Why is Pop Theory impossible? (First Cause Argument)

[Ben_Sinner]

The First Cause argument uses Sufficient Reasoning by attesting that something cannot come from nothing (Pop Theory).

Why is Pop Theory impossible? Why can’t something come from nothing? It seems far fetched and fantastical, but impossible?

Maybe in the beginning was nothing and all of the sudden, a random “pop” of existence came about. With this existence came the laws of logic, absolute truth, the universe, people, animals, etc.

Maybe things CAN just pop into existence. How can we prove that the universe, the laws of logic, etc. CANNOT just pop into existence without a cause?

 

[Aloysium]

In an irrational, pointless universe reasoned arguments are merely the rants of deluded soapbox lunatics. Clinging to their measuring bowls the disenlightened (why not invent our own words) huddle in their bubble of material order in the chaos of pop happenings. What can only break the spell that feeds on argument is the truth.

 

[Wesrock]

Where and when did this pop existence come about? There was no where or when or any thing to pop into or out of.

To deny that no thing can come from nothing is to deny a rational universe into which scientific inquiry is possible. To insist you just mean the universe is a case of special pleading. It’s just the slope to solipsism. Is there a causal relationship between your experience and the outside world? That’s really what it boils down to. You’ll find no proof. How can you? You can’t prove that causal relationships exist (at all, in general, as a feature of reality) by empirical study, because any use of empirical study starts by assuming that causal relationships exist and that the data and objects you observe empirically do also exist.

There are things to be accepted without proof if there’s to be any intelligibility and reason, and I don’t even mean God.

To frame the nothing can come from nothing argument differently, we can say a thing has that which distinguishes it from nothing, either from itself or from another. To deny that a thing does not have that which distinguishes it from nothing is to say it is indistinguishable from nothing. A thing cannot both be different from nothing and the same as nothing. Therefore, things that do not have that which distinguish them from nothing are nothing. If something does not have that whereby it exists in itself, it must have it from another.

Yeah… I can’t condense that to a forum post, even if I hopped on a desktop computer instead of a phone. Book recommendation if you are curious: The Principle of Sufficient Reason by Scott M. Sullivan.

 

[PraiseChrist]

The First Cause argument uses Sufficient Reasoning by attesting that something cannot come from nothing (Pop Theory).

Why is Pop Theory impossible? Why can’t something come from nothing? It seems far fetched and fantastical, but impossible?

Maybe in the beginning was nothing and all of the sudden, a random “pop” of existence came about. With this existence came the laws of logic, absolute truth, the universe, people, animals, etc.

Maybe things CAN just pop into existence. How can we prove that the universe, the laws of logic, etc. CANNOT just pop into existence without a cause?

Assuming that this objection is correct and that all laws of reason and logic came about through this:
Wouldn’t that person wonder where the random pop came about? Why was there a random pop? And absolute truth would had to have existed before that pop–it would have been objectively true that there was no matter; it would have been objectively true that a pop was about to occur. Also, I don’t see how a random pop can bring about the immense order and harmony that is apparent in our universe.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The First Cause argument uses Sufficient Reasoning by attesting that something cannot come from nothing (Pop Theory).

Why is Pop Theory impossible? Why can’t something come from nothing? It seems far fetched and fantastical, but impossible?

Maybe in the beginning was nothing and all of the sudden, a random “pop” of existence came about. With this existence came the laws of logic, absolute truth, the universe, people, animals, etc.

Maybe things CAN just pop into existence. How can we prove that the universe, the laws of logic, etc. CANNOT just pop into existence without a cause?

If it were true, then the world would be fundamentally irrational, not based upon reason. The framework which logic, truth, etc., depend upon to have value would collapse…for them to have any value at all they must presuppose the world is based upon reason.

Can it be proved that the world is rational and not irrational? I don’t think so, I think it is just a fundamental intuition that we all have.

 

[o_mlly]

The First Cause argument uses Sufficient Reasoning by attesting that something cannot come from nothing (Pop Theory).

Why is Pop Theory impossible? Why can’t something come from nothing? It seems far fetched and fantastical, but impossible?
…

Even the metaphysical begins with physical experience. Have you experienced something coming out of nothing – the rabbit out of the empty hat?