Being cannot come from non-being.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another.
Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.
That being is God.
Hey Adonai. Were you here in the previous version of the forum?
I was shaky on your 1st line.
You lost me on your 2nd line.
So I didn’t even consider the point in lines 3 and 4.
Nor the 5th line, as it depended on the validity of all of the preceding lines.
I appreciate the overall terseness of your post.
Or,
I think that being ALWAYS comes from non-being.
Our existence does not mean that “being” has always existed in some form.
A supernatural being existing beyond the universe, is just one of billions, and billions of imaginary explanations of how the Universe began.
So if there is such a being, and that being is God, then you should play the lottery, cause the odds are astronomically against you.
Other than all of that, I agree. Oh wait. All of that covers all of what you said. So I don’t agree with a bit of it.
I think that being ALWAYS comes from non-being.
How does that work ? any example ?
So, that’s the opposite of what you first said. Did Tim change your mind?
no. i am asking. How can nothing do something ?
Ah, I didn’t see that you were quoting TimB. I get the question.
Before I say anything, truth is, I don’t know. So, I can only compare some theory I’ve heard to your theory. Here’s yours.
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another. Since the universe had a beginning, a non-physical being must have existed beyond the universe, causing the universe into existence.The universe always existing and the universe having a beginning are two different theories, so I'll take your second one.
We agree that this physical universe, the one we can observe had a beginning. And, within it, there are causes and effects.
We agree something existed beyond this physical universe. I’m pretty certain of that, you say “must”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “non-physical being”, so now we have lots of work to do. We have to define “being” and “physical”.
Perhaps not everything that “is” is composed of fermions. We believe what we call “physical” is and the Pauli exclusion principal seems to make some sense of it. When things made of ferminos interact with their surroundings we can say they exist. I think it is a bit more difficult to envision a substance composed of bosons. Such a substance could make the classic “10,000 angles dancing on the head of a pin” possible. I don’t see how we could measure anything that has a state of “being” as a substance made of bosons. How such things would interact with their surroundings and could be said to have a state of being probably isn’t describable with our physics.
I like the notion that a fermion substance may be created when a substance of bosons condenses. This would describe a substance transforming into state of existance from a state of being. The big problem is the need for a cause. Here again our physics falls short.
Pretty much every entity we recognizing as existing can be described as singular, discrete (fermionic) and determinate (fixed size). The notion of entities that are plural (multiply instanced), non-discrete and indeterminate (variable size) pretty much demands that they be bosonic. There is an old saying that there is more in the world that is unseen than that which is seen.
Bob said,There is an old saying that there is more in the world that is unseen than that which is seen.
The possible existence of Dark Matter is an example.
Dark matter, a component of the universe whose presence is discerned from its gravitational attraction rather than its luminosity. Dark matter makes up 30.1 percent of the matter-energy composition of the universe; the rest is dark energy (69.4 percent) and “ordinary” visible matter (0.5 percent).https://cdn.britannica.com/s:700x500/04/135304-050-E2571872/content-universe.jpg
Perhaps not everything that “is” is composed of fermions.What does this have to do with the question?
Being always comes from not-being in the “nothingness” of “empty” space. Things pop into and out of existence. Hence there is being, then not being. And on it goes.
Also, if you consider our own Consciousness, it is and then it isn’t, and then it is again. It exists while we do it. It does not exist when we do not or can not do the behaviors of consciousness.
The Kalaam leads to the God of the Bible
1:08 Properties of the first cause
5:11 Event causation or Agent causation?
8:00 How can a mind exist in a timeless dimension, trigger a Transition from timelessness to time?
13:12 How can a mind exist without a body beyond the universe?
15:06 How could God have created the universe without time?
16:11 Is claiming that God is eternal, special pleading?
18:06 Properties of the first cause
30:29 Philosophical and scientific considerations match with the biblical account about the origin of the Universe
30:53 End notes
The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
1:15 The claim: Something cannot come from nothing does not need to be proven
3:15 Virtual particles do not come from absolutely nothing but require a quantum vacuum
7:36 Premise two: The universe began to exist
9:35 Scientific reasons to conclude that the universe has a beginning
16:32 Further scientific evidence why the universe cannot be past eternal
18:35 Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal
Aquinas showed us that the attributes of a true God are logically deduced. Properties of the first cause:
- Supernatural in nature, (As it exists outside and beyond of the natural physical universe),
- Uncaused, beginningless, and eternal (self-existent, as it exists without a cause, outside of time and space, besides the fact that infinite regress of causes is impossible. ),
- Omnipresent & all-knowing (It created space and is not limited by it),
- Changeless ( Change depends on physical being )
- Timeless ( Without physical events, there can be no time, and time began with the Big Bang )
- Immaterial (Because He transcends space and created matter),
- Spaceless ( Since it created space)
- Personal (The impersonal can’t create personality, and only a personal, free agent can cause a change from a changeless state )
- Enormously Powerful ( Since it brought the entire universe, space-time and matter into existence )
- Necessary (As everything else depends on it),
- Absolutely independent and self-existent ( It does not depend on a higher causal agency to exist otherwise there would be infinite regress which is impossible )
- Infinite and singular (As you cannot have two infinities),
- Diverse yet has unity (As all multiplicity implies a prior singularity),
- Intelligent (Supremely, to create everything, in special language, complexity, factories and machines),
- Purposeful (As it deliberately created everything with goals in mind),
An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect
- God is supernatural in nature Acts 17:24-25
- God is uncaused, beginningless, and eternal 1 Timothy 1:17
- God is omnipresent & all-knowing Psalm 139:7-12; Jeremiah 23:24
- God is unchanging Malachi 3:6
- God is immaterial (spirit) John 4:24
- God is personal John 4:24, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, Isaiah 25:1, Isaiah 63:7, Psalm 78:1, 1 Chronicles 16:8, Micah 4:12, Job 29:4, 2 Corinthians 13:14
- God is enormously Powerful Genesis 17:1
- God is timeless Revelation 1:8
- God is necessary Genesis 1:1
- God is omniscient ( All-knowing ) Psalm 147:4-5
- God is absolutely independent and self-existent Isaiah 46:9
- God is One, yet He exists in three persons Matthew 3:16-17
- God is extraordinarily intelligent Jeremiah 32:17
- God is all-understanding Psalm 147:5
- God is purposeful
" Being always comes from not-being in the “nothingness” of “empty” space. Things pop into and out of existence. Hence there is being, then not being. And on it goes. "
Virtual particles require a quantum vacuum. What was the cause of the vacuum ?
In quantum field theory, the quantum vacuum state is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. The vacuum electromagnetic field in spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, van der Waals, and Casimir forces, and a variety of other phenomena, some of which are of technological as well as purely scientific importance.
God most probably exists - The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him:
First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.
Physicist and philosopher David Albert
The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—
Lee Strobel, A case of a creator :
Quantum theory … holds that a vacuum … is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly… . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles … are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly… The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way… The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth’s phrase, "a free lunch."20 I closed the magazine and tossed it on Craig’s desk. "Maybe Tryon was right when he said, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.' “ Craig was listening intently. "Okay, that's a good question," he replied. "These subatomic particles the article talks about are calledvirtual particles.’ They are theoretical entities, and it’s not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs. "However, there’s a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of anything. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it’s a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. “So it’s not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?” He let that question linger before continuing. “You’ve simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you’ve got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I’m saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can’t legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that’s beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we’re back to the origins question.”
You sound like a probable Trumpian, so you should say “oranges” rather than “origins”.
Ok, so if you believe that the quantum vacuum is something that was created by something “transcendent outside of the domain” of all that exists. Then YOU, also, have " simply pushed back the issue of creation. So now YOU have got to account for how this hypothetical God came into being.
Oh, you say God is outside the realm of our understanding and is eternal. How convenient. Is it the Flying Spaghetti Monster God, or some other of the myriad of equally nonsensical imaginary omnipotent creators?
Virtual particles require a quantum vacuum. What was the cause of the vacuum ?I don't know. This is what I said in my previous response. The difference between you and me Adonai is that I'm okay with not knowing that. I don't know because nobody knows. I could explain what a quantum vacuum is with a lot more study, but no matter how much I knew, I still wouldn't know where the stuff that came before time in this universe existed, came from. It's hard to even construct sentences about it because we are just starting to figure out what it is. We can express it with math, but the people who can, that tell us the math doesn't always work out. They tell us they don't have an answer yet. And they might never. I can't check their work, but somebody can, and I trust they are being honest.
Everything you are saying is that you have an answer, but I have to accept that answer on faith. That’s not an answer.
What a weasel-word concept. That “you cannot have infinite regress”. How do you know that? Or how do you know the regress ends with your version of God? There may have been some other cause that you have no conception of, that lead to our Universe. And that cause may have had another initial cause. And so forth. Why not? You don’t know.
You think it is possible to have an omnipotent eternal creator. That seems as improbable as “infinite regress” to me.
Aquinas had all of those attributes of God that he came up with using logic. Perhaps if there was such a thing as God, it would have some of those attributes.
But it, once again, is very convenient, for you that logic can supposedly show us the attributes of God, and ALSO tells us that the creator is “uncaused, beginningless, and eternal (self-existent, as it exists without a cause, outside of time and space, besides the fact that infinite regress of causes is impossible.)” Very convenient, indeed. But is that really logical?
Something caused everything, so that something had to be an eternal personal creator, because logic says so? I don’t think logic says that at all. That something doesn’t have to be your puny, over worn, idea of a creator. It is more likely something we have no concept of yet. We don’t know. And you don’t know, as much as you try to rationalize that you do.
TimB: So now YOU have got to account for how this hypothetical God came into being.
reply:
Who or what created God?
40:12 - Who created God?
Common atheist fallacies: exposed !!
The universe had a beginning, and must, therefore, have been caused into being and created by something
If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today.
It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing ever existed, then “nothing” would still be the ontological situation, for nothing simply remains nothing — forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing.
Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always.
That “something” must be either physical or non-physical.
Since the physical universe came into existence at a finite time ago, the cause must be non-physical.
Another term for the “non-physical” would be “spirit.”
Therefore, that “something” must have existed eternally, and be and spiritual in nature. This being, we call God.
Lausten: I don’t know because nobody knows.
Reply:
Limited causal alternatives do not justify to claim of " not knowing "
If there were hundreds of possible statements, then claiming of not knowing which makes most sense could be justified. In the quest of God, there are just two possible explanations. Either there is a God, or not. There is however a wealth of evidence, which can lead us to informed, well-justified conclusions. The universe had a beginning, and must have had a cause. The universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible, and the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics which evidence an intelligent rational agency behind it. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right. Fine-tuning points to a fine tuner. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the make of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source that made both for purposeful, specific goals. The blueprint stored in DNA directs the make of biological cells and organisms. DNA, biological Cells and organisms are therefore most probably the result of intelligent design. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000! Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from physical matter. Human objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
Claim:
We replace God with honesty by saying “we don’t know” and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that… The fact that we don’t currently know does not mean we will never know because we have science, the best method we have for answering questions about things we don’t know. Simply saying “God did it” is making up an answer because we are too lazy to try to figure out the real truth. Science still can’t explain where life came from and is honest about it.No atheist believes “the universe came from nothing”. Science doesn’t even wastes it’s time trying to study what came before the big bang and creation of the universe (based on the first law of the thermodynamics, many think matter and energy are atemporal, and before the Big Bang, everything was a singularity, but very few people are interested in studying that because it won’t change anything in our knowledge about the universe).
Answer:
We can make an inference to the best explanation of origins, based on the wealth of scientific information, philosophy, theology, and using sound abductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning. Either there is a God, or not. So there are only two hypotheses from which to choose. Atheists, rather than admit a creator as the only rational response to explain our existence, prefer to confess ignorance despite the wealth of scientific information, that permits to reach informed conclusions.
John Lennox:
There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It’s strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.
Luke A. Barnes:
“I don’t know which one of these two statements is true” is a very different state of knowledge from “I don’t know which one of these trillion statements is true”. Our probabilities can and should reflect the size of the set of possibilities.
Greg Koukl observed that while it’s certainly true atheists lack a belief in God, they don’t lack beliefs about God. When it comes to the truth of any given proposition, one only has three logical options: affirm it, deny it, withhold judgment (due to ignorance or the inability to weigh competing evidences). As applied to the proposition “God exists,” those who affirm the truth of this proposition are called theists, those who deny it are called atheists, and those who withhold judgment are called agnostics. Only agnostics, who have not formed a belief, lack a burden to demonstrate the truth of their position.
Are those who want to define atheism as a lack of belief in God devoid of beliefs about God? Almost never! They have a belief regarding God’s existence, and that belief is that God’s existence is improbable or impossible. While they may not be certain of this belief (certainty is not required), they have certainly made a judgment. They are not intellectually neutral. At the very least, they believe God’s existence is more improbable than probable, and thus they bear a burden to demonstrate why God’s existence is improbable.
So long as the new brand of atheists have formed a belief regarding the truth or falsity of the proposition “God exists,” then they have beliefs about God, and must defend that belief even if atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God.
TimB : “you cannot have infinite regress”. How do you know that?
The universe and/or quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal
The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
9:35 Scientific reasons to conclude that the universe has a beginning
16:32 Further scientific evidence why the universe cannot be past eternal
18:35 Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal
Philosophical reasons why the universe nor quantum effect potentials cannot be past eternal
We realize that we can never get to an infinite period of time in the future by adding individual events together. 2 But today, this point of time in the present, is a point of time future to all past. Correct? In other words, we are future to yesterday, and the day before that. Now, some have suggested that the universe is eternal. That it has existed forever. But it is not possible that it has existed forever. Here is the application. This point in time is actually future with reference to all of the past. We just agreed that you cannot say that any particular point in the future will accomplish an actual infinite as events are added one to another. Therefore, this present moment in time can’t represent an actual infinite number of events added one to another proceeding from the past. Time has proceeded forward from the past as one event is added onto another to get us to today. But we know that whenever you pause in the count as we’ve done today, that you can’t have an infinite number of events. Which means that there is not an infinite number of events that goes backward from this point in time. Only a finite number of events. Which means the universe is not eternal. Which means the universe has not existed forever and ever with no beginning, but it in fact had a beginning.
Imagine that you see dominoes falling, one knocking over the next, as this series of falling dominoes comes into your room. Like a person can never finish counting to infinity, an actual infinite number of dominoes could never finish falling. Therefore, if an actual infinite number of dominoes had to fall before getting to your door, then the falling dominoes would never reach your door. In the same way, if an actual infinite number of minutes had to take place before yesterday, time would have never reached yesterday, much less today. Therefore, just as there had to be a finite number of falling dominoes, there also had to be a finite—not infinite—amount of time before today. An infinite past is impossible. Time must have a beginning. And if time had a beginning it must have had a cause.