Arguments for the existence of God

[thundril]

Latest post of the previous page:

Hmm, let me think....
Either the universe which we observe, or a god for which there is no evidence whatsoever..
Tricky decision, that.

[animist]

So does "existence from non-existence" violate TLNC? Absolutely yes, because there is nothing for existence to come from:

surely not, TLNC says "not P and not-P" and is about propositions. Yes, "there is a dog" is incompatible with "there is no dog". But "there was no dog" is not incompatible with "there is (now) a dog"

[Paolo]

Sorry, been away from this for a while. Which god did the creating and where did this god came from again?

This seems to be just another example of a good old supernatural explanation being wheeled out when we don't know the answers to a complex question. It doesn't answer anything - just pushes the origins question into the realms of the imagination without the bridle of evidence.

We don't (possibly can't) know where the universe came from - saying 'Goddit' is less meaningful than being honest by saying 'we don't know'. Acknowledged ignorance at least provides an assumption-free foundation from which to explore possibilities - buying into a culturally specific origin myth as an a priori explanation immediately leads to a biased approach to understanding the universe.

[animist]

but we cannot actually take non-existence into our minds nothing because there's literally nothing to take)

Mick, you are doing that simply by talking of it. Are you saying that I cannot conceive of my non-existence? Well actually yes I can: there was no animist before 1947 and there will be no animist after ?

You remind me of both the mediaeval scholastic philosophers and yourself earlier on in the thread: you kept on about the impossibility of conceiving God without his being existent, and now you are on about the impossibility of conceiving non-existence. One can "conceive" anything about which one expresses a view, and this has absolutely nothing to do with existence or otherwise of this "thing".

[philbo]

Maybe the 'are there any moral facts?' thread would have been more appropriate. (Or am I just saying that because I've already made clear my attitude to debating with the far-right there?)

..or sign up at DU and find out just how silly your "far right" designation is?

You're right, it is somewhat off-topic. Especially when there's on-topic misconceptions to answer:

Okay, point me to just one text or link that demonstrates existence coming from non-existence. My Dad has a large volume of science texts so any popular book you name I can probably reference - or any web link obviously.

A Brief History of Time
The Science of the Discworld (I think it's talked about in book 2, but it's worth reading all three anyway)

This page has a few references & quotes from various sources.

You're missing the point. Logic is axioms. In particular, the truth of the law of non-contradiction (TLNC) is beyond challenge for one very simple reason: any attempt to deny it requires using it. ("TLNC is false" is meaningful if and only if the law of non-contradiction cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense - but if this condition is met then the law is true - and if it is not met then the denial of the law is absurd on its own terms. Now for crying out loud guys, need I say more on this point? You can't challenge the unchallengeable. Forget it and move on!)

So does "existence from non-existence" violate TLNC? Absolutely yes, because there is nothing for existence to come from:

No, this is where *you're* missing the point: I'm not challenging the law of non-contradiction, I'm saying that it doesn't apply. "existence AND non-existence" would be contradictory; where there previously was non-existence and subsequent existence is not.

Your attempt to make the word "from" causal (i.e. trying to say that non-existence causes existence) is exactly the sort of misconception I was trying to preempt in my earlier posts.

Not every event has to have a cause: have you accepted that, or do we need to go over it again?

There is no experiment that can be conceived to test the hypothesis of something from nothing - which is one of the reasons why I frankly disbelieve any appeal to quantum physics and await anyone who can point me to a link or quote that demonstrates otherwise. What would 'constitute' 'nothing' 'in' a laboratory? In what 'vessel' would 'it' be 'contained'?

Just because you personally can't conceive of an experiment doens't mean "it can't be conceived". You obviously didn't follow my suggestion of reading up on virtual particles, or you'd have seen that the effects of such short-lived creation/destruction events are measurable, even if the particles themselves don't hang around for long enough to be seen.

[thundril]

Maybe the 'are there any moral facts?' thread would have been more appropriate. (Or am I just saying that because I've already made clear my attitude to debating with the far-right there?)

..or sign up at DU and find out just how silly your "far right" designation is?

Am I silly for reading this
[url=http://mwillett.org/atheism/jewish-question.htm [/url]
as a right-wing Anti-Semitic rant?

You're right, it is somewhat off-topic. Especially when there's on-topic misconceptions to answer:

You can't seriously be be suggesting that the main difference between my 'misconceptions' and Mickey's is that his are at least on-topic?

Okay, point me to just one text or link that demonstrates existence coming from non-existence. My Dad has a large volume of science texts so any popular book you name I can probably reference - or any web link obviously.

A Brief History of Time
The Science of the Discworld (I think it's talked about in book 2, but it's worth reading all three anyway)

Well said, Philbo. But there are now at least three of us who have tried to explain this to Mickey, and he's not listening.

[thundril]

OK, it's taking me a while to get my 'silver surfer' wings here. So I didn't get the linky thing right. What I meant in the above post was;
Am I really silly for thinking that this

http://mwillett.org/atheism/jewish-question.htm

is a right-wing anti-semitic rant?

[Lifelinking]

I couldn't take that much of it Thundril. It's pretty bad.

[thundril]

Thanks for that, Lifey! It is awful, isn't it?

[mickeyd]

Hi thundril,

Either the universe which we observe, or a god for which there is no evidence whatsoever..
Tricky decision, that.

There is no evidence that the universe "just is", either as a logical necessity or as an empirically demonstrated fact.

Cheers,
Mick

[thundril]

Oh, for fuxake, Mick! open your eyes, glance around, and you will see evidence that the universe actually exists! (OK, you can run to the solipsist argument, but from there, where can you go? Madness?)
Evidence for god, OTOH, is a bit thin on the ground, don't you think?

[Alan C.]

I thought you'd gone to a higher plain mickey?

thundril
Evidence for god, OTOH, is a bit thin on the ground, don't you think?

It certainly is in this thread When are you going to offer some mickey?

[mickeyd]

Hi animist,

So does "existence from non-existence" violate TLNC? Absolutely yes, because there is nothing for existence to come from:

surely not, TLNC says "not P and not-P" and is about propositions. Yes, "there is a dog" is incompatible with "there is no dog". But "there was no dog" is not incompatible with "there is (now) a dog"

I think you're wrong for 2 reasons:

1. "there was no dog" is not equivalent to "non-existence" for obvious reasons.

2. Proposition: the universe is existence from non-existence. Why is this not a proposition?

Cheers,
Mick

[mickeyd]

Thundril,

Oh, for fuxake, Mick! open your eyes, glance around, and you will see evidence that the universe actually exists!

You're misunderstanding me: I'm not doubting that the universe exists, I'm saying that "the universe is" does not imply "the universe 'just is'"

Cheers,
Mick

[mickeyd]

Animist,

Are you saying that I cannot conceive of my non-existence?

No, I'm saying that you cannot conceive (directly) of non-existence. Whenever you think, you must think something, you cannot think nothing.

Mick

[thundril]

Thundril,

Oh, for fuxake, Mick! open your eyes, glance around, and you will see evidence that the universe actually exists!

You're misunderstanding me: I'm not doubting that the universe exists, I'm saying that "the universe is" does not imply "the universe 'just is'"

Cheers,
Mick

But it doesn't imply anything else, does it?

[mickeyd]

Hi Philbo,

where there previously was non-existence

This is the problem I'm seeking to elucidate: you can't say 'where' there previously 'was' non-existence. There can be no 'where' and there can be no 'was'. Non-existence is infinitely reductive, that's why the notion is actually inconceivable.

Not every event has to have a cause

1. There is no logical contradiction in the proposition that the universe need not have a cause (the universe ‘just is’). This can be called the "something" option.

2. There is a logical contradiction in the proposition that phenomena occurring in the universe need not have a cause, for then we have the “something from nothing” problem.

Additionally:

You want to have "nothing-something" but not "something from nothing". However, if before there was something there 'was' only nothing, then if something did not come from nothing, where else did it come from?? By elimination it must have come from nothing because nothing else 'was'. By TLNC, you cannot have "nothing and something", right? If there was nothing then there was nothing, end of story. If you say "well it didn't come at all, it just is" then that's logically okay, you're in the "something" option, which is not "nothing-something" = "something from nothing".

Just because you personally can't conceive of an experiment doens't mean "it can't be conceived"

This is not just about me, it's about the impossibility for anyone of mentally conceiving non-existence, and procuring non-existence for experiments.

reading up on virtual particles[/url], or you'd have seen that the effects of such short-lived creation/destruction events are measurable, even if the particles themselves don't hang around for long enough to be seen.

Matter can be neither created nor destroyed, right? (within the universe as we know it). Do you believe that these particles are being "created" by non-existence?



I will check out some reading, the links you've given and on Hawking etc although I haven't got much time so it will be slow. Thanks for the references. But if comes to down to a conflict between some cosmologists and TLNC, I'll choose the latter every time, because it's impossible to choose anything else.


Cheers Philbo,
Mick

[mickeyd]

Thundril,

But it doesn't imply anything else, does it?

Well then what does it imply?

Mick

[thundril]

Your last post seemed directed straight at Philbo, Mick, so I'll leave it to him. He's well capable of dealing with it.
In the meantime, is there any chance of you ceasing to go round in circles?
Cross posted, Mick, so...
It implies that the universe exists, Mick. And you agree with this. And since the universe definitely does exist, and since the best scientific theories show that the universe does not need, or indeed allow, a prior cause, it implies, does it not, that god is neither necessary nor even possible..

[mickeyd]

Thundril,

It implies that the universe exists, Mick

Great, the universe exists implies the universe exists. Very illuminating.

the best scientific theories show that the universe does not need, or indeed allow, a prior cause

Really? If the universe does not allow a prior cause then it must contain within it a power of inevitable existence. Where is your scientific evidence for that?

Mick

[animist]

Animist,

Are you saying that I cannot conceive of my non-existence?

No, I'm saying that you cannot conceive (directly) of non-existence. Whenever you think, you must think something, you cannot think nothing.

Mick

oh dear, again I don't see what you mean - whatever does "directly" add to your sentence? I assume you are trying to say that I cannot conceive of non-existence in general? Well, I can conceive of there being nothing at all. Of course, if I think about any particular or even general non-existence, I am thinking something, as you say, but what I am thinking ABOUT is nothingness, what's the problem?