I'm going to reword my OP, so I can have a single argument with all I've learned from this, instead of answering every question:
-We have something instead of nothing.
-This something we have, reality, is either self-existent, or was created by something self-existent. There is no option C, for reality is neither an illusion nor self-created (nothing can create itself.)
-If reality were self-existent, with no cause, then why is it based upon cause and effect? How can something that has no cause, and is not an effect, be ruled by such logic? Does the law of cause and effect not apply to itself?
-This leads me to believe something supernatural, outside of the laws of cause and effect, created the universe. What can we infer about this force from what its created? It is eternal (it existed before time as we know it), immaterial (it created material itself), and omnipresent (it is not bound to science.) It is self aware and purposeful (it was able to, and chose, to formulate the universe.) Inferred from ourselves, we know it is personal, for the impersonal cannot create the personal. It is loving, for it created beings in its image (us) who share its qualities, and actively seeks to connect with us.
This fits the biblical God, and those of other religions. So why Christianity? I believe we are all sinners in need of a savior, and Jesus is that savior. When we sin against God, we bring sorrow to ourselves and to Him. He disciplines us, not for obedience, but out of discipline, so that we may return to Him. Its when we never accept Him in the first place that His wrath is brought upon us. The hardships brought upon the world are from our own actions, and its God's discipline for us, so we don't destroy ourselves. Hell is the punishment for those who never repent, and chose a life of worshiping evil. If there was no discipline, and no threat of eternal punishment for a lifetime of evil, how many would repent? None. How could we live good lives by choosing evil? Darkness has no relations with light. We cannot make up the evil we do, so we must trust God to have mercy on us; and He did, through Jesus.
I hope this answers all the questions I've got. If not, ill try to do so. I realize I misunderstood some of your questions, but I did read them.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Machoke
"a Creator is the only viable option for the creation of the universe. "
Why?
"a non-sentient and impersonal universe could not create such personal beings as humans"
What are your grounds for this extraordinary claim?
Hello. As I said, something can't come from nothing, so something eternal must exist. All science points towards the universe having a beginning, and it could not have created itself, nor come into reality from no cause. Therfore, an eternal Creator is the only real option. As for humans, "Only Mind can create mind." How can a universe that exploded into existence, by chance, create beings full of such purpose and meaning and emotion? Anyways, why would such a universe have laws and order? And its assumed that by the slimmest chance the Earth is in the perfect location, the moon the perfect size, for Earth to evolve such beings? These are off-track questions I have for the debate of evolutiob and a self-occurring big bang.
So just because everything happened conveniently, there must be a god that caused it all?
Assuming there's no Creator, and the universe is eternal, then I suppose it could have happened by chance. But as far as the points I've made are concerned, an eternal universe is impossible, with evidence from the studies of the universe's start ing point. Tieing into your first point, besides all time and space proving it to be true, it could indeed be possible for something to come from nothing, but either way that's leaning towards the supernatural.
I don't see why an eternal universe is impossible, and I fail to see why you can apply eternal to a sentient being but not the universe itself. As for the starting point, you are correct there is a center but the Big Bang also coincides with the Big Crunch theory that states the universe will constantly expand then close in only to expand once again. I don't see why the universe couldn't be "eternal," in those regards. Also why does something have to be eternal? Time and space doesn't prove that something can't come from nothing, and it doesn't lean towards the super natural. If you wish to give me a more specific example I'd be happy to answer in a more concise manner.
Interesting theory. Ill have to think about that as I go to sleep for today. Although, I'd like to leave this quote from Lee Strobel: “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason." These are the reasons I don't believe in a self-existing universe. Thanks for pointing me to these new arguments. Ill be here tomorrow if you have anything else to add.
Machoke,
Why couldn't "nothing," taken as a quantum vacuum, produce something from time to time? Aren't you assuming that the philosopher's absolute nothing applies to reality? How do you know that? If the philosopher's absolute nothing is meaningless in reality, then from that point of view something must have always existed, nature's version of nothing. Nature could not get lower than its own idea of nothing.
Once the Big Bang emerges from the quantum world, all the rest of our universe-building follows.
Why can't non-life produce life? Aren't you drawing a huge, imaginary wall between the two states? It appears that the boundary is really very fuzzy, and scenarios have already been proposed that might bridge the gap. Given the fuzzy boundary between life and non-life (scientists have difficulty drawing the line), and given that the science of abiogenesis (origin of life) is quite new, does it really make sense to say that a breakthrough won't happen in the next 200 years? The fact that life appears in the fossil record very shortly after the last of the great meteorite bombardment (which would exterminate any life), is a strong argument against the origin of life being hugely improbable.
How does randomness produce fine tuning? Can you give some examples?
How does chaos produce information? Can you give some examples?
If consciousness is an emergent property, why couldn't unconsciousness produce consciousness by way of evolution? When we look at simpler and simpler brains, the animal owners seem to have less and less consciousness. Maybe consciousness arises from unconsciousness when enough neurons are present, even as heat arises from velocity in the micro world and becomes a new quality in the macro world.
A reasoning person reasons just as well whether he is the product of evolution or specifically created. Non-reason doesn't produce reason, but it is perfectly capable of producing animals and people who can reason. Even primitive reasoning would have survival value for some creatures, and under the right conditions evolution would hone that reasoning ability.
It's inconceivable that something could come from nothing. But that's a limitation of our minds, not the universe. We simply can't conceive something coming from nothing, or that nothing doesn't mean a big empty space, but rather no time, and no space.
As human beings, we live in a world of cause and effect governed by time. That limits our perceptions. So we try to understand everything from that perspective. Something exists now. Therefore something must have created it. That's how we invent gods. But inventing a god to explain something you don't understand is like borrowing from a loan shark to pay off your credit card debt. You still have the same problem. God created the universe. What created god? What created whatever created god. And so on.
If something exists, even finite, it must have always existed or have been created. There's no conceivable way something can create itself, or pop into existence. This means the universe must have always existed, even in different forms, or a force must have always existed that can create universes. The universe, by evidence, is believed to have a starting point, meaning its finite. This is where theories of how a universe can come into existence, or always exist, come into play. Assuming those to be incorrect, that leaves us with a force outside of all understanding that creates the reality we live in. Can we infer something about that force by what it creates? Yes. Its a force that can create matter, energy, and life. It can create beings like us who are personal and self-questioning. How can the impersonal create the personal? Lets say a force creates an animal. The animal can be scientifically dissected for every molecule its made of. But how can a force that's unable to think create beings able to question their own existence? Can matter create mind? Surely it can make neurons, allowing life to function. But where do animals evolve from unquestioning factors of nature to moral, loving beings?
@Machoke
" There's no conceivable way something can create itself, or pop into existence."
Again, the operative word here is "conceivable." We can't conceive it. We can't imagine it. But that inability is a quality of us, not of the universe. To paraphrase Haldane, the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we CAN imagine. Can you conceive infinity, eternity? Can you conceive more than three dimensions? God is a figment of our three-dimensional, linear, time-constrained consciousness.
You keep using loaded words like "create" and "force". That's begging the question, really. You haven't actually offered any proof that such a force exists, let alone creates anything, but you're using that so-called creative "force" as the premise for all of your arguments.
Actually impersonal matter turns into personal matter all the time. Some of the impersonal food that you eat today will turn into your personal muscles, bones and brain. Animals, including ourselves, use food to produce reproductive cells that can grow into entirely new thinking, feeling beings. This is truly amazing. As humans we are naturally curious, and we desperately want to know how all this got started. Finding those answers will be really hard work, and perhaps a bit frightening. Religion is the easy way out, because it tells you don't need to think anymore. The answer's god. No more questions. That doesn't satisfy me at all. How about you?
Machoke,
The universe we know about traces back to an origin about 13.4 billion years ago; what we don't know about might well have eternal existence. The nature of a vacuum affected by quantum fluctuations not only fits in with the laws of nature but does not lead to an infinite regress as does the God explanation.
The Hawaiian islands are volcanoes. They weren't created by a sentient being, they are the product of pure chaos. They didn't always exist and they weren't created, so they "popped" into existence. How else do you explain them?
Machoke - "Hello. As I said, something can't come from nothing, so something eternal must exist."
1. Why can't something come from nothing ? Why is your eternal something not amenable to the very same law you laid out?
2. Why do you postulate that there is an eternal something that made our universe. If something did give rise to our something it need not be eternal it could be finite and that finite something in turn was made by a finite something and so on .
You started the thread with a claim not proof.
Hey!
Maybe to try to help clear it up, you're asking why something can not come from nothing? If you have nothing, then there is exactly that, nothing. Therefore, how or what would "something" come about or be made of?
It is impossible for something to cause itself to exist, right? Because that would be a contradiction, and all contradictions are impossible.
As for the claim that an eternal being made our universe, it would have to be so. Our universe is made up of effects, and every effect is dependent upon a cause. Therefore, there MUST be an "uncaused cause" to begin the universe, otherwise once again, we would be nothing.
Nothing can do nothing.
Todos: "As for the claim that an eternal being made our universe, it would have to be so. Our universe is made up of effects, and every effect is dependent upon a cause. Therefore, there MUST be an "uncaused cause" to begin the universe, otherwise once again, we would be nothing. "
Why does it have to be one "uncaused cause"? If it is possible for one eternal being or cause to exist then it is possible for two, three, dozens, hundreds.
Hmm let's look at it this way. Before the universe existed, there was nothing except this uncaused cause (or as you would say, multiple uncaused causes).
Keeping in mind that the distance from nothingness to something is infinite, so to cause something to exist, you would require infinite power, and existence outside of time Thus...the uncaused cause(s)
Let's talk about a being having infinite power. For a being to have infinite power, it would have no limitations. It would be impossible for two beings to have this, because then in order to distinguish between them, one would have to possess a power the other didn't have. This would create a limit on one of them.
That's why there must be only one uncaused cause, for it to have the power to cause existence.
Establishes scientific theory suggests nothingness is unstable and teeming with virtual particles jumping in and out of existence. Its the bases of Hawkins radiation to explain law of conservation of energy at the event Horizon of a Black hole.
1. Which means your postulation that nothing cannot produce something is wrong.Something can come from noting.
2. Your Uncaused cause is harder to explain than a multiple series of caused finite causes. Thus by Ockham's razor is more valid.
3. Finally you just presumed what is possible and what is not. There is no evidence backing any of the claims you made.All your claims I have refuted with established scientific work but your are just claims. Prove any 1
"Something cannot be created from nothing"
This statement is completely unfounded, I'd like to ask for any supporting evidence that proves ,100%, that something can't be created from nothing
Seenyab4,
This statement is not unfounded, and is merely logic. 0×0=? ... 0×0=0 if you have nothing, then you cannot expect something to come of it.
As for proof? I think the natural way of the universe is enough proof, if you don't have any apples, then the only way you'll get some is by someone else giving it to you, or you getting some from an apple tree. You can't magically hope that apples will zap into existence. I think a more appropriate question would be for you to supple some proof or evidence of a case where something DID come from nothing.
Todos:
If your religion is true, then god came from nothing and created something. How did that work? Or was god created by something else before god? If so, what created that, and where is it now? Do we get any closer to understanding the origin of the universe by following this imagined chain of causality?
And for your information, as atheists we're simply saying that we don't believe your mumbo-jumbo. I don't think anyone here is trying to sell atheism to you. Proselytizing is a religious behavior. So we have nothing to prove. We're not the ones with elaborate sky fairy myths and a compulsion to impose our will on others.
It is believed that God didn't "come" from anywhere, right? That would imply that he wasn't present at a time. He is the Uncaused cause
On another note, calling out someone's beliefs, calling them "mumbo-jumbo" is nothing but childish. Obviously no one here is selling atheism to me, I came here on my own, and it wouldn't matter because personally, I'm not buying. Also, although an impressive word, proselytizing is a behavior found in anybody that believes they are correct, which you obviously do.
As for nothing to prove? Really? How do you explain the universe?
Just looking for interesting conversation my friend!
@Todos
"calling out someone's beliefs, calling them "mumbo-jumbo" is nothing but childish."
No. It's a measured negative response to the continual demands of the religious that their beliefs (i.e. mumbo jumbo) are somehow especially deserving of respect. I don't respect the beliefs of any religion. The word "Mumbo Jumbo" was originally the name of a West African god, but it came to be used derogatively by christians to describe so-called pagan religious rituals, and more recently incomprehensible jargon. So I think it pretty well describes my view of all religions. I don't particularly care what beliefs you have, and I'm not concerned whether you accept mine or not. All I demand from theists is to leave me alone, but unfortunately that's often too difficult for them. Proselytizing is a behavior found in anybody that believes they are correct and has a compulsion to impose their supposed correctness on others.
"It is believed that God didn't "come" from anywhere, right?"
That's a curious use of the passive. Are you implying that everybody believes that? If so, you can count me out. First you say that nothing can come from nothing. Then you say that god didn't come from anywhere and is the "uncaused cause". Doesn't that seems contradictory even to you?
Alright. You say you want theists to leave you alone, so I will. However, you did initiate the argument.
"A measured negative response"? No need to make it complicated, it's name calling.
"I don't respect the beliefs of any religion"
And somehow you expect the religious to respect your beliefs and leave you alone?
All I demand (since apparently we can do that of other people) is that you look for the truth, no matter where it is. Sorry if that's too whimsical for ya, and that I can't explain my beliefs to you without offending you.
"you did initiate the argument."
No. Machoke initiated the argument. I joined in. So did you. This is the Debate Room after all.
I want theists to leave me alone by not coming to my door with Watchtower or the Book of Mormon and other assorted nonsense. I also want all religious influence out of government and public schools. That's what I mean by leaving me alone. Name calling? If you like. No I don't expect the religious to respect my beliefs and leave me alone. They never have in the past. I'm apparently evil, mad, bad and amoral, and I'm going to burn in hell forever. How's that for respect? Returning the favor is the least I can do. Unfortunately cretinanity is still the mainstream in the West, and religidiots still wield a lot of influence where they shouldn't.
you know what the great apostle paul said that it is foolish to people like your self who haven`t been enlightened,why are you so arrogant concerning the things of god.remember you only have this life while us christians have eternal life.If i were you I would repent and come to Jesus now.Your arguments make no sense for atheism all you 10% have nihilism you also have no moral absolutes, any thing goes that`s why the world is in the lousy shape morally because of you know nothing teachers spilling your poison to vulnerable kids who no, No better.
"it is foolish to people like your self who haven`t been enlightened"
The 13 short years I was religious were plenty enough for me to realize that religion can't enlighten anything. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "Lighthouses are more useful than religion."
"why are you so arrogant concerning the things of god"
Why are you so arrogant to assume you are correct?
"remember you only have this life while us christians have eternal life"
I fear you will be disappointed to find that you and I share the same number of lives, my religiously affected friend.
"If i were you I would repent and come to Jesus now"
Then I'm glad your not me.
"Your arguments make no sense for atheism "
I find it far fetched that a religious person would know what makes sence for atheisum.
"all you 10% have nihilism"
Nihilism is a philosophical position. There are such things as "Nihilistic Atheists". Bit not all atheists are nihilistic.
"you also have no moral absolutes"
Hint Hint: Moral Relatively.
"that`s why the world is in the lousy shape morally"
Did you seriously just try to blame the shape the world is in on 13% of the population?! And, to say atheists are responsible for the shape the world is in is like blaming this years politics on the melting ice caps.
"spilling your poison to vulnerable kids"
A Catholic is trying to lecture me about spilling poison to kids? How extremely ironic.........
Great Depression
free trade
peacekeeper missile
sweet tart
crash landing
now then
butt head
sweet sorrow
student teacher
Jumbo shrimp
silent scream
taped live
alone together
good grief
Military intelligence
living dead
near miss
old news
criminal justice
Sceptical christian
It took me 3 whole minutes to realize that was a list of oxymorons........
Context clues, CyberLN! Context clues!
Three minutes? Oh, Tieler, step it up! ;-)
Good one :)
Pages