What is "Nothing"

[Madman]

Going back to the original OP, if a non-believer reads a scientific paper talking about how something spontaneously came from nothing or that something was eternally there, it doesn't affect them to not take it to heart. To the believer, the fact that their book tells them how something came from nothing and that some(thing/one) is eternal informs everything they do. They have to believe that because if they don't, the rest of the claims in the book may topple like dominoes. That domino effect seems to be what caused many previous believers to now disbelieve.

Ambush, I have never said anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers. It is not that the rest of the "book" crumbles, it is the fact that it is impossible. If you believe that someting can come from nothing then don't laugh at those who you claim believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
You believe in magic.

Dont worry about the "book" until you get past something from nothing. That's where I started, at the beginning.

Have a good one.

 

[atlashunter]

Nothing is what you experience when you aren’t living.

 

[Madman]

Nothing is what you experience when you aren’t living.

Here! Here!

 

[WaltL1]

bullethead; Kurt; ky55; Walt

Thank you! Your posts are very good examples of "Subjective Living"
Which is:
Mental - Your eyes saw (or have seen) something and your mind interpreted it
Emotional - Your emotions kicked in
Physical - Man's will - Prompting you to create the posts
Result - Man's Actions: Dictated by what you think and what/how you feel.


Which supports this statement:

It is impossible to reason with (fill in the blanks), one can only expose them to Truth.

What you describe above is called "human nature".
It is only your particular belief that connects it to a god.

 

[WaltL1]

Ambush, I have never said anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers. It is not that the rest of the "book" crumbles, it is the fact that it is impossible. If you believe that someting can come from nothing then don't laugh at those who you claim believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
You believe in magic.

Dont worry about the "book" until you get past something from nothing. That's where I started, at the beginning.

Have a good one.

anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.

If you were asked "where did God come from" are you going to explain how he is the exception to that? (thereby proving it wrong)

 

[Madman]

If you were asked "where did God come from" are you going to explain how he is the exception to that? (thereby proving it wrong)

Done it 100 times. You first, where did this come from?

 

[WaltL1]

Done it 100 times. You first, where did this come from?

Help me out here -
Did what 100 times? Explain how God is the exception to that?

You first, where did this come from?

Where did what come from? Everything? (the universe, us etc?)
I don't know.

 

[Madman]

Help me out here -
Did what 100 times? Explain how God is the exception to ?

No exception just logic. Why does God need to be created?

 

[WaltL1]

No exception just logic. Why does God need to be created?

First -
Please stop claiming logic. There is no logic that gets you to a god because no god has been proven to exist. The only way you can claim logic is to assume one does and then go from there. Which of course is not logical.
Second -
A god is "something". "Something" falls under "anything".
Per your statement -

anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.

Since it is impossible for anything, which would include a god, to come from nothing, then a god HAD to come from something else.
Advance notice -
If you go off on some wacky diatribe that has nothing to do with those 2 completely contradictory statements, Im going to have to just bow out of the conversation to save us both frustration.

 

[Madman]

First -
Please stop claiming logic. There is no logic that gets you to a god because no god has been proven to exist. The only way you can claim logic is to assume one does and then go from there. Which of course is not logical.
Second -
A god is "something". "Something" falls under "anything".
Per your statement -

Since it is impossible for anything, which would include a god, to come from nothing, then a god HAD to come from something else.
Advance notice -
If you go off on some wacky diatribe that has nothing to do with those 2 completely contradictory statements, Im going to have to just bow out of the conversation to save us both frustration.

Slow down. The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent, or outside of the created order. That is logic. Nothing in the created order can create itself. The book cannot write itself.

I'm done.
Good night

 

[WaltL1]

Slow down. The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent, or outside of the created order. That is logic. Nothing in the created order can create itself. The book cannot write itself.

I'm done.
Good night

Fine we'll play it your way.
It is not logical to claim a god is the writer of the book because no god has been proven to exist. Its just not a logical choice because its not a choice that has been proven to exist.
You can go on for 10 pages or 100 pages and you just cant get around that.

 

[bullethead]

Slow down. The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent, or outside of the created order. That is logic. Nothing in the created order can create itself. The book cannot write itself.

I'm done.
Good night

Man created the book that created the god. Nothing as far as anybody knows purposely created man. Man and everything else is a result of the available chemistry set. Only what can exist does. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and a guess usually based off of wants and needs.

 

[WaltL1]

Man created the book that created the god. Nothing as far as anybody knows purposely created man. Man and everything else is a result of the available chemistry set. Only what can exist does. Anything beyond that is wishful thinking and a guess usually based off of wants and needs.

I'll never understand what is so difficult about admitting "this is what I believe, cant prove it, its not logical, but its what I believe".

 

[bullethead]

I'll never understand what is so difficult about admitting "this is what I believe, cant prove it, its not logical, but its what I believe".

Everything that I can think of is only as strong as it's weakest part. Like a chain, when it busts it will bust at the weakest link. Any believer that relies on the contents of the bible as their foundation for making a case for that particular god is immediately on shaky ground due to the errors and inaccuracies regarding, events, science, history, knowledge, geography and most of all the monumental claims that exist nowhere else but within those pages. And claiming to use "logic" then in the next breath having to insert something that has never been proven exist shows how weak an otherwise good sounding case is.
Yeah, sure, if you can just suspend reality, logic reason, facts and evidence....this works!!!!
Basically they are standing on an empty soda can and it looks impressive until someone comes along and flicks the can and it all crumbles.

 

[atlashunter]

Slow down. The only thing that gets you to "anything" or "something" in the created order is something that is transcendent, or outside of the created order. That is logic. Nothing in the created order can create itself. The book cannot write itself.

I'm done.
Good night

How do you know everything that exists was created and how do you know your god isn’t part of that category? This is just a case of special pleading. You claim a rule as an absolute as “logic” without offering any demonstration of the truth of your claim and then you want an exception to the rule for a mythological figure you claim is the creator without a shred of evidence that this figure actually exists or created anything. That’s not logic. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions.

 

[atlashunter]

Everything that I can think of is only as strong as it's weakest part. Like a chain, when it busts it will bust at the weakest link. Any believer that relies on the contents of the bible as their foundation for making a case for that particular god is immediately on shaky ground due to the errors and inaccuracies regarding, events, science, history, knowledge, geography and most of all the monumental claims that exist nowhere else but within those pages. And claiming to use "logic" then in the next breath having to insert something that has never been proven exist shows how weak an otherwise good sounding case is.
Yeah, sure, if you can just suspend reality, logic reason, facts and evidence....this works!!!!
Basically they are standing on an empty soda can and it looks impressive until someone comes along and flicks the can and it all crumbles.

It reminds me of William Lane Craig. I’ve seen him argue for God’s existence based on the resurrection and argue for the possibility of the resurrection based on Gods existence.

 

[WaltL1]

How do you know everything that exists was created and how do you know your god isn’t part of that category? This is just a case of special pleading. You claim a rule as an absolute as “logic” without offering any demonstration of the truth of your claim and then you want an exception to the rule for a mythological figure you claim is the creator without a shred of evidence that this figure actually exists or created anything. That’s not logic. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions.

If we can get past this illogical logic claim Im hoping this is what gets addressed -

and then you want an exception to the rule

You cant say -

anything came from nothing, that is impossible and everyone knows that, except some non-believers.

And then claim "except for".
The "except for" proves what you just said to be false.

 

[Madman]

How do you know everything that exists was created and how do you know your god isn’t part of that category? This is just a case of special pleading. You claim a rule as an absolute as “logic” without offering any demonstration of the truth of your claim and then you want an exception to the rule for a mythological figure you claim is the creator without a shred of evidence that this figure actually exists or created anything. That’s not logic. It’s just a bunch of baseless assertions.

The OP is what is nothing and could it ever have been. Answer that and then we can move on to the next part.
We have not gotten to "my god" yet. Take the idea of God out of the conversation. It is evident that you are so God focused that you can't get him out of your mind. Logically, philosophically, scientifically, and metaphysically, you have to make a choice;

1) something has always existed.
2) something came from nothing
3) you dont know.
4) something transcendent exists

As for the analogy of the book, I am not speaking about the Bible, I am talking about any book. Logically the book does not write itself, there must be something "outside" of the book that wrote it.

Your arguments are just a bunch of scattered assertions.

 

[Madman]

It reminds me of William Lane Craig. I’ve seen him argue for God’s existence based on the resurrection and argue for the possibility of the resurrection based on Gods existence.

WLC argues from the calum argument, you have missed a lot.

 

[WaltL1]

The OP is what is nothing and could it ever have been. Answer that and then we can move on to the next part.
We have not gotten to "my god" yet. Take the idea of God out of the conversation. It is evident that you are so God focused that you can't get him out of your mind. Logically, philosophically, scientifically, and metaphysically, you have to make a choice;

1) something has always existed.
2) something came from nothing
3) you dont know.
4) something transcendent exists

As for the analogy of the book, I am not speaking about the Bible, I am talking about any book. Logically the book does not write itself, there must be something "outside" of the book that wrote it.

Your arguments are just a bunch of scattered assertions.

Logically the book does not write itself, there must be something "outside" of the book that wrote it.

Yes that is logic because we KNOW there is a book (any book) and that a book cant write itself.
However you are trying to use that one logical statement to then go off in an illogical direction that is comprised of what you believe not what is known.