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?

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

Our best data here indicates from the human mind.

How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?

If only to me, this argument fails to consider that regarding "God always existed", it fails to accept that so too may have the universe, if in a prior form.

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?

Faulty conclusions.

[William]

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?

Our best data here indicates from the human mind.

How can god 'come from nothing' but not anything else?

If only to me, this argument fails to consider that regarding "God always existed", it fails to accept that so too may have the universe, if in a prior form.

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?

Faulty conclusions.

Where did god come from?

Our best data here indicates from the human mind.

All data which goes through the human mind is subject to tampering.
The way I understand it, the human mind + existence in this Universe = the evolution on the idea of gods.
This in itself, does not mean that such ideas should be taken off the table of ideas pertaining to the universes existence.

If only to me, this argument fails to consider that regarding "God always existed", it fails to accept that so too may have the universe, if in a prior form.

This is true. For that matter - uncountable universes as big and bigger than this one might also exist.
It amounts to the same thing in the way that the stuff of our universe would thus have had to already had uncountable variations of form and function.

So - to simplify that idea, we need only focus on the current form of the Universe unfolding, and in that - not fail to also consider that "God always existed" in that "God currently exists"

Faulty conclusions.

The idea of "Always" and "Eternity" - while not able to be literally understood by the human brain - are, nonetheless ,understood by the human mind as 'getting the gist' as surely as a mind gets the gist of something [such as this universe] having always existed.

If we can get the gist of the one idea, there should be no problem with getting the gist of the other, alongside that.

"Faulty conclusions" cut both ways, JoeyKnothead .... and it pays to remember that we are presently only scratching the surface as to understanding what the Universe actually is...so no actual conclusions can be drawn on reasons for its existence.

[Athetotheist]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

[JoeyKnothead]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

[Athetotheist]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

With nothing but a universe it's still turtles all the way down, so taking out one turtle gets you no further ahead.

[brunumb]

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

It's turtles all the way down.......... until you reach The Great Turtle.
Yeah, but nah. We all know the real Truth. Great Pumpkin is the One True Gourd.

[Tcg]

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

It's turtles all the way down.......... until you reach The Great Turtle.
Yeah, but nah. We all know the real Truth. Great Pumpkin is the One True Gourd.

Yeah, but she only shows up once a year. Although come to think of it, that's once a year more often than any other turtle... err god... I mean Gourd.


Tcg

[Tcg]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

With nothing but a universe it's still turtles all the way down, so taking out one turtle gets you no further ahead.

With nothing but a universe, there are no turtles.


Tcg

[JoeyKnothead]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

With nothing but a universe it's still turtles all the way down, so taking out one turtle gets you no further ahead.

Preach it, friend.

It's quite the puzzler.

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems to me that the essential question about the universe is: Can it account for its own existence? The logical answer is no, so we are logically led to ask what---beyond the universe---could account for its existence, whether or not we fully understand what that something might be.

Then we're left to fret on how to account for that new thing there. It's turtles all the way down

With nothing but a universe it's still turtles all the way down, so taking out one turtle gets you no further ahead.

No. That is trying to force ...well...in fact, a strawman argument on the atheist/materialist side. The 'new thing' (our particular universe) is accounted for by the Big Bang, and Creationists themselves have correctly asked: 'Where did the stuff come from to make the Big Bang?'

The answer is an eternal universe of 'stuff' or one that came from nothing. Both appear counter - intuitive (and a god -claim is even more so, or may I mean less so ) but none of these is 'turtles all the way down' (infinite regression). Infinite regression is question begged by postulating a god.

'Where did that come from?'

'It was eternal'

'So why can't a far, far less complex Cosmos of 'stuff' be eternal?'

Quite apart from 'Which god?'', every 'atheist stumper' directed against a natural origins position applies even more to the god -claim.

I have as an afterthought to note a tendency for the Theist side to ask the same questions again and again when they have already been refuted. Do they pick them up from a Creationist website and suppose they are new and atheists haven't seen (and answered them) before?

Don't we see the same arguments posed by the same people in the same forum and even in the same thread? I've seen it many times before.

Wasn't it Einstein who commented on the people who do the same 'experiment' over and over and hope to get a different result?