Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[JediMobius]

Which is why here are no limitations on what can happened. Obviously, once something's happened, we no longer have nothingness. Nothingness is just the absence of any thing.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. Some might argue that something is an option not if there is something else to compel it, but if there is nothing there to impinge it. So, in the absence of any thing, there is literally nothing to stop, say, the spontaneous generation of a universe. It doesn't require a cause, so it doesn't require any thing to actually exist.

I'm not exploring my beliefs on the matter, I'm exploring the logic. You're saying nothingness allows endless possibility, but there is no logical step between nothingness and something. There is no reason which shows that the lack of any law would produce anything from nothingness. Just as there is nothing to stop the spontaneous generation of a universe, there is nothing to cause either. It did not exist without cause, because there was nothing. So if there is no cause, and nothing actually exists, how does possibility exist?

Possibility is a condition. It is something, and thus cannot exist in/as nothing. You've more or less been saying that pure possibility would be the cause of whatever happens next, yet there could be no cause.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not exploring my beliefs on the matter, I'm exploring the logic. You're saying nothingness allows endless possibility, but there is no logical step between nothingness and something.

The logical step should be obvious, given a) an event has a non-zero probability of occurring if there is nothing to stop it, and b) nothingness precludes the existence of any such thing. Any event is possible if nothing exists, since there is nothing to stop an event from occurring.

There is no reason which shows that the lack of any law would produce anything from nothingness.

From nothing? No. But nothingness isn't a thing from which other things can be generated. It's an absence of things.

Just as there is nothing to stop the spontaneous generation of a universe, there is nothing to cause either. It did not exist without cause, because there was nothing. So if there is no cause, and nothing actually exists, how does possibility exist?

The possibility 'exists', but not in the same sense my pencil 'exists'. Plus, you're presupposing that every event must have a cause, which isn't necessarily the case.

Possibility is a condition. It is something, and thus cannot exist in/as nothing. You've more or less been saying that pure possibility would be the cause of whatever happens next, yet there could be no cause.

A possibility isn't a 'thing', just as the truth of a statement isn't a 'thing'.

 

[Chesterton]

The logical step should be obvious, given a) an event has a non-zero probability of occurring if there is nothing to stop it, and b) nothingness precludes the existence of any such thing. Any event is possible if nothing exists, since there is nothing to stop an event from occurring.

How long has it been since you've had a holiday away from your physics work? I fear you've gone quite mad.

 

[JediMobius]

The logical step should be obvious, given a) an event has a non-zero probability of occurring if there is nothing to stop it, and b) nothingness precludes the existence of any such thing. Any event is possible if nothing exists, since there is nothing to stop an event from occurring.

. . . Which is all very interesting, but if there's nothing to stop an event, there's nothing to start it either.

From nothing? No. But nothingness isn't a thing from which other things can be generated. It's an absence of things.

Being an absence of things is exactly why no things could exist to be stopped or not be stopped.

The possibility 'exists', but not in the same sense my pencil 'exists'. Plus, you're presupposing that every event must have a cause, which isn't necessarily the case.

I know of absolutely no instance where an event has no cause. If it's possible for an event or any thing to exist without a cause, then how? Also, I can think of two senses of existence. One, self-evident existence - I think, therefor I exist. Two, observed existence - I can sense this rock (through sight and touch) therefor it exists. Is there a third?

A possibility isn't a 'thing', just as the truth of a statement isn't a 'thing'.

Sure it is. It may be intangible, but it exists. If there is a non-zero probability, then there is very real math involved (hypothetically until the math is actually worked out) and thus, the probability exists, and if it exists, it is a thing. "Nothing", however, is not a thing for it is counter-existence. The idea of nothing is a thing, but in the sense we've been exploring, of course, nothing is just nothing.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I'm not exploring my beliefs on the matter, I'm exploring the logic. You're saying nothingness allows endless possibility, but there is no logical step between nothingness and something. There is no reason which shows that the lack of any law would produce anything from nothingness. Just as there is nothing to stop the spontaneous generation of a universe, there is nothing to cause either. It did not exist without cause, because there was nothing. So if there is no cause, and nothing actually exists, how does possibility exist?

Possibility is a condition. It is something, and thus cannot exist in/as nothing. You've more or less been saying that pure possibility would be the cause of whatever happens next, yet there could be no cause.

There is no need for cause and effect before the laws of logic have been created. You are thinking within the laws of our universe, the premise is outside of them.

 

[daniel777]

There is no need for cause and effect before the laws of logic have been created. You are thinking within the laws of our universe, the premise is outside of them.

so, by definition, your premise is beyond the capacity of logic and language to fully express. so, you have no proposition.


---
hey pb. how have you been? maybe i'll stay back this time.

Edit:
YES! post 666. i feel evil now.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

. . . Which is all very interesting, but if there's nothing to stop an event, there's nothing to start it either.

Indeed, but there doesn't need to be anything to start it.

Being an absence of things is exactly why no things could exist to be stopped or not be stopped.

Yes, we agree that we start with nothing. But we disagree on what happens next.

I know of absolutely no instance where an event has no cause. If it's possible for an event or any thing to exist without a cause, then how?

We actually know of a great many phenomena which occur without prior cause. The most well-known is radioactive decay.

Also, I can think of two senses of existence. One, self-evident existence - I think, therefor I exist. Two, observed existence - I can sense this rock (through sight and touch) therefor it exists. Is there a third?

Yes: logical deduction. But I don't see what epistemology has to do with ontology.

Sure it is. It may be intangible, but it exists. If there is a non-zero probability, then there is very real math involved (hypothetically until the math is actually worked out) and thus, the probability exists, and if it exists, it is a thing.

What do you mean by "very real math"? Mathematics isn't a thing, it's logic. It doesn't exist in the sense that a rock exists.

"Nothing", however, is not a thing for it is counter-existence. The idea of nothing is a thing, but in the sense we've been exploring, of course, nothing is just nothing.

I don't consider ideas to be things, but then, I think we have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'thing' and what it means to 'exist'.

 

[roflcopter101]

so, by definition, your premise is beyond the capacity of logic and language to fully express. so, you have no proposition.

And that doesn't apply to creationism?

 

[daniel777]

And that doesn't apply to creationism?

not in the same way, no... because creationism doesn't go against the foundations of modal logic. creationists can say what they mean, and they can express it logically. however, the idea that something comes from nothing, even if that occurs in another world, is absurd.... since, if something comes from nothing, there's no way anyone could know it or know how to properly express it.

here is their basic argument.
1. outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply.
2. causality is bound to this universe and means nothing outside of it.
3. the universe came from nothing.

the most basic objection anyone could make to this is "if the laws of the universe do not apply outside of the universe, then what are you talking about? do you have some transcendent knowledge that precedes logic? even if you do, why are you trying to express it with logic and language, since, by definition, that is impossible? you have no argument if you can't properly express what you mean.".... and there are other equally serious objections that could be raised. this objections only shows that the argument is absurd, and since they're trying to express it through logic, there are better arguments that show the impossibility of any possibility of the absurd in or "out" of this universe..... and the people supporting this also need to explain what it means by "outside of the universe", same objection listed above.

also, i think causality is something that has to exist as necessarily true in all possible worlds. . . . . and actually, it does if logic is going to make any sense at all; so there's no point in arguing against it unless you plan to argue for the absurd. some people choose to do that, like in this thread, but i don't see the logic in trying to construct an argument for the possibility of the absurd when "because i said so" (which, i think we're all beginning to see after a near 70 pages) would be an equally valid proposition logically.

btw, i'm not really a creationist in the way you're thinking about it. nice try though.

 

[allhart]

For atheists there is nothing wrong with their science or logic(per say), but there is something wrong with their morals!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For atheists there is nothing wrong with their science or logic, but there is something wrong with their morals!

What, exactly? And how is this relevant?

 

[roflcopter101]

not in the same way, no... because creationism doesn't go against the foundations of modal logic. creationists can say what they mean, and they can express it logically. however, the idea that something comes from nothing, even if that occurs in another world, is absurd.... since, if something comes from nothing, there's no way anyone could know it or know how to properly express it.

If creationism were true, a creator would be needed for the creator of the universe, and a creator for that creator, and so on and so forth; you would be creating an infinite series of creators who would need an origin as well.

here is their basic argument.
1. outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply.
2. causality is bound to this universe and means nothing outside of it.
3. the universe came from nothing.

I would say the argument would be in less absolute terms. "It is possible that outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply." and the like.

the most basic objection anyone could make to this is "if the laws of the universe do not apply outside of the universe, then what are you talking about? do you have some transcendent knowledge that precedes logic? even if you do, why are you trying to express it with logic and language, since, by definition, that is impossible? you have no argument if you can't properly express what you mean.".... and there are other equally serious objections that could be raised. this objections only shows that the argument is absurd, and since they're trying to express it through logic, there are better arguments that show the impossibility of any possibility of the absurd in or "out" of this universe..... and the people supporting this also need to explain what it means by "outside of the universe", same objection listed above.

From what I have seen, there is no logical explanation of the origin of the universe. The purpose of this thread is that creationism is not the only possible origin of the universe.

also, i think causality is something that has to exist as necessarily true in all possible worlds. . . . . and actually, it does if logic is going to make any sense at all; so there's no point in arguing against it unless you plan to argue for the absurd. some people choose to do that, like in this thread, but i don't see the logic in trying to construct an argument for the possibility of the absurd when "because i said so" (which, i think we're all beginning to see after a near 70 pages) would be an equally valid proposition logically.

Well, I don't think that it would be prudent to construct a theory of the origin of the universe with the evidence available now. This is all just speculation.

btw, i'm not really a creationist in the way you're thinking about it. nice try though.

Explain.

 

[allhart]

If creationism were true, a creator would be needed for the creator of the universe, and a creator for that creator, and so on and so forth; you would be creating an infinite series of creators who would need an origin as well.



I would say the argument would be in less absolute terms. "It is possible that outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply." and the like.



From what I have seen, there is no logical explanation of the origin of the universe. The purpose of this thread is that creationism is not the only possible origin of the universe.



Well, I don't think that it would be prudent to construct a theory of the origin of the universe with the evidence available now. This is all just speculation.



Explain.

Romans 1:20-23:
20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

[JediMobius]

Indeed, but there doesn't need to be anything to start it.

Then how does anything start?

Yes, we agree that we start with nothing. But we disagree on what happens next.

The way I see it, nothing begets nothing. You'd have to show how anything else could happen.

We actually know of a great many phenomena which occur without prior cause. The most well-known is radioactive decay.

Radioactive decay has a cause. Try again.

A decay event requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle which has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).

Yes: logical deduction. But I don't see what epistemology has to do with ontology.

You didn't answer my question. Is there another kind of existence? And what epistemology are you referring to?

What do you mean by "very real math"? Mathematics isn't a thing, it's logic. It doesn't exist in the sense that a rock exists.

The only difference is that a rock is tangible. Both can be studied, both have a variety of uses, both can be defined and analyzed. Since when does something have to be a physical entity to be a thing?

Dictionary.com:
1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object. 2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it. 3. anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.
A "thing" is not limited to the first definition.

I don't consider ideas to be things, but then, I think we have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'thing' and what it means to 'exist'.

Anything that exists can be called a thing. There are different types of things - ideas, observable data, or physical objects. But, they are all things and exist in someway. If something is not a thing, then it can't be said to exist.

 

[JediMobius]

If creationism were true, a creator would be needed for the creator of the universe, and a creator for that creator, and so on and so forth; you would be creating an infinite series of creators who would need an origin as well.

What, the same thing couldn't be said about any scientific theory of the origins of the universe? You're assuming the creator must have been created, but why must that be assumed? What are the grounds for this assumption?

 

[allhart]

Then how does anything start?



The way I see it, nothing begets nothing. You'd have to show how anything else could happen.



Radioactive decay has a cause. Try again.

A decay event requires a specific activation energy. For a snow avalanche, this energy comes as a disturbance from outside the system, although such disturbances can be arbitrarily small. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can thus spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle which has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).



You didn't answer my question. Is there another kind of existence? And what epistemology are you referring to?



The only difference is that a rock is tangible. Both can be studied, both have a variety of uses, both can be defined and analyzed. Since when does something have to be a physical entity to be a thing?

Dictionary.com:
1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object. 2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it. 3. anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.
A "thing" is not limited to the first definition.



Anything that exists can be called a thing. There are different types of things - ideas, observable data, or physical objects. But, they are all things and exist in someway. If something is not a thing, then it can't be said to exist.

They can't or won't bridge the supernatural (the mind and free will)! I have already beat my head against the wall for weeks with these two. Starting with science isn't behind it all. Science is after the fact and that there is more than one way to see or explain reality! The four fundamentals are Origin,meaning, morality and destiny and using the laws of physics and laws of nature in and around cause and effect they could see to come to a logical conclusion following the facts. There is nothing wrong with the science , but there is something wrong with their morality!

We borrow life from our parents and so on, but to start the cycle of life there has to be one that starts it all as a possessor!
Nor can they or ever will explain what sustains the life in all things and what keeps everything separate! All the evidence points to a intelligent designer.
In my opinion they look at the world with the loss to wonder in it all ( the LOVE of wonder, the awhhh of it), but more as skeptics, as a used car salesmen. Wondering when they are going to get ripped off! (Trick or treat) lol

 

[daniel777]

first off... you didn't answer the objection. this is boiling down into an "because i said so" already, but i guess it's been doing that for almost 70 pages.

If creationism were true, a creator would be needed for the creator of the universe, and a creator for that creator, and so on and so forth; you would be creating an infinite series of creators who would need an origin as well.

i define the Creator as inevitably God and God, simply, as that which exists necessarily.

G-->[]G
if god exists, he exists necessarily rather than contingently or possibly, meaning that he doesn't need a cause.

to say that G--> <>G (if God exists then he exists contingently or possibly) is to either
1. separate the logos from God, and put logic in the place of God making it God and not actually saying anything.
or
2. to say nothing at all since logic itself cannot exist necessarily if "God" (that which exists necessarily) doesn't exist necessarily if he exists.

in other words, your definition of "God" is most likely too simple, and if God is "said" to exist, then logically he doesn't need a cause outside of his own being.

I would say the argument would be in less absolute terms. "It is possible that outside of the universe, the laws of this universe do not apply." and the like.

right, but that really isn't the problem i was pointing too.... also, it's not the full argument. one problem with the argument is "which" laws "do not apply" "outside" the universe. causality simply cannot be one of those laws. . . . . and the same objection as last time as to why, which you failed to answer.

From what I have seen, there is no logical explanation of the origin of the universe. The purpose of this thread is that creationism is not the only possible origin of the universe.

well, the answer given in this thread hasn't even reached the level of logically "possible" yet. that something comes from nothing is logically impossible.

Well, I don't think that it would be prudent to construct a theory of the origin of the universe with the evidence available now. This is all just speculation.

YES, speculation! ... but i do however think we should limit our speculations to the logically possible because if we don't our propositions become meaningless and absurd.

Explain

that's very vague, but if you want to ask questions about what i believe instead of supposing to know, you can.
also, i already answered part of this in replying to your first reply. i claimed that you didn't know what i meant by "creationist", and you proved me right. there's likely more to it than that, but insofar as the claim i made, that i'm not a creationist in the way you were thinking of, i was right. of course, it's very unlikely that you could have been right, because i never proposed anything at all about my creationism. who's proposition were you arguing against?

 

[roflcopter101]

Romans 1:20-23:
20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities&#8212;his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. 21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn&#8217;t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.

Frankly, I don't care about what your bible says if it doesn't have a basis in reality.

 

[allhart]

Frankly, I don't care about what your bible says if it doesn't have a basis in reality.

We have come to know that, but in return you can't disprove God either and that is what this is all about anyhow! For all your logic why should I care?

It takes more Strength and faith to believe in nothing than reasoning us Christians have come to know! Also there is nothing irrational about the supernatural being of God and His creation!

 

[roflcopter101]

first off... you didn't answer the objection. this is boiling down into an "because i said so" already, but i guess it's been doing that for almost 70 pages.

I believe I did. Your objection was that the argument posed by the OP was irrational and not able to be expressed in logical terms. I argued that both creationism and the OP's objection are equally irrational and un-expressible.

i define the Creator as inevitably God and God, simply, as that which exists necessarily.

G-->[]G
if god exists, he exists necessarily rather than contingently or possibly, meaning that he doesn't need a cause.

to say that G--> <>G (if God exists then he exists contingently or possibly) is to either
1. separate the logos from God, and put logic in the place of God making it God and not actually saying anything.
or
2. to say nothing at all since logic itself cannot exist necessarily if "God" (that which exists necessarily) doesn't exist necessarily if he exists.

in other words, your definition of "God" is most likely too simple, and if God is "said" to exist, then logically he doesn't need a cause outside of his own being.

I have no idea what the G--> <>G section is saying. Can the argument be expressed more lucidly?
Why can't the universe exist necessarily? Why does the universe need a cause outside of its own being?

right, but that really isn't the problem i was pointing too.... also, it's not the full argument. one problem with the argument is "which" laws "do not apply" "outside" the universe. causality simply cannot be one of those laws. . . . . and the same objection as last time as to why, which you failed to answer.

I believe I answered that below that section, though maybe I was not clear enough.

From what I have seen, there is no logical explanation of the origin of the universe. The purpose of this thread is that creationism is not the only possible origin of the universe.

Your objection was that the lack of causality was absurd and impossible. I argue that the concept of God not needing a creator itself is violating such principles of causality, and equally absurd and impossible.

well, the answer given in this thread hasn't even reached the level of logically "possible" yet. that something comes from nothing is logically impossible.

Again, the God not needing a cause argument. The OP's proposal would be equally valid as creationism if both did not stick to the principles of causality.

YES, speculation! ... but i do however think we should limit our speculations to the logically possible because if we don't our propositions become meaningless and absurd.

Same as above.

that's very vague, but if you want to ask questions about what i believe instead of supposing to know, you can.

You said "i'm not really a creationist in the way you're thinking about it". I was wondering what you thought I was thinking.

also, i already answered part of this in replying to your first reply. i claimed that you didn't know what i meant by "creationist", and you proved me right.

I argue that your "creationist" is about the same as my "creationist".
My "creationist" is a person that believes that an omnipotent and inscrutable power created the universe. From what I have seen, your "creationist" is a person that believes that an omnipotent and inscrutable power created the universe that exists necessarily. As your purported creator exists necessarily, I have argued that it does not adhere to the precepts of causality that you argue that the OP's theory violates.

there's likely more to it than that, but insofar as the claim i made, that i'm not a creationist in the way you were thinking of, i was right.

Again, see above.

of course, it's very unlikely that you could have been right, because i never proposed anything at all about my creationism. who's proposition were you arguing against?

Your post 666 argued that the OP's proposal is irrational and empty. I argued that creationism is also irrational and empty. After you have elucidated your views on that matter, I still believe your creationism is equally irrational and empty.