1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    10 Apr '06 22:02
    Forgive me if someone has already cleared this up but can I point out to Atheists that God did not 'come out of nothing' but actually has no beginning. If you believe the universe is finite or even infinite you still have to explain how it came out of nothing because it has a beginning. The definition of eternal is infinity in both directions (without beginning or end). Since God has no beginning there's little point in asking 'what began God then' . However , this question is valid if something does have a beginning.

    The only reasonable alternative is the universe being eternal. How many of you Atheists believe life is eternal and how many of you think it is finite/infinite (and if you do then how do you get by the something out of nothing paradox) ?
  2. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    10 Apr '06 22:071 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Forgive me if someone has already cleared this up but can I point out to Atheists that God did not 'come out of nothing' but actually has no beginning. If you believe the universe is finite or even infinite you still have to explain how it came out of nothing because it has a beginning. The definition of eternal is infinity in both directions (without nite/infinite (and if you do then how do you get by the something out of nothing paradox) ?
    This claim has been dealt with over and over on this Forum. Defining some entity as having no beginning is mere hocus pocus; there is no reason to take such a claim seriously. The Theist attempt to say "everything must have a beginning EXCEPT God" is a mere capricious and arbitrary construct. It is the height of irrationality to continue to argue such a self-contradictory assertion.
  3. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    10 Apr '06 23:29
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This claim has been dealt with over and over on this Forum. Defining some entity as having no beginning is mere hocus pocus; there is no reason to take such a claim seriously. The Theist attempt to say "everything must have a beginning EXCEPT God" is a mere capricious and arbitrary construct. It is the height of irrationality to continue to argue such a self-contradictory assertion.
    Can I once again clarify. The argument is not 'everything must have a beginning EXCEPT God' ....it is more subtle than this. It is more 'there must be something that has no beginning because otherwise something must begin from nothing which is even more irrational'.

    or....'everything that has a beginning has to have a cause but if something has no beginning then it obviously has no cause because a cause is not needed'

    or...'things do not begin from nothing so what is the thing that begins all life?and what begins that? and this thing what begins that? and this thing what begins that then? and this thing what begins that then? and this thing what begins that? and this thing what begins that? and this thing what begins that? (1000,000 years x infinity later)...and this thing what begins that? etc etc etc X more infinity...and then buck stops with either (a) and this thing begins out of completely nothing and nowhere ,no cause OR (b) and this thing has no beginning and is eternal.

    Are you saying that (b) is more self contradictory and more irrational than (a)? You may label (b) as hocus pocus but logically either (a) or (b) must be true. In which case you are left with (a) which sounds much more like hocus pocus to me. All life 'appearing' out of nothing?!...like some magical puff of smoke? Abracadabra..drum roll....life! Out of zilch! Hocus pocus!!

    Imagine ...Life is nothing , no time , no matter , no nothing...infact it's so nothing that even to call it nothing would be to give it too much substance. A void so devoid of anything (even that which we can't imagine) that it is not even an it. I would contest that such a nothingness would continue 'being' nothing for all time (if the phrases 'being' and 'all time' have any relevance here) since there would be nothing happening at all and nothing from which any else could happen. Contemplate it in all it's glorious nothingness! Nothing!!! Nothing at all!!!! Try and imagine it until your brain hurts !! And then some magic wand or something and ....boom! something out of nothing! how? Madness.. is this not?Oh dear ..what's happening.... suddenly eternity is starts to look more logical....oops ..but this cannot be.....eternity?...too awsome...too incredible......quick let's make it smaller...nothing..that's better...close down that line of thinking before it gets too religious and mystical...it doesn't matter if it's absurd as long as it's not mystical...phew!...that was close...
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    10 Apr '06 23:411 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Can I once again clarify. The argument is not 'everything must have a beginning EXCEPT God' ....it is more subtle than this. It is more 'there must be something that has no beginning because otherwise something must begin from nothing which is even more irrational'.

    or....'everything that has a beginning has to have a cause but if something has no if it's absurd as long as it's not mystical...phew!...that was close...
    I'm saying that the idea that something can exist without having a beginning is outside the scope of my experience and is hard to imagine. The idea that everything must have a "cause" is just another arbitrary construct; why must it? All you are doing is making an assertion that "EVERYTHING" must have a beginning and then arbitrarily making up a SOMETHING that doesn't. This is plain silly.

    EDIT: If you make another ranting and raving post like your last paragraph, I won't respond again.
  5. The moral highground
    Joined
    06 May '04
    Moves
    33785
    10 Apr '06 23:51
    If god dosent need a beggining then why cant the universe not need a beggining thus there is no need to make up god and we can just say that everything is random and meaningless.
  6. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    11 Apr '06 00:16
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    [b]. The idea that everything must have a "cause" is just another arbitrary construct; why must it? All you are doing is making an assertion that "EVERYTHING" must have a beginning and then arbitrarily making up a SOMETHING that doesn't. This is plain silly.
    Ok , no ranting...the assertion that everything must have a cause is about as 'un'- arbitary as it gets! It's the basis of causal reasoning and deductive logic. Without this assertion there would be no science. Darwin used this assertion to ask 'what caused all these species?' Scientists are constantly looking for causes on the back of this assertion. You use this assertion every day without even thinking about it. The conclusion of (a)something from nothing or (b) eternity, can be arrived at through logical reasoning , not making it up. By the way what's your solution to this connundrum? have you got a (C)?
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Apr '06 00:34
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Ok , no ranting...the assertion that everything must have a cause is about as 'un'- arbitary as it gets! It's the basis of causal reasoning and deductive logic. Without this assertion there would be no science. Darwin used this assertion to ask 'what caused all these species?' Scientists are constantly looking for causes on the back of this assertion. ...[text shortened]... not making it up. By the way what's your solution to this connundrum? have you got a (C)?
    No I don't and neither do you. The difference is I'm not going to create a magical fairy tale to "solve" this little problem. I've already stated that what happened before the Big Bang is beyond the purview of science. Trying to apply such principles to metaphysical questions gets you nowhere. Of course, you don't really believe in such principles anyway.
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Apr '06 00:39
    To make it simple,the concept of something that is "eternal" is rational i.e. a product of reason but it can't really be understood by human beings. The concept of something out of nothing is similarly rational, but that can't really be understood either. We have no experience of anything being eternal or something coming out of nothing. So you invent something out of nothing to solve the problem. I simply say I really don't know. Who's approach is more rational?
  9. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    11 Apr '06 02:00
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Ok , no ranting...the assertion that everything must have a cause is about as 'un'- arbitary as it gets! It's the basis of causal reasoning and deductive logic. Without this assertion there would be no science. Darwin used this assertion to ask 'what caused all these species?' Scientists are constantly looking for causes on the back of this assertion. ...[text shortened]... not making it up. By the way what's your solution to this connundrum? have you got a (C)?
    The principle of sufficient reason is not the basis of either casual reasoning or deductive logic. We can engage in causal reasoning in this or that case without being committed to the PSR, just like we can engage in inductive reasoning without being committed to the claim that the laws of the universe are everywhere constant. Deductive logic does not even employ the notion of causality. PSR is not tautologous; it can't be proved from no premises (which is good, since PSR is not a theorem).
  10. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    11 Apr '06 02:32
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Ok , no ranting...the assertion that everything must have a cause is about as 'un'- arbitary as it gets! It's the basis of causal reasoning and deductive logic. Without this assertion there would be no science. Darwin used this assertion to ask 'what caused all these species?' Scientists are constantly looking for causes on the back of this assertion. ...[text shortened]... not making it up. By the way what's your solution to this connundrum? have you got a (C)?
    Your assumption that your assertion is 'un'-arbitary, is in itself capricious. So, you cannot fathom a non-causal existence for the universe and rely on ancient folklore, myths and legends for the basis of your comprehension, that doesn't make your view correct, it is however, a very arbitrary view.
  11. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Apr '06 04:19
    Cause and effect are things that require a time factor. It's plain ridiculous to ask "what created the universe" because time is a property of the universe. Cause and effect don't operate without time, and "before" the universe time didn't exist, hence no cause and effect. I've pointed this out before. So you see, your question is necessarily loaded with assumptions that just don't make sense.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Apr '06 20:43
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Cause and effect are things that require a time factor. It's plain ridiculous to ask "what created the universe" because time is a property of the universe. Cause and effect don't operate without time, and "before" the universe time didn't exist, hence no cause and effect. I've pointed this out before. So you see, your question is necessarily loaded with assumptions that just don't make sense.
    This is trying to resolve the metaphysical issue by semantics. You have no way of knowing whether "time" existed "before" the universe or even whether there ever was a "before" the universe (or perhaps more precisely the "stuff" that makes up the universe). In some sense, you are doing what the theist does: making an assertion based on your personal belief and holding it to be an absolute truth.
  13. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Apr '06 23:091 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This is trying to resolve the metaphysical issue by semantics. You have no way of knowing whether "time" existed "before" the universe or even whether there ever was a "before" the universe (or perhaps more precisely the "stuff" that makes up the universe). In some sense, you are doing what the theist does: making an assertion based on your personal belief and holding it to be an absolute truth.
    Perhaps, after a fashion, but we certainly know that there was no time at the big bang, it only come into existance later (and therefore 'before' has no logical meaning - this isn't semantics, it's very, very important if you understand it fully). What went "before" is anyone's guess. The most parsimonious argument, freed from the shackles of cause and effect, is that there was nothing.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Apr '06 23:161 edit
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Perhaps, after a fashion, but we certainly know that there was no time at the big bang, it only come into existance later (and therefore 'before' has no logical meaning - this isn't semantics, it's very, very important if you understand it fully). What went "before" is anyone's guess. The most parsimonious argument, freed from the shackles of cause and effect, is that there was nothing.
    Sorry, time as an aspect of this universe came into existence after the Big Bang. You have no way of knowing whether "time" existed prior to the Big Bang or not. Only by presuming that this universe is the everything can you make such a categorical statement. And that is really "begging the question" in this discussion.

    EDIT: And that also presumes that this Big Bang was the first and only one.
  15. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    11 Apr '06 23:17
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Perhaps, after a fashion, but we certainly know that there was no time at the big bang, it only come into existance later (and therefore 'before' has no logical meaning - this isn't semantics, it's very, very important if you understand it fully). What went "before" is anyone's guess. The most parsimonious argument, freed from the shackles of cause and effect, is that there was nothing.
    You're right, to an extent.
    As many have shown before, initially lacking a coherent explanation doesn't stop people from trying. In this case the work by Martin Rees and others on the idea of a 'multiverse' may well open up avenues to explore the notion of a 'before' the big bang.

    Never say never ...
Back to Top