Greetings all,

 

I’m going to primarily respond to Vessel since he/she seems to want to actually debate at least to some extent.

 

 

If nothing existed not even nothing would exist, its like a seeing person thinking that a blind person would ‘see’ darkness. A truly blind person wouldn’t see anything not even total darkness. The way in which nothing could exist would be the same way in which at some point time and the universe didn’t exist. The same was as there was a point in time in which you didn’t exist.

 

Your belief something always existed is just that, a dogmatic metaphysical belief lacking any evidence it must be true. It interesting to note that most theists believe God always existed, but you reject that notion right?

 

 

And you often state what you believe to be the theist’s point of view right?

 

Try to apply a modicum of critical thinking to whatever sound bites you plan to paste next it will save you and me a lot of time.

 

The reason you insist something must exist is because philosophically speaking materialism starts from the second floor. Materialism can’t be the cause of its own existence; you recognize this so you assume something always existed.

 

Secondly you demand evidence of things you don’t believe in, like theism, but you don’t demand evidence of things you do believe in like the belief something always existed. Anyone can be skeptical of what they don’t believe, if you really want to be a freethinker, try being skeptical of what you do believe.

 

The fact something exists agrees with both theism and materialism. However materialism offers no possible explanation or cause of why something exists. Theism, the belief in a transcendent personal Creator offers a possible cause of why something exists.

 

The fact something exists rather than nothing favors the theistic model. Unless there is a legitimate objection, I’ll move on to next the line of evidence.

That's why I said a formal debate genius. A formal debate would imply that your side is credible when you are basically arguing for the existence of magic against all known fact. A lot more people would probably respond to you if you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder and start insulting people.

That's because you've yet to comprehend that order is emergent. Order can arise from the free causal interaction of parts it doesn't require intelligence. D-cubed explained above the problem with that argument.

Holy projection, Batman!

And the reason that this question is 'most basic' is because it is most basic to humanity for humans to presume intention.

But this presumption is merely a projection of what we are: intentional beings. There is no actual good reason to presume that the universe has an intent. 

Once you recognize that the origin for this question is based on a presumption that 'everything else in the universe works and thinks  just like humans' you'll see the problem in your question.

 

 

I've always felt that the assumption in this question was one of the most irrational assumptions in philosophy   - so it's probably from Liebnitz.

My question to you is: how can there be nothing? Why nothing instead of something?  

 

This goes right along with the assumption of intent.

 

See? Thanks for affirming my intitial points above.  

 

This is a pretty pathetic strawman of how science views the universe.

First, note how every term is written negatively, based on the assumption that intentionality should take precedence.

Next, no one holds that evolutionary processes work randomly. If this is all you know about science, you are not capable of having this conversation.

Vessel,

 

 

Very well buttwipe, this will be my last response to you. You don’t mind if I call you buttwipe do you?

 

 

Easy, nothing, not even nothing would exist.

 

 

The current scientific model suggests the universe as it exists today began to exist and the evidence strongly supports that contention. Whether the universe previously existed (outside of time) as a singularity who knows?

 

 

Do you ever plan to offer evidence of your assertions? I guess you are right it is a waste of time to debate a fundamentalist with dogmatic views of reality.

 

 

Then why make assertions like something always existed and time always existed?

 

 

I’ve made no knowledge claims at all. At best theism is a philosophical belief just as materialism is.

 

 

It maybe non-negotiable because it is a dogmatic fundamental truth of your personal worldview, that hardly qualifies it as non-debateble. If time didn’t begin to exist, we would never reach this point in time. It is a near certainty that the universe and time began to exist.

 

 

I have done so repeatedly.

 

 

You can’t shore up one assertion by making another. Of course there could be nothing instead of something. Nothing is the absence of something just as absolute zero is the absence of heat.

 

How would it be if I were to assert there is a God and that point is non-negotiable and then support that assertion with another assertion that God cannot not exist?

 

See if you took my advice and applied some critical thinking to your worldview I wouldn’t have to show case the flaws in your thinking in front of all your buddies.

 

 

I am in the process of making such an explanation; this is only line of evidence number 1. What I mean by theism is exactly how it is defined. It is the belief the universe was intentionally created by a transcendent personal agent as opposed to inexplicably coming into existence through happenstance and serendipity.

 

 

You may see the rest but since you don’t think it is worthy of debate you’ll have to sit in the peanut gallery.

That's not an answer, you're merely re-asserting.

And your re-assertion is semantically clumsy.. if 'not even nothing existed' then something would exist.....

The best way to frame 'nothing' would be to hold that there were no dimensions....  

 

Which current model? You didn't say.

If you are referring to big bang theory, big bang theory is not a creation theory, it is an account of the universe from planck time.

Cosmology has several different competing theories for universe building... very few of them work ex nihilo, but I can present an overview of the few that do.

On the other hand, many of them are expressly non-ex nihilo 

 So in the future, it might help if you cite someone.

This coming from a guy who just assumes nothing 'existed'.... 

 

Then why make assertions that nothing 'existed'?

 The problem, if it exists, is necessarily symmetrical.

 

 

Theism claims to be able to account for 'creation' - through a creator. This means that theism requires you to say you know that you have no evidence to believe is true!

 

 

How quaint, a theist complaining that someone is being dogmatic. Odd that that's the biggest complaint you could muster, isn't it? And doesn't it tell us what you really think of dogma?

 

 

 

Please follow your own advice.

Assertion number 1. You've not demonstrated this.

Ah, now take a look at what you just said.

"Nothing" is defined in contradistinction to something.

So 'nothing' has no ontological status on it's own.

So you've not given an argument for 'nothingness".  

 

 

How can a personal agent be transcendent? What do you even think you mean by that?

And can you please stop repeating the same strawman of cosmology? 

I'm not sure what you're attempting to argue here. Are you trying to deny that humans presume intentionality? If so, you need to give me an argument.

 Are you trying to say that we can overcome the assumption?

Ok, we can overcome our presumption, but psychological research (see Piaget) does demonstrate that people do in fact take on an 'intentional stance'. So we have to actively work against it.

 

Yes, we do. But the fact that we do doesn't mean that we humans don't start out trying to understand the world by projecting out intention onto the world.

I've already explained the problem in the question: it's based on the presumption of the intentional stance. It assumes that the universal is the result of an intention, and this assumption is unfounded.

 Here is what I said above:

Once you recognize that the origin for this question is based on a presumption that 'everything else in the universe works and thinks  just like humans' you'll see the problem in your question.

Present them.  

 

I didn't say that humans are unlike the universe, so you can't act as if we are agreeing.  Humans are a part of the universe. In fact, people are literally made up of 'star stuff', i.e. matter that comes from supernovae.

This is a non sequitur. By your logic, water should be a gas, since water is made up of 2 gases. Your error is therefore clear:You are leaving out the concept of emergent properites. Water becomes a liquid even as all of its components are non liquid.

Humans can have intentionality, even though their physical substratum is non-intentional.

See? 

Again, I'd like to caution you against the error of employing the very process itself as the cause for the existence of the process! You can't appeal to intelligence as the origin of intelligence!

  
 

 

Yes. It. Is. Unless you can demonstrate just how nothing can 'exist' (leaving aside the ontological dilemma)

We are talking about the assumption that there could be 'nothing', not the assumption that something exists. Existence is axiomatic.

No, I am merely stating that it's quite an assumption to assume that nothing can exist. Can you demonstrate why this assumption makes sense?

 I'm not presupposing anything, I'm trying to get you to see that you haven't demonstrated your claim.

 

You're agreeing with your own quote, not mine!

 

Neither have I. Please read my comments again. I am speaking about evolutionary processes in a more abstract sense - i.e. simple rules or laws that build up entities through an additive process.

You continually claim that these processes are 'random' when in fact no cosmologist holds that cosmology is random.

"Blind hapenstance' assumes that cosmology is the study of randomness. It is not. No cosmologist holds that cosmology is random. If you disagree, cite a cosmologist who holds that cosmological processess are 'random'

 

Go on, or withdraw your claim.  

 

Only if you can first demonstrate that there could be 'nothing'. So far, you've only assumed it. 

 

LOL> It's not that I don't 'care for' the answers, so I'll ask you to stop lying about my intentions. My intention is to get you to give me a reason why it is rational to assume that there could be nothing.

 

So far, you've avoided the challenge.  

 

Thanks for summing things up. I can't fathom why an atheist would be afraid to find out that he will go to paradise and live in eternal bliss....  but I can easily understand why a theist would be afraid to find out that that isn't so....

 

I have a brief examination of what cosmologists actually say about cosmology, here:

 http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

 

 

Drew_theist,

Not at all, I couldn't care less what some random person on the internet calls me. And you are right it is probably best not to respond when you can't respond any better than what you have, but somehow, I think you were being dishonest and you will respond again.

That is non-sensical. Do try to maintain some sort of intelligence in your replies. 

As it exists today is not the question though, is it? I asked why you assume the universe didn't exist at some point, not why the universe as it exists today didn't exist at some point. Try to stay on point and not duck the questions.

 

I figured you were knowledgable enough to realize that humans are made of matter, matter can not be created nor destroyed, matter is contained in the universe, time is a property of the universe, and therefor the matter of which I am made has existed for all of time. My bad on assuming you to be knowledgable.

Because always is time referential (for all of time), and if time existed, then necessarily something existed. If time did not exist then the term 'always' makes no sense. This paired with the fact that the fact that 'Nothing can not exist' requires that something exists leads any rational person to the conclusion that something has always existed.

 

Not really. I am not required to hold to my belief in order to be spared eternal torment. 

 

 I simply said that they both always existed as always is time referential. However, let's look at them beginning to exist. Now, there could be no before they existed as before also deals with time, so anything else we could say on the matter seems to be non-sensical.To speak of before time or before the universe makes no sense so to consider whether or not they began we would have to have some reference by which to judge their beginning. What shall we use for that? 

 

I shake my head and sigh at you as I always do with wayward children. Try to be honest. 

Prove to me nothing can exist and I will stop claiming it. The fact that it is axiomatic that 'nothing can not exist' means that it by definition is not an assertion. It is simply ridiculous to think that nothing can exist and there is absilutely no basis for anyone to ever propose that the default existence is nothing(which is, by any definition with which I am familiar, impossible) as opposed to something (which makes perfect sense).

 

I would ask you to support it with reasoned argumentation as I have done. Go ahead.

 

Feel free to point out the flaws. I'm waiting.

 

Wow, are there people who believe that the universe came into being through happenstance and serendipity? I would like to meet one of those people. Oh, and anytime you care to start making actual points to support your claim, feel free.

Actually, I won't have to do anything, but I may view the thread from time to time.

Duplicate post deleted

"While there would be no matter prior to the big bang, the big bang would release an enormous amount of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). This would explain the existence of matter."

 

Explain that to Vessel, he thinks his matter always existed…

Here's my take on this.

Question: Why are we here?

A: Because we are. The existence of life does not require reason. If it did, then I could just as easily turn this question on it's head and ask.. Why God there? Granted.  You may contend that he is there to create.  But your reason is no more self-evident then if I were to say "We are here to live." Both only seek to give a possible explanation as to the nature of a given entity.  God's nature is create.  Our nature is to live.

Question: Why is there something rather than nothing?

A: Because there is.  If there was not, then we would not be asking the question in the first place for we would not exist.  See above.  If I agree that something exists, it does not need anymore evidence then itself.  Once again.  If you would disagree.. consider your answer to the question turned on its head.  Why is there God instead of not God? If there is a God, then he is.  And if he is not, then he is not.  His existence does not need reason.

Question: What (if anything) caused our existence?

A: This might be the better of the questions.  And to it I would answer: God.  For I am a theist.  But an atheist could just as easily contend that nothing caused our existence.. it is has been, and always will be, in some form or another-- according to one of Steven Hawkings theories of time and universal beginnings.  He uses reason to state this theory is possible (with whatever rules he used.. I don't proclaim to understand all of Hawkings proofs.

1.  We are the result of plan and intention by a personal agents(s) who caused us to exist.

2. We are the unintended result of mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence through blind happenstance.

In essence a dichotomy of creationism and non-creationism.

Fine.  And each one, I would contest, is equally plausible.  Although some might contest that your description of scientific processes are misleading in your statement 2.. even so.  Mathematically speaking.. infinite time and infinite space allows for all possibilites.  Granted, I'm only right if I understand the concept of mathematical usage of the word infinity.  Even blind happenstance given infinite time and infinite space will get it right somewhere.

So where's the debate?

The matter I am made of has always existed. It has existed for all of time. Time is a property of the universe. Energy/matter can be neither created nor destroyed. How is it that you presume the matter that I consist of came to be if it hasn't always been a part of the universe? I welcome your explanation.

To all,

 

 

There is no getting off this merry-go-round regarding whether something has to exist or not. The above is not an explanation or evidence of anything, it is merely one assertion being supported by another assertion minus any evidence such is true. In short it is simply a mental construct you have erected which would be no more superior to if I said God exists because God can’t not exist and then have the gall to demand you prove God can not exist. It would be just as stupid an erroneous but evidently this is a fundamental belief impervious to any evidence to the contrary.

 

It doesn’t really matter what you think or what you’re fundamental beliefs are. No one else is beholden to them and the average person would have no problem recognizing that at the very least there is no requirement a universe or people exist.

 

So moving on…

 

1. The fact something exists rather than nothing.
2. The fact the universe began to exist about 15 to 20 billion years ago.
   
   Although no one here will agree, the truth is if it were scientifically established that the universe existed eternally that would be lights out smoking gun evidence that materialism (and consequently atheism) is true. There would really be no need to invoke a Creator (causer) of the universe if it always existed. Further more, no matter how rare or difficult getting life started might be it would have infinite chances to do so therefore again no need of a Creator.
   
   Therefore the fact the universe began to exist (along with time and the laws of nature) is a fact that favors the theistic model of our origin and existence and is disconfirmatory to the materialistic model.

 

 

    Again, which has been stated before nobody here actually believes all of matter spontaneously came into being as described in Genesis (apart from perhaps you).  So why you tend to berate that point in some pathetic strawman fallacy is beyond me.

As for number two, yes, godless science has calculated the universe is about 15 billion years old.   Your position is that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong therefore you are right.  Of course you haven't presented any arguments that matter and energy have always existed you just constantly repeat "It just has to".  Wishful thinking isn't getting you anywhere.

The current universe coming into being as a result of the Big Bang isn't terribly supernatural.  There is gravity brought about by intense density as is found in black holes.  Therefore it's no big surprise that is matter becomes dense enough it will result in a fusion explosion releasing that matter and energy into the cosmos.  How does a naturalistic explanation benefit your argument for a creator?  It doesn't, quite the contrary actually.

So if you care to present any actual arguement other than wishful thinking I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.  Until then the debate has yet to get started. 

 

Not exactly, if the universe existed eternally it would obviate the need of a first cause or creator but it wouldn’t rule out the possibility such might exist anyway. The fact we know the universe did begin to exist is a huge line of evidence in favor of the theistic model which has always suggested that the universe was created and started to exist.

 

You can’t have it both ways, when it looked like the universe existed eternally, that was deemed solid evidence in favor of the materialistic model for reasons I mentioned in the last post. The fact it turned out to be false and what theists thought was true is a huge feather in theists cap…deal with it.

 

 

A cyclic universe would only push the envelope back one step and not obviate the need of a causer.

 

Of course some new theory might emerge that would supplant the old, for that matter a new theory or evidence in favor of theism might emerge as well. So what?

 

 

I’m not referring to genesis I am referring to Big bang cosmology which still appears to be backed by solid evidence. And BB theory does describe the universe as spontaneously coming into existence

 

 

You better re-read some of these posts because I am not the one suggesting that matter and energy always existed. I have been arguing with Vessel against the notion that anything has to exist.

 

 

I think the term supernatural is a moving target. For example 200 years ago, the notion of traveling forward in time would be deemed a supernatural act. Now we know time is relative and if we could travel fast enough, we would move forward in time relative to people not moving fast.

 

That said the cause of the universe is supernatural, it was an agent apart from the universe, the laws of nature or time. What we call natural are agents that operate in time within the universe and are bound to the laws of nature.

 

Right on cue someone will suggest (minus any evidence such a thing is possible) that maybe the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. If so then existence of the universe is itself is a supernatural inexplicable miracle.

 

I hope someone offers such a possibility because I love to point out that even though atheists routinely claim they don’t believe in theism because of lack of evidence, lack of evidence never stops them from believing what they want to believe…

 

 

Are you suggesting the universe sprung into existence from a pre-existing black hole?

 

 

The debate isn’t between you and me or the other atheist zealots on this board, its between me and other people who are coming to this board who are not born again atheists and Godaphobes.

Actually, there are at least 2 ex nihilo cosmological models, stemming back from Edward Tryone's initial 'vacuum fluctuaton' speculation in 1973. However, it is still a strawman to refer to such cosmological models as 'magic' or to imply that it takes faith to believe in them, as nothing about these models violates physics!

I  hope to present an overview of these models shortly, from a reading of Alan Guth's review of their works.

I've never met a theist arguing cosmology, who has even the faintest idea of how wrong they are concering their claims about cosmology and ex nihilo models.

1) Big band theory is not a creation account in the first place.

2) Many cosmological models are NOT ex nihilo

3) Those that are, do not violate physics.

 

The argument is based on a false dichotomy anyway... i.e. either matter always existed (which the theist insists violates the second law of thermodynamics) or god exists (let's be honest and cut to the chase, this is their real argument.)

 The reality is far more complex, but learning this would not avail the theist, so ... why bother?

To Drew_Theist, 

 

I don't have much time today but thought I'd make a comment on your silliness here. 

So it is your belief that there is no requirement the universe exists, and yet it does. you seem to think this requires explanation. So since you will not allow the perfectly obvious statement that something must exist because nothing can not exist its merit, even though you can offer no reason why this statement is untrue, let's see where that puts you.

Apparently it is neither unreasonable nor absurd for nothing to exist by your reasoning, or lack there of. So before your big ghosty friend there created the universe, during that eternity of non-time where he did whatever it is gods do in their absence of space, why did he exist as opposed to nothing existing? You seem to think that nothing existing would be perfectly acceptable so it seems you need a reason for your god existsence as opposed to nothing existing. Why does there just happen to be a god who created the universe and people as opposed to nothingwhich would have in turn created nothing?  

 

Yeah, your ghosty friend there is something as opposed to nothing. Lets see what kind of explanation we have for his existence.

It is clearly speacial pleading to ask why something exists and not something else. This is the problem you have now that you have repeatedly neglected my reasoning.

What you try to answer (unsuccessfully I might add) with the rest of your crap is how the universe can exist. Here you will claim that there necessatrily needs to be a necessarilly existing something which created the universe. Everyone here has heard this arguiment and heard it from every angle. The fact is that even that argument has serious flaws. But it is not near as seriously flawed as the argument you created against yourself when you insisted repeatedly that there needs to be a reason why something exists as opposed to nothing. Now I hope you don't fail to answer your own insistent question. Why does god exist as opposed to nothing?

todangst,

 

If you want to argue a point from a weblink please quote some relevant text so I don't have to wade through a long essay and attempt to figure out what you think is pertinent.

 

You know that Hawkings used 'imaginary' time to come up with this construct and even he admits it doesn't avoid a beginining.

 

says the guy using the thousand year old argument.

In truth the reason that something exists can be explained simply as I have already shown. To assume that nothing would be, could be, or has ever been is nothing but a ridiculous assumption that has no basis in anything aside from an inability to understand. There is no reason to think nothingness is anything aside from a useless non-concept. There is really no good reason to even consider it to be possible. To a person incapable of  thinking their way out of a Papal bag it may seem as if the assumption that the idea that nothingness always proceeds existence is obvious. They may look around and say,"Hey, when there is not a car in that parking space there is nothing in that parking space," and from this assume that this means that nothingness is a natural state and existence requires a reason. However, they are basing this on a faulty understanding of nothingness. I have never seen any good reason given why anyone should consider there to be any possibility of true nothingness. Nothingness is contrary to reason and should not be considered a possibility without good reason. 

Now to handle the rest of your silliness.

I have had no need to think it through. I've heard this argument so many times I can sleep through replying to you. Besides, what you've contributed so far doesn't even qualify as thought. 

  It seems that you have been forced to admit that you can't even answer your own question as to why there is something instead of nothing: 

 

So sad. 

So now that you admit that you have no good reason for why a god would exist as opposed to nothing existing let's try another question.

How did this god, that you imagine, supposedly create the universe? By what means? Did he have to create a top hat first to pull it out of, or did he just wave his supernatural hand and go abra cadabra? Did he make it of pure nothing or did he have to use glue to stick the nothing together? All I need is for you to explain how exactly god turned nothing into the universe, or whatever it was he turned into the universe, and then we will have a good start.

If you can't explain this then so far we will have figured out that you can neither say why there is something instead of nothing, or how the universe came to be.