"The Greatest Conceivable Being"

[Archaeopteryx]

Only to intimidated atheists it is.
Get over it.So your bicycle has always existed before it existed? It's clear you reject it.
But nothing comes from nothing.

You have a sample of nothing?

 

[Hieronymus]

I too claim we dont know that the universe needs a prior cause in order to exist.

If you doubt this plain and simple logic, what else do you doubt?
How can you even have an opinion or some sort of vision, when you doubt basic simple logic?

 

[Hieronymus]

You have a sample of nothing?

Just wait for nothing to turn up with nothing.
You'll see for yourself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just wait for nothing to turn up with nothing.
You'll see for yourself.

I can't. There's already something here. I don't have access to nothing. But you do?

 

[Hieronymus]

This is a fallacious conflation Kalam makes. My computer did not just spring into being from material that did not exist beforehand.

Knowledge, intelligence, skills and the will to do something with them is also necessary to bring forth complex systems, like a computer or even a clothes-pin.

Nothing therein is anything more than a rearrangement of existing atoms. Is this what you're positing the universe is? A rearrangement of existing atoms? We're talking about two completely different kinds of "begin to exist".

That's true.
The beginning of existence itself (we call universe) takes a little more than just the afore mentioned premises.

And when the Kalam claims the universe "begins to exist", it's talking about the creation of matter where there was none before - something we do not observe with any regularity (and in the few cases we do observe it, there's no detectable cause).

But that doesn't change the logic of the argument.

 

[Hieronymus]

I can't. There's already something here. I don't have access to nothing. But you do?

There's nothing between everyting.

 

[quatona]

Only to intimidated atheists it is.
Get over it.

Let´s skip the pointless small talk.

So your bicycle has always existed before it existed?

You haven´t read my posts and explanations? Ok.

But nothing comes from nothing.

That´s a different statement than "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

 

[durangodawood]

If you doubt this plain and simple logic, what else do you doubt?
How can you even have an opinion or some sort of vision, when you doubt basic simple logic?

Exactly what basic simple logic am I denying?

 

[Hieronymus]

Exactly what basic simple logic am I denying?

Is this how far you take your denial, dear friend?
Seriously?

 

[anonymous person]

I can't. There's already something here. I don't have access to nothing. But you do?

You don't have to have access to nothing (a logical impossibility) to agree with Parmenides and Hume that from nothing, nothing comes. Nothing is a concept. That concept of the absence of everything, a universal negation.

 

[Hieronymus]

Let´s skip the pointless small talk.

You haven´t read my posts and explanations? Ok.

I have, but i don't agree with you.

That´s a different statement than "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

So?
Here's another one: 2 + 2 = 4

 

[anonymous person]

That´s a different statement than "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

We both noticed you did not take issue with the notion that from nothing, nothing comes.

If something begins to exist, say a mouse, without a cause, then why is this not synonymous with saying the mouse comes from nothing?

You have a room with no mouse in it. Then a mouse appears, without any cause whatsoever. It just pops into existence in the room. Why is this not analogous to it coming into being from nothing?

 

[quatona]

I have, but i don't agree with you.
So?

Well, then you may either want to address the argument as I made it, or don´t bother me by addressing a scrambled argument.

Here's another one: 2 + 2 = 4

I am sure you will find a lot more statements that are besides the point.

 

[durangodawood]

Is this how far you take your denial, dear friend?
Seriously?

I'm just looking for the deficit in my logic that you claim.
Its "basic and simple". Should be easy to point out.

 

[quatona]

We both noticed you did not take issue with the notion that from nothing, nothing comes.

I would agree that - within the universe -we don´t observe something physical coming from nothing or from something non-physical. If that´s what you mean.

If something begins to exist, say a mouse, without a cause, then why is this not synonymous with saying the mouse comes from nothing?

You have a room with no mouse in it. Then a mouse appears, without any cause whatsoever. It just pops into existence in the room. Why is this not analogous to it coming into being from nothing?

Exactly my point: Within our universe, we don´t observe mouses popping into existence from nothing. So we have no basis whatsoever to postulate what´s needed for that to happen.

The statement "Things that begin to exist (as in "physical things popping coming into existence where there was no matter before") must have a cause " is a completely unsubstatiated claim - we have no experiential or observational basis for them. We also have nothing to extrapolate from.

We also don´t observe spiritual beings creating physical things from nothing, btw..

What, however, could be said (as a result of our observations so far): "Within the universe, physical things have a physical cause and/or a physical predecessor."

 

[Hieronymus]

I would agree that - within the universe -we don´t observe something physical coming from nothing or from something non-physical. If that´s what you mean.

I wouldn't be too sure though.
In the occult things may 'materialise', but thank God i'm not too familiar with the occult...

 

[quatona]

I wouldn't be too sure though.
In the occult things may 'materialise', but thank God i'm not too familiar with the occult...

Yeah, I am not sure about any of these things.
It´s you guys, after all, who come up with those unsubstatiated general claims about the state of affairs that you use for premises.

 

[Hieronymus]

Like what?

 

[durangodawood]

Like what?

Your major problem is you think you have access to knowledge about the conditions in which the universe itself exists.

And from there you think you can make definitive statements like "a universe needs a prior event to 'cause' it". Or "a universe cannot exist eternally and uncaused".

Neither of us can say what time and cause even mean in the realm where universes exist, 'outside' of our universe. All we know about is how things behave within our universe. (And even then, only in our observable region - but thats another story).

 

[quatona]

Like what?

Like "everything that begins to exist has a cause" or "from nothing comes nothing".