God the middleman

[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 choose "no." Because the conditions are always "something." So then, why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? | Human World | EarthSky

Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing? | Catholic Answers

Even some atheists are unwilling to accept the hypothesis that the universe is necessary and explains itself. Cosmologist Sean Carroll says that, for most scientists, “the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase ‘and that’s just how it is.’” Notice that Carroll says the likely explanation for the universe is not “and that’s the way it has to be” (a necessary explanation in itself). It’s just a brute fact with no further explanation.​

But if we accept the principle of sufficient reason, and we deny the universe explains its own existence, then there must be an explanation of the universe that is not the universe itself. This explanation can’t just be another similar universe or multiverse because this would create an infinite regress of explanations, which can’t explain anything (sort of like an infinite train of boxcars that can’t move an inch without a locomotive). But does this explanation have to be God?
​

Besides, the universe explaining its own existence would be circular. A finite universe is not a tautology for itself. Where omnipotence would be instead.

 

[Bobber]

It sounds like you're saying God doesn't need a reason to exist, He just does. Is that correct?

So what's wrong with he just does because he does?

And how is it different than what ones who say they don't believe in God. You ask where did the material of the big bang come from. They claim basically one doesn't need to answer that. It just exists because it does. Any way one approaches this they have to conclude some things are because they are and that's all one can say about it.

 

[Paulomycin]

It sounds like you're saying God doesn't need a reason to exist, He just does. Is that correct?

Omnipotence is never contingent to any external reason for existence.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I choose "no." Because the conditions are always "something."

So then explain why or how the conditions of your rule could ever possibly be met.

So then, why is there something rather than nothing?

Why is there something rather than nothing? | Human World | EarthSky

Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing? | Catholic Answers

Even some atheists are unwilling to accept the hypothesis that the universe is necessary and explains itself. Cosmologist Sean Carroll says that, for most scientists, “the search for ultimate explanations eventually terminates in some final theory of the world, along with the phrase ‘and that’s just how it is.’” Notice that Carroll says the likely explanation for the universe is not “and that’s the way it has to be” (a necessary explanation in itself). It’s just a brute fact with no further explanation.​

But if we accept the principle of sufficient reason, and we deny the universe explains its own existence, then there must be an explanation of the universe that is not the universe itself. This explanation can’t just be another similar universe or multiverse because this would create an infinite regress of explanations, which can’t explain anything (sort of like an infinite train of boxcars that can’t move an inch without a locomotive). But does this explanation have to be God?
​

Besides, the universe explaining its own existence would be circular. A finite universe is not a tautology for itself. Where omnipotence would be instead.

Off topic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So what's wrong with he just does because he does?

What's wrong with that? It's circular reasoning.

And how is it different than what ones who say they don't believe in God.

Atheists typically do not assert to have knowledge that they can't possibly have.

You ask where did the material of the big bang come from. They claim basically one doesn't need to answer that. It just exists because it does.

Most atheists say they don't know. Who have you been talking to?

Any way one approaches this they have to conclude some things are because they are and that's all one can say about it.

Or you can be honest and say you don't know.

 

[Paulomycin]

Off topic.

COMPLETELY ON-TOPIC! That's the entire point! Again, the "no" naturally leads to "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

COMPLETELY ON-TOPIC! That's the entire point! Again, the "no" naturally leads to "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Explain how the conditions of your rule can ever be met please, thank you.

 

[Paulomycin]

Explain how the conditions of your rule can ever be met please, thank you.

Because there is something rather than nothing. So it begs the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You yourself admitted the fact that nothing causes anything. Therefore, nothing comes from nothing. <-- However, there is not "nothing," but rather there is something rather than nothing. And yet the question remains as to why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because there is something rather than nothing.

"From nothing, nothing comes" applies because there is not nothing?

"From nothing, nothing comes" is of the form X→X. Denoting the "not" operator with a "~", your something, which is not nothing, is ~X. Your argument seems to be of the form X→X because ~X.

So it begs the question of why there is something rather than nothing. You yourself admitted the fact that nothing causes anything. Therefore, nothing comes from nothing. <-- However, there is not "nothing," but rather there is something rather than nothing. And yet the question remains as to why there is something rather than nothing.

Off topic. If you cold clarify the above though that'd be great, thanks.

 

[Paulomycin]

"From nothing, nothing comes" applies because there is not nothing?

It was your question all along, "Is there nothing?" Answer: No, obviously not.

"From nothing, nothing comes" is of the form X→X. Denoting the "not" operator with a "~", your something, which is not nothing, is ~X. Your argument seems to be of the form X→X because ~X.

Edit: Wait--yes. According to your own admission, "nothing" is a constant that never causes anything. "Nothing" is perpetual, since no "somethings" ever came from absolute nothing. Therefore, since "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit," and we have never seen something from nothing, we continue to beg the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It follows from the contrary.

Literally, "No thing comes from no thing."

At the very least I'm trying to clarify my position. Please don't dismiss the entire thing out of hand.

 

[Paulomycin]

"From nothing, nothing comes" applies because there is not nothing?

Are you trying to emulate Richard Carrier, or something? I'm currently reading him, and they appear to be similar. However, Carrier is doing a lot more twists and contortions in order to refute "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit," as if it were something, when it's really nothing.

So I think it's the case that the both of you are strawmanning the maxim as-if it were something, when it's really nothing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Which has nothing to with Aristotle’s definition of effect, which you provided yourself just a page ago. I have already declared this conversation fruitless, and further replies afterward have proven it. You’re playing fast and loose with definitions so you can shove the universe into the set of things which are assumed to have causes, and you won’t be budged.

Yes it does and it also fits the dictionary definition of effect that I provided.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It was your question all along, "Is there nothing?" Answer: No, obviously not.

It's a flow chart. You don't pick yes or no and then stop. If you choose yes, THEN then the conditions of your rule are not met because there is not nothing. The "from nothing" hypothesis does not apply, so the rule does not apply.

Edit: Wait--yes. According to your own admission, "nothing" is a constant that never causes anything. "Nothing" is perpetual, since no "somethings" ever came from absolute nothing. Therefore, since "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit," and we have never seen something from nothing, we continue to beg the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It follows from the contrary.

Literally, "No thing comes from no thing."

At the very least I'm trying to clarify my position. Please don't dismiss the entire thing out of hand.

Are you trying to emulate Richard Carrier, or something? I'm currently reading him, and they appear to be similar. However, Carrier is doing a lot more twists and contortions in order to refute "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit," as if it were something, when it's really nothing.

So I think it's the case that the both of you are strawmanning the maxim as-if it were something, when it's really nothing.

For literally over a dozen pages I've been asking you how it is that your rule applies if the conditions under which it is supposed to operate fail to be. You continue over and over to say that the "if" of your "if-then" rule does not apply and never can or will, and then you act baffled when I ask you to explain how it is a rule at all. I dont understand what could possibly be so difficult about this question.

 

[Paulomycin]

It's a flow chart. You don't pick yes or no and then stop. If you choose yes, THEN then the conditions of your rule are not met because there is not nothing. The "from nothing" hypothesis does not apply, so the rule does not apply.

Because something exists. <-- Note the "flow."

For literally over a dozen pages I've been asking you how it is that your rule applies if the conditions under which it is supposed to operate fail to be.

No, it's totally consistent, because we're literally talking about nothing. lol. Nothing is always consistent with itself.

You continue over and over to say that the "if" of your "if-then" rule does not apply and never can or will, and then you act baffled when I ask you to explain how it is a rule at all. I dont understand what could possibly be so difficult about this question.

Maybe it's because you're going to war over literally nothing. This isn't a problem for me at all. I'm baffled because it's some kind-of problem for you when "nothing" is perfectly consistent with itself. The real problem comes when we realize that "something" completely compares and contrasts with "nothing."

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Dark matter will prevent the universe from existing infinitely, it will die a heat death. The remnants could potentially exist forever if there is no God.

dm: Oh, you were talking about finite duration. Yes, the universe that began with the Big Bang is finite in duration.

I was talking about size. The universe could be infinite in size.

It is unlikely because if it was it would already have reached the point of heat death. The larger the universe is, the lower its temperature would be. Measurements of its temperature show that it is unlikely to be infinite in size, it is too warm.

ed: Yes, but it does have a beginning. There was a point in time, t = 0 when it did not exist.

dm: We do not know that. We know that our universe came from a single spot, but we don't know how small that spot was. Possibly it reached zero cubic inches of infinite density (a singularity). If so, then time was equal to zero, and everything beyond the Big Bang is undefined.

Scientists have said that if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing. It is only undefined because most cosmologists wont go one more step in logic, though some very respected ones have as I mentioned earlier in this thread.

dm: But we don't know if it went all the way back to zero. It could have begun at some finite size, such as the size of Plank's length, or the size of a basketball. In that case, I understand our space time could have extended long before the Big Bang.

The majority believe that it did go back to zero and all space time came into existence after the BB.

dm: And no "beyond the Big Bang is undefined" does not mean whatever Ed1wolf says before that is the way it was.

See above it is not just me.

ed: And it definitely did not exist infinitely into the past for the reason I stated above and also we would have never reached the present.

dm: Again, you just assume it reached a singularity. You have not proven it.

I never said I could prove it but it is the majority view.

dm: And you assume that "undefined" means "Ed1wolf is right when he says it did not exist infinitely"

"Undefined" does not mean "whatever Ed1wolf says is right".

No, see above not just me.

ed: I am not claiming that we can see everything in the universe, it is much too large. But just because we cannot see everything in the universe does not mean that it is infinite in length of existence or size.

dm: In other words, you agree with what I said in my post.

No, you are claiming that since we cannot see everything in the then that proves it is infinite but as I demonstrated above that is not true.

ed: there is no real evidence that there were other big bangs.

dm: What we do know is that there seems to be an expansion of our universe at the very early stage, which we call inflation. And that there is something expanding our universe even now. (We call it dark energy). And we do know that quantum effects seem to be universal, even in what we call nothing. Put that all together and it seems to indicate that there is something out there expanding our universe and that quantum effects seem to be everywhere. So we do have evidence of something natural out there with creative powers.

Dark matter and dark energy is what is expanding the universe and combined with gravity and other laws of physics can create simple structures. But none of this means there are other big bangs.

dm: And please don't argue that you know for certain that there was a singularity, and that therefore Ed1Wolf gets to define what was before that, and that therefore Ed1wolf gets to declare that there was no spacetime, and that therefore Ed1wolf gets to declare that quantum effects couldn't take place.

I have never claimed I know for certain, only that that is the majority of scientists view. And many cosmologists believe that it points to a Creator.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because something exists. <-- Note the "flow."



No, it's totally consistent, because we're literally talking about nothing. lol. Nothing is always consistent with itself.



Maybe it's because you're going to war over literally nothing. This isn't a problem for me at all. I'm baffled because it's some kind-of problem for you when "nothing" is perfectly consistent with itself. The real problem comes when we realize that "something" completely compares and contrasts with "nothing."

Nothing is perfectly consistent with itself? Interesting. This means that nothing is an "it" and is something, instead of nothing. I didn't know this.

 

[Paulomycin]

Nothing is perfectly consistent with itself? Interesting. This means that nothing is an "it" and is something, instead of nothing. I didn't know this.

Don't sweat it, because it's nothing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Don't sweat it, because it's nothing.

No, according to you, nothing is something. Is this why you insist that your rule applies? Since nothing is something, and since there is something, it follows that there is nothing and the conditions for your rule are met.

But just because the conditions for your rule have been "established", you still have to demonstrate that your rule is correct or that it occurs in nature. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

 

[Paulomycin]

No, according to you, nothing is something.

I never claimed "nothing" = "something" That's a contradiction.

But just because the conditions for your rule have been "established", you still have to demonstrate that your rule is correct or that it occurs in nature. Go ahead, I'm waiting.

You already admitted that nothing causes nothing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I never claimed "nothing" = "something" That's a contradiction.

You said that nothing is consistent with itself. I have no idea how that was an actual answer to the issue at hand, but "itself" means there is an "it" which is a thing which is something.

You already admitted that nothing causes nothing.

Causality is a rule that exists in our universe, and if nothing exists, then causality doesn't exist. But neither does your rule, "From nothing, nothing comes."

But you've said there is something and that there cannot be nothing. So if there cannot be nothing, then the conditions needed for your rule - specifically, the "from nothing" part - can never actualize. So there is no scenario in which your rule applies. You may as well say that your rule applies when 0>1. Your rule DOES NOT APPLY.