A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

One does not deduce facts; one may use facts to deduce a conclusion, but what we call facts are most often empirical things.

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.

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.

I meant a valid means of deducing truths.

No idea. But I think you have overstepped the question of whether reasoning and intellect require God at all.

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

 

[b&wpac4]

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.

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?

 

[Freodin]

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.

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"?

 

[MaxP]

Long post. Be ye warned...


Nevertheless, that something arises from nothing.

Not from nothing but by nothing.

And what, pray tell, might that event be?

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

Well, no, but we're discussing that at a later point.

fun fun fun.

Invalid? Wholly impossible? Such bold claims require bold proofs: what is your disproof of 'something from nothing'?

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.

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.

A basis? Whatever are you on about?

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

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.

Above.

Only if your presumption is correct, which the evidence does not support.

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

And what do you mean, 'indifferent'? Are you referring to potentiality? Agency? Causality?

It does not care if it exists or not.

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?

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

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.

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.

This is in stark contrast to classical mechanics, wherein a particle in a potential well must have sufficient energy before it can escape.

Alrighty then.

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.

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?

But if they're not a case of "something from nothing", then whence do they come?

From something.

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:

1. The appearence of design in something is proof of the existence of its (intelligent) designer.
2. The universe appears designed.
3. Therefore, the universe has a (intelligent) designer.

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.

Who says there's no prior substances? If this nebulously defined 'God' exists, why can't other nebulous things?

Because that would defeat the purpose of a first cause.

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.

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.

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.

I don't claim to grasp the physics behind it, I'm no good that way.
Again, randomness in the realm of something does not prove something can come from nothing.

 

[MaxP]

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"?

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

 

[b&wpac4]

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.

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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

As do I, I just find certain arguments compelling. I put my own spin on them also.

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.

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?

 

[b&wpac4]

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?

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

 

[b&wpac4]

I have stated there is a measure of faith involved; but that saying God is an invalid fairy tale is not true.

I would agree to that. You can't prove or disprove, so to claim 100% either way is not factual. There is faith required to believe.

 

[Freodin]

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.

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?

 

[MaxP]

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?

Because your model causes nothing from something. Nothing can only beget nothing. Nothing implies nothing; nothing itself is the bar to something existence.

 

[Freodin]

Because your model causes nothing from something. Nothing can only beget nothing. Nothing implies nothing; nothing itself is the bar to something existence.

What makes you state that "nothing can only beget nothing"?

 

[MaxP]

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.

 

[leafy]

For the same reason I disbelieve in the existence of Santa Clause, Leprochauns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I find it hilarious and absurd that so many people believe in mystical entities such as God. Thus, I find none of the God arguments or claims convincing.

 

[Freodin]

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.

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?

 

[MaxP]

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?

Nothing. As in what nothing is.

 

[Freodin]

Nothing. As in what nothing is.

"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?