Saw this on another forum and thought I'd share.. Whether one is an atheist, theist, or agnostic the inescapable reality is that Something exists without a somehow. That is, something, whether it be God or the physical universe, ultimately has no natural, logical explanation for its existence - it just is. Something that is not merely unexplained as of yet, but something for which there is no explanation at all, not even in principle. It seems to me that something that exists as a brute fact without any underlying physical principle, property, dynamic, or process to account for its existence is the very definition of supernatural. It strikes me as bizarre that atheists are so keen to point out how unnecessary and simplistic it is for the theist to invoke God as an explanation for physical reality when they themselves are forced to resort to logical absurdities like eternally existing uncaused physical entities, actual infinities, or physical reality emerging ex nihilo. Let's be clear, these explanations are all just as good as the theistic explanation but they also carry implications that are not one wit less supernatural than the explicit tenets of Theism. So here the metaphysical naturalists and the atheistic materialists are hoisted on their own petard. Their entire philosophy is undermined by its own internal contradictions drawn out through the use of simple logic. At this point any failure or refusal to acknowledge the simple truth that there is at least one supernatural brute fact reeks and smacks of deliberate obtuseness and extreme intellectual dishonesty.
I have met people who think in a way similar to this, but I see things a little differently. The universe, and the all the observable things in it, appear to exist. There are many aspects of our reality that remain unexplained. But... this is where the story ends for me. To say, "God must have done it" requires even more explanation than the very thing it is meant to explain. If indeed God did create the universe, what created God? And whatever it may be that brought God into existence would also need explaining. This is why I simply admit to not knowing what created the universe (if indeed it actually was created).
this is a bit misplaced Atheists are the ones who realized that OBVIOUSLY something can come from nothing or be eternal. We just call out creationists for their hypocrisy because THEY use the idea that something can't come from nothing therefore God. When we ask "who made.God" its a counter argument. Its rhetorical, a response to the idea that without got, something cannot come.ffrom nothing -yuri
Right. It isn't really biased towards theism or atheism. It's just pointing out that when you go back to the beginning, both have a severe flaw in their reasoning. And that ultimately, something not natural(in the normal sense of the word) happened or is going on. Here's another related quote from Terence Mckenna: " "The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there's something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let's give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it's just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we'll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be lightâ€. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. Well, I say then, if science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle." " My personal belief is that whatever 'is' just always is. Seems the most logical since it doesn't require some mystical creation from an unknown source. It just is what is. Right. Saying 'God did it' is just adding an unnecessary layer. But so is saying 'the big bang did it'. Which is why I say the most logical conclusion is that nothing did anything, there just is what is, for no real reason. TBH I don't think we'll ever really know. I don't think science will ever give an answer to something like that, since it will always be looking for a reason. Because, like a little annoying 4 year old, you can always ask 'why?'.
saying "God did it" is not the same as saying "the big bang did it" Scientists admit we don't know what caused the big bang. We just see evidence of an explosion/expansion of spacetime/energy. We call what we see the "big bang" or more commonly known now "expansion". Science isn't trying to explain where existence came from with the big bang, its more an.observation of the past, no different then reading a book. In the case of God, a conclusion is being made to justify the impossible. There is no science or observation (science) -yuri
but this is not irrefutable, this statement makes a leap from unknown to unknowable that many people would be uncomfortable with. i enjoyed this post.
Bio-genesis or abiogenesis is merely the explanation of how something can come from nothing, a mere observation and not the actual reasoning principle. Science has found that elements combined to form more complexities and eventually the first bacteria on earth, however, the real question isn't in the labeling of actions, that's a materialist fallacy. The real question is why does it decide to come together in the first place? What's pushing 'all that is' to continuously desire to come together to form more complexities? An unseen all pervading force? The Higgs Field? Invisible Glueon's or invisible carrier particles? Dark matter? Dark energy? Scientists are still only able to speculate. That's the true mystery of existence.... Science can label actions and explain why things do what they do, however, they can never give you the source or reasoning for the action or it's origin point. We're simply attempting to explain the behaviors of things outside ourselves. We're dealing and working with our finite brains which is a product of all that is, so how could we ever explain what we are originally a product of? Can a drop of water explain the entire ocean? Is it able to explain it's sense of individuality even though it's part of the whole and not really separate? When that drop of water is absorbed into a plant and becomes the plant, can the drop explain itself as the plant? When the plant is eaten by the mammal or the mammal breathes in the oxygen it now gives off, can this droplet explain itself through the plant and then through the mammal? Do I need to go on about this or are you starting to see the point? This existence that we've suddenly woken up into is transactional...as the brilliant philosopher Alan Watts has said. The environment grows the organism just as the organism grows the environment. It's all one thing, and it moves together in a balanced harmony. Our desire to label and separate everything or to claim that 'this is how it's supposed to be' is a divisive product of the ego mind. ..a sickness.
No. Abiogenesis not something from nothing. Its the change of matter from one state into another. OK Pretty sure I said that. "Science cannot prove or disprove origins" I really don't understand your point. I already know that God, and the origin of the universe cannot be tested. Why the lecture on what I already posted? Or did you confuse my post for another users maybe? OK. How is any of this relevent? I'm a bit lost. I definatly think you quoted the wrong user -yuri
God is not a 'being' that 'exists'. God is an inadequate human description of Infinity. Saying Infinity necessarily has to have 'come' from 'somewhere or something' is nonsense. Erase the concept 'God' and all its inadequate descriptions.
I like this thread, and how it's going. For the Universe to have come into existence out of nothing can't be it, but for it to have been created, from something outside it, doesn't have to be it either. We might say it wasn't created, it just came to be from what was already there, and yet, we know things have causes, and for a cause, there must be something causing. So it makes sense that this something form part of the God idea back in the day, because really, the God idea is merely our limited human way of explaining/understanding something we just can't. The Universe may simply BE God rather than have been created by God, which keeps God within it not outside it. The observation of what we call the 'big bang' merely attempts to describe the result of this becoming. And, of course, there is no real need to form an opinion at all just because we do so like to take a mental position, and are not comfortable with questions that just have no answer. It's like saying - well, I don't know the answer, but this one sounds better than that one, and I need to believe something, else how can I have arguments on forums with others who have decided something else?
In agreement, and to add my thoughts... Since an absolute nothing (undifferentiation with no potential) doesnt have the potential to differentiate, that leads me to think the universe didnt come from an absolute nothing. Infinity is undifferentiated with infinite potential. So, in my opinion, the moment of differentiation (the beginning of space/time, or moment of creation) was caused by the infinite potential of the undifferentiated infinity.
I always like to go with time never truly ends or begins to maybe break this paradox but that really just introduces different paradoxes. I would definitely agree that there is no real sound logical explanation for how we came to be. Either something was created out of nothing or something has always existed.
exactly. IMO nothing can't exist. That's why there is something. -yuri its not though. Its the revaluation behind the big bang. Its why we are all here. If there is nothing that means time too. There is nothing. But in reality nothing never existed. -yuri
Again, that depends what you mean by nothing. If you cant define what you mean then you nor I know what you are talking about. I've already distinguished two different definitions of nothing. One is possible and the other I agree is impossible. Thats why i ask what is meant by nothing. Defining something doesnt mean it does or can exist. I can define infinity, so if that exists, it means my second definition of nothing cannot.