something from nothing

[Bahman]

I have this same problem with atheists I come across. There answer is they don’t know.

If a singularity created the big bang and then what caused the singularity because a singularity is something and it is a something that has to have a cause. A singularity can’t come from nothing. It has to have some sort of cause. This leads me to God. However, atheists just say they don’t have the information that caused the singularity.

You should read this.

 

[Bahman]

One of the many logical issues is prove that nothing is the default state. After all, nothing can’t exist, only things can exist.** Nothing is the absence of existence.**

You already define nothing (bold part) hence nothing can exist.

So if nothing can’t exist, something must always have existed.

This doesn’t follow. Please read the previous comment.

Even linguistically, we can’t understand the concept nothing without first understanding thing.

You already define nothing (bold part in your first paragraph).

So according to this view, there’s something rather than nothing because logic requires it, and it couldn’t be any other way.

This doesn’t follow.

 

[PRmerger]

It means that what we once thought nothing can become something. As we develop more subtle and powerful instruments we are able to look deeper into the structure of reality. "That boundary between Something and Nothing is arbitrary.

The above is nonsensical.

:whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

One of the many logical issues is prove that nothing is the default state. After all, nothing can’t exist, only things can exist. Nothing is the absence of existence.

So if nothing can’t exist, something must always have existed.

Bingo!

And that “something” is…

God.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

The above is nonsensical.

:whacky:

Not very long ago a rock was just a rock, “nothing” more. Then we found molecules and atoms and nothing more, then we found subatomic particles. Is it so difficult to grasp that “nothing” is only a definition of the limit of our perception.

 

[PRmerger]

Not very long ago a rock was just a rock, “nothing” more. Then we found molecules and atoms and nothing more, then we found subatomic particles. Is it so difficult to grasp that “nothing” is only a definition of the limit of our perception.

Sure.

The above is a nonsequitur, but I don’t have a problem with the basics of what is said here.

 

[thinkandmull]

I thought my approach was best. Disregard talking about properties or substances since they are tinged with our knowledge of this world. If there is nothing, and no ACTIVITY, nothing would happen. THAT is what we are claiming. If there is activity, we say it is the activity of what we call God. Whether that is a substance is a whole different question

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I thought my approach was best. Disregard talking about properties or substances since they are tinged with our knowledge of this world. If there is nothing, and no ACTIVITY, nothing would happen. THAT is what we are claiming. If there is activity, we say it is the activity of what we call God. Whether that is a substance is a whole different question

I agree with you. Nothing has no form or properties. So nothing cannot produce something. For something to exist it would have to come from form or properties.

 

[Bahman]

I agree with you. Nothing has no form or properties. So nothing cannot produce something. For something to exist it would have to come from form or properties.

Universe had no form at Big Bang. Form was the result of quantum fluctuation later.

 

[inocente]

You already define nothing (bold part) hence nothing can exist.

By that logic, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Donald Duck, goblins, unicorns and vampire zombies must all really exist as you can define them.

Probably not your finest hour.

 

[inocente]

Bingo!

And that “something” is…

God.

:tiphat:

I think the argument proves that there must be something rather than nothing, though it doesn’t alone prove it’s necessarily God.

I thought my approach was best. Disregard talking about properties or substances since they are tinged with our knowledge of this world. If there is nothing, and no ACTIVITY, nothing would happen. THAT is what we are claiming. If there is activity, we say it is the activity of what we call God. Whether that is a substance is a whole different question

One issue with that logic: Was God active before creating the universe? If you say yes, then there must have been a “before”, which is something not nothing. Or if you answer no, then wouldn’t there need to be something which triggered God into becoming active? Or if God triggered God into becoming active, wouldn’t that mean God is composed of parts?

 

[Bahman]

By that logic, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Donald Duck, goblins, unicorns and vampire zombies must all really exist as you can define them.

Probably not your finest hour.

How those things (bold part) have to do anything with nothing?

 

[Bahman]

One issue with that logic: Was God active before creating the universe? If you say yes, then there must have been a “before”, which is something not nothing. Or if you answer no, then wouldn’t there need to be something which triggered God into becoming active? Or if God triggered God into becoming active, wouldn’t that mean God is composed of parts?

The existence of God and act of creation lay at the same point.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t see how it is more incongruous or nonsensical to think something can come from nothing…than to think something can come from a God who came from nothing.

No, DaddyGirl. What is being asserted is that “whatever begins to exist” (something) CANNOT come from nothing.

The universe began to exist. Therefore, it had to have a cause.

It needs an explanation.

God did NOT begin to exist. Therefore God needs no explanation.

Now, you have a history as a hit and run poster.

So it’s no wonder you say that (paraphrasing): I’ve been here a long time and being on this forum has confirmed my atheism.

If you actually engaged in a discourse with knowledgeable Catholics, for more than 1 or 2 pages, then I would put more value on your claim.

Is it possible that since that you remain an atheist because you don’t examine the rebuttals?

 

[PRmerger]

By that logic, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Donald Duck, goblins, unicorns and vampire zombies must all really exist as you can define them.

Yep… pretty much the logical conclusion.

 

[PRmerger]

:tiphat:

I think the argument proves that there must be something rather than nothing, though it doesn’t alone prove it’s necessarily God

True, but whatever created the universe would have to be: the necessary, transcendent, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, infinite creator of the universe.

And what is that except the definition of the God of the Philosophers?

 

[Bahman]

I will paraphrase an analogy given by Archbishop Fulton Sheen on God becoming man. The Archbishop suggested that a person becoming a dog would even be an inadequate analogy.

Imagine, if you Bahman loved dogs so much you became a dog but still retained your human knowledge and soul. You entered into a dog’s life fully and completely. How would you ever be able to explain to your fellow dogs how wonderful that the science of chemistry is, how beautiful works of art are created, what hearing a beautiful symphony can do for the soul when all you can do is bark?

Jesus emptied Himself deliberately of all that Heaven had and entered into our lives. As such, he took on our humanness voluntarily. I am sure that He would have loved to explain certain things to us, but they are beyond our language, we don’t even have the words for them or the capability to understand, anymore than a dog could ever understand chemistry.

The Christian belief though, (and one you may not agree with) is that God is love. To have a loving relationship one must be truly free to love, any atheist, agnostic, or anyone of any faith would know that. All of us in our lives have known someone that tried to force us to like them or love them and it never works. God could have created us as robots, automatically serving Him and obeying Him but He didn’t. He created us with a free will, therefore there will always be distance, feelings of a state of doubt, uncertainness, apathy, and other emotions that go along with any other loving relationship.

I have no idea how your post is related to mine.