[PandyAndy]

(Original post by King-Panther)
nothing |ˈnəθi ng |
pronoun
not anything; no single thing : I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

there is our definition, the English Oxford Dictionary, "not anything", not a "single thing". Indeed it cant be observed but that doesn't mean it can't be known a priori, thats is how we know of it, is through a priori reasoning. Just like gravity can't be known a priori but has to be observed.

Let me make this easy for you, nothing is capable of nothing, as the definition tells us, its also an analytical truth. Nothing is by definition "nothing".





like I said, "something can not be created from nothing" is beyond a law and can be known a priori. it depends what logic we base our reason upon, but all logic will tell us "something can not be created from nothing".

Then give me your reasoning to show it's a priori. We do not know what nothing is capable of, we cannot observe nothing and we have never observed nothing. And I doubt we ever will. The singularity that existed before the big bang was not nothing, and as it existed outside of time and space, there is no reason for it to behave according to the laws and rules we have in this universe.

o.k, but you've provided no evidence and if they're dependent on evolution then can change as we evolve, thus not objective but subject to evolution.

I know I've not, as I've said I've not read the literature but I know it's an idea that's out there. You could always give it a read.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Miraclefish)
No, science can't explain god, because science requires that there isn't a god.

How exactly does science require there isn't a God, when science is the study of nature/ the universe?

Science is the rational and logical explanation of all things following cause and effect.

so, this law doesn't apply to the universe?

A deity is in direct contradiction to this. So either there's science, or there's god.

how exactly?

[King-Panther]

(Original post by Miraclefish)
And the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.

indeed it is.

You are using a vague term to describe itself, and assuming that philosophy is equal to cold, hard fact. It isn't. You can't drop abstract terms into an absolute equation.

I used the oxford dictionary definition of nothing. I think its safe to say the following is a fact, "nothing is the absence of something, anything at all, any single thing". is that so hard to comprehend?

what is so abstract about the definition, clearly nothing is the absence of something, anything at all, any single thing. just like the dictionary as defined.

nothing |ˈnəθi ng |
pronoun
not anything; no single thing : I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

You might as well divide by zero.

might as well not, but indeed mathematically zero is nothing.

[Kiss]

(Original post by Miraclefish)
No, science can't explain god, because science requires that there isn't a god. Science is the rational and logical explanation of all things following cause and effect. A deity is in direct contradiction to this. So either there's science, or there's god.

Who decided that? Science is about discovery and if you happen to stumble across God in the process then you've just done a good job.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
Then give me your reasoning to show it's a priori.

so you clearly do not know the definition of a priori. A priori knowledge is something you can know independent of experience. Its something you can use your intellect to reason, just like "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line".

We do not know what nothing is capable of, we cannot observe nothing and we have never observed nothing.

because nothing is nothing, by its very definition it is the opposite of something. Look how desperate atheists are to avoid god, that they will claim "something CAN be created from nothing"... the logic of the illogical.

And I doubt we ever will. The singularity that existed before the big bang was not nothing, and as it existed outside of time and space, there is no reason for it to behave according to the laws and rules we have in this universe.

indeed, however "something can not be created from nothing" is beyond a law. We can know this independent of experience but we cant know of the law of gravity without experience. We can also know of infinite regress using logic to reason, and know that the singularity could not have existed forever because if it had, there would be an infinite regress, therefore we would never get here, but the fact that we are here is a testimony that this cant be true. In order to get here, we have to start from somewhere, therefore that singularity started to exist and we know something cant be created from nothing, therefore it had to be created.

I know I've not, as I've said I've not read the literature but I know it's an idea that's out there. You could always give it a read.

i may do, but if it depends on evolution, then it cant be objective but subject to evolution.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by King-Panther)
so you clearly do not know the definition of a priori. A priori knowledge is something you can know independent of experience. Its something you can use your intellect to reason, just like "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line".

I know what a priori is. Just because you claim that something is a priori, does not mean it is. Show me how you've reached the conclusion that it is a priori. Demonstrate your thought process. It's only a priori if your premises are true And as I've said, if that actually is the rule, then it only applies in this universe. 'Before' the big bang, the laws of physics as we know them had no reason to apply.

because nothing is nothing, by its very definition it is the opposite of something. Look how desperate atheists are to avoid god, that they will claim "something CAN be created from nothing"... the logic of the illogical.

I'm certainly not desperate to avoid God, but you seem keen to invoke him. There are some hypotheses being thrown about (see Krauss and the like) that say something can come from nothing. How true they are I've no idea, but the fact remains that we just don't know. And we should remain humble enough to admit that until we do know what we're on about.

indeed, however "something can not be created from nothing" is beyond a law. We can know this independent of experience but we cant know of the law of gravity without experience. We can also know of infinite regress using logic to reason, and know that the singularity could not have existed forever because if it had, there would be an infinite regress, therefore we would never get here, but the fact that we are here is a testimony that this cant be true. In order to get here, we have to start from somewhere, therefore that singularity started to exist and we know something cant be created from nothing, therefore it had to be created.

You've still not stated how it's beyond a law, other than that it is. "I can't be in two places at once" is a priori, but in the future it may become defunct if the technology becomes available. Why would we never have got here? Why can we not apply an infinite regress to the singularity? You apply it to God, so why not the singularity? The singularity existed before space and time as we know it, so who knows what went on? Something can't 'begin' if it's outside of space and time, surely.

i may do, but if it depends on evolution, then it cant be objective but subject to evolution.

Good, it's never a bad thing to widen your reading.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
I know what a priori is. Just because you claim that something is a priori, does not mean it is. Show me how you've reached the conclusion that it is a priori. Demonstrate your thought process. It's only a priori if your premises are true And as I've said, if that actually is the rule, then it only applies in this universe. 'Before' the big bang, the laws of physics as we know them had no reason to apply.

Its not a law, it is beyond that? How many times do I have to say that? gravity is a law, and CAN NOT be known a priori, however "something can't be created from nothing" can.

nothing |ˈnəθi ng |
pronoun
not anything; no single thing : I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

so nothing is NOT ANYTHING, no single THING.

something |ˈsəmˌθi ng |
pronoun
1 a thing that is unspecified or unknown : we stopped for something to eat | I knew something terrible had happened | something about her frightened me.

So we can see here, the very definition of something is A THING, when the definition of nothing NOT anyTHING, no single THING, NOTHING!

If by definition something is a thing, and nothing is no thing, how can a thing come from the absence of no thing!

like i said, it is also an analytical truth! by the definition of the words, "something can not be created from something is true", as well as something that can be known a priori, unlike the law of gravity.

I

'm certainly not desperate to avoid God, but you seem keen to invoke him. There are some hypotheses being thrown about (see Krauss and the like) that say something can come from nothing. How true they are I've no idea, but the fact remains that we just don't know. And we should remain humble enough to admit that until we do know what we're on about.

you are very desperate to avoid god, it is obvious to see from your denial that "something can not be created from nothing".

They're talking about particles, like electrons that just appear out of nowhere, but they fail to mention that the creation of those particles requires energy, so NO, they aren't actually being created from nothing, but rather energy.

no, we do know that "something can not be created from nothing", I really do wonder what logic you base your reasoning upon. let me repeat it for you for the nth time

nothing |ˈnəθi ng |
pronoun
not anything; no single thing : I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

so nothing is NOT ANYTHING, no single THING.

something |ˈsəmˌθi ng |
pronoun
1 a thing that is unspecified or unknown : we stopped for something to eat | I knew something terrible had happened | something about her frightened me.

So we can see here, the very definition of something is A THING, when the definition of nothing NOT anyTHING, no single THING, NOTHING!

If by definition something is a thing, and nothing is no thing, how can a thing come from the absence of no thing!

You've still not stated how it's beyond a law, other than that it is. "I can't be in two places at once" is a priori, but in the future it may become defunct if the technology becomes available.

that might be the case but it is totally different to "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" that will NEVER CHANGE, it is logically impossible and for you to deny this, we really have to question the logic you use for your reasoning. as well as "something can not be created from nothing", by its very definition is true and can never be false, unlike "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" which is NOT an analytical truth but is a priori and will always remain that way.

Why would we never have got here? Why can we not apply an infinite regress to the singularity? You apply it to God, so why not the singularity? The singularity existed before space and time as we know it, so who knows what went on? Something can't 'begin' if it's outside of space and time, surely.

why? use your logic to reason.

if there is an infinite regress, we dont start anywhere, we keep going back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back, FOREVER, this never stops because we keep going back and back and back we will never get here because we keep going back and this goes on forever, INFINITELY!!!! it never stops! it always keeps going back, hence infinite regress.

In order to get here, we have to start from somewhere and move forward, therefore we know this singularity started to exist because we are here and this is a testimony that it didnt exist forever because if it did, we wouldnt ever get here.

because it started to exist, and we know "something can not be created from nothing", it had to be created.

Good, it's never a bad thing to widen your reading.

indeed it is not, maybe you should widen your reading too. but like i said, it cant be objective if it is subject to evolution.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by King-Panther)
Its not a law, it is beyond that? How many times do I have to say that? gravity is a law, and CAN NOT be known a priori, however "something can't be created from nothing" can.

nothing |ˈnəθi ng |
pronoun
not anything; no single thing : I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

so nothing is NOT ANYTHING, no single THING.

something |ˈsəmˌθi ng |
pronoun
1 a thing that is unspecified or unknown : we stopped for something to eat | I knew something terrible had happened | something about her frightened me.

So we can see here, the very definition of something is A THING, when the definition of nothing NOT anyTHING, no single THING, NOTHING!

If by definition something is a thing, and nothing is no thing, how can a thing come from the absence of no thing!

like i said, it is also an analytical truth! by the definition of the words, "something can not be created from something is true", as well as something that can be known a priori, unlike the law of gravity.

I

you are very desperate to avoid god, it is obvious to see from your denial that "something can not be created from nothing".

They're talking about particles, like electrons that just appear out of nowhere, but they fail to mention that the creation of those particles requires energy, so NO, they aren't actually being created from nothing, but rather energy.

no, we do know that "something can not be created from nothing", I really do wonder what logic you base your reasoning upon. let me repeat it for you for the nth time

nothing |ˈnəθi ng |
pronoun
not anything; no single thing : I said nothing | there's nothing you can do | they found nothing wrong.

so nothing is NOT ANYTHING, no single THING.

something |ˈsəmˌθi ng |
pronoun
1 a thing that is unspecified or unknown : we stopped for something to eat | I knew something terrible had happened | something about her frightened me.

So we can see here, the very definition of something is A THING, when the definition of nothing NOT anyTHING, no single THING, NOTHING!

If by definition something is a thing, and nothing is no thing, how can a thing come from the absence of no thing!



that might be the case but it is totally different to "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" that will NEVER CHANGE, it is logically impossible and for you to deny this, we really have to question the logic you use for your reasoning. as well as "something can not be created from nothing", by its very definition is true and can never be false, unlike "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line" which is NOT an analytical truth but is a priori and will always remain that way.



why? use your logic to reason.

if there is an infinite regress, we dont start anywhere, we keep going back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back, FOREVER, this never stops because we keep going back and back and back we will never get here because we keep going back and this goes on forever, INFINITELY!!!! it never stops! it always keeps going back, hence infinite regress.

In order to get here, we have to start from somewhere and move forward, therefore we know this singularity started to exist because we are here and this is a testimony that it didnt exist forever because if it did, we wouldnt ever get here.

because it started to exist, and we know "something can not be created from nothing", it had to be created.




indeed it is not, maybe you should widen your reading too. but like i said, it cant be objective if it is subjective to evolution.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. My overriding point is that we don't know enough about the origins of the universe to state anything with certainty. Laws and logic as we know them didn't exist, so may not have applied. There could be an infinite regress, this does not mean that we would never have begun. If the universe is in a constant loop then this may have been happening 'forever' as we understand it. This would mean that there was not 'nothing'. Maybe a god did do it. I'll not hasten to any conclusions.

[King-Panther]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. My overriding point is that we don't know enough about the origins of the universe to state anything with certainty. Laws and logic as we know them didn't exist, so may not have applied.

Logic goes beyond laws, like I have stated several times now, for instance, I do not deny LAWS may be void, like gravity but not logic. Using our LOGIC as well as a priori reasoning, we can safely say that one separate singularity add another singularity equals two singularities, 1+1=2, it always has done and always will, it doesnt matter what was going on outside of the singularity, do you deny that this would be the case?

This is the same as "nothing can not be created from something", truly if nothing is nothing then something can not be created from it, this is an analytical truth as well as something we can know using a priori reasoning and logic, just like 1+1=2. do you deny that this logic would still be the case, even had the universe not been created, DO YOU DENY THAT 1+1 WOULD NOT BE EQUAL TO TWO? dont say we cant know because we do, this is logic! not a law that is subject to change!

There could be an infinite regress, this does not mean that we would never have begun. If the universe is in a constant loop then this may have been happening 'forever' as we understand it.

No this could not have been going on forever, there could not be an infinite regress, like I said that this would be a challenge your logical reasoning. if it has a starting point then it is not INFINITE! Infinite has NO BEGINNING AND NO END!!!!!! now when you say constant loop, like the big bang big crunch? If it is infinite, then we would never get here because of infinite regress, but we are here so this is a testimony that it is not infinite because in order to get here, we had to start from somewhere, therefore this "loop" had a beginning, it started to exist, and we know "something can not be created from nothing", therefore it had to be created.

This would mean that there was not 'nothing'.

are you being serious? this would mean there was not nothing because it goes on forever? but forever has no beginning and no end. so, we will have an infinite regress and because we do, we would never get here, it just keeps going back, but we are here, so this is a testimony that there is not infinite regress because in order to get here, we have to start from somewhere. so we know the singularity began to exist, cant get something from nothing, so it had to be created.

Maybe a god did do it. I'll not hasten to any conclusions.

so using our logic to reason, God could have done it. so we have an agnostic? as a theist, i admit it is the most logical stance to take.

[123maz]

The poroblem with science proving the existence of God is that scientific truth differs from religious truth and they both answer slightly different questions.

There has been a breakthrought with the myterious "God particle" in which a group of scientists have found this particle.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by 123maz)
The poroblem with science proving the existence of God is that scientific truth differs from religious truth and they both answer slightly different questions.

There has been a breakthrought with the myterious "God particle" in which a group of scientists have found this particle.

Hardly. They both try to explain natural phenomena and the causes - both proximate and distal - behind the world and universe. The methodology by which they aim to do so is where they differ.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by King-Panther)
Logic goes beyond laws, like I have stated several times now, for instance, I do not deny LAWS may be void, like gravity but not logic. Using our LOGIC as well as a priori reasoning, we can safely say that one separate singularity add another singularity equals two singularities, 1+1=2, it always has done and always will, it doesnt matter what was going on outside of the singularity, do you deny that this would be the case?

This is the same as "nothing can not be created from something", truly if nothing is nothing then something can not be created from it, this is an analytical truth as well as something we can know using a priori reasoning and logic, just like 1+1=2. do you deny that this logic would still be the case, even had the universe not been created, DO YOU DENY THAT 1+1 WOULD NOT BE EQUAL TO TWO? dont say we cant know because we do, this is logic! not a law that is subject to change!



No this could not have been going on forever, there could not be an infinite regress, like I said that this would be a challenge your logical reasoning. if it has a starting point then it is not INFINITE! Infinite has NO BEGINNING AND NO END!!!!!! now when you say constant loop, like the big bang big crunch? If it is infinite, then we would never get here because of infinite regress, but we are here so this is a testimony that it is not infinite because in order to get here, we had to start from somewhere, therefore this "loop" had a beginning, it started to exist, and we know "something can not be created from nothing", therefore it had to be created.




are you being serious? this would mean there was not nothing because it goes on forever? but forever has no beginning and no end. so, we will have an infinite regress and because we do, we would never get here, it just keeps going back, but we are here, so this is a testimony that there is not infinite regress because in order to get here, we have to start from somewhere. so we know the singularity began to exist, cant get something from nothing, so it had to be created.



so using our logic to reason, God could have done it. so we have an agnostic? as a theist, i admit it is the most logical stance to take.

The cyclic model of the universe does seem to be an infinite loop of bangs and crunches. Again, this is not my area so you may well be better off discussing this with a physicist.

And I'm an agnostic atheist.

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by AFE95)
Now I'm very fond of science,

nm

[King-Panther]

(Original post by PandyAndy)
The cyclic model of the universe does seem to be an infinite loop of bangs and crunches. Again, this is not my area so you may well be better off discussing this with a physicist.

I study physics and intend to do a degree on a later date, it will be one if several I intend to have.

There can not be an infinite "loop" because infinity requires that it has no beginning nor end, and if it were the case (infinity) we would not get here due to infinite regress, so we can completely dismiss that theory on the grounds that we are here, our existence is a testimony that there can't be an infinite "loop", because in order to get here, we had to start from somewhere, therefore this loop started to exist, and because we know "something can not be created from nothing", this loop has a creator.

And I'm an agnostic atheist.

which implies?

[Old School]

(Original post by .eXe)
How did you determine that?

Burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the theory. It's not up to atheists to prove god doesn't exist, it's up to theists to prove that it does as they're the ones making the ludicrous, supernatural claims.

[PandyAndy]

(Original post by King-Panther)
I study physics and intend to do a degree on a later date, it will be one if several I intend to have.

There can not be an infinite "loop" because infinity requires that it has no beginning nor end, and if it were the case (infinity) we would not get here due to infinite regress, so we can completely dismiss that theory on the grounds that we are here, our existence is a testimony that there can't be an infinite "loop", because in order to get here, we had to start from somewhere, therefore this loop started to exist, and because we know "something can not be created from nothing", this loop has a creator.



which implies?

So what if there's no beginning or end? Of course we could get here, we are here. This universe could just be one of an endless self-sustaining cycle. The creator just brings up more problems with "who created the creator?", which isn't something to go into here.

It doesn't imply anything I don't think. It is what it is.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by King-Panther)
There can not be an infinite "loop" .

I'm sure your future lecturers will be delighted to hear your reasoning for dismissing brane cosmology models so quickly. Unfortunately, they haven't yet been able to do so.

[SilverSun]

I for one am convinced that science proves the existence of God. Also, I go as far as to claim that there can be no science without God.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by SilverSun)
I for one am convinced that science proves the existence of God.

Go on then, show us how. I'm up for a laugh.

[Dangerous Theory]

(Original post by King-Panther)
I study physics and intend to do a degree on a later date, it will be one if several I intend to have.

There can not be an infinite "loop" because infinity requires that it has no beginning nor end, and if it were the case (infinity) we would not get here due to infinite regress, so we can completely dismiss that theory on the grounds that we are here, our existence is a testimony that there can't be an infinite "loop", because in order to get here, we had to start from somewhere, therefore this loop started to exist, and because we know "something can not be created from nothing", this loop has a creator.

The idea of infinity is absolutely paramount here. No matter whether your theist or atheist, something was always there in some shape or form to lead onto another something after that, and so on. The problem here is we cannot, and most likely will not ever comprehend such phenomena.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App