Creation ex nihilo

[rowantree]

Thanks Aum, my friend. Yes, I did believe that the mind is not the soul. Just wondered if that was what you were saying. The way you have put it makes it crystal clear.

 

[OliverC]

Thanks Aum, my friend. Yes, I did believe that the mind is not the soul. Just wondered if that was what you were saying. The way you have put it makes it crystal clear.

The more clear it is the less suffering there will be.

 

[rowantree]

So in a sense, we are rather like prisoners within our bodies? Which is why once we can free ourselves from the constraints of our bodies, we cease to suffer. And maybe THAT is the essence of the message of Jesus? A bit difficult really, especially if we have physical pain.

Sorry if I have taken this thread off course. I like this discussion but don't want to take it away from where the OP intended.

 

[OliverC]

So in a sense, we are rather like prisoners within our bodies? Which is why once we can free ourselves from the constraints of our bodies, we cease to suffer. And maybe THAT is the essence of the message of Jesus? A bit difficult really, especially if we have physical pain.

Sorry if I have taken this thread off course. I like this discussion but don't want to take it away from where the OP intended.

Hi Rowan
I will PM you my thoughts on this as it is an interesting topic in itself

 

[Resha Caner]

How does one measure the value of the religious vetting process?

In human terms I'll agree that is very difficult. There are measures such as the number of people who plant themselves in the pew on Sunday morning, the ability of a church to turn out people to help with disaster relief, quality of life indices, polls asking if religion has had a positive impact on the individual's life, etc.

But honestly I don't put much stock in those. I leave it to God to measure such things.

And I think you continue to point to what science can do and religion can't do without acknowledging that (from the human perspective) they're actually in the same boat.

From the perspective of physics, yes, it has succeeded in quantifying things. But the other sciences are riddled with insecurity over the fact that they can't quantify things the way physics does. History no longer calls itself a science. Some still call themselves sciences, but have turned to qualitative methods: archaeology, geology, paleontology, psychology, sociology, and much of biology. Positivism is dead.

Take psychology as an example. Some people very close to me have required counseling. They got better. But to prove that the counseling produced the result is impossible. In fact, one person I know claims counseling is not what cured them.

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 ...

Same thing here. The "science" that you call unified is actually a very small, self-appointed group of people with little power to enforce that others accept their science. The world is filled with people doing what they call science in ways that disagree with what you would call science. "Scientists" can puff up their chest and say what others do isn't science, but the posturing has little teeth to it.

Your "success" argument has been extensively discussed in the literature, and, from what I can tell, dismissed. No doubt that science has played a role in the technology that you're claiming as a success, but there was also a lot of non-scientific engineering that took place - where the "science" was defined after the fact. Given my area of engineering, one of my favorite examples (because it's documented in the literature) is the reciprocating engine. In that case, "science" is more a way to document and communicate the technology to future generations than a matter of science leading the way.

Stand against what, exactly?

It's a list of things, but if you want an example, the way "science" is being brought into courtrooms to define that a fetus is not a person.

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

A nice sound bite, but not true as per my 10,000 year comment. I think there is a common mistake of acting as if the last few hundred years are actually a majority of history.

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.

I didn't mean to insult you, and it saddens me that I did. But I'll not retract the statement. Earlier you were insisting acceptance of what the experts say, and here you're rejecting them based on your own research.

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?

Exactly the problem. What evidence can you demand that I could reasonably provide?

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

No. As I said, I know it has happened, and there is a promise that it will continue to happen. What I'm acknowledging is that I don't know what the answer to prayer was in every single case.

It's like when I'm dribbling a basketball. I'm pretty sure that F=ma is in play all the time, but I can't explain the exact motion of the ball every time it rebounds from the floor. The exact magnitude and direction of the force for every instance is unknown to me. I don't stop dribbling and believe it an impossible task just because I lack some knowledge.

It seems that a sample size of one is not the best thing to base one's entire life off of.

Then you missed the point of the example. Is proving that 1+1=2 a sample size of one? Is it a bad idea for me to accept that principle and move on, or should I prove it every time I use it?

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).

I'm not arguing they're incompatible. I'd be curious to know by what mechanism you think they are compatible because we obviously see this differently.

My position is that God knows everything that is knowable. Since the future doesn't exist, it's nonsense to include that as part of what God must know. Let me further say that God can determine any future event that he chooses. However, since he chooses to honor our free will, he doesn't fully determine the future.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

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'.

I disagree but if we cannot agree I will instead use an empty set instead of zero and reach the same conclusion. An empty set (or empty matrix) is the one, unique set which contains no elements. It is the set of nothing. And it is unique. See here for more info.

So, here is a similar MATLAB argument restated:

for n=1:10^100^100
x=[];
y='something';
if isempty(x)==0
y
end
end

The function 'isempty' returns a 1 if the variable is empty and returns a 0 if the variable isn't empty. So, if the variable x ever becomes non-empty, then you should get the output 'something'. If you run this code for as long as you wish, you will never get an output. Something cannot come from an empty set.

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.

So you're asking us to prove the conditional to be false? The conditional itself is nonsensical though because it basically says:

If nothingness, then X.

,where X is anything. If the conditional is true, then where the hell is everything? If there is no force stopping any X from existing, then why aren't there an infinite number of everything conceivable (and unconceivable)? From nothingness should come everything. Literally. Every single thing ever. And not just one of them, but an infinite number of them. There's nothing (literally) stopping it from happening, according to the conditional.

You can't say, "if nothingness, then space-time." because why would nothingness lead to space-time and not something else? The X is arbitrary and should, could and would be every thing. Literally. Every single thing ever.

Maybe God isn't here to create things...he's here to stop things from getting created.

I like that...it appeals to my pessimism.

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.

How do you know if something is unknowable and not just an unknown?

Based on your response, I think I need to set up the problem a different way. Lets say you have Event A leading to Event B (aka the throw of the die leading to a resulting face showing up). At the time of Event A (t is arbitrary) there is some set of forces acting in the situation which will influence the resulting Event B. But, you're saying, that even if we know all those initial conditions, there may be some other force that acts to influence the outcome in the time between (and including) Event A and Event B.

Set AKF=set of all knowable forces and UF=set of unknowable forces and u(1)=one of the unknowable forces from the set UF, where UF cannot be the empty set.

I think it must be clear that AKF and UF must be completely independent of each other. If UF was somehow related to AKF that implicitly means that UF could be knowable because it has some relationship to AKF. If UF is completely independent from AKF then at some time (or set of times) between Event A and Event B, u(1) manifests itself where no force related to or leading to u(1) existed prior. This is, in other words, saying that something (u(1)) came from nothing (where "nothing" here is not the totality of nothingness but rather the lack of any prior indication that u(1) had, would have, or could have any existence).

Here again is my MATLAB argument restated. Instead have x represent the empty set of forces related to, leading to or indicating the existence of u(1) and set y equal to 'u(1)'. Run the code and you will never see a 'u(1)' output.

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.

Physical is anything which is composed of matter or can be converted to matter.

how do you know the 'physical' universe had a beginning

All current evidence indicates that the physical universe as we know it had a beginning.

how do you know all 'physical' objects exist within the 'physical' universe (this may be part of your definition of 'physical')

I think for the purposes of this discussion, physical objects are required to exist within the universe because the physical universe is all we know of to physically exist.

how do you know that objects within a universe must have a beginning just because that universe does

Because all matter and energy were supposedly created within a closed system according to current evidence.

how do you know there aren't any non-'physical' objects or universes... etc.

I don't know how far this discussion can go but I've kind of lost track of what we are trying to talk about. I'm not interested in a discussion of the merits of a multiverse theory. I don't know everything. I think you were asking me to disprove that an object can exist without a beginning.

I don't think physical objects within the known universe can. I've defined physical. The known universe is defined. I'm sure there are some weird unknowns yet to be discovered. Perhaps the known universe is not a closed system and some physical objects can enter or leave and therefore be eternal.

I have no proof for this particular question posed in the OP. I will no longer address this particular question because I have no opinion on it. Perhaps objects can exist without a beginning...I dunno.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I disagree but if we cannot agree I will instead use an empty set instead of zero and reach the same conclusion. An empty set (or empty matrix) is the one, unique set which contains no elements. It is the set of nothing. And it is unique. See here for more info.

So, here is a similar MATLAB argument restated:

for n=1:10^100^100
x=[];
y='something';
if isempty(x)==0
y
end
end

The function 'isempty' returns a 1 if the variable is empty and returns a 0 if the variable isn't empty. So, if the variable x ever becomes non-empty, then you should get the output 'something'. If you run this code for as long as you wish, you will never get an output. Something cannot come from an empty set.

That's a better analogy, but it still suffers from a rather fundamental flaw: the empty set is still a thing. That's why we can define the number '1' as the cardinality of the set containing the empty set. You are also constrained by the nature of the computer program: it corrects itself to ensure the data doesn't get corrupted by uncontrollable, external influences. Without that check in place, you may well get 'something'.

So it's the nature of the program, and of the underlying mathematics, that prevents something coming from nothing. Genuine nothingness is not so constrained.

So you're asking us to prove the conditional to be false? The conditional itself is nonsensical though because it basically says:

If nothingness, then X.

,where X is anything. If the conditional is true, then where the hell is everything? If there is no force stopping any X from existing, then why aren't there an infinite number of everything conceivable (and unconceivable)? From nothingness should come everything. Literally. Every single thing ever. And not just one of them, but an infinite number of them. There's nothing (literally) stopping it from happening, according to the conditional.

You can't say, "if nothingness, then space-time." because why would nothingness lead to space-time and not something else? The X is arbitrary and should, could and would be every thing. Literally. Every single thing ever.

No one said that there isn't everything. Our spacetime continuum is all we see, not all there is. One implication of the 'something from nothing' idea postulated here, is that it leads to the Many Worlds hypothesis. We have to find ourselves in those parts of the 'multiverse' that happens to be able to sustain life - hence why we're here, and not somewhere else.

So I disagree that the idea is fundamentally incoherent. If nothing else, you yourself at least partially comprehend it, as you realised (albeit obliquely) that it implies not just our universe, but every universe.

So your question, "Where... is everything" (besides using phraseology that violates CF's rules ) is a valid one, to which the answer is, "Elsewhere".

How do you know if something is unknowable and not just an unknown?

How indeed. 'Unknown' is like the number of snails in my fish tank - I simply don't know the answer, but there is a clear-cut integer answer. 'Unknowable' is like the absolute x-position and x-momentum of a particular electron - it's not that we don't know what these two numbers are, it's that they don't have two numbers. How does one differentiate between the two?

Based on your response, I think I need to set up the problem a different way. Lets say you have Event A leading to Event B (aka the throw of the die leading to a resulting face showing up). At the time of Event A (t is arbitrary) there is some set of forces acting in the situation which will influence the resulting Event B. But, you're saying, that even if we know all those initial conditions, there may be some other force that acts to influence the outcome in the time between (and including) Event A and Event B.

Set AKF=set of all knowable forces and UF=set of unknowable forces and u(1)=one of the unknowable forces from the set UF, where UF cannot be the empty set.

A clarification: 'force' means something specific in physics, so I'll work under the assumption that we're speaking more generally than that. And, 'knowable' and 'unknowable' doesn't refer to the forces themselves, but their outcomes.

I think it must be clear that AKF and UF must be completely independent of each other. If UF was somehow related to AKF that implicitly means that UF could be knowable because it has some relationship to AKF.

I disagree. A genuinely random roll of the dice will have some probability distribution for its outcomes. The unknowable forces (this is starting to sound esoteric...) determine just what the final outcome is, but the knowable forces might influence what the probability distribution is (maybe a knowable force makes the '1' more likely, but other, unknowable forces determine what the final outcome actually is).

So, unknowable forces can be related to knowable forces, one example being the latter manipulating the PDF of the former.

If UF is completely independent from AKF then at some time (or set of times) between Event A and Event B, u(1) manifests itself where no force related to or leading to u(1) existed prior.

Maybe. Or maybe the phenomenon is always occurring, and only manifests at a particular point - random white static is always there, but we only see it 'between' TV channels.

This is, in other words, saying that something (u(1)) came from nothing (where "nothing" here is not the totality of nothingness but rather the lack of any prior indication that u(1) had, would have, or could have any existence).

Here again is my MATLAB argument restated. Instead have x represent the empty set of forces related to, leading to or indicating the existence of u(1) and set y equal to 'u(1)'. Run the code and you will never see a 'u(1)' output.

Your conclusion becomes moot given the above.

Physical is anything which is composed of matter or can be converted to matter.

So how is the universe 'physical'? It neither is, nor can be converted into, matter. And, what does 'physically exist' mean (you use the term below)?

All current evidence indicates that the physical universe as we know it had a beginning.

Because all matter and energy were supposedly created within a closed system according to current evidence.

What evidence, exactly? I'm a physicist, and I've never heard of such evidence; its certainly not a part of the Big Bang theory.

I think for the purposes of this discussion, physical objects are required to exist within the universe because the physical universe is all we know of to physically exist.

How does a de re requirement come from 'all we know'? That sounds awfully like an argument from ignorance.

I don't know how far this discussion can go but I've kind of lost track of what we are trying to talk about. I'm not interested in a discussion of the merits of a multiverse theory. I don't know everything. I think you were asking me to disprove that an object can exist without a beginning.

I don't think physical objects within the known universe can. I've defined physical. The known universe is defined. I'm sure there are some weird unknowns yet to be discovered. Perhaps the known universe is not a closed system and some physical objects can enter or leave and therefore be eternal.

I have no proof for this particular question posed in the OP. I will no longer address this particular question because I have no opinion on it. Perhaps objects can exist without a beginning...I dunno.

Score three for the OP .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In human terms I'll agree that is very difficult. There are measures such as the number of people who plant themselves in the pew on Sunday morning, the ability of a church to turn out people to help with disaster relief, quality of life indices, polls asking if religion has had a positive impact on the individual's life, etc.

But honestly I don't put much stock in those. I leave it to God to measure such things.

Perhaps, but that rather undermines your original point:

"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."

Isn't is more duplicitous to extol the value and virtues of the religious method, when you then say you can't - or won't - show its value?

And I think you continue to point to what science can do and religion can't do without acknowledging that (from the human perspective) they're actually in the same boat.

From the perspective of physics, yes, it has succeeded in quantifying things. But the other sciences are riddled with insecurity over the fact that they can't quantify things the way physics does. History no longer calls itself a science. Some still call themselves sciences, but have turned to qualitative methods: archaeology, geology, paleontology, psychology, sociology, and much of biology. Positivism is dead.

Take psychology as an example. Some people very close to me have required counseling. They got better. But to prove that the counseling produced the result is impossible. In fact, one person I know claims counseling is not what cured them.

I don't see how any of that impinges my point, though: the achievements and failures of the scientific method are far more clear than those of religion. Say what you want about science, categorise things how you want, but the fact remains that it's the scientific method, not the religious method, that has extended our lifespans fourfold.

Same thing here. The "science" that you call unified is actually a very small, self-appointed group of people with little power to enforce that others accept their science. The world is filled with people doing what they call science in ways that disagree with what you would call science. "Scientists" can puff up their chest and say what others do isn't science, but the posturing has little teeth to it.

Your "success" argument has been extensively discussed in the literature, and, from what I can tell, dismissed. No doubt that science has played a role in the technology that you're claiming as a success, but there was also a lot of non-scientific engineering that took place - where the "science" was defined after the fact. Given my area of engineering, one of my favorite examples (because it's documented in the literature) is the reciprocating engine. In that case, "science" is more a way to document and communicate the technology to future generations than a matter of science leading the way.

In that case, yes. In other cases, no. However, I feel we're drifting somewhat off the topic.

Your original claim is that asking for evidence for God's existence is something of a double-standard, and you cited the example that we 'trust' the scientific community:

"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."

Essentially, you're equivocating two meanings of the word 'trust': the way that science and scientists have justified themselves to the layman, and the faith that the religious have in the existence of God.

Exactly the problem. What evidence can you demand that I could reasonably provide?

I have no idea. You're right that it's a problem, but it's not my problem. If Joe claims God exists, and I say, "Well, where's the evidence?", Joe is hardly in the right if he bemoans about the nature of evidence. He made the claim, he comes up with the evidence. I don't really care what the evidence is, so long as it's evidence: facts, observations, experimental results... verifiable data that supports the claim.

That's the way it usually works. The OP is a way for those people who claim those four things are false, to justify their claims. It's not up to me to spoon-feed them.

No. As I said, I know it has happened, and there is a promise that it will continue to happen. What I'm acknowledging is that I don't know what the answer to prayer was in every single case.

It's like when I'm dribbling a basketball. I'm pretty sure that F=ma is in play all the time, but I can't explain the exact motion of the ball every time it rebounds from the floor. The exact magnitude and direction of the force for every instance is unknown to me. I don't stop dribbling and believe it an impossible task just because I lack some knowledge.

Then you missed the point of the example. Is proving that 1+1=2 a sample size of one? Is it a bad idea for me to accept that principle and move on, or should I prove it every time I use it?

No, but that's a mathematical proof. Without knowing what this miracle actually is, it's hard to say for certain, but it seems probable that the miracle is some event that happened in the real world, the odds of which you deemed to unlikely to be by chance alone.

I'm not arguing they're incompatible. I'd be curious to know by what mechanism you think they are compatible because we obviously see this differently.

My position is that God knows everything that is knowable. Since the future doesn't exist, it's nonsense to include that as part of what God must know. Let me further say that God can determine any future event that he chooses. However, since he chooses to honor our free will, he doesn't fully determine the future.

It's often said that God sits outside time, able to observe the full breadth of the past, present, and future. I guess you don't ascribe to that, that's fine.

If God is omniscient, and he knows the future, then he knows what our decisions will be. But he isn't determining what our decisions will be. Knowing what a decision will turn out to be is like knowing what a past decision turned out to be - the knowledge alone doesn't determine the decision; rather, it's our free will that determines what it will be.

 

[Resha Caner]

Isn't is more duplicitous to extol the value and virtues of the religious method, when you then say you can't - or won't - show its value?

It would be if my purpose were to prove the social value of religion.

... the fact remains that it's the scientific method, not the religious method, that has extended our lifespans fourfold.

What I was saying is that this is not as clear to me as it seems to be to you. I don't doubt that science has made a contribution, but which parts of science and in what ways? Has astrophysics (cosmology, etc.) extended our lifespan? If not, does that make it worthless? I think it is a much more complex mix than you're acknowledging, and it would be difficult to sort out what various aspects have actually contributed.

All you've really offered so far is anecdotal statements on the value of science. If we got down to quantifying it, I think you'd find it much more difficult.

But, see, I'm not asking you to quantify it. I'm not disputing the value of science. I'm willing to accept the intangible aspects of placing value on something.

Essentially, you're equivocating two meanings of the word 'trust': the way that science and scientists have justified themselves to the layman, and the faith that the religious have in the existence of God.

I didn't think I was, so please explain this a bit more to me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It would be if my purpose were to prove the social value of religion.

Well, aren't you? You said it's duplicitous when people doubt its value, the implication being that it does have value. If it doesn't, then what are you complaining about?

What I was saying is that this is not as clear to me as it seems to be to you. I don't doubt that science has made a contribution, but which parts of science and in what ways? Has astrophysics (cosmology, etc.) extended our lifespan? If not, does that make it worthless? I think it is a much more complex mix than you're acknowledging, and it would be difficult to sort out what various aspects have actually contributed.

All you've really offered so far is anecdotal statements on the value of science. If we got down to quantifying it, I think you'd find it much more difficult.

But, see, I'm not asking you to quantify it. I'm not disputing the value of science. I'm willing to accept the intangible aspects of placing value on something.

But your point does rely on science and religion being in more or less the same position. I'm saying that, in fact, the pros and cons are much more clear, with the pros clearly winning; with religion, it's unclear what the pros and cons even are, let alone which is winning.

You say you have find it frustrating that that people lambaste the Church for the failings of its vetting process (e.g., Galileo) and ignore the values of it. Well, here I stand, asking you what those values are - and you don't seem to know. Well, OK, fine, but then how can you then be frustrated? If even you don't know what the value of the vetting process is, why are you frustrated when we don't know either? Near as we can tell, there is no value, hence why we ignore it.

I didn't think I was, so please explain this a bit more to me.

Well, we started by talking about 'trust' in God - at some point, we just have to trust God's word - and you drew an analogy with how we 'trust' scientists. Scientists vindicate their work with peer review and through the technology that exists (say what you like about engineering, the integrated circuit didn't come about by trial-and-error). So in what way do we 'trust' scientists, and in what way do we 'trust' God?

And, of course, we don't have to trust scientists - we can test their claims with experimentation. But you said we have to trust God - why? What if I don't want to?

"Well, he is exempt, but the question doesn't offend me. Rather, I'm confused by the stubbornness of the question. There does come a point where trust is necessary. 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."

The trust in physics is substantiated. We have GPS, space shuttles and space stations, satellite communication for phones, TVs, and the Internet, telescopes, microgravity research stations, etc; and that's just space! The theories proposed by physicists, and the experiments done to verify them, are not routinely repeated by laymen - but that doesn't mean they have religious faith when it comes to believing in things like general relativity. The proof is there, every time you turn on your Tom-Tom.

So I disagree that it's a double-standard, and I disagree that it somehow exempts the theist from the onus of proof - ultimately, whatever else may be going on, if person X claims God exists, the onus is on person X to substantiate that claim.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmm. I'm sorry your thread has been derailed. It doesn't seem this is what either you or I were interested in discussing, so I'm not sure how we ended up here. But it is what it is.

I could list the value of religion and of faith (two different things BTW), but that diverts us even farther. I could (and somewhat did) start listing methods people have used for measuring it. But all of that misses my point.

I think the value of both religion and science is somewhat dependent on intangibles. Given that as my view, why would I try to quantify the value of religion ... why would I try to quantify the value of either? IMO the answer of value can only be given as a qualified one.

My objection, then, was that your statements appeared to say:
1) The value of science has been quantified
2) Saying the value of religion is based on something intangible is the same as saying religion has no value

If I am correct that you would stand behind those two statements (though maybe rephrased ... or maybe I'm completely off base) I would have to ask you to justify them. Show me a causal relation between "science" and "happiness". Show me that science was the only factor in developing circuit boards and that there wasn't any "cut and try" engineering. Then show me a happiness index that increased in a statistically significant way after circuit boards were introduced and that offsets the negative impacts (the hazardous waste resulting from their manufacture, the court battles over patent rights, the stress of the people trying to meet production deadlines on new circuit boards, etc.). Show me that all of those things have been taken into consideration in a quantitative way.

If you can do that, my job of quantifying the benefit of religion will be an easy one.

Or, if you want, we can take this discussion in a direction I didn't think it was going. If you want to focus solely on a discussion of the benefits of religion, I guess we can do that to. We can start on the small scale with the anecdotal instances such as when things got tough in my personal life (i.e. cancer), it was people from the church who came to give me and my family support, not unbelievers (and yes, there were unbelievers who knew I had cancer). It then becomes a discussion of what motivations underly the actions people take.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That's a better analogy, but it still suffers from a rather fundamental flaw: the empty set is still a thing. That's why we can define the number '1' as the cardinality of the set containing the empty set. You are also constrained by the nature of the computer program: it corrects itself to ensure the data doesn't get corrupted by uncontrollable, external influences. Without that check in place, you may well get 'something'.

So it's the nature of the program, and of the underlying mathematics, that prevents something coming from nothing. Genuine nothingness is not so constrained.

You've set up a discussion which cannot be proven wrong because anything I say or any attempt I make to tackle the problem is dismissed as, "well, that's not TRUE nothingness."









The blank space above is the best argument I can give. There's no argument in the blank space above, and no argument manifests itself. But of course there are electrons and all sorts of other things governing my computer and your computer and the internet which constrain that blank space as well. Anything I use to make a point is within some sort of constraint.

I am not sure if my inability to prove the negative therefore affirms the positive though. Just because I cannot prove that something cannot come from nothing does not mean that something can come from nothing.

No one said that there isn't everything. Our spacetime continuum is all we see, not all there is. One implication of the 'something from nothing' idea postulated here, is that it leads to the Many Worlds hypothesis. We have to find ourselves in those parts of the 'multiverse' that happens to be able to sustain life - hence why we're here, and not somewhere else.

So I disagree that the idea is fundamentally incoherent. If nothing else, you yourself at least partially comprehend it, as you realised (albeit obliquely) that it implies not just our universe, but every universe.

So your question, "Where... is everything" (besides using phraseology that violates CF's rules ) is a valid one, to which the answer is, "Elsewhere".

I said earlier that I did not want to get into Multiverse Theory. This is because it makes this whole thread pointless. If we start invoking Multiverse Theory, then there is no reason or evidence to suggest that the multiverse had a beginning.

The whole reason the "something from nothing" debate is meaningful is because current evidence suggests that the known universe had some sort of beginning that occurred 13.7 billion years ago and prior to that everyone just shrugs their shoulders. Prior to that event there may have been nothingness or there may have been something else. If there was nothingness, then your idea of "everything from nothing" makes sense insofar nothingness may actually have existed. But the "everything from nothing" doesn't make sense in that we now don't have a multiverse where "everything" is. But if you start invoking multiverse theory to explain where this "everything" is, then the whole idea of nothingness prior to the Big Bang is meaningless.

So you'll notice there's a bit of circular reasoning running through here. If the Big Bang caused our universe, then it had a beginning. Prior to that beginning was nothingness. You then claim that nothingness allows the creation of everything. And you invoke multiverse theory to explain where "everything" is. But what's the point of this whole discussion if the Big Bang isn't your starting point of reference? If the Big Bang does not include "everything" then I don't see why this conversation is even remotely meaningful.

This is why I didn't want to start talking about the multiverse, because, if the multiverse exists, I see no reason why it has to have a beginning. And if it doesn't have a beginning, then there has always been something and nothingness never existed. The only reason I think the universe (not the multiverse) had a beginning is because of current evidence. Prior to that evidence, most scientists thought it was eternal and static.

Also, if "Everything" exists, then what does it mean for something to "exist" at all? If EVERYTHING exists, the whole idea of "existence" becomes kind of strange, does it not? It also means that any claim of existence is true. Leprechauns exist. Unicorns exist. My great-great-great grandson exists. I exist as a 10,053 year old living man. You exist without a face. There are currently an infinite number of me's and you's having this discussion where I forgot to put a period at the end of this paragraph

And there are an infinite number of me's and you's that did put a period at the end of that above paragraph. Everything exists.

I disagree. A genuinely random roll of the dice will have some probability distribution for its outcomes. The unknowable forces (this is starting to sound esoteric...) determine just what the final outcome is, but the knowable forces might influence what the probability distribution is (maybe a knowable force makes the '1' more likely, but other, unknowable forces determine what the final outcome actually is).

So, unknowable forces can be related to knowable forces, one example being the latter manipulating the PDF of the former.

What? You've shifted the goal posts here from concrete outcomes to probability distributions. Up until this point, I haven't been talking about random forces altering the probability distribution. I thought your definition of randomness was one that HAD a probability distribution. I didn't realize that we were now defining randomness as a probability distribution that can also be a function of time. So you're saying that when you throw a d6, the chances of it landing on a 3 is 1/6, but through random, unknowable forces, that probability distribution could be shifted to 1/5 for some amount of time?

You've lost me...as far as I can tell, the unknowable forces (UF) and knowable forces (AKF) must be independent. Otherwise you could theoretically make a some measurements and retroactively study UF based on your measurements of AKF, assuming a static probability distribution.

Maybe. Or maybe the phenomenon is always occurring, and only manifests at a particular point - random white static is always there, but we only see it 'between' TV channels.

Again, you lost me. The outcome of the die is affected by forces, is it not? Or are you now introducing the idea that the die can also be affected by non-forces? As far as I know, forces act discretely. There is either a force acting, or there isn't. Gravity is either there, or it is not. How can a force be "always occuring" but "manifest" at a particular point? If a force is "always occuring" then it is also "always manifesting itself"...I don't see how a force can both always exist but also manifest itself discretely.

Score three for the OP .

I think when I initially read your challenge which said, "Prove to me that an object can't exist without a beginning." I made some assumptions about what you were defining as "to exist".

Theoretically, there is no reason why an object can't exist without a beginning. Assuming time is infinite and assuming existence did not have a beginning and assuming the physical object is not constrained in anyway, then yes, an object can. But when I entered this discussion I thought we were talking somewhat concretely rather than purely hypothetically. If I'm not allowed to use current evidence or the laws governing our known universe, then you cannot be proven wrong.

You can always invoke multiverse theory and say there is an object which exists eternally because everything exists. There are actually an infinite number of objects which exist eternally because everything exists.

Thusly, I cannot prove you wrong if you invoke multiverse theory. Nor can I prove you wrong if your definition of "physical object" extends beyond the "physical universe". I think that "outside the universe" is a nonsensical term because the universe is where space and time operate. Of course there could be other stuff out there just as there could be this or that or any number of things. Obama could be the antichrist, but I don't use that assumption as the basis for my logical conclusions either.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You've set up a discussion which cannot be proven wrong because anything I say or any attempt I make to tackle the problem is dismissed as, "well, that's not TRUE nothingness."

What can I saw, your analogies were flawed.

The blank space above is the best argument I can give. There's no argument in the blank space above, and no argument manifests itself. But of course there are electrons and all sorts of other things governing my computer and your computer and the internet which constrain that blank space as well. Anything I use to make a point is within some sort of constraint.

Precisely. The whole point is that there are no constraints. Your analogies work by saying, "Well, in this constrained system, we'd never get something spontaneous" - of course not, because it's constrained. Nothingness isn't constrained, which is how the idea works. To compare a constrained system to a non-constrained one, when the absence of constraint is the entire point, is why your analogies fail.

I am not sure if my inability to prove the negative therefore affirms the positive though. Just because I cannot prove that something cannot come from nothing does not mean that something can come from nothing.

Quite right. I think this thread has thrown some people - I'm not actually making the claims in the OP, I'm not asserting that, if you can't disprove them, then they must be true. I'm just giving those people who say they're false, to prove they're false.

I said earlier that I did not want to get into Multiverse Theory. This is because it makes this whole thread pointless. If we start invoking Multiverse Theory, then there is no reason or evidence to suggest that the multiverse had a beginning.

So... you're avoiding a very real idea because it's inconvenient to your position? The whole point of this thread is to prove that such things can't exist. If you can't do that, absolutely and completely, then the OP's request goes unanswered.

The whole reason the "something from nothing" debate is meaningful is because current evidence suggests that the known universe had some sort of beginning that occurred 13.7 billion years ago and prior to that everyone just shrugs their shoulders. Prior to that event there may have been nothingness or there may have been something else. If there was nothingness, then your idea of "everything from nothing" makes sense insofar nothingness may actually have existed. But the "everything from nothing" doesn't make sense in that we now don't have a multiverse where "everything" is. But if you start invoking multiverse theory to explain where this "everything" is, then the whole idea of nothingness prior to the Big Bang is meaningless.

The idea of something 'outside' space and 'before' time is, to me, far more nonsensical.

So you'll notice there's a bit of circular reasoning running through here. If the Big Bang caused our universe, then it had a beginning. Prior to that beginning was nothingness. You then claim that nothingness allows the creation of everything. And you invoke multiverse theory to explain where "everything" is. But what's the point of this whole discussion if the Big Bang isn't your starting point of reference? If the Big Bang does not include "everything" then I don't see why this conversation is even remotely meaningful.

Because the Big Bang would be the start of our universe, which is what we seek to explain. If the implication is that there are other universes, well, that's simply an interesting by-product of the explanation.

This is why I didn't want to start talking about the multiverse, because, if the multiverse exists, I see no reason why it has to have a beginning. And if it doesn't have a beginning, then there has always been something and nothingness never existed. The only reason I think the universe (not the multiverse) had a beginning is because of current evidence. Prior to that evidence, most scientists thought it was eternal and static.

Also, if "Everything" exists, then what does it mean for something to "exist" at all? If EVERYTHING exists, the whole idea of "existence" becomes kind of strange, does it not? It also means that any claim of existence is true. Leprechauns exist. Unicorns exist. My great-great-great grandson exists. I exist as a 10,053 year old living man. You exist without a face. There are currently an infinite number of me's and you's having this discussion where I forgot to put a period at the end of this paragraph

And there are an infinite number of me's and you's that did put a period at the end of that above paragraph. Everything exists.

Indeed. I don't see how that makes existence strange, though. Many fictional universes in science-fiction have some sort of parallel/alternate multiverse goings on.

What? You've shifted the goal posts here from concrete outcomes to probability distributions. Up until this point, I haven't been talking about random forces altering the probability distribution. I thought your definition of randomness was one that HAD a probability distribution. I didn't realize that we were now defining randomness as a probability distribution that can also be a function of time. So you're saying that when you throw a d6, the chances of it landing on a 3 is 1/6, but through random, unknowable forces, that probability distribution could be shifted to 1/5 for some amount of time?

I'm saying that an outcome determined by completely knowable forces will lead to a single outcome - the roll of the dice can't be anything but a 3, given the starting conditions. But with a truly random system, that creates a probability distribution - a roll of a truly random die, as opposed to a purely mechanical die, has an actual probability distribution.

Now, given that in a random system there's a probability distribution, who's to say that concrete, known forces can't alter that distribution? Who's to say that forces couldn't convene to make '3' more likely and the other numbers less likely? Wouldn't simply cutting up or weight the dice alter its outcomes?

The random element of a small momentum boost mid-spin creates an unknowable outcome, but one that is still influenced by starting conditions. A die with four sides can never come up with a 5 or a 6, while a die with six sides can. So although the actual outcome is unknown and unknowable and follows a probability distribution, the actual shape of the distribution is influenced by known factors (such as the shape of the die).

The point, then, is to refute your claim that the two forces must be utterly independent.

You've lost me...as far as I can tell, the unknowable forces (UF) and knowable forces (AKF) must be independent. Otherwise you could theoretically make a some measurements and retroactively study UF based on your measurements of AKF, assuming a static probability distribution.

Of course you can. That doesn't make them knowable. I can know what possible outcomes a truly random system can take, I just can't know what it will take.

You're absolutely right, you could do experiments and see what the PDF is for the random system, and see how that PDF shifts when you change knowable forces (maybe dropping a die with zero spin makes the current face more likely, while rolling a die with lots of spin makes it more evenly distributed).

So the unknowable forces are unknowable only insofar as we can't, even in principle, predict what their actual final result will be in a given trial. But that doesn't mean we can't know the spread of possible outcomes, or the weight of each outcome.

Again, you lost me. The outcome of the die is affected by forces, is it not? Or are you now introducing the idea that the die can also be affected by non-forces? As far as I know, forces act discretely. There is either a force acting, or there isn't. Gravity is either there, or it is not. How can a force be "always occuring" but "manifest" at a particular point? If a force is "always occuring" then it is also "always manifesting itself"...I don't see how a force can both always exist but also manifest itself discretely.

Take a magnet on a fridge. The force of gravity is always there, but the magnet's behaviour is oblivious to this. Or, take the mechanics of protein folding. Again, gravity always exists, but it turns out to have no real impact on how proteins fold. But take rolling a die. Gravity, again, exists, and it manifests in making the die fall to the ground.

So the random force, the unknowable force, could be a sort of random 'jiggle' that the die is always undergoing, but it can only affect what face is uppermost when the die is in mid-air. So holding it in your hand, the face stays where it is. Spinning it in the air, it can then have a real, manifest effect.

Or, take a computer. It measures some random phenomenon, keeping track of (say) radioactive decays per second. Thus, it has a random number in its memory. The random number won't influence any output the computer does unless it is called to.

The actual random phenomenon itself is always there, buzzing away, but it only manifests in certain situations. The die is always jiggling, but the face can only be influenced mid-roll.

I think when I initially read your challenge which said, "Prove to me that an object can't exist without a beginning." I made some assumptions about what you were defining as "to exist".

Theoretically, there is no reason why an object can't exist without a beginning. Assuming time is infinite and assuming existence did not have a beginning and assuming the physical object is not constrained in anyway, then yes, an object can. But when I entered this discussion I thought we were talking somewhat concretely rather than purely hypothetically. If I'm not allowed to use current evidence or the laws governing our known universe, then you cannot be proven wrong.

Bingo.

Though, even being constrained to what we know exists, I'm still waiting for this evidence that the physical universe exists (I'm still waiting for a definition of 'physical universe'; what's a 'non-physical' universe?).

You can always invoke multiverse theory and say there is an object which exists eternally because everything exists. There are actually an infinite number of objects which exist eternally because everything exists.

Thusly, I cannot prove you wrong if you invoke multiverse theory.

So, as I said, score three for the OP .

Nor can I prove you wrong if your definition of "physical object" extends beyond the "physical universe"

I think you'll find I never qualified that the object must be 'physical', merely an object, period.

I think that "outside the universe" is a nonsensical term because the universe is where space and time operate. Of course there could be other stuff out there just as there could be this or that or any number of things. Obama could be the antichrist, but I don't use that assumption as the basis for my logical conclusions either.

No one's saying you should base any logical conclusions on it. But it's infuriatingly common that people declare, without any real justification, that something must have a beginning, that something must have a cause, that something can't be eternal. When called on it, their only recourse is to wring their hands and say, "Oh, it's so obvious, it's classical philosophy, scoff scoff scoff". It winds me up to no end.

Thus the point of this thread. To those people who say that everything that exists must have a beginning, to those people who say that every event must have a cause, to those people who say that 'something from nothing' is impossible, I say - prove it.

And, it seems, no one is able to do that.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Nothing has no property, something has a property. in order for nothing to cause something, then nothing would need a property in which something has.

Something has property(properties) and nothing has no properties or at least the properties of nothingness.

How then can nothing cause something?

It cannot as if nothing caused something, it would need the property of it's creation, it has none.

also if nothing caused something then it would need an eternal sort of property to do so, which means that it's something instead of nothing.

nothing therefore causes, nothing. in order for you to prove that nothing can cause something you need to prove that it has the properties to do so, that it's own properties of nothingness is something, however nothing is not something and a property is something, therefore nothing wouldn't really be nothing.

Nothing can only cause, nothing. The Cause of the universe therefore cannot be nothing as that is now an Impossibility. The Cause of the universe is not material, nor is it nothing.

therefore with Creation Ex Nihilo, The Cause has the properties needed to create the universe, yet The Cause is Immaterial since not material, and not nothing, and The Cause caused the universe out of nothing. and The Cause is God(The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), there's no escaping it.

your whole thread has been destroyed, don't ever in a debate bring up "nothing causing nothing".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Nothing has no property, something has a property. in order for nothing to cause something, then nothing would need a property in which something has.

Something has property(properties) and nothing has no properties or at least the properties of nothingness.

How then can nothing cause something?

It cannot as if nothing caused something, it would need the property of it's creation, it has none.

also if nothing caused something then it would need an eternal sort of property to do so, which means that it's something instead of nothing.

nothing therefore causes, nothing. in order for you to prove that nothing can cause something you need to prove that it has the properties to do so, that it's own properties of nothingness is something, however nothing is not something and a property is something, therefore nothing wouldn't really be nothing.

Nothing can only cause, nothing. The Cause of the universe therefore cannot be nothing as that is now an Impossibility. The Cause of the universe is not material, nor is it nothing.

therefore with Creation Ex Nihilo, The Cause has the properties needed to create the universe, yet The Cause is Immaterial since not material, and not nothing, and The Cause caused the universe out of nothing. and The Cause is God(The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), there's no escaping it.

Sure there is, and it amuses me that you genuinely think your arguments are inescapable.

your whole thread has been destroyed, don't ever in a debate bring up "nothing causing nothing".

Since you have no authority in any thread except your own, your demands ring a little hollow.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Sure there is, and it amuses me that you genuinely think your arguments are inescapable.


Since you have no authority in any thread except your own, your demands ring a little hollow.

you didn't refute anything. I proved nothing cannot cause something, and as you said as long as that's a possibility you'd choose it, it is no longer a possibility therefore Scientifically, Historically, Philosophically, Logically and Factually speaking, your only option is God. otherwise refute what I wrote, because now The Only Possibility is God, which means, it is Factual instead of just Possible, Possibility would have other options, The Only Option is God.(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

your "atheism" is nonexistent. time to move on.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

you didn't refute anything.

"Oh no you didn't!"
"Oh yes you did!"

It's telling your rebuttals are no more than that.

I proved nothing cannot cause something,

"Oh no you didn't!"

and as you said as long as that's a possibility you'd choose it,

I said no such thing.

it is no longer a possibility therefore Scientifically, Historically, Philosophically, Logically and Factually speaking,

Lower case, please, and 'logically' would alone suffice.

your only option is God.

False dichotomy. Since you haven't established that the only two options are this or that, your conclusion is invalid.

otherwise refute what I wrote,

There's nothing to refute, because nothing has been substantiated. The onus is on you, after all.

because now The Only Possibility is God, which means, it is Factual instead of just Possible, Possibility would have other options, The Only Option is God.(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

If the only possibility was the god of Christianity, then you'd be right. But it's not. It's not even a generic, faceless deity. Your proof simply does not work, yet you are unable to see that because your own, religious faith demands that you ignore anything to the contrary.

Why should I wallow in the same irrationality?

your "atheism" is nonexistent. time to move on.

No one is forcing you to post here, or to me. I enjoy discussions, especially with those who believe differently to me. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. This is a test of my patience, nothing more.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

"Oh no you didn't!"
"Oh yes you did!"

It's telling your rebuttals are no more than that.

Actually my rebuttals are more like --> Post #74 which in reply you wrote --> Post #75 which was not a rebuttal, go and attempt a rebuttal post #74 if I'm wrong.

I said no such thing.

False dichotomy. Since you haven't established that the only two options are this or that, your conclusion is invalid.

There's nothing to refute, because nothing has been substantiated. The onus is on you, after all.

I proved that nothing cannot cause something, therefore making any "naturalist"/"non-personal" option to The cause of the universe destroyed.

If the only possibility was the god of Christianity, then you'd be right. But it's not. It's not even a generic, faceless deity. Your proof simply does not work, yet you are unable to see that because your own, religious faith demands that you ignore anything to the contrary.

Sure about that? then refute this, if you cannot/ignore then it is a Fact, and you'll be stuck being Theist, which follows Christianity,

First Uncaused Cause Uncaused, Beginningless, Changeless, Eternal, Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, All Powerful, and Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived.

Cause of the universe - Spaceless, Timeless, Changeless, Immaterial, Beginningless, Eternal, Uncaused.

First Uncaused Cause is The Cause of the universe.

1, Disproves "naturalism" as nature was created.

2, Description matches God, to a tee.

3, First Uncaused Cause is The Direct cause of the universe, God is a First Uncaused Cause who Directly Caused the universe.

4, Personal or Scientific explanations only, no science existed before the universe, therefore personal.

5, Can be only 1 of 2 Immaterial Properties, Abstract objects such as numbers, or a Mind(Dualism), Abstract objects cannot cause anything, therefore a Mind.

6, 2 types of causes, on Purpose or By Accident. Accidents are Caused, First Uncaused Cause has no cause, therefore caused on purpose.

7, Creation ex nihilo Confirms Biblical Creation as a Fact, therefore God exists and is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

you want to be an "atheist"? refute it, otherwise you just prove you aren't an "atheist" and cannot be.

No one is forcing you to post here, or to me. I enjoy discussions, especially with those who believe differently to me. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. This is a test of my patience, nothing more.

All I did was refute "nothing causing something" making it invalid, if I didn't then by all means show me how. since I did God is therefore The Only Option, which Substantiates The Bible and proves along with the other proof(Jesus Christ Resurrection, The Shroud, disproved religions("islam", "buddhism", "hinduism", "atheism", etc), Bible's Historical Accuracy, Scientific Accuracy, No Contradiction, No error, Creation at once).

The Only Option you have left is Christianity/The Bible, it is The Objective Truth.

All you had was "naturalism", "macro-evolution", and "nothing causing something", all of which are disproven. the days of "atheism" are past, put it behind you because All Scientific, Historical, Philosophical, Logical, and Personal Facts prove Christianity/The Bible. is Fact.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually my rebuttals are more like --> Post #74 which in reply you wrote --> Post #75 which was not a rebuttal, go and attempt a rebuttal post #74 if I'm wrong.

Your proof is invalid because it commits the petitio principii fallacy.

I proved that nothing cannot cause something, therefore making any "naturalist"/"non-personal" option to The cause of the universe destroyed.

Non sequitur. Even if your proof were valid (it's not), that wouldn't "destroy" any and all natuaralistic and non-personal claims. That wouldn't prove an supernatural intelligence created the universe. The fact that you think it does, is a large part of why I don't expend much energy debating you.

Sure about that? then refute this, if you cannot/ignore then it is a Fact, and you'll be stuck being Theist, which follows Christianity,

First Uncaused Cause Uncaused, Beginningless, Changeless, Eternal, Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, All Powerful, and Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived.

Cause of the universe - Spaceless, Timeless, Changeless, Immaterial, Beginningless, Eternal, Uncaused.

First Uncaused Cause is The Cause of the universe.

...

1, Disproves "naturalism" as nature was created.

Semantics. If the universe is the sum total of what is 'natural', and the universe had a cause, then that cause is, by definition, not natural, i.e., supernatural. This tells us nothing about what that cause is - a mundane phenomenon, a collision between hyper-dimensional m-branes, or something more exotic but otherwise unintelligent, would, by this set of definitions, qualify for 'supernatural'.

Thus, crowing about disproving all naturalistic isn't the most impressive of achievements, since it's a simple matter of picking the definition of the word 'natural' that fits your needs.

And, of course, your disproof only works under certain assumptions about the nature of the universe - linear time, hard causality, etc.

2, Description matches God, to a tee.

The phenomena of thunder and lightening also match the description of Thor to a tee. This is a non-argument.

3, First Uncaused Cause is The Direct cause of the universe, God is a First Uncaused Cause who Directly Caused the universe.

Now you're just stating your desired conclusion outright. Again, this is a non-argument.

4, Personal or Scientific explanations only, no science existed before the universe, therefore personal.

False dichotomy. 'Personal or scientific explanations' isn't a real divide. 'Science' is a method used by humans to derive knowledge about the universe from the accrual of empirical evidence, and from logical inference and deduction. Science doesn't 'exist', it's not a thing that comes hand-in-hand with the universe. For the third time, this is a non-argument.

So that's four 'arguments' that aren't even arguments. They're not just faulty arguments, they're not just bad arguments, they don't even qualify as arguments at all.

5, Can be only 1 of 2 Immaterial Properties, Abstract objects such as numbers, or a Mind(Dualism), Abstract objects cannot cause anything, therefore a Mind.

It's an unsubstantiated assumption that it must be 'abstract objects or a mind'. The immaterial encompasses a vast array of possible things, more than humans have ever postulated. Saying that it must be 'numbers or a mind' is... well, it's just another false dichotomy, I'm afraid.

I realise you're in love with the idea of disproving the alternatives, but you can't just invent your own dichotomies - they have to be real.

6, 2 types of causes, on Purpose or By Accident. Accidents are Caused, First Uncaused Cause has no cause, therefore caused on purpose.

You're inventing more false dichotomies, and in the process you've confused yourself. Go back over this line of reasoning and see if you can spot your mistake.

As for your dichotomies, it's at best a case of vacuous semantics, or at worst simply outright wrong, to say that causes must be either on purpose or by accident - if nothing else, this is a very sloppy case of anthropomorphisation.

7, Creation ex nihilo Confirms Biblical Creation as a Fact, therefore God exists and is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Non sequitur. Creation ex nihilo conforms, but does not confirm, the literal interpretation of Genesis. Bear in mind that it also conforms with Islamic Creationism, Judaic Creationism, Hindu Creationism, etc. That is to say, even if you did indeed prove what you set out to prove, that at best would mean that there was one or more intelligent minds that served as the first uncaused cause(s) of the universe as we know it. You have yet to show that this must be a) a single being, b) a deity, c) the God of the Bible, and d) according to a literal interpretation of Genesis by modern Christians in the USA.

However, given the... substandard style of argumentation (as I outlined above), I'm unwilling to go into the historicity of the Bible just yet. For know, let's stick to cosmogeny.

you want to be an "atheist"?

No. Why would anyone want to be an atheist?

refute it, otherwise you just prove you aren't an "atheist" and cannot be.

Yeah, I don't think you quite understand how this works.

All I did was refute "nothing causing something" making it invalid, if I didn't then by all means show me how. since I did God is therefore The Only Option, which Substantiates The Bible and proves along with the other proof(Jesus Christ Resurrection, The Shroud, disproved religions("islam", "buddhism", "hinduism", "atheism", etc), Bible's Historical Accuracy, Scientific Accuracy, No Contradiction, No error, Creation at once).

The Only Option you have left is Christianity/The Bible, it is The Objective Truth.

All you had was "naturalism", "macro-evolution", and "nothing causing something", all of which are disproven. the days of "atheism" are past, put it behind you because All Scientific, Historical, Philosophical, Logical, and Personal Facts prove Christianity/The Bible. is Fact.

Mhm. Given that your style of... 'debate', belies a rather crass lack of understanding of even the basics of what science is (you think, as shown in point #4 above, that science is something that can 'exist' or 'not exist'), you'll forgive me if I'm not exactly swayed by what it is you, personally, believe.

Again, this is a test of my patience, not an actual debate. I may disagree with Resha Caner on a lot of things, but at least he actually presents a challenge And I don't say this to be petty, I just don't want you to get misunderstand our position here.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Your proof is invalid because it commits the petitio principii fallacy.

No fallacies, just facts, something must have equal or greater property(ies) than it's effect, if something is caused, the cause must have the property necessary to cause it.


[/QUOTE]Non sequitur. Even if your proof were valid (it's not),[/QUOTE]

Yes it is otherwise you would have easily disproved it, it's irrefutable

that wouldn't "destroy" any and all natuaralistic and non-personal claims.

Yes it does as if it were valid, if the proof I offer that "naturalism" is impossible and that The Cause can Only be God, then all "naturalist" theories are myths, I have Validated The Proof with Facts, therefore "naturalist" explanations are impossible/myths.

That wouldn't prove an supernatural intelligence created the universe. The fact that you think it does, is a large part of why I don't expend much energy debating you.

Unlike you, I go from a Scientific Standpoint and continue from there. for example The First Uncaused Cause can Only be a Mind or Abstract Objects, without even assuming God, I proved The First Uncaused Cause is, God.

Semantics. If the universe is the sum total of what is 'natural', and the universe had a cause, then that cause is, by definition, not natural, i.e., supernatural.

Thank you very much, "naturalism" is dead. don't ever bring it up in debates again.

This tells us nothing about what that cause is - a mundane phenomenon, a collision between hyper-dimensional m-branes, or something more exotic but otherwise unintelligent, would, by this set of definitions, qualify for 'supernatural'.

The Cause of the universe is not in Time, therefore you are stuck with mute material or Immaterial. since mute material would not cause anything, therefore Immaterial. and the fact that Space, Time, Matter, and Energy started at big bang, and Creation Ex Nihilo.

Thus, crowing about disproving all naturalistic isn't the most impressive of achievements,

I'm not crowing, just saying the Facts. Science disproved "naturalism".

since it's a simple matter of picking the definition of the word 'natural' that fits your needs.

Anything confined to the universe or mindless.

And, of course, your disproof only works under certain assumptions about the nature of the universe - linear time, hard causality, etc.

Not assumptions, but facts, universe began to exist, therefore did Time, Time is therefore Factually Linear.

Causality is Fact as anything that begins to exist has a reason to it's existence, the reason is The Cause. Therefore Causality is a Fact.

The phenomena of thunder and lightening also match the description of Thor to a tee. This is a non-argument.

That's not Analogous to what I proved, which is that it's been foreknown an Uncaused, Beginningless, Eternal, Changeless, Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, All Powerful, Being that is Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived.

So yes this is proof.

Now you're just stating your desired conclusion outright. Again, this is a non-argument.

How? not only does The First Uncaused Cause description match God's Perfectly, but the universe was directly caused by The First Uncaused Cause, God is a First Uncaused Cause who directly caused the universe, Out of Nothing. Therefore more proof of God(The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit)

False dichotomy. 'Personal or scientific explanations' isn't a real divide. 'Science' is a method used by humans to derive knowledge about the universe from the accrual of empirical evidence, and from logical inference and deduction.

Exactly, that's why it can't be used, as science has nothing to do with Personhood, so we have to divide

Science doesn't 'exist', it's not a thing that comes hand-in-hand with the universe. For the third time, this is a non-argument.

Scientific Explanations.

Scientific Explanation's are explanation such as, Someone ask what I'm doing, Scientifically the explanation is, I'm bringing water that is a metallic pot to 212 in order to, etc etc, while The Personal explanation is, I'm making dinner.

That's 4 you didn't refute.

So that's four 'arguments' that aren't even arguments. As proven above they are Valid proof.

They're not just faulty arguments, they're not just bad arguments, they don't even qualify as arguments at all.

Nope, as proven above, you replies refute nothing and the proof I provided isn't just an argument but Proof, Evidence, and Facts which are irrefutable since they are True.

It's an unsubstantiated assumption that it must be 'abstract objects or a mind'. The immaterial encompasses a vast array of possible things, more than humans have ever postulated. Saying that it must be 'numbers or a mind' is... well, it's just another false dichotomy, I'm afraid.

There's only 2 known Immaterial things known in existence. Abstract Objects, or a Mind. Abstract objects cause nothing therefore if you have any other possible Immaterial objects, provide them, There's Only 2, Mind's and Abstract Objects. Abstract Objects cannot cause therefore a Mind. added with Fine Tuning it is a Scientific Fact that it's a Mind, meaning God exists, which follows that He is The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

I realise you're in love with the idea of disproving the alternatives, but you can't just invent your own dichotomies - they have to be real.

No dichotomy, just that God is The Only Option and Proven option. there is no alternative, it's done.

You're inventing more false dichotomies, and in the process you've confused yourself. Go back over this line of reasoning and see if you can spot your mistake.

There is no false dichotomy. I ask you, if something is not caused by a Mind/on purpose/with Intent, then how is it caused?

Only on Purpose or Accident. Impossible to be an accident, therefore Factually on Purpose.

As for your dichotomies, it's at best a case of vacuous semantics, or at worst simply outright wrong, to say that causes must be either on purpose or by accident - if nothing else, this is a very sloppy case of anthropomorphisation.

Nope only 2 types of causes, With Intent, or without. Without means Accident, with Means Purpose.

Non sequitur. Creation ex nihilo conforms, but does not confirm, the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Yes it does, it's called Foreknowledge, stuff no one should have even thought about was given as a Fact by The Bible, added with all the other Facts, there's no excuse.

Bear in mind that it also conforms with Islamic Creationism, Judaic Creationism, Hindu Creationism, etc.

"islam" is false as it claims Judas and not Jesus Christ was crucified, which is false as Jesus Christ was Factually crucified.

"hinduism" cites a "cosmic egg" automatically false.

The Messiah Is Jesus Christ so yes, The Bible is accurate and correct for about the hundredth time.

That is to say, even if you did indeed prove what you set out to prove, that at best would mean that there was one or more intelligent minds that served as the first uncaused cause(s) of the universe as we know it.

You have yet to show that this must be a) a single being,

1, One universe, One cause. Ochazm Razor dismisses multiple causes, The Bible Creation Ex Nihilo, Jesus Christ Resurrection, and The Shroud.

b) a deity,

1, First Uncaused Cause is Exactly Scientifically Speaking, God.(Uncaused, Beginningless, Eternal, Changeless, Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, All Powerful, Of Which No Greater Can Be Conceived.)

2, First Uncaused Cause caused the universe Directly(no different causes before the universe, The Cause is The First Uncaused Cause), and God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) is who is a First Uncaused Cause, caused the universe Directly Out of Nothing.

3, Scientific/Natural Explanations, or Personal Explanations in life, there was no nature, or nature to observe before universe existed as there was nothing and A scientific explanation would require a prior cause, therefore Personal.

4, Can only be one of 2 Immaterial Properties, a Mind or Abstract Objects, Abstract Objects cannot cause anything, Therefore Factually a Mind.

5, Fine Tuning proves Intelligent Cause, further substantiating Mind.

6, Only 2 types of Causes, Causes with Intent(Purpose) or Causes without Intent(Accidental). Cannot be an Accidental cause, as Accidents/Causes without Intent require a Prior Cause, First Uncaused Cause has no Cause, therefore can only Cause by Intent.

7, Failure of every "naturalist" explanation.

1)Cause created "nature" therefore Supernatural
2)Nature did not exist before universe began
3)Nothing existed, and nothing cannot cause anything.
4)universe did not cause itself, must have already existed to do that, which makes this premise false.

8, Creation Ex Nihilo Confirms Biblical Creation which has already been substantiated by other facts such as Creation At Once(Adam and Eve). Therefore with this and the other Facts, God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) Exists, and Christianity/The Bible is an Objective Reality.

Impossible to be Mindless.

c) the God of the Bible,

#8 and Biblical Foreknowledge, Scientific Foreknowledge, Moral, Historical and Scientific Accuracy, No contradiction or error, Divine Words, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and The Shroud.

d) according to a literal interpretation of Genesis by modern Christians in the USA.

human History doesn't go far back, Mcfall trials destroying every hypothesis about billions and billions of years, show the universe to be about 10,000-6,000 years. with those facts and The Facts of God's existence and The Bible Being God's Word, we have no reason to believe flawed human intelligence of an "old earth".

No. Why would anyone want to be an atheist?

Hmm, something that prevails today, such as presupposition and unnecessary rebellion. the presupposition I might destroy but I realized that I could prove God exists and The Bible being True all day and all night but if an "atheist" has rebellion, that is where I admit, I cannot win. that's my only defeater since "atheist"'s(not all) with rebellion doesn't want God, even if He appeared to them.

Yeah, I don't think you quite understand how this works.

If you cannot refute it, then you have no excuses or reasons to be an "atheist" as you would virtually know because irrefutable and proven, God exists and The Bible is True.

Mhm. Given that your style of... 'debate', belies a rather crass lack of understanding of even the basics of what science is (you think, as shown in point #4 above, that science is something that can 'exist' or 'not exist'),

I beat you in Scientific debates before, and I've done it again.

Also, No, you just put words in my mouth. Scientific Explanations exist but cannot as Science is the observation

you'll forgive me if I'm not exactly swayed by what it is you, personally, ...

...And Scientifically, Historically, Philosophically, and Logically

believe.

More like Know.

Again, this is a test of my patience,

Because you know I'm telling The Truth.

not an actual debate. I may disagree with Resha Caner on a lot of things, but at least he actually presents a challenge And I don't say this to be petty, I just don't want you to get misunderstand our position here.

How are my prove, evidences, and Facts not a challenge? 1, you've never won me in a debate, and 2, you are incapable of refuting anything, you try, but can't. if you're a man of Science, Proof, Evidence, and Facts, you'll Accept Jesus Christ.