Martian:

What's the difference between saying the universe( singularity) sprung up from nothing and saying "god" is "self existent"?



how did god emanate from nothing and the strangely acquired the power to organise himself/itelf/herself and then "organize" a universe.

The universe is not as "organized" or "ordered" like you guys like to think...........acccording to astrophysicists and astronomers

Thank you for those questions.
They just cant answer those questions without making exceptions and exemptions for god.
First you create a god and then you make up the rules for gods immaculete(?) existence.
Talk about fantasies!

Martian:

What's the difference between saying the universe( singularity) sprung up from nothing and saying "god" is "self existent"?

could explain what you mean by the singularity? so that we are on the same page

Martian:
how did god emanate from nothing and the strangely acquired the power to organise himself/itelf/herself and then "organize" a universe.

The universe is not as "organized" or "ordered" like you guys like to think...........acccording to astrophysicists and astronomers

but is organised substantiatly right!

Deep Sight:


Ok, here is my own answer: Eternity is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

See, you cant answer one without the other. That is, eternity and infinity.
The above doesnt satisfy me.

Just how do you verify eternity/infinity?

Its easy enough to say what eternity/infinity is when those words are uttered, but you run into problems when you critically examine their implications.

Deep Sight:

What then would reside on the left side of the zero equation in order to render reality existent?

Oh I dont know, and I am definitely not going to invent something for that. Why must reality be "rendered" existent ?

Deep Sight:

Perhaps, you simply don't like the word "God". . . you can substitute it with another word of your choosing. . . BUT something permanent is THERE.

Perhaps if you stopped giving it certain attributes (especially intelligence) . . .

Caezar, you are only slightly less dogmatic than Deep Sight so far.

Dont be in such a frenzy to prove your god that you end up chasing your tail.

Listen, the major problem with the arguments you and Deep Sight are putting forth is that they are expressed wrongly.
The problem which you may or may not have realised is that once you express yourself properly, it becomes clear that the substance of your argument is conjecture.

Due to a need to avoid this, both of you begin to speak as if these notions are known to you.

Think man, think!

Its really not difficult if you will let your biases go.

As far as you tow this line of reasoning, you will meet insurmountable problems. Obstacles you cannot scale without doing violence to logic.

vedaxcool:
could explain what you mean by the singularity? so that we are on the same page

According to the accepted theory, the universe started EXPANDING(not an explosion like some people think) 13.7 billion years ago and "before" the expansion, it was a "singularity", as in everything that exists was concentrated in one "tiny" point. They came to this conclusion because of observations.
Maybe that "singularity" has always existed in one form or the other and it's present form is the universe we currently inhabit. That's just a guess though.

vedaxcool:
but is organised substantiatly right!

I'm guessing you're saying "substantially right" because you are a human who lives on a planet that is conducive to his nature while ignoring the rest of the vast universe and the varying conditions that border on "chaos".
Is it because you live on a planet that isn't hostile to "life as we know it" that you deem the universe as orderly?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/exoplanetHouseOfHorrors.html
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/black-holes/

Questions for Deepsight, Vedaxcool and anyone who wishes to answer:

1. We have already agreed that energy is self-existent, so is energy the same as god, or created by god, or did energy create god, or , does energy and god co-exist(in which case we have a duality rather than a singularity)?

You contradict yourself when you claim that everything must have a beginning and then in the same vein invoke self existence.

It is either there is a first cause for everything or there is self-existence for everything. You cannot cherry-pick to suit your whims.

So where do you stand, First cause or self-existence? you cannot eat your pie and still have it.

Deep Sight:

I have bolded some text above in red and in blue.

I hope, that without having to speak further, you can read your own words and see clearly how disastrously and irretrievably the red words contradict the blue.



Well so long as we are speaking of the EXISTENCE of God, for now it is not relevant to ponder the question of its being personal or impersonal. Let's address its existence as a starter.

Let's see.. The phrasing might be a little poor, that's about it. I equate infinite energy with nothing by virtue said energy cancelling itself out, and it having the same properties whichever way you look. This might turn out to be hogwash but the underlying principle is still fairly accurate. First there was energy. Energy's balance is upset, matter is spread about: that is our current universe. Matter is energy, no? Besides I'm not stating it as fact, I just think its a gzillion times more plausible than anthrophomizing or attaching some kind of intelligence to the process. Btw, why do you require immutability?

We agree there is no such thing as nothing, else we wouldn't be here. You've gone on to say god is the energy of the universe, is this correct? I have not problem with that (why would you choose to name that god though, it's confusing). You hint that this energy has intelligence, or is self aware and somehow planned this process. ? I hint at that poor young princess long in a tower, who dreams of the brave prince charmings she's read about, that slay the dragon and take her to a better world, except no one told her those were fairy tales.

vedaxcool:

No, the debate is flawed because we all end up in the same position we started, The God theory makes absolute sense because we could say exceptions, Something does not always have to come from something, that is the view point of people of religion, that God did existence is cannot be construed by the general theory of something gives out something, the God existence makes more sense that the universe emanating from nothing and then strangely organise itself by sheer what?

God becomes irrelevant since God himself cannot create the Universe from nothing, it must be ex deo OR reorganizing of preexisting material.

wiegraf:
Let's see.. The phrasing might be a little poor, that's about it. I equate infinite energy with nothing by virtue said energy cancelling itself out, and it having the same properties whichever way you look. This might turn out to be hogwash but the underlying principle is still fairly accurate. First there was energy. Energy's balance is upset, matter is spread about: that is our current universe. Matter is energy, no?

It is incoherent in the extreme and absolutely nonsensical to speak of these quantities and at the same time equate them with nothingness. At best, you have no idea of the definition of the word "nothingness". At worst, you are suffering from some incurable mental confusion tending towards irrational delusion. As, of course, are all atheists. Some worse than others: your words would render you amongst the most lamentable cases of loss of rationality.

We agree there is no such thing as nothing, else we wouldn't be here.

And that you could have added this to your first claim that there was nothingness is just sad.

Have a nice day. I have nothing to debate with this sort of confused nonsense.

plaetton: Questions for Deepsight, Vedaxcool and anyone who wishes to answer:

1. We have already agreed that energy is self-existent, so is energy the same as god, or created by god, or did energy create god, or , does energy and god co-exist(in which case we have a duality rather than a singularity)?

You contradict yourself when you claim that everything must have a beginning and then in the same vein invoke self existence.

It is either there is a first cause for everything or there is self-existence for everything. You cannot cherry-pick to suit your whims.

So where do you stand, First cause or self-existence? you cannot eat your pie and still have it.

Watershed! Sort of.

You still fail to see that the first cause IS self-existent. The two terms are essentially synonymous.

You have accepted that energy is self-existent. In a previous post, I believe you also accepted this of matter. However, science has gone one step further, it has posited a "singularity", infinitely dense and with infinite energy, which is self-existent. Essentially resolving your "duality or singularity" question. Resolving it in the sense that ALL that exists at first cause (what I referred to in my second post on this thread as Point A or t=0 - note that I borrow t=0 from science it is not mathematical hocus pocus) exists as a singularity; a single entity (I am not calling it God).

Do you accept?

jayriginal: Caezar, you are only slightly less dogmatic than Deep Sight so far.

Dont be in such a frenzy to prove your god that you end up chasing your tail.

Listen, the major problem with the arguments you and Deep Sight are putting forth is that they are expressed wrongly.
The problem which you may or may not have realised is that once you express yourself properly, it becomes clear that the substance of your argument is conjecture.

Due to a need to avoid this, both of you begin to speak as if these notions are known to you.

Think man, think!

Its really not difficult if you will let your biases go.

As far as you tow this line of reasoning, you will meet insurmountable problems. Obstacles you cannot scale without doing violence to logic.

Your above comment makes no sense.

I have spoken clearly. I presented cogent, coherent arguments. I have provided the SAME argument from different angles in the hopes that you would see it. I have NOT been dogmatic. This is logic. There is no dogma in logic.

I have not tried to invoke or explain God. Yet. I have kept it simple. I only want to show you the necessity of a self-existent being if you take Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit as a given. But you are so tied up with eliminating all the characteristics of God from any explanation of origins that you are unwilling to accept even something as basic as self-existence!

Finally, I have done no harm to logic. Unless perhaps you define logic in a way only Jayriginal understands.

caezar:

Watershed! Sort of.

You still fail to see that the first cause IS self-existent. The two terms are essentially synonymous.

You have accepted that energy is self-existent. In a previous post, I believe you also accepted this of matter. However, science has gone one step further, it has posited a "singularity", infinitely dense and with infinite energy, which is self-existent. Essentially resolving your "duality or singularity" question. Resolving it in the sense that ALL that exists at first cause (what I referred to in my second post on this thread as Point A or t=0 - note that I borrow t=0 from science it is not mathematical hocus pocus) exists as a singularity; a single entity (I am not calling it God).

Do you accept?

I accept absolutely everything you said except for first cause and self existence being synonymous.
That, I disagree compltely. Saying that means you are seeking an escape hatch.
I wont let you. lol.

Unless my understanding of english is really bad, FIRST CAUSE supposes a beginning, whereas, SELF-EXISTENCE supposes no beginning.

Am I right or wrong, people ?

Deep Sight:

It is incoherent in the extreme and absolutely nonsensical to speak of these quantities and at the same time equate them with nothingness. At best, you have no idea of the definition of the word "nothingness". At worst, you are suffering from some incurable mental confusion tending towards irrational delusion. As, of course, are all atheists. Some worse than others: your words would render you amongst the most lamentable cases of loss of rationality.



And that you could have added this to your first claim that there was nothingness is just sad.

Have a nice day. I have nothing to debate with this sort of confused nonsense.

You sound mad, you mad? Do not fear, we've been doing fine without zeus, we'll manage fine without god. Now, let's hope it doesn't take you an eternity to answer a mere human like me (unlike the last time when you had to be backed into a corner by platteon, about your definition of god, that was just sad). I agree with energy being 'self-existent', I agree this god has been around (not your silly bshit without any proof about it creating himself, htf do you come up with this s.hit, why do you even need to), its just been around, call it a consequence of abtract concepts like numbers or whatever: we don't know. Now, ignore the details, is 'god' a personal god?

Hi caezar,

caezar:

Watershed! Sort of.

You still fail to see that the first cause IS self-existent. The two terms are essentially synonymous.

hmm. . . the ad hoc hypothesis at play here.

If the first cause can be classified as "something", do you not consider your claim here to be self-contradictory? Like an oxymoron? A logical impossibility of some sort? Consider this argument:

1) Something exists
1) First Cause is "something"
2) Something cannot come from nothing.
Ergo,
4) First Cause (being something) cannot come from nothing
(In other words, First Cause came from something.)

caezar:

Watershed! Sort of.

You still fail to see that the first cause IS self-existent. The two terms are essentially synonymous.

You have accepted that energy is self-existent. In a previous post, I believe you also accepted this of matter. However, science has gone one step further, it has posited a "singularity", infinitely dense and with infinite energy, which is self-existent. Essentially resolving your "duality or singularity" question. Resolving it in the sense that ALL that exists at first cause (what I referred to in my second post on this thread as Point A or t=0 - note that I borrow t=0 from science it is not mathematical hocus pocus) exists as a singularity; a single entity (I am not calling it God).

Do you accept?

You are essentially saying that everything has a first cause because everything is self existent.
Does that make any sense?

plaetton:

Unless my understanding of english is really bad, FIRST CAUSE supposes a beginning, whereas, SELF-EXISTENCE supposes no beginning.

First cause supposes a beginning from a cause which has no beginning. Otherwise, it would not be first cause.

Purist: Hi caezar,



hmm. . . the ad hoc hypothesis at play here.

If the first cause can be classified as "something", do you not consider your claim here to be self-contradictory? Like an oxymoron? A logical impossibility of some sort? Consider this argument:

1) Something exists
1) First Cause is "something"
2) Something cannot come from nothing.
Ergo,
4) First Cause (being something) cannot come from nothing
EDIT: 5)(In other words, First Cause came from something.)

You are on the right track Purist.

However, although something cannot come from nothing, something does not necessarily need to come from anything. Something might always be i.e. having no origin but itself. This is the idea behind self-existence.

So while your assertions from 1 - 4 are correct, 5 is not because it misses the element of self-existence.

plaetton:

You are essentially saying that everything has a first cause because everything is self existent.
Does that make any sense?

I said no such thing. I do not understand how you made this leap.

Purist: Hi caezar,



hmm. . . the ad hoc hypothesis at play here.

If the first cause can be classified as "something", do you not consider your claim here to be self-contradictory? Like an oxymoron? A logical impossibility of some sort? Consider this argument:

1) Something exists
1) First Cause is "something"
2) Something cannot come from nothing.
Ergo,
4) First Cause (being something) cannot come from nothing
(In other words, First Cause came from something.)

Point of correction: the cosmological argument does not posit that anything that exists has a cause. Now think carefully about what I am about to say before responding: it posits that anything that begins to exist, has a cause.

wiegraf:

You sound mad, you mad? Do not fear, we've been doing fine without zeus, we'll manage fine without god. Now, let's hope it doesn't take you an eternity to answer a mere human like me (unlike the last time when you had to be backed into a corner by platteon, about your definition of god, that was just sad). I agree with energy being 'self-existent', I agree this god has been around (not your silly bshit without any proof about it creating himself, htf do you come up with this s.hit, why do you even need to), its just been around, call it a consequence of abtract concepts like numbers or whatever: we don't know. Now, ignore the details, is 'god' a personal god?

Mad? I am not the one who said that everything was nothingness and then contradicted that by saying that nothingness does not exist.

You did that, mate.

plaetton:

Unless my understanding of english is really bad, FIRST CAUSE supposes a beginning, whereas, SELF-EXISTENCE supposes no beginning.

Am I right or wrong, people ?

First cause presupposes a beginning of other things, not of itself.

Now I honestly cannot understand some of the horribly irrational rhetoric being advanced by atheists on this thread. Mostly when I read all this, I am tempted (in the immortal words of Enigma) "not to reply at all", some of it is sickeningingly contradictory and self defeating, but most of it just betrays a basic deficiency in the most elementary logic. You will see, for instance, how Area Boy asserted (in line with the gibberish he read from Krauss) that the total energy of the universe is zero; and that in this circumstance the universe would have popped up unbidden from nothing. You will also see how Wiegraf asserted that all initial energy is nothingness, because it cancels out - lol - and then asserted that we all agree that the self same nothingness does not exist!

It is honestly incredible, how educated persons can arrive at such unspeakably contradictory balderdash. The saddest aspect of all this is that these persons somehow imagine their thinking to be any better than that of the religionist. In some epileptic fit of deluded excitement, they imagine such hopelessly contradictory nonsense to pass for sophistication. It seems to me that the thinking is that anybody who rejects religion has crossed the Rubicon, and achieved philosophical and intellectual Nirvana: this is not so.

Just look at the two eminently ridiculous assertions from Area Boy and Wiegraf which I cited. Notwithstanding that zero refers to nothingness, Area Boy piggy-backs on Krauss to assert that the total energy in the universe is zero: not recognizing that the implication of this would be that the universe does not exist: he then goes further to say that on account of this, the universe pops into existence from nothingness. Now this is a person who will make this kind of nonsensical suggestion and yet presume to laugh at the theist.

Wiegraf, for his part, does worse: he says that everything is nothingness at the start, and then turns about to say that nothingness does not exist - whilst describing the initial state of things as consisting of matter and other elements.

Can any serious thinker take these folk seriously?

Can they take themselves seriously?

Baby thinkers, drunk on the new wine of the new discovery of new atheism.

In a line, the summary of the maxim mentioned by the OP, is that from nothingness comes nothing. From this, we can see that the somethingness that we know, did not come from nothing. We can also see that any other somethingness that preceded this somethingness did not come from nothing. We can thus see that, as Caezar said, if there was nothingness at the beginning, then there would never have been somethingness, as nothingness cannot bear somethingness. We therefore see that there was always somethingness. This is the simple reasoning that evinces that which is eternal and self existent. It seems however, to be beyond some folk, as simple as it is.

Still, no one has addressed my question on whether eternity exists, and whether or not it is caused.

Deep Sight:
Still, no one has addressed my question on whether eternity exists, and whether or not it is caused.

It is a difficult question to address. I intuitively grasp that eternity must exist and is uncaused... But obviously, you are not asking for mere intuition. And since we are discussing in the presence of the eternally skeptic, I feel obligated to ground my intuition on reasoned logic.

Therefore, I do not know... I am contemplating.

caezar:

First cause supposes a beginning from a cause which has no beginning. Otherwise, it would not be first cause.

Parameters for the first cause are not set by the system, in this case the system is the big bang and all the little routines that it contains. This should be patently obvious so I'm not sure why would make this argument. The issue should be about the nature of the source of all this chaos. Do you think it's sentient? Do you think it has supernatural pproperties, that can defy logic?

wiegraf:

Do you think it's sentient?

That, we cannot logically infer or "dis-infer"

Do you think it has supernatural pproperties, that can defy logic?

Nothing defies logic, my friend. God is the sum of all logic.

wiegraf:

Parameters for the first cause are not set by the system, in this case the system is the big bang and all the little routines that it contains. This should be patently obvious so I'm not sure why would make this argument. The issue should be about the nature of the source of all this chaos. Do you think it's sentient? Do you think it has supernatural pproperties, that can defy logic?

This is an obvious trap.

You ask for the nature of "the source of all this chaos". I contend that it's nature (even assuming that what we observe really is chaos) is irrelevant until and unless we can agree that it is self-existent and agree on its other necessary qualities.

This is what I find most atheists fall back on. They cannot show that a sentient first cause is logically invalid, but they can, by using straw arguments, argue that its very nature invalidates its existence.

No sir. I refuse to be drawn into that argument. Let's focus on the idea of a generic self-existent being. Be it God or science's singularity.

De Rerum Natura

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of De Rerum Natura (eng. title On the Nature of Things)

Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.[1]
English translation:
But only Nature's aspect and her law,
Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.[2]
He then continues on discussing how matter is required to make matter and that objects cannot spring forth without reasonable cause.
Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus
omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret.
e mare primum homines, e terra posset oriri
squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo;[3]

English translation

Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind
Might take its origin from any thing,
No fixed seed required. Men from the sea
Might rise, and from the land the scaly breed,
And, fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky;[4]
[edit]King Lear

In William Shakespeare's King Lear, the king says, "Nothing will come of nothing" to his daughter Cordelia, meaning that as long as she says nothing to flatter him, she will receive nothing from him.[5] Later, Lear nearly repeats the line, saying, "Nothing can be made out of nothing" (Act 1.1 and Act 1.4 respectively).

"KING LEAR: ..what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing?!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

Deep Sight:
Ok, here is my own answer: Eternity is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

Is it spatial or non spatial?



Eternity Synonyms : everlasting, foreverness, infinity, perpetuity

caezar:

This is an obvious trap.

You ask for the nature of "the source of all this chaos". I contend that it's nature (even assuming that what we observe really is chaos) is irrelevant until and unless we can agree that it is self-existent and agree on its other necessary qualities.

This is what I find most atheists fall back on. They cannot show that a sentient first cause is logically invalid, but they can, by using straw arguments, argue that its very nature invalidates its existence.

No sir. I refuse to be drawn into that argument. Let's focus on the idea of a generic self-existent being. Be it God or science's singularity.

Ok, define the Character of the First Cause.

Martian:
Is it spatial or non spatial?



Eternity Synonyms : everlasting, foreverness, infinity, perpetuity

Excellent.

No it is not spatial, but is combined with the void that is infinite space.

That eternal combination is again what God is.

Eternity / infinite time - the continuum into which events are interpolated.

Void - infinite space) - the void into which things are interpolated.

In these two simple facts rest the mystery of all existence for those who are willing and able to see it in all simplicity.

That very infinite continuum and infinite void is exactly what is the somethingness that is encapsulated as the foundation of reality and which is what God is.

Kay 17:

Ok, define the Character of the First Cause.

Self-existent, uncaused, infinite and eternal, immaterial.

Deep Sight: De Rerum Natura

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of De Rerum Natura (eng. title On the Nature of Things)

Principium cuius hinc nobis exordia sumet,
nullam rem e nihilo gigni divinitus umquam.[1]
English translation:
But only Nature's aspect and her law,
Which, teaching us, hath this exordium:
Nothing from nothing ever yet was born.[2]
He then continues on discussing how matter is required to make matter and that objects cannot spring forth without reasonable cause.
Nam si de nihilo fierent, ex omnibus rebus
omne genus nasci posset, nil semine egeret.
e mare primum homines, e terra posset oriri
squamigerum genus et volucres erumpere caelo;[3]

English translation

Suppose all sprang from all things: any kind
Might take its origin from any thing,
No fixed seed required. Men from the sea
Might rise, and from the land the scaly breed,
And, fowl full fledged come bursting from the sky;[4]
[edit]King Lear

In William Shakespeare's King Lear, the king says, "Nothing will come of nothing" to his daughter Cordelia, meaning that as long as she says nothing to flatter him, she will receive nothing from him.[5] Later, Lear nearly repeats the line, saying, "Nothing can be made out of nothing" (Act 1.1 and Act 1.4 respectively).

"KING LEAR: ..what can you say to draw
A third more opulent than your sisters? Speak.
CORDELIA: Nothing, my lord.
KING LEAR: Nothing?!
CORDELIA: Nothing.
KING LEAR: Nothing will come of nothing, speak again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing

I don't mean to incite the atheists any further but this cracks me up.

Wikipedia:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jastrow#Quotes