something from nothing

I refer you to my OP.

 

I don't think the other side is oblivious, I think SOME Christians are dishonest - in that these assert they know. At the same time, many of these will probably also protest that honesty is a fundamental of their faith. Once again, though, this wasn't the point of the thread. I was hoping to hear from theists who assert that something can't come from nothing.

 

Previously you said that the problem was "something came from nothing". Well, someone had to make that claim, else it probably would not be a topic of discussion. Strange that nobody made that claim and yet here we are talking about a claim that seemingly noone made.

 

We're not saying you claim something came from nothing, just as you're not saying eternalists claim something claim from nothing. We're saying that despite the fact that you don't recognize it, your solution doesn't solve the problem: either something came from nothing, or something has always existed, in which case the question becomes why does that exist.

 

Sorry, just cranky christians and noncommittal know it alls here.

I don't think those guys post except on friendly threads.

Try creating a thread titled (Sea fossils found worldwide!! Proof of great flood!!) Maybe you could catch them with their guard down.

 

I think its a great question:

I also think that it is the epitome of human conceit to claim to know the answer of what was before the big bang.
Since m theory and superstring theory etc are actually conceived using our own universe's space/time/energy/matter frame of reference attempting to define what was without any of those references is a great exercise of the imagination but impossible to actually concieve anything meaningful at this stage of our development.

As to the big bang, it is based on a mathematical theory that over time has been developed to embrace almost all of the observable phenomena in the universe. The math makes an incredibily elegant and persuasive argument, that supports and is supported by a number of other important cosmological theories (inflation, dark matter/energy, relativity, etc).

We are less than microbes in relation to the universe. Some turn to supernatural explanations. Others insist on scientific ones. Neither can rely on proof/hard definitive evidence. as it is beyond our current abilities.

 

I am not talking about your OP. I am talking about your statement from which this instant conversation started. Now, If your OP says "SOME THEISTS", then why are you changing the goal posts this late in the thread?

 

exactly. but again, some do claim to know.

meanwhile ..... still hoping to hear from a theist who can explain (given the assertion that something can't come from nothing) where god/s came from

- - - Updated - - -

with respect, shut up.

- - - Updated - - -

catching uniformed Christians with their guard down is like shooting dead fish in a barrel. you can just look at them funny and they disintegrate.

 

Are you attempting to stifle my constitutional right of free speech? If you cannot defend your position, then just admit that you were mistaken... but don't try to disrespect a persons right of free speech.

 

here's the thing ...... dont care

 

So you thought what when you created this thread? That informed christians would argue that god came from something?

Seems unlikely. But who knows? As much as the debate seems to have hit a consensus there is always the possibility that some egomaniacal theist may weigh in.

Good luck.

 

I hoped. The surety with which some protest no-something-from-nothing suggests they KNOW, ya know.

 

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. "You cant have a universe without it being created by someone" is a bad argument, and so is "you cant have a god without it being created by someone." But have a think about which of those two arguments is more commonly made first.

 

"bad" is an ambiguous term. Which one is more commonly made first would be dependent upon which group of people you are inolved with and the primary purpose of the group (and other variables)

 

In theory, yes. In practice, I doubt it. However, since we're in this forum, perhaps we could consider this forum membership as the group of people. I think it would be more sensible than quibbling over which group we might be talking about.

 

but time is based on your perspective, if your in a spaceship going the speed of light, time seems to stop for you, but for those outside the ship, they see you flying along

so a light beam from a star going the speed of light, time seems to have stopped from the lights pov, but we see the light as moving, once the light hits our eyes, the time continues for the light and it's the end of the life of the light

.

 

That is an interesting suggestion. So: On this forum, I believe the most common would be ""you cant have a god without it being created by someone."" Why do I believe that? Well, among Christians (as a group) that question would seldom ever be asked and therefore never be a topic of discussion. Amongst that Christian group, it is already believed that God created the Universe and that God is Eternal.. having no beginning and having no ending. Note: Please notice my use of the term "believed"... not "known". Beliefs are not required to be rational, logical, or any other man-made arbitrary label.

 

Since you 'believe' definitions (term) are mere OPINIONS your OPINION that this 'god' is eternal, created the universe and that this 'logic' does not carry the requirement to be rational or logical is dismissed as a hog wash as a nonsensical OPINION.

 

An excellent translation

 

An important point as regards this thread - I dont make the claim that god/s must be created. I merely place the question inside the parameters set by those asserting that something cannot come from nothing. I assert nothing in relation to the origins of the universe.

The challenge is to those who do assert, for the purposes of obtaining information on the origins of this god.
My curiosity is genuine - I would like to know what explanation these theists give themselves for god's origins. I'm presupposing they HAVE explanations, since their own argument dictates that god came from something. If they don't have an explanation, or have never actually asked the question, then my work here is done. They are admitting they know as much (or as little) as we do, and have allowed honesty to trump received dogma.

 

​

Since all words have definitions, then the claim that he makes is also rendered as an opinion because it consists of words which have meanings therefore, his comment and yours as well are dismissed because they do not carry the requirements to be rational or logical subsequently yours and his are hog wash and nonsensical opinion.

 

Except, I am not the one that claims definition are mere opinions. So this 'rule' only applies to YOU, since YOU are claiming this.

To state something, then not even apply the stated to oneself, would be extreme hypocrisy.

 

Noone said that you made the claim, however, you are using the claim as a tool... therefore, you accept the claim as a fact.

 

I use the claim as tool, only to show the hypocrisy of the poster who made the claim. This does not mean I accept the claim as fact. If I did, I would use this claim universally, not just against the poster who claimed this.

 

You gave the claim a purpose, admit that you used it as a tool. Then you attempt to rationalize by saying you do not accept the claim as a fact. Do you often use non factual things as tools? Well of course you do. You use theories that have not been proven and are therefore not fact. So it is OK for you to use one non fact tool (theories) but yet it is not OK to use another non fact tool unless it is used specifaclly against one person. Gee... to me, that seems a little like a personal prejudice based in hypocrisy and total and complete disdain toward that person to whom the tool is being used against. Do you often engage in such personal vendettas?