Something almost certainly cannot come from nothing (no laws of physics, no God etc.) So God cannot create something from nothing and God cannot exist in nothing. An all-powerful God likely doesn't exist. As the universe couldn't have come from nothing it probably always existed.
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.
You can not possibly know if something can come from nothing. There are no examples of nothing anywhere. To make the assertion you must demonstrate evidence for this thing you are calling nothing. Where is it, what are it's properties and how do we find it.
What we do know is that there is nothing called nothing anywhere in our universe. What we once thought was nothing is actually something. What is most fascinating about this something is that something actually appears in it all the time and we don't actually know where the something comes from.
The theory I read asserts that energy hits the Higgs field and this causes it to slow down and become something. It says something for a while and then fades out of existence again/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxnFFX6ARQY
Empty space is full of energy and particles. Something does come from what we know as empty space.
I don't claim to know If something can come from nothing. You misunderstand the argument. I say that it doesn't look likely that something can come from nothing. Two very different things: In science everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence (as per the Kalam not that I agree with the Kalam being agnostic-atheist.)
"There are no examples of nothing anywhere."
Exactly so how can someone claim that something can likely come from nothing when 1) There is no evidence of nothing. 2) There is no evidence of something coming from nothing. 3) People who claim that God can exist in nothing misunderstand the definition of "nothing". Nothing means no God etc.
Thanks for the link.
Nothing is always exactly what it seems. Does nothing really matter, though? True, some would say everything matters, unless – of course – there is something that can explain anything in relation to something else. After all, if you have anything worth something, then most everything else falls into place, leaving nothing left to consider. On the other hand, if you already have nothing, then most everything must be considered in order to get anything. For some people, nothing stands in the way of anything they want in life. They see something they want, and in their minds anything is possible. This makes everything seem very easy for them, and nothing can change their minds. Yep, for them it is all or nothing. They plan out anything and everything with nothing left to chance. Naturally, however, anything can happen, and eventually something comes along and screws up everything, often leaving them with nothing. And when you get down to having absolutely nothing, something makes you realize that just about anything and everything does matter. So, in effect, it would seem nothing really matters.
Thu, 11/22/2018 - 23:57
Strong Atheist "Something almost certainly cannot come from nothing"
Fri, 11/23/2018 - 06:54
Strong Atheist "I don't claim to know If something can come from nothing."
Hmmm...you can see why we're getting a mixed message.
Dude "almost certainly" and "know"...
Okay,,,, Issue number 2: "Why atheism is almost certainly true." Do you actually not understand what atheism is? This is a bizarre comment for anyone who actually understands atheism. It makes you look like a troll or someone who thinks they have recently "CONVERTED." There is no conversion as there is nothing to convert to,.
What is "Atheism?" It is a position on a specific claim. Theists claim "God exists." and atheists respond, "I don't believe it." That's it, Nothing more.
So is it true that I do not believe theist claims. Well, so far I have not found any God claims that are worth believing. That is true and therefore the fact that I do not believe theist claims is true. By virtue of my non-belief. atheism is obviously true. If it was not true I would believe theist claims and be a theist.
Do you actually know what you are talking about? You sound a bit ignorant of atheism, what it is and / or how to express yourself clearly.
The better way to phrase agnostic-atheism is to say that it means "I believe that God almost certainly doesn't exist". I still leave a chance for there being a God. Maybe we live in the Matrix and in the real world outside of it there is a God, fairies and goblins. "Disbelief" doesn't mean you know for certain that there is no God or that you believe 100% that there is no God. Richard Dawkins is a 6/7 remember?
I would challenge that you are ignorant of atheism and haven't thought about it enough:
"atheism is obviously true." Not for certain. Prove it.
I'm willing to take his word for it. If he tells me Pepsi tastes better (to him) than Coke, I accept that as true. If he tells me he don't believe in god, I accept that as true. There is pretty much nowhere else to go with it, unless we want to consider that he might be lying to us about his atheism, or his preferences for soda.
I don't believe god is real, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to believe him when he says the same thing. Now him saying Pepsi tasting better than Coke (to him)? That is a bit harder to believe. Maybe his taste buds are all messed up! :P
You would want to ask him why he thought atheism to be likely true.
He never told me he thought anything was more likely to be true than anything else; where did that come from?
Why Atheism is true has been explained to you twice now. You are having a problem understanding the term. Atheism is a reaction to the theist assertion "God Exists." I say "I do not believe that." There is nothing more to atheism. There is no burden of proof placed on me for not believing a theist claim. I do not believe theist claims and that is "TRUE." Atheism is the position of "not believing theist claims" and that is "True." Atheism is true. If you cannot see that, you are using some obscure definition of Atheism and are not talking about the same thing that has been explained to you several times.
Are you claiming to know atheism is true for certain?
How dense are you? All the frigging posts again. Make a game out of it. See if you can wrap you mind around it.
Wow.... You guys are making this way more complicated than it really is. Look.....
It is true that I do not believe in any gods. However, I do believe it is true that other people believe their particular god is true. And while any belief may seem true to the person believing it, the truth is that many beliefs are indeed not true at all. In that same respect, not believing in something that has been proven to be true is not the same as not believing in something that has not been proven to be true. Regardless of the lack of belief in any truth or untruth, it is not required for the non-believer to prove or disprove any truth or untruth in respects to the lack of said belief, because the truth is that the truth speaks for itself whether it is believed or not. So, believe me when I say it is absolutely true I do not believe in any gods, for I detect no truth in the claims of those who believe gods to be true. Also, it is true I believe it is only fair that believers be allowed to believe in whatever gods they believe to be true, just as long as they do not require me to believe their beliefs are true. Believe me, I am truly comfortable and happy with my lack of belief in what you believers believe to be true. And that is absolutely true whether you believe it or not. True story.
Now, see how easy that is?
Strong Atheist: "Richard Dawkins is a 6/7 remember?"
On a talk show, or discussion show, I'll have to find the video unless someone else finds it first, Richard Dawkins updated his ranking to a 6.9/7.
Me, I am a 6.99999999999999999999999999999999...
rmfr
I am 7 out 7. I do not believe in perfect knowledge of all possibilities, but I realized saying 6.9(repeating to the trillions) after 7 is a actually a confusing and misleading number, making people think that I actually do believe in a remote possibility of someone's particular god idea even if it was very small. I do not, I operate very confidently that there is no god idea at all, and it has served me very well.
If someone told me I owed them a million dollars and they offered zero real proof of it, I would not say: "i am 99.99(etc) percent sure I do not owe you 1 million dollars" I would say: fat chance no way I am giving you 1 million dollars, without proof on your end why the hell would I even consider giving you 1 million dollars? The whole concept is ridiculous, why would you loan me 1 million dollars without any real proof that I owe that to you? Just like any person's god idea is ridiculous for similar reasons except the stakes are much higher than a mere money.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@Arakish
You're just encouraging the theists with that .000...000001. That's the part of their god that lives in your heart, the part you deny because you love to sin, the part they will cling to in order to redeem your sorry soul, which if they redeem will win them love in heaven and make one less screaming victim they might hear suffering eternally in hell.
Sod the correctness of debate, you really think that .000...001 index represents a supernatural being that lives outside time and space which it created? Yoouu devvilll.
Actually, it was just a "play on numbers." Then again, there is no such thing as "absolute certainty." However, for all intents and purposes, I am a 7/7.
rmfr
I never really doubted you. :)
Atheism is simply an absence or lack of belief. This cannot be asserted as true or false. Only the belief can be true or false, the lack of it is the position one takes based on whether or not you belive the assertion that a deity or deities exist is true or not.
"Something almost certainly cannot come from nothing"
I don't know if something can come from nothing, and must remain agnostic on the claim. A great deal depends on precisely how "nothing" is defined here, a literal negation of everything would be hard to conceive, but impossible to test.
"God cannot create something from nothing"
The assertion is impossible to evidence, as again no one can accurately define a deity, or demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. The claim itself also has no explanatory powers at all. Thus I don't believe any deity exists, and dismiss any unevidenced claims about such deities in the same fashion they're offered.
"As the universe couldn't have come from nothing it probably always existed."
Again this is an unfalsifiable claim. I see no reason to posit a deity creator for the universe anyway as no objective evidence can be demonstrated for one. That alone is sufficient epistemological reason to disbelieve the claim a deity exists.
You are making the kind of arguments we see religious apologists make daily on this site and elsewhere. It's not necessary to disprove something that no one can demonstrate any evidence for.
See above my def of atheism.
I defined nothing in the argument as "lack of the laws of physics (energy, matter; a universe), lack of God -- lack of anything. It's a meaningless word really . How would nothing produce something? It doesn't make any sense. See my new above post.
If something cannot likely come from nothing then it doesn't look likely that there could be a God that could create something from nothing. It's an extremely good argument imo. You're an agnostic about "nothing". But there is no evidence for nothing!
It's impossible to evidence? Why is that? A God is defined as something which is all-powerful - can do anything - and is intelligent. But how can I belief this statement is likely: 'That anything is possible': I don't.
"Again this is an unfalsifiable claim."
If something could come from nothing then the universe didn't always exist. There we go falsified.
" I see no reason to posit a deity creator for the universe anyway as no objective evidence can be demonstrated for one."
That would be the point of my argument, to show just that: No evidence for nothing, no evidence that something can come from nothing, no evidence of a God being able to do this and finally no evidence of a God existing at all.
"You are making the kind of arguments we see religious apologists make daily on this site and elsewhere. It's not necessary to disprove something that no one can demonstrate any evidence for."
Incorrect I've shown you otherwise. Of course we want to disprove God altogether that would be the ultimate goal of atheism and a goal of science.
Thanks, but I don't need you to define atheism, it's in the dictionary and I can read, and I happen to be an atheist. If you think nothing is a meaningless word then ought not to make broad assertions using it,, which is rather my point. If you use phrases like "almost certainly", then the degree of evidential proof would have to be commensurate. It's enough for me to know that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, thus I don't believe any deity or deities exist. I don't really need to talk about probability when something is presented without evidence, and the arguments offered are deeply flawed and irrational, and therefor not at all compelling.
"If something cannot likely come from nothing "
How did you determine this? Again you have just said the word nothing is "pretty meaningless" and obviously cannot test this in any way?
" It's an extremely good argument imo"
No it isn't, it;s a deeply flawed argument, you are making claims without proper evidence. This is precisely the type of false dichotomy fallacies I see theists use again and again.
"You're an agnostic about "nothing". But there is no evidence for nothing!"
I think you're inaccurately paraphrasing what I said, I said I don't know if something can come from nothing, as it appears to be an unfalsifiable claim, and I am necessarily an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims.
"It's impossible to evidence? Why is that? "
"That would be the point of my argument, to show just that: No evidence for nothing, no evidence that something can come from nothing, no evidence of a God being able to do this and finally no evidence of a God existing at all."
Except you then made a claim, rather than simply stating you didn't believe a deity existed. You seem confused about the difference.
I said it was possible to test, do have any objective evidence for your claim that something cannot come from nothing? How would you test that? It sounds like the realm of theoretical physics to me, are you a theoretical physicist? I have seen theists make similar claims that science evidences their positions both you and they are wrong. Science no more disproves the existence of a deity than it disproves the existence of unicorns.
"A God is defined as something which is all-powerful - can do anything - and is intelligent. But how can I belief this statement is likely: 'That anything is possible': I don't."
Neither do I, and for the reasons explained. I am an atheist but you are making claims about a deity and how likely it is to exist, I am not.
"Incorrect I've shown you otherwise. Of course we want to disprove God altogether that would be the ultimate goal of atheism and a goal of science."
Everything in that sentence is incorrect, firstly science is defined as the systematic study of the natural physical world and universe, so anything supernatural is by definition unscientific because it is generally based on unfalsifiable claims. Atheism has no ultimate goal, it is simply the lack of one single belief, this might be your ultimate goal as an atheist but it cannot be attached to atheism in general. I am an atheist and this is certainly not my ultimate goal at all. Your claims are unevidenced and your arguments generalised and flawed, very much the kind of fallacies and assumptions I see theists use repeatedly on here and elsewhere. I was offering my opinion and have again explained why, so simply rejecting it as incorrect is pretty meaningless.
Sheldon,
"I don't know if something can come from nothing, and must remain agnostic on the claim. A great deal depends on precisely how "nothing" is defined here, a literal negation of everything would be hard to conceive, but impossible to test."
See, this is where people let sloppy thinking take over. If you believe in the Big Bang theory then everything was in a single ball and it was surrounded by nothing. That is because everything was in the single ball.
Then the single ball went "bang" and blew stuff out into the void where there was nothing. Over time the stuff is expanding into the void of nothing in every direction. Therefore, under the Big Bang theory wherever there isn't something from the Big Bang there is nothing. So the Big Bang theory proves that nothing exists if you accept the Big Bang theory as true. The guy who came up with that religious theory of creation never thought about that.
There is no celestial deity of any kind, especially in this solar system.
Actually there was no bang, the phrase big bang was originally coined as a disparagement of the theory.
I think we can only say that gods do not meaningfully exist as far as they are given properties that contradict the phenomenal world - in my view, all gods defined as supernatural beings do this. But arguments based purely on the meaning of words are not especially satisfying.
Exactly, like being able to create something out of "nothing".
Strong Atheist,
People create something out of "nothing" all the time on internet forums. I have yet to see all posters on any internet forum agree 100% on any issue.
i disagree a little bit here, if supernatural beings were ever to exist, their interactions with the natural would certainly leave clues that can't be explained, right?
For exemple creationists assert that radioactive decay can arbitraly vary in time. Sudden rise of it would leave pattern i think, but yeah, it i but my humble opinion.
I had a creationist tell me that thermodynamics didn't exist before Adam ate the apple. All I could cough out was something to the effect: I guess neither did heat, temperature, pressure, motion, volume, etc.
Which kind of makes sense to me in a weird way: if you are going to go with magic as your explanation, you might as well pack in as much magic as you can! Get your money's worth!
They will say anything lol. So why are they so adamant to tech creationism in science classes?
Pages