I apologize for this separate post, Blake, but am noting a small update concerning the ontological "commitment" out of nothing, nothing comes.

I sent your proof (de-excitation process of an electron) to some friends of mine who are experts on this issue to see if it can stand under scientific review.  I consider my replies valid, but theirs is much more valid -- just as I'm sure you recognize Quentin Smith's reply that you gave is more valid than your own, for he is the expert.

My physicist friend (the atheist) is yet to reply, but the well-learned apologetist who goes by the name Tarmac has.  The thread is here with Tarmac making his first review concerning "out of nothing, nothing comes".  I hope you keep up with that topic, for it will prove of great importance to this one.

I would simply give their replies just as you did Smith's for me, but it's in a post format, which amounts to me having to wait potentially lengthy periods of time to read their take.  Forgive me for the inconvenience.

-Spawn

I gave two possible answers (with 1 being the one I hold), Frag -- both "something" and "nothing"... depending on how the mind response works out.  Personally, I believe (1) is more plausible, but (2) is likely also... just a matter of preference.

Also, back on a different page, I gave this definition for cause - "Cause - something that produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, called the effect, can be explained".  

This is kind of related to my "from nothing, but by something" response.  I didn't go in-depth on the answer, but I gave one, nonetheless on the 7th page.  The ones on the 8th page are better, though.

That's hilarious! LOL  

Is this an actual online church or a parody site?  I read their answer to the question, but it was vague.  


My brothers would love this place.  

The first quote doesn't come from my last reply where I did answer that question.  It's worth noting that I did offer a half-attempt answer by bringing in my definition of "cause".  I even re-used it in my last post to Blake.

I did offer an answer to Blake to the second quote also.  You just snipped the first part.  The rest is:

"I can use two defenses:

(1) I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2) I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense). I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them. Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?

Also, I did provide a short answer. I gave a definition for "cause", which wouldn't (for the theists) amount to the universe coming into existence from and by nothing."

If that's what you call a "bullshit" answer, then I hold it with pride.

As far as my:

I'm not saying the universe came into existence from and by nothing, which is what you're holding

To the best of my knowledge, Blake has been defending the "something from and by nothing"... he did give an article from Quentin Smith who defends that position.
Also, in the above quote, I'm simply noting that I find it plausible to posit God creating the universe from nothing, yet by something (Himself).  I give more in my response, though.


Hope this clears things up.  If not, then I'll just concede that I've made a mistake, because I don't feel like arguing over semantics.  

Calm down, Frag.  Even if I make an error, which I usually do, there's no need to point it out in a such a way.  You may differ, though, and call me a "jackass".  


Blake typed, "If you say God made the universe out of nothing, then you've accepted that the universe came from nothing".  I challenged this with two or three responses.

If that's not what you're talking about, then reply to this with a direct quote from myself.


Blake already knows I believe the universe must have came into existence from and by something (God)... or else I wouldn't be a theist.  If he has asked that, then I answered it in my past post.  I for sure did reply to the "from nothing" thing he typed.

If I've messed up or done such a thing, then I offer my sincere apologies.  I try my hardest to respond as best and honestly as I can, I assure you.  I am human, though, and tend to make mistakes.  I don't want to anger anyone with them... especially at a board where I'm at "newbie" status.

-Spawn

Sorry if I bugged you, smi, but I didn't see this thread until now.

Yeah, I'm interested in joining, though.  My name at DT is KnightSpawn.

May God have mercy on those who want me in... and curse those who don't.  :hehe:

Later, guys.

It matters and is of great importance.  I want to be 100% sure about Blakes statements before I proceed.  I don't want to commit a logical fallacy by attacking a Strawman.


Blake,

I'll give two more posts and offer a concluding post followed by yours, if that's alright with you.  This is ending up like the discussions I have with my brothers... excluding the fact that I get flamed. LOL

I do have one atheist friend who reminds me of you.  He's incredibly respectful and noticeably intelligent.  He's also a physicist, which means I get a free scientific review of any arguments I want to put forth. :hehe:
Well, to get more to the point, I don't think he believes there is any evidence that something can come from and by absolute nothingness.  All he has said to me in defense of this is that the rules for causuality broke down, which amounted to something coming into existence from and by absolute nothingness.

I'll get in touch with him tonight and see if he'll come over here tomorrow or the day after and offer a response to your evidences.  Not that I don't think I haven't responded to you adequately, but I think the seriousness of what I'm saying will be taken more seriously coming from an actual physicist who is an atheist.


The scientists and philosophers before Darwin knew animals evolved, but they didn't know the mechanism.  Some of them posited evolution anyway due to the fact that they knew evolution occurred, but didn't know how.  They couldn't explain it.  

This is a good parallel to theism.  Granted that God exists (just to make a point), we can posit His existence without knowing how He does certain things.  You're an intelligent guy, so you should be able to realize the truth value here.  I don't know the "how" to a lot of things.

That's a Red Herring at best.


There is no scientific theory that is based off of unproven ideas, incredibly complex ideas, and unfalsifiable ideas.  Branes theory isn't proven at all.  How can you prove that which is based off of unproven ideas?

Yes, it's interesting, but it isn't a good, serious example to give on the question of origins.  You say you don't have any particular devotion to branes theory, so which theory do you have a particular devotion to... now that I know we've wasted our time discussing a theory you aren't even particularly devoted to?


That's an analogy based on assumption.  As for the last sentence, it's Flat Earth defense #1.


I gave you a few arguments that something cannot come from and by absolute nothingness - argument from experience (intuitively obvious argument), law of cause and effect, and scientific basis.  All you've challenged is the scientific basis.

You did toss this out, though:


This is Kent Hovind's  (the YEC bulldog) defense for young earth creationism.  Hovind says all he needs to do is give one evidence for a young earth, which would therefore disprove the old earth hypothesis.  It's only fair to respond to that evidence against your proposition also.  That is, unless your proposition isn't tenable and able to be falsified?


You are yet to give an in-depth explanation of the de-excitation process, so I can offer a better reply.  You are yet to define "spontaneous", which has two totally different definitions also.


Firstly, I'm not saying the universe came into existence from and by nothing, which is what you're holding.  I can use two defenses:

(1)  I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2)  I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense).  I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them.  Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?

Also, I did provide a short answer.  I gave a definition for "cause", which wouldn't (for the theists) amount to the universe coming into existence from and by nothing.


You typed, "if it came from nothing (or was made from nothing by God)", so I was just noting the big difference between the two.


With all due respect, you can disagree, but a direct response to my list is welcome.

-Spawn

After reading your reply to this, I'll have to determine whether or not I'll offer more than one more reply.  We don't seem to agree on much.

Oh yeah, I forgot... to do the quotes, just click on the "quote" icon when you're replying to something, then copy/paste that which you're replying to, then click on the quote icon one more time to close it out.  

Or you can just do it the way you're doing.  I can read your posts just fine.


How can they have scientific basis when they're based off of unproven ideas?  If they do, then so does whatever Creationists posit.  It's the same thing.


You're going to have to go in-depth and provide a parallel concerning black holes and cosmic background radiation - as to how it's the same situation as that of the Branes hypothesis.

It's not whether or not we understand the hypothesis, but the simple fact that it's based off of unproven ideas, unfalsifiable ideas, incredibly complex ideas, ... wishful thinking at it's best.


I've given evidence against your proposition; none of which have received a response.


If, by spontaneous, you mean random, then that doesn't help you.  You're going to have to educate me a bit on this.  All you have to do is go in-depth and explain how that is creation from absolute nothingness.  Something that has gone under scientific review would be a bonus.


Well, according to the definition of "cause" I gave, I needn't tell you or even concern myself with what God made the universe out of.  I do have my theories, but I'm trying to save us both time.


Yes, but what is this "something"?  You typed,


What do you mean by "in that something"?  Are you talking about whatever God did to make the universe come about?  You call this a very typical logical argument, while I've never seen any atheistic philosopher use it and you don't go in-depth on any of the things you type.  Atheists don't group it in that way at all.


There's a huge difference between coming from absolute nothingness and being created from "nothing" by God.  As for "spontaneous", well, that depends on how you define it.


In lots of ways:

1.  The God hypothesis has an amazing explanatory scope - reaching the in's and out's of every field.
2.  The explanatory power is powerful, indeed.  The fact that it can easily explain most subjects in question shows the power and simplicity of it.
3.  It's a very plausible hypothesis.  It contains no logical contradictions and no self-defeaters.  Also, it has other evidences in various fields.
4.  It's not ad hoc at all.  The atheistic position, as I showed in my last post, is very ad hoc.
5.  It does accord with accepted beliefs.
6.  The God hypothesis does exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (5).


I never said the formation of the Big Bang theory is abnormal.  

As for the first sentence, that's a Strawman at best.  Even atheists will recognize it as false (I can cite some examples).

If it's based on unproven ideas, then it has no scientific basis.


I've given 3 arguments here; one which you've challenged.  There's still more to go.  There's plenty more proof of God than the Branes theory.


Well, if we're talking about the first state of the universe, then science has no say-so, because there's no way for such a thing to be tested.  A personal explanation is all that's left over.


Once again, Branes hypothesis has no scientific basis (it's own proponents admit it).  Not only does evidence come in as a factor, but so do these:

1.  Explanatory scope
2.  Explanatory power
3.  Plausibility
4.  Less ad hoc
5.  Accord with accepted beliefs
6.  Comparative superiority

The theistic hypothesis easily completes all of these when compared to the (unscientifically based) Brane hypothesis.  So, not only does it have more evidence leaning towards it, but it fulfills the "best explanation available" test.


First off, I offered a reply to the de-excitation of electrons.  You're going to have to go more in-depth (with what I typed in my last post and my definition of "cause") rather than cite an example.  I don't see how the de-excitation of an electron is something coming from absolute nothingness.  Secondly, according to the definition of "cause" I gave, the Christian position doesn't have a problem at all.


You do realize the Flat Earth Society uses that kind of response, right?

To disprove P (flat earth), yes that means P is never true.  If evolution disproves intelligent design, then intelligent design is never true.
In the same sense, if I can disprove that something can come from nothing (no space, no time, no material, etc) then the argument is never true.

I've given evidence supporting my view, while I have responded to yours.  I think it's safe to conclude (even without evidence) that something cannot come from and be caused by absolute nothingness.


I'm a million miles away from assuming anything.  I've given a few evidences to support my position (with more to come) and only one has been responded to by you.  On the other hand, all you toss out is the Brane hypothesis, which isn't even worthy of consideration due to what it's own proponents admit.

You typed, "there is no reason that the laws of physics followed by that "something" couldn't be the cause".  What is this "something" you speak of?  


In order for the laws of physics to have created the universe, they would have to be timeless and spaceless.  This seems to be a mechanistic first cause, so you're welcome to reply to my response concerning this, which is in my lengthy post a couple of pages back.
God causing it from "nothing" (which I digress with on some points) does make more sense than something coming from and by absolutely nothing -- no space, no person, no time, no materiality, etc.

We're both stuck on something coming into existence from and by nothing.  You seem to accept Quentin Smith's position without reading William Craig's refutation of that position.  My teleological argument remains open for your response also.

Don't you find it curious that atheists went away from their classical position (universe always existing in time) to the universe beginning a finite time ago (Big Bang) to unjustifiably interpreting the Big Bang in such a way in an attempt to escape from a singularity and now to saying the universe popped into existence from and by absolutely nothing.  What can the theist do?  Whenever their position gets disproven they just make up absurd ideas which can't be verified or falsified like the Brane theory... the field goals just keep widening.

-Spawn

Good day to you, Blake.  Hopefully, me and you won't bore the audience, because it could get lengthy.

My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions concerning the tomato analogy/argument.


Of course we can't.  There are only two types of explanations that can be used - scientific or personal.  It can't be scientific, because, as I typed: "since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it".


I'm fairly knowledged on the brane theory, but am not particularly happy or excited by it.  I remain at unease due to the way you explained the branes theory.  I say "unease", because the theory introduces all sorts of complexities that make the mind rattle.  Paul Steinhardt, from Princeton University, explains it as thus:

"The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension."

Steinhardt is very honest about the model.  He writes,

"Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory" (A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe)

Of course it is and thankfully scientists like Steinhardt are honest about that.  It will never come close to proof because of the fact that dimensional worlds are brought into the picture and "hidden, extra dimensions".  This is just incredulous, as I'm sure you can see.  It's merely an unjustified attempt to bring in all sorts of incredibly complex ideas in an attempt to make certain individuals feel comfortable about the belief they hold.  




I wasn't expecting a challenge.  I mean, it's so intuitively obvious, in my opinion.  How can something come from absolute nothingness?  Probably the most skeptical person who ever lived, David Hume, even said he would never assert such an absurd proposition stating that something can come from nothing.  

C.S. Lewis reminds us,

“There never was a time when nothing existed; otherwise nothing would exist now.”

Before I proceed, let me define what I mean by “cause”.  Cause - something that produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, called the effect, can be explained.

There is ocular, demonstrable proof.  I see a baby coming into existence from something.  I see a book coming into existence from something.  Everything I see has a cause.  Of course, because, as I asked, how can something come from absolute nothingness.

There’s the law of cause and effect, which backs me up - I.e. there must be a cause in order for an effect to exist.  

William Craig, in his debate with Quentin Smith, proclaims,

“Now is the premise self–evident? Well, it's rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And to me that surely is evident when you think about it. If there is absolutely nothing—no space, no time, no energy, no matter—then something cannot just come out of nothing[/b]. At least, it seems to me that the premise is far more plausible than its opposite.”

Everything put under the scientific “microscope” that begins to exist has a cause.  You disagree, though, and type,


Craig offers a response to Smith on radioactive decay.  He says,

“As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles.” (Craig/Smith debate)
As far as the de-excitation of electron goes, what about the possibility of D-photons randomly interacting with electrons.  I don’t see how this is something coming from absolute nothingness.


You bring up Smith’s article, so I’ll just send you here.  I think Craig is doing just fine in his exchange with Smith, who seems to be just re-stating his arguments.  He doesn’t really provide any demonstrable evidence for the proposition “something from absolute nothingness”, but relies on an argument from semantics and authority.  Craig also provides an in-depth coverage of other models in his book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.  Whatever it may be, the God hypothesis is definitely the one Occam would've went with... wasn't he a theist, btw?

Unless I’m tired due to lack of sleep, you haven’t touched the teleological argument, yet.  My lack of sleep could be the problem, though.


Later, man.  Thanks for keeping up with a very interesting discussion.

And I await the parallel explaining how the Kalam's first two premises are assumed.  The only one atheists attack is the conclusion; unless their stuck on classical atheism.  Even you agree.  You type here,

I concluded that it is faulty to assume that God caused the big bang just because we don't understand the cause.

That's the conclusion.  But I defended my conclusion, which you are yet to reply to directly.  Please read (not premise 1 and 2), but the conclusion to the Kalam.  All you give is "we don't understand the cause", yet my conclusion explains how we can understand certain qualities of the ultimate first cause.  It's actually quite simple.  There's only 3 types of possible causes - (a) chance (b) intelligent designer © mechanistic "designer".  I've ruled out (a) from the Teleological Argument and © from the Kalam argument (I explained in my lengthy post).  Therefore, we have (b) left, which I've defended in my conclusion.

Then I've also got the Impossible Faith argument up and the Teleological Argument.  Even these aren't all!  I can adequately defend the argument from Jesus' resurrection, the objective morality argument, the ontological argument (somewhat), the argument from beauty, and the evolutionary argument against naturalism.  So, you see, the Kalam isn't all... I just regard it as a main weapon.  One thing that isn't lacking is arguments for the cause of the universe.  Atheistic philosophers even recognize this.


Mere details.  Overall, what we do know, is that the universe came into existence at a finite period of time ago.  The details might be lacking at this present time, but it matters not, because we do know the Big Bang is demonstrably true.  That's what's under discussion.  I realize the ample evidence for the Big Bang and question the causes which would be needed in order for something like that to come about.  

So, what we do understand is that the Big Bang did occur and that is what's under question; not the details of the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself.

As far as not understanding the cause of the Big Bang, that's why we're here in this discussion.  We're using free thought and examing the possible causes.  Scientists and philosophers have been doing this for centuries.  They simply grant a certain type of creation (for example, the Big Bang), then examine what type of causes would be needed in order for something like that creation to come about.  What cause of the Big Bang do you believe in?


Simply because of the fact that's it's not only more plausible, but because one is demonstrably correct, while the other  is terribly lacking.


I meant no disrespect at all and I'm sure Blake understands this.  I can tell he has a good amount of knowledge concerning certain fields of science, but when I give quotes from some of the greatest atheistic physicists in the world showing their "confusicled" nature of their own belief due to the fine tuning of the universe and Blake won't do the same, then I must question his knowledge of that particular field.  There definitely does exist fine tuning within the universe and not only does this need to be recognized by Blake, but it deserves an adequate direct response.

In Dark Throne you buys miners to get more gold per turn or simply upgrade.  Excuse my ignorance but how do you get more gold per turn on KoC?  I've read their Beginner FAQ section, but it didn't help.

:hehe:  

Hello again, Blake (sorry for the double-post).


I've already explained and defended the Kalam in my lengthy post above.  You're welcome to challenge the premises themselves, rather than unparalleled (and wrongly attempted) anological premises.

1.  I never asserted such a bold proposition: that everything that has a cause we don't understand is caused by God.  I never said we don't understand the Big Bang, because we do understand a good degree of it.

2.  Your entire analogical argument is completely unparallel to the Kalam.  Both premise 1's are demonstrably wrong, while the Kalam's premise 1 is demonstrably right with ocular proof giving it more grounding.  Premise 2 follows from the incorrect premise 1, while the Kalam has a logically sound premise 2, which follows from a logically sound premise 1.  As for the conclusion, I gave it in my lengthy post above.   A direct response is welcome.

3.  The entire thing is a strawman at best.

Hello, Blake.  


Randomly popping into existence from where and from what?  According to the Kalam and Teleological argument I gave, everything points towards an intelligent designer.  Of course the designer will be complex, but Occam's doesn't say anything about that, because this complex designer will have an incredibly amount of explanatory power and will be an incredibly simple explanation and is a sufficient cause for the universe.  Why do you think atheists are always calling Christians "lazy thinkers"... simple... because we go with God (the simplest explanation).

I see you've got some knowledge of science, but the physics isn't there (read my Argument 3).

As far as the Bible being interpreted as a 6-day Creation, I've dealt with this at various forums.  I always begin by using biblical evidence for an old earth and against a young earth.

Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth[/size]

1.  The naming of the animals argument.  Adam named all of the animals on th 6th day - the same day Eve was created and (I believe) animals were created and when Adam went into a "deep" sleep.  Seems like a  lot in one day, methinks.

2.  The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.

3.  Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Is this an analogy or should it be interpreted with the calendar day interpretation?

4.  The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:  
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

5.  The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

6.  The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:.

7.  The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

Various Interpretation

Here's a number of interpretations that can be used to interpret Genesis.

The Day-Age Interpretation - The six days of the Day-Age view are understood in the same sense as "in that day" of Isaiah 11:10-11—in other words, as periods of indefinite length and not of 24 hours duration. The six days are taken as sequential but as overlapping and perhaps merging into one another. According to this view, the Genesis 1 creation week describes events from the point of view of the earth, which is being prepared as the habitation for man. In this context, the explanation of day four is that the sun only became visible on that day, as atmospheric conditions allowed the previous alternation of light and darkness to be perceived as coming from the previously created sun and other heavenly bodies. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science. From ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.

Frame Work - The distinctive feature of the Framework view is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. According to this interpretation, Moses used the metaphor of the week to narrate God’s acts of creation. Thus, God’s supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical but the exact timing is left unspecified. The purpose of the metaphor is to call Adam to imitate God in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest. Creation events are grouped in two triads of days: Days 1-3 (creations kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation’s kings). Adam is king of the earth; God is the King of Creation.

Analogical - According to the Analogical view, the "days" of Genesis 1 are God’s workdays, analogous (but not necessarily identical) to human workdays. They set a pattern for our rhythm of work and rest. The six days represent periods of God’s historical supernatural activity in preparing and populating the earth as a place for humans to live, love, work, and worship. These days are broadly consecutive. That is, they are successive periods of unspecified length. They may overlap in part, or they may reflect logical rather than chronological criteria for grouping certain events on certain days.

Calendar day - This one posits that the 6 days were 6 of our calendar days.

I don't hold the Calendar day, for I'm not a young earth creationist.  The other ones are more valid, in my opinion.

-Spawn