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.
Your premise is flawed - nothing isn't a thing that can be put into a yard. The whole point is that not only is there no yard, there're no physical laws to govern what can or cannot happen.I just unloaded 17,000,000,000 tons of nothing in your front yard. Feel free to make the biggest something you can. And by the way, you can only use the nothing I unloaded. You cannot use any of the dirt in your yard as that is already something. You cannot use the air that surrounds the nothing I unloaded in your yard, because the air is already something. You can't even use your brain, intelligence, or wisdom in the project to make something from the nothing because your intelligence and wisdom is something. Go!
In Christ, GB
Maybe, but the OP asks for you to prove it can't happen.There just isn't any evidence for it.
And to satisfy the OP, you need something more than sheer common sense.In our experience, you need something for something to happen. If there is nothing, there is nothing. Junk in, junk out.
Score two for the OP.I'm bailing. Thank you.
Wait, the claim "God exists" is exempt from having to be justified? I smell special pleading.Well, he is exempt, but the question doesn't offend me.
Necessary, but not desirable.Rather, I'm confused by the stubbornness of the question. There does come a point where trust is necessary.
I disagree. All the evidence and papers for a given phenomenon might not be reproducible by you individually, but to reject them as a fraudulent hoax requires the grandest of conspiracy theories. Moreover, the sheer fact that technology works is proof enough that the underlying theories, and the scientists working on them, know what they're talking about.You can talk all you want about how anyone can verify physics. But that is only an idealistic statement, not a reality. There is no practical reality whereby every person on the face of the planet can have access to the resources necessary to duplicate every aspect of physics. So, most who accept physics simply have to trust those who do have access. To then turn around and claim spiritual matters can be rejected because it should be based on evidence and not trust simply becomes a double standard.
Why? Why must we trust him? Remember, we're not trusting God's word, we're trusting man's word. Scientists en masse regularly vindicate their claims, to the scientific community via peer review, and to the general public with a combination of mass media and free market enterprise.We don't have the same access that God does. So, at some point we must trust him.
I would argue that 'B' is being shifting the goalposts. When he says, "No. I mean I want you to actually show me every integer and show me that you can add 1 to it", he is in error.An example of how these discussions often come across to me:
A: The set of integers is infinite.
B: Show me the evidence.
A: For every integer, n, I can formulate n+1.
B: Maybe there is an integer for which you can't formulate n+1. Can you prove to me that's not possible?
A: Yes, I can. Actually I just did.
B: No. I mean I want you to actually show me every integer and show me that you can add 1 to it.
A: That's impossible.
B: Exactly. So there's no evidence for infinite integers.
A: Yes there is. I gave it to you. The proof using n+1.
B: That's not the evidence I asked for. Given the evidence I asked for, you can only show me something finite. Not something infinite. Therefore, there is no evidence that the integers are infinite.
... and on and on it goes. The "evidence" being asked for just can't be given.
The point of the OP is to offer people an opportunity to disprove those four claims, which are often simply dismissed as "Cuh, pfft, duh, they're obviously false, so I won't even bother disproving it".Why? I truly don't understand what you're after. As far as I'm concerned, the question I raised is undecidable. Therefore, the premise of something from nothing is undecidable. It's simply pointless to discuss it unless you give me something more ... or unless you tell me more about what you're trying to accomplish by pushing this off on me.
Well, you are correct there. Nothing isn't a "thing", it's nothing. Nothing is nothing. NO and THING. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. "Nothing" isn't a "thing". It can't be. If it were a "thing", then it would be a "something" and "nothing" can be "something" and "something" can never be "nothing. Nothing is nothing. It's a difficult concept to grasp.Your premise is flawed - nothing isn't a thing that can be put into a yard.
The fact that I said you could not incorporate any "thing" into your nothing-into-something-building-experiement shows I have a great grasp on what you are trying to accomplish with the OP. I have showed that you cannot add physical elements such as dirt or air, but I have also shown that one cannot add in untangible elements such as intellect. The moment one adds something, tangible or untangible, nothing now has something with it. You simply cannot make something from nothing. You will accomplish nothing by doing it or working with nothing.The whole point is that not only is there no yard, there're no physical laws to govern what can or cannot happen.
The fact that you make a list of stipulations shows you haven't quite grasped the idea yet.
Wait, the claim "God exists" is exempt from having to be justified? I smell special pleading.
I would argue that 'B' is being shifting the goalposts.
So the question (for another thread) is, have theists actually provided evidence for God?
I disagree. All the evidence and papers for a given phenomenon might not be reproducible by you individually, but to reject them as a fraudulent hoax requires the grandest of conspiracy theories.
Why? Why must we trust him? Remember, we're not trusting God's word, we're trusting man's word. Scientists en masse regularly vindicate their claims, to the scientific community via peer review, and to the general public with a combination of mass media and free market enterprise.
The point of the OP is to offer people an opportunity to disprove those four claims, which are often simply dismissed as "Cuh, pfft, duh, they're obviously false, so I won't even bother disproving it".
This is infuriatingly stubborn, so this thread is the place where such people can give this disproof that I can't for the life of me find. As you might guess, my opinion is that such disproofs don't exist (that's why no one's been able to actually give them), and, thus far, it seems I'm right
If I make a claim, the onus is on me to back it up, not on you to tear it down.
No. "Evidence" was never defined.
Say what you like. Trust is a factor when there are people who are not directly involved with the evidence. And I would disagree that in the case of God you are trusting the word of man. IMO it is the word of God.
There just isn't any evidence for it. In our experience, you need something for something to happen. If there is nothing, there is nothing.
What personal experience with nothingness are you basing these statements on?
Prove to me, if you will, that something can't come from nothing, that true randomness doesn't exist, that an event cannot occur without a cause, that an object can't exist without a beginning.
You may address these four questions individually or en masse. Go!
This is useless to someone trying to determine if god(s) are real.
Here in reality, non-believers accept evidence for lots of stuff as a good indication that stuff is real. The evidence for god(s) fails to live up to those standards. That's not the fault of the people asking for evidence that the evidence for god is poor to non-existent.
So, who gets to define "evidence"? The one asking for it or the one offering it?
Semantically, whoever used the word first. In standard discourse, the term already has an established meaning - facts or observations that support an argument or claim. Useful evidence is evidence that can be shared - God whispering in your ear, "I exist", might well convince you, but it can't exactly be shared.No. "Evidence" was never defined. B is simply clarifying his definition of evidence. I think B is wrong, but I wouldn't call him an idiot. After all, the point of the example is that I often see myself as A and you as B. The nature of the definition of evidence excludes the "proof" that would be offered. So, who gets to define "evidence"? The one asking for it or the one offering it?
And by believers, in some cases. The evidence for God is variously personal testimony of non-repeatable in-my-brain revelation, and the dodgey manipulation of science (qv., the teleological and cosmological arguments) and logic (qv. the ontological argument).Yes, but it's been rejected by unbelievers.
Depends - the Bible is a big book that says a lot of things about a lot of topics. If I rejected it completely, then yes, I'd have to be assuming a grand conspiracy. If I accepted the well-established stuff (like the existence of Egypt), but rejected the unestablished stuff (like the talking donkeys), there's no need to invoke a conspiracy.When you reject the Bible and all the associated testimony & theology, are you assuming it is a grand conspiracy?
I disagree - there is evidence, so that we don't need trust. Technology serves as proof that at least some of these theories really do work. After all, how else could you and I be talking?Say what you like. Trust is a factor when there are people who are not directly involved with the evidence.
'In your opinion', exactly - not God's opinion. Unless God himself wants to come down and speak, there is only a book of English words and the humans who interpret them.And I would disagree that in the case of God you are trusting the word of man. IMO it is the word of God.
We're discussing the four claims, and whether or not you or anyone else can disprove them. The claims are often stated to be so obviously wrong that it's not worth actually citing the disproof - well, here's the thread to do just that.As I said earlier, and as several other people seem to have said, the tables are turned. It is you who are making the claim.
So, again, I'm confused. Are you saying you haven't made a claim? If not, then what are we discussing?
Hello!wiccan child
Indeed.you dont belive in God
Mhm.please stop with your fakeness.
Noted.I want you to believe in not only God but jesus the king
Actually, it's a concept I've been talking about since the first post.Well, you are correct there. Nothing isn't a "thing", it's nothing. Nothing is nothing. NO and THING. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nothing. "Nothing" isn't a "thing". It can't be. If it were a "thing", then it would be a "something" and "nothing" can be "something" and "something" can never be "nothing. Nothing is nothing. It's a difficult concept to grasp.
Yes, again, Dr. Seuss, I'm well aware of the concept.As for why you believe my premise is flawed.... I don't think you grasp what you just typed. Allow me to restate it "'Nothing' isn't a 'thing'". That 17 trillion tons of nothing i left you, that all fit in the matchbox inside a glovebox inside a Smart2 car. I can put "nothing" anywhere I want. I could put an elephant in a fridge and still have room for nothing. I could put a cat in a hat and still have room nothing. I could fill a glass with water to the very brim and still have room for nothing. Nothing will fit anywhere. Nothing will fit on top of anything. You can put nothing under anything you'd like. You can drive through nothing, or you can drive around nothing. You can put nothing anywhere. Nothing is stopping you.
Yes, that's rather the point.The fact that I said you could not incorporate any "thing" into your nothing-into-something-building-experiement shows I have a great grasp on what you are trying to accomplish with the OP. I have showed that you cannot add physical elements such as dirt or air, but I have also shown that one cannot add in untangible elements such as intellect. The moment one adds something, tangible or untangible, nothing now has something with it.
And that, GB, is that the OP is asking you to prove. Besides stating tautologies, you haven't really stated anything of substance.You simply cannot make something from nothing. You will accomplish nothing by doing it or working with nothing.
Give them nothing, and then we'll see.If nothing can be used to create something, why do we get taxed so hard for roads, education, defense, and bureaucracies? Let them build something from nothing.
Thank you for trolling my thread.I have to admit, this was fun, but I'm bouncing. Later alligator!
Your analogy makes some core assumptions that don't apply if we 'had' nothingness. For instance, having a linear timestream, or having an empty variable. These are 'things' which don't exist in nothingness.1) If you are familiar with computer code you can make the following code in any simple computer programming language (MATLAB, Python, C++ etc):
x=0
while x<1
if x <=0
abs(x)
end
end
It will continue to run zeroes until your computer runs out of memory. This is essentially a system of nothing (zeros). You'll notice that in my code I've allowed for the possibility that the loop could be broken and I've also made x positive. If x becomes anything other than zero, the loop will be broken.
You're suggesting that if we had a large enough computer and sufficient data space and we ran this code long enough, the loop would eventually be broken.
So you claim, but can you prove it?I don't believe this is possible. Something cannot begin from nothing.
'True' randomness doesn't mean there isn't a probability distribution, exactly the opposite it means there is a probability distribution. A roll of a d6 is a mechanical affair with basically one outcome. Genuine randomness, then, is where the roll of the d6 really would be unpredictable - there is some element or aspect of the process that is as-yet undecided, that has no presence in the universe.2) I don't know if true randomness exists. Anything that appears random could later be found to have a cause. I also don't know what you mean by TRUE randomness. To me that phrase implies that even probability cannot describe the nature of the object. For example, if you have a die and you roll it. The outcome could be "random" but it isn't TRULY random because there is still a probability distribution for it. For something to be truly random I don't think even a probability distribution could describe it. With our current understanding of science, I don't see any evidence for true randomness by my definition. Please correct me if my definition is wrong.
But, again, you're just stating your conclusion. Tying the idea to the number line and saying, "Well, there's a 'zero' so there must be a cause", is an error in your analogy, not the claim.3) An event occurring without a cause is essentially the same argument as "something from nothing". Let any event by any number x=/=0. Lack of a cause essentially means there was no preceding event (x=0). See #1
1) What does 'immaterial' mean?4) I think an object can exist without a beginning. So long as that object is immaterial. The physical universe as we know it had a beginning. So, in that sense, no physical object can exist without a beginning because physical objects are bounded by time. But if something were to be eternal, then it, by definition, has no beginning.
Semantically, whoever used the word first. In standard discourse, the term already has an established meaning - facts or observations that support an argument or claim. Useful evidence is evidence that can be shared - God whispering in your ear, "I exist", might well convince you, but it can't exactly be shared.
'In your opinion', exactly - not God's opinion. Unless God himself wants to come down and speak, there is only a book of English words and the humans who interpret them.
Now, knowing you as I do, you're drawing a comparison, which is fine, so I'll preemptively counter.
... the only way to explain why all these social institutions exist that correlate with the existence of technology - either scientists really are making advances and producing things like iPads and 42" flatscreen TVs, or virtually everyone is in on the hoax but me. Thus, a grand conspiracy.
Nothing is actually based on the Bible, in the way that technology and medicine is based on science.
I disagree - there is evidence, so that we don't need trust. Technology serves as proof that at least some of these theories really do work. After all, how else could you and I be talking?
We're discussing the four claims, and whether or not you or anyone else can disprove them. The claims are often stated to be so obviously wrong that it's not worth actually citing the disproof - well, here's the thread to do just that.
I fully anticipate that no one will disprove them, but I've been wrong before
If it exists, sure - I say 'useful' to compare it to 'useless' evidence, such as divine revelation.We haven't gotten to the root of this yet. If I make the statement, "Jesus Christ is God," there is evidence I can share with you ... namely the historical evidence for his existence.
So, is that "useful" evidence?
What I mean is, dismissing the Bible doesn't require any knock-on adoptions of beliefs, or, at least, nothing as dramatic as a world-wide conspiracy. Rejecting the scientific community as fundamentally bogus requires the adoption of very implausible beliefs, but rejecting the Bible as false (in part, at least), doesn't require anything more than what we already do, when we reject other religious texts.I agree the dependencies are not the same, but that doesn't mean that what stems from the Bible is trivial. In fact, given the social impact it has made, one could argue it is more important than science. I think you're mixing your idea of what had a "good" effect into this.
99% confidence is enough, for me, to bely trust. Otherwise, 'trust' becomes a pointless term for beliefs that aren't 100% epistemologically proven.Yes, the confidence level is higher for some things than others. That's not the point. The confidence is never 100%. So, there is always an element of trust.
Maybe, but I enjoy our discussions.OK. Maybe I finally get it. You are poking at an implicit claim by some that they can disprove the 4 statements. I don't think I ever made any of those claims, did I? I guess I should never have posted in this thread, then.
Why meaningless? Unprovable, perhaps, but the concept still has meaning. Can you distinguish the unlikely remission of cancer from divine intervention? Doubtful, as any instance of intervention could be masked as a natural phenomenon. But the idea of divine intervention isn't meaningless, just unprovable (in this case).What I did claim, though, is that your something from nothing idea is undecidable. I cannot distinguish an event with no cause from an event with an unknown cause. As such, to claim an event has no cause is, to me, a meaningless claim.
What I mean is, dismissing the Bible doesn't require any knock-on adoptions of beliefs, or, at least, nothing as dramatic as a world-wide conspiracy. Rejecting the scientific community as fundamentally bogus requires the adoption of very implausible beliefs, but rejecting the Bible as false (in part, at least), doesn't require anything more than what we already do, when we reject other religious texts.
But you disagree. So, what is it about rejecting the Bible that means you have to do more than consider believers to be wrong (as you likely do wuth Buddhists, Hindus, etc)?
Why meaningless?
Can you distinguish the unlikely remission of cancer from divine intervention?
OK, fair enough.I'm not sure I've got the proper way to segment this, but I think the way you are segmenting it is wrong. You keep talking about the whole scientific community, but only part of the religious community, and even then only part of the Bible. I think that creates a false dichotomy.
The same way you feel you can reject parts of the Bible, I feel justified in rejecting parts of science. In rejecting those parts, I don't feel I am rejecting any basic scientific principles: method, etc.
So, when I reject Hinduism, I am not rejecting an entire system. I am not rejecting the immaterial, the role of spirituality, or the existence of God. I am only rejecting specific claims. And, in my case, I don't reject them lightly. I find the questions raised in these forums intriguing and I like to ponder how they can be satisfactorily answered. So why is Biblical revelation true and Koranic revelation false? I do ponder those questions.
Nor do I, but that doesn't mean the difference between the causes is meaningless. If God causes an event to happen, and if an event has no cause (it's spontaneous, or self-causing, or whatever), is that a meaningless distinction?Because I can't think of any way to distinguish them in a manner that allows me to move forward. How would physics be done differently on an event with an unknowable cause versus an event with no cause? I haven't a clue.
And yet, the difference between the two causes isn't meaningless.Rephrasing your question a bit, can I "know" that an event was miraculous? Honestly, not in all cases.
Self-evident? I don't see it. If a miracle (by which I assume you mean direct intervention by God) has indeed occurred, why would that vindicate prayer? The sheer fact that a miracle occurred doesn't mean that the being that caused it to happen will listen to prayer, let alone act on it.But all I need is to know that a miracle has occurred at least once. From there the value of prayer becomes self-evident.
What I'm saying is, we don't. Or rather, the 'trust' is not equitable ...
By contrast, the 'trust' that one needs to have to believe in God and to believe God's word without supporting evidence, is something altogether different.
And yet, the difference between the two causes isn't meaningless.
Self-evident? I don't see it. If a miracle (by which I assume you mean direct intervention by God) has indeed occurred, why would that vindicate prayer? The sheer fact that a miracle occurred doesn't mean that the being that caused it to happen will listen to prayer, let alone act on it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?