Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[daniel777]

Your not thinking outside of the box. What you are saying is correct in the sense of the 'nothingness' in our own universe, like a vacuum. I am talking about a different nothingness, that is not just the absence of matter and energy, but the absence of space, the universe, the laws of logic, physics, time, and whatever else. The Greek idea of chaos, not just the lack of something. If there are no laws to dictate what this total nothingness or chaos does, then why can't it spontaneously generate a universe?

that is the nothingness i am referring too.


basically, nothing can't act because nothingness is restricted by the fact that it is nothing.

here is the premise of my argument:
nothing is nothing

here is the premise of your argument:
nothing is not nothing.

nothing is restricted from becoming something because it is nothing. these aren't outside restrictions, but these are restrictions placed in the existence (or non-existence) of nothing because if nothing exists, or doesn't exist, nothing is necessary to itself.


but all this was in my last post with more detail.


inevitably, anything (or nothing) without any restrictions whatsoever cannot also be itself. because to be, and even to be nothing, means restriction based on what that thing is, or isn't.

 

[allhart]

Intelligent Design, When applied to information-rich DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the Cambrian
Explosion in the fossil record,as well as the fact that earth is perfectly situated in the Milk Way for both life and scientific discovery, The existence of an Intelligent designer is the most plausible scientific explanation.

Finally, although its conclusions are not world-view, Intelligent design lends no more to support to Christian theism than Darwinian evolution lends to atheism. Thus, the appropriateness of Intelligent design for public education ought to be judged on the basis of the theory's explanatory power, not on its metaphysical implications.

 

[b&wpac4]

Intelligent Design, When applied to information-rich DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the Cambrian
Explosion in the fossil record,as well as the fact that earth is perfectly situated in the Milk Way for both life and scientific discovery, The existence of an Intelligent designer is the most plausible scientific explanation.

Finally, although its conclusions are not world-view, Intelligent design lends no more to support to Christian theism than Darwinian evolution lends to atheism. Thus, the appropriateness of Intelligent design for public education ought to be judged on the basis of the theory's explanatory power, not on its metaphysical implications.

Intelligent Design has no scientific data. It's basic theory is "Science is right, except a designer did it!" So, without proof of the designer in a scientific way, we can simply remove the designer from the equation and teach evolution without involving ourselves with who or what was behind it.

 

[allhart]

Intelligent Design has no scientific data. It's basic theory is "Science is right, except a designer did it!" So, without proof of the designer in a scientific way, we can simply remove the designer from the equation and teach evolution without involving ourselves with who or what was behind it.

Cause and effect! Nothing started from nothing. Logic and reasoning give you that. If you walked up to a tree with names that are carved in it would you simply say it evolved there or would you say someone designed it. The world systems biologically and metaphysical are to complex for evolution and they have no start of matter. Only after the fact of "matter" does "evolution" ,evolves into evolution.....

 

[b&wpac4]

The world systems biologically and metaphysical are to complex for evolution and they have no start of matter.

It rests upon you to prove this assertion. You cannot simply just state it and assume it to be fact. "Too complex" is not a scientific statement. It is like stating "The Universe is too red not to be designed". What level of complexity would be required for us to conclude it had a designer? What level of complexity is required for us to conclude there isn't a designer? From a scientific point of view, you are not using real evidence to backup your assertion.

 

[Belk]

Intelligent Design, When applied to information-rich DNA, irreducibly complex biochemical systems, the Cambrian
Explosion in the fossil record,as well as the fact that earth is perfectly situated in the Milk Way for both life and scientific discovery, The existence of an Intelligent designer is the most plausible scientific explanation.

Finally, although its conclusions are not world-view, Intelligent design lends no more to support to Christian theism than Darwinian evolution lends to atheism. Thus, the appropriateness of Intelligent design for public education ought to be judged on the basis of the theory's explanatory power, not on its metaphysical implications.

When i first heard of ID I started hanging out at an ID board to see for myself if it was a viable explanation. Turns out ID is scientifically vacuous. It is a bunch of nice sounding terms and wishful thinking.

 

[mpok1519]

Cause and effect! Nothing started from nothing. Logic and reasoning give you that. If you walked up to a tree with names that are carved in it would you simply say it evolved there or would you say someone designed it. The world systems biologically and metaphysical are to complex for evolution and they have no start of matter. Only after the fact of "matter" does "evolution" ,evolves into evolution.....

the whole "complexity" argument is inherantly flawed because of the following reasons: "complexity" is subjective, and subject to those using the term. something very simple, such as an atom, still has a very complex existence, with complicated mechanics and physics. though very simple, it is complex. Yet, it does not point out that "an intellegent mind had to create that complexity". Theres no rule or any scientific maxim that says complex systems NEED an intellegent person/deity to exist. This is just wishful thinking.

I hate the whole "name in the sand" or "name in the tree" complexity argument because that name in the tree or sand absolutely has nothing to do with the physics of the universe.

Dover v Board of Education is a good case study.The judge ruled that the school board was basing its cirriculum not on national scientific standards, but on religious influence. The prosecution proved that the baord of education's main influence was religious belief, which is a violation of sep. church and state.

Also, theres no such thing as irreducible complexity; proponets for IC argued using bacteria as an example. The flagellum of the bacteria (the paddle that moves it along) works in the same way a complex man-made motor works, using the same principles of torque, friction, etc. They argued that if one component of the bacterium's flagellum was not there, the motor ceased functionable use, and therefore, must be created by some intellegent designer. but, they proved this wrong by pointing out that other bacteria had the same developmental adaptation of the flagellum, but the motor was missing parts. Though the flagellum didnt act as a paddle or rotor anymore, it certainly had a use as a hypodermic needle, as it used its adaptation for sticking to other cells and consuming them. This proved that complexity CAN be reducible WITH complex functionality. Its the argument that "a mousetrap is no longer a mousetrap if you take one part of it away." Though it may not be a mousetrap anymore, you can still use it in a functional way as a tie-clip.

Irreducible complexity doesnt exist, as it has been proved so many times.

Theres a theory that the universe never had a beginning, or an end, just one continuous expansion and contraction.

Why does everything need a beginning? Time doesnt have a beginning, nor does it have an end. The truth is, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

 

[Mling]

I'd argue that we have no reason to believe there was 'nothing' before our universe. Just that we have absolutely no knowledge of what *might* have been.

There might have been laws, I'd guess there probably were. There might have even been a completely different universe, but what it was like is beyond anybody's guess.

I lean towards either the idea of 'chain' universe that gets regularly destroyed and then a new universe is created from the remains--sort of like stars or a forest after a fire-- or else some sort of singularity that spurts out universes.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

that is the nothingness i am referring too.

It is definitely not, seeing as the nothingness you are referring to still apparently has to obey the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry.

basically, nothing can't act because nothingness is restricted by the fact that it is nothing.

here is the premise of my argument:
nothing is nothing

here is the premise of your argument:
nothing is not nothing.

No, I am saying that the LACK of the LAWS OF LOGIC, PHYSICS, AND CHEMISTRY can cause something to come out of nothing.

My nothing can beat up your nothing!

nothing is restricted from becoming something because it is nothing. these aren't outside restrictions, but these are restrictions placed in the existence (or non-existence) of nothing because if nothing exists, or doesn't exist, nothing is necessary to itself.

Those restrictions only apply if that something or nothing has to abide by the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry, which the Greek concept of chaos does not.

but all this was in my last post with more detail.

You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

inevitably, anything (or nothing) without any restrictions whatsoever cannot also be itself. because to be, and even to be nothing, means restriction based on what that thing is, or isn't.

What part of LACKING THE LAWS OF LOGIC don't you understand?

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Cause and effect! Nothing started from nothing. Logic and reasoning give you that. If you walked up to a tree with names that are carved in it would you simply say it evolved there or would you say someone designed it. The world systems biologically and metaphysical are to complex for evolution and they have no start of matter. Only after the fact of "matter" does "evolution" ,evolves into evolution.....

I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up evolution, it has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[corvus_corax]

It is definitely not, seeing as the nothingness you are referring to still apparently has to obey the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry.

Yeah, you're correct so far, but you DID say-

given an infinite amount of time, anything and everything because of probability, HAS to happen.

(emphasis mine)
However, in a true "nothing" state, even probability does NOT exist. If probability exists, then "something" exists.
To wit- If probability "exists" in this "nothing" state you are proposing, then "something (i.e. probability) does (according to your own statement) does IN FACT exist.
Therefore it's *NOT* a "nothing".

Simple as that.

My nothing can beat up your nothing!

Except for the fact that your "nothing" has something (i.e. the law(s) of probability)
Or at least statistical potential.


Just my 2 pennies, that's all
I'm probably COMPLETELY misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

 

[allhart]

the whole "complexity" argument is inherantly flawed because of the following reasons: "complexity" is subjective, and subject to those using the term. something very simple, such as an atom, still has a very complex existence, with complicated mechanics and physics. though very simple, it is complex. Yet, it does not point out that "an intellegent mind had to create that complexity". Theres no rule or any scientific maxim that says complex systems NEED an intellegent person/deity to exist. This is just wishful thinking.

I hate the whole "name in the sand" or "name in the tree" complexity argument because that name in the tree or sand absolutely has nothing to do with the physics of the universe.

Dover v Board of Education is a good case study.The judge ruled that the school board was basing its cirriculum not on national scientific standards, but on religious influence. The prosecution proved that the baord of education's main influence was religious belief, which is a violation of sep. church and state.

Also, theres no such thing as irreducible complexity; proponets for IC argued using bacteria as an example. The flagellum of the bacteria (the paddle that moves it along) works in the same way a complex man-made motor works, using the same principles of torque, friction, etc. They argued that if one component of the bacterium's flagellum was not there, the motor ceased functionable use, and therefore, must be created by some intellegent designer. but, they proved this wrong by pointing out that other bacteria had the same developmental adaptation of the flagellum, but the motor was missing parts. Though the flagellum didnt act as a paddle or rotor anymore, it certainly had a use as a hypodermic needle, as it used its adaptation for sticking to other cells and consuming them. This proved that complexity CAN be reducible WITH complex functionality. Its the argument that "a mousetrap is no longer a mousetrap if you take one part of it away." Though it may not be a mousetrap anymore, you can still use it in a functional way as a tie-clip.

Irreducible complexity doesnt exist, as it has been proved so many times.

Theres a theory that the universe never had a beginning, or an end, just one continuous expansion and contraction.

Why does everything need a beginning? Time doesnt have a beginning, nor does it have an end. The truth is, there was no beginning, and there will be no end.

I tell you this I come to you in reasoning and in logic,but you can't disprove or approve God's existences. That makes him God!

Where did Matter come from? Logically speaking
I would rather believe there is a God in the Bible than to die and then find out otherwise. It's a terrible notion to have listened to the worlds point of view to find out they where wrong and pay the ultimate price for it.

 

[b&wpac4]

I tell you this I come to you in reasoning and in logic,but you can't disprove or approve God's existences. That makes him God!

Where did Matter come from? Logically speaking
I would rather believe there is a God in the Bible than to die and then find out otherwise. It's a terrible notion to have listened to the worlds point of view to find out they where wrong and pay the ultimate price for it.

So I should be a Christian because it's potential a "Get Out Of Hell Free" card?

Let's play what you said around a bit:

It's a terrible notion to have to have listened to the Christians only to find out that the Muslims were correct and pay the ultimate price for it. That's not very pleasant, is it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

that is the nothingness i am referring too.


basically, nothing can't act because nothingness is restricted by the fact that it is nothing.

And nothingness doesn't act. Some thing comes into existence because, 'in' nothingness, there is no thing to stop the aforementioned thing from coming into existence.

here is the premise of my argument:
nothing is nothing

No, your premise is: nothing is nothing, but inexplicably has laws and restrictions and other physical phenomena.

here is the premise of your argument:
nothing is not nothing.

Nope. Our premise is: nothing is the lack of anything, including physical laws.

nothing is restricted from becoming something because it is nothing. these aren't outside restrictions, but these are restrictions placed in the existence (or non-existence) of nothing because if nothing exists, or doesn't exist, nothing is necessary to itself.

You are placing properties and qualities on something that, by definition, is an absence. How can an absence have properties?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I tell you this I come to you in reasoning and in logic,but you can't disprove or approve God's existences. That makes him God!

... what?

Where did Matter come from? Logically speaking

There are many ideas, but no one knows for sure (this includes theists).

I would rather believe there is a God in the Bible than to die and then find out otherwise.

Why? Why wouldn't you rather believe in the God of the Qu'ran? Or the Kitab-i-Aqdas? Or the gods of the Vedic texts? Or the gods of the Vikings? Or the Celts? Or the Angles? Or the Saxons? Or the Mayans? Or the Aztecs?

What's so special about the God of the Bible?

It's a terrible notion to have listened to the worlds point of view to find out they where wrong and pay the ultimate price for it.

Fortunately, no one knows what is true. What would happen if, when you died, it turned out that Islam was true?

 

[Wyzaard]

And nothingness doesn't act. Some thing comes into existence because, 'in' nothingness, there is no thing to stop the aforementioned thing from coming into existence.

Why don't we drop the term 'nothingness', and use something like 'chaos' or 'primal ocean of ur-stuff' or whatever; 'nothingness' seems to be too loaded with non-creative inertia to be useful here... what we need is something that can represent raw, untamed and unstructured potentiality.

 

[daniel777]

It is definitely not, seeing as the nothingness you are referring to still apparently has to obey the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry.



No, I am saying that the LACK of the LAWS OF LOGIC, PHYSICS, AND CHEMISTRY can cause something to come out of nothing.

My nothing can beat up your nothing!



Those restrictions only apply if that something or nothing has to abide by the laws of logic, physics, and chemistry, which the Greek concept of chaos does not.



You were wrong then, you are wrong now.



What part of LACKING THE LAWS OF LOGIC don't you understand?

haha, i liked the part about "my nothing can beat up your nothing" . reps. imo, it's a good idea to keep these kinds of discussions lighthearted. people get too sucked into these sometimes.

i'm not saying that nothing has to abide by the laws of logic. i'm saying that nothing has to abide by itself.


if nothing is nothing then it has restrictions based on the fact that it is nothing.

if nothing is not nothing then it has no restrictions... but if nothing is not nothing, then your argument cannot rest on "nothing"..... that's why when i first posted i said what you're really arguing in favor of is randomness.

Wiccan_Child: And nothingness doesn't act. Some thing comes into existence because, 'in' nothingness, there is no thing to stop the aforementioned thing from coming into existence.

that "in" is the problem.... if there is only nothing, and something comes into existence, then the something coming into existence is intrinsic to nothingness, which further would mean that nothing was never nothing to begin with.

a lack of something does not produce something, and a lack of everything does not produce the possibility of something.

basically, it's what i told pb...

you're presupposing that nothing isn't nothing before the argument even starts.

here's a breakdown of what you've just said:

1. nothing causes nothing; nothing cannot act.
2. nothing causes the possibility of something.

even if you say that nothing causes the possibility of something because it lacks rules, you're still saying that nothing "causes" the possibility of something.

it's like me saying absolute truth, or God, must exist because the concept of truth lacks any opposition other than truth. you're arguing ontologies, and i've already broken down to you why the ontology is wrong.


it's because nothing is nothing. nothing cannot produce something, not even possibilities of something, because that's still something. nothing does not lack restrictions because nothing is nothing. the only way for nothing to lack restrictions is if nothing is not nothing. if nothing is not nothing, then you're argument isn't based on the concept of "nothing" but on something.

No, your premise is: nothing is nothing, but inexplicably has laws and restrictions and other physical phenomena.

here's the logical outcome of your argument.


1. nothing is nothing
2. nothing lacks all restrictions.
3. nothing lacks the restriction of being nothing.
4. therefore, nothing is not nothing.

premise 2. is wrong.



if you remove all restrictions, you're not only allowing that nothing become something, you're allowing that nothing is something.

Nope. Our premise is: nothing is the lack of anything, including physical laws.

that outcome was just demonstrated above. . . . . which lands you back at "nothing is not nothing".

You are placing properties and qualities on something that, by definition, is an absence. How can an absence have properties?

i'm not placing properties on anything.... i'm saying that "an absence" is "an absence" and nothing more. . . . . . you're adding more.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why don't we drop the term 'nothingness', and use something like 'chaos' or 'primal ocean of ur-stuff' or whatever; 'nothingness' seems to be too loaded with non-creative inertia to be useful here... what we need is something that can represent raw, untamed and unstructured potentiality.

Well, "chaos" and "primal ocean of ur-stuff" are a bit too something-y for my taste. Nothingness aptly describes what's going on (or not, as the case my be).

that "in" is the problem.... if there is only nothing, and something comes into existence, then the something coming into existence is intrinsic to nothingness, which further would mean that nothing was never nothing to begin with.

How so? We're starting with nothingness (that is, there is no prior thing), and we end up with somethingness: the latter isn't intrinsic to the former because it is only by the absence of the latter that we have the former in the first place. As soon as we have some thing, we no longer have nothing.

a lack of something does not produce something, and a lack of everything does not produce the possibility of something.

I disagree. A lack of everything (i.e., nothingness) has the possibility of anything (i.e., the spontaneous generation of some thing) because it lacks anything to lower that probability to zero.

you're presupposing that nothing isn't nothing before the argument even starts.

I assure you, I'm not.

here's a breakdown of what you've just said:

1. nothing causes nothing; nothing cannot act.

Only inasmuch as there is no thing which acts. It doesn't mean no event can occur, only that no pre-existing thing can cause an event. Spontaneity is still a viable possibility.

2. nothing causes the possibility of something.

No. The crux of my argument is that nothingness can't cause anything. It's this inability to cause any event which allows some thing to come into existence in the first place.

even if you say that nothing causes the possibility of something because it lacks rules, you're still saying that nothing "causes" the possibility of something.

'Allows' might be a better word, but I'll wait for you to respond to the above.

it's like me saying absolute truth, or God, must exist because the concept of truth lacks any opposition other than truth. you're arguing ontologies, and i've already broken down to you why the ontology is wrong.

You've built a strawman, nothing more.

it's because nothing is nothing.

Now who's arguing ontologies

nothing cannot produce something, not even possibilities of something, because that's still something.

A possibility is not a reality. That it can doesn't mean it is.

nothing does not lack restrictions because nothing is nothing. the only way for nothing to lack restrictions is if nothing is not nothing.

Why? And surely not being nothingness contradicts the hypothetical starting point of nothingness? We're starting with nothingness (i.e., the absence of any thing), and seeing what event happens, if any.

here's the logical outcome of your argument.

1. nothing is nothing
2. nothing lacks all restrictions.
3. nothing lacks the restriction of being nothing.
4. therefore, nothing is not nothing.

premise 2. is wrong.

Then please, explain how nothingness can be restricted, if there's nothing to do the restricting.

Also, (3) makes no sense, and (4) is an invalid conclusion.

if you remove all restrictions, you're not only allowing that nothing become something, you're allowing that nothing is something.

No: removing restrictions allows for the possibility, not the actuality. That part comes later.

 

[allhart]

... what?


There are many ideas, but no one knows for sure (this includes theists).


Why? Why wouldn't you rather believe in the God of the Qu'ran? Or the Kitab-i-Aqdas? Or the gods of the Vedic texts? Or the gods of the Vikings? Or the Celts? Or the Angles? Or the Saxons? Or the Mayans? Or the Aztecs?

What's so special about the God of the Bible?


Fortunately, no one knows what is true. What would happen if, when you died, it turned out that Islam was true?

First off, What distinguishes Christianity from other religions?

Christianity is unique among the religions of the world for several reasons. First, unlike other religions Christianity is rooted in history and evidence. Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem in Judea during the region of Caesar Augustus and was put to death by Pontius Pilate, a first-century Roman governor. The testimony of his life, death and resurrection is validated both by credible extra-biblical evidence as well. No other religion can legitimately claim this kind of support from history and evidence.
Furthermore, of all the influential religious leaders of the world (Buddha,Moses,Zoroaster,Krishna, Lao Tzu, Muhammad, Baha'ullah) only Jesus claimed to be God in human flesh (Mark 14:62). And this was not an empty boast. For through the historically verifiable fact of the resurrection, Christ vindicated his claim to deity (Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:3-8). Other religions, such as Buddhism and Islam, claim miracles in support of their faith;however,unlike Christianity,such miracles lack historical validation.
Finally, Christianity is unique in that it is a coherent belief structure. Some Christian doctrines may transcend comprehension;however, unlike the claims of other religions, they are never irrational or contradictory. Christianity is also unique in that it cogently accounts for vast arry of phenomena we encounter in everyday life: the human mind,laws of science, laws of logic, ethical norms,justice, love,meaning in life, the problem of evil and suffering, and truth. In other word, Christianity corresponds with the reality of our present condition.

2 Peter 1:16:
16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.



A basic Q. Don't all religions lead to God? I believe these are variables to your answers and Q. I get this answer from The Complete Answer Book by Hank Hanegraaff. I though it was interesting.
Before answering this question, a word of warning is in order: Anyone who answers in the negative may well be ostracized for being narrow-minded and intolerant. That being said, my answer is "No, not all religions lead to God, and it is incorrect and illogical to maintain that they do. "
First, when you begin to examine world religions such as Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, you will immediately recognize that they directly contradict one another. For example, Moses taught that there was only one God; Krishna Believed in many gods; and Buddha was agnostic. Logically, they can all be wrong but they can't all be right.
Furthermore, the road of religion leads steeply uphill, while the road of Christianity descends downward. Put another way, Religion is fallen humanity's attempt to reach up and become acceptable to God through what we do; Christianity, on the other hand, is a divine gift based on what Christ has done. He lived the perfect life that we could never live and offers us his perfection as an absolutely free gift.
Finally, Jesus taught that there was only one way to God. "I am the way and the truth and the life," said Jesus, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6, emphasis added) Moreover, Jesus validated his claim through the immutable fact of his resurrection. The opinions of all other religious leaders are equally valid in that they are equally worthless. They died and are still dead. Only Jesus had the power to lay down his life and to take it up again. Thus, his opinion is infinitely more valid than theirs.
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

 

[Wyzaard]

Well, "chaos" and "primal ocean of ur-stuff" are a bit too something-y for my taste. Nothingness aptly describes what's going on (or not, as the case my be).

But that's the rub: by assigning some manner of non-existence to nothingness, you've injected a form of existential inertia/stasis into it's attributes that seems to preclude dynamic creation. Why not default to a state where neither existence nor non-existence are meaningful? "Chaos" implies instability and endless flux; it's not a "something", but rather where stuff and non-stuff arises.