Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
1. Unproven by science as of yet.
2. Possibly, but still not validated.
3. Citation required
4. Even if true, does not infer anything caused it from outside of the universe.
5.How the hell did you jump from all that, to god PMSL!
Look, simply show the causal link, how do you get from quantum fluctuations that caused the big bang to god?
Why not The Predator? Why not a tea pot made of playdoh? Why not an a cosmic Dragon?
You still haven't proven there is even a god, or what it is or what it's defining features are.
You've literally just said I don't know, therefore...
Hi Randomhero,
Quick question, do you need science in order for you to conclude or believe that something can't come nothing?
Let me rephrase in order to eliminate any possible misunderstandings. Is science the ONLY way you will truly beleive that something can NOT come from nothing?
What would be the other way? Does it eliminate all possible bias, false positives etc... while being different than science? If you could provide it, would be nice.
What would be the other way? Does it eliminate all possible bias, false positives etc... while being different than science? If you could provide it, would be nice.
Firstly, before I answer, I'd open by saying I'm a seismic engineer... therefore, my background is a scientific one.
As for science, allow me to clarify my view on it... I believe it is by far the best tool to understand the natural world.
I believe this is indisputable, even with most honest theologians.
The fact that even if you sit in a your chair right now and have your empty hand out in front of you, billions if not trillions of neutrinos are passing through you.
So to claim what we think is nothing is indeed nothing based on our sense or perception, is completely false.
Where I take umbrage however is when someone makes a claim regarding the universe, and demonstrates causality... then ends with something outside of the natural world and do not prove the causal link.
I defined nothing as no dimensions, no matter, no energy. Then its clear nothing can come from it.
I do not propose God to be outside the natural world, he is part of the natural world and obeys common sense notions.
Ok, now demonstrate that specific phenomena exists.
Also, you said...
"4. Something must of caused it from outside the universe; its not possible for something to create itself."
So come on, as I say to my kids, are you in or out? Is god within the universe or out?
@Random
“Firstly, before I answer…”
I kept reading and did not see an answer but, based off your post I am going to assume that’s a yes. Please correct me if I am wrong also, it seems you are answering 2 questions in that post. My question had nothing to do with causality, god, universe, or anything else. It was a simple question. Is science the ONLY way you will truly believe that something can NOT come from nothing? If yes, could you please explain why? If no, can you please explain why?
You mentioned neutrinos, just because we can’t see or feel them with the naked eye does not mean they do not exists. And based off my quick google search (I am not educated on neutrinos) but, it seems (I could be wrong) we can’t even see neutrinos yet, they still exist even though they are extremely hard to detect. So this, to me, kind of contradicts your statement of “So to claim what we think is nothing is indeed nothing based on our sense or perception, is completely false.” since Neutrinos are actually something. So forgive me if I do not see the logic in your statements.
I think I made my position clear, I feel science is the best tool we have to understand the natural world, there is no real alternative.
So, to make it clear, yes... I do believe science is currently the best and only way to understand all natural phenomena... If you have a better tool then let me know and ill look into it.
Neutrinos have been detected via the borexino experiment, and we can see their effects on other particles too.
@random
Thanks for you reply. Do you think any other tools can lead us to truths as well? Such as logic or rationale? Wouldn't different "jobs" need different "tools"? Or is it a 1 size fits all in your opinion?
"Neutrinos have been detected via the borexino experiment, and we can see their effects on other particles too."
But can you physically see a neutrino? I don't doubt humans have seen their effects. And if I wanted to go all "atheist" on you I'd say something along the lines of "well, how do you know they are neutrinos if you can't seem? That's only a probability based off an infinite amount of things. How do you know what a neutrino is if you can't see? Blah blah blah show evidence" Don't worry, I am not asking those questions and not here to simply trying and confuse people (as most people here seem to like to do) im just looking for your opinion when it comes to the above quesirons
Of course, but I do believe science will always take any train of though that step further by actually testing and trying to find the truth to the highest possible accuracy.
For example, let's say you can make a logical argument that dragons exist (this is a hypothetical lol), if we stop at just logical arguments anything can potentially be believed.
However, science will take that claim and test it to the very extreme of its limitations.
Take the globel flood of the earth as perpoted in the bible, I'm sure you could rationalise why it's true, I'm sure you could build a formal argument of why it is true.
Yet, when we test this and gather evidence we realise it's horse shit.
Yes you cannot see the neutrino, that was the point I was making.
The point was if you hold out your hand, people may say nothing is there, yet we know particles are passing through us.
It is similar to various noises at various frequencies that we humans cannot hear, yet we know that is real.
My point was, can you (the op) demonstrate actual 'nothing'.
How can one make the claim nothing can come from nothing from a scientific point of view if you cannot evidence the concept.
You have to look at the size of the universe... dragons probably do exist out there somewhere. So does God, but we should not expect to have heard from him personally; the universe is too big for a personal appearance by God.
I've demonstrated that 'nothing' can logically never exist; so no I cannot demonstrate actual nothing because its impossible.
Dan, you have asserted, “I've demonstrated that 'nothing' can logically never exist”
No. It appears you are the only person for whom that ‘demonstration’ is effective. You do seem to back yourself into corners and then attempt to flee them by claiming your ‘logic’ is complete proof of whatever you have to say. Really, Dan, why do you think so many posters here remain unconvinced?
I always find it amusing when people claim to have formal logic on their side, while not recognising they're using informal logical fallacies.
"dragons probably do exist out there somewhere. So does God, but we should not expect to have heard from him personally;"
We should not expect to "hear from" deities that don't exist, or is that an irrational position? The oceans are pretty big, are there mermaids hiding in it?
"I've demonstrated that 'nothing' can logically never exist; so no I cannot demonstrate actual nothing because its impossible."
You haven't demonstrated this, only asserted it, and the second part of that shows why you can never test the claim.
@Randomhero
“let's say you can make a logical argument that dragons exist”
You should have seen my face when I read this
“(this is a hypothetical lol)”
Then my face when I read this
“if we stop at just logical arguments anything can potentially be believed”
I disagree to certain extent with this comment. For example, I think its logical to believe nothing can come from nothing, saying neutrinos are nothing does not accurately apply here since they are not nothing, they are something even though we can’t see them. Also, the keyword in your statement is “potentially”.
“My point was, can you (the op) demonstrate actual 'nothing'.”
Come on, bro. I am going to assume you are smarter than that and just doing some word play here. I really wish we talked to people in plain and simple English on these forums instead of trying so hard to confuse people or simply to try and make a point. We all know what nothing is, I don’t need science to explain or prove to me what nothing is. When someone says “what’s in your hand?” and it’s empty do you answer “trillions of neutrinos”? lol or do you say “nothing?” You can’t show or prove nothing since nothing is well, nothing. In this nothing I am not talking about things we can detect but cannot see, I am talking about actual nothing, which is something that has no signs, no effects and pretty much nothing. Just in case you might try to turn this in to a conversation about god, please don’t or at least not with me as I have had enough of that to know we ultimately won’t agree so let’s save ourselves the time.
“How can one make the claim nothing can come from nothing from a scientific point of view if you cannot evidence the concept.”
For me personally, common sense and logic are the best “tools” to answer this. Just because science can’t answer something does NOT mean the answer does not exist or can’t be found. I think every job has its tools and since there is literally nothing we can provide science to test “nothing” then science is not the best tool to rely on in this case. In this particular case, and based off 0 evidence of something coming out of nothing then, common sense, rationale and logic are the way to go.
"I think its logical to believe nothing can come from nothing,"
That's because you don't understand logic, or what you're asserting. How much nothing did you gather to test this assertion? Can nothing even exist? Is exist even an accurate term for nothing? You are making the same glib assertion as Dan and like Dan you don't seem to understand why it's specious.
"In this particular case, and based off 0 evidence of something coming out of nothing then, common sense, rationale and logic are the way to go."
So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Oh dear, you never fail to raise a smile. By definition an argument from ignorance fallacy can't be rational, and common sense once accepted the world was flat.
@Searching for truth
Quick question, do you need science in order for you to conclude or believe that something can't come nothing?
"Let me rephrase in order to eliminate any possible misunderstandings. Is science the ONLY way you will truly beleive that something can NOT come from nothing?"
Science is a process to find the truth. It is also the most consistent and proven reliable method. So I sure use science in separating fact from fiction.
@David,
I agree and I am not arguing that point. My question is science the ONLY tool/process we can use to find a truth? Or can we use different tools/processes depending on the "job" at hand?
Oh and by the way, I am strong supporter of science but also know that it's not 100% accurate 100% of the the time.
The problem is that nothing else, no other formalized method comes close to attaining the truth. Why would I lean on any other process that does not have the consistency and accuracy of the scientific method?
"Why would I lean on any other process that does not have the consistency and accuracy of the scientific method?"
Probably because it can't produce any evidence for what they want to believe.
I thought you didn't care what anyone else thought, Lion?
Science is the best method we have for understanding the material universe, that is axiomatic. You're not looking for other methods for objective reasons, you just want something that isn't as objective so you can pretend your unevidenced superstition is valid.
What is this other tool? How does this point to Allah?
I'm talking science, rationale and logic and you jump to god. Seems you can't go 2 posts with thinking about god. Rent free bro, rent free. Don't forget
You actually said "Oh and by the way, I am strong supporter of science but also know that it's not 100% accurate 100% of the the time." ...so by implication, you don't fully place your confidence in "science, rationale and logic", but in things like gods that cannot be observed.
If you think science, logic and rationale are all the same then I suggest you look them up. And we know and it's been proven without a shadow of doubt science has been wrong many times with their initial findings that later had to be corrected. So I 100% support science I do NOT 100% blindly follow it as it's been proven to be prone to error. The same way I do not 100% blindly my faith which has been proven to be 100% error FREE by any and every standard it's been put up against
" So I 100% support science I do NOT 100% blindly follow it as it's been proven to be prone to error."
It isn't prone to error at all, it is in fact the least prone to error of all the methods humans have created. It is self policing and thus all scientific facts no matter how well evidenced must remain tentative and open to revision. It is the very definition of an open minded process, and religious text purported to be the immutable revealed word of an infallible deity is of course the opposite, and is by definition closed minded.
Nor do you support science 100%, that is amply falsified by your many posts here rejecting it as sufficient because it can't evidence your fictional deity.
1. Widely accepted axiom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_comes_from_nothing). Requires magic to invalid.
2. It follows logically from 1
3.
- Assume Actual Infinity exists as a quantity
- Then there must be a quantity X such that X > all other quantities
- But X + 1 > X
- There is no such quantity
- Actual Infinity is not a quantity
4. Something must of caused it from outside the universe; its not possible for something to create itself.
5. Creation of space, time would have required intelligence.
Quantum fluctuations did not cause the big bang. Where exactly did you get that idea. Quantum fluctuations are a red herring. Virtual particle never amount to anything.
You still have not demonstrated to an event or phenomena that would constitute 'nothing', so the entire premise falls at the first hurdle.
But let's move on...
Given that everything within the universe was 'caused' by another phenomena within the universe, it follows that any creative forced is at least more probable or more likely ro reside within the universe.
For as far as we know, the universe is all there is and there's nothing to prove that there is an 'outside of the universe'.
Unless you can prove that there is an actual outside of the universe with demonstrable evidence.
Why would space and time require intelligence?
The big bang is considered to be the beginning of space time, did it require intelligence? Does a nebula accretion need intelligence to create solar systems?
Oh so you've debunked quantum physics? Nice one! *sigh*
I've demonstrated that nothing is impossible.
God is timeless so he is not part of the universe. There is an actual outside of the universe if you check the argument:
1. Something can’t come from nothing
2. So base reality must have always existed
3. Something without a start cannot exist so time must have a start
4. God created Time within this permanent, timeless, base reality
5. So time must be real, permanent and finite
So base reality contains our universe and is larger than our universe.
The big bang is very finely balanced with gravity; if the expansion rate of space is just enough to stop everything collapsing under gravity. It looks fine tuned. And the rest of the universe looks fine tuned too.
I have not debunked quantum physics; it just you who does not understand quantum fluctuations. They are very short lived, transitory, extremely low energy. They could not of caused the big bang.
Short lived and low energy? When you shorten the time of a particle, you increase the amount of energy it can have.
Pages