A question for atheists and agnostics

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm saying from what we know it is impossible,

From what we know? Either it has been proven impossible, or it remains a possibility. If it's been disproven, then it will be disproven forevermore.

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.

And what philosophical arguments are those?

 

[MaxP]

From what we know? Either it has been proven impossible, or it remains a possibility. If it's been disproven, then it will be disproven forevermore.

From what we know about something, it is impossible for it to come from nothing. You are the one continually referencing hypothetical future knowledge, or our lack of knowledge, as keeping something from nothing alive.

And what philosophical arguments are those?

Parmenides:

Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/parmenid.htm

 

[b&wpac4]

From what we know about something, it is impossible for it to come from nothing. You are the one continually referencing hypothetical future knowledge, or our lack of knowledge, as keeping something from nothing alive.

I referenced future knowledge before. You don't know what we will discover. You don't know that something cannot come from nothing. You don't know it is impossible, it is simply a good explanation for you at this time.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From what we know about something, it is impossible for it to come from nothing.

And what is it we know about somethingness that requires it to come from something else?

You are the one continually referencing hypothetical future knowledge, or our lack of knowledge, as keeping something from nothing alive.

I am referencing no such knowledge. I am simply taking the logical epistemological stance: unless it is shown to be logically paradoxical, , we cannot say for absolute certain that some event is impossible.

Parmenides:

Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the consequences of saying that anything is. In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must have arisen from nothing or from something. It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing. It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what is. Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be no empty space in which it could do so. Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo nihil fit.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/parmenid.htm

The emboldened section simply asserts the same thing you are: something can only arise from something else (and, since there is no something in nothing by definition...).

It might be worth noticing the logical paradox Parmenides runs into at the end. I have looked at Parmenides before, and disagree with other proclamations of his (thinking may be thought, but impossibility is not inconceivable).

I'm always baffled when people reject modern scientific knowledge in favour of nebulous philosophical arguments.

 

[MaxP]

And what is it we know about somethingness that requires it to come from something else?

That somethingness is never nothingness. To say something that is can rise form that which is not is logically paradoxical.

I am referencing no such knowledge. I am simply taking the logical epistemological stance: unless it is shown to be logically paradoxical, , we cannot say for absolute certain that some event is impossible.

Rule of non-contradiction; something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

The emboldened section simply asserts the same thing you are: something can only arise from something else (and, since there is no something in nothing by definition...).

The question is why the lack of something could ever give rise to something.

It might be worth noticing the logical paradox Parmenides runs into at the end. I have looked at Parmenides before, and disagree with other proclamations of his (thinking may be thought, but impossibility is not inconceivable).

At the end of the article?

I'm always baffled when people reject modern scientific knowledge in favour of nebulous philosophical arguments.

I'm always baffled when people vaguely refer to nebulous scientific evidence to disprove well-defined philosophical arguments.

 

[Nihilismus]

How is free will possible if something cannot come from nothing?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That somethingness is never nothingness. To say something that is can rise form that which is not is logically paradoxical.

That is your conclusion. I am asking you what property of somethingness leads to this conclusion.

Rule of non-contradiction; something cannot exist and not exist at the same time.

Indeed, but what does that have to do with anything?

The question is why the lack of something could ever give rise to something.

On the contrary, the question is why it could not. As I've already pointed out, it is only you who is making the claim here. Or rather, it is you who claims something other than the null hypothesis, and thus it is to you the onus falls.

At the end of the article?

Aye.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is it just me, or is it odd that one might assert that something cannot from nothing and yet also assert that a god could make something from nothing?

 

[MaxP]

Is it just me, or is it odd that one might assert that something cannot from nothing and yet also assert that a god could make something from nothing?

God is something, not nothing, so God creating things would be something from something.

 

[MaxP]

That is your conclusion. I am asking you what property of somethingness leads to this conclusion.

Namely, that is exists.

Indeed, but what does that have to do with anything?

In order for something to come from nothing it would have to be able to exist and not exist.

On the contrary, the question is why it could not. As I've already pointed out, it is only you who is making the claim here. Or rather, it is you who claims something other than the null hypothesis, and thus it is to you the onus falls.

Because in order for that which is not lack to come form complete lack, that which is not lack would have to be able to lack(to come into existence from the lack) and not lack(to be something), which is parodoxical.
Why must this happen? Because nothing is lack, something is presence. In order to progress form one to the other you must be able to possess properties of the origin to progress to a conclusion. The origin in this case, however, has no properties.

Aye.

His conclusion motion is an illusion? There is nothing apparently paradoxical in his argument, though I take into account an extra factor than he does, so I have different conclusions about motion.

 

[MaxP]

How is free will possible if something cannot come from nothing?

Don't follow.

 

[Skaloop]

God is something, not nothing, so God creating things would be something from something.

If God is something, He must have come from something (since you say something cannot come from nothing). So what did God come from? What is God's god?

 

[MaxP]

If God is something, He must have come from something (since you say something cannot come from nothing). So what did God come from? What is God's god?

God is existence. By the fact existence exists, He does. He is the necessary Being.

 

[Skaloop]

In order for something to come from nothing it would have to be able to exist and not exist.

But not at the same time.

 

[Skaloop]

God is existence. By the fact existence exists, He does. He is the necessary Being.

Existence is also something, so could not come from nothing. Where did existence come from? What is existence's god?

 

[MaxP]

But not at the same time.

Yes at the same time, at least for a moment, in order for it to progress into existence.

 

[MaxP]

Existence is also something, so could not come from nothing. Where did existence come from? What is existence's god?

Existence, exists. It just does. It comes from the fact it exists; if existence was not about, then nothing, something, or anything would; existence did not come from nothing, nothing comes from existence.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes at the same time, at least for a moment, in order for it to progress into existence.

The instant it begins progressing into existence, it exists. Prior to that, it does not exist.

 

[MaxP]

The instant it begins progressing into existence, it exists. Prior to that, it does not exist.

Then what causes it into existence?

Last time I checked, absence does not cause presence. Just makes the heart grow fonder.

 

[Skaloop]

Existence, exists. It just does. It comes from the fact it exists; if existence was not about, then nothing, something, or anything would; existence did not come from nothing, nothing comes from existence.

Uh, OK. I'll pretend that made sense.