Something can't come from nothing

[nobspeople]

Recently I saw someone elsewhere make the comment, in regards to how 'the universe came to be', that you can't get something (the universe as it is today) from nothing (from before the universe existed), only to go on and say something similar to 'god is the beginning and the end', in reference to creating the universe.
I found it hypocritical to say one believes 'something can't come from nothing' and, at the same time, say 'god created the universe', appearing to mean god was here before anything and thus, came from nothing (as the person making this statement seemed to believe god was here before anything else - seemingly 'coming from nothing').

For discussion:
Where did god come from?
How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?
For those that claim 'god has always existed': how? And how can one make such a claim without understanding 'always' and 'eternity', as those aren't concepts humanity can understand fully, in regards to any deity, with their limited minds?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

How is it 'logical' to assume 'magic' when magic is the very thing which proposes something coming from nothing?

I answered this in the 'definition of God' post but I don't mind doing it again.

Some physical process must be involved in nothing becoming Something (the very basics of matter - energy. Some experiments have been done that suggest that nothing - a total vacuum - does contain energy innately. If so, it does not need to be created, and matter is of course, energy standing still.

This is still all very doubtful, but it seems to hold out more hope of an explanation than infinite regression or an eternal Creative being with no origin. A complext intelligent creative being with the poers of creation but no origin of its' own - now, that's and appeal to magic.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #31]

A complext intelligent creative being with the poers of creation but no origin of its' own - now, that's and appeal to magic.

No it is not.

If something has always existed, there is no magic involved. It simply has always existed.

The appeal to magic, is claiming that things which have a beginning 'come from nothing'.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #31]

A complext intelligent creative being with the poers of creation but no origin of its' own - now, that's and appeal to magic.

No it is not.

If something has always existed, there is no magic involved. It simply has always existed.

The appeal to magic, is claiming that things which have a beginning 'come from nothing'.

Then if basic matter has always existed, that is (according to you) a valid explanation. Positing that intelligent matter has always existed is a more improbable proposition because it makes two assertions: matter (energy particles -I presume that you won't propose that an intelligence can exist without the particles that make an intelligence) has always existed and it was intelligent (or possibly became intelligent, which might remove one improbable assertion). Of course, you'd srtill have to validate the claim of an evolved cosmic intelligence, whereas the existence of matter does not need validation.

Thus an eternal intelligence would be more illogical than eternal matter.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed

Theism hasn't lasted this long based upon the idea that while one does not know, one will believe anyway.

Assuming that basic matter has always existed, and has always been intelligent, anything which didn't always exist [such as this universe - as the unfolding form that it is] can be said to have come from the basic/source matter.

The problem isn't that the universe exists as an unfolding form which had a beginning, if one considers the theory that beginnings and ends are simply states between one manifestation to the next and thus - while the current universe is one such manifestation, it consists of the same basic matter as it consisted of in all prior and subsequent manifestations.

In that, the basic matter has always existed, even that the manifestations may never have - and may never repeat as in 'an exact copy' of any other universe manifestation that it was or will be.

What if the Universe has no end?

Of course, you'd srtill have to validate the claim of an evolved cosmic intelligence, whereas the existence of matter does not need validation.

Thus an eternal intelligence would be more illogical than eternal matter.

Validating intelligence within matter as possible is easy enough - as evidence of this is plain enough re life on earth.

Validating that there is no such thing as true randomness also supports the theory that the universe is not the product of a mindless chaotic process. It is quite orderly - mathematically sound and logical.

The existence of forming matter clearly does not require validating. What requires validating is the theory that the formations taking place are truly random mindless events.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed

Theism hasn't lasted this long based upon the idea that while one does not know, one will believe anyway.

Assuming that basic matter has always existed, and has always been intelligent, anything which didn't always exist [such as this universe - as the unfolding form that it is] can be said to have come from the basic/source matter.

The problem isn't that the universe exists as an unfolding form which had a beginning, if one considers the theory that beginnings and ends are simply states between one manifestation to the next and thus - while the current universe is one such manifestation, it consists of the same basic matter as it consisted of in all prior and subsequent manifestations.

In that, the basic matter has always existed, even that the manifestations may never have - and may never repeat as in 'an exact copy' of any other universe manifestation that it was or will be.

What if the Universe has no end?

Our universe is a red herring it is the whole cosmos of matter from which the BB event (presumably) coalesced that is the subject of discussion. Was the matter always there or did it have to appear from nothing?

Of course, you'd still have to validate the claim of an evolved cosmic intelligence, whereas the existence of matter does not need validation. In fact if 'something' (energy - if inherent without creation in Nothing is true) and nothing are pretty much the same thing, 'something' (matter from energy) is pretty much guaranteed as eternal without origin, whereas an intelligence (unless you posit an evolved god) is a claim that you can't logically 'Assume' as you so glibly put it.

You are by no means the first who begin their argument with 'assuming that 'god'/"God" exists..." You can't assume any such thing without good reason and I argue that 'something' from nothing is actually more reasonable, rational, logical and probable than a cosmic intelligence without origin.

Thus an eternal intelligence would be more illogical than eternal matter.

Validating intelligence within matter as possible is easy enough - as evidence of this is plain enough re life on earth.

Validating that there is no such thing as true randomness also supports the theory that the universe is not the product of a mindless chaotic process. It is quite orderly - mathematically sound and logical.

The existence of forming matter clearly does not require validating. What requires validating is the theory that the formations taking place are truly random mindless events.

Ok, so you get to the nub of it, which is ID. Without which I do not know what evidence you have on earth or out of it for the existence of a Cosmic intelligence - apart from 'constants' which I have never denied is the Theists' best case, but is no more than a Gap for God' claim which is, I would remind you, an informal logical fallacy.

Did you want to start an ID thread? You will be aware that all ID claims have been debunked, most resoundingly in Court where the best effort to make ID scientific was thrown in the gutter at Dover.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

Ok, so you get to the nub of it, which is ID.

Exactly. That is the logical conclusion - the best one to explain why something exists, rather than nothing.

That gap is filled with the most logical answer.

Something has always existed and has always been intelligent in relation to what it creates.

Our universe is a red herring it is the whole cosmos of matter from which the BB event (presumably) coalesced that is the subject of discussion. Was the matter always there or did it have to appear from nothing?

It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed.

I have never denied is the Theists' best case, but is no more than a Gap for God' claim which is, I would remind you, an informal logical fallacy.

The problem we both have re the idea of 'God' is the religious element, where claims as to the nature of the Intelligent Designer do not align successfully with what we so-far observe.

Informal fallacies stem from this, but I see that arguing from only what religious theists claim re their many differing and conflicting ideas of the presumed nature of the intelligent designer by painting every ID-theory with the same brush, is also quite the informal fallacy.

I try to keep things as simple and as local as possible, which is why - in my understanding that conscious intelligence permeates the fabric of the universe - completely - different forms provide different perspectives, for said conscious intelligence.

This means it can be innumerable individual things in relation to that, and my interested is mainly focused upon The Earth Entity and things happening hereabouts, in that regard.

My communion therefore, does not exclude any individuate conscious intelligence, but focuses primarily on the ones at hand.

Did you want to start an ID thread?

I already have started one. Generating Messages

You will be aware that all ID claims have been debunked, most resoundingly in Court where the best effort to make ID scientific was thrown in the gutter at Dover.

No. I was not aware of that.

What I am aware of is that I am doing science in relation to debunking the theory that the universe is an unfolding product of a mindless process because there is no such thing as true randomness.

Randomness as we identify it, is more a case of we humans being so deeply positioned in the thick of this reality experience, that things can and do appear to be random, but actually are not.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #35]

Ok, so you get to the nub of it, which is ID.

Exactly. That is the logical conclusion - the best one to explain why something exists, rather than nothing.

That gap is filled with the most logical answer.

Something has always existed and has always been intelligent in relation to what it creates.

That is not the logical conclusion for the reasons set out. It is, essentially, a faith -claim.

Our universe is a red herring it is the whole cosmos of matter from which the BB event (presumably) coalesced that is the subject of discussion. Was the matter always there or did it have to appear from nothing?

It is more logical that something has always existed than nothing existed before something existed.

Then it is more logical to suppose that a non -intelligent something existed than an intelligent one, simply because, with the latter, there are two logical entities to explain instead of one.

I have never denied is the Theists' best case, but is no more than a Gap for God' claim which is, I would remind you, an informal logical fallacy.

The problem we both have re the idea of 'God' is the religious element, where claims as to the nature of the Intelligent Designer do not align successfully with what we so-far observe.

Informal fallacies stem from this, but I see that arguing from only what religious theists claim re their many differing and conflicting ideas of the presumed nature of the intelligent designer by painting every ID-theory with the same brush, is also quite the informal fallacy.

I try to keep things as simple and as local as possible, which is why - in my understanding that conscious intelligence permeates the fabric of the universe - completely - different forms provide different perspectives, for said conscious intelligence.

This means it can be innumerable individual things in relation to that, and my interested is mainly focused upon The Earth Entity and things happening hereabouts, in that regard.

My communion therefore, does not exclude any individuate conscious intelligence, but focuses primarily on the ones at hand.

I'm leaving religion out of it since it is a red herring in regard to the claim for a (non-religious -affiliated) cosmic mind, and the informal logical fallacy of appeal to unknowns still applies. Mainly because the only non -debunked ID claims are the unknowns, to which you presumably appeal

Did you want to start an ID thread?

I already have started one. Generating Messages

I'll have a look

You will be aware that all ID claims have been debunked, most resoundingly in Court where the best effort to make ID scientific was thrown in the gutter at Dover.

No. I was not aware of that.

What I am aware of is that I am doing science in relation to debunking the theory that the universe is an unfolding product of a mindless process because there is no such thing as true randomness.

Randomness as we identify it, is more a case of we humans being so deeply positioned in the thick of this reality experience, that things can and do appear to be random, but actually are not.

You had a thread on ID and hadn't heard that almost all the apologetics for ID have been debunked? You had at least heard of the Kitzmiller v Dover case, surely?

Randomness is also a red herring as the laws of physics dictate how procedures happen. They are not random by chance, or the results would differ, in more than detail. One might argue that the minor differences (snowflakes being not alike) argues against a designer. If a snowflake doesn't have a designer, then neither does a tree, a planet or a galaxy. They are not Random, but they are unplanned...as a default theory until you can discharge the burden of proof that they are not. In fact you realise that they only appear random...or maybe not because Orders of things were understood from the Babylonians but what dictated the order (physics and evolution - chemical and biological) - was not known until relatively recently.

[TRANSPONDER]

I already have started one. Generating Messages
I'll have a look

Sorry. Messages in crop circles is not worth my time. Did you want to start one looking at the (intended) scientific evidence of ID? You know - irreducible complexity, DNA codes, astronomical odds against 'mere chance'...that sort of thing?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #28

They same can be levied against god: god cannot have created itself, because that would require it to have pre-existed itself. At least according to many. Unless, of course, god gets exempted from this with 'special' rules and the like.

If causality applies to a creator, then it unavoidably applies to the universe. And while a universe shouldn't have to exist, or to always have existed, the same may not be true of a creator.

Not adequate to whom, exactly?

Not logically adequate.

A good point about creation - something I haven't considered before

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #37]

Randomness is also a red herring as the laws of physics dictate how procedures happen. They are not random by chance, or the results would differ, in more than detail. One might argue that the minor differences (snowflakes being not alike) argues against a designer. If a snowflake doesn't have a designer, then neither does a tree, a planet or a galaxy. They are not Random, but they are unplanned...as a default theory until you can discharge the burden of proof that they are not. In fact you realise that they only appear random...or maybe not because Orders of things were understood from the Babylonians but what dictated the order (physics and evolution - chemical and biological) - was not known until relatively recently.

There is no thing which is exactly the same as any other thing in the known universe, fingerprints or snowflakes, one can look and one will not find...

This might be indicative of the Cosmic Mind also being without equal - as in - there is no mind exactly the same as the Cosmic mind, any more than there are any other minds exactly the same. Everything is unique, be they temporal snowflakes of long-lasting planets...

Patterns and synchronicities exist and are thus there to be discovered.

To explain away such things as "merely coincidence which are only seen by those who expect them to be seen" is a hand-waving expression which implies that "if one looks for sparkly pink unicorns being ridden by feisty leprechauns, ones expectations should be enough to make these things actually exist."

Patterns and synchronicities are able to be observed and analyzed scientifically, because they actually exist in the real world, and cannot be logically explained away as random/mindless coincidence.

Thus, they have to be investigated.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

I already have started one. Generating Messages

I'll have a look...

... Sorry. Messages in crop circles is not worth my time. Did you want to start one looking at the (intended) scientific evidence of ID? You know - irreducible complexity, DNA codes, astronomical odds against 'mere chance'...that sort of thing?

These things too, are being looked into, in that ongoing thread.

Cursory glances and knee-jerk verdicts is not how science is done.

The System of Generating Messages in conjunction with the sound of language decoded requires interested parties in order to do the science required to cross examine through replication.

If one has no interest in that, because of indifference, then - as I have recently learned - this is the position of apatheism and as an apatheist, one is not interested in either calling for evidence or examining evidence to do with supporting the idea of ID.

Since I now know where you stand - I won't be as Cosmic-Mind-botherer and will leave you to your indifference re any scientific evidence I could point you to.