God the middleman

[Paulomycin]

You said that nothing is consistent with itself.

Yes, "nothing-in-itself," which is (surprise!) nothing. Womp-womp.

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.

Oh, so you're reifiying "nothing." I understand. Well, reifying an abstract is always a bad thing. Thank me. Glad to help.

Causality is a rule that exists in our universe,

Implying "our universe alone." You never demonstrated that causality only and exclusively exists in our universe alone.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Well I would phrase it a little differently. I would say "God just exists" not "God exists because He exists". In the latter you'd be using circular logic, but in the former it's a brute fact, and there's nothing wrong with those. Even biblically, the quote is "I Am the I Am" not "I Am because I Am".

And I see no problem with that logically. The only problem would arise if someone claimed that only God can use that kind of reasoning, existing as a brute fact, and nothing else logically could, and that's the point of the OP. If you say, "God just is" then you should also be okay with atheists saying, "Nature just is". And if you are okay with that, then the OP has no qualms with you.

I honestly only asked that fella the question for clarification, I had no beef with what I interpreted his response to be.

 

[Moral Orel]

@gaara4158 @doubtingmerle @Nihilist Virus
Hey guys. Paulo made an analogy for why we can't have an infinite regress, and it occurred to me that if I could tweak that analogy to make it work, then I might have a way to conceptualize an infinite regress even though it seems baffling, so I thought I'd run it by you fellas to see if I'm on to something.

So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

So I thought, how could we imagine a cause that instantaneously and perpetually moves the train? What if we had an infinite number of boxcars connected to one another for an infinitely long chain sitting on an infinitely long slope?

I've always wondered why folks say an infinite regress is impossible. No one takes me up on explaining it to me though. Just a bunch of silly metaphors about why it seems absurd. But I think my slope makes it all makes sense. If there's nothing logically inconsistent about an infinitely long chain of matter, I think I might have solved it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@gaara4158 @doubtingmerle @Nihilist Virus
Hey guys. Paulo made an analogy for why we can't have an infinite regress, and it occurred to me that if I could tweak that analogy to make it work, then I might have a way to conceptualize an infinite regress even though it seems baffling, so I thought I'd run it by you fellas to see if I'm on to something.

So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

So I thought, how could we imagine a cause that instantaneously and perpetually moves the train? What if we had an infinite number of boxcars connected to one another for an infinitely long chain sitting on an infinitely long slope?

I've always wondered why folks say an infinite regress is impossible. No one takes me up on explaining it to me though. Just a bunch of silly metaphors about why it seems absurd. But I think my slope makes it all makes sense. If there's nothing logically inconsistent about an infinitely long chain of matter, I think I might have solved it.

A set X is infinite if there exists f:X→X such that f is injective but not surjective. That's it. We made it up. But to say that God has infinite properties, such as knowledge, but that infinite regress cannot exist, is just stupid. They advocate that their God possesses knowledge of infinite regress. For example, what is the smallest integer? Z={...,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,...} is fully ordered and has no infimum. That is an infinite regress. God is apparently "aware" of all integers at once. The knowledge of what that would entail is apparently known by one mind, according to them, and yet they say it is impossible. They have no idea that they contradict themselves left and right.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, "nothing-in-itself," which is (surprise!) nothing. Womp-womp.



Oh, so you're reifiying "nothing." I understand. Well, reifying an abstract is always a bad thing. Thank me. Glad to help.



Implying "our universe alone." You never demonstrated that causality only and exclusively exists in our universe alone.

Just let me know when you're able to explain how "From nothing, nothing comes" applies to a situation when there is not nothing.

 

[Bobber]

If you say, "God just is" then you should also be okay with atheists saying, "Nature just is". And if you are okay with that, then the OP has no qualms with you.

It would be proper if it were true. I'm in a paradigm however that I believe and know that God is. Therefore nature isn't just is because it is. You can take it to the next step and say it came from God.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

I think what you are saying is that, if the mass of the observable universe was spread to infinity, the observable universe would experience heat death. That is true.

That does not negate my statement, that the actual universe might consist of infinite mass spread out over infinite space, most of which could not possibly be seen by us.

Scientists have said that if you run the BB backwards you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.

The key word there is "if".

As I said, we have no way of knowing if the observable universe went back to a singularity, or started at some finite size.

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.

No, the universe is actually undefined if it went back to a singularity. At that point there is 0 cubic inches with infinite density and our space time ceases. Beyond that it is no more solvable that solving the equation X = 0/0.

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

What percentage believes that the universe definitely went back to zero? Many leading physicists say it could have begun at a finite size, such as Plank length.

See above it is not just me.

The problem is that you declare that you know what was "before" a singularity at the Big Bang. You could not possibly know this.

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

The majority of whom?

The majority of leading physicists do not agree with your statement that the universe was caused by the cause you claim. I also don't think it is the majority view that the universe had to have started smaller than Plank length.

For perspective, Plank length is 10^-35m , which is far smaller than the diameter of a proton. Squashing the entire universe that small is quite a feat!

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.

No, I gave a detailed explanation of why we think the universe is probably much bigger than what we see, and is perhaps infinite. I never claimed that the fact that we don't know proves it is infinite.

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.

Actually dark matter is pulling the observable universe inward. Dark matter is part of the observable universe and has real gravitational effects, but we can't see it.

Dark energy is a mysterious force that causes space-time to expand. Since it affects space-time itself, it might be "external" to our universe.

Dark energy is currently winning over dark matter, and is accelerating the outward movement of the galaxies.

Many physicists think that dark energy and quantum mechanics, or something analogous to these, could be causing many Big Bangs to occur.

 

[gaara4158]

@gaara4158 @doubtingmerle @Nihilist Virus
Hey guys. Paulo made an analogy for why we can't have an infinite regress, and it occurred to me that if I could tweak that analogy to make it work, then I might have a way to conceptualize an infinite regress even though it seems baffling, so I thought I'd run it by you fellas to see if I'm on to something.

So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

So I thought, how could we imagine a cause that instantaneously and perpetually moves the train? What if we had an infinite number of boxcars connected to one another for an infinitely long chain sitting on an infinitely long slope?

I've always wondered why folks say an infinite regress is impossible. No one takes me up on explaining it to me though. Just a bunch of silly metaphors about why it seems absurd. But I think my slope makes it all makes sense. If there's nothing logically inconsistent about an infinitely long chain of matter, I think I might have solved it.

Yeah, the problem most people have with infinite regress applied to a causal chain of events isn’t that it’s logically impossible, but rather that it’s limited in explanatory scope. One event may be a satisfactory explanation for the next, but the endless chain itself is unaccounted for. It’s not logically impossible, it’s just unsatisfactory. But, since Paulo insists that his argument is logically sound, your objection that an infinite regress isn’t logically impossible is a valid defeater. The best he can say about his argument, provided one accepts the premises that causality applies both within and without the universe and infinite regress is inviable, is that it’s strong. But he’s too prideful to admit that he could be wrong, so he won’t settle for conditional strength. He wants logical necessity. Shame.

 

[Paulomycin]

@gaara4158 @doubtingmerle @Nihilist Virus
So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

I did not. Show me the direct quote. Cite the post number. Pretty sick of this "Paulo said" stuff that never happened.

 

[Paulomycin]

Just let me know when you're able to explain how "From nothing, nothing comes" applies to a situation when there is not nothing.

It wouldn't apply at all.

 

[Moral Orel]

So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

I did not. Show me the direct quote. Cite the post number. Pretty sick of this "Paulo said" stuff that never happened.

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).

Don't you ever get tired of saying things that are false?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It wouldn't apply at all.

Ok, thank you for answering. To summarize your position:

Nothing cannot be, so there must be something. When there is something, which is always the case, the rule "From nothing, nothing comes" doesn't apply at all. Therefore the rule, "From nothing, nothing comes" never applies at all.

But if the rule never applies at all, in what sense is it true?

 

[Paulomycin]

Don't you ever get tired of saying things that are false?

Still no post number; no direct verbatum quote.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ok, thank you for answering. To summarize your position:

Nothing cannot be, so there must be something. When there is something, which is always the case, the rule "From nothing, nothing comes" doesn't apply at all. Therefore the rule, "From nothing, nothing comes" never applies at all.

Because "nothing" is not "something." "Nothing" never applied at all to anything! Nothing is constant. But it doesn't mean the abstract concept of nothing literally ceases to exist just because there is something instead of nothing. <-- That's going too far.

Just because there is something, that doesn't mean the maxim is somehow nullified. Otherwise, you could conclude that something can come from nothing. Which, even though it's completely absurd and contradicts your own earlier admission that nothing causes nothing, I think that is your actual agenda.

But if the rule never applies at all, in what sense is it true?

As a logical abstract. I was never claiming it was concrete. There is something rather than nothing (therefore, "why?"), but it doesn't change the abstract rule itself, just because there is something. It's never a good idea to throw logic out on its ear in favor of a dogmatic materialism.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Because "nothing" is not "something." "Nothing" never applied at all to anything! Nothing is constant.

When you say that nothing is constant, do you mean there is no thing that is constant, or do you mean to say that nothingness is a thing which has a property of being constant? Both of those ideas are way, way, way wrong.

But it doesn't mean the abstract concept of nothing literally ceases to exist just because there is something instead of nothing. <-- That's going too far.

I thought you said that nothing cannot be. No, I'm not going to go search for this quote because I will assume you can just clarify your position like a normal human being.

Just because there is something, that doesn't mean the maxim is somehow nullified.

Yes it does. That's exactly what it does.

Otherwise, you could conclude that something can come from nothing.

Isn't that what you already believe? Christians tend to believe that God created the universe ex nihilo. If so, what did God act on in order to create the universe?

Did he act on himself? Then we are all God in a material sense. I suspect this is blasphemous and therefore is not believed by Christians.

Did he act on the universe? But the universe was what he was creating. He can't act on the universe to create the universe.

Did he act on nothing? Acting on nothing is the same as doing nothing.

Is there some other option? Is there something else he acted on?

Is there some other way you define causality? Can you cause an effect without acting? Given unlimited power, you presumably cannot create a square circle or a one-ended stick. And then there's the really heavy rock. Unlimited power does not allow God to do logically absurd things, right? Given unlimited power, how do you cause something to occur without acting on anything?

Which, even though it's completely absurd and contradicts your own earlier admission that nothing causes nothing, I think that is your actual agenda.

I think it's kind of cute that you're trying to humble me with this incessant use of the word "admitted." I've admitted I was wrong here on these forums. If that tickles you, go see what I had to say on my threads "Fine Tuning" and "God, Gödel, and Omniscience." I admitted I was wrong because I was wrong. But I've not been wrong here in discussion with you.

Yes, nothing causes nothing because causality does not exist if there is nothing. But you've not defined any sort of sensible notion of what you think causality is, and how exactly God did whatever it is you think he did when he created the universe by doing nothing. Oh, right, he "spoke the universe into existence." Meaning what? Did he actually do something? If his words carry some sort of power in that they can perform work, we're really just talking about substituting his "hands" (if you think he has hands) for his voice. Ok, so his voice is the thing doing the work. What was worked on if there was nothing? Clearly there's something beyond causality occurring there.

As a logical abstract. I was never claiming it was concrete. There is something rather than nothing (therefore, "why?"), but it doesn't change the abstract rule itself, just because there is something. It's never a good idea to throw logic out on its ear in favor of a dogmatic materialism.

Materialism absolutely trumps logic. What you're saying is nuts. We can't just sit in an armchair and dictate to reality how it behaves. And if you knew anything about axioms, you'd know your ex nihilo axiom is stupid. Axioms are unprovable assumptions, and we want to have as few of them as possible. If there's no scenario in which your axiom applies, if your axiom's negation is just as consequential as its assertion, then it is a stupid and pointless axiom.

And I asked you before, but you didn't respond, so I'll ask again. Which is "true": Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? In the former, there is the parallel postulate; in the latter, such an axiom is not asserted and indeed there are cases where it does not hold.

 

[Paulomycin]

When you say that nothing is constant, do you mean there is no thing that is constant, or do you mean to say that nothingness is a thing which has a property of being constant? Both of those ideas are way, way, way wrong.

And yet you never explain why. Probably because it prevents you from setting petty "gotcha" traps.

Yes it does. That's exactly what it does.

Which then frees you up to propose any absurdity you want.

Isn't that what you already believe?

No, God is clearly something.

Christians tend to believe that God created the universe ex nihilo. If so, what did God act on in order to create the universe?

Absolutely nothing, which is contrasted from the "something" of God.

Did he act on nothing? Acting on nothing is the same as doing nothing.

^Equivocation. "Act on nothing" can have more than one possible meaning. God did not act on something that's merely labeled "nothing." Rather, God acted without anything, i.e. "nothing." One heresy is that God could only create from pre-existing matter. But that wouldn't be omnipotent and it would beg the question of where the pre-existing matter came from. Regardless, it's clear that omnipotence is capable of creating something from nothing, but something does not spontaneously emerge from "nothing" entirely on its own. Omnipotence is the necessary something that creates "ex nihilo."

Is there some other way you define causality?

Badgering. Can we do this one question at a time?

Can you cause an effect without acting?

Omnipotence can.

Given unlimited power, you presumably cannot create a square circle or a one-ended stick.

Pretending to rationally propose squared-circles is always the error of the one proposing squared circles.

And then there's the really heavy rock.

See above. The omnipotence paradox was solved a very long time ago. The contradiction is inherent in the question itself.

I think it's kind of cute that you're trying to humble me with this incessant use of the word "admitted."

^ Motive fallacy. I sincerely don't believe that any atheist is capable of genuine humility. So, "why bother?"

But you've not defined any sort of sensible notion of what you think causality is,

If I recall correctly, you reject law of causality as a prescriptive law of logic with real force.

Oh, right, he "spoke the universe into existence." Meaning what? Did he actually do something? If his words carry some sort of power in that they can perform work, we're really just talking about substituting his "hands" (if you think he has hands) for his voice. Ok, so his voice is the thing doing the work. What was worked on if there was nothing? Clearly there's something beyond causality occurring there.

Clearly, the very same "Logos" that the Greeks were searching for. I don't see any problem with an omnipotent command.

I don't believe any of these "shotgun" questions are the least bit sincere. I can only conclude this is nothing more than a fishing expedition.

Materialism absolutely trumps logic.

Wrong. There is no material evidence to prove a materialist epistemology.

We can't just sit in an armchair and dictate to reality how it behaves.

Please. Your projecting isn't necessary here. I'm just following the rules. You're trying to break them. In reality, you're the one playing dictator on reality here; not me.

And if you knew anything about axioms, you'd know your ex nihilo axiom is stupid. Axioms are unprovable assumptions, and we want to have as few of them as possible.

There already are. And they're unprovable because doubting them leads you into more absurdity. For example, you're essentially saying that "nothing," aka: "zero" is never prescriptive. Tell that to your bank.

If there's no scenario in which your axiom applies, if your axiom's negation is just as consequential as its assertion, then it is a stupid and pointless axiom.

At the very least, it applies as a necessary contrast to "something." How do you know there's even something if you don't have any abstract concept to contrast it with? It's like you're insisting on doing math without zero.

One thing I learned from this is I honestly didn't realize it was such an issue with you people.

And I asked you before, but you didn't respond, so I'll ask again. Which is "true": Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry? In the former, there is the parallel postulate; in the latter, such an axiom is not asserted and indeed there are cases where it does not hold.

How is this not a red herring?

 

[Paulomycin]

@Nihilist Virus The part that really puzzles me is why a user naming himself, "Nihilist Virus," would be so vehemently arguing against Nihilism.

 

[Moral Orel]

So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

I did not. Show me the direct quote. Cite the post number. Pretty sick of this "Paulo said" stuff that never happened.

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).

Still no post number; no direct verbatum quote.

What are you talking about? Post numbers and time stamps are included in the hyperlinks I provided with the direct verbatim quotes.

 

[Paulomycin]

What are you talking about? Post numbers and time stamps are included in the hyperlinks I provided with the direct verbatim quotes.

Which post number in-particular? That's what you're missing in-order to make a real accusation instead of a false one.

Other atheists can do it, why can't you?

 

[Moral Orel]

So Paulo said that an infinite regress is like a train made of nothing but boxcars, with no engine to pull them, so they can't go anywhere.

I did not. Show me the direct quote. Cite the post number. Pretty sick of this "Paulo said" stuff that never happened.

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).

Which post number in-particular? That's what you're missing in-order to make a real accusation instead of a false one.

Other atheists can do it, why can't you?

It isn't missing. Follow the link I provided and it will take you directly to the post itself with the post number and time stamp.