Creation ex nihilo

[KCfromNC]

I understand that you don't trust the Bible.

But did you understand my objecting to your reason for trusting it?

So how would you answer my question (quoted below)?

Define it however you'd like - just be consistent with it. That is, if you're saying others should trust in a god, you can't complain if they trust in the power of Shiva to change lives. And more importantly, you'd have to accept that as evidence that Christianity is wrong.

 

[Resha Caner]

But did you understand my objecting to your reason for trusting it?

Yes, I think I understand why you don't trust it.

If I brought you a document stating your taxes are going to be raised, and it was signed by President Flinn, that would not be convincing evidence for you that President Flinn existed. By the same token, if it were signed by President Obama it wouldn't be convincing evidence either. You need to have an experience with an object itself before you will be convinced the object exists. What I find interesting is the ways people extrapolate. Amongst those who accept that Obama exists, relatively few have seen him in person. But they know the U.S. has a President. They've had experiences confirming that someone who appears in a photo or on TV can be real. And there is a general consensus among the people they trust that Obama is the President. So, they accept his existence.

Interesting thing is, they've also had experiences with all of those things being wrong or intentionally faked. Even more interesting, I can substitute a similar chain for justifying God's existence, but in that case it's rejected.

But, yeah, I understand your objection. IMO the reason is that you haven't had the convincing experience. And that's more than my opinion. Though phrased in different words, it's the theology of my church. I'll be clear, though - what isn't part of my theology is that God is ignoring you, has given up on you, or anything of that sort.

Define it however you'd like - just be consistent with it.

OK. The Bible is evidence for God's existence. Voila! Just proved it.

Meh. Don't buy it. (Nor Wiccan's answer either.)

"Evidence" stems from a request that you accept a claim of mine. It is a statement from you about the conditions of your acceptance. Scientists (as well as lawyers and some other professions) try to establish the rules of evidence in advance so there's no equivocation once that evidence is presented. Regardless, if the receiver doesn't agree, there's no way to force acceptance.

My only tool is persuasion. So why is it not persuasive? Why do I appeal to types of evidence (or modes of persuasion) other than the scientific? You can say it's because I've got nothing in the bag. You can say I believe in God because I have daddy issues or because I lack the intellectual capacity to grasp that my spiritual experiences are just biological phenomena or whatever, but I think that is overly skeptical - overly cynical. Maybe those reasons are true in some cases, but there are some well-grounded, very smart people who believe in God.

... you can't complain if they trust in the power of Shiva ...

Sure I can, and I gave the justification for that in my reply to Wiccan. Just because you accept Obama as President doesn't force you to also accept a fictional Flinn as President.

Why do other people accept Shiva as their god? There are probably a thousand or more different reasons. It's easier for me to explain why I believe in Christ than to speculate about reasons I've not been informed about (though I do have some general thoughts on issues like that). But if someone were to come to CF and explain their belief in Shiva to me, then we could have a conversation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC B Russel said nothing ought not to be regarded as an object. "There is nothing in the drawer" means not there is some mysterious object "nothing" in the drawer. Rather it means that it is not the case that there is something in the drawer.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I understand what you're saying. I just happen to disagree. I've worked with a lot of engineers over the years. Just because I trust engineer A doesn't mean that his engineering skills transfer in some way that compels me to trust engineer B. Is starts all over again with each new engineer.

So, with respect to science, I have a profound respect for a long list of big names. But, just because I am awed by what (for example) Newton accomplished did not compel me to be awed by Einstein. Einstein earned that standing in his own right, by his skill, talent, etc. Something that is rather apart from "science".

I agree, the respect for Einstein isn't garnered by Newton's accomplishments. But, when the medical community as a whole almost universally says "Homoeopathy is bunk", I listen. Why? Because the community, as a whole, carries more weight than any individual doctor.

Newton's accomplishments don't automatically give Einstein the same respect, but the physics community en masse produce results that earn our confidence.

This is echoed in peer review: one scientist's experimental results aren't automatically trusted, but when vindicated by other scientists and accepted by the community as a whole, they carry more weight.

If one scientist said, "An earthquake's going to happen", we dismiss him as a eccentric. If a thousand scientists say it, it carries more weight. Far be it from me to appeal to numbers or authority, but that there is a large number in the face of stringent self-criticism does mean something.

And that's why the scientific communities have earned our confidence, even if we don't need to place religious faith in any one scientist.

It is different, but not lesser. For one thing there is no starting over. It's the same god yesterday, today, and forever. But also God has always been faithful to his promises. And there is evidence - IMO not at all lacking. Some of it is personal & non-transferable, yes. Some of it is not. With respect to the personal evidence, however, the "witness", the personal reputation of the believers if you will, does play a role.

Again, within engineering the idea of the "go to" guy is widely acknowledged. You trust the opinion of the guy with integrity. I'm not saying the confidence level is 100%, but it's certainly higher than the confidence in the opinion of a liar.

So when, time after time, what some guy says turns out to be reliable, and then he says, "God revealed something to me," it seems overly cynical to immediately jump to the conclusion that he has suddenly lost his grip on reality. If you trust the guy, even if what he says is a little weird, respect demands you give it some consideration.

I agree. But where is this man? Where is the man who consistently and reliably does or predicts things otherwise undo-able or unknowable, that he attributes to divine revelation? Where is the cleric through whom God predicts earthquakes? Where is the vicar through whom God heals amputees? Where is the Pope through whom God delivers the cure for HIV/AIDS?

So yes, if some guy, time after time, said reliable things and attributed them to God (and it wasn't, y'know, obviously fake), that'd be something to take seriously. As far as I can tell, though, no such man exists, and the various miracles in the Bible simply aren't substantiated (even if you accept things like the Testimonium Flavinium, that would only show that Jesus the man existed, not that he whipped up wine from water and so forth).

I'm simply admitting that I don't know everything. But I do know one thing. That is the distinction. With respect to miracles I at least know one thing. With respect to the idea of something from nothing, I have (ironically) nothing.

Still, the OP is asking for the disproof of the idea. No more, no less.

Sure, not in and of itself. Maybe I was too poetic. In short, the story is this:
I know God does amazing things.
God says he'll listen to me, and act according to what is best.
I trust him.
Therefore, prayer is worth it.

I still don't see the logic.

God exists. OK.
God does things. OK.
God does amazing things. OK.
God says he'll do what's best. OK.

How, then, is prayer worth it? Is God doing what's best, or what you want? If he always does what's best, then when is prayer ever worth it (beyond being a way to talk to God)? If God listens and reacts to your prayer, then he's doing something other than his original plan; but as his original plan is 'do what's best', he must therefore be doing something that isn't best.

So it's a strange situation. Either God does things in response to your prayer (as opposed to your request coinciding with what God would do anyway), in which case he isn't always doing what's best. Or, God always does what's best regardless of whether you pray for it or not, in which case prayer doesn't seem worth it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IIRC B Russel said nothing ought not to be regarded as an object. "There is nothing in the drawer" means not there is some mysterious object "nothing" in the drawer. Rather it means that it is not the case that there is something in the drawer.

Hence why analogies like "0 + 0 = 1" misses the point

 

[Resha Caner]

Newton's accomplishments don't automatically give Einstein the same respect, but the physics community en masse produce results that earn our confidence.

This is echoed in peer review: one scientist's experimental results aren't automatically trusted, but when vindicated by other scientists and accepted by the community as a whole, they carry more weight.

I can agree, but with some clarifications. The more established churches (of which I am a member) have a similar vetting process. But forums such as these prefer to criticize their mistakes (e.g. Galileo) rather than acknowledge their value. I find such duplicity both interesting and frustrating. The scientific vetting process has the same disadvantages, and there are historical examples of it coming to bear.

Western society has adopted what I consider an odd idea - that everyone is free to have whatever religious beliefs they like, but not the same freedom to have whatever scientific beliefs they like. IMO it stems from an unstated position that science is "true", so there is only one answer, but religion is an outmoded thought system that doesn't really matter, so I just want to be left alone. I'm speaking in generalities of course. I realize no one will be arrested for promoting a flat earth, and churches can excommunicate non-confessional members. But what I've said seems to be a strong theme of our society.

So, for whatever argument you might give (such as peer review), you'll be hard pressed to convince me the same doesn't apply to the church. Likewise, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the herd mentality never happens in science.

As such, Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. FYI, if you're not familiar with that phrase, it comes from Luther. From time to time the community of "experts" is wrong, and someone needs to stand against it. Of course, when then do, they must be prepared to accept the consequences.

I agree. But where is this man?

Rare, aren't they? Where is the next Archimedes, Newton, Einstein (as smart as he is, I don't put Hawking in that class)? They only come along every 1/2 millenia or so. If you take the 10,000 years of civilization and divide that by the number of prophets in the Bible, even that shows them to be a rare breed.

So, we need to trust in history. But you don't, as per your comments on the Testimonium Flavinium. Even if the recorded miracles were true, you wouldn't believe it (Luke 16:31).

I try to demonstrate as much integrity as I can so that my witness seems possible, but I'm definitely not Moses. I try my best to explain why science isn't the way. I try my best to explain why I believe. That's all I can do. Baby steps.

Still, the OP is asking for the disproof of the idea. No more, no less.

Yeah, I get that now. You're not going to get that proof from me. But I wouldn't do a victory dance about that. I don't think those concessions amount to much.

Is God doing what's best, or what you want? If he always does what's best, then when is prayer ever worth it (beyond being a way to talk to God)? If God listens and reacts to your prayer, then he's doing something other than his original plan; but as his original plan is 'do what's best', he must therefore be doing something that isn't best.

Because we have free will, the landscape is always changing. Therefore, the best action is always changing. Plus, what is "best" is from God's perspective. Maybe it's best to give me what I ask for so that I learn not to ask for that anymore. That's only one of a thousand reasons why God might do what I ask (Emphasis on might. He's not required to do what I ask, and that can be a valuable part of the conversation as well).

The next question, then, is "How do you know if he answered?" Because he promised to answer, and I trust that promise.

Like I said, though, I don't know everything. It's not about me knowing for each specific instance of prayer what his answer was. I know I'm going to miss some of those answers. It's about me knowing that - at least once - he did answer. I only need to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 one time.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Aaaah I just had a nice, well-thought out reply and then my computer glitched out and I lost it

And now I'm too tired to write it all out again so I'll try and make it shorter and sweeter.

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.

A) 0 is the mathematical representation of nothing. Anything non-zero is something, not nothing because it is non-zero. It is not an analogy, its a symbolic representation of the concept known as "nothing". It is no different than saying that "N-O-T-H-I-N-G" is a symbolic representation of the concept of nothing.

B) You're right about the whole linear time stream thing which makes it even more implausible that something could "come from" nothing. Because "come from" involves a verb and verbs depend on linear time. The idea of "coming from" implies there was a before state and an after state. Which, if linear time does not exist, makes no sense.

'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.

This is the exact same problem as above except we can now isolate an event and make it a closed system for the purposes of the thought experiment. For example, with the rolling of the die, you're suggesting that even if we knew all the forces and initial conditions acting on the die (gravity, pressure, initial velocity, etc, etc), there would still be some aspect of the outcome that is unknown. If you allow me to put this in mathematical terms:

let KF=known forces and AF=all forces @t=0 (which is the moment the die is rolled). Now, you've also said that that there is some aspect which is, as yet undecided. In other words, even if AF-KF=0, you're saying that from this 0, the outcome can still be effected. I don't believe this is true for two reasons:

1) Same argument as A and B
2) t=0 is arbitrary. At what point do you define t=0? If it is at the initial moment of the roll then there are a certain of set of known (or unknown) forces acting on the object {X1,X2,X3...Xn}. But if we shift t=0 to just a moment before the die settles to its final face, there is still a set of known (or unknown) forces acting on the object {Y1,Y2,Y3,...Yn}. And you can define t=0 anywhere so at what "moment" does this "randomness" manifest itself?

1) What does 'immaterial' mean?
2) What does 'physical' mean?
3) How do you know that the 'physical' universe had a beginning?
4) An eternal thing might not have a beginning, but some would argue that means no eternal thing exists.

Well this just opened up a bunch of things that could fill another thread. I don't want to get into this because I think its too far off topic so I want to restate the challenge you asked which I was trying to address in my first point:

"Prove to me that an object can't exist without a beginning."

For the purposes of this discussion I will say that an "object" is defined as a "physical object".

Premise 1: All evidence at the current time suggests that the physical universe had a beginning
Premise 2: All physical objects exist within the physical universe

Therefore all physical objects have a beginning.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can agree, but with some clarifications. The more established churches (of which I am a member) have a similar vetting process. But forums such as these prefer to criticize their mistakes (e.g. Galileo) rather than acknowledge their value. I find such duplicity both interesting and frustrating. The scientific vetting process has the same disadvantages, and there are historical examples of it coming to bear.

Agreed. However, the successes vs. failures of science are realtively easy to measure - when did science get it right, and when did science get it wrong? The Greek 'scientists' who discovered the Earth was round - success. The scientists who were fooled by Piltdown Man - failure. Newtonian mechanics - success, barring fringe conditions. Einsteinian mechanics - even more a success. The atomic bomb - a success of theory, a failure of morality.

But what about religion? How does one measure the value of the religious vetting process? Is the Catholic adoption of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a success or failure? The track record of the scientific process is quite unambiguous, but it seems much more difficult to judge the value of the religious one. If a church close-mindedly ignores evidence in favour of tradition, that, to me, is a failure. If it opens its mind to the new ideas science brings forth, I'm in two minds about whether that's a success or simply 'as it should be'. But what else constitutes a success or failure by the religious vetting process? What value does it have?

Western society has adopted what I consider an odd idea - that everyone is free to have whatever religious beliefs they like, but not the same freedom to have whatever scientific beliefs they like. IMO it stems from an unstated position that science is "true", so there is only one answer, but religion is an outmoded thought system that doesn't really matter, so I just want to be left alone. I'm speaking in generalities of course. I realize no one will be arrested for promoting a flat earth, and churches can excommunicate non-confessional members. But what I've said seems to be a strong theme of our society.

Well, from my point of view, the explanation is obvious: science is right, or, at least, the beliefs expounded by the scientific community come with a great weight of evidence, and for the most part tend to be coherent across the board (there's basically only one theory of general relativity, for instance).

By stark contrast, the claims of the religious don't have such virtues. The various religious beliefs across the world encompass basically every idea under the Sun (even scientific ones - qv. quantum mysticism), and the question of whether any of them, or any group of them (Islam, Buddhism, etc), has any empirical or logical support, is still wide open despite millennia of debate. I'm aware that you consider there to be evidence, but so does the Muslim and the Hindu, whereas there's near unanimous agreement within science about the shape of the planet, etc.

So, for whatever argument you might give (such as peer review), you'll be hard pressed to convince me the same doesn't apply to the church. Likewise, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the herd mentality never happens in science.

As such, Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. FYI, if you're not familiar with that phrase, it comes from Luther. From time to time the community of "experts" is wrong, and someone needs to stand against it. Of course, when then do, they must be prepared to accept the consequences.

Stand against what, exactly? The self-correcting nature of science, its single greatest strength and the reason why we can live past 30? The community of experts does exist (I'm not sure why you used quotation marks - are you questioning the existence of PhDs?), and it does give us things like vaccines and nuclear fusion reactors. These things exist - what, exactly, are you disputing?

Rare, aren't they? Where is the next Archimedes, Newton, Einstein (as smart as he is, I don't put Hawking in that class)? They only come along every 1/2 millenia or so. If you take the 10,000 years of civilization and divide that by the number of prophets in the Bible, even that shows them to be a rare breed.

It's interesting that they were decidedly more common before we started keeping accurate records.

So, we need to trust in history. But you don't, as per your comments on the Testimonium Flavinium. Even if the recorded miracles were true, you wouldn't believe it (Luke 16:31).

I disagree, and I'm a little insulted that you consider me so close-minded. I don't consider the Testimonium to be historically valid because it smacks more of a 4th-century interpolation than an actual recording by a 1st-century Jew - in other words, I've done the research, and come to a different conclusion from you, and from most historical scholars. I have no problem in believing Jesus existed, I just see no reason to.

The fact remains that I've yet to see any real evidence for the miracles alleged to have occurred in the Bible. Indeed, even if they did occur, what evidence would there be?

I try to demonstrate as much integrity as I can so that my witness seems possible, but I'm definitely not Moses. I try my best to explain why science isn't the way. I try my best to explain why I believe. That's all I can do. Baby steps.

But your reason for why you believe seems to be, "because I trust in God", which seems awfully circular.

Yeah, I get that now. You're not going to get that proof from me. But I wouldn't do a victory dance about that. I don't think those concessions amount to much.

No, but again, this thread is for those who assert such disproofs exist. It's a victory, of sorts, that no such disproof exists (faulty analogies notwithstanding).

Because we have free will, the landscape is always changing. Therefore, the best action is always changing. Plus, what is "best" is from God's perspective. Maybe it's best to give me what I ask for so that I learn not to ask for that anymore. That's only one of a thousand reasons why God might do what I ask (Emphasis on might. He's not required to do what I ask, and that can be a valuable part of the conversation as well).

An interesting idea. So, even from God's point of view, the future's not fixed? Omniscience isn't incompatible with free will, but it seems you're arguing that it is (which is an odd reversal).

The next question, then, is "How do you know if he answered?" Because he promised to answer, and I trust that promise.

Then you don't know, you just make the a priori assumption that he did, or will do.

Like I said, though, I don't know everything. It's not about me knowing for each specific instance of prayer what his answer was. I know I'm going to miss some of those answers. It's about me knowing that - at least once - he did answer. I only need to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 one time.

It seems that a sample size of one is not the best thing to base one's entire life off of. How do you know, for instance, that this one prayer that you know got answered (presumably with a 'yes'), wasn't simply coincidence? Think how many lottery jackpot winners genuinely thank God for their win - isn't it more likely to be a statistical curio, than actual divine intervention every time?

 

[OliverC]

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!

Hi
No one can prove anything to anyone else unless they want to see it.
No thing can come from nothing. According to Buddha it is Karma, cause and effect which is more complicated than the mind permits us to see. A "proof" is that you did not choose your birth (the colour of your eyes, the location and date), it was caused and from it all your actions began, one after another, some at the same time. Buddha taught that a way to see this is to realise that you don't have a soul (anatta), that nothing is permanent and everything is constantly changing (anicca).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A) 0 is the mathematical representation of nothing. Anything non-zero is something, not nothing because it is non-zero. It is not an analogy, its a symbolic representation of the concept known as "nothing". It is no different than saying that "N-O-T-H-I-N-G" is a symbolic representation of the concept of nothing.

I disagree. The mathematical concept of zero is that of a number in the set of reals, it is not representative of nothingness. It's like saying that '1/2' and '2/4' are the same thing - they're not. They're numerically equivalent, but they're ultimately different. If I define my experiment to begin at t = 0, I'm not saying it starts at nothingness, or that time is nothingness, or that it starts at no time - I'm saying the counter is as 'zero' on the number line. There's a reason we don't say 't = nothing'.

B) You're right about the whole linear time stream thing which makes it even more implausible that something could "come from" nothing. Because "come from" involves a verb and verbs depend on linear time. The idea of "coming from" implies there was a before state and an after state. Which, if linear time does not exist, makes no sense.

Hence why 'something from nothing' is not a literal and exhaustive description of the idea. It's a symbolic representation, much like '0' is of the number zero. As explained in post #4, the idea isn't one of linear change, it's an 'if then' conditional - if nothingness, then therefore somethingness. The absence of any thing means there's nothing to stop spacetime (or anything else, for that matter), from existing. Thus, it exists.

This is the exact same problem as above except we can now isolate an event and make it a closed system for the purposes of the thought experiment. For example, with the rolling of the die, you're suggesting that even if we knew all the forces and initial conditions acting on the die (gravity, pressure, initial velocity, etc, etc), there would still be some aspect of the outcome that is unknown. If you allow me to put this in mathematical terms:

let KF=known forces and AF=all forces @t=0 (which is the moment the die is rolled). Now, you've also said that that there is some aspect which is, as yet undecided. In other words, even if AF-KF=0, you're saying that from this 0, the outcome can still be effected.

No. I'm saying that, if the roll of the dice is truly random, then there are not only unknown forces, but unknowable forces, and thus the sets of AF and KF are not equivalent.

I don't believe this is true for two reasons:

1) Same argument as A and B

The arguments aren't the same .

2) t=0 is arbitrary. At what point do you define t=0? If it is at the initial moment of the roll then there are a certain of set of known (or unknown) forces acting on the object {X1,X2,X3...Xn}. But if we shift t=0 to just a moment before the die settles to its final face, there is still a set of known (or unknown) forces acting on the object {Y1,Y2,Y3,...Yn}. And you can define t=0 anywhere so at what "moment" does this "randomness" manifest itself?

It manifests whenever it manifests. As you said, t = 0 is an arbitrary label for measuring time, so it has absolutely no effect on the situation. Exactly when the randomness occurs depends on just what's happening. Maybe it happens when the die has fallen - a random jolt of momentum that spins the fallen die to a random face. When we decide to start our stopwatch doesn't really affect that.

Well this just opened up a bunch of things that could fill another thread. I don't want to get into this because I think its too far off topic so I want to restate the challenge you asked which I was trying to address in my first point:

"Prove to me that an object can't exist without a beginning."

For the purposes of this discussion I will say that an "object" is defined as a "physical object".

Premise 1: All evidence at the current time suggests that the physical universe had a beginning
Premise 2: All physical objects exist within the physical universe

Therefore all physical objects have a beginning.

If your argument rests on the definition of 'physical', then you need to define 'physical'. It's perfectly within the bounds of the thread, as you need to justify your two premises rather than simply state them as unarguable facts.

So, again, what does 'physical' mean, how do you know the 'physical' universe had a beginning, how do you know all 'physical' objects exist within the 'physical' universe (this may be part of your definition of 'physical'), how do you know that objects within a universe must have a beginning just because that universe does, how do you know there aren't any non-'physical' objects or universes... etc.

Your argument is at best a non sequitur and at worst semantically void, unless you can actually explain your terms. 'Physical' seems crucial to making the proof work, but given your trepidation, I'm left wonder what's behind the semantic curtain.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi
No one can prove anything to anyone else unless they want to see it.

As I want to see it, your concern is moot.

No thing can come from nothing

Please, prove it.

According to Buddha it is Karma, cause and effect which is more complicated than the mind permits us to see. A "proof" is that you did not choose your birth (the colour of your eyes, the location and date), it was caused and from it all your actions began, one after another, some at the same time.

Emphasis mine. Please, prove this causal link. How do you know, for instance, that some quantum mechanical facet of my brain, some random atomic phenomenon, doesn't result in true free will? It's a serious consideration, albeit not one I put much stock in.

Buddha taught that a way to see this is to realise that you don't have a soul (anatta), that nothing is permanent and everything is constantly changing (anicca).

If you'll permit me to go off on a tangent, I've always wondered about something about Buddhism. Buddhists, as far as I'm aware, don't believe in a soul that reincarnates, but in a continuation of the mind. What's actually the difference? Between a soul that moves from body to body, and a mind that, well, moves from body to body?

 

[OliverC]

As I want to see it, your concern is moot.

1 "No thing can come from nothing."
Please, prove it.

2 "It was caused and from it all your actions began, one after another, some at the same time."

Emphasis mine. Please, prove this causal link. How do you know, for instance, that some quantum mechanical facet of my brain, some random atomic phenomenon, doesn't result in true free will? It's a serious consideration, albeit not one I put much stock in.


3 If you'll permit me to go off on a tangent, I've always wondered about something about Buddhism. Buddhists, as far as I'm aware, don't believe in a soul that reincarnates, but in a continuation of the mind. What's actually the difference? Between a soul that moves from body to body, and a mind that, well, moves from body to body?

Hello
I have divided this into 3 parts as in the quote:

1) The proof has to come from observation. Observation is a method of knowledge (epistemology). We can note that the opposite i.e. "something can come from nothing" cannot be proved either. Why? Because there has to be something there, existing, for something to come into existence.

What determines an existing object or thing? Our knowledge of it.
So a red frog in my room is non-existent for your body-mind-intellect. You cannot see it. You have to either accept my testimony (another method of knowledge) or reject it. I would reject it if I were you. So the only way to arrive at the proof you require is to ensure that it stands to you personally. Everything else will be mere speculation, a magic show where a thing is said to exist but you and I can never 'proove it' because we are not there.

The point is that anything that exists is relevent to something else. A thing cannot exists independently to anything else. To prove that wrong you and I need to use knowledge. To prove it right we need to use knowledge. To prove this very preposition as untrue you and I will need to use knowledge.

The basis of all existence is knowledge. Prove me wrong without using knowledge?

2) This rests on my points in part 1. I would be grateful if you can refute my conclusion in part 1 and return to this. Because Bhudda said that is impossible to know the start or the intricacies of Karma and that a man would go mad first.

3) My understanding is that mind is created, it is dependent on other factors. The factor which keeps the mind (or consciousness) in rebirth is craving. When craving comes to an end the mind will come to end after the last karma "is burnt up". That state is nirvana.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hello
I have divided this into 3 parts as in the quote:

1) The proof has to come from observation. Observation is a method of knowledge (epistemology). We can note that the opposite i.e. "something can come from nothing" cannot be proved either. Why? Because there has to be something there, existing, for something to come into existence.

What determines an existing object or thing? Our knowledge of it.
So a red frog in my room is non-existent for your body-mind-intellect. You cannot see it. You have to either accept my testimony (another method of knowledge) or reject it. I would reject it if I were you. So the only way to arrive at the proof you require is to ensure that it stands to you personally. Everything else will be mere speculation, a magic show where a thing is said to exist but you and I can never 'proove it' because we are not there.

The point is that anything that exists is relevent to something else. A thing cannot exists independently to anything else. To prove that wrong you and I need to use knowledge. To prove it right we need to use knowledge. To prove this very preposition as untrue you and I will need to use knowledge.

The basis of all existence is knowledge. Prove me wrong without using knowledge?

There are a number of ideas here, which I'll address separately.

First, I disagree that proof is observation. Observation is famously insufficient for proof. Proof, genuine proof, requires absolutely no uncertainty, an unequivocal and airtight demonstration of fact. This can only be done in the realm of logic and mathematics. As soon as anything empirical is introduced, or has to be introduced, proof is no longer possible.

That said, though we will never be able to prove X beyond all doubt, we might be able to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. And that's where science comes in - we can prove atoms exist beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt. But 99% certainty is good enough, I feel.

So, when the OP asks for proof, it's asking for a genuine proof. Observation, being insufficient for actual proof, doesn't satisfy the OP. That we've never ourselves observed 'something from nothing', is not proof that it cannot happen.

Second, I disagree that something's existence is contingent on us seeing (or knowing) it, though maybe this wasn't meant to be taken literally. Still, I believe we can sufficiently demonstrate the existence or occurrence of things that we ourselves never saw. For a long time, I'd never seen individual atoms with my own eyes, yet the evidence for their existence was overwhelming - one of the major subjects at even Primary school is 'Chemistry', effectively the study of atomic interactions.

So, the truth or falsehood of the idea of 'something from nothing' isn't, I believe, based on whether anyone has seen it or not. After all, the Sun was burning away long before anyone was alive to see it.

Maybe I've taken your words too literally, but maybe you're arguing that existence really is dependant on knowledge or observation - I secretly hope for the latter, as that would be interesting

3) My understanding is that mind is created, it is dependent on other factors. The factor which keeps the mind (or consciousness) in rebirth is craving. When craving comes to an end the mind will come to end after the last karma "is burnt up". That state is nirvana.

But, why not call this thing a 'soul'? 'Soul' seems to be the most appropriate word for 'the conciousness, the seat of thought and desire, that which persists after death'. Is there some actual reason why Buddhists actively reject the idea of the soul while believing in a continuation of mind, or is it just a semantic blip that occurs when translating Sanskrit ideas of an ancient Indian prince into modern English?

That is, I still don't see the difference between the soul (which you say doesn't exist) and the mind (which you say does).

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, I think I understand why you don't trust it.

If I brought you a document stating your taxes are going to be raised, and it was signed by President Flinn, that would not be convincing evidence for you that President Flinn existed. By the same token, if it were signed by President Obama it wouldn't be convincing evidence either. You need to have an experience with an object itself before you will be convinced the object exists.

Not sure what you mean here, but no, this isn't why I don't trust the Bible.

Even more interesting, I can substitute a similar chain for justifying God's existence, but in that case it's rejected.

Go ahead and we'll see if I'm being consistent in my criteria for accepting or rejecting these ideas.

But, yeah, I understand your objection. IMO the reason is that you haven't had the convincing experience.

Again, I don't work by personal revelation.

And that's more than my opinion. Though phrased in different words, it's the theology of my church.

So it's not just your opinion, it's the opinion of a bunch of other people who you agree with.

I'll be clear, though - what isn't part of my theology is that God is ignoring you, has given up on you, or anything of that sort.

The evidence disagrees with your theology, unfortunately. God is behaving an awful lot like it has no interest in me. Or more generally, like it doesn't exist at all.

OK. The Bible is evidence for God's existence. Voila! Just proved it.

Meh. Don't buy it. (Nor Wiccan's answer either.)

"Evidence" stems from a request that you accept a claim of mine. It is a statement from you about the conditions of your acceptance. Scientists (as well as lawyers and some other professions) try to establish the rules of evidence in advance so there's no equivocation once that evidence is presented. Regardless, if the receiver doesn't agree, there's no way to force acceptance.

This hasn't really been true of genuinely well-evidenced propositions.

Sure I can, and I gave the justification for that in my reply to Wiccan. Just because you accept Obama as President doesn't force you to also accept a fictional Flinn as President.

Yes, because I have higher standards of evidence than personal revelation.

 

[OliverC]

1. So, when the OP asks for proof, it's asking for a genuine proof. Observation, being insufficient for actual proof, doesn't satisfy the OP. That we've never ourselves observed 'something from nothing', is not proof that it cannot happen.


2. Maybe I've taken your words too literally, but maybe you're arguing that existence really is dependant on knowledge or observation - I secretly hope for the latter, as that would be interesting


3. But, why not call this thing a 'soul'? 'Soul' seems to be the most appropriate word for 'the conciousness, the seat of thought and desire, that which persists after death'. Is there some actual reason why Buddhists actively reject the idea of the soul while believing in a continuation of mind, or is it just a semantic blip that occurs when translating Sanskrit ideas of an ancient Indian prince into modern English?

That is, I still don't see the difference between the soul (which you say doesn't exist) and the mind (which you say does).

Hello
Thanks for a good reply. I am here to refute my own logic too, as it happens, so it helpful for me

Regarding point 1 in the quote above (and the parts which I have removed but feel are related to it). You are looking for a proof which stands independent of you. That is a fact that people over look. That is fine if that is the answer you need, but for anyone to prove something can stand as an independent proof separate to you, then we still need you. If you want to know if something existed before you, then we can look into historic buildings (it might not help you personally).

This is why I said in my first post above "No one can prove anything to anyone else unless they want to see it." This more profound than it may first sound, not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but 'the proof is in the eating'.

Part 2. I am saying existence really is dependent on knowledge (not precisely observation as that is a method of knowledge).

Part 3. The word is "anatta" in pali. Sometimes it is translated as "No soul". Really it is "no fixed self". The issue is that most people find the idea of there being no self to imply there is no thing. There is something, but all the parts are co-dependent. Mind is one part of the co-dependent existence. So mind exists as long as there is something else which supports it. A bit like a mathematical equation on a blackboard, if we remove some digits the whole thing changes. The mind is like that, it is a part of the whole thing.

What Buddhists do, in my opinion, is they study the whole system, part by part until they reach the insight that the parts are co-dependent. They can then remove the parts which keep the whole thing together (not literally of course but using the mind). This then results in a new state of being which is not dependent on any of the parts i.e. nirvana.

The mind will die or vanish (or what ever) when the other parts are also removed i.e. craving. But the mind will vanish after the other parts are removed. The reason the mind is reborn is because the parts are still there i.e. craving is still present and it continues.

The body is just flesh and blood. So it is a mistaken view to say "I am the body", a Buddhist would say there is a body, there is a mind, when the body dies the mind continues to take a new body until craving is extinguished.

Say if this isn't clear, because it might be my wording.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hello
Thanks for a good reply. I am here to refute my own logic too, as it happens, so it helpful for me

Regarding point 1 in the quote above (and the parts which I have removed but feel are related to it). You are looking for a proof which stands independent of you. That is a fact that people over look. That is fine if that is the answer you need, but for anyone to prove something can stand as an independent proof separate to you, then we still need you. If you want to know if something existed before you, then we can look into historic buildings (it might not help you personally).

This is why I said in my first post above "No one can prove anything to anyone else unless they want to see it." This more profound than it may first sound, not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but 'the proof is in the eating'.

Hmm, I don't see it. The proof should stand on its own merits. The proof that "1 + 1 = 2" doesn't depend on me; it works for its own reasons, and it would work if no one was around to appreciate it.

Part 2. I am saying existence really is dependent on knowledge (not precisely observation as that is a method of knowledge).

So, by extension, something which isn't known, something which no one knows about, cannot exist?

What about things which no one knows exists, but which we then accidentally discover? Like atoms, before we knew about them, or the Sun before anyone was around to look at it?

Part 3. The word is "anatta" in pali. Sometimes it is translated as "No soul". Really it is "no fixed self". The issue is that most people find the idea of there being no self to imply there is no thing. There is something, but all the parts are co-dependent. Mind is one part of the co-dependent existence. So mind exists as long as there is something else which supports it. A bit like a mathematical equation on a blackboard, if we remove some digits the whole thing changes. The mind is like that, it is a part of the whole thing.

What Buddhists do, in my opinion, is they study the whole system, part by part until they reach the insight that the parts are co-dependent. They can then remove the parts which keep the whole thing together (not literally of course but using the mind). This then results in a new state of being which is not dependent on any of the parts i.e. nirvana.

The mind will die or vanish (or what ever) when the other parts are also removed i.e. craving. But the mind will vanish after the other parts are removed. The reason the mind is reborn is because the parts are still there i.e. craving is still present and it continues.

The body is just flesh and blood. So it is a mistaken view to say "I am the body", a Buddhist would say there is a body, there is a mind, when the body dies the mind continues to take a new body until craving is extinguished.

Say if this isn't clear, because it might be my wording.

I think I'm starting to understand. The soul is a thing that exists in its own right, independent of anything else, but the mind is always inextricably part of something else (the body, desires, etc). So there can be a continuation of mind without souls. Interesting (assuming I got it right!).

 

[rowantree]

Much of what has been said in this thread is beyond me, but I am familiar with the idea that we have no fixed self. I don't know if anyone has ever read any of the works of Julia Kristeva - she is a Bulgarian who now lives in Paris and became part of the Tel Quel group. She wrote a thesis which became a book, called 'Revolution in Poetic Language' which gives the basis for all her theories which were to follow. I found it illuminating, and also I do remember saying to my Supervisor, when I had read it, "She brings you face to face with God." However, I cannot put into words how or why that happened.

Julia Kristeva had this theory of the fluid self - the no-fixed self. I believe that this idea of the no-fixed self is true. The minute we try to fix our self, is the moment that we stop developing, and in a sense we cannot stand still, ever, even though we maybe do not recognise it.

I believe that this is true of God also, if we believe in a God (I don't believe in the old man in the sky kind of God - and maybe some people would not believe that my concept of God was God at all, but it is all a matter of language anyway). I certainly believe in fluidity and in things not being fixed. When it comes to talking about God and creation ex-nihilo, then to have fixed ideas and terms is difficult. Unfortunately that is what many people have - fixed, non-fluid ideas. The greatness that is God, if we are going to use the term God, is in his (to use a term once again that is far too narrow) fluidity and eternal movement.

Hope this post does not offend anyone for that is certainly not the intention.

 

[rowantree]

So does the mind vanish, whilst the soul is eternal?

 

[OliverC]

1) Hmm, I don't see it. The proof should stand on its own merits. The proof that "1 + 1 = 2" doesn't depend on me; it works for its own reasons, and it would work if no one was around to appreciate it.


2) So, by extension, something which isn't known, something which no one knows about, cannot exist?

3) What about things which no one knows exists, but which we then accidentally discover? Like atoms, before we knew about them, or the Sun before anyone was around to look at it?


4) I think I'm starting to understand. The soul is a thing that exists in its own right, independent of anything else, but the mind is always inextricably part of something else (the body, desires, etc). So there can be a continuation of mind without souls. Interesting (assuming I got it right!).

Hi
Good, challenging questions for me, thanks

1) We need to establish if we are hypothesising to arrive at hypothetical answer or if we are trying to find an answer based on who we are e.g. "Know thyself". Because if we are looking for hypothetical truths/answers then, yes you are right, "1 + 1 = 2" is logically true. That then is the end of it as we have explored and decided that there are answers which are true in themselves (we have excluded ourself out of the equation and answer for the sake of finding a thing which is true independently of any person - because "no one is around to appreciate it"). Is that answer the conclusion you are looking for from this thread? (I don't mind, just asking so I know how to proceed?)


2) True, that which cannot be known does not exist. That doesn't mean something that doesn't exist cannot be known. For example a Pink Elephant doesn't exist but it exists if we paint it or think about it.

3) There is a difference that wasn't clear in my initial posts and must now be asserted. There is a difference between knowledge and knowing.

Knowledge is a thing known. Such as atoms or DNA. Knowledge has the quality of being a subject. E.g. Mathematics is a subject in itself. Pythagoras therum always existed, even before Pyhagoras. However Pythagoras made it into knowledge i.e. a subject to be known.

Knowing has a different nature. It is more like a foundation in which objects arise, remain and pass away. So whilst talking about Pythagoras, Pythagoras is a subject of knowing, but it is NOT knowing itself. Knowing is more like an action or verb. Pythagoras is more like a noun or subject. Can you see the difference?

4) Yes, you got! (Note the buddha doesn't speak about Souls, he only spoke about anatta - no self).

 

[OliverC]

So does the mind vanish, whilst the soul is eternal?

Hello my friend
It depends on the theology, but yes, the mind vanishes and the soul is eternal in my view.

In Christianity the personality and mind is sometimes considered to be the soul.
In Dharmic religions e.g. Hinduism the mind is distinctively separate from the soul (Atman) because the mind is material.

For example, if you drink a bottle of vodka your mind will change. Take drugs and your mind will change, but your soul will remain pure, eternal and unchanged. The soul is that which knows the mind is drunk or under the influence of drugs. This is the difference between a soul and a mind.

Thanks, I have never heard of Julia Kristeva, I will have to look up her work it sounds very interesting as you described above.