Christian argument that something can't come from nothing

[James S Saint]

James S Saint--

Rather "the Cause of Being".

So you're saying God is the cause of being but not a being or being itself? That seems wrong to me.

God is proposed as the Cause of "Physical Being".
God has never been proposed as a physical being.

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

God has never been proposed as a physical being.

In the garden story in Genesis God walking in the cool of the day proposes God to be a physical being.

And God showing His backside to Moses proposes God to be a physical being ...

[James S Saint]

God has never been proposed as a physical being.

In the garden story in Genesis God walking in the cool of the day proposes God to be a physical being.

And God showing His backside to Moses proposes God to be a physical being ...

You can presume that from those limited contexts.. but only by ignoring the rest of the context.

"showing his backside"??

[Mutcer]

It seems that everyone on this thread is missing the point that the Christians were stating...

"You can't GET something from nothing."

God is not something that one gets (comes to be). As it has always been proposed, God has always been and is NOT "begotten".

This is merely another vacuous Mutcerism.

"You can't get something from nothing" = "Something can't come from nothing"

[James S Saint]

"You can't get something from nothing" = "Something can't come from nothing"

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

"Using Simple Logic to Show That Mutcer Doesn't Have Any."

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

And you know this how? Or how does any primate know such things about God?

[James S Saint]

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

And you know this how? Or how does any primate know such things about God?

The first understanding is that such is merely the proposition/hypothesis that is being refuted (poorly).
But if a person were to actually come to understand Logic, he could deduce it easy enough.

Faith is only necessarily because of homosapians poor skills for reasoning.
But until that changes...

[V-OutOfTheWilderness]

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

And you know this how? Or how does any primate know such things about God?

The first understanding is that such is merely the proposition/hypothesis that is being refuted (poorly).
But if a person were to actually come to understand Logic, he could deduce it easy enough.

Faith is only necessarily because of homosapians poor skills for reasoning.
But until that changes...

So ...

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created

Is God by proclamation?

[James S Saint]

Is God by proclamation?

The term "God" is by definition (which is a proclamation of the meaning of the term).

The concept of a god, like all concepts, exists with or without any proclamation or knowledge. A "perfect circle" is a perfect circle regardless of anyone's understanding or misunderstanding concerning it. Of course the term "perfect circle" can be redefined, but the concept is eternal, just as is the concept of God.

But don't go conflating "concept" with "a thought". A thought embodies a concept. It is not the concept itself.

[felix dakat]

James S Saint--

Rather "the Cause of Being".

So you're saying God is the cause of being but not a being or being itself? That seems wrong to me.

God is proposed as the Cause of "Physical Being".
God has never been proposed as a physical being.

OK. Who proposed that God is a physical being? Not me. I'm not Hobbes.

[Mutcer]

"You can't get something from nothing" = "Something can't come from nothing"

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

"Using Simple Logic to Show That Mutcer Doesn't Have Any."

Let's back peddle a little bit:

Do you classify God as
1) something
2) nothing
3) other

[James S Saint]

"You can't get something from nothing" = "Something can't come from nothing"

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

"Using Simple Logic to Show That Mutcer Doesn't Have Any."

Let's back peddle a little bit:

Do you classify God as
1) something
2) nothing
3) other

My compliments on your seeing that there are always 3 categories, not merely the simple minded 2 that so many people presume.

But my answer is "3) other"

The reason for that choice is the presumption concerning what a "thing" is.
Even if you were to provide a definition for that term, whether it fits what the Christians might have meant by it would be another issue which they could easily handle.

[Mutcer]

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created.

"Using Simple Logic to Show That Mutcer Doesn't Have Any."

Let's back peddle a little bit:

Do you classify God as
1) something
2) nothing
3) other

My compliments on your seeing that there are always 3 categories, not merely the simple minded 2 that so many people presume.

But my answer is "3) other"

The reason for that choice is the presumption concerning what a "thing" is.
Even if you were to provide a definition for that term, whether it fits what the Christians might have meant by it would be another issue which they could easily handle.

So we have three classifications:
Something
Nothing
Other

The Christian suggestion that you can't get something from nothing means that if Christians are positing man and the universe as a something, it would follow that man & the universe came from either a something or an "other". Thus, if Christians classify man as a something, God is either a something or an "other".

The Christian suggestion that God didn't come from something (or had no creator) means that God came from either a nothing or from an "other".

However, if Christians classify God as "other", then how can we rule out that man is not "other"?

If man is "other", then the "you can't get something from nothing" argument is meaningless with respect to man.

Thus, what needs to be asked, is if you can't get something from nothing, can you get something from something other than something?

[James S Saint]

The Christian suggestion that you can't get something from nothing means that if Christians are positing man and the universe as a something, it would follow that man & the universe came from either a something or an "other". Thus, if Christians classify man as a something, God is either a something or an "other".

The Christian suggestion that God didn't come from something (or had no creator) means that God came from either a nothing or from an "other".

However, if Christians classify God as "other", then how can we rule out that man is not "other"?

How they categorize "Man" is an "other" subject.
I don't know many people, Christian or not, who consider people as "things".

If man is "other", then the "you can't get something from nothing" argument is meaningless with respect to man.

True. And as far as I know, it isn't applied to Man.

Thus, what needs to be asked, is if you can't get something from nothing, can you get something from something other than something?

I would expect their answer to become "yes", even if it wasn't immediately so.
They might have to figure out what YOU mean when YOU say, "something".

[Moreno]

So ...

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created

Is God by proclamation?

The idea is that God has always been.

At various times physicists have had 'entities' like this. For a long time physicists thought we had a steady state universe - iow, eternal. Then we had the Big Bang with a start point. But now this BB is placed at least by some physicists in some kind of multiverse - that has always been - or some kind of potentially eternal potentiality for being/universe to arise. In any case the idea that something (which is a poor word for either God or universe can always have been) is NOT one that physicists take off the table.

[felix dakat]

So ...

God did not "come from" anything.
God was not Begotten nor Created

Is God by proclamation?

The idea is that God has always been.

At various times psychics has 'entities' like this. For a long time physicists thought we had a steady state universe - iow, eternal. Then we had the Big Bang with a start point. But now this BB is placed at least by some physicists in some kind of multiverse - that has always been - or some kind of potentially eternal potentiality for being/universe to arise. In any case the idea that something (which is a poor word for either God or universe can always have been) is NOT one that physicists take off the table.

Yes and theoretically that "kind of multiverse - that has always been - or some kind of potentially eternal potentiality for being/universe to arise" also know as "eternal inflation" [see wikipedia] corresponds to "necessary being" in Aquinas' cosmological argument. That is it has at least two of the essential attributes of God: necessity and eternal existence

[Selah7+]

God has never been proposed as a physical being.

In the garden story in Genesis God walking in the cool of the day proposes God to be a physical being.

And God showing His backside to Moses proposes God to be a physical being ...

You can presume that from those limited contexts.. but only by ignoring the rest of the context.

"showing his backside"??

LOL, James.

[Selah7+]

Is God by proclamation?

The term "God" is by definition (which is a proclamation of the meaning of the term).

The concept of a god, like all concepts, exists with or without any proclamation or knowledge. A "perfect circle" is a perfect circle regardless of anyone's understanding or misunderstanding concerning it. Of course the term "perfect circle" can be redefined, but the concept is eternal, just as is the concept of God.

But don't go conflating "concept" with "a thought". A thought embodies a concept. It is not the concept itself.

Amen, brother.

[James S Saint]

Aquinas' cosmological argument.

Might want to be careful with dear Thomas. I have yet to meet anyone who can support his reasoning (not against me anyway).

[Uccisore]

This conversation is pointless. The argument that 'something can't come from nothing' isn't a necessary part of Christian doctrine and isn't used in any good theistic arguments of any kind. It's an artificial introduction by atheist critics who didn't understand the cosmological argument, and was taken by by poorly-read Christians who's gut reaction is to argue with everything an atheist says.

Not everything has a cause- it's fine. Admitting not everything has a cause is no problem for Christianity.

It's not pointless.

Christians posit three things:
1) Something can't come from nothing

NO, they don't. Or, hell, maybe there are some Christians that do, but no formal Christian argument goes like that. You probably THINK you are paraphrasing Aquinas' Cosmological argument, but you are not. It goes like this:

1.) Something either has a cause or it doesn't.
2.) Things that have causes are caused by other things.
3.) There is at least one thing that has a cause.
4.) On 1 and 3, whatever causes something either has a cause itself, or does not.
5.) On 4 and 3, we either have an infinite series of causes, or we have a First Cause.
6.) An infinite series of causes is bullshit.
7.) On 5 and 6- there is a first cause.

That's it. Your 'something can't come from nothing' is neither stated nor implied.

[BUFFALO]

You probably THINK you are paraphrasing Aquinas' Cosmological argument, but you are not. It goes like this:

1.) Something either has a cause or it doesn't.
2.) Things that have causes are caused by other things.
3.) There is at least one thing that has a cause.
4.) On 1 and 3, whatever causes something either has a cause itself, or does not.
5.) On 4 and 3, we either have an infinite series of causes, or we have a First Cause.
6.) An infinite series of causes is bullshit.
7.) On 5 and 6- there is a first cause.

That's it. Your 'something can't come from nothing' is neither stated nor implied.

It isn't stated, but it is implied. There are really three alternatives here.
1) A first cause.
2) An infinite regress.
3) Something coming into existence without a first cause

Alternative number three is not stated, but is implied logically. It is also equivalent to "something from nothing".

[Uccisore]

It isn't stated, but it is implied. There are really three alternatives here.
1) A first cause.
2) An infinite regress.
3) Something coming into existence without a first cause

Alternative number three is not stated, but is implied logically. It is also equivalent to "something from nothing".

Yes. that something could come into existence without a first cause is implied by the argument. You could call this something coming from nothing. That something could come from nothing is implied by the argument.

That something CAN'T come from nothing is not implied.

Therefore mutcer's contradiction doesn't exist in the real formulations of the argument.

See?

[Mutcer]

This conversation is pointless. The argument that 'something can't come from nothing' isn't a necessary part of Christian doctrine and isn't used in any good theistic arguments of any kind. It's an artificial introduction by atheist critics who didn't understand the cosmological argument, and was taken by by poorly-read Christians who's gut reaction is to argue with everything an atheist says.

Not everything has a cause- it's fine. Admitting not everything has a cause is no problem for Christianity.

It's not pointless.

Christians posit three things:
1) Something can't come from nothing

NO, they don't. Or, hell, maybe there are some Christians that do, but no formal Christian argument goes like that. You probably THINK you are paraphrasing Aquinas' Cosmological argument, but you are not. It goes like this:

1.) Something either has a cause or it doesn't.
2.) Things that have causes are caused by other things.
3.) There is at least one thing that has a cause.
4.) On 1 and 3, whatever causes something either has a cause itself, or does not.
5.) On 4 and 3, we either have an infinite series of causes, or we have a First Cause.
6.) An infinite series of causes is bullshit.
7.) On 5 and 6- there is a first cause.

That's it. Your 'something can't come from nothing' is neither stated nor implied.

Give me an example of something which doesn't have a cause.

Explain why at least one thing must have a cause.

Explain why an infinite series of causes is BS.

[Uccisore]

Give me an example of something which doesn't have a cause.

God. Possibly quantum events. Possibly acts of free will. I say 'possibly' because a lack of something (such as a cause) can never be proven, of course.

Explain why at least one thing must have a cause.

It's an observation, not a postulate. We look at the world around us and see lots of things that are apparently caused by other things, including our own conceptions. If you would like to postulate that there is no such thing as causation, be my guest. I'll keep it in mind for when you speak highly of science in some future post.

Explain why an infinite series of causes is BS.

How about you acknowledge that 'something can't come from nothing' isn't a part of the Cosmological argument and that your entire argument was bullshit first? It doesn't seem fair that your response to having a question answered is just to immediately raise three new questions without acknowledgment. I just resolved the issue you created this thread to address. I'd like some recognition of that before we move on.

[Selah7+]

Give me an example of something which doesn't have a cause.

God. Possibly quantum events. Possibly acts of free will. I say 'possibly' because a lack of something (such as a cause) can never be proven, of course.

Explain why at least one thing must have a cause.

It's an observation, not a postulate. We look at the world around us and see lots of things that are apparently caused by other things, including our own conceptions. If you would like to postulate that there is no such thing as causation, be my guest. I'll keep it in mind for when you speak highly of science in some future post.

Explain why an infinite series of causes is BS.

How about you acknowledge that 'something can't come from nothing' isn't a part of the Cosmological argument and that your entire argument was bullshit first? It doesn't seem fair that your response to having a question answered is just to immediately raise three new questions without acknowledgment. I just resolved the issue you created this thread to address. I'd like some recognition of that before we move on.

Uccisore, you have my vote, you won this argument.