/lit/ - Literature

prove that those two statements hold any truth

>>5553684
What is the ideal way to masturbate?

>>5553703

always and forever

>energy has to come from something
>that something is god

>implying god as an entity has anything to do with pure energy
>implying god as an entity is the same as god as the universal
>implying god as the universal is the same as reality
>implying nonsense can make sense

God I can't fucking stand Chvrches. And that Dingleberry chick isn't even hot,she's like a 5/10 at best.

>>5553684
Are you claiming that god can create energy and matter. Why? What makes him different? And if something can't come from nothing than what created god?

But Anon, something can come from nothing.

>>5553826
I really don't want to engage in discussion over it as it's not my thread and I been countless times at it already, however the answer is to your first question is:

1. There is a logical necessity for the first cause (but not necesserily as a concept of "God") if we presuppose (that's crucial) that infinite chain of causes or causal loop cannot exist.

2. First cause is external to the universe it creates and constitutes therefore it does not need to be subordinate to its logic. I've seen a guy on /lit/ already explaining it from basic set theory. Dawkins is an idiot for putting "special pleading fallacy" in his, by other standards, quite reasonable book.

Peace out.

>>5553684
Even if your logic is somehow sound, who cares? The type of god you are describing is not important in any meaningful way. Imagine a scientist in an experiment managed to create his own universe and people in it. If we were to find this out about our own universe, would it really change anything? The scientist is not all powerful, could be mortal, etc etc. It does not necessitate any moral or ethical values. The gap between atheism and deism is irrelevant and the gap between deism and theism is unovercomable.

It was always there.

if God gets to break the rules, then why can't the universe just break the rules? no god needed

if you define God as "the breaking of the rules of reality", then God is really just "the shit i dont understand

/mu/ tweens please stop shitposting

>Energy is something
hold on just a second

>>5553684
> by human logic
yah but what about toaster logic?

>>5554120
God doesn't break the rules, he is the rules.

>>5554120
I don't want to live in a world where people as retarded as you exist.

What I want to know is where the idea that "Something can't come from Nothing" comes from?

>>5554203
observation

If either of your premises were true wouldn't it be more reasonable to suggest the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time?

>>5554205
But observation has shown that the opposite is true, no?

A better questions would be: What is Nothing? That might give some insight as to why something can come from it.

>>5554210
nope because universe is expanding

>>5553684

You did nothing new.

>>5554216
nothing is an absence of everything. But it is an abstract since we cannot observe such thing

>your conceptions of ground and existence

>>5554226
Can it not also be viewed as the sum of all things? Much like 0 can be considered the sum of all numbers positive and negative. The absence of a thing also speaks of its existence, no?

To make things clear, I have no standpoint in this. I am merely inquiring out of curiosity.

>>5553684
>“Something Can't Come from Nothing”.

We don't know this, at all. It's just a thing people say, there is actually no evidence for it at all.

>By human logic, energy can't be created

Not by logic, but by empirical observation. Bracketing out the "logic" parts, this reduces to "Energy can't be created except by God because I said so, therefore God does real". Not even slightly convincing.

The lack of proof in God's existence through empirical inquiry is enough to justify god not existing. And if God did exist, what bearing would this have on us? It's an entirely moot point, and serves no basis in reality, other then a simple "I told you so!"

>>5554205

We've never observed "nothing".

>>5554312
Yes we have, ur mums cavernous cunt

>>5554210
>If either of your premises were true wouldn't it be more reasonable to suggest the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time?
It's funny how you fedoras resort to >muh science when you think it disproves God but then, when it's used against you in logical argument, the firmest conclusions of modern cosmology magically become entirely speculative.

>>5554297
>The lack of proof in God's existence through empirical inquiry is enough to justify god not existing.
The lack of natural evidence for a supranatural being is evidence that He doesn't exist? O dear...

>And if God did exist, what bearing would this have on us? It's an entirely moot point, and serves no basis in reality, other then a simple "I told you so!"
It would mean the universe is ordered and purposive and guide you away from philosophical nihilism and crude materialism. It has profound implications on a person's worldview.

>>5554241
Nothing and everything refers to the matter. Numbers are merely abstract idea. And absence of thing cannot say anything since it is nonexistent

>>5554335

OP hasn't used 'science' at all.

>>5554328

But my mum's cavernous cunt is full of jizz, both mine and that of various strangers, as is her gaping arsehole and pyorrhoea-racked mouth. That doesn't count as 'nothing', come on son as my mum is wont to say.

>>5554339
>It would mean the universe is ordered and purposive

Nah, those are additional premises.

>>5554241
>>5554216
>>5554203

confirmed tripfag for knowing "nothing"

>>5554120
Dorkins, please go.

How Can God Be Real If Energy Is a Social Construct

>>5554210
Not really when science tells us the universe had a beginning.

>>5554339
>It would mean the universe is ordered and purposive and guide you away from philosophical nihilism and crude materialism. It has profound implications on a person's worldview.

the world itself is naturally disordered. Principles such as entropy prove this. And I have no idea how just because a being would exist that it would instantly make life meaningful for you. You would have no way to base your life on a being that isn't you, or that can't be known via reason, or language. All you can really do is throw yourself in a leap of faith endlessly hoping that you have come in unity with it, but that is just foolish.

I also see plenty of atheist philosophers who lead happy lives that they forged themselves.

No god is needed, and thinking that a being created this entire universe with you at its center of creation is butt fucking retarded, and selfish.

>>5554395
I tip my hat to you sir. You are indeed a scholar and a gentleman.

>>5554297
There are proofs. But science cannot prove His existance since those are analogical proofs and science uses logic as a tool. Besides science cannot study spiritual being using the same methods it use to study material world

>>5554395
>plenty of atheist philosophers
What atheist philosophers?

IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE WHO CREATED GOD?

QDE.

>>5554395

Oh dear, you really think that taking a leap of faith doesn't make you have more easiness of mind? It makes you stable as fuck.

Have you gone to those meditations groups? To those enlightnement groups? shit is cash if you don't analyze them. It almost make you change all your viewpoints in an instant.

Read Kierkegaard faggit, it's relevant now that most people is going towards the eastern enlightnement routes nowadays

>>5553684
You're wrong OP, it's all consciousness.

>>5554395
according to 3rd law of thermodynamic there should be no harmony in this universe at all. I observe it everyday and everywhere.

>>5553953

>First cause is external to the universe it creates and constitutes therefore it does not need to be subordinate to its logic. I've seen a guy on /lit/ already explaining it from basic set theory. Dawkins is an idiot for putting "special pleading fallacy" in his, by other standards, quite reasonable book.

idk man it sounds like special pleading to me

it IS logical that a being outside the universe would not have to follow the laws of the universe. but it is NOT logical that a being outside the universe could create the universe, without being related to the universe in some sort of super-universe, which had it's own rules, and these rules would have to include a similar sort of causation to the normal universe, otherwise in what sense could you claim that God was the cause of the creation of the universe?

appealing to some sort of realm where "the rules don't matter" doesn't seem like a reasonable way to prove something, even if it were true that this realm exists, it's contents would be literally unfathomable and could not be a part of a rational theory

>>5554451
>but it is NOT logical that a being outside the universe could create the universe, without being related to the universe in some sort of super-universe, which had it's own rules, and these rules would have to include a similar sort of causation to the normal universe, otherwise in what sense could you claim that God was the cause of the creation of the universe?
Justify this rather than just assert it.

>>5554451
Yeah it's to bad we're finite beings incapable of transcending the limitations of our body. Thus making us unable to assert any claim in regards to anything outside of our universe.

>>5553707
/thred

>>5553684
Your first is begging the question.

>>5554461

Not him, but (loosely):

If God has created the universe, then God stands in a causal relationship to the universe. Causal relationships cannot exist without a framework featuring causality-like phenomena. By the very terms of the view I'm proposing to debunk, the putative causal relationship between God and the universe cannot stand within the bounds of the universe and must therefore, like God, exist outside the universe.

Furthermore, if God cannot create the universe *without* then standing in a causal relationship to it, then God is subservient to this universe-external causality-like phenomenon. God cannot have created this UEClP without, in turn, standing in a causal relationship to it, leading to an infinite regress.

>>5554538
>If God has created the universe, then God stands in a causal relationship to the universe.
Nope. When we talk about creation, we speak in metaphors.

>>5554556
>Nope. When we talk about creation, we speak in metaphors.

Well, firstly, that doesn't actually invalidate the if-then construction, it just asserts that God did not create the universe.

Secondly, I don't know what 'metaphorical creation' entails - can you elaborate?

>>5554581
>Secondly, I don't know what 'metaphorical creation' entails - can you elaborate?
Nor do I. That's why my fellow Christians and I resort to metaphor.

>>5554594

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense.

>>5554601
It makes perfect sense to anybody with a reasonable sceptical disposition.

>>5553684
>energy has to come from something. That something is god
Energy comes from energy. Time is infinite.

>>5554615
>It makes perfect sense


To be clear, when I ask you to elaborate, I'm not asking that you explain the metaphor in concrete terms, ie, explain how or in what way God 'created' the universe. I'm asking you to explain what it means for 'X created Y' to be a metaphorical statement, one whose literal meaning apparently firmly refutes any claim that it entails a causal relationship.

God, by definition, is perfect in every way possible. Therefore he must be perfect in the area of existence. There you have it. God exists by definition.

>>5553684
I agree,

However, I seriously doubt that this hypothetical god has anything to do with the Abrahamic sky father, or is even aware that humanity exists.

Visible matter makes up only 4% of the entire universe's mass, the rest is dark matter and dark energy. The part of the universe we consider to be reality might just be the waste product of a darkmater universe.

Even if god exists, he's not at all relevant in our lives.

>>5553684
Even if you're right, that just proves the existence of at least one god, not God specifically.

>>5554692

Is God perfect in the area of creating the universe?

>>5554695
Also, if the universe were created by god, that would imply that god would somehow have to have a creator, and so would that creator, and so on and so forth. Turtles all the way down.

Not to mention, that this is heresy in all three of the Abrahamic faiths.

>>5554692
The "perfect unicorn", by definition, is perfect in every way possible. Therefore it must be perfect in the area of existence. There you have it. The perfect unicorn exists by definition.

This is how stupid you sound.

>>5554692
The best possible donut would be perfect in all areas. To be perfect, it must also exist. Therefore, the perfect donut exists.

*poof*

Shit, it actually works!

>>5554712
>The perfect woman must be perfect in all areas, to be perfect she must also exist, therefore, I have a girlfriend.

Thanks anon! All my problems are solved now!

>>5553684
Largely irrelevant without a proof this god prefers virtue versus sin, joy versus suffering, worship versus indifference, or something of that nature.

In other words, what's the difference between this type of god and an impersonal, amoral "creator force"?

>>5554745
This God is, by definition, perfect. Therefore, it's whatever one of those is best.

>>5554762
How do we discover what is best?

>>5554707
>something which is spatially and temporally finite must have a creator, therefore because i am an atheist and mentally retarded i also demand that something existing beyond space and time must have a creator by the same logic

1) Hume showed there is no reason to assume this.

2) If energy can't be created, then God didn't create it.

>>5554708
>>5554712
Donuts and unicorns are not actually perfect beings tho.

>>5554828

They didn't mention 'donuts' and 'unicorns'. They mentioned 'the perfect unicorn' and 'the perfect donut' respectively. Obviously, both 'the perfect unicorn' and 'the perfect donut' are in fact perfect.

>>5554820
A god who exists outside time and space and does not require a creator falls under the "Can god create a rock..." argument.

God exists outside this universe yes, but that would imply there is something outside the universe. Thus god exists inside of that other thing, and has it's own origin. Turtles all the way down.

>>5553934
I know what you are saying. You are talking about Quantum Fluctuations.

>>5554439
I have read Kierkegaard, and I simply can't understand the reason behind something that doesn't apply reason to it. It has no meaning to it, it just begs the question ceaselessly.

>>5554444
Yes, you observe it in nature, but where does it even remotely suggest that you need a design to create these laws of nature? These laws of nature themselves, do not inherently exist, nor do they have any meaning behind them. They are simply structured in a way with regards to the path of least resistance.

>>5554439
this
also science says people believing in a higher power live longer

>>5554912
>people believing in a higher power live longer

...which is important, because once you're dead, you're dead I'm teasing but it's irresistible.

>>5554444
3rd Law is "The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly zero."

Not seeing anything about universal harmony there.

>>5554538

That's the most intelligent way to combat my original argument about externality of God from the universe it constitutes. If the thread is up tomorrow I'll attempt to refute your point. I'm way too tired right now.

>>5555141

Cool, I'll be up for a good while yet, I'll keep the thread alive if I think of it.

>>5553684

Who says something can't come from nothing?

Who says there could be nothing?

I'm going to assume that you're attempting to use the laws of conservation of energy. The first being energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed. The two statements do indeed go together as if you are defining something as an object of mass you can take that from mass-energy equivalence. However you make your big mistake in assuming that science explains things. Science has never ever explained things. Science describes thing. People make explanations. Other than that your argument is alright.

>>5554871
>A god who exists outside time and space and does not require a creator falls under the "Can god create a rock..." argument.
Why does he?

>>5554538
>If God has created the universe, then God stands in a causal relationship to the universe.
Theists would say /to/, but not /with/.

The earlier argument and the quoted one stand but only if we talk about the first cause as literally being 'outside' the universe, so that we imagine our physical space universe and then another physical space outside ours. This kind of relationship would probably need a strict causal third-agent. Alternatively, we might be able to propose that the outer first cause could have created the universe separate from it and the universe now functions in an infinite regress. I'd simply argue that 'outside' is an incorrect image.

The reason we might argue for a first cause is because we're refuting the idea of infinite regress: because we're refuting the infinite regress, we're already conceiving of this first cause (or the origin of this first cause) as necessarily exempt from the idea of needing causation, because it is not a qualitative 'thing' that appears and then disappears through natural (or even unnatural) phenomena. This is why it doesn't help to simply argue "well, who made God?" because that's precisely talking past the point.

ibn Arabi put forward the idea that all of creation is a theophany, but, more precisely, an angelophany. The Angel is the primary manifestation of God, through which God makes the secondary manifestation of the world. The Angel would be what Tillich would call 'God' and whereas God is 'the God Above God', which kind of fits what you said about about 'God' being causally related to the universe.

>>5555361
(Not him)

I'm just not sure the idea of something "exempt from the need for causation" is actually a coherent concept.

Nor do I see why, if it is coherent, it can only apply to godlike beings; why can't I assert that, I dunno, the Big Bang or something is a Causeless Effect?

In other words, I'm not sure that the First Cause argument actually makes sense, and if it does, I'm not sure why it proves God or even implies it.

>>5553684
First off, something can come from nothing. That's just bullshit people safe.

But I'll humor your, if something can't come from nothing than where did "God" come from?

>>5554708
Unicorns are contingent, dipshit.

>>5555422

The perfect unicorn isn't.

>>5555437
Then it isn't a unicorn.

>>5555439
>the perfect unicorn isn't a unicorn

Incorrect.

btw do you know that causation is nothing but an empiric concept without even any theory to prove it. i.e. we cannot even claim it to be universal

>>5555447
>do you know

Yes, we all do, thanks, seeya.

>>5555445
It can't be perfect and be a unicorn. Thanks for playing. I won.

The perfect universe would not need a God to create it; needing a God implies that its perfection (including its existence) must come from an outside source, rather than being a property of the universe itself. It is clearly more perfect that beauty and virtue should happen on their own than that they should have to be commanded and coaxed into being. Since the perfect universe is perfect in all areas, it must also be perfect in the area of existence. Therefore, there exists at least one universe that was not created by God. Therefore, God is not an ontological necessity for the creation of universes.

>>5555457
>It can't be perfect and be a unicorn.

It can't be perfect and be an imperfect unicorn (because imperfect unicorns are imperfect, obviously). But no-one said it was. They said it was the perfect unicorn.

>Thanks for playing. I won.

Your nervousness is showing. And with good cause.

>>5555450
mew... but that ruins most of your ideas

>>5555468
that's a very questionable logic that a property cannot come from outside

>>5555475
Unicorns are contingent and, therefore, not perfect.

>>5555476
>that ruins most of your ideas

The non-existence of causality would. Its undemonstrability doesn't. Thanks. Seeya.

>>5555479

Imperfect ones are, yes.

The perfect one is not. We've been here before.

Anyone else read the OP in a disgustingly smug voice?

>>5555476
I can give you two sandwiches:

One of them contains the best possible array of ingredients, on several separate plates. When assembled, it will be the best possible sandwich, but you have to assemble it yourself.

The second is identical in all respects to the finished product of the first, but pre-assembled.


The second is clearly better than the first. Since the perfect X is, by definition, not worse than any other X, the best possible sandwich must not require any assembly or outside action beyond the sandwich itself.

>>5555468
Hm. You're obviously wrong, but I can't figure out exactly how.

>>5555486
Contingent beings, beings with form, cannot be perfect. That is a contradiction.

>>5555488

You shouldn't read OPs out loud.

>>5555499

That's pretty much the deal with the OA, yeah. Russell said basically that somewhere, cba looking it up.

>>5555506
>Contingent beings, beings with form, cannot be perfect.

Form does not necessitate contingency. Just ask the perfect unicorn, it has form and is perfect, it'll tell you.

>>5555482
sorry but when you have causality as an empiric conception you simply cannot expect it to be true for any situation, that's incomplete induction, should i demonstrate you to what ridiculous ideas one can go using incomplete induction? all japanese who i knew didn't speak english therefore no japanese speak english

>>5555512
Now you're just trolling.

>>5555517
>sorry but when you have causality as an empiric conception you simply cannot expect it to be true for any situation

No-one has done this, your scan of the wiki on Hume will not enable you to strike any educated-looking poses, thanks, seeya.

>>5553980
/thread

>>5555519
>i guess i didn't win after all
>huh

>>5555384
The problem is there is really no way to get an answer. The best you can do is decide which seems more likely. For my part, I don't think infinite regress is a coherent concept, so it makes more sense that there must be some non-caused something, which is fundamentally different from caused anythings, that initiated the universe in which causation exists. I would also say we can call this God but what theists would have to concede is that any speculation on this God's agency is just that: speculation. This God could be deistic (mostly, if not entirely, a mechanical phenomenon) or theistic (a mostly, it not entirely, active intelligence/phenomenon). Obviously we can here propose the first cause is purely phenomenal (mechanical) and we'd very safely in the atheist camp.

>>5555494
>The second is clearly better than the first.
how so? what if i like to assemble sandwiches? and then, in our case it's not that person who assemble them (i.e. god) eats them, he makes them for mankind

>>5555499
My guess is that the problem either lies in the word "perfect" and how it's used, in the statements that "to be perfect, X must exist IRL" and therefore "since we specified a perfect X, therefore this X exists IRL", and possibly in the idea of a perfect universe.

>>5554312
But we can assume there was one by logical argumentation on primal cause.

>>5554369
Pantheistic to be more precise

>>5553717
This

Churches sucks

She's a tumblr cunt anyway.

>>5553980
And that's why I'm a mystic.

>>5554432
Universe is a creation, God is creator, a primal cause in a chain of all causes.

>>5553684
there are a few weird things about those arguments.

1.human understanding.
Do you get this is kinda limited

2. proving will just proves a will. Read Schopenhauer the world as will and idea and you will understand.

Just becaues things come from will does not mean there is some specific god with a set of (human lol) rules for us to follow to the letter.

>>5555141

yay somebody appreciates my ideass

>>5554439
"We can't have full knowledge all at once. We must start by believing; then afterwards we may be led on the master the evidence for ourselves"

>>5556035

I don't know that I'd buy that argument. But even if I did, that wouldn't change my point - we have no *empirical* knowledge of nothing and so can't make that kind of strong claim about it.

>>5556070
But I wrote that post.

>>5555447

>btw do you know that causation is nothing but an empiric concept without even any theory to prove it

actually it's the exact opposite, it's entirely theory, with no empirical justification whatsoever

belief in causation is irrational, strictly considered, the problem of induction prevents one from claiming that causation is a rational belief. this is not to say that i do not behave as if causation is true, i believe it is an inescapable human habit, even when you try not act as if causation is true, you employ some sort of causal intuition, i dont think humans are capable of not believing in causation

now with that said, causation isn't really necessary to the counterargument against the "god is outside the laws of causation" argument

causation is really just a more intuitive way of dealing with reduction, which is where you take a description of an event, like salt dissolving in water, and reduce it to a more general description, polar molecules separate ions. "reduce" because it invokes fewer irreducible parts, whereas the description of solutions that treats saltwater and liquid ammonia solutions as separate has many entities (all possible solutions), the polar molecule descriptions of solutions invokes less entities, and thus is simpler, and thus is useful

where am i going with this?

if you are going to call God the creator of the universe, what does this mean? forget the idea of causation that involves the cause beating reality into submission and making reality turn into the effect. if God is to be the creator of the universe, we must be able to reduce the creation of the universe to some simpler description of moving parts, otherwise we have not actually analyzed the creation of the universe

but of course, the creation of the universe is not a motion at all. you can reduce the entire universe, from the very very very first moment to now (the big bang theory), but the beginning itself cannot be reduced because a motion requires at least two points of time, no matter how tiny the interval.

so far, all i have said is really just a more obfuscating description of the intuitive impossibility of a causal regress, but my point is that there really is no getting around it, no object, no matter how many rule-breaking powers you ascribe to it, can aid you in reducing the creation of the universe.

we really are just stuck in this paradox, the universe has a beginning, but no analysis of beginnings is possible. positing an uncaused cause is functionally equivalent to admitting that analysis is impossible

now with all that said, i still believe god created the universe

it has to be beyond analysis, a feeling, totally unjustified, totally irrational. only such can compel belief in deity, and i dont mean that as a criticism of theism. I almost equate God with causation itself, this substance that gives "power" to the universe, that does the "work" but also with conscious purpose or "meaning", like Schopenhauer's Will or something

>>5556083

>But I wrote that post

no you wrote the better formulated version based on my post

>>5556100

I definitely wrote >>5554538, but it doesn't matter.

>>5553684
"In the beginning God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter). The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep (space) [...] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. " hence (e)energy=(m)matter*(c[2]) in space where matter has been accelerated by Gods will.

>>5556113

right, i'm "him" in the post you quoted, the "him" that you are "not"

>>5553684
Rather than all of the bullshit paragraphs everyone else is posting, I'll just put in a brief 2-part philosophical retort.

1) If everything came from God, where did God come from?

2) If one could suggest god is eternal, why can't we say instead that the universe is eternal?

>>5556083
You cannot observe or prove anything of spiritual being with empirical methods. They simply does not compute. It's like 5kg of music.

>>5556128
>anything of spiritual being

We're talking about "nothing", not God.

>>5556127
>If everything came from God, where did God come from?

This is not useful when God is defined as "the thing that everything came from that didn't need to come from everything". It's a shitty and terribly convenient definition, but there you are.

>>5556127

>Rather than all of the bullshit everyone else is posting....

your exact response has been given multiple times in this thread alone. in fact this response is so basic and oft-repeated that it does not even count as a response, but as minimum background information from which discussion arises.

fucking kill yourself

>>5556127
1) God is eternal being, if not this being is not a God
2) because universe is expanding

why does our universe need a start point? why wouldn't it be a giant pack of energy and space-time that changes form (i.e with a big bang) after a certain time?

>>5553684
Alright, i will accept that something can't come from nothing, but why in the world can you say that you know without a doubt that it has to be a god that started the something? Also, theological logic is bullshit.

>>5556130
ofc. sorry, my bad. We can prove it by deduction

>>5556135
even this have to had a begining. Who had started the first "pulse" ?

>>5556137

OK, go for it.

>>5556138
>even this have to had a begining.

Don't see why.

>>5554712
>>5554708
welcome to platonism faglords

>>5556141

but there are no discrete beginnings and endings. everything is fuzzy as fuck.

>>5556141
in other words: who started the very first cycle and why all this cycles are better than single "big bang"?

>>5553684
1) Nice platitude, there, m8.
2) This one only means that there must be some Demiurge of sorts. It does not prove the existance of any particular God.

>>5556167
>who started the very first cycle

I don't get why the whole thread seems to go like this. To recap:

A: There must have been a beginning.

B: Why must there have been a beginning?

C:
>B: Why must there have been a beginning?
How else would it begin, though?

D:
>B: Why must there have been a beginning?
Who would have begun it if there was no beginning?

E:
>B: Why must there have been a beginning?
But if it didn't begin, how could it get started?

I fucking despair.

>>5556139
If we exclude primal cause there's nothing.

>>5556174

OK. Now: what valuable information does our proof that "nothing" is conceivably instantiable provide, with specific regard to the range of possibilities in a state of "nothingness"?

>>5556172
I dont know if i die, because i'm alive, but i can presume i will because i see other ppl dying. If i see everything has its cause i presume that everything in the past has it. It is logical assumption based on observation.

>>5556177
Idea of nothingness is theoretical construct that proves nothing but it can be thought.

>>5556058
1) knowledge is limited not understanding.

>>5556220
I'm guessing you don't know what 'understanding' means in philosophical terms.

>>5556226
and in this case what philosophical terms tell us about it?

>>5556188

That's as compatible with infinite regress as with first cause. Possibly more so.

>>5556209

OK, thanks.

>>5553684
Be reeeeeal it doesn't matter anywaaaaaaaay

>>5553684
>1) “Something Can't Come from Nothing”.
Prove it? Also define "nothing". There is no such thing as nothingness, only a quantum vacuum.

>2) "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form".
This can also not be proved. The laws of physics we have today cannot be proven to have applied at the "beginning" of time.

>>5553684
These rules disprove the existence of god dummy.

>>5553684
That's pretty much Thomas Aquinas' theory

>>5553980
well sure, but OP's "proof" didn't imply anything about ethics or anything beyond the fact that god is the creator, and nothing but.

>>5554120
>then God is really just "the shit i dont understand
always has been

>>5558737
My point is that this is as far as the theists who use this argument and rely on this type of logic play a two-faced game that they deserve to be called out.

They make deistic arguments (I wouldn't even say deistic really though, it's just saying that something made this exist) and propose that as some kind of proof for their God. Then they pretend that theism is the next natural step which it isn't immediately obvious at all.

All the claims that go along with any sort of theology are absolutely ridiculous when one relies on this kind of logical proof. It's a classic case of shifting the goal posts back from what it is obviously implied they want to accomplish, which pretty much goes ignored in these garbage arguments.

>>5558828
what you are saying is a good example of how a good sophism may looks like.

>>5556119
well.i agree this could exhaust this topic if anyone even pay attention to anything but their own intelectual vomits

>>5556119
>(e)energy=(m)matter*(c[2])

Mass, not matter. There goes that one.

>>5553684
>expected knives album or what ever the fuck that great shit is

>>5559195
is the matter not have da mass??

>>5560677

So does light, though (just not rest mass).

>>5554395
>the world itself is naturally disordered.
The world itself appears not to follow the order of which you have conceived.
God's order is higher than your conceptions can allow for.

>>5560688
matter does have the mass unlike the light because of its wavelike nature. light is an energy

>>5553684
I see no point in actually discussing the topic of creation and creators because I believe that humans simply will never know anything of our creation.

>>5554774
You can't.
That's a leap of faith.

>>5554120
Damn this is pretty bad, just go back to r/atheism. Giving the rest of us a bad name.

>theological logic

>>5554712
>>5554708
>failing to understand basic plato

this has been said a thousand times before but maybe there was never any starting point for the universe. it has always existed and always will exist, as incomprehensible as that may seem. the universe has simply just been changing form, collapsing and expanding itself

>>5553684
Still not as much of a troll as the ontological argument.

>>5563566
Your hypothesis has already been debunked.

>>5562750
>matter does have the mass

>>5560688
>So does light, though (just not rest mass).

JoJo is p gud m8

>>5554290
Logic is the basis of empirical observations

>>5556188
There is no such thing as logic stemming from observation

>>5553684
1. God is nothing?
2. God is existent without energy?
If the answer to both of these is yes, then why cannot we assume that both nothing and energy are as omnipotent as God? What is the point of unproven abstraction layer?

If God doesn't exist then how can our souls exist? How come I have free will? Why is there something rather than nothing? Lol atheism BTFO

>>5553684
how about that
the universe is infinite, it has no temporal start and will never end. Science founds traces of energy from before the big bang.