-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Can something come from nothing?
- Thread starter Cieza
- Start date
Now adays the athiest scientist is redefining nothing as something to get around this issue.
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,893
- 17,793
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Notedstrangeperson
Well-Known Member
Voted Yes.
Everything starts - somewhere, somehow. Finding out where it all began has always been a problem for science. We can either conclude that everything was the result of something else (which leads us to infinite regression) or we can conclude that it's possible for something to come from nothing (which seems impossible).
Both answers seem to violate the basic law of cause-and-effect. We're stuck between having no answer and having an impossible answer.
Everything starts - somewhere, somehow. Finding out where it all began has always been a problem for science. We can either conclude that everything was the result of something else (which leads us to infinite regression) or we can conclude that it's possible for something to come from nothing (which seems impossible).
Both answers seem to violate the basic law of cause-and-effect. We're stuck between having no answer and having an impossible answer.
Upvote
0
secondtimearound
King Kong has everything on me
- Feb 12, 2009
- 389
- 19
- Faith
- Salvation Army
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
The law of causality (or the law of cause and effect) states that everything that begins to exist had a cause. Also important to note that an infinite regress of events is impossible. So you either believe that something came from absolute nothing (try and wrap your head around that) or that an uncaused cause created the universe.
Upvote
0
Christians claim that somewhere along this line of infinite regression lies an uncaused cause or a something that did not require a something to be created. Why the Christians place this uncaused cause immediately preceding the universe is what puzzles me.
Upvote
0
It's more accurate to say that "we're stuck between having an ignored answer and having an impossible answer".
But you are right in saying that "Everything starts - somewhere, somehow", that's a biblical concept...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:1-3
John 1:1-3
Upvote
0
secondtimearound
King Kong has everything on me
- Feb 12, 2009
- 389
- 19
- Faith
- Salvation Army
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
You are misrepresenting what I said, I am not a pantheist I am a monotheist. I believe that the big bang is true and that an infinite regress of events is impossible, thus one event along the chain has to been an uncaused cause, the beginning and I believe that beginning is God.
So it's not that I believe the universe is an uncaused cause, it's that I believe the universe is the result of an uncaused cause. God.
Upvote
0
If you trace back each something as having come from something else all the way back until you reach this uncaused cause, your belief is such that what caused the universe to come into existence is the uncaused cause. Just how did you arrive at that conclusion/belief? Why would you not consider that maybe the universe itself is the uncaused cause?
Upvote
0
By that reasoning, I am God.
If I cut myself and I bleed, then that blood which came from me came from God. Since the blood came from me, and you are defining "God" as the thing that all things came from, then I must be God. I suggest you send your prayers my way. Perhaps I'll answer some of them.
Upvote
0
leftrightleftrightleft
Well-Known Member
Vacuum energy is present even when these particles appear in a vacuum. So the particles are deriving their ability to be created from vacuum energy.
Where did vacuum energy come from?
Upvote
0
Notedstrangeperson
Well-Known Member
If something has a begining then it cannot be infinite regression.Cieza said:
Because the "uncaused cause" would be what created the universe.Cieza said:
Upvote
0
secondtimearound
King Kong has everything on me
- Feb 12, 2009
- 389
- 19
- Faith
- Salvation Army
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
A result of the expansion of the universe. I hold true to the singularity.
Upvote
0
lol.
You are a self-diefied pantheist then.
I have no use for that nonsense
A wise man I know said once, "a man wrapped up in Himself makes a non-existent package".
unsubscribing
Upvote
0
secondtimearound
King Kong has everything on me
- Feb 12, 2009
- 389
- 19
- Faith
- Salvation Army
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-Conservatives
To answer your first question, The Law Of Causality and that an actual infinite does not exist in both philosophy and in science. This makes a infinite regress of past events impossible. So at some point along the chain you have to run into something that is uncaused, something that put everything into motion.
So why would I hold to the universe itself not being the uncaused cause? Simply because I hold The big bang and the singularity as true, which means the universe had a beginning. The universe has not just always been here, to say that goes against modern physics. There is an age on the universe and best extimates put that around 13.7 billion years old.
Upvote
0
I find something from nothing very troubling. But I find something existing eternally just as troubling. And the last 150 years of science should teach us that the fact that something is troubling doesn't mean it's wrong.
It's pretty clear that the current universe has something like a beginning. (Just "like" because saying that it has a beginning implies things about time that probably aren't quite true.)
Most scientists dislike the idea of something from nothing enough that they suspect a "larger" system out of which universes come. There are hints of what such a system might be like, but nothing definite yet.
My intuition is that in the end the basic thing will be eternal. The real question is whether the eternal thing is completely impersonal, personal, or a mix (i.e. a person or persons together with things that aren't persons). (Of course it might not have time. That's a bit weird to imagine. But my suspicion is that somehow it has to have the ability for things to happen, or we wouldn't exist.)
It has now come time to give my argument, the argument from evolution.
Matter on earth has managed to self-organize into life in a period of like 4 billion years. If there's a larger system out of which universes come, one would think that it would have the necessary resources to produce life as well. Furthermore it's got a much longer time in which to do it.
Thus I would argue that the underlying system, whatever it is, either is itself alive or has life in it. Furthermore, this life should itself be infinite in age. (Not necessarily the specific individual(s) of course, but life.) Why? Because however long it would take to develop life, the time is finite. At any given time, no matter how early, life would already be present. Because of the somewhat odd properties of infinity, that means it's infinite in age. (I'm skipping some steps in the proof.)
An infinitely old life, whether a single individual or something like a species or series of species, operating in a system capable of generating universes, is likely to be indistinguishable from a god.
It's pretty clear that the current universe has something like a beginning. (Just "like" because saying that it has a beginning implies things about time that probably aren't quite true.)
Most scientists dislike the idea of something from nothing enough that they suspect a "larger" system out of which universes come. There are hints of what such a system might be like, but nothing definite yet.
My intuition is that in the end the basic thing will be eternal. The real question is whether the eternal thing is completely impersonal, personal, or a mix (i.e. a person or persons together with things that aren't persons). (Of course it might not have time. That's a bit weird to imagine. But my suspicion is that somehow it has to have the ability for things to happen, or we wouldn't exist.)
It has now come time to give my argument, the argument from evolution.
Matter on earth has managed to self-organize into life in a period of like 4 billion years. If there's a larger system out of which universes come, one would think that it would have the necessary resources to produce life as well. Furthermore it's got a much longer time in which to do it.
Thus I would argue that the underlying system, whatever it is, either is itself alive or has life in it. Furthermore, this life should itself be infinite in age. (Not necessarily the specific individual(s) of course, but life.) Why? Because however long it would take to develop life, the time is finite. At any given time, no matter how early, life would already be present. Because of the somewhat odd properties of infinity, that means it's infinite in age. (I'm skipping some steps in the proof.)
An infinitely old life, whether a single individual or something like a species or series of species, operating in a system capable of generating universes, is likely to be indistinguishable from a god.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
