How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[CandideWest]

Dear Candide, thanks for your reply.

No problem.

Dear Candide, I am talking about information you have on the concepts of God among Christians, which concept is the most important;

Depends, which Christians? Again, there are dozens of different answers. Depending on who you ask.

Once again, why don’t you just tell us what answer you think is the correct one, you clearly have some opinion you are trying to get to here.

you say that you used to be a Christian, tell me what information you have or please write down in your reply next: the first verse of Genesis, and also the first sentence of the Apostles’ Creed.

KingCoil

Ok… You understand of course that we are on the internet here and the information you are asking for is freely available to the world via the internet right? So my being able to quote these says nothing about my knowledge of Christianity.

I always preferred the King James version of the bible. So genesis…

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I’ve actually always liked genesis, obviously it is appallingly inaccurate as an account of the origin either of the universe, the earth, or life on earth. But some of it does read well.

Anyway, I digress, the apostles creed you say…

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth…”

I’m not going to write the whole thing, after all, there is no “first sentence” it’s just one long really awkward sentence.

So… What’s your point? What can we take from these quotes?

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Ok… You understand of course that we are on the internet here and the information you are asking for is freely available to the world via the internet right? So my being able to quote these says nothing about my knowledge of Christianity.

I always preferred the King James version of the bible. So genesis…

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

I’ve actually always liked genesis, obviously it is appallingly inaccurate as an account of the origin either of the universe, the earth, or life on earth. But some of it does read well.

Anyway, I digress, the apostles creed you say…

[2.] “I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth…”

I’m not going to write the whole thing, after all, there is no “first sentence” it’s just one long really awkward sentence.

So… What’s your point? What can we take from these quotes?

What do you say, isn’t the concept of God as creator of the universe, i.e., heaven and earth, the most important information the Christian faith seeks to tell mankind?

Do you concur on that, namely, that God in concept is the creator of heaven and earth, that is the most important information the Christian faith first and foremost wants to tell mankind?

You ask me what is my point?

My point is essentially connected to the thread I am the author and manager of here, namely:

“How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

Now that you are informed on the most important information on the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, God in concept is the creator of heaven and earth, i.e. the universe, let us we two together seek to connect this concept of God to the existence of the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Are you getting my drift, at all?

Or you are not connected to the point that this thread is advancing, namely, that from the concept of God by thinking intelligently on logic and facts: man can and does transit (that word transit is used by you time and again like a mantra) to the existence of God?

Perhaps, you can tell me what is your point at all in posting in this thread?

Best regards,

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ok, well in that case - a quick message to anyone passing in the “cloud” if you are in fact able to support the assertions on which Linus’ argument rely I’d be interested if you could let me know how. Thanks.

No problem, all the best then.

The point is that the truth, once spoken, or written has a life of its own and grows on its own. And it will achieve its own goal. We have Christ’s own word on that. One plows, another harvests. I am plowing in my own way.

Linus2nd

 

[ericc]

I did nothing of the sort. Neither your question nor my reply mention anything about “pre-universe”.

You asked about why quantum mechanics is the way it is. I explained that we don’t know yet but it’s being researched. It’s been a topic of research for many years, as I’m sure you’re aware since you seem to have done some research on the topic.

So let’s not go pretending people said things they didn’t eh?.

You should quote me in full. In post #16 I stated:

"If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from?"

It is clear that I was asking about quantum theory pre-universe. Surely you read the whole section and not just the last sentence?

And you replied in post #18 and quoting in full what I posted

“which is being studied and worked on as well”.

Of which I asked for supporting reasearch for pre-universe quantum theory which you are not able to substantiate.

It’s not a philosophical nothing, you’re right. But since a philosophical nothing cannot exist, I don’t care about getting to a universe from one. Why would I? I don’t suppose Dr Krauss does either.

A true nothing means exactly what it means. Whether there is a philosophical prefix to it or not does not add to it. I don’t see why certain scientists need to play word games when it is not a true nothing. You should ask them exactly what they mean before you start using their articles. Otherwise you could be caught in the same trap as them and trying to defend various types of nothing.

Can you substantiate that philosophical nothing can not exist? Interesting that you made such a statement without showing any need to demonstrate that it is a true statement.

In fact, I wasn’t interested in that either. The topic was whether something can come from a true nothing. I think you have to admit that it can not. Of course once that has been determined to be a correct statement, then we can move on to whether what/whom caused it. Not the “how”. Then we would be right on the true topic. I apologise to the OP for the detour but if we don’t get the basic terms of reference right, we would be talking past each other.

 

[KingCoil]

My experience with atheists of the kind like Candide is that they are into what I call abuse of language and abuse of logic.

By abuse of language they occupy themselves with muddling up all the time an issue, and by abuse of logic they are altogether illogical.

Consider Krauss and his understanding of nothing.

The fact is that when nothing is the subject, then all the thinking and talking if we want to be into genuine language and genuine logic, should be to occupy ourselves with something that really exists: either in the realm of concepts in our mind or and also more and most importantly in the realm of objects in the reality world of existing things and events in the universe, and realize and agree that nothing is the complete and exhaustive opposite of that something.

That is the only paradoxically concept of nothing, namely, it is the complete and exhaustive opposite of something, and we can only think and talk about it, the nothing, only by bringing up something anything that is at least in our mind, or and most importantly that is among factually existing things and events in the universe, and realizing that the total and diametrically opposite of that something is the nothing.

We cannot at all think and talk about nothing, period.

That is why Krauss is into abuse of language and logic in arguing that nothing nowadays is no longer nothing but something because there is no absolute nothing.

All abuse of language and logic, or prevarication of language and logic.

If what mankind knew to be nothing in the past and then a scientist tells us that what we thought to be nothing is in fact something, then our knowledge today of something has increased, and paradoxically we realize that nothing has also yes paradoxically increased its scope of being nothing.

What atheist Krauss and atheists of his kind want to do is to effect in the minds of folks like themselves atheists, but who are not into subtle yet rigid true intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to effect i.e. to infect into their minds the psychology that nothing is the origin of the universe, by disguising what is in fact an existing something as nothing, through the gimmick of abusing the literal word nothing so that it can stand for that something – still folks the atheist fans of Krauss and colleagues, psychologically for being atheists of the kind like Krauss and his colleagues prefer, for their own self-prevarication, to insist that nothing as the complete and exhaustive opposite of something is the origin of the universe.

You see, I have had a long exchange with Candide, and he keeps repeating that there is no transit in all my expositions on: how the existence of the universe which scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago is the factual evidence (think empirical) of the existence of the cause of the universe – he will just stubbornly repeat again and again that he does not see the transit from the universe to the cause of the universe.

That is why I have to get him to concur with me on every word in regard to its concept, and on every step in the process, by which the existence of universe is established as the evidence for the existence of God,so that he will not repeat again, there is no transit – like as he were a robot…

Take notice, he will a;so play dummy, resorting to claiming that he does not understand what you are talking about because English is not your mother tongue.

Another notice to guard yourself as you seek to exchange thoughts in a viable communication with Candide, namely, he has the same strategy in discussion as that employed by writers in the Website of Infidels:* talking on and on and on in the realm of concepts in the mind, but in effect purposely talking fictions, but they will never come into the objective real actual world of factually existing things and events.

KingCoil

*I refer to the materials in the infidels.org/library/.

 

[Partinobodycula]

I would like to point something out if I may. And that is that there is absolutely no evidence that the universe came from nothing. Any speculation that it did, is simply that, speculation. There is exactly the same amount of matter/energy in the universe now, as there was at the earliest moment that physics is capable of reconstructing an accurate theoretical model for. In all these billions of years nothing has ever demonstrated the ability to come into existence, or go out of existence.

People have a perhaps understandable tendency to assume that since the universe was increasingly smaller as we go back in time, that it must have at one point not existed at all. But this assumption does not logically follow from the evidence. The evidence says that the amount of matter/energy in the universe can neither increase nor decrease, and there is no reason to believe that this was not as true 13.8 billion years ago, as it is today.

So unless someone can come up with some evidence supporting the claim that the universe at some point in the past didn’t exist, we must proceed under the assumption that it always has. We must do this because to claim otherwise is to violate the law of the conservation of energy. And although you may not like it, you can’t just toss it out because it doesn’t fit with your theory. We assume that the laws of physics hold true, until it can be shown that they don’t, and the laws of physics say that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Since we can be fairly certain that the universe exists, the onus is on those who assert that it at one point in the past didn’t, to prove their claim. Otherwise we must assume that the universe has indeed always existed.

If you wish to speculate about the nature of a creator, you must do so with the understanding that there is absolutely no evidence that anything has ever been created from nothing.

 

[Amandil]

I would like to point something out if I may. And that is that there is absolutely no evidence that the universe came from nothing. Any speculation that it did, is simply that, speculation. There is exactly the same amount of matter/energy in the universe now, as there was at the earliest moment that physics is capable of reconstructing an accurate theoretical model for. In all these billions of years nothing has ever demonstrated the ability to come into existence, or go out of existence.

This is an argument from silence, the absence of evidence is not the existence of evidence.
.

People have a perhaps understandable tendency to assume that since the universe was increasingly smaller as we go back in time, that it must have at one point not existed at all. But this assumption does not logically follow from the evidence. The evidence says that the amount of matter/energy in the universe can neither increase nor decrease, and there is no reason to believe that this was not as true 13.8 billion years ago, as it is today.

So unless someone can come up with some evidence supporting the claim that the universe at some point in the past didn’t exist, we must proceed under the assumption that it always has.

This seems rather that you’re trying to eat your cake and at the same time have it. Either the universe began with the “Big Bang” 13.8 billion years ago or it has always infinitely existed.

We must do this because to claim otherwise is to violate the law of the conservation of energy. And although you may not like it, you can’t just toss it out because it doesn’t fit with your theory. We assume that the laws of physics hold true, until it can be shown that they don’t, and the laws of physics say that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

There’s nothing against our “theory” that exists in the laws of physics. The laws of physics govern the material universe(even though many aspects of the universe apparently do not always follow the laws of physics).

All the laws of physics say is that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed by other causes within that universe. Physics being necessarily being limited to what it observes in the material realm cannot make philosophical or theological claims based on things which it has not observed. Such statements are to go beyond the scope of Physics.

To be honest, the best you could say is that there is nothing for which the science of physics could abstract to explain the creation of energy or matter as it exists in the universe.

To insist otherwise would beg the question and be circular reasoning.

Since we can be fairly certain that the universe exists, the onus is on those who assert that it at one point in the past didn’t, to prove their claim. Otherwise we must assume that the universe has indeed always existed.

The Kalam argument demonstrates this quite well.

If you wish to speculate about the nature of a creator, you must do so with the understanding that there is absolutely no evidence that anything has ever been created from nothing.

More circular reasoning.

 

[KingCoil]

I would like to point something out if I may. And that is that there is absolutely no evidence that the universe came from nothing. Any speculation that it did, is simply that, speculation. There is exactly the same amount of matter/energy in the universe now, as there was at the earliest moment that physics is capable of reconstructing an accurate theoretical model for. In all these billions of years nothing has ever demonstrated the ability to come into existence, or go out of existence.

People have a perhaps understandable tendency to assume that since the universe was increasingly smaller as we go back in time, that it must have at one point not existed at all. But this assumption does not logically follow from the evidence. The evidence says that the amount of matter/energy in the universe can neither increase nor decrease, and there is no reason to believe that this was not as true 13.8 billion years ago, as it is today.

So unless someone can come up with some evidence supporting the claim that the universe at some point in the past didn’t exist, we must proceed under the assumption that it always has. We must do this because to claim otherwise is to violate the law of the conservation of energy. And although you may not like it, you can’t just toss it out because it doesn’t fit with your theory. We assume that the laws of physics hold true, until it can be shown that they don’t, and the laws of physics say that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Since we can be fairly certain that the universe exists, the onus is on those who assert that it at one point in the past didn’t, to prove their claim. Otherwise we must assume that the universe has indeed always existed.

If you wish to speculate about the nature of a creator, you must do so with the understanding that there is absolutely no evidence that anything has ever been created from nothing.

We meet again, Bodicula.

How do you understand what scientists are telling us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

What do you say, isn’t the concept of God as creator of the universe, i.e., heaven and earth, the most important information the Christian faith seeks to tell mankind?

Er, you’d have to ask Christians I suppose. As I said, different Christians have different ideas. I’m not in a position to judge who (if any of them) are correct.

Do you concur on that, namely, that God in concept is the creator of heaven and earth, that is the most important information the Christian faith first and foremost wants to tell mankind?

You’ll still have to ask Christians. But I’m happy to agree that you believe it to be the most important information if you like?

Now that you are informed on the most important information on the concept of God in the Christian faith, namely, God in concept is the creator of heaven and earth, i.e. the universe, let us we two together seek to connect this concept of God to the existence of the universe, which universe scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.

Ok, this is kinda what I’ve been waiting for you to do to be honest. Please go ahead and show how you connect from the universe having a beginning 13.8 billion years ago to some god concept.

Or you are not connected to the point that this thread is advancing, namely, that from the concept of God by thinking intelligently on logic and facts: man can and does transit (that word transit is used by you time and again like a mantra) to the existence of God?

??? What? I haven’t used the word “transit” at all.

Perhaps, you can tell me what is your point at all in posting in this thread?

Sure, I’m interested in finding out how you believe you can get from the universe having a beginning to some god concept and once you’ve presented it discussing that idea.

 

[CandideWest]

The point is that the truth, once spoken, or written has a life of its own and grows on its own. And it will achieve its own goal. We have Christ’s own word on that. One plows, another harvests. I am plowing in my own way.

Linus2nd

No worries, all the best to you I say

 

[KingCoil]

…]

Originally Posted by Partinobodycula
If you wish to speculate about the nature of a creator, you must do so with the understanding that there is absolutely no evidence that anything has ever been created from nothing.

Addressing Bodicula:

Creation from nothing means not from any pre-existing matter, but it does not mean creation from no agent whatsover.

What I like to hypothesize is that the cause of the universe is a thinking entity, and it created the universe from it’s thinking.

That brings in the charge that it is pantheism, for then the universe is a part of its own cause, in the Christian theistic context, part of the creator God.

That is is not necessarily pantheism, because if it were pantheism then it the universe cannot undergo changes, for God is immutable, and any part of God is God Himself.

To elaborate, my solution to the charge of pantheism is that the fruit of the thinking of God is the material universe, which changes continuously and will reach an end of its present state; but God is not subject to changes and He is not ever going to end existing.

How do I explain how God could and did create from HIs thinking something that is not God Himself, because it is subject to changes and will eventually reach an end of its present state, I will answer with an avowal of ignorance for the present moment with our present intelligence.

But this thread is not about how God created the material universe, but about how the concept of God is the transit to the existence of God by way of the evidence from science, that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago; and that is the scientific fact, the universe has a beginning, and the logic is anything at all with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence.

Read the title of the thread: “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”

KingCoil

 

[CandideWest]

You should quote me in full. In post #16 I stated:

"If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from?"

It is clear that I was asking about quantum theory pre-universe. Surely you read the whole section and not just the last sentence?

Well I can only apologise if I misunderstood, but it certainly wasn’t clear to me. Indeed given that you specifically stated “quantum theory” which is our explanation which explains how quantum mechanics works as opposed to “quantum mechanics” which they explain I thought you were explicitly talking about the quantum theory.

But never mind, to be clear, I don’t know of any work in progress to study some pre-universal physics. I did not intend to imply that I did.

A true nothing means exactly what it means. Whether there is a philosophical prefix to it or not does not add to it. I don’t see why certain scientists need to play word games when it is not a true nothing. You should ask them exactly what they mean before you start using their articles. Otherwise you could be caught in the same trap as them and trying to defend various types of nothing.

But the reality is that people use the term “nothing” to describe different things all the time. Like “what’s in the box?”. “Oh nothing”. That’s actually the most common use but it certainly doesn’t describe a “true nothing” in fact there’s vastly more in the box then there would be in a physicists “nothing”.

Arguing that only one particular use of a word is valid is essentially futile, especially when that particular use is only used by a few people.

Can you substantiate that philosophical nothing can not exist? Interesting that you made such a statement without showing any need to demonstrate that it is a true statement.

I haven’t worked out a formal argument for this, but I believe it is a logical contradiction to assign the property of existence to something which by definition has no properties and claim that it still has no properties.

As I said, it’s appears to require an existent state of non-existence. The being of a state of non-being.

In fact, I wasn’t interested in that either.

Er, ok.

The topic was whether something can come from a true nothing. I think you have to admit that it can not.

I think it cannot based on the impossibility of the existence of “nothing” as a starting point. The analogy I’ve used before is that it’s not possible to get from a square-circle to a triangle. Because the square-circle cannot exist to give you a starting point.

Of course once that has been determined to be a correct statement, then we can move on to whether what/whom caused it.

Sure, and Lawrence Krauss has demonstrated that it’s possible that it was caused by a physicists nothing, no mass, no energy… Etc.

We don’t have a good reason to believe it to be what happened yet (except for perhaps occams razor) because no evidence exists for it yet. But we know it COULD have.

So we know we don’t need some hugely complex god to explain where the universe came from, because it’s at least possible to get here from nothing.

 

[CandideWest]

You see, I have had a long exchange with Candide, and he keeps repeating that there is no transit in all my expositions on: how the existence of the universe which scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago is the factual evidence (think empirical) of the existence of the cause of the universe – he will just stubbornly repeat again and again that he does not see the transit from the universe to the cause of the universe.

Well, yes. You haven’t given this “transit” yet (by which I am assuming that you mean “argument showing my conclusion”).

That is why I have to get him to concur with me on every word in regard to its concept, and on every step in the process, by which the existence of universe is established as the evidence for the existence of God,so that he will not repeat again, there is no transit – like as he were a robot…

Er, ok. But you understand that defining some concept of god isn’t an alternative to providing an argument showing your conclusion right? You’ll still need to construct a valid and sound argument if you want anyone to believe you are

Take notice, he will a;so play dummy, resorting to claiming that he does not understand what you are talking about because English is not your mother tongue.

??? Why do you keep making these odd predictions about me? None of them have come true yet and you keep on making them. Your English is fine, if I don’t understand what you are trying to say I’ll ask. Fair enough?

Another notice to guard yourself as you seek to exchange thoughts in a viable communication with Candide, namely, he has the same strategy in discussion as that employed by writers in the Website of Infidels:* talking on and on and on in the realm of concepts in the mind, but in effect purposely talking fictions, but they will never come into the objective real actual world of factually existing things and events.

People wanted to talk about how to get from the philosophical concept of “nothing” to a universe. I’ve explained that this would appear to be impossible and also irrelevant as a philosophical “nothing” cannot exist.

It does however appear to be possible to get from a “real” nothing (the kind of nothing that physicists refer to - the absence of mass, energy etc) to our universe.

If we’re talking about the origin of the universe then I’d rather talk about reality, not mix up things which can only exist as concepts. But others seem to want to get from that concept to a universe.

Anyway, shall we get back to your idea for getting from the universe having a beginning to it being created by some god?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What I like to hypothesize is that** the cause of the universe is a thinking entity**, and it created the universe from it’s thinking.

Since you’ve stated that God is the creator of the universe I think this could be said to be part of your god-concept. This is good, a better defined concept is being developed.

You mentioned two other attributes:

God is immutable

, and any part of God is God Himself.
KingCoil;11843032:

HIs thinking something that is not God Himself, because it is subject to changes and will eventually reach an end of its present state

So that brings all of the attributes for your god-concept so far up to the following

• created the Universe
• Operates the Universe.
• is not machine like.
• is Thinking
• is non-changing
• Produces things that are subject to change

Now all that’s needed is the argument that leads to the conclusion of an entity with the above attributes.

 

[polytropos]

I agree, there is nothing nonsensical about conceiving a nothing in this way.

BUT it is nonsensical to claim such a condition could actually obtain.

Why? Do you believe the principle of sufficient reason to be true? If (as I suspect) not, then what would be the issue of getting from philosopher’s nothing to the universe?

Ok, so we are in violent agreement that “nothing” is not possible. I’m always happy to take agreement where we can in discussion.

I don’t think we’re in agreement. I am not entirely clear on your reasons for the impossibility of nothing, since your points about nothing having to “exist” and being both “being and non-being” do not succeed in showing that nothing is impossible. I believe nothing is impossible because I am committed to the existence of a necessary being.

 

[Oreoracle]

For what it’s worth, Candide:

Discussions about nothing degenerate into semantical games if you treat “nothing” as a subject, i.e., something whose existence can be asserted in an existential statement. Existence is not a predicate, and neither is its negation.

I suspect when polytropos says that the idea of “nothing” isn’t logically contradictory, he’s saying it is conceivable that everything that exists is contingent. Thus we can imagine a universe composed of the elements of the empty set, for example. This is what something like “nothing exists” would mean, so it’s perhaps less ambiguously translated as “no things exist”.

Interestingly enough, an empty universe would have to have tons of strange laws of physics by my reckoning, since its emptiness would make every claim about its objects vacuously true. For example, all atoms in an empty universe are carbon atoms. They are also all oxygen atoms.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m sure you aren’t so utterly unaware of what’s going on in the world around you to have failed to notice the list of wars, persecution, bigotry, mutilation and terrorism which is going on out there RIGHT NOW because of people’s religious beliefs. Are you?

I’m sure you believe that. I’m sure you also believe that some religions are better than others at discouraging crimes of violence, especially crimes of violence against unborn children.

You take all the crimes of believers and forget all the crimes of unbelievers, as if they never existed. But you don’t look at all the good works believers consciously do and match it against the dearth of good works unbelievers do (unless you can document all the good works unbelievers do, which you can’t).

Apparently for you it’s still safer to meet on the sidewalk a knife-wielding slug who has never seen the inside of a church than to meet a Bible toting Christian.

I can tell you from personal experience that a Bible toting Christian is a good deal more unlikely to slice and dice you to death.

 

[Partinobodycula]

How do you understand what scientists are telling us that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago?

I understand it by understanding what is meant by the use of the term* “beginning”.* In the case of the universe it is referring to an ongoing process, the expansion of the universe, which began 13.8 bya. It cannot be definitively stated however that the matter/energy in the universe came into being at that point, only that its expansion began at that point. The fact that the universe was at one point relatively smaller than it is now, does not mean that at some point previous to that, it didn’t exist at all. There are any number of theories as to the source of the universe, from branes, to bubble universes, and even to the universe being a computer simulation. There are currently experiments, both ongoing and proposed, that hope to support each of these claims.

Until further evidence is found, the source of the universe will remain unknown. And thus the theory that it came from nothing, is just that, a theory.

There’s nothing against our “theory” that exists in the laws of physics. The laws of physics govern the material universe(even though many aspects of the universe apparently do not always follow the laws of physics).

In this bit you’re actually correct. Science currently tells us nothing about where the matter/energy in the universe came from. Thus you are perfectly justified in “theorizing” that God created the universe out of nothing, but you can’t assert this as a “fact”, because there is no evidence to support the claim that the universe came from nothing. King Coil is attempting to argue that the “fact” that the universe came from nothing proves the existence of God, but he has no evidence to support the claim that the universe did indeed come from nothing.

Creation from nothing means not from any pre-existing matter, but it does not mean creation from no agent whatsover.

What I like to hypothesize is that the cause of the universe is a thinking entity, and it created the universe from it’s thinking.

Thank you for finally stating your underlying premise. As ThinkingSapien has pointed out, this now allows us to attempt to deduce what some of the attributes of this "thinking entity" might be. This is a step in the right direction.

But this thread is not about how God created the material universe, but about how the concept of God is the transit to the existence of God by way of the evidence from science, that the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago; and that is the scientific fact, the universe has a beginning, and the logic is anything at all with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence.

This however is still a sticking point, as you insist on asserting that the universe came from nothing. Not from branes, or bubble universes, or black hole expansion, but specifically, and undeniably, from nothing. Until you can prove this assertion, your argument is destined to go nowhere. The “fact” that scientists claim the universe began 13.8 bya, does not prove that it began from nothing, or by extension, from a “thinking entity”.

 

[polytropos]

Discussions about nothing degenerate into semantical games if you treat “nothing” as a subject, i.e., something whose existence can be asserted in an existential statement.

I agree. Though it was Candide who did that:

Unless of course you are arguing with regards to some philosophical notion of “nothing” as an absence of being. But in that case you would first need to demonstrate that this “nothing” (a state of non-being) could exist. This seems contradictory as it would mean there was at some point an existent state of non-existence. In other words that “non-being” was in a state of “being”.

Logically problematic.

Existence is not a predicate, and neither is its negation.

I agree that non-existence is not a predicate, though I think that the case against existence as a first-order predicate has been greatly overstated historically. It ignores the possibility of proper names having sense without having reference, and objections are often based off of the idea that if existence is a predicate, then non-existence should be. But that move is not necessary. And existence as a first-order predicate provides a much simpler analysis of existential propositions about particulars than does Russell’s definite descriptions or Quine’s “socratizing.”

Very interesting topic though.

Interestingly enough, an empty universe would have to have tons of strange laws of physics by my reckoning, since its emptiness would make every claim about its objects vacuously true. For example, all atoms in an empty universe are carbon atoms. They are also all oxygen atoms.

Right, but there is no more concern about vacuously true statements in this case as there is in the case of an empty set. Universal quantification over an empty domain doesn’t commit us to any predications, even if we can phrase it “as if” it does.

 

[CandideWest]

Why?

Because (in short) nothing (non-existence) existing entails a logical contradiction. As far as I can see it breaks the law of identity.

We either have to throw out logic or concede that “nothing” is not a possible state.

I believe nothing is impossible because I am committed to the existence of a necessary being.

Why?