's own rules when it comes about. Besides, nothing is the absence of something. Absence never leads to something.
I've named several: radioactive decay, quantum tunnelling, particle-antiparticle generation, etc.Yes, it does. Name something that has nothing moving it into existence. And note; those apparently causeless events are moved, by the conditions that must be met for their existence.
Who says it needs a cause at all, regardless of its indifference?Yes, it does. If something was indifferent to its existence, what caused it?
Disregard logic and reason? Please. It is by logic that I don't arbitrarily dismiss spontaneity.All right, if you're going to disregard logic and reason in arguing, then you disregard argument. And most naturalists would disagree, fyi.
That is not what I believe, and no it isn't.Also, if you believe the universe is this mysterious ball that can do fantastic things we have no possibility of understanding, isn't that just believing in another sort of god?
On the contrary, we have observed a variety of phenomena demonstrating spontaneity (radioactive decay, quantum tunnelling, entanglement measurement, the Casimir effect, etc). These spontaneous events do not require any conditions to be met for them to occur.1) We have no "empirical evidence that supports it," so if you want intellectual honesty, not a good place to go.
Yet you have not shown that something can only exist by way of some pre-existing thing. Indeed, the 'laws' we have derived for the behaviour of existing things are by no means proven. To derive absolute statements from them is absurd.2) I assert it's impossibility by looking at what something is, and the laws pertaining to it.
Why would a First Cause have to be immovable? Why would it have to be eternal? And what does this have to do with justifying your claim?Because a first cause would have to be immovable in and of itself, eternal.
I have a problem with your use of the word teleology. What you are describing is not teleological.You have a problem with my use of teleology?
Because I have my own theories as to it?
This is just another assertion. There wouldn't be a first cause per se, but rather two first causes. Neither has to depend on the other.If there were two things then there would be no first cause, but continued dependent existence.
When in doubt, ignore and shoutNo, it doesn't.
Then you are reading more into my words than was intended. You do like making unwarranted presumptions, don't you?You allude to it.
Again, why does that need omnipotence? All we can say is that it must have at least the power to create everything in existence. While that is an impressive ability, it isn't tantamount to the ability to do anything. One does not need the ability to make omelettes to be able to cause the Big Bang.Yes, if one creates everything in the universe.
A logical operation? Yet more incorrect use of standard terminology. Perhaps you mean "an action with no logical necessity"? Or "an action which is logically paradoxical"?Not everything logically possible; everything.
The very act of causing the universe with no prior substance is not, in and of itself, a logical operation.
Indeed: I ask you why you categorically state that something cannot come from nothing, and you don't answerI think we're kinda chasing our tails now, Wiccan_Child.
I think we're kinda chasing our tails now, Wiccan_Child.
Well, logic and reason are generally used to formulate hypotheses which are then demonstrated by science. We're still on the first phase. There is no way to prove logic/reason applies to anything, besides by using said logic/reason, so yours is an extremely difficult position to argue against, perhaps impossible.But as yet, your burden of proof still remains: how is reason adequate for accessing/processing metaphysical truths?
My position is that, until proven otherwise, any given event is to be considered possible. Since the spontaneous and uncaused generation of matter (aka, "something from nothing") has not been proven false, it is illogical to summarily dismiss it.Well, logic and reason are generally used to formulate hypotheses which are then demonstrated by science. We're still on the first phase. There is no way to prove logic/reason applies to anything, besides by using said logic/reason, so yours is an extremely difficult position to argue against, perhaps impossible.
I'm saying from what we know it is impossible, I just think the arguments that progression can not come from nothing to progress makes sense.My position is that, until proven otherwise, any given event is to be considered possible. Since the spontaneous and uncaused generation of matter (aka, "something from nothing") has not been proven false, it is illogical to summarily dismiss it.
The universe is a very, very weird place. It is only that which has been disproven that we know cannot exist. Anything else is fair game.
Philosophy has no place in topics such as this.I'm saying from what we know it is impossible, I just think the arguments that progression can not come from nothing to progress makes sense.
This is also one of those things that can not be satisfyingly proven correct or false, scientifically, at least not for a while. I just think the philosophical ideas behind the arguments against something from nothing make sense, and something from nothing does not make sense, at least at this point.
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?