Stephen Hawking, Darwinists, and Losing (or Finding) One’s Mind

_{Gil Dodgen

August 7, 2011

Intelligent Design, Mind}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Hawking says that nothing created everything. If nothing is nothing, it creates nothing, otherwise nothing is not nothing, it is something.

The “nothing created everything” hypothesis is just as illogical as the claim that random errors can produce complex information-processing systems with error-detection-and-repair technology in living things — the Darwinian thesis.

Have I lost my mind and ability to think logically, or have Darwinists and people like Hawking lost theirs?

I suggest that the latter is the case, because I was once included in their number. I did lose my mind, but eventually found it.

Comments

@ Scruffy, I don't have time to debate three people, so goodbye. @Brent 48 I don't like this format. It takes too long to find my old posts. Please email me at bobsmith99 at catholic dot org if you would like to continue the debate.
As for “nothing in a bubble”, are you calling me out on that because I stated the obvious? Is there any other way we can attempt to consider nothing?
Don't know what you mean
As I said before, if you want to talk about nothing at all, well, we have nothing to talk about.
We're talking about the origin of existence, which is something not nothing.
If you’ll notice, I added quotation marks to my earlier response when talking about the “law” from nothing, nothing comes. It should probably be referred to as an axiom. But this is an axiom that, for whatever reason, you don’t accept.
Sure, ex nihlo nihil fit is an axiom, but so is the impossibility of infinite regress in a material world. If you have two axioms that contradict each other, then one must be wrong. Let's say both A and ~A were axiomatically true, that would be impossible. One of them would have to be true.
This seems very, very strange to me, for you say that not even a law, and presumably an axiom, can be attributed to nothing. If you believe that, how exactly do you propose to get something, something concrete no less, from nothing? This is truly puzzling.
I no more have a solution to how you get something from nothing, then you have a solution as to how to account for something arising out of an infinite regress.noam_ghish_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT}

@KF 53 I don't like this format. It takes too long to find my old posts. Please email me at bobsmith99 at catholic dot org if you would like to continue the debate.
2 + 3 = 5 FYI is self-evidently true. Once you understand what it is saying, and what it means, you see it is true and must be true, and that there are no possible circumstances under which it will not be true, on pain of reduction to absurdity.
I believe 2 + 3 = 5 is self-evident. I also believe, one, that it is self-evident that infinite regress is impossible in a concrete world, two, I also believe that it is absurd that something can from nothing. However, one or two must be true, in spite of their absurdity. Fortunately, whether or not one or two is true has no implication for theism or atheism. The only thing that has implications for atheism or theism is evidence of fine-tuning in our present universe, which there is.
A true proposition is true, period. that truthfulness did not begin, nor will it end. And where the truth in a sentence that refers to time — as in the author of this post is now typing — is delimited by time, the complete truth expressed in this proposition will be like that. That is, “now” can be filled in as to say between 10 to 8 am local time here and 8 or so, on this date and place.
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying: 1. truth has no beginning nor end 2. therefore, something exists that has no beginning nor end 3. therefore, this can apply to the universe If so, then you're blurring the analytic-synthetic distinction which Kant pointed out was S Anselm's mistake in his ontological proof for the existence of God. You can't use truths that exist in the analytic, platonic realm and assume that they are always true for the concrete world. For example, you cannot say: 1. in the platonic realm, a line is the shortest distance between two points 2. therefore, in the material realm a line is the shortest distance between two points We now know that space is curved and the above is not true.
But it is not fine tuning that points to there being a necessary being at the causal root of our cosmos but — even through multiverse speculations — its contingency.
Listen I believe God's existence is necessary to account for the fact that the universe is ordered. However, it does not follow that the universe is eternal. It's a nonsequiter to say: 1. God must exist, if order exists 2. therefore, the universe has no beginning.
Have you done the half-burned match exercise? That will show you what makes things contingent: they depend on external necessary causal factors. Absent such a factor and a contingent being cannot exist. It will not begin, or if a going concern, it will cease. So, you have the problem of traversing the infinite in steps, which is indeed an absurdity, or else you have a root being that is not contingent.
Don't understand what you mean.
A contingent cosmos, which is also fine tuned, points to such a root being: no beginning, no end — as not dependent on external causal factors — and with the power, capacity and purpose to design and effect a cosmos fine tuned for C-chemistry, cell based life.
This is just an assertion. I see no proof in that statement.noam_ghish_{August 10, 2011
August
08
Aug
10
10
2011
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

OK. I think we agree. As I was saying earlier, if we are not speaking of a bubble, but just absolute nothingness "everywhere", then we have nothing to talk about.Brent_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

Brent, Yes, I was not arguing with KF, merely asking if, when considering a true state of nothingness (not a bubble), we can posit abstract, nonmaterial concepts such as numbers, when those numbers require things to refer to. Without things to count, could such a concept as #3 arise? The only way it could is if minds and things are borrowed from a functioning cosmos, and applied to a bubble. I think that could be misleading, especially as we are engaging in a metaphysical discussion of the necessity of an uncaused cause. Nothingness means no particles, no space, no quantum void. It's not even dark, empty space. And so, whence the universe? Someone here said that nothingness could give rise to a mind.avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

avocationist, First, the way I read KF makes it seem that 2+3=5 wasn't necessarily meant to be applied to a state of nothingness. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the main point he was trying to make was something else. Anyway, as you seem to agree, to speak of nothingness, we are somewhat forced to think in terms of a "bubble". In that case, I think that you can apply abstract ideas, axioms, "laws", concepts to that area of nothing. As I said earlier, from nothing nothing comes, would apply to that space. 2+3=5 would also, though it should be stated as a conditional, i.e., "if some things existed in that bubble". But even while nothing exists in that bubble, it is still true within the bubble that 2+3=5. Nothing in the bubble could conceive of it or demonstrate its truth, but it would be true nonetheless.Brent_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

KF, Nothingness is not a possible state of affairs, at least not in our case, in which we have existence. I.e., nothingness does not "exist" somewhere. From yesterday: "Nothing is an abstract idea that does not exist. Because there is existence, there is something self existent, nothingness is impossible and no state of true nothingness has ever been. It’s not an either/or. There is only Existence." But if there WERE a state of nothingness, nothing could arise from it! And if something arises within a bubble of nothingness, we can be sure it was transferred from without the bubble.avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Is nothingness -- nonexistence of ANYTHING --a possible state of affairs? [Recognise, here, that we are discussing this . . . ]kairosfocus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

KairosFocus, You said- "Pardon, but as asked previously, can you identify circumstances under which the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 will not hold?" It seems to me that in a state of true nothingness not only would this equation have no meaning, but could not be formulated, nor could anything. It seems to me that people are thinking in terms of bubbles of nothingness in an otherwise active cosmos and then ascribing properties to it. But the two are completely separate. As soon as you have any kind of somethingness, you no longer have nothingness. Although numbers are abstract and nonmaterial, they refer to material things, without which they cannot arise.avocationist_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

F/N: gotta go bailing out water coming in over the gunnels, but the contingency has a separate dimension that would hold even in a temporally infinite cosmos. think about the contingency of the cosmos as a going concern: do we have reason to imagine that it cannot end? And, what about the factors that seem to be just this way and not that, which go together to make it habitable for our type of life? (Remember on this, the cosmos seems to be finely balanced as to mass as the ratio of a grain of sand to all the atomic matter out there. And yup I am being very specific in terminology.) Ah gawn . . .kairosfocus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Scruff, 16: Apart from the empirical evidence that points to a temporally delimited cosmos, the root challenge here is the traversing of the infinite. As my carpenter friend saw yesterday in a hardware shop, if the links in a chain extend to infinity, then they cannot be counted in sequence, we will never arrive at infinity - 1, infinity. (That is tied to the issue that cardinality aleph null happens when the members of a countable set can be put in one to one correspondence with the set as a whole, e.g. the evens with the natural numbers.) So, we cannot go, 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . and arrive at infinity. Nor, -1, -2, -3, . . . and arrive at negative infinity. So also, if the origin of the chain of causes is infinitely remote, we cannot arrive at the present by traversing the aleph null cardinality implied. That is before we see the problems of thermodynamics -- energy gradients would run down leading to heat death and maximum chaos. Nor the direct observational evidence of clusters, galaxies, and Hubble expansion as best explanation for red shift. The situation we face is that our observed cosmos, so far as the facts support, had a finitely remote beginning. It is contingent, and has external necessary causal factor(s). that points onward to a necessary being as already outlined just now. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

NG, 8:
That’s just an assertion [ --> in reply to 2 + 3 = 5]. You have no proof that something that exists, never began
Pardon, but as asked previously, can you identify circumstances under which the truth expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 will not hold? Brazenly dismissing the matter by demanding a "proof" in the teeth of a demonstration by example, is selectively hyperskeptical. 2 + 3 = 5 FYI is self-evidently true. Once you understand what it is saying, and what it means, you see it is true and must be true, and that there are no possible circumstances under which it will not be true, on pain of reduction to absurdity. That is, the truth claim expressed in 2 + 3 = 5 is true, it was always true and it will always be true. That is it corresponds to and accurately describes reality. You may not like the implications, but you have no answer to the case other than to try to demand a proof that you have known in essence since you were in grade school or even Kindergarten. In short, you have right in front of you an example of a necessary being. One that by the way is generally conceded, e.g. in the famous Russell- Coppeleston debate in the 1940's, Russell was careful to acknowledge this first of all before making any other points. A true proposition is true, period. that truthfulness did not begin, nor will it end. And where the truth in a sentence that refers to time -- as in the author of this post is now typing -- is delimited by time, the complete truth expressed in this proposition will be like that. That is, "now" can be filled in as to say between 10 to 8 am local time here and 8 or so, on this date and place. Truth is like that, and it is seen through concrete cases. your error continues:
I agree that fine tuning points to an intelligent designer, but it does not point to the existence of anything being eternal.
But it is not fine tuning that points to there being a necessary being at the causal root of our cosmos but -- even through multiverse speculations -- its contingency. Which is most easily seen in the evidence that it has a beginning. Have you done the half-burned match exercise? That will show you what makes things contingent: they depend on external necessary causal factors. Absent such a factor and a contingent being cannot exist. It will not begin, or if a going concern, it will cease. So, you have the problem of traversing the infinite in steps, which is indeed an absurdity, or else you have a root being that is not contingent. A contingent cosmos, which is also fine tuned, points to such a root being: no beginning, no end -- as not dependent on external causal factors -- and with the power, capacity and purpose to design and effect a cosmos fine tuned for C-chemistry, cell based life. Now, I acknowledge that his type of thinking is novel to most of us, that is a result of the gaps in our education and public discussion driven by the dominance of a priori materialism. If you go back some decades, you will see that the Steady State cosmology was in part put forth as the cosmos as a whole would then be the necessary being. But, alas for materialists, that was not the case. Our observed cosmos credibly had a beginning and is thus credibly contingent. From that, much follows, and it puts on the table some very serious worldview issues. Issues that are inconvenient for the reigning orthodoxy. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT}

"A physicist’s answer might be that nothing is inherently unstable, and that occasional random somethings and anti-somethings are more probable ..." I wonder how one calculates the behavioral probabilities of "nothing", and how one would arrive at the conclusion that "nothing" is inherently unstable? I wonder, if enough really smart and respected scientists asserted that jumping off a cliff will increase your chances of living a long and healthy life, how many people will jump off a cliff? I mean, if one can be convinced that you can not only get something from nothing, but that you can also calculate the behavioral probabilities of nothing, what's to stop people from believing that jumping off a cliff will help them lead a long and healthy life?Meleagar_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Well, look at that. Mung had the opportunity to give me the answer to the ultimate theological question and he muffs it. Ah well. Hell for me I guess.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

ok, you can't read. i get it.Mung_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

Mung:
So you may now ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing?
Right. So what is the answer? (A physicist's answer might be that nothing is inherently unstable, and that occasional random somethings and anti-somethings are more probable, but that doesn't seem to me to answer the question as to why there is even an unstable nothing).Elizabeth Liddle_{August 9, 2011
August
08
Aug
9
09
2011
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT}

noam @9, Sorry for the late reply. As for "nothing in a bubble", are you calling me out on that because I stated the obvious? Is there any other way we can attempt to consider nothing? As I said before, if you want to talk about nothing at all, well, we have nothing to talk about. If you'll notice, I added quotation marks to my earlier response when talking about the "law" from nothing, nothing comes. It should probably be referred to as an axiom. But this is an axiom that, for whatever reason, you don't accept. This seems very, very strange to me, for you say that not even a law, and presumably an axiom, can be attributed to nothing. If you believe that, how exactly do you propose to get something, something concrete no less, from nothing? This is truly puzzling.Brent_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

I had to go away for a while and lost track of this thread, but it disturbs me that some here believe that anything come come from nothing. Nothing is an abstract idea that does not exist. Because there is existence, there is something self existent, nothingness is impossible and no state of true nothingness has ever been. It's not an either/or. There is only Existence.avocationist_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

noam_ghish, I honestly can't see how you failed to grasp anything I said to this extent. I'm not even sure if you understand the issue here.
This is an irrelevant side issue.
No, this IS the issue. You're saying things can come into being, uncaused, from nothing. Conventional wisdom since the dawn of man says it cannot and there's no evidence to refute that wisdom.
As an ID proponent you can’t believe the above and be consistent.
I really can't believe the absurdity of this. If things that begin to exist need a cause of their existence, ID is false?
Not everything has a cause. You’re writing the post you wrote was caused by your thoughts, but your thoughts did not have a cause. You chose them. You were the prime mover of your own thoughts.
You say my thoughts came from nothing, then in the next sentence, you say the cause of my thoughts are my own self. I am something, you defeated your argument in one breath.
Your thoughts were influenced, but they were not caused in the sense of a billiard ball causes another billiard ball to move according to some inevitable physical law.
This seems to indicate a huge misunderstanding in the issue. Just because something isn't causally related to a physical thing, doesn't mean it comes from nothing.
Infinite regression is the same as something always existing.
No, infinite regression requires an infinite number of past events in time. Eternity requires no time.
This is the fallacy of possibility. What you’re saying is: 1. something’s possible 2. therefore, it happened Another fallacy you’re committing is an appeal to imaginary empirical evidence which is the exact same thing the atheists do when they say: 1. other universes are exist 2. therefore, we’re an accident You’re making an appeal to another type of universe for which we have no empirical evidence of to prove your point. You can’t make up imaginary evidence to prove your point.
Wrong, I was only pointing out your fallacy of calling an eternal something illogical because you placed it within the context of our own universe. It was not a claim to it's truth, it wasn't even a statement about it's possibilities.
I never said that matter cannot come from nothing. I believe both mind and matter can come from nothing.
So the reason McDonalds and bicycles don't pop into existence uncaused is?
You’re not understanding what I’m saying. When you say: “If there is something governing nothing, that governing entity is not nothing ergo, something exists.” That’s my point exactly. You want to know my proof that any one thing can come nothing. You just stated it.
This response thoroughly confuses me. I made a reply indicating the absurdity of something coming from nothing for no reason in an attempt to get you to tell me the reasons why Object X would pop into existence. I then went onto say that if there is a reason, it would mean that there is actually a cause for said things popping out of nothing and it would defeat your position. Somehow I ended up proving something can come from nothing in the process, please explain.
Abstract concepts describe physical objects 1. (A)bstract concepts exist if and only if (S)omething exists 2. therefore, if Nothing (~S) exists, then (A)bstract concepts do not exist 1. A ? S 2. ? A ? S 3. ? ~S ? ~A
I was simply stating that from my perspective, it seems like you've conflated the issue, so a reply explaining abstract concepts is out of place.
We have to assume it can, otherwise we would not be here. But I want to stress that I believe that infinite regressions and something coming from nothing are both absurd, yet one of them must be true.
Assuming something to be true, based on evidence, is a rational thing to do. Assuming something based on no evidence is irrational. Your position has no evidence for it and the hypothesis that something has always existed outweighs it's negations, making it a more rational position to hold. It's really rather simple: A. Things that begin to exist have a cause. B. Things that come from nothing would begin to exist. C. Things that come from nothing have a cause for their existence. D. Nothing is something. I should also note that your attempt to throw out eternal and say it's the same as infinite regression further shows your lack of grasp on the subject.
You can’t say 1. x and ~x are both absurd 2. therefore, ~x
That's actually what you did, not I.Scruffy_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

it's very difficult for me to take seriously someone who writes: " Dude, seriously, put the bong down and come up with a logical, reasonable argument. This is substandard pseudo-philosophy that Socrates would weep over." That's a pure ad hom. If you use ad homs then you have no respect for truth or philosophical inquiry.
Noam wrote, “either something came from nothing or something always existed. both are absurd and illogical, yet one of them must be true, otherwise we would not be here.” Your second premise is not absurd and illogical; time and space could easily have always existed. The steady state theory presupposes this.
The steady state theory has no empirical evidence to support it. That's like quoting Darwinism to prove your point.
“any one concrete thing can come from nothing. the only thing that can prevent any one thing coming from nothing is law and law is something. therefore, any one thing can come from nothing.” Prove to me that any one concrete thing can come from nothing. After all, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Show your work.
1. law is that which describes how things operate 2. if nothing exists, then nothing can describe how it operates 3. you posit, that only a through z can come from that nothing 4. the words: “only a through z” is a description of how things operate 5. therefore, you’re describing how nothing operates 6. therefore, you’re using a law to describe nothing
“Law” is not concrete; it is abstract. We can have written laws, but the concept of law as providing justice or equality is abstract. “any one abstract thing, however, can not come from nothing, because abstract concept describe groups of things, such as order or beauty.” No, as explained above, abstract concepts aren’t necessarily groups. They’re abstract, not concrete. Beauty is abstract; justice is abstract.
You didn't read what I wrote. I specifically said: "abstract concepts describe physical things. beauty for example describes m monroe. abstract concepts cannot describe nothing and when i say nothing, i don’t mean nothing inside of something. i mean nothing at all, anywhere." Not only do you use ad homs, you don't read what your opponents write.
“i do not believe order can come from nothing. only a mind can order things, material cannot order itself. i believe mind can come from nothing, if it can’t then we would not be here.” So, order (as in the harmony of planetary orbits, for example) cannot come from something but from nothing. Only a mind, a consciousness can cause order, but you then state that a mind can come from nothing!
mind is not order. mind does not describe physical objects, mind moves material objects. there is a distinct category difference between mind and order. Mind is immaterial, a force. Order is a concept that describes material.noam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Noam wrote, "either something came from nothing or something always existed. both are absurd and illogical, yet one of them must be true, otherwise we would not be here." Your second premise is not absurd and illogical; time and space could easily have always existed. The steady state theory presupposes this. "any one concrete thing can come from nothing. the only thing that can prevent any one thing coming from nothing is law and law is something. therefore, any one thing can come from nothing." Prove to me that any one concrete thing can come from nothing. After all, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. Show your work. "Law" is not concrete; it is abstract. We can have written laws, but the concept of law as providing justice or equality is abstract. "any one abstract thing, however, can not come from nothing, because abstract concept describe groups of things, such as order or beauty." No, as explained above, abstract concepts aren't necessarily groups. They're abstract, not concrete. Beauty is abstract; justice is abstract. "i do not believe order can come from nothing. only a mind can order things, material cannot order itself. i believe mind can come from nothing, if it can’t then we would not be here." So, order (as in the harmony of planetary orbits, for example) cannot come from something but from nothing. Only a mind, a consciousness can cause order, but you then state that a mind can come from nothing! Dude, seriously, put the bong down and come up with a logical, reasonable argument. This is substandard pseudo-philosophy that Socrates would weep over.Barb_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Well, Mung, I’m just trying to figure out what is being said here.
ok, I'll take you seriously and see if I can help.
The postulated alternative to “nothing can create everything” is “a mind can create everything” right?
No. The postulated alternative is not that a mind can create everything, the postulated alternative is that nothing cannot create everything. Or, nothing cannot create anything. Or, nothing cannot create something, aka, something cannot be created by nothing. Or, for really silly people, nothing creates nothing. So you may now ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/who-designed-the-designer-vs-a-burning-matchstick/Mung_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Damn, it still won't read my proof. Just replace the ? in 1 with equivalence and the ? in 2 and 3 with a horseshoenoam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Computer didn't read my proof, here it is again. 1. A ? S 2. A ? S 3. ~S ? ~Anoam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

scruffy, thanks for your reply. i admire the rigor in your thought and for challenging my thinking. I want to be clear up front that this debate has no implication on whether God exists or does not exist. The only evidence for God is whether or not the Big Bang exhibits evidence of foresight and planning and I think it does. It doesn't matter what happened before the Big Bang. Whatever happened before the BB has no bearing on whether or not the BB is the result of intention.
let’s see your proof. it’s on the burden of the person that makes the assertion to prove it. asking someone to prove their assertions is not hand waving.

In a case like this where we’re not dealing with something simple like how a car comes into being, it’s more about weighing the evidence and using a bit of logic/reason.
Proof, logic/reason, same thing.
People seem to have this idea that things that don’t exist are waiting behind a black current and then, when the time is right, the current is pulled. The reality is that there is no object hiding behind the curtain, because there is no curtain.
This is not how I see things
We know that contingent things that begin to exist have a cause for their existence. This is fact and there are no observations that say otherwise.
This is an irrelevant side issue, but it is one that I feel passionate about. As an ID proponent you can't believe the above and be consistent. Not everything has a cause. You're writing the post you wrote was caused by your thoughts, but your thoughts did not have a cause. You chose them. You were the prime mover of your own thoughts. Your thoughts were influenced, but they were not caused in the sense of a billiard ball causes another billiard ball to move according to some inevitable physical law.
either something came from nothing or something always existed. both are absurd and illogical, yet one of them must be true, otherwise we would not be here.

There’s a third option that is as absurd as something coming from nothing, infinite regression.
Infinite regression is the same as something always existing.
An eternal something is only absurd and illogical if we try to fit it within our universe of time, space, and matter.
This is the fallacy of possibility. What you're saying is: 1. something's possible 2. therefore, it happened Another fallacy you're committing is an appeal to imaginary empirical evidence which is the exact same thing the atheists do when they say: 1. other universes are exist 2. therefore, we're an accident You're making an appeal to another type of universe for which we have no empirical evidence of to prove your point. You can't make up imaginary evidence to prove your point.
any one concrete thing can come from nothing.

You: The evidence for this I would like to see. Every experience we have tells us the exact opposite of what you write. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “concrete things”, presumably something physical or something that’s not an abstraction. Me: the only thing that can prevent any one thing coming from nothing is law and law is something. therefore, any one thing can come from nothing. You: A natural law, as Brent pointed out, is an abstraction. A description of the inharent properties of matter. Me: There is no law if there is no matter. i believe mind can come from nothing, if it can’t then we would not be here. You: Why is it that a mind can come from nothing yet matter cannot? There are rules to what can and can not come from nothing?
I never said that matter cannot come from nothing. I believe both mind and matter can come from nothing.
You: What is governing the nothingness from which minds come from? If there is something governing nothing, that governing entity is not nothing ergo, something exists. Or does nothing have inherent properties as well? If a mind can pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing, than there is no reason pizza, or people, or TVs, or any other piece of matter cannot pop into existence from nothing.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. When you say: "If there is something governing nothing, that governing entity is not nothing ergo, something exists." That's my point exactly. You want to know my proof that any one thing can come nothing. You just stated it.
Me: abstract concepts cannot describe nothing and when i say nothing, i don’t mean nothing inside of something. i mean nothing at all, anywhere. You: It sure sounds like your saying “nothing inside of something.”
Abstract concepts describe physical objects 1. (A)bstract concepts exist if and only if (S)omething exists 2. therefore, if Nothing (~S) exists, then (A)bstract concepts do not exist 1. A ? S 2. ? A ? S 3. ? ~S ? ~A
Taking everything we know, current knowledge says there is no evidence that something can come from nothing and thus, there is no reason to assume it can.
We have to assume it can, otherwise we would not be here. But I want to stress that I believe that infinite regressions and something coming from nothing are both absurd, yet one of them must be true.
What else are we left with?
You can't say 1. x and ~x are both absurd 2. therefore, ~xnoam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

testing
noam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT}

[blockquote] testing [/blockquote]noam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

[quote] testing [/quote]noam_ghish_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Collin, My will is free; my actions are limited to what is available and physically possible.William J. Murray_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Well, Mung, I'm just trying to figure out what is being said here. If it's illogical to say that matter can be uncreated, that a mind must precede it, then it seems that you guys must be saying that mind can be uncreated. Or you'd just be pushing back the regress. I must say the idea that the ultimate reality is a universal mind is rather attractive. It just doesn't seem to fit the evidence that minds have something to do with brains.Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

OK, William, thanks for the explanation. Obviously I profoundly disagree, but you will be used to that :)Elizabeth Liddle_{August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply