Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Sapporo: To say that something can be created from nothing is not a falsifiable statement. It isn't scientific to say that things without causes exist. Thus I cannot see how you could prove that nature was created.
You are inventing a cause where none was needed, and not actually solving the infinite regress issue mentioned in your argument. You say that "Causes that are nonexistent, don’t exist, since they exist outside of existence.", but invoke a creator that is outside its creation.
Let’s first understand “scientific”. “Scientific” is referring to something of science, which studies the natural world.
Here’s the beauty of the entire PSR or the principle of sufficient reason: science cannot exist if nature is not sufficient reasoned to exist (intelligent design).
There is no way science can understand nature, explain nature, identify causation, or anything if it is not causally existent. Without intelligent design, science cannot be science.
This also digs into the nature of the anthropic principle.
Next, “ex nihilo nihil fit” is an assumption. (nothing comes from nothing)
I’ll just go ahead and show this obvious sufficient reasoning too:
IFF assuming the condition of nothing v something, “nothing configures something”.
[something always has properties, structures, Time and space]
Nothing has no properties, structures, Time and space.
With no structures, properties, time or space, nothing is in an unstable state.
An unstable state is a chaotic state; in a chaotic state exists true possibilities since there is no stable causation from properties, structures, Time or space.
Nothing (no structures, properties, time or space) is unstable, reconfiguring possibilities of itself simultaneously (since there’s no structures, properties, time or space), configuring a possibility of something which we call nothingness, which is the first something of everything.
[now, insert your favorite cosmological model that attempts an origin]
The beauty: there is no sufficient reason for nothing to remain unstable, thereby being the sufficient reason to become stable, creating a proeprty, structure, Time or space.
Concepts used:
Physicist Krauss’s understanding
Metastability
Principle of pre-established harmony
Chaos theory
Principle of sufficient reason
Anthropic principle
If you would please, investigate what we understand nothing to be in physics and science. Nothing is that which has nothing physical about it (being that we are currently in a physical paradigm scientifically).
Also take notice that ‘logic’ and the ‘meta’ nature of it is constant, even in the face of nothing. Some would consider this the mind of God since numbers and logical structures are considered abstract particulars, being eternal and not reducing to time or space.
I don’t know why you chose to interpret what I have written in a way in which you have processed my words to mean something else?
1a=1a isn’t a falsifiable statement is it? It’s true. Classic Law of thought (limit of thought). 1a+1a=2a is a necessary truth. “Falsifiable statement” should be a byproduct, not the starting condition (bottom-up thinking v top-down thinking).
Are you suggesting that either a) existence is eternal, already promoting divinity? Or b) existence exists on magic?
Your quote of mine about nonexistent causes is taking the reasoning out of context.
The source is in and of existence and does not need to be outside of existence...
Causality is only applicable within an isolated system like the universe or that defined by “the laws of nature” – it would be wrong to make assumptions outside such systems.
Your "god" argument seems to assert that something can come from nothing (or "intelligent design" if you like) – this is complete anathema to the process of making scientific discoveries. Science cannot make conclusions about topics that are unfalsifiable, such as the assumption that there was a first cause.
Falsifiability is usually a concept applied to the flesh and blood world, but statements of logic could certainly be considered falsifiable.
Sapporo,
Did you just assume we are an isolated system rather than a closed system? Are you making the assumption there is not a parallel universe diametrically opposite of our own indicated by the third law of motion? Or multiverse suggested by our greatest mathematicians and theoretical physicists? Be sure to account for all things. It looks like this analogy:
“I don’t know what I don’t know.”
“I know that I don’t know what I don’t know”
All considerations accounted for.
Also, anthropic principle: existence must be compatible with the sapient life that occupies it because we exist in it and of it and are not a foreign substance to it. This applies to any other closed systems or variable other systems, since for all to exist, they are of the same substance somewhere allowing all systems to coexist.
Causality is easily understood to apply
Wherever. Just requires the extra considerations.
In a place where let’s say causality is reversed in respect to our own, there’s a reason (cause) for this phenomena. We need only know our own to understand the necessary condition of another system since both systems coexist in existence, therefore are of the same substance at some point regardless of variable change in their ‘extensions and expressions’. You cannot have Existence coexisting with nonexistence, nonexistence doesn’t exist. There are ways to contain what we don’t know with what we do know.
Nothing configuring something wasn’t my argument. It also wasn’t me who brought up nothing v something. You did. I replied knowing true is always true no matter the case. I can even present “IFF assuming nothing” and it is satisfied somewhere in the considerations. By the way IFF stands for “If and only if” as logical symbol/notation.
Let’s correct some errors we let get too far already. Science doesn’t actually exist. What exists are minds of humans which maintain the body of knowledge we have gained in fields we coined science. We gain the knowledge through human means, not science. Science isn’t an entity. It exists intersubejctively and interobjectively, only. If all humans perished, so does ‘science’. Science is contingent on humans and humans are contingent on existence, which existed before science and humans. Truths exist which scientists havent even asked questions for yet. Science is still in its teenage years, and has a long way to go before catching up to the human mind which existed before science became science. Don’t forget, the human mind is of existence existing in the same way existence allowed us to exist. Our sapience isn’t for no reason. The evolution of life from amino acids, microbes, and viruses to develop the human sapeince wasn’t for humans to have a mind which is not compatible with the existence which evolved such a thing lol.
I see a faith in scientism. Is this accurate?
The laws of nature define an isolated system. They would not be laws of nature otherwise.
@ EI
I see another HUGE error you have made.
The symbol for "if and only if" = iff. NOT "IFF".
IFF = Identification: Friend of Foe.
Trust me. I have had many math courses. I have also served in the military. Thus, wherever you put "IFF" it was very confusing because I was trying to figure out how "Identification: Friend of Foe" fit into the horse hoowhee you were trying to pawn off as logic and truth for "God Necessarily IS." The only time "iff" will have any uppercase letters is when it begins a sentence, then, it is only "Iff."
What a dweeb.
rmfr
The error is yours, and Existential's use of `IFF' is correct; part of literacy is reading comprehension, which requires inferring meaning from context. It is obvious that `IFF,' in this case, does not stand for ``identification: friend of foe'' because Existential's OP mentioned nothing specific to indicate that he was thinking or writing about the military, much less whichever country's military you served in. It doesn't really matter how many math courses you've had. While Existential seems not to know how to use some of the other notation he writes, his use of the symbol `IFF' is acceptable.
In my experience, the suggested notation with capitalization of the `i' in `iff' is rarer than the use of `IFF,' which is common in the study of computer science.
What a loser.
And you need to look it up yourself. IFF = Identification: Friend of Foe. iff = if and only if. Reading comprehension also requires the writer to use the correct inference.
However, this is something no Absolutist is capable of.
And in computer science "iff" is used. Of course, you yunguns have probably changed that.
rmfr
Using the correct inference means inferring the right thing, which, in this case, means reading `IFF' as `if and only if,' so I agree with your fourth sentence. Your second and third sentences aren't quite right; it would be more accurate to say that IFF ⊃ `if and only if.' IFF ⊃ `identification: friend or foe,' and iff ⊃ `if and only if.' Deciding which implication branch to follow from the symbol `IFF' requires an address to the context.
There you go again. You're almost as bad as Existential when you do that. I guess I'll bite: are you asserting that I'm an Absolutist?
Yup.
"Nothing has no properties, structures, Time and space.
With no structures, properties, time or space, nothing is in an unstable state."
Pure assumption, how did you test your assertion? Did you manage to procure "nothing" and test it's properties?
That aside you have still offered none of the evidence you loudly trumpeted in your OP. All I see is some fairly shaky arguments that contain assertions that would themselves require evidence before I'd accept them as valid.
You haven't even properly defined what you mean by god.
Perhaps you understand why it confuses me when you put these two claims in one comment.
I have explained that causality is only an useful concept in a system that is not open. If reality is an isolated system, by definition, it has no cause.
If you mean that nothing has ever caused, or causally affected, the system you call reality, or that nothing ever will, then your claim isn't exactly true. This ambiguity is often glossed over in introductory thermodynamics curricula. Saying that a system is isolated is equivalent to saying that nothing external to the system is affecting the system. It is conceivable that there is a `time' at which the system you call reality was not causally isolated. Moreover, it seems to be an argument ad ignorantiam that the system that you call reality is, or currently is, causally isolated; I see why you've avoided asserting that the system you call reality is isolated.
I wonder whether you really cleared up the contradiction.
If the first clause is true, then it also isn't scientific to say that there exist systems that have always been isolated; I again see why you've avoided asserting that the system you call reality is isolated. You went on to write that Existential was inventing a cause where none was needed, which suggests that we ought to assume that systems are isolated except when `needed.' This, according to your first clause, is unscientific. But as far as I've seen of your posts, you take the epistemology of science as your own. Yet, you suggest an unscientific assertion. Again, perhaps you understand why it confuses me when you put these two claims in one comment. Work with me here.
I don't have a problem with saying that reality is an isolated system. It is defined by the laws of nature. Otherwise, they would not be laws.
Well, sure. That isn't the interesting part. Has the system you call reality always been isolated?
``Because God told me so.''
If something is not universally true, it cannot be a law of nature.
Then you adhere to an unscientific belief. Odd. I wonder why you picked that one in particular, just as I wonder why theists pick certain gods.
Saporro, I already commented to you but for whatever reason it appears elsewhere on this comment thread.
What does ‘prove’ entail? Is a formal proof considered proof?
And what does proving have to do with anything?
It’s already proven there exists truths which are unprovable (Gödels and Turing).
Here’s a belief of my from what we are working with so far between our exchange— I believe this is proof already since logical, a priori reasoning was used dismissing infinite regress of causes.
Once this infinite regress of causes is dismissed, making the assumption of the principle of sufficient reason, under the anthropic principle, there is really no other option.
Existence can be eternal, and still be sourced (caused). It does not need to be chronological as commonly perceived.
I hope this comment works this time.
Not generally; Godel and Turing argued with respect to the context of particular formal (Godel) or informal (Turing) logics that themselves are not perfectly sound.
Get over yourself; write only in clear, or straightforward, sentences. Your formalization stinks: it's grammatically nonsensical, and it seems like an attempt at a modal argument, which would be invalid in application to any lone proposition (such as the proposition that God exists). Rewrite your post like you care.
Calhais, this is not a modal argument. That is how you define necessity, accurately. Secondly, if and only if = material equivalence.
Not difficult.
It is actually quite difficult to read. Let's look at the following sentence:
Nyar,
Absolute 0 is precise. Zero if you want sure, I’m simply using the terms in statistical improbability.
Maybe for this, we should start with “top-down” thinking which appears easiest for many people.
Impossible is impossible. It’s a construct. It’s a byproduct. Language allows us to toss it around and we make it a real thing. What actually makes something impossible, isn’t the ‘impossibility’ of it, but rather if it has no causal reasoning for its existence.
Because of this inability to get in front of causation and make deterministic models, we must account for our human incognziance (uncertainty).
We do this by testing. For something to be impossible, we test something which must never actualize infinitely to be considered impossible.
If we ever determine something has 0 probability or chance, then this means that ‘infinitely’ has stopped and concluded. This contradicts infinity and exemplifies Gödels- when something is complete it is then inconsistent (roughly speaking).
Also, it should be noted: things with 0 probability or 0 chance still occur.
Google searches can satisfy your questions more comprehensively.
I asked two specific questions. I was hoping you could provide an answer. Again:
Nyar,
I’m not here to explain probabilities. I apologize. Here is a link which can explain what you’re asking for.
https://www.probabilisticworld.com/not-all-zero-probabilities/
@∃xistential
The phrase absolute zero does not appear on that page; so it can not answer my question.
No place in that document does it mention a denominator to approach a constant before infinity. So again it can not answer my questions.
Wonder if ∃xistential Intelligence will ever be willing to realize he is not nearly as clever as he thinks, and instead has himself twisted up in a pretzel, with the moving definitions of words around to try and suit an argument that god exist, but only if he is allowed to change the definition of words at will to make it work in a... I guess an attempt at a logical manner that avoids the usual giant logical holes all over in traditional god definition ideas?
E-I...E-I....Oooooh (my aching brain)....
...and Old McDonald had a farm...
rmfr
Okay. Communication Studies 101, Lesson 1, Point 1: write using standard English syntax. The word `impossible' is not a noun; thus, it is never followed by a copular verb like the word `is.' Following an adjective like the word `impossible' with a copular verb like the word `is' is, at best, hard to interpret; most readers will interpret it as gibberish and will not be able to respond constructively.
If you really care about presenting your argument, then resolve to write clearly, according to the elementary rules of English grammar, syntax, and idiom.
Then why would we want to read your original word salad of a post rather than browsing Google?
Whatever that means. The phrase, `get in front of causation,' is not a standard English idiom. Do not use nonstandard idioms without defining them first.
You know, I minored in literature during my undergrad year at university, and most of the students were majoring in at least one of English, creative writing, or journalism. On occasion, there would come along an older student (early twenties) who thought the world of himself--this student was typically male. He wrote complete nonsense--and by this, I mean that he frequently disobeyed the standard rules of English grammar, syntax and idiom--that probably meant something--perhaps something interesting--but was both unreadable and unpublishable because he thought that the rules of writing in English didn't apply to him. He tended to think that his ideas were entirely original, and he often guarded them jealously, going so far as to threaten professors to make sure that they wouldn't publish his essays or share them with friends. This student, in this sense, was typically delusional. Men are most likely to develop schizophrenia or experience a schizophrenic break in their early twenties. Sometimes, what starts as a schizophrenic break is left untreated and develops into lifelong schizophrenia. You write and seem to respond to others a lot like one of those students I described, and it may be the result of a schizophrenic break. You may want to consult a psychiatrist. If you are experiencing a schizophrenic break, then you can get past it if you act now.
@Calhais Re: The schizophrenic break of E.I.
Dang.... That is some great insight there. A totally plausible concept. I was discussing Mr. E.I. with somebody else, and I mentioned how it would be better if he was simply a highly intelligent troll just having a bit of fun on here. In that respect, it would be somewhat impressive. On the other hand, if the poor guy is genuinely sincere in all these warped and tangled "concepts" he supposedly believes, then it is evident that his grip on reality is slowly slipping. I didn't specifically consider the schizophrenic angle, though. Good call.
Pages