Here is something you cannot rationally doubt; Out of absolute nothingness comes nothing

[MindOverMatter2]

Can we honestly give rational doubt to this fact?

From that which is absolutely nothing, nothing comes. Atheism survives only by denial of this fact.

 

[Impertinens]

First of all, there is nothing in this “fact” that makes it obviously true: I happen to agree with it, but one who rejected this postulate would not be in manifest logical error for that.

Secondly, that postulate is in effect entirely compatible with atheism. Even if we accept that “From that which is absolutely nothing, nothing comes”, it does not follow that there exists a Creator with the properties associated to such an entity by the traditional religions.

One could, for example, argue that matter could be eternal instead; or that the Laws of Nature are; or even that there is an infinite chain of entities each one of which owes its existence to the next one.

 

[JDaniel]

First of all, there is nothing in this “fact” that makes it obviously true: I happen to agree with it, but one who rejected this postulate would not be in manifest logical error for that.

Secondly, that postulate is in effect entirely compatible with atheism. Even if we accept that “From that which is absolutely nothing, nothing comes”, it does not follow that there exists a Creator with the properties associated to such an entity by the traditional religions.

With all due respect, Impertinens, there must be a First Cause that is itself uncaused. This First uncaused Cause must be Infinite, as that which is equal to, or less than, that which exists cannot be causal of that which exists. That is known to us both logically and intuitively.

What is more, that which is created occurs by a completely different process than other things that come about by causal means. The effects of causation require the pre-supposition of matter and form, i.e., pre-existing stuff. All things that are caused by less than creative means possess all four primary causes, including agency and purpose. Name for me anything that is caused without agency. Name for me anything that is in being without purpose.

Creation is, and has always been understood to be, the ONLY form of causation that does not pre-suppose anything except a Creator. And, there is no stuff of the Creator within the creature. Thus, where there was nothing, something comes to be. Now, this superb Power is either a mindless, thoughtless, non-purpose providing, exigency, or, it is a mindful, thoughtful, purpose-providing exigency. There is absolutely no logic or grounding for the former. There is only logic and grounding for the latter.

One could, for example, argue that matter could be eternal instead;

One can unconditionally assert anything. The best way to refute unconditional assertions is to unconditionally deny them. Matter is a multitude. Thus, it is finite. If matter were to be creative, it would have to surpass its creatures. It does not. Besides, matter is itself an effect. It is not, without a great deal of effort and augmentation, an efficient cause. Matter, on its own, has no agency. Matter, on its own, confers no purpose. Matter, left to its own devices, is subject to the most difficult of causes to reconcile, pure Chance.

or that the Laws of Nature are;

“Laws” are creative? It is unimaginable how.

or even that there is an infinite chain of entities each one of which owes its existence to the next one.

To properly understand “infinity,” “infinite,” or any other variations of that word, one must be fully aware that we could not possibly be here now as part of an “infinite chain.” Getting to this here and now, would take an infinity. But, an infinity is not a whole number. It is that which has no beginning, no end, no middle, no parts, no stopping point, no stopping off point, no past, no future, no time (only duration, in the widest sense of that word), no prior to, no next, nothing that we could conceivably think to be a positive property.

God bless,
jd

 

[Impertinens]

Ah, but here you are adding additional postulates, that an hypothetical atheist could easily object to.

For example, when you say

JDaniel:

This First uncaused Cause must be Infinite, as that which is equal to, or less than, that which exists cannot be causal of that which exists. That is known to us both logically and intuitively.

In which sense, precisely, are you using the terms “equal” or “less than”? These are obviously not mere size quantifiers, but what do they mean precisely? And how do you even know that entities can be ordered with respect to this unspecified metric, and that this metric is in the relation that you describe with the “causation” relationship?

I am starting to get sleepy, so I will not discuss the rest of your post now - I will tomorrow, maybe. But what I am getting at is, understanding the properties and the nature of the causal relationship is no trivial matter, and the argument suggested by the OP is by no means a “magic bullet” against atheism. It can be turned into a fully formal argument, and Catholic Theology did it, but that takes quite more work than that - and even then, the argument hinges over a number of philosophical assumption that are by no means uncontroversial.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

First of all, there is nothing in this “fact” that makes it obviously true: I happen to agree with it, but one who rejected this postulate would not be in manifest logical error for that.

Hello Impertinens.

First of all, do you agree that there is such a thing as a timeless truth? For example do you agree that 2 + 2 - so long as we understand those numbers as definite irreducible quantities - will always equal “4”? If you agree, then you must admit that such truths can only be an expression of a timeless eternal “being”, because there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, and anything which begins to exist cannot be the cause of a timeless truth.

Secondly; if we agree that there is absolutely nothing, then we cannot logically admit that anything but nothing can exist of it. In other-words, the absence of existence cannot bring forth into existence that which it is absent of. To say that it could, would be to attribute powers, potentialities, and possibilities, to that which is absolutely absent of powers/potentialities/possibilities - in so far as it is defined as absolutely nothing. Thus to suggest that such were possible would intrinsically amount to being anti-logical, and “anti-being”, since the suggestion in itself would admit of there being no qualitative difference between nothing and something; which would also undermine the meaning of difference. In other-words, difference would no-longer exist if such were true, and “truth” would lose meaning as a result. Any knowledge reliant on the existence of difference as a foundation would absolutely collapse (including the sciences, since they proceed in knowledge by measuring difference, quantity, etc).

Fortunately it is self evident that there is such a thing as difference and thus there is necessarily such a thing as being opposed to non “being”. As such is the case, we cannot logically or objectively attribute to “nothing” anything which we attribute to being/reality/existence. Thus we can only attribute possibility, potentiality, power, and most importantly causality, to that which has “being”.

Thus i can say that out of nothing comes nothing. Those who disagree, will have to throw away any meaningful notion of being, truth, and difference, and regard these things as illusions. Given that logic and rational thought requires these things in-order to be meaningful and functional, it is impossible to speak of such a disagreement as being logical or rational in its world view. And since it rejects objective difference one cannot look to science for rational support.

These facts, in and of themselves, puts the theist in a rationally sufficient position when providing logical support for the existence of God. Post logical atheism is big now if you didn’t notice. The rejection of the idea that “being” is fundamentally and objectively logical is being challenged as a reaction to arguments concerning Gods existence as the necessary absolute being and cause of the universe. This is evident in writings as late as Humes where he famously challenges causality.

But i will not go in to that until i get some feed back from you. More later.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

With all due respect, Impertinens, there must be a First
Cause that is itself uncaused. jd

(Hello Daniel, I am going to pretend to be an atheist. I will try my best to go easy on you)

Its evident that things come out of nothing all the time. I watched a magician do it once with a rabbit. therefore the un-caused cause is absolutely nothing

This First un-caused Cause must be Infinite, as that which is equal to, or less than, that which exists cannot be causal of that which exists. That is known to us both logically and intuitively.jd

I don’t understand what you mean here? What would you say about the quantum vacuum? Science has proved that Quantum particles come out of nothing, because they say the quantum vacuum is nothing. And evolution proves that more can come from less. Science gives us absolute proofs of this.

What is more, that which is created occurs by a completely different process than other things that come about by causal means. The effects of causation require the pre-supposition of matter and form, i.e., pre-existing stuff. All things that are caused by less than creative means possess all four primary causes, including agency and purpose. Name for me anything that is caused without agency. Name for me anything that is in being without purpose.jd

I refuse to accept this. Its easier to not believe in God; therefore God does not exist. If God wanted us to believe in him he would have made himself more obvious and provable by science.

Creation is, and has always been understood to be, the ONLY form of causation that does not pre-suppose anything except a Creator. jd

This sounds like the flying spaghetti monster

And, there is no stuff of the Creator within the creature. Thus, where there was nothing, something comes to be.jd

Are you now saying that it is possible for something to come out of nothing? Then why is it not possible for the universe to come out of nothing by itself? why does it need God?

Now, this superb Power is either a mindless, thoughtless, non-purpose providing, exigency, or, it is a mindful, thoughtful, purpose-providing exigency. There is absolutely no logic or grounding for the former. There is only logic and grounding for the latter.jd

Science does not have all the answers yet. People thought the world was flat, now we know the world is round. I am sure that science will eventually have a natural explanation. If not, the rational position would be to stay agnostic.

One can unconditionally assert anything. jd

The world popped out of nothing by itself. That’s more reasonable than believing in an almighty bully who gets joy and glory from burning his children in hell fire.

The best way to refute unconditional assertions is to unconditionally deny them.jd

So you simply choose to deny the scientific evidence?

Matter is a multitude.jd

That’s not what Buddhists believe. You are being unfair to other religions

Thus, it is finite. If matter were to be creative, it would have to surpass its creatures. It does not. Besides, matter is itself an effect. It is not, without a great deal of effort and augmentation, an efficient cause. Matter, on its own, has no agency. Matter, on its own, confers no purpose. Matter, left to its own devices, is subject to the most difficult of causes to reconcile, pure Chance.jd

I don’t know what you are saying here? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Science makes a-lot of sense because we have a thing called “evidence”. Metaphysics is just fantasy talk.

“Laws” are creative? It is unimaginable how.jd

Actually we have evidence that “physical laws” created the universe out of nothing. Hawkins new book tells us that the laws of gravity created the universe.

To properly understand “infinity,” “infinite,” or any other variations of that word, one must be fully aware that we could not possibly be here now as part of an "infinite chain."jd

Some mathematicians argue otherwise. They have science degrees; you don’t. Tell me who should I believe?

Getting to this here and now, would take an infinity. But, an infinity is not a whole number. It is that which has no beginning, no end, no middle, no parts, no stopping point, no stopping off point, no past, no future, no time (only duration, in the widest sense of that word), no prior to, no next, nothing that we could conceivably think to be a positive property.

God bless,
jd

Actually its possible for the past to have no beginning. If its possible for the world to come out of nothing, which has been proved by science, then it is possible for there to an infinite pass with no beginning. That’s what the evidence shows. And don’t tell me about anthropomorphic principles or coincidences, since they can be all explained by positing an infinite number of universes.

 

[Thyme]

(Hello Daniel, I am going to pretend to be an atheist. I will try my best to go easy on you).

Amusing

 

[hatsoff]

First of all, do you agree that there is such a thing as a timeless truth? For example do you agree that 2 + 2 - so long as we understand those numbers as definite irreducible quantities - will always equal “4”? If you agree, then you must admit that such truths can only be an expression of a timeless eternal “being”, because there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing, and anything which begins to exist cannot be the cause of a timeless truth.

If we understand truths as true statements, then although there are truths which are not dependent on time, there are no truths which have existed for all time, since no statement has existed for all time.

 

[JDaniel]

If we understand truths as true statements, then although there are truths which are not dependent on time, there are no truths which have existed for all time, since no statement has existed for all time.

Hatsoff:

Your limiting definition of Truth is not the primary usage or meaning. In item No. 2, it is merely an example. Nor it is in conformity with almost all of the accepted and acceptable definitions. Below is from dictionary.com.

[trooth] Show IPA

–noun, plural truths  /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled
[troothz, trooths] Show IPA
.

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.

God bless,
jd

 

[hatsoff]

Hatsoff:

Your limiting definition of Truth is not the primary usage or meaning. In item No. 2, it is merely an example. Nor it is in conformity with almost all of the accepted and acceptable definitions. Below is from dictionary.com.

[trooth] Show IPA

–noun, plural truths  /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled
[troothz, trooths] Show IPA
.

1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.

God bless,
jd

So, which of those eleven different definitions would you like to use?

 

[wanstronian]

(Hello Daniel, I am going to pretend to be an atheist. I will try my best to go easy on you)

Its evident that things come out of nothing all the time. I watched a magician do it once with a rabbit. therefore the un-caused cause is absolutely nothing

I don’t understand what you mean here? What would you say about the quantum vacuum? Science has proved that Quantum particles come out of nothing, because they say the quantum vacuum is nothing. And evolution proves that more can come from less. Science gives us absolute proofs of this.

I refuse to accept this. Its easier to not believe in God; therefore God does not exist. If God wanted us to believe in him he would have made himself more obvious and provable by science.

This sounds like the flying spaghetti monster

Are you now saying that it is possible for something to come out of nothing? Then why is it not possible for the universe to come out of nothing by itself? why does it need God?

Science does not have all the answers yet. People thought the world was flat, now we know the world is round. I am sure that science will eventually have a natural explanation. If not, the rational position would be to stay agnostic.

The world popped out of nothing by itself. That’s more reasonable than believing in an almighty bully who gets joy and glory from burning his children in hell fire.

So you simply choose to deny the scientific evidence?

That’s not what Buddhists believe. You are being unfair to other religions

I don’t know what you are saying here? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Science makes a-lot of sense because we have a thing called “evidence”. Metaphysics is just fantasy talk.

Actually we have evidence that “physical laws” created the universe out of nothing. Hawkins new book tells us that the laws of gravity created the universe.

Some mathematicians argue otherwise. They have science degrees; you don’t. Tell me who should I believe?

Actually its possible for the past to have no beginning. If its possible for the world to come out of nothing, which has been proved by science, then it is possible for there to an infinite pass with no beginning. That’s what the evidence shows. And don’t tell me about anthropomorphic principles or coincidences, since they can be all explained by positing an infinite number of universes.

It’s a shame that the current ban on -]free speech/-] discussing atheism is still in effect, as I would love to have the opportunity to destroy your shambolic straw-man misrepresentation of atheism. Not that you’d understand, of course - the perpetuation of your dogma requires that you fail to comprehend that which you attack.

It looks like this whole thread that you’ve started appears to be nothing but an exercise in trolling. I doubt you’ll get much of a bite.

 

[JDaniel]

So, which of those eleven different definitions would you like to use?

They all have verisimilitude. But, the first half of the second one would be my pick.

God bless,
jd

 

[hatsoff]

They all have verisimilitude. But, the first half of the second one would be my pick.

conformity with fact or reality

Unfortunately that definition is rather vague. Conformity of what with reality? Consider any period in prehistory before the dawn of biological life. In that period, were there things which conformed with reality? Well, statements are out, as mentioned previously, because there were no human beings around to make statements. Even symbolic thought doesn’t exist at this time, because there are no brains around to think symbolically. All we have is lifeless stuff. Can a stone conform to reality? Can an ocean? Can space? I don’t know what it would mean to say that.

It seems that even on this broader and more vague definition, truth hasn’t been around forever.

 

[JDaniel]

Ah, but here you are adding additional postulates, that an hypothetical atheist could easily object to.

For example, when you say

In which sense, precisely, are you using the terms “equal” or “less than”? These are obviously not mere size quantifiers, but what do they mean precisely?

Im:

I usually like to use those words precisely in their most rational sense: the creator makes the creature; the painter makes the painting; the sculptor makes the statue; the wolf makes the den; the bird makes the nest; in opposition to the reverse of these.

And how do you even know that entities can be ordered with respect to this unspecified metric, and that this metric is in the relation that you describe with the “causation” relationship?

Are my above examples that difficult for someone to understand? If they are, then it will be impossible to hold a rational conversation with him.

But what I am getting at is, understanding the properties and the nature of the causal relationship is no trivial matter, and the argument suggested by the OP is by no means a “magic bullet” against atheism.

Quite correct. Irrationalism abounds. I think of myself as a precisionist. I feel an increase of frustration when I must deal with non-sense. I’d much prefer to deal with sense. There are quite a few clear thinking, cogent, rational anti-theists in these forums. Many I consider my friends. I would fight for their right of argument. God did not make it easy to embrace him. Science has dazzled us with its ability to turn out nuances at an astounding rate. But, the truth of the matter is, the scientistic worldview believes it can determine what a thing is when it understands how it came about.

Thus, for example, we know who we are once we know who our forefathers were, what knowledge or pain is, if we have understood their biological functions and thus the advantages they present in evolutionary selection and if we know the physiological processes in the brain that form the infrastructure of these phenomena. – Rationality and Faith in God, Robert Speamann

It can be turned into a fully formal argument, and Catholic Theology did it, but that takes quite more work than that - and even then, the argument hinges over a number of philosophical assumption that are by no means uncontroversial.

To term what is irrational, or, non-sensical, “controversial, or uncontroversial,” seems to be the line we are expected to buy into. Doing so, perpetuates the debate. It makes the closed and shut case open and continuous. I really am tired of the arguments for doing so. Such do not change minds. When a debate becomes speciously argumentative, it loses purpose.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

conformity with fact or reality

Unfortunately that definition is rather vague. Conformity of what with reality? Consider any period in prehistory before the dawn of biological life. In that period, were there things which conformed with reality? Well, statements are out, as mentioned previously, because there were no human beings around to make statements. Even symbolic thought doesn’t exist at this time, because there are no brains around to think symbolically. All we have is lifeless stuff. Can a stone conform to reality? Can an ocean? Can space? I don’t know what it would mean to say that.

It seems that even on this broader and more vague definition, truth hasn’t been around forever.

So, when science tells us that, prior to man, certain volcanoes erupted, or certain oceans changed position, or that there were three in-land lakes in the Green River formation, such must be accompanied by a statement from a simultaneous, rational observer BEFORE it can be understood as truthful? I wonder what geologists would say to that. With all due respect, that is non-sense.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If we understand truths as true statements, then although there are truths which are not dependent on time, there are no truths which have existed for all time, since no statement has existed for all time.

I am not sure what you intend to imply by a true statement.

If we ask ourselves “why is a statement necessarily true?”, it would not be reasonable to suggest that it is true merely because we “state it”. Depending on the kind of statement, the statement is true because reality is as such that it is true and is always true despite the fact of change or regardless of whether anybody actually states it or not. In other-words the statement conforms to order and consistency; which is something we discover since it exist in our very act of being. So long as we understand and agree about what we mean by the nature of 2 + 2, we must agree that the correct answer can never be false; it will always be 4. In other-words, it cannot begin to be true. The truth of it had no beginning. It is necessarily true. Just like all bachelors are not married, is necessarily true; it can never be untrue so-long as we honestly admit of the intrinsic meaning of a bachelor. More so, these things are true irrespective of whether or not the things of which their symbolic meaning derives exists or not. Bachelors don’t have to exist in-order for it to be true that a single person is not married, or that a single person is not in a life long intimate relationship with his or her partner. We don’t have to exist with the ability to make true statements in-order for something to be true. If a necessary truth could begin to exist then it would not be necessarily true, which would be a contradiction.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So, when science tells us that, prior to man, certain volcanoes erupted, or certain oceans changed position, or that there were three in-land lakes in the Green River formation, such must be accompanied by a statement from a simultaneous, rational observer BEFORE it can be understood as truthful? I wonder what geologists would say to that. With all due respect, that is non-sense.

God bless,
jd

Like I said in my second post, we are dealing with “post logic naturalism” here. Its very foundation is nonsense since it rejects rational foundations.

 

[hatsoff]

I am not sure what you intend to imply by a true statement.

If we ask ourselves “why is a statement necessarily true?”, it would not be reasonable to suggest that it is true merely because we “state it”. Depending on the kind of statement, the statement is true because reality is as such that it is true and is always true despite the fact of change or regardless of whether anybody actually states it or not. In other-words the statement conforms to order and consistency; which is something we discover since it exist in our very act of being. So long as we understand and agree about what we mean by the nature of 2 + 2, we must agree that the correct answer can never be false; it will always be 4. In other-words, it cannot begin to be true. The truth of it had no beginning. It is necessarily true. Just like all bachelors are not married, is necessarily true; it can never be untrue so-long as we honestly admit of the intrinsic meaning of a bachelor. More so, these things are true irrespective of whether or not the things of which their symbolic meaning derives exists or not. Bachelors don’t have to exist in-order for it to be true that a single person is not married, or that a single person is not in a life long intimate relationship with his or her partner. We don’t have to exist with the ability to make true statements in-order for something to be true. If a necessary truth could begin to exist then it would not be necessarily true, which would be a contradiction.

I’m not suggesting that 2+2=4'' was false for a long time, and then it became true. Rather, the statement 2+2=4’’ didn’t exist until human beings came on the scene. Before that time, it was neither true nor untrue nor false—it simply was not.

So, in a limited sense, it did begin to be true, because it, like all other statements, began to exist at some point in the past. If your definition of ``necessity’’ precludes such statements from being necessarily true, then so be it.

 

[hatsoff]

So, when science tells us that, prior to man, certain volcanoes erupted, or certain oceans changed position, or that there were three in-land lakes in the Green River formation, such must be accompanied by a statement from a simultaneous, rational observer BEFORE it can be understood as truthful? I wonder what geologists would say to that. With all due respect, that is non-sense.

If science tells us anything, then science is making statements, and those can be true or false. It can be true, for instance, that before the earth formed, numerous stars had formed. The statement is about the past, but that statement nevertheless exists in the here and now, during the age of human beings, and that is why it can be given a truth value. Before the earth formed, that statement did not exist, and so it was neither true nor false.

 

[lemondiesel]

Atheism survives because it tells us that this universe works without any interferring God. As mentioned in other threads, the burden-of-proof lies with the person who claims that there is a God. Atheism and Science only tell us* how *we got to this very moment after creation, and some make the mistake of trying to explain further. Is it really even relevant to consider why and how creation happened? “From nothing comes nothing” is not something left for science or theology, it is left for any philosophical thinker. Science and *Theology *are mere branches from this question.

We are all entitled to our opinions and beliefs, what makes your’s more important or greater? Because a “personal and effectionate God” made this universe for you? Yet we all abuse it and create differences.

Your OP is irrelevant to even consider, and not one person can 100% claim to know the answer.

Before the earth formed, that statement did not exist, and so it was neither true nor false.

But that “truth” potentially exists, waiting for an interpretor. Hence, our existence.