God the middleman

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, so you believe in proof after all?

More words you put in my mouth? When did I indicate otherwise?

Still not "the determinate" answer, nor a "close 'nuff" substitute.

Right, because there are things we don't know. Were you born with all encyclopedic knowledge built into your brain?

Pay attention. You're claiming you're the one who actually disproved "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." Take it on the road. I'm sure ACA would love to hear about this.

Is it literally your argument that I have to be wrong because I've come up with a novel idea? (It's not my idea, by the way.)

No, I've encountered other atheist mathematicians who strictly warned me not to take Gödel's incompleteness theorems as refutations of anything determinate and that I'm being played if anyone did. I trust those atheists.

I don't believe this claim.

You can never-ever claim that an indeterminate (even a strong one) is an excuse to throw up your hands and quit the pursuit of knowledge.

I'm not quitting anything. Just answer the question, please. Where, SPECIFICALLY, am I wrong? Why is this so difficult for you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Still looking, but I don't see anywhere where the maxim was ever objectively refuted in past history. So I suppose you claim you're the first! Congratulations!

Nobody cares.

Regardless, you are forced to conclude as a result that, rationally speaking, something can come from nothing. That part is inescapable.

Once again, you're ignoring the possibility that nothing cannot be. You ignore the possibility that there is always and must always be something. You are simply wrong.

 

[Paulomycin]

More words you put in my mouth? When did I indicate otherwise?

So you don't. Therefore, there's nothing for me to worry about.

You're dodgy. I'm doing this sort of thing to pin you down. You can't play dodgy all night and then say you "got me" based on stuff you don't really believe in yourself.

Right, because there are things we don't know. Were you born with all encyclopedic knowledge built into your brain?

Just because you don't know something, you don't get credit for a right answer.

Is it literally your argument that I have to be wrong because I've come up with a novel idea? (It's not my idea, by the way.)

Oh. Well then, you're plagiarizing it without giving proper credit.

I don't believe this claim.

I didn't expect you to. I'm just saying I'm not as stupid as you think I am.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nobody cares.

Gee, that's swell! For a minute there, I thought you insisted that you "won" something.

Once again, you're ignoring the possibility that nothing cannot be.

Once again, you're still insisting on using that word as a rational concept.

You ignore the possibility that there is always and must always be something. You are simply wrong.

But you're not even willing to commit to it. So I'm not necessarily "wrong."

And because there's always something based on the maxim, "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit," you are forced to answer the question, "Well then why is there something rather than nothing?" You can't deal with that unless you believe that something can come from absolutely nothing.

In a nutshell: I really don't believe all true statements can be proved, but only because "proof" requires a prior necessary doubt. And that doubt itself is an implied denial of truth. Or, at the very least a suspension of it.

 

[Paulomycin]

Quote: ". . .it is either assumed that Gödel provided an absolutely unprovable sentence, or that Gödel’s theorems imply Platonism, or anti-mechanism, or both."

I'm going with Platonism. PROBLEM???

^ I noticed you skipped this. Very telling.

 

[gaara4158]

My argument is based on the analytically true statement.

You’re switching out the analytical and synthetic premises at the end to reach your conclusion. There is no way to reach the conclusion that the universe is an effect based on the defined relationship between cause and effect. It must be demonstrated that the universe has a cause before it can be considered an effect, not the other way around.

But the universe itself has all the characteristics of an effect as a WHOLE not its components. No FoC here.

There’s no way to know that, given how little we know about the universe and how there’s no real list of characteristics an “effect” must have other than a cause.

You obviously have not spent much time with the scientific establishment and academia, the commitment to Naturalism is much stronger and entrenched than you realize. And the existence of God has too many ramifications for peoples individual lives and how they spend their time so money is not that attractive under those circumstances. Though Davies and Hawking have made a little more money than those that did not think the evidence pointed toward God.

Hawking’s god doesn’t resemble yours at all, but that’s beside the point. This claim of some global conspiracy in support of philosophical naturalism is nothing more than a hunch of yours, and has no weight in this discussion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So you don't. Therefore, there's nothing for me to worry about.

You're dodgy. I'm doing this sort of thing to pin you down. You can't play dodgy all night and then say you "got me" based on stuff you don't really believe in yourself.



Just because you don't know something, you don't get credit for a right answer.



Oh. Well then, you're plagiarizing it without giving proper credit.



I didn't expect you to. I'm just saying I'm not as stupid as you think I am.

Gee, that's swell! For a minute there, I thought you insisted that you "won" something.



Once again, you're still insisting on using that word as a rational concept.



But you're not even willing to commit to it. So I'm not necessarily "wrong."

And because there's always something based on the maxim, "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit," you are forced to answer the question, "Well then why is there something rather than nothing?" You can't deal with that unless you believe that something can come from absolutely nothing.

In a nutshell: I really don't believe all true statements can be proved, but only because "proof" requires a prior necessary doubt. And that doubt itself is an implied denial of truth. Or, at the very least a suspension of it.

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

 

[Paulomycin]

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

I was hoping you'd notice this on your own: One of your conclusions still includes "nothing" as a rational concept in the conclusion.

The entire point of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" is that there is indeed something rather than nothing, which must be accounted for.

That is, unless you have chosen to fully embrace willful ignorance.

But you're not even willing to commit to anything. So, I'm not necessarily "wrong" ever.

I was also hoping you'd notice this, because it addresses the Incompleteness Theorem:

I really don't believe all true statements can be proved, but only because "proof" requires a prior necessary doubt. And that doubt itself is an implied denial of truth. Or, at the very least a suspension of it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I was hoping you'd notice this on your own: One of your conclusions still includes "nothing" as a rational concept in the conclusion.

The entire point of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" is that there is indeed something rather than nothing, which must be accounted for.

That is, unless you have chosen to fully embrace willful ignorance.

But you're not even willing to commit to anything. So, I'm not necessarily "wrong" ever.

I was also hoping you'd notice this, because it addresses the Incompleteness Theorem:

Are you definitively saying that there cannot be nothing?

 

[Paulomycin]

Are you definitively saying that there cannot be nothing?

I pretty much asked you first.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I pretty much asked you first.

I answered several times. I am just a human being with finite knowledge and this is one of the things I don't know. Now please answer the question.

 

[Paulomycin]

I answered several times. I am just a human being with finite knowledge and this is one of the things I don't know. Now please answer the question.

No double-standards, please. I'm just as fine with a rationally linguistic concept of "no-material-thing" or "nothing" as I am the concept of "zero."

What's the problem here?

If "nothing," then only nothing can come of it. <--- What's wrong with that?

Something exists.

So why is there "something" rather than "nothing?" <-- Remember, "I don't know" is not a rational goal to set.

 

[Paulomycin]

I answered several times. I am just a human being with finite knowledge and this is one of the things I don't know. Now please answer the question.

Does it have to be stated that "nothing" is a necessarily abstract [negative] concept, because it is literally, "no-material-thing?"

Did that really have to be explained?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No double-standards, please. I'm just as fine with a rationally linguistic concept of "no-material-thing" or "nothing" as I am the concept of "zero."

What's the problem here?

If "nothing," then only nothing can come of it. <--- What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with that is that you're saying a rule exists, despite "nothing." If "nothing" then the rule, "From nothing, nothing comes" ceases to exist.

Something exists.

So why is there "something" rather than "nothing?" <-- Remember, "I don't know" is not a rational goal to set.

Because that's the other horn of the dilemma. Why do you question, "Something rather than nothing" but not "Nothing rather than something"?

Does it have to be stated that "nothing" is a necessarily abstract [negative] concept, because it is literally, "no-material-thing?"

Did that really have to be explained?

Why can you not answer a simple question?

Are you or are you not definitively saying that "nothing" cannot be?

 

[Paulomycin]

What's wrong with that is that you're saying a rule exists, despite "nothing." If "nothing" then the rule, "From nothing, nothing comes" ceases to exist.

1. If "nothing" remains a rational abstract concept, then there's nothing wrong with a rule where nothing remains nothing in perpetuity. That is, unless you believe that something comes from nothing.

2. It's the set-up for "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Because that's the other horn of the dilemma. Why do you question, "Something rather than nothing" but not "Nothing rather than something"?

Is this another cheeseball atheist "gotcha" game? When is "Nothing rather than something" a coherent question to begin with?

Why can you not answer a simple question?

What question have I not answered? I'll check it against my thread history, okay?

Are you or are you not definitively saying that "nothing" cannot be?

Stop. Just. . .stop.

It's a negative claim. Don't you get that?!?? Yes, "nothing" definitively cannot be, according to its own definition.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1. If "nothing" remains a rational abstract concept, then there's nothing wrong with a rule where nothing remains nothing in perpetuity. That is, unless you believe that something comes from nothing.

Nothing cannot do anything because it is nothing.

2.

It's the set-up for "Why is there something rather than nothing?"



Is this another cheeseball atheist "gotcha" game? When is "Nothing rather than something" a coherent question to begin with?

"Nothing rather than something" is not a question.

What question have I not answered? I'll check it against my thread history, okay?



Stop. Just. . .stop.

It's a negative claim. Don't you get that?!?? Yes, "nothing" definitively cannot be, according to its own definition.

If nothing definitively cannot be, then you must agree that God is a middleman. In a reality in which God does not exist, we still cannot have nothing, according to you, so there will be something. All you need is the false "nothing" that Lawrence Krauss describes and our universe is possible, no God required.

 

[Moral Orel]

One? The one in the middle?

Most likely this.

Still not "the determinate" answer, nor a "close 'nuff" substitute.

 

[doubtingmerle]

A vacuum is a something it is not a nothing it also requires a cause. What is the cause?

How do you know that a vacuum requires a cause? Why cannot that be the default state?

Since this is part of a physical it requires a source, What is the source?

As I said, quantum mechanics regularly produces physical matter and antimatter. Can the source be nothing other than the workings of something like quantum mechanics?

 

[Paulomycin]

Nothing cannot do anything because it is nothing.

Oh, good! This is progress! See, if you were willing to commit to your own statement here, then it's essentially the same thing as the maxim, "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit."

"Nothing rather than something" is not a question.

Then there was no reason for you to propose it to begin with.

In a reality in which God does not exist,

Which you (still) haven't proven. Remember, your "atheist reality," or "ontological naturalism" or whatever you call it would be a positive claim on your part where you carry the burden of proof. But everyone knows you can't carry it, which is why you and every other atheist making that assertion is sure to choke.

All you need is the false "nothing" that Lawrence Krauss describes and our universe is possible, no God required.

If it's false, then it's a bait & switch.

“Nothing is unstable. Nothing will always produce something in quantum mechanics.” - Krauss

^ That's a direct quote. Therefore, my conclusion was correct all-along: You literally believe something can come from nothing.

Krauss just made a quick buck and his position has been criticized to death. Astrophysicist Rodney Holder had debated Krauss before, and stated the obvious that a quantum vacuum is certainly not "nothing." Krauss even acknowledges in his book that a quantum vacuum is not nothing. He thinks that "nothing" still has positive properties, even though it is literally nothing at all. Pure silliness. And that's being charitable. I think it's more likely pure pseudoscientific fraud.

 

[Paulomycin]

How do you know that a vacuum requires a cause? Why cannot that be the default state?

Because you're begging the question of the existence of an eternal vacuum. A "just so" bare assertion without evidence.

As I said, quantum mechanics regularly produces physical matter and antimatter. Can the source be nothing other than the workings of something like quantum mechanics?

Here we go again. "Quantum mechanics" is not a determinate thing that you can reify.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." —Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129.

Meaning that it's not a determinate thing-in-itself.