God the middleman

[Nihilist Virus]

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."

I was referring to causality. Nothing cannot cause anything to occur. If something does come from nothing, it's not via causality.

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

I was asking why your bias leans toward something rather than nothing.

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.

Lol.

But everyone knows you can't carry it, which is why you and every other atheist making that assertion is sure to choke.

I've not made a positive claim.

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.

Try to follow the conversation. I'm saying that IF nothing cannot be, then there must be something. The something I speculated might exist was easiest to describe by pointing out what Krauss had already described. I already said he misused his terms, but scientifically, the ideas are sound (even if worded poorly).

So back to the issue. IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields? In this scenario, we easily have a universe without God by your own reasoning. So why assume God exists?

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.

Nobody cares. He misused a word. He click-baited for money. So what? We're past nothing, so why are you still on it? His "nothing" isn't nothing. His "nothing" is something, and you insist that something must be. There is strong reasoning to think that if something must be, then his "nothing" which is something is probably that something.

 

[Paulomycin]

I was referring to causality. Nothing cannot cause anything to occur. If something does come from nothing, it's not via causality.

"Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" relates directly to causality, "Out of nothing, nothing comes." We're in agreement. Live with it.

I was asking why your bias leans toward something rather than nothing.

No. The question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It's not even a question of personal bias.

Lol.

Then stop asserting your reality without evidence. Seriously.

I've not made a positive claim.

You blithely asserted "reality" here on this thread 24/7. It's entirely your positive claim. You totally believe in the truth claim of a wholly secular reality that you cannot support. You're choking, as predicted.

Try to follow the conversation. I'm saying that IF nothing cannot be, then there must be something. The something I speculated might exist was easiest to describe by pointing out what Krauss had already described. I already said he misused his terms, but scientifically, the ideas are sound (even if worded poorly).

I don't see you correcting him anywhere. If you can't even articulate the correct terms, then how can you even begin to assert that his ideas are sound?

So back to the issue. IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?

Why? <-- Don't even try to get circular with it.

Nobody cares. He misused a word.

This is horribly vague, and you know it. You can't tell us what the correct wording is, or what he even meant to say.

He click-baited for money. So what? We're past nothing, so why are you still on it? His "nothing" isn't nothing. His "nothing" is something, and you insist that something must be. There is strong reasoning to think that if something must be, then his "nothing" which is something is probably that something.

1. You're still using "nothing" in your own statements as-if it were a rational concept.

2. Krauss' claim that "nothing" is actually something is a bait & switch.

3. You're doubling-down on this with the additional claim that Krauss just worded it wrong, but you're not providing any actual clarification.

4. I'm not "insisting" on agreement that nothing = something. That accounting error is all you, buddy. I've been pretty consistent in my claim that an indeterminate does not equal a determinate. Ever.

 

[BigDaddy4]

What about the Nicene Creed which is the definition of "Christian" at CF? This seems to match what @Nihilist Virus expressed as the common view of Christians. I grew up in the Episcopal Church and the OP matches what I believed. I don't doubt that there might be some theologians with a different view, but I think it is fairly typical for laypeople to believe that.

English versions of the Nicene Creed - Wikipedia

What about it? Does it say that God exists for no reason and with no cause (which is what is claimed in the OP)?

 

[cloudyday2]

What about it? Does it say that God exists for no reason and with no cause (which is what is claimed in the OP)?

Yes, that is how it seems. If God "created all things visible and invisible" then that probably includes any potential reasons or causes for God's existence, so the Nicene Creed seems to say that there is no reason or cause for God's existence. I suppose others might understand the creed differently though.

I think the wording of the OP can be imagined to be disparaging to God when in fact it is probably not meant that way.

 

[BigDaddy4]

If I said all reptiles have four legs, you'd simply say, "Here's a snake, we're done, you're wrong."

Let's assume that's what I'm doing. Let's assume I'm basically saying that all reptiles have four legs. Instead of pointing out that snakes exist, you're just screaming and jumping up and down saying, "What is your source? How do you know this?"

Why wouldn't you just simply point out that snakes exist? Why can't you show me some group of Christians who reject part or all of what I've said? And no, don't just find me one person... that'd be the equivalent of showing me a lizard with a missing leg and then claiming that I'm wrong in saying that all reptiles have four legs.

Bad analogy. Reptiles with 4 legs exist. Christians who agree with your OP do not. Or at least you have not proven them to exist. So, once again, your OP is a baseless assertion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

"Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit" relates directly to causality, "Out of nothing, nothing comes." We're in agreement. Live with it.

Nope.

No. The question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It's not even a question of personal bias.

And you've answered it. There can't be nothing, so says you.

Then stop asserting your reality without evidence. Seriously.

You blithely asserted "reality" here on this thread 24/7. It's entirely your positive claim. You totally believe in the truth claim of a wholly secular reality that you cannot support. You're choking, as predicted.

I don't see you correcting him anywhere.

I said that he misused a word. This statement of yours here is wrong.

If you can't even articulate the correct terms, then how can you even begin to assert that his ideas are sound?

Wave fields. I already said it. You're wrong again.

Why? <-- Don't even try to get circular with it.

I asked you a "why" question and your response is "why?"

We may as well have had this exchange:

Me: Why is the sky blue?
You: Why?

Please, FOCUS. Let me repeat the question.

If nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?

Please just answer the question. Thanks.

This is horribly vague, and you know it. You can't tell us what the correct wording is, or what he even meant to say.

Again, wave fields.

1. You're still using "nothing" in your own statements as-if it were a rational concept.

2. Krauss' claim that "nothing" is actually something is a bait & switch.

3. You're doubling-down on this with the additional claim that Krauss just worded it wrong, but you're not providing any actual clarification.

4. I'm not "insisting" on agreement that nothing = something. That accounting error is all you, buddy. I've been pretty consistent in my claim that an indeterminate does not equal a determinate. Ever.

1. Where? Point out the sentence.
2. WHO CARES?
3. WAVE FIELDS. I have clarified it.
4. Where did I say that nothing = something, or where did I accuse you of saying it?


Again, please respond to this:

If nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?

Thanks.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Yes, that is how it seems. If God "created all things visible and invisible" then that probably includes any potential reasons or causes for God's existence, so the Nicene Creed seems to say that there is no reason or cause for God's existence. I suppose others might understand the creed differently though.

I think the wording of the OP can be imagined to be disparaging to God when in fact it is probably not meant that way.

That's you reading into it. The Nicene Creed was not developed to specifically address the reason for God's existence.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nope.

You totally agreed with it in your own words, "Nothing cannot cause anything to occur."

^ Meaning that nothing comes from nothing. Deal with it.

And you've answered it. There can't be nothing, so says you.

I'm not pushing an ipse dixit, or "proof by assertion fallacy" though. I'm asking why. So it's not answered at all.

It's very simple. Stop asserting "reality" as-if you knew what it was, or as-if you had a license to throw the word around willy-nilly without supporting the claim. You take reality completely for granted.

Wave fields. I already said it. You're wrong again.

Per wiki:

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
​

^ You mean those "wave fields," or something else? Yes or no? It shouldn't be this much work to get you to be specific. It only makes it look like you're stalling for time, instead of making a clear and direct explanation.

I asked you a "why" question and your response is "why?"

You stated, "IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"

Which implies settling on a "just so" conclusion begging the question. Which is something. In that case, "Why is there something [like a wave field] rather than nothing?" <-- That's why I asked why.

All you're doing is non-specifically hand-waving, "Nyaarrr, wave fields!!! Youuu know, WAVE FIELDSSS!!!" <-- At best, I'm still guessing what you're oh-so-ambigiously referring to. Hope you at least agree with the reference I put the work into posting that you didn't.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You totally agreed with it in your own words, "Nothing cannot cause anything to occur."

^ Meaning that nothing comes from nothing. Deal with it.

Lol. If there is nothing, there is no causation. So nothing will be caused. Why do you rule out things occurring without a cause? Even William Lane Craig thinks things occur without a cause, because he has to in order to support "free will." He believes that thoughts are uncaused.

I'm not pushing an ipse dixit, or "proof by assertion fallacy" though. I'm asking why. So it's not answered at all.

Why are you asking this question when you've already given your own answer?

It's very simple. Stop asserting "reality" as-if you knew what it was, or as-if you had a license to throw the word around willy-nilly without supporting the claim. You take reality completely for granted.

What...? I'm supposed to consider a scenario in which reality does not exist? Why?

Per wiki:

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
​

^ You mean those "wave fields," or something else? Yes or no? It shouldn't be this much work to get you to be specific. It only makes it look like you're stalling for time, instead of making a clear and direct explanation.

Yes, those wave fields.

You stated, "IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"

Which implies settling on a "just so" conclusion begging the question.

I'm not begging the question. I'm supposing that the answer you gave is correct, and then I'm going from there. You said that nothing cannot be.

Which is something. In that case, "Why is there something [like a wave field] rather than nothing?" <-- That's why I asked why.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Because, according to you, there cannot be nothing.

So... can the something, which must exist according to you, be a collection of wave fields? Yes or no? And if yes, do you find this to be a plausible scenario, seeing as how we know these wave fields exist?

All you're doing is non-specifically hand-waving, "Nyaarrr, wave fields!!! Youuu know, WAVE FIELDSSS!!!" <-- At best, I'm still guessing what you're oh-so-ambigiously referring to.

I'm asking a question. Hand-waving is where you are forcing an answer. So hand-waving is the opposite of what I'm doing.

Hope you at least agree with the reference I put the work into posting that you didn't.

Of course, take all the time you need to clarify the question. It didn't occur to me that you had other wave fields in mind besides the ones which produce the fundamental properties of the universe.

 

[Paulomycin]

Lol. If there is nothing, there is no causation.

Agreed. Or simply, "Nothing comes from nothing." Ta-daa!

Even William Lane Craig thinks things occur without a cause, because he has to in order to support "free will." He believes that thoughts are uncaused.

Because I'm not a Molinist.

Why are you asking this question when you've already given your own answer?

Because you have to accept the "why" in-order to catch up.

What...? I'm supposed to consider a scenario in which reality does not exist? Why?

Because you're asserting ontological naturalism without evidence, that's why. It's like catching some punk kid steal candy bars. You don't wanna get caught, and you certainly don't want to be made to pay up.

Yes, those wave fields.

Well, that's really something isn't it? Not "nothing."

You said that nothing cannot be.

"No-empirical-thing," anyway. Not "something" without an ultimate cause from outside itself.

But thanks for letting me do all your work to specify "wave fields." Really appreciate it. Is there anything else I can do for you? I might as well run the argument without your participation altogether, at this point.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Agreed. Or simply, "Nothing comes from nothing." Ta-daa!

Don't care. I have proven that the statement is self-refuting and you were unable to object to a single point.

Because I'm not a Molinist.

Ok.

Because you have to accept the "why" in-order to catch up.

No I don't. I don't have to believe your position to understand it.

Because you're asserting ontological naturalism without evidence,

Again, where?

that's why. It's like catching some punk kid steal candy bars. You don't wanna get caught, and you certainly don't want to be made to pay up.

And guess what. The district attorney has to actually point to where it happened.

Well, that's really something isn't it? Not "nothing."

Correct. Can you catch up now? I'm not touting a universe from nothing. I'm suggesting that you look at a universe from what Krauss calls nothing, which isn't nothing, but rather something. I've said this like 50 times.

"No-empirical-thing," anyway. Not "something" without an ultimate cause from outside itself.

But thanks for letting me do all your work to specify "wave fields." Really appreciate it. Is there anything else I can do for you? I might as well run the argument without your participation altogether, at this point.

Yes, there is something else you can do for me. You can answer the question I've asked you 50 times now.

"IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"

 

[Paulomycin]

Don't care. I have proven that the statement is self-refuting and you were unable to object to a single point.

No, you pretty much agreed with it by stating the same thing in your own words.

No I don't. I don't have to believe your position to understand it.

But you still don't have a reason "why."

Again, where?

It's heavily implied every-single-time you assert "reality" so flippantly. Everyone can see you're just taking it for granted.

And guess what. The district attorney has to actually point to where it happened.

Extending the metaphor? Okay. Then you'll accept the testimony of the store owner, or the surveillance camera. You can't claim an ontology for yourself without paying for it.

I'm not touting a universe from nothing. I'm suggesting that you look at a universe from what Krauss calls nothing, which isn't nothing, but rather something. I've said this like 50 times.

Then why are you saying his (fraudulent) claims are correct anyway?

Yes, there is something else you can do for me. You can answer the question I've asked you 50 times now.

Which only proves you've been skipping my posts:

You stated, "IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"

Which implies settling on a "just so" conclusion begging the question. Which is something. In that case, "Why is there something [like a wave field] rather than nothing?" <-- That's why I asked why.

^ Don't skip that. I answered it way back in post #408, and you're clearly not paying attention. Question-begging is fallacious.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, you pretty much agreed with it by stating the same thing in your own words.



But you still don't have a reason "why."



It's heavily implied every-single-time you assert "reality" so flippantly. Everyone can see you're just taking it for granted.



Extending the metaphor? Okay. Then you'll accept the testimony of the store owner, or the surveillance camera. You can't claim an ontology for yourself without paying for it.





Then why are you saying his (fraudulent) claims are correct anyway?



Which only proves you've been skipping my posts:



^ Don't skip that. I answered it way back in post #408, and you're clearly not paying attention. Question-begging is fallacious.

I already responded. I'm not begging the question. I went with your own premise. There is something rather than nothing because nothing cannot be. Why do I have to prove a claim that you made? This is getting ridiculous. Answer the question, or we're done. Once again,

"IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Bad analogy. Reptiles with 4 legs exist. Christians who agree with your OP do not. Or at least you have not proven them to exist. So, once again, your OP is a baseless assertion.

Show me a snake then. Dispute a single thing in the OP.

 

[Paulomycin]

I already responded. I'm not begging the question.

Yes you are. You're saying "something" is "just so," and it speculatively might be eternal, therefore it is eternal, therefore Paulo is wrong "just wrong" because Nihil said so.

"IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"

Oh, too bad. I warned you. . .

Which only proves you've been skipping my posts:

Paulomycin said: You stated, "IF nothing cannot be and we must have something, why can't that something be what we already know exists - a wave field, or a collection of wave fields?"​

Which implies settling on a "just so" conclusion begging the question. Which is something. In that case, "Why is there something [like a wave field] rather than nothing?" <-- That's why I asked why.​

^ Don't skip that. I answered it way back in post #408, and you're clearly not paying attention. Question-begging is fallacious.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes you are. You're saying "something" is "just so," and it speculatively might be eternal, therefore it is eternal, therefore Paulo is wrong "just wrong" because Nihil said so.



Oh, too bad. I warned you. . .

Further discourse is pointless.

 

[Ed1wolf]

We already went over it. We've been going over it for years.

And IIRC, I demonstrated that I did not misquote you.

 

[Paulomycin]

Further discourse is pointless.

Oh well, "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit."

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: My argument is based on the analytically true statement.

ga4: You’re switching out the analytical and synthetic premises at the end to reach your conclusion.

Where?

ga4: 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.

If the universe or anything has the characteristics of an effect, ie a beginning and/or it changes, then it most likely IS an effect. And therefore needs a cause. That is how science does it.
↑

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

ga4: 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.

The BB theory (which is the most well supported theory in science) has pretty much proven that the universe had a definite beginning and is in constant change, two of the main characteristics of an effect.
↑

ed: 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.

ga4: 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.

I would not really call it a conspiracy in the normal sense. As a scientist myself I know that the commitment is pretty much absolute and that combined with the natural human inclination to hate the Christian God, the chance of any scientists being more than maybe 10 percent publicly stating that the evidence points to the direction of the Christian God existing is unlikely to change any time soon. But over time as more and more evidence points in that direction, I still have hope that it could change sooner rather than later.

 

[disciple Clint]

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

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?

Those examples require the existence of something to begin with, you are still stuck with the inability to account for the source of that something.