Proving the foundation for God's existence

146 posts / 0 new

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 13:50

(Reply to #61) #62

LogicFTW

If you are simply arguing that science/human reasoning cannot account for "something coming out of nothing" I mostly agree with you.

But if you want to plug in your particular god because *gasp* there is something science and human reasoning cannot account for yet. I strongly disagree.

It is like saying to a small child that asks: "why does the sun rise in the morning and set at night" and you just respond with "magic."
Because you know the child is not yet equipped with the background information yet for you to simply answer: "Because the earth spins on its axis." Of which you know their will be a huge amount of follow up questions until the child gets bored.

By the way, the infinity theory, with all it's flaws, and even with the fact that I still do not fully grasp it, (I do not know if anyone can, it may be beyond human comprehension to understand infinity and nothing and it may easily be utterly wrong.) The infinity theory is still a much better concept/idea/theory then your "god."

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 15:03

(Reply to #62) #63

RedleT

I am saying we can positively

I am saying we can positively and with certainty know that from nothing, nothing comes. Btw, creation in the Bible is from nothing in the sense that God used no matter to create, but not in an absolute sense because God was the efficient cause.

It is not a God of the gaps theory. It is the only possible explanation.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 15:43

(Reply to #63) #64

mykcob4

Nope, Dumb Ox it isn't the

Nope, Dumb Ox it isn't the only explanation. It is your assumption. You have never proved your god and never made a connection that your god actually did anything.
All we know is that things are in motion, and that is the full extent of it. The fact that things move doesn't PROVE a god at all.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:45

(Reply to #64) #65

LogicFTW

Maybe I need to re-read your

Maybe I need to re-read your stuff, feel free to tell me which post I should re-read, but where do you come up with we can positively certainly know w/o any doubt that from nothing nothing comes.

I never heard of any "true" certainties in life, there is no perfect circle except in human created idea/concept. Even the popular quote "The only certain thing in life is: "death and taxes."

Plenty of situations where one can not have taxes, difficult but something you and I could achieve. As for death, I would say it is extremely! unlikely anyone will ever completely avoid death, but it would be foolish to be able to perfectly assume that. It could be 1 in a trillion raised to a trillion odds, but it is possible.

I even as a strong atheist, allow the possibility that your god, exactly as you defined him in your head is real, it just so remote, so unlikely I am much better off going with the well supported assumption it does not. The "I do not believe in gods" is a much better more understood and simple way of saying: To me, based on the evidence the odds that your god is real is so remote I would be a fool to waste any time considering it is real, without some sort of new evidence that can be tested to make my change my opinion.

Guess which human created idea is bigger than any human created idea of numbers? Infinity. True "nothing" is also true infinity. You could have incredibly remote odds (make the odds as remote as you like) of something coming from nothing, but given infinite time, it is going to happen.

It is also unbelievably arrogant on your part to say: "It is the only possible explanation."
What, do you think you are a god? A being that knows everything about everything?

The only possible explanation of the creation of the universe out of nothing is some timeless entity that we do not understand created it some sort of entity that is exempt to the rules of this nothing out of nothing rule you go on about? And then you want to attach the word "god" to it?

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 21:04

(Reply to #65) #66

RedleT

I have not specifically

I have not specifically addressed that in great detail in any single post. But I have touched on it in many to some degree, especially with responses to CyberLN, although only indirectly.

Again, I think it is very important for you to say if you do or do not agree with the principle of non contradiction, since that is one of my main underlying premises. In fact, it is so fundamental, that if one assumes for argument's sake that it may not be true, then you can't directly prove it from more fundamental principles, or at least I don't think so. You must prove it indirectly by showing how absurd and impossible things are if it is not true.

So, now I will try to prove that from nothing nothing comes.

First I will start with a nominal definition:
Nothing is the compleate and total absence of any being/existence whatsoever.

Now, when I say that nothing comes from nothing necessarily so, I mean that if there is no being whatsoever to be changed or caused and there is no being whatsoever to create or cause, then nothing will come from nothing. To be honest, it is kind of hard to prove this any better. It's like arguing with someone wether or not 2+2 always = 4 when you have explained what 2,4, and = means. Nothing by definition has no casual power because it does not exist as a being. Nothing cannot be changed into something, since by definition, it has no being, but is the lack of all and any being whatsoever.

I'll do some reading to see if I can find any proofs for this.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 14:02

(Reply to #66) #67

Nyarlathotep

Dumb Ox - I'll explain what

Dumb Ox - I'll explain what those "weasel words" are if you don't understand them.

You need to start over, with your terms defined at the beginning; instead of adding them later to save your premises from criticism. And make sure you label conclusions vs. premises. And try to start with an uncontroversial set of premises.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 09:36

#68

mykcob4

Stephen Hawkings addressed

Stephen Hawkings addressed what you are banging on about and he didn't change any definitions, revise history, fudge any numbers, to do so.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 10:01

(Reply to #68) #69

RedleT

Are you referring to his

Are you referring to his supposed proof that something can come from nothing?

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 10:33

(Reply to #69) #70

xenoview

Sparks and mirrors: Quantum

Sparks and mirrors: Quantum scientists make something out of nothing. Swedish researchers have literally made something from nothing - by creating sparks in a vacuum for the first time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2000483/Sparks-mirrors-Qu...

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 11:29

(Reply to #70) #71

RedleT

Since when is a magnet or a

Since when is a magnet or a quantum vacuum which is "not really empty at all" (from the article linked to) considered nothing? The article even says that scientists think there are small particles that are not detected. Furthermore, it says that they go in and out of existence, but failed to mention in that passage that the particles switch from matter to energy, so it's not like they become nothing and then become something again. The article has a sensational opening but then pretty much goes on to say "jk, the particles actually kinda did come from something".

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 11:32

(Reply to #71) #72

Nyarlathotep

No, you can have particle

No, you can have particle production from nothing. It is one of the cornerstones of QED.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 12:15

(Reply to #72) #73

RedleT

https://en.m.wikipedia.org

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum

It is from electric fields or magnetic fields or some kind of energy. pl quote a scientific journal or article that says things come from nothing in a quantum vacuum. Any who do say that eventually admit that they are using nothing to mean some wind of an energy or field. Even Hawking admired that.

It is basically like defining your fingers moving freely as nothing. Then, when you make a fist, you get something from nothing. Lol. Even many prominent atheist philosophers have called this a bunch of bs.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 14:09

(Reply to #73) #74

Nyarlathotep

Any who do say that

Dumb Ox - Any who do say that eventually admit that they are using nothing to mean some wind of an energy or field.

That is not the case. You can get particle production without adding energy. As I said before it is a cornerstone of QED and what makes the calculations so difficult; for example:

If you want to know the probability of an electron to go from point A to point B, you must considered every possible path from point A to B. But that isn't enough. You must also consider the possibility that an electron/position pair will spontaneously tunnel out of the void and interact with the electron in question, at every possible location, on every possible path. Then you must consider that 2 electron/positron pairs will tunnel out of the void and interact with your electron (and each other) at every possible location, on every possible path; and so on ad infinitum.

Sorry Virginia, particles can (and do) come from nothing; all the time.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:28

(Reply to #74) #75

xenoview

Is space empty? Space is full

Is space empty? Space is full of stuff.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 17:00

(Reply to #75) #76

LogicFTW

It is all relative. Down at

It is all relative. Down at the atomic level, we humans (and everything else) are 99.99+ percent "nothing" with a tiny itty bitty bit of "something."

Sure that nothingness factor in space goes up a few orders of magnitude but really we are talking a whole lot of nothing, or a whole lot of stuff, which ever way you define it.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 20:36

#77

RedleT

From Nyarlathotep

From Nyarlathotep
""If you want to know the probability of an electron to go from point A to point B, you must considered every possible path from point A to B. But that isn't enough. You must also consider the possibility that an electron/position pair will spontaneously tunnel out of the void and interact with the electron in question, at every possible location, on every possible path. Then you must consider that 2 electron/positron pairs will tunnel out of the void and interact with your electron (and each other) at every possible location, on every possible path; and so on ad infinitum.""

Lol. How is that an example of something coming from nothing? You don't even say that anything comes into being that did not exist before hand. You are just saying it very hard and currently impossible to predict with perfect accuracy where electrons will be.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 21:05

(Reply to #77) #78

Nyarlathotep

Dumb Ox - How is that an

Dumb Ox - How is that an example of something coming from nothing? You don't even say that anything comes into being that did not exist before hand.

really?

Nyarlathotep - electron/position pair will spontaneously tunnel out of the void

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 21:17

(Reply to #78) #79

RedleT

And where does it go or do we

And where does it go or do we know that it ceases to exist? Doesn't it just go somewhere else? In any case, that would only prove annihilation at best i.e something ceasing to exist completely and not even being changed.

Wed, 06/28/2017 - 22:05

(Reply to #79) #80

Nyarlathotep

Dumb Ox - And where does it

Dumb Ox - And where does it go

Typically annihilation, like you said; although other things can happen.
------------------

Dumb Ox - Doesn't it just go somewhere else?

No.
------------------

Dumb Ox - that would only prove annihilation at best

You are forgetting about their creation from nothing, before their annihilation back to nothing.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 12:17

(Reply to #80) #81

RedleT

Please quote from a scientist

Please quote from a scientist or a peer reviewed article. You have asserted that these molecules go in and out of existence. I don't see why it is not possible that they turn into something else that we cannot detect or go somewhere we don't know.

Furthermore, tunnulling in and out of a vacuum is not language which clearly denotes that they are going in and out of existence and being compleatly annihalated. At least, I suppose if one is not familiar with those terms.

Besides you haven't ruled out that any of the other matter/electrons/energy could cause them to go back into existence.

Until you can scientifically demonstrate what you are saying or at least quote an authority, you have no compelling evidence.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 13:27

(Reply to #81) #82

Nyarlathotep

Wright State University - 33

Wright State University - 33.1 The Yukawa Particle and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Revisited - The strong nuclear force is transmitted between a proton and neutron by the creation and exchange of a pion. The pion is created through a temporary violation of conservation of mass-energy and travels from the proton to the neutron and is recaptured.
The pion has mass and can only be created by violating the conservation of mass-energy. This is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle if it occurs for a sufficiently short period of time.

This allows the temporary creation of a particle of mass m , where ΔE = mc^2.

--------------------

QED - These particles are produced from nothing by the force field and so would violate energy-conservation if they were detectable as ordinary particles, instead they are allowed to temporarily violate energy conservation so long as this is within the energy-time uncertainty principle.

--------------------

University of Flordia - According to quantum electrodynamics (QED), the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real electron-positron pairs are created when energetic photons, represented by the electromagnetic field, interact with these fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however, can also exist for minute durations (less than a Planck time), as dictated by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

--------------------

UCLA - However, even a single electron, in its reference frame, is never alone. It is unavoidably subjected to the perpetual fluctuations of the quantum fields. To begin with, the quantum fluctuations continually and prodigiously create virtual electron-positron pairs in a volume surrounding the electron. Even though each pair has a fleeting existence, of the order of 10^(−21) second, on an average there is a very significant amount of these pairs to impart a remarkably sizable screening of the bare charge of the electron.

--------------------

University of Washington - Pairs of "virtual" (energy non-conserving) particles of many kinds continually wink into existence, live briefly on the energy credit extended by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and then annihilate and vanish when the bill for their energy debts falls due a few picoseconds or femtoseconds later. The seemingly smooth passage of a photon or electron through space at the QED distance scale, is revealed to be a punctuated chain of interactions and transformations involving virtual particles.

Fri, 06/30/2017 - 08:19

(Reply to #82) #83

RedleT

I won't have time to go

I won't have time to go through all of this in the next couple days but I will analyze this section:

"These particles are produced from nothing by the force field and so would violate energy-conservation if they were detectable as ordinary particles, instead they are allowed to temporarily violate energy conservation so long as this is within the energy-time uncertainty principle."

If the particles are produced "from nothing by the force field" then they are not produced by nothing in an absolute sense, but only possibly in the sense that there is no material cause. However, the force field would be the sufficient cause.

Mon, 07/03/2017 - 12:07

(Reply to #83) #84

RedleT

One more comment. I think it

One more comment. I think it is problematic epistemologically speaking to prove through science that something can come from nothing in an ablostue sense. The reason for this is that there is always the possibility of other demensions or causes which we cannot yet detect. Furthermore, the instruments used to measure/ observe something coming from nothing may actually be the cause of that something.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 13:37

(Reply to #84) #85

Nyarlathotep

Dumb Ox - You have asserted

Dumb Ox - You have asserted that these molecules go in and out of existence.

The fact that you think electrons and positrons are molecules is; well, kind of embarrassing.
-------------------------------------------

Dumb Ox - Furthermore, [tunneling] in and out of a vacuum is not language which clearly denotes that they are going in and out of existence and being [completely] [annihilated]. At least, I suppose if one is not familiar with those terms.

That is the language used in the field. If you are not familiar with the subject/language, perhaps you shouldn't be making statements about it.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 07:31

(Reply to #85) #86

xenoview

Are you saying your god

Are you saying your god created the universe from nothing? If so, then prove it. Science doesn't have the answers for everything, but it's discovering new stuff everyday. What has your god created lately?

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 10:06

#87

Stephen

Okay so my belief is there is

Okay so my belief is there is more evidence for God than there against God. Not just the fact that we exist but he revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ. Historical evidence is there Jesus claimed to be God we know this not only from Christian sources but Jews, Roman historic writings, and he rose from the dead. People who followed him died for this, and I don't think anyone would die for lie.
There is 0 evidence for saying there isn't a God.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 10:14

(Reply to #87) #88

CyberLN

"There is 0 evidence for

"There is 0 evidence for saying there isn't a God."

And that is why you will find that the vast majority of folks who identify as atheist do not claim there is no god.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 10:22

(Reply to #88) #89

Nyarlathotep

Christian4251 - Historical

Christian4251 - Historical evidence is there Jesus claimed to be God we know this not only from Christian sources but Jews, Roman historic writings, and he rose from the dead.

There are 0 contemporary sources for the character of Jesus.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 10:43

(Reply to #89) #90

LogicFTW

I guess that depends on your

I guess that depends on your definition of evidence. A commonly accepted definition of evidence is: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Lets do a short list, evidence for your particular denomination of god, (hey you mentioned Christ,) so its not any god, but the god depicted in various forms of the Christianity bible:
- a couple of similar books that says god revealed him self in Christ
- we exist

Evidence that there is no christian god.
- 1000's more books that say there is no god, or that their particular god is the one true god, not the christian god.
- we exist, (sorry your christian god does not get to monopolize that idea!)
- zero testable evidence that proves your god
- a mountain of testable, repeatable evidence that contradicts your god and his actions as depicted in the various holy books that describe your god
- 1000's of reasoning flaws, logic flaws, and contradictions in various bibles that describe your god.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 11:13

(Reply to #90) #91

mykcob4

@christian4251

@christian4251
What fucking Roman historical writings? There ARE no Roman historical writings about jesus or anybody that claimed that they were the "son of god." Also the only reference to "jesus the son of god" is in the bible which was written nearly 4 centuries AFTER the character jesus supposedly lived. So there are no jewish writings about "jesus the son of god."
There is NO evidence that there is or ever was a god, let alone "more" evidence. Provide such evidence that you claim. BTW there won't be any evidence "against god" ( I assume you mean evidence against a god existing), because you cannot prove a negative.
I could say to you that there is a billion mile invisible purple cow behind the sun that controls everything in the universe. You would say "prove it", and I would respond "prove that there isn't." You see I would be asking you to prove a negative or disprove something. That doesn't make sense.
So don't ask anyone to prove that there isn't a god. Which also exposes the nonsense of your statement "There is 0 evidence for saying there isn't a God.". There is no reason to provide evidence that there is no god. The myth or the claim is that there IS a god, now it is up to YOU to fucking prove it. I can say that there is no god all day long and I would be 1005 accurate until YOU fucking produce a god!
And, BTW plenty of people die for a lie. The NAZIs for about 3 million examples, but there have been billions of people that have died for a lie.
Look christian4251, don't come on this forum and just be another theist dumbass. We get plenty of those assholes. No theist that has come to this forum has ever proved ANYTHING. Not counting their failed attempts at proving a god. They haven't even proved jesus. They haven't proved one miracle. They haven't even proved Noah or Moses.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages