A question for atheists and agnostics

[Wyzaard]

Yeah, I presume reason applies. Why not?

Because it's utterly unjustified... wish it all you want, that still doesn't make reason metaphysically authoritative.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

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.

 

[MaxP]

Because it's utterly unjustified... wish it all you want, that still doesn't make reason metaphysically authoritative.

You make the assertion. Why is it unjustified? Prove yourself.
I assume reason applies because it applies to everything else.

 

[MaxP]

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

Yes, it's convulted, but saying by nothing implies nothing has an active role; not nothingness itself.

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 didn't say anything caused the decay, but the radioactivity of the particle itself was caused.

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?

Not comprehend but at least conceive. And yes, most probably.

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.

We never have nothingness to somethingness, and yes.

And what does that have to do with anything?

They are not something form nothing.

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

And it can't. When there is nothing to change, it will not. Now, why, logically, can something come from nothing?

Yet another unjustified assertion.

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.

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

It's the definition of indifference, the lack of say in the things existence.

Why?

Because existence as we know it is existence; the question is how existence as we know it came to be.

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.

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.

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?

Is it not impossible for something to come from nothing?

And what is that something?

The eternal first cause; existence.

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, 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 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?

Yes really. Any prior substance would be in itself the first cause.
Because we are trying to determine the cause of the universe, logically. You make the assertion that existence is a cycle; why?

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).

1) first mover would have caused the universe, and possess the power to do so. What where the rest you had problem with?

2) Omnipotence is the concept of all-powerful, the ability to do anything, and have all the power. Only one thing can have all the power. If there is a first cause, It would have had to have cause the rest of the beings, and they would not be omnipotent.

Then why on Earth


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

Right. We seem to be talking past each other.

 

[MaxP]

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.

We don't need nothing; we just need to know what something is.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, it's convulted, but saying by nothing implies nothing has an active role; not nothingness itself.

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.

I didn't say anything caused the decay, but the radioactivity of the particle itself was caused.

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.

Not comprehend but at least conceive. And yes, most probably.

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?

What if one person can conceive something, but another can't? Does it only half exist?

We never have nothingness to somethingness,

What makes you so sure?

They are not something form nothing.

Why does a 'basis', as you call it, preclude them being something from nothing.

And it can't. When there is nothing to change, it will not. Now, why, logically, can something come from 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).

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.

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.

It's the definition of indifference, the lack of say in the things existence.

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).

Because existence as we know it is existence; the question is how existence as we know it came to be.

That doesn't explain why existence is not subject to the same argument.

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.

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.

Is it not impossible for something to come from nothing?

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?

The eternal first cause; existence.

And what makes you think this?

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?

Because you are using non-standard terminology, and you are using it inconsistently.

Yes really. Any prior substance would be in itself the first cause.

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?

Because we are trying to determine the cause of the universe, logically.

Perhaps, but that doesn't bely the existence of something prior to the universe.

You make the assertion that existence is a cycle; why?

I make no such assertion.

1) first mover would have caused the universe, and possess the power to do so.

Perhaps, but one does not need omnipotence to have the power to make the first move.

2) Omnipotence is the concept of all-powerful, the ability to do anything, and have all the power.

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.

 

[tcampen]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

There is a somthing from whence they came; the conditions that must be met, although the events themselves have no apparent cause.

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.

Alrighty then. You know more about this and it's kinda off topic anyway.

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?

Yes to all.

What if one person can conceive something, but another can't? Does it only half exist?

No, it represents an impairment of lack of understanding in the one person, like a color blind person.

What makes you so sure?

Nothing is the lack of something. By definition, lack of something does not give rise to that something.

Why does a 'basis', as you call it, preclude them being something from nothing.

Because that basis is something. Thus, not something from 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).

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. 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 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. 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.

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).

Yes, it does. If something was indifferent to its existence, what caused it?

That doesn't explain why existence is not subject to the same argument.

It can be, but I disregard the cycle because I don't think infinite time solves the problem of dependent existence.

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.

All right, if you're going to disregard logic and reason in arguing, then you disregard argument. And most naturalists would disagree, fyi.

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?

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?

1) We have no "empirical evidence that supports it," so if you want intellectual honesty, not a good place to go.

2) I assert it's impossibility by looking at what something is, and the laws pertaining to it.

And what makes you think this?

Because a first cause would have to be immovable in and of itself, eternal.

Because you are using non-standard terminology, and you are using it inconsistently.

You have a problem with my use of teleology?
Because I have my own theories as to it?

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?

If there were two things then there would be no first cause, but continued dependent existence.

Perhaps, but that doesn't bely the existence of something prior to the universe.

No, it doesn't.

I make no such assertion.

You allude to it.

Perhaps, but one does not need omnipotence to have the power to make the first move.

Yes, if one creates everything in the universe.

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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

God is defined as the essence of existence. He is existence; the fact of existence is what "caused" Him.

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.

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.

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.

They're not thrown out were God is concerned, but applied to Him as the first cause.

 

[tcampen]

God is defined as the essence of existence. He is existence; the fact of existence is what "caused" Him.

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.

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.

Why must any one thing be eternal? The Second Law may certainly apply to any closed system, but not necessarily to successive systems.

They're not thrown out were God is concerned, but applied to Him as the first cause.

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.

 

[DarkProphet]

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

For the Christian God it's in the inherent contradictions in the way he is defined.

 

[Wyzaard]

You make the assertion. Why is it unjustified? Prove yourself.

Until reason's authority in metaphysical matters has been justified, it remains unjustified; the default position rests with me... you're the one who is claiming reason possesses this power, thus the onus lies squarely on your shoulders.

I assume reason applies because it applies to everything else.

Then your conclusions are only as strong as this assumption... which is made on specious grounds; "cause it's worked elsewhere" does not make any difference here in a domain completely unlike "elsewhere".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is a somthing from whence they came; the conditions that must be met, although the events themselves have no apparent cause.

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.

The 'conditions' are nothing more than amplifiers.

Alrighty then. You know more about this and it's kinda off topic anyway.

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.

No, it represents an impairment of lack of understanding in the one person, like a color blind person.

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?

Nothing is the lack of something. By definition, lack of something does not give rise to that something.

Non sequitur. Why does the definition of nothingness mean that somethingness cannot arise from it? Why can something only arise from something else?

Because that basis is something. Thus, not something from nothing.

But this "basis" isn't the cause. It doesn't trigger any event. The event occurs regardless of what's going on around it.

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.

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 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.

Since we've never experienced nothingness, what makes you so sure?

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've named several: radioactive decay, quantum tunnelling, particle-antiparticle generation, etc.

Yes, it does. If something was indifferent to its existence, what caused it?

Who says it needs a cause at all, regardless of its indifference?

All right, if you're going to disregard logic and reason in arguing, then you disregard argument. And most naturalists would disagree, fyi.

Disregard logic and reason? Please. It is by logic that I don't arbitrarily dismiss spontaneity.

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?

That is not what I believe, and no it isn't.

1) We have no "empirical evidence that supports it," so if you want intellectual honesty, not a good place to go.

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.

2) I assert it's impossibility by looking at what something is, and the laws pertaining to it.

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.

Because a first cause would have to be immovable in and of itself, eternal.

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?

You have a problem with my use of teleology?
Because I have my own theories as to it?

I have a problem with your use of the word teleology. What you are describing is not teleological.

If there were two things then there would be no first cause, but continued dependent existence.

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.

No, it doesn't.

When in doubt, ignore and shout .

You allude to it.

Then you are reading more into my words than was intended. You do like making unwarranted presumptions, don't you?

Yes, if one creates everything in the universe.

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.



And we were talking about the First Mover, not the thing which poofed everything into existence.

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.

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"?

 

[MaxP]

I think we're kinda chasing our tails now, Wiccan_Child.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think we're kinda chasing our tails now, Wiccan_Child.

Indeed: I ask you why you categorically state that something cannot come from nothing, and you don't answer .

Let's call it a draw.

 

[Wyzaard]

I think we're kinda chasing our tails now, Wiccan_Child.

But as yet, your burden of proof still remains: how is reason adequate for accessing/processing metaphysical truths?

 

[MaxP]

But as yet, your burden of proof still remains: how is reason adequate for accessing/processing metaphysical truths?

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[MaxP]

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.

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.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

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.

Philosophy has no place in topics such as this.