Coming from nothing

[Archaeopteryx]

We've never observed the formation of the genome comprising Archaeopteryx, but we can through deduction conclude they existed.

What deduction leads one to conclude that the universe was created from nothing?

Nothing from a scientific standpoint is the lack of Physics, which means no physical laws existed. God is not the result of physical laws so the state of Nothing does not preclude the existence of God

Then it's not nothing. There's still something there. It may not abide by physical principles, but it's certainly not 'nothing'.

There was no material cause. That's what current cosmology seems to indicate.

No it doesn't. If you can posit an efficient cause without a material cause, then why not posit a material cause without an efficient cause? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[FireDragon76]

No it doesn't. If you can posit an efficient cause without a material cause, then why not posit a material cause without an efficient cause? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Material and efficient causes are two different things altogether. We put the word "cause" in there, but that doesn't really mean that they are differences of degree... they are stark differences of kind. It means something entirely different to be an efficient cause.

Saying God created ex nihilo really means that God created matter out of nothing but his own divine will and power. This is not hard to understand, it means that matter is being upheld by something immaterial. In some ways, it's comparable to the Hindu concepts of maya. Maya in Hindu religion is literally "illusion", but it is also understood as God's divine power manifesting the universe through that illusion. Christians essentially believe the same thing, material reality is not autonomous and self-existing, it's contingent on an immaterial reality we do not see, hence the "illusion".

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There is no reason to believe your position. The supernatural can be defined very coherently.

The supernatural is well defined.

I invite you to be the first person in history to provide that definition, and to provide a workable epistemology by which to reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'.

A supernatural cause with free will ...
1) obviously provides explanatory scope as it explains the universe,
2) provides predictive novelty since we have no reason for there to be something rather then nothing,
3) allows for testability because the best explanation can change any time based on the experimental underpinnings of our understanding of the universe,

Vacuous gibberish. You haven't even provided a coherent, positive ontological account of the 'supernatural', nor a means by which to reliably glean information about the 'supernatural', nor identified a mechanism by which the 'supernatural' may causally integrate with nature.

You'll have to remedy these rudimentary flaws in your position before you can even begin to meaningfully speak of a 'supernatural cause'.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I invite you to be the first person in history to provide that definition, and to provide a workable epistemology by which to reliably glean information about the 'supernatural'.

We are interested in two characteristics of events. Are they detectable and are they predictable. Natural events are either detectable and predictable or predictable but not detectable. A supernatural event caused by a free will agent is detectable and not-predictable. I’m using predictable in the sense that the event would not even be subject to a consistent statistical analysis of its behavior, ergo a random event is not supernatural

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What deduction leads one to conclude that the universe was created from nothing?

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

• As demonstrated by normal experience

P2: The universe began to exist

• The Standard Model

C: Therefore the universe has a cause

Then it's not nothing. There's still something there. It may not abide by physical principles, but it's certainly not 'nothing'.

Science says it's nothing. You can reject science if you wish, but it is not rational to do so.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

No it doesn't. If you can posit an efficient cause without a material cause, then why not posit a material cause without an efficient cause? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Because the science established over the last 100 years indicates that there was no material cause. Do you know what cosmology is?

Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.
MIT Department of Physics

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Go on...

We are interested in two characteristics of events. Are they detectable and are they predictable. Natural events are either detectable and predictable or predictable but not detectable. A supernatural event caused by a free will agent is detectable and not-predictable. I’m using predictable in the sense that the event would not even be subject to a consistent statistical analysis of its behavior, ergo a random event is not supernatural

 

[Dave Ellis]

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

• As demonstrated by normal experience

P2: The universe began to exist

• The Standard Model

C: Therefore the universe has a cause

Even if the universe has a cause, that's not justification that there was nothing preceding it.

Science says it's nothing. You can reject science if you wish, but it is not rational to do so.

Actually, science says it was likely quantum fluctuations in a vacuum.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Your definition is a pretend definition.

I didn't make it up. It's a philosophical view on causality. It might not be what you had learned in high school science class.

Incidentally, it is funny to me that you talk about Aristotelian material and efficient causes and then criticize me for not defining words as they are most often used in science. You are introducing philosophical terms into the discussion.

Creation is a two state process.
Initial State: No physical laws existed.
Final State: The Laws of Nature, aka Physics existed.

Physics is the result of the creation event.

What is the metaphysical status of the laws of physics? What are they?

How can they laws of physics not exist? How were they created?

As I see it, there are no "laws" of physics. Rather, there are descriptions of how entities change. They aren't forced to change as they do because of "laws", but simply because they exist as the entities that they are. All that is required for there to be "laws" of physics are entities. After all, to exist is to exist as something.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Because the science established over the last 100 years indicates that there was no material cause. Do you know what cosmology is?

Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.
MIT Department of Physics

How many times are you going to cut and paste that paragraph when it doesn't back up your argument?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even if the universe has a cause, that's not justification that there was nothing preceding it.

It flatly refutes that conclusion. Any cause would have to exist. The only question is if that cause is material or "immaterial" (whatever that is). We only have experience with material causes (efficient or not), and so the existence of "immaterial causes" must be substantiated, at least if we aren't just pretending to care what science has to say on the subject.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Skybringr]

I have seen this critique a lot when it comes to abiogenesis and the creation of everything (which is not evolution, just so everyone knows that). People will say, "Something cannot from nothing" and "A living thing cannot come from a non-living thing." So they say, "Since those two things cannot happen, then there must be some sort of Creator."

But if what they say is true, then who created a higher being?

Their answer is, "Well that being always existed."

Regardless of whether a person beliefs that a god is a physical being or not, they believe it exists, and that this being created everything. So, in reality atheists/agnostics are not doing anything far fetched when they accept things such as ambiogenesis and in theories like the Big Bang.

edit: I should have clarified. I re-read the title and went . I don't think that there was nothing previous to the big bang. It's just that is how theists tend to word things.

The Big Bang isn't an answer to creation, it is simply a theory of everything coming into being after the fact and expanding.

You've already stated that, I'm simply telling it so that it will stay in mind for this next bit.

The underlying problem of physics is that for any idea that proposes the universe is arbitrary, there's the frustrating post-observation that the universe is so orchestrated and intricate that it produces everything from stardust to life.

These things do not resemble a pointless, random thrust of creation- one with order and mathematical sense, or even more, capable of creating vessels that can peer back on itself (sentient beings).


Nothing has prevailed physics to show that a literal God did not create the universe, purposefully and in full recognizance.

So physics has gone to trying out ideas such as infinite universes and extra dimensions such as string theory and whatnot.
And so far, these things have considerably failed to produce and fruit, even though this has been going on for a long while. In fact, Einstein figured out relativity in a lesser time frame.

It's because of that really that it's bemusing to me that atheists should be the one doing this: , when they have pretty much utterly failed to produce an alternative. It's theists who should be putting face to palm every time atheists fail, not atheists when theists try to prove God.

 

[Syd the Human]

The Big Bang isn't an answer to creation, it is simply a theory of everything coming into being after the fact and expanding.

You've already stated that, I'm simply telling it so that it will stay in mind for this next bit.

The underlying problem of physics is that for any idea that proposes the universe is arbitrary, there's the frustrating post-observation that the universe is so orchestrated and intricate that it produces everything from stardust to life.

These things do not resemble a pointless, random thrust of creation- one with order and mathematical sense, or even more, capable of creating vessels that can peer back on itself (sentient beings).


Nothing has prevailed physics to show that a literal God did not create the universe, purposefully and in full recognizance.

So physics has gone to trying out ideas such as infinite universes and extra dimensions such as string theory and whatnot.
And so far, these things have considerably failed to produce and fruit, even though this has been going on for a long while. In fact, Einstein figured out relativity in a lesser time frame.

It's because of that really that it's bemusing to me that atheists should be the one doing this: , when they have pretty much utterly failed to produce an alternative. It's theists who should be putting face to palm every time atheists fail, not atheists when theists try to prove God.

I don't think that scientists made the Big Bang theory to just make theists sad, and besides, the burden of proof is on your end, not ours.

 

[Skybringr]

I don't think that scientists made the Big Bang theory to just make theists sad, and besides. The burden of proof is on your end, not ours.

The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest.

And that is a thoroughbred fact, Jack.

 

[Syd the Human]

The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest.

And that is a thoroughbred fact, Jack.

That just proves my point. Why would a theist want to provide evidence for the non-existence of a god, or try to bolster the side that says there is no god?

So, the Big Bang theory was not made to make theists sad.

 

[KCfromNC]

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

• As demonstrated by normal experience

Normal experience shows that immaterial gods don't create stuff from nothingness. If we're going to be consistent and allow "demonstrated by normal experience" to count as evidence for a premise, it is only fair to carry that through and say your conclusion is contradicted by normal experience and therefore isn't justified.

But anyway, why would one look to "normal experience" for intuitive understanding when talking about a time before physics as we know it existed? Seems that it kind of the exact opposite of what anyone would consider normal.

 

[KCfromNC]

The Big Bang isn't an answer to creation, it is simply a theory of everything coming into being after the fact and expanding.

You've already stated that, I'm simply telling it so that it will stay in mind for this next bit.

The underlying problem of physics is that for any idea that proposes the universe is arbitrary, there's the frustrating post-observation that the universe is so orchestrated and intricate that it produces everything from stardust to life.

These things do not resemble a pointless, random thrust of creation- one with order and mathematical sense, or even more, capable of creating vessels that can peer back on itself (sentient beings).

Sure, I agree. The facts obviously point to a god creating a universe with an eye towards his most preferred creation - vacuum quantum events. Why else would that god create a universe that is basically empty?

Nothing has prevailed physics to show that a literal God did not create the universe, purposefully and in full recognizance.

That's because physicists have better things to do than play "how many angels fit on the head of a pin". It isn't that there's some competition between religion and science - in the eyes of scientists, religion and gods are simply irrelevant to the discussion.

It's because of that really that it's bemusing to me that atheists should be the one doing this: , when they have pretty much utterly failed to produce an alternative. It's theists who should be putting face to palm every time atheists fail, not atheists when theists try to prove God.

Science has lots of valid alternatives to the theists "it is magic!" claims. That's why you're using a computer to lecture people rather than just asking god to telepathically implant a message in everyone's brains, for example.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

We are interested in two characteristics of events. Are they detectable and are they predictable. Natural events are either detectable and predictable or predictable but not detectable. A supernatural event caused by a free will agent is detectable and not-predictable. I’m using predictable in the sense that the event would not even be subject to a consistent statistical analysis of its behavior, ergo a random event is not supernatural

This is neither a positive, coherent ontological account of the 'supernatural', nor is it an epistemological account of the 'supernatural'.

Define your terms, substantiate your assertions. In that order.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think that scientists made the Big Bang theory to just make theists sad, and besides, the burden of proof is on your end, not ours.

Didn't you know, that's all scientists do all day, try to disprove the existence of God.

 

[Skybringr]

That just proves my point. Why would a theist want to provide evidence for the non-existence of a god, or try to bolster the side that says there is no god?

So, the Big Bang theory was not made to make theists sad.

There is no evidence for the 'non-existence of God'.
If anyone is proving that more then anybody, it is atheists and their repeated failures at trying to explain the origins of the universe.

Also, it's funny how Einstein receives veneration, as well as even those with lesser discoveries, but since the founder of the Big Bang theory was a priest, he is not given the same.

It just goes to show the bias of atheists for what it really is; and the conceited nature of secularized science.