God the middleman

[Nihilist Virus]

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

No, you said you don't understand the difference. You still misquoted me, and you've had years to obtain the understanding of what the difference is.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh well, "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit."

Yep, agreed... except in the cases where there is either something or nothing, as you were unable to refute. Bye!

 

[gaara4158]

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.

These are not part of the definition of effect, they’re observed characteristics of things we infer to be effects. The only requisite characteristic of an effect is a cause. This is the analytical-synthetic switch I was referring to.

 

[Paulomycin]

Yep, agreed... except in the cases where there is either something or nothing, as you were unable to refute. Bye!

1. I was never really arguing any cases where there is either something or nothing. That's was just in your head all along.

2. I think it was pretty clear I was unable to refute further, because you decided to take off.

3. We'll just pick this up whenever you make another comment related to this topic in the future, okay?

*waves*

 

[BigDaddy4]

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

Why should I show you a snake? I said reptiles with 4 legs exist. True statement. I did not say only reptiles with 4 legs exist.

In case you haven't been paying attention, I have disputed your OP statement "Christians say..." as being a valid premise. You have yet to demonstrate it's true. Because you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong. It's your statement, it's your OP, you have the responsibility to back up your assertion.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

1. I was never really arguing any cases where there is either something or nothing. That's was just in your head all along.

I wasn't aware there is a third case.

2.

I think it was pretty clear I was unable to refute further, because you decided to take off.

No, I have been asking for several pages for you to find the error. You've come up with a counter-argument wherein you point out the obvious (causality does not exist if there is nothing, so nothing can be caused to occur). The OP already explores the notion of things occurring without a cause, and you don't seem to understand this at all.

3.

We'll just pick this up whenever you make another comment related to this topic in the future, okay?

There's nothing to pick up. You'll never dissect my proof because it is irrefutable. You've made a counter-argument which was already addressed by the OP. You've implied that my proof "doesn't count" because it wasn't proposed thousands of years ago, or because I "plagiarized" it. Basically, you've done everything except disprove it. Because you can't. Your silly little phrase is self-refuting. It's just another of the many things that thousands of years worth of Christian thinkers got wrong.

Here's what will happen. You'll respond. You'll give a song and dance and blah blah blah and you will not point out where in the proof there is an error. And I will simply ignore your pointless response.

For your convenience, here again is the thing that has stumped you:


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.


There is no line where you can find a problem. QED.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why should I show you a snake? I said reptiles with 4 legs exist. True statement. I did not say only reptiles with 4 legs exist.

In case you haven't been paying attention, I have disputed your OP statement "Christians say..." as being a valid premise. You have yet to demonstrate it's true. Because you can't. Feel free to prove me wrong. It's your statement, it's your OP, you have the responsibility to back up your assertion.

So you dispute that Christians say what I claim they say? Ok, but do you personally disagree with anything in the OP?

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

If the basic forces of nature always existed, they don't need a source.

 

[BigDaddy4]

So you dispute that Christians say what I claim they say? Ok, but do you personally disagree with anything in the OP?

Now you want to move the goal posts a little, huh? Since I am a Christian and I disputed your statement that "Christians say...", I obviously personally disagree with your OP.

What follows "The universe exists because..." doesn't really explain existence or why the universe exists, which seems to be the point of your OP. I could say that you exist because you were created by your mother and father who exist (or existed, if they are not alive. Sorry if they are not.). That doesn't really explain why you exist.

While you may not agree with it or be satisfied by it, the Bible says why God created the universe - for His glory and purposes. Among the verses are:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).
The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Proverbs 16:4)
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16).

If a Christian says the universe exists for some other reason than God's glory and purpose, then I would wonder how much of the Bible they've read and understood in that regard.

 

[Paulomycin]

I wasn't aware there is a third case.

I wasn't aware you had actually committed to any argument in-particular. See, commitment and conviction to a consistent thesis is what separates real debate from a petty gotcha game. You have no thesis. So I can only assume you're just playing gotcha.

No, I have been asking for several pages for you to find the error. You've come up with a counter-argument wherein you point out the obvious (causality does not exist if there is nothing, so nothing can be caused to occur).

First, how is this ^ not "word salad?" Second, words in my mouth. I tried my best to make clarifications, but you just ignored them an repeated ad nauseum as-if my clarifications were never made to begin with. Finally, I'm not the one that is trying to maintain "nothing" as equivocal.

The OP already explores the notion of things occurring without a cause, and you don't seem to understand this at all.

"God" is not an empirical claim of "thing-ness."

There's nothing to pick up. You'll never dissect my proof because it is irrefutable.

I was honestly unaware you had even made a proof. How can you claim a proof if you're not even willing to commit to it as absolute?

Here's what will happen. You'll respond. You'll give a song and dance and blah blah blah and you will not point out where in the proof there is an error. And I will simply ignore your pointless response.

You promise? I hope so, because I'm not in this for your attention.

For your convenience, here again is the thing that has stumped you:


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.


There is no line where you can find a problem. QED.

But you're in no way's absolutely committed to it. I've simply been arguing that you've been reading it wrong up to the point where you outright admitted, "If there is nothing, there is no causation. So nothing will be caused." That's the exact same thing as Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. Then, after I made that observation, you choked in your following response. Nobody cares if you "don't care."

So which of your own statements are you committed to? Your non-absolute and unserious "proof," OR your admission, "If there is nothing, there is no causation. So nothing will be caused." <-- You can't have it both ways!

 

[Paulomycin]

So you dispute that Christians say what I claim they say? Ok, but do you personally disagree with anything in the OP?

If there are any Christians who take exception (and in this thread there are more than one), then your broad-brushing "Christians" in-general has definitely failed.

But maybe in your imagination you considered OP an "irrefutable proof."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Now you want to move the goal posts a little, huh? Since I am a Christian and I disputed your statement that "Christians say...", I obviously personally disagree with your OP.

The goalposts are and always have been that I want you to dispute something in the OP. If Christians think or believe that the OP is true, without actually outright stating it, then that is a distinction without a difference.

What follows "The universe exists because..." doesn't really explain existence or why the universe exists, which seems to be the point of your OP. I could say that you exist because you were created by your mother and father who exist (or existed, if they are not alive. Sorry if they are not.). That doesn't really explain why you exist.

While you may not agree with it or be satisfied by it, the Bible says why God created the universe - for His glory and purposes. Among the verses are:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands (Psalm 19:1).
The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Proverbs 16:4)
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him (Colossians 1:16).

If a Christian says the universe exists for some other reason than God's glory and purpose, then I would wonder how much of the Bible they've read and understood in that regard.

Examine the OP again. I only said that the universe exists without reason or cause in the atheist worldview. The Christian worldview does not touch on the reason for why the universe exists. The Christian worldview I prevented states that God exists for no reason and with no cause. It's been agreed by a Christian on here God exists with no cause, but he said that God does exist for a reason. I couldn't make heads or tails of his "reason", though.

 

[Paulomycin]

I couldn't make heads or tails of his "reason", though.

Because omnipotence is never contingent. <-- There U go. Thank me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

"Out of nothing, nothing comes."...The question is, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"... You're still using "nothing" in your own statements...Krauss' claim that "nothing" is actually something

Jerry Seinfeld would love this thread: A debate about nothing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, you said you don't understand the difference. You still misquoted me, and you've had years to obtain the understanding of what the difference is.

When?

 

[Ed1wolf]

These are not part of the definition of effect, they’re observed characteristics of things we infer to be effects. The only requisite characteristic of an effect is a cause. This is the analytical-synthetic switch I was referring to.

It is Aristotle's definition of an effect and so far it has never been proven to be wrong. Some Quantum events appear to be effects but it has not been proven yet, it may be just that we have not discovered the cause or they may be caused by the observer.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When?

You apparently don't understand the difference between

(A) Not believing in God

and

(B) Believing God doesn't exist

This has caused you to misrepresent atheism.

 

[disciple Clint]

If the basic forces of nature always existed, they don't need a source.

I do not know what you include in the forces of nature but feel free to attempt to find evidence that they have always existed, I would suggest that it is hard to have the forces of nature exist before there was any nature. So we are back to the original question. How was something made from nothing?

 

[Paulomycin]

You apparently don't understand the difference between

(A) Not believing in God

and

(B) Believing God doesn't exist

This has caused you to misrepresent atheism.

Whaaaat's the difference???? Maybe you can. . .explain it to me.

 

[Moral Orel]

Whaaaat's the difference???? Maybe you can. . .explain it to me.

You've been debating atheists for years and not a single one of them has ever presented this distinction to you? I don't believe that. This comes up in basically every other thread around here. We've had multiple threads from atheists explaining the difference. We've had multiple threads from Christians telling us we aren't allowed to "not believe". And not one atheist, after years of debating them, has ever stumbled onto this topic with you. Really?