God

[Blake]

I'm not sure how to do quotes, so I'll just use quotation marks.

"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'."

How do we know that the universe cannot be explained scientifically? Obviously we don't have proof of branes theory, etc, but those theories at least have a scientific basis, unlike god. There are no mathematics, etc, that suggest that an intelligent being created the universe. Just because we don't understand the science yet doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, look at the interior of a black hole. We really don't understand that to any greater degree than we understand the origin of the universe, but there must exist some physics that govern them.

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

AS I said, it is not proven any more than god.

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.

Occam's razor applies to scientific explanations that can be supported by evidence. For example, the concept of natural motion (I think that was Aristotle) is a lot simpler than warped space time (ie gravity), but it isn't true. When choosing the simplest explanation, we have to have some evidence behind it. Branes theory has more of a scientific basis than god.

"I wasn't expecting a challenge. I mean, it's so intuitively obvious, in my opinion. How can something come from absolute nothingness?..."

God made the universe out of nothingness, according to Christianity. It's just a matter of something coming out of nothingness with or without a cause. It's like a electron being de-excited spontaneously vs. colisionaly.

I would go into more detail, but I have stuff to do. I don't think I missed anything, but feel free to point out anything I haven't addressed.
Later
-Blake
 

[Blake]

I have some more time now, so I'll finish my post.

This may or may not be familiar to you. I'm not sure what kind of background you have in logic.

Suppose you have a statement P which you want to prove. To do that you must show that P is always true. A lot of examples do not constitute a proof.

However, all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P. The fact that some things do happen spontaneously is thus sufficient to show that it is false to assume everything has a cause. (If you prefer the wording everything that has a beginning has a cause, think of spontaneous de-excitation of an electron as the beginning of a photon.)

Remember, to disprove P doesn't mean that P is never true, but it does mean that P isn't always true, and so it can't be used as a premise in a logical argument.

I think we can agree that the universe either formed out of something, or nothing. Whether the Big Bang had a cause or not, one of these has to be true. I will look at both cases.

1. It formed/was made out of something.
In this case something was there for the universe to be made out of, so there is no reason that the laws of physics followed by that "something" couldn't be the cause.  Thus if something was there it is faulty to assume that God was the cause.

2. The universe formed/was made out of nothing.
I know I have mentioned branes theory a lot, but I think this is more likely. I really think we agree that this is the case, only you think God was the cause. The problem is, we can't assume that there was a cause, as I explained above, because not everything has a cause.

In other words, if the universe was formed out of something, laws of physics would have existed that could cause a universe to form. If it formed (or was made) out of nothing, then we would like to say that God must have caused it, but it is incorrect to assume that a cause was necessary.

 

[underruler]

Maybe...we're just figments in someone's imagination...or dream.  

bah...who cares about the universe.  I think that no matter how hard some people try they can't explain somethings.  Either that or it's just something that incomprehensible to me.

[Lord Lanair]

Speaking of Occam's Razor, this seems like the simplest solution!  LOL

I have to agree with you (about the universe being incomprehensible).  Maybe when we all die, then the truth will become clear to us. :mellow:  

[Night Spawn]

Branes theory has more of a scientific basis than god.

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

AS I said, it is not proven any more than god.

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.

Just because we don't understand the science yet doesn't mean it isn't there.

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.

Occam's razor applies to scientific explanations that can be supported by evidence. For example, the concept of natural motion (I think that was Aristotle) is a lot simpler than warped space time (ie gravity), but it isn't true. When choosing the simplest explanation, we have to have some evidence behind it. Branes theory has more of a scientific basis than god.

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.

God made the universe out of nothingness, according to Christianity. It's just a matter of something coming out of nothingness with or without a cause. It's like a electron being de-excited spontaneously vs. colisionaly.

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.

Remember, to disprove P doesn't mean that P is never true, but it does mean that P isn't always true, and so it can't be used as a premise in a logical argument.

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.

1. It formed/was made out of something.
In this case something was there for the universe to be made out of, so there is no reason that the laws of physics followed by that "something" couldn't be the cause. Thus if something was there it is faulty to assume that God was the cause.

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 other words, if the universe was formed out of something, laws of physics would have existed that could cause a universe to form. If it formed (or was made) out of nothing, then we would like to say that God must have caused it, but it is incorrect to assume that a cause was necessary.

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

[Blake]

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

Yes, but the ideas do have a 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."

Let's finish our discussion of this one and then move on to those.

"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."

Don't underestimate what science can accomplish. We predicted black holes and the cosmic background radiation before they were ever detected. Regardless, even if we can't ever understand a scientific explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

"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"

How does God creating the universe out of nothing do better in any of those areas?

"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."

My response was that you can consider the de-excitation of an electron the creation of a photon. One example is all that is necessary to prove that things can happen spontaneously. That's about is close as we can get to creating something out of nothing in this universe, anyway.

"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."

Good luck trying disprove that. You still haven't told me what God made the universe out of, btw.

"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? "

This is a very typical logical argument I'm using here. The idea is that if there are only a few possibilities (the universe came out of something, or nothing), you can consider them all, one at a time, and see what happens. First, I looked at the case where the universe came from something, or God made it from something. In that case, there is no reason to assume that in that something, the formation of a universe couldn’t have a simple cause.  Remember, science we can't understand is not automatically non-existent.

As for the other case, if it came from nothing (or was made from nothing by God), then the only concern is whether or not there was a cause. Since some things can happen spontaneously, you can't assume there must have been a cause.

To eliminate any confusion, perhaps you could tell me, did God make the universe out of something or nothing?

"In order for the laws of physics to have created the universe, they would have to be timeless and spaceless."

I'm not talking the laws of physics. I'm talking about the case in which something was there, in which case that something would follow its own set of physical laws.

Science is always changing, because unlike religion, it is based on evidence, so I don’t see why the formation of the Big Bang theory is anything abnormal.
 

[Night 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.

the ideas do have a scientific basis.

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.

We predicted black holes and the cosmic background radiation before they were ever detected. Regardless, even if we can't ever understand a scientific explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

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.

Good luck trying disprove that.

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

My response was that you can consider the de-excitation of an electron the creation of a photon. One example is all that is necessary to prove that things can happen spontaneously. That's about is close as we can get to creating something out of nothing in this universe, anyway.

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.

You still haven't told me what God made the universe out of, btw

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.

I'm not talking the laws of physics. I'm talking about the case in which something was there, in which case that something would follow its own set of physical laws.

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

First, I looked at the case where the universe came from something, or God made it from something.  In that case, there is no reason to assume that in that something, the formation of a universe couldn’t have a simple cause. Remember, science we can't understand is not automatically non-existent.

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.

As for the other case, if it came from nothing (or was made from nothing by God), then the only concern is whether or not there was a cause. Since some things can happen spontaneously, you can't assume there must have been a cause.

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.

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

How does God creating the universe out of nothing do better in any of those areas?

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).

Science is always changing, because unlike religion, it is based on evidence, so I don’t see why the formation of the Big Bang theory is anything abnormal.

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).

[mole]

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

it shouldnt and doesnt matter its metaphorical

[Rug]

I'll throw this one out there; I didn't say it, and I won't argue over it:

<Yan_Song> "Lucifer" means the same thing as "Jesus".
<Yan_Song> I find this highly amusing.

[Guest]

"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."

Very few things in science are truly proven without a doubt. I'm not trying to say that branes theory is well proven. I'm saying that unlike religion, it at least takes scientific ideas as its basis. I really don't have any particular devotion to branes theory anyway. I just think its interesting, and I provided it as an example.

"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."

Black holes and cosmic background radiation are connected in that they were both predicted before we saw any evidence that they existed. In other words, it is possible to understand things we can't see or test.

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

I have given a response, that is what the rest of my post was about. If you feel that I have missed something, please explain.

"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."

No human being has ever seen creation from absolute nothingness, so we can't assume that it does or doesn't need a cause. My point is, if creation from absolute nothingness is possible, and things can happen without cause (such as spontaneous de-excitation), then we can't assume that creation from absolute nothingness (if it is possible) requires a cause.

"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."

I think that is very important. No offense, but you seem to be ducking around the question. I'm sure you can see where I am going with it. If you think there was something there for God to make the universe out of (I don't care what the something is; It doesn't matter), then why is it even necessary to put God in the picture? If something was there, then a creator is not necessary, and it is not the simplest explanation. If you say God made the universe out of nothing, then you've accepted that the universe came from nothing, in which case I ask, how do we know that there has to be a cause?

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

It's the stuff that the universe was made out of, if it was not created out of nothing.

"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."

Again, the stuff that the universe came from, if it didn't come from nothing. As for a typical logical argument, I mean the way the argument was structured; I said that a condition could be either true or false, and then looked at the implications of each case.

"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."

A big difference? If it was created by God there was a cause, and if came about on its own, there was no cause, and as I have shown, we can't assume there was a cause. Keep in mind the difference between the statements
"We can't assume there wasn't a cause,"
and
"There wasn't a cause."

I disagree completely with the last part of your post. A personal explanation really explains nothing when we're talking about the beginning of the universe, because it does not say how God made the universe.

" 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. "

I'm sure that when this debate ends you'll still be a Christian and I'll still be an Atheist, but it's been an interesting discussion.
-Blake

[Night Spawn]

Mole:  it shouldnt and doesnt matter its metaphorical

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.

A personal explanation really explains nothing when we're talking about the beginning of the universe, because it does not say how God made the universe.

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.

Very few things in science are truly proven without a doubt. I'm not trying to say that branes theory is well proven. I'm saying that unlike religion, it at least takes scientific ideas as its basis. I really don't have any particular devotion to branes theory anyway. I just think its interesting, and I provided it as an example.

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?

Black holes and cosmic background radiation are connected in that they were both predicted before we saw any evidence that they existed. In other words, it is possible to understand things we can't see or test.

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

I have given a response, that is what the rest of my post was about. If you feel that I have missed something, please explain.

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:

all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P

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?

My point is, if creation from absolute nothingness is possible, and things can happen without cause (such as spontaneous de-excitation), then we can't assume that creation from absolute nothingness (if it is possible) requires a cause.

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.

I think that is very important. No offense, but you seem to be ducking around the question. I'm sure you can see where I am going with it. If you think there was something there for God to make the universe out of (I don't care what the something is; It doesn't matter), then why is it even necessary to put God in the picture? If something was there, then a creator is not necessary, and it is not the simplest explanation. If you say God made the universe out of nothing, then you've accepted that the universe came from nothing, in which case I ask, how do we know that there has to be a cause?

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.

A big difference? If it was created by God there was a cause, and if came about on its own, there was no cause, and as I have shown,

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.

I disagree completely with the last part of your post.

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

-Spawn

[FragMaster1972]

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

hm? he asked what you believed the universe came from, something or nothing. you flat out avoided it. He pressed the question and all of a sudden he's holding that you believe the universe came into existence from nothing? BULLSHIT. Think about that for a second. And you say you're not twisting anyone's words around? :angry:  I can't see how anyone could have a serious debate with you when you refuse to listen to what they have to say, but instead just twist things around to how you want to hear them.

[Night Spawn]

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".  

all of a sudden he's holding that you believe the universe came into existence from nothing?

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.

he asked what you believed the universe came from, something or nothing. you flat out avoided it.

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

[FragMaster1972]

To eliminate any confusion, perhaps you could tell me, did God make the universe out of something or nothing?

You still haven't told me what God made the universe out of, btw

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.

(Which is just flat out avoiding the question, no more no less. That's all there is to that.)

I think that is very important. No offense, but you seem to be ducking around the question. I'm sure you can see where I am going with it. If you think there was something there for God to make the universe out of (I don't care what the something is; It doesn't matter), then why is it even necessary to put God in the picture? If something was there, then a creator is not necessary, and it is not the simplest explanation. If you say God made the universe out of nothing, then you've accepted that the universe came from nothing, in which case I ask, how do we know that there has to be a cause?

(addressing both possibilities, not pushing either way, still just trying to get a straight-up no-bs respone from you)

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

And there it is--I'm sorry, but that's straight up twisting words around. Sorry if you think my response was overkill, but I can't stand it when people can't come up with a reasonable answer to a question so they just try and disqualify it or avoid it. TBH--I've seen you doing that through this entire thread. If you don't like or can't answer a question, you answer a different question, write it off as irrelevant, anything to get around it. If you can't answer a question, say so. It looks a lot more intelligent to admit to a mistake or something you don't know then to bullshit an answer.
 

[Night Spawn]

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.