I disagree. It could have come from nothing. You and I, have never observed nothing, so we don’t know it’s capabilities.
I disagree with the quote as well. For it to be called science it must be demonstrable. Magic does not have that same requirement.
If something can come from nothing, why are we not seeing spontaneous and chaotic creation popping into existence? Like peanut butter and jelly elephants appearing in our home?
You have never observed nothing. You exist, so by definition you live in a realm of things.
You don’t know what nothing can or can’t do, and neither do I, because we haven’t observed it.
Then where did nothing go?
How is that relevant?
You are claiming that something had to cause everything, with no proof of said thing.
I am claiming that other possibilities exist.
By nothing, you mean no parts and no energy? No matter. No subatomics or quantum anything? No physical “laws” waiting to bend or shape reality once it came into existence?
As in nothing?
To someone on an equal footing yes. The point of the quote was that unenlightened people would consider it magic. If you showed a smart phone to someone in Gutenberg’s day you’d be called a witch. They don’t have the ability to conceptualize or understand the demonstration of modern science.
Shoot, show a caveman a pocket lighter. Same thing.
Your comment on observing nothingness feels like a disingenuous response. Good day.
By definition nothing is something that does not exist.
Prior to the universe?
It is not disingenuous at all. You claimed that a god or god like being started the universe, with no proof. I just pointed out that you don’t know that, and other possibilities exist.
I comes down to you claiming to know something that you can’t prove, and me saying I don’t know (it could be lots of things, or nothings).
Could have been things or nothing. Not sure, but I am not claiming to know what happened either.
You seem to be taking the position that something created the universe. Why?
Because the universe expanded.
And, to be even more clear, prior to space and time coming into existence?
That’s not at all what I said, and not at all what you did. You need more practice at this.
I reject the notion that an all powerful, all knowing, all good being who lets humans be tortured for eternity can actually be all good by our human definitions. God can think and do whatever. I just don’t see how people can reconcile the questions I’ve presented and would be curious to hear and learn.
But they don’t get attempted. I don’t need to be sold God, I’m trying to get where people who believe think the things they do about the established beliefs that they already possess.
I wouldn’t reject God if he was real anymore than I could reject the existence of cats. But I would reject the idea that a God who allows people to be tortured for eternity is worth believing in and is all good. Especially if his existence is proven and so many people still don’t have any idea what he actually wants them to do to avoid that punishment.
Which human definitions? That’s like saying there is a human definition for the best favorite color.
Agreed.
Most militant atheists would be better called antitheist, since they have made refutting the existence of God, their religion.
In the case of ‘former Christians’, l posit that it is a case of not wanting to accept God as the only sovereign entity, over some logical prowess that determines that he is a fairy tale or whatever.
I don’t believe in Santa Claus, and therefore do not spend endless time hating the character, questioning his motives, denigrating his ‘followers’, or trying to figure how he gets all of the toys delivered in the same night.
The same can not be said of the atheists here. He may not reside in their hearts, but he is living rent free in their minds.
You are right, I didn’t understand your original argument. It takes more than a sentence or two to get into nuance.
What were you saying in your original post. It is cryptic.
Edit: I see that you were only talking hypothetical, and about heaven, not the universe. But the fact remains it is not required that it has a cause.
I do need more practice. I am trying to communicate with multiple people here, and it is hard to keep a single channel from being confused with another.
What issues do you see with my arguments?
I would not intentionally change your argument on you. It was a honest mistake.
Common definitions of good. Again if a human spent their entire life torturing someone would you consider them all good? We don’t really have to play games.
I won’t speak for all atheists/agnostics but just me. It’s not that I don’t want to accept God it’s that I can’t at this point in my life. I was raised in the Church and accepted it without every really questioning it. As I got older and listened to other arguments doubt crept in my mind. The behavior of many believers didn’t help. Right now my logical and doubting brain can’t accept something I have never seen or heard just because of a book. I mean I actually can’t do it. I can believe that God exists and creates him but it’s a fictitious belief and not something I can do with a true mind.
As for the other part I’ve always thought the topic was interesting. I think almost everyone would say the idea of how we got here and if a deeper meaning exists is probably the most interesting and debated topic of all time. And it is very interesting to me how people who believe in a higher power have so many different beliefs about that higher power. Even those who read the exact same book. And it is very interesting to me how people who don’t believe in a higher power can share virtually everything else in common with those who do.
How is the universe expanding proof of much other than exactly that (the universe expanding)?
I don’t understand the second sentence.