wiploc Wrote:If "nothing comes from nothing" means that nothing exists without a precursor cause, then it's not a matter of "as far as I can tell." If nothing comes from nothing, then we are the result of infinite regress. No two ways about it.
But "nothing comes from nothing" does not mean "nothing exists without a precursor cause." Those are two very different propositions, and I would think that they are OBVIOUSLY different. I know that many theists have presented this argument in a particular way that causes you to jump to this way of thinking. It isn't your fault. Follow me here:
If no thing exists, then no thing will ever exist. Where is the talk of causality? Effects? Precursor causes? You say we are the result of an infinite regress. Your proposition assumes that some thing MUST exist, namely, an infinite regress. You AGREE with the argument in your attempt to refute it. Don't over-think it. It is not trying to demonstrate god. It is stating something so utterly basic it seems silly that it even needs an argument (so silly that someone thinks its circular!). It starts with two ideas; if at one time, no thing was existing, then no thing would ever exist, and some things are currently existing. Therefore, there could never have been a time when no thing existed. In other words, at every moment, at least one thing has existed. You say it is an infinite regress. Fine, but you agree that some thing has always existed. I say it is one thing, viz. existence. You say that it is many things successively without any interruption of existence. Fine. That is a topic for a different thread I think.
Quote:Well, that argument just makes stuff up. There is no way to get from "nothing comes from nothing" to something cannot not-exist.
Well, I'd hope you'd give more benefit of the doubt before accusing me of "making stuff up". Your conclusion above about an infinite regress does the same thing. If there never was a moment in which no thing was existing, then every moment ever has always included the existence of some thing(s). You say that thing or things vary (i.e. go in and out of existence) over the different moments. I say that some thing is the always same, i.e. it is existence itself (which would be common to every particular and individual thing in an infinite regress). Existence is the one, eternal, and necessary thing which cannot not exist. If there never was "existence" or "being", then nothing could have "existence" or "being". However, things have existence now, and things in an infinite regress have "existence". Therefore, existence itself, the principle act of being, must have always just "been". Granted, in order to speak about existence in this way, I am in fact drawing upon other logical principles and syllogism, but I am certainly not "making stuff up". Even ff we are the result of an infinite regress, there is one single aspect of that regress of cause and effect that is common throughout its infinitely eternal span, i.e. "being" or "existence" It is the most basic thing about things. All existing things have it. =)
Quote:Usually, Christians claim that nothing comes from nothing, which would entail an infinite regression, and then they reverse themselves by claiming that infinite regression is impossible. The first cause argument is typically based on premises that contradict each other.
I'm happy to know what Christians usually claim, but is that what I have claimed? I claimed that "nothing comes from nothing" can only have one conclusion. Something must have always existed. Some thing(s) cannot not exist. There are only two possibilities: an eternal infinite regress of things, or a finite regress terminating in an eternal thing. I think the former is impossible and irrational, you think the latter one is. There has always been some thing. What is that thing? Is it an infinite regress? Is it an eternal singular cause? Is it the universe itself? Is it The Agrocrag from Nickelodeon's Guts? More must be proposed and said first. If you think the actual argument that informed theists propose is that there must exist an infinite regress, but an infinite regress is impossible, therefore, God created the world... then you have been fighting either a straw man or well-intentioned but ultimately unprepared Christians.
Quote:Again, that's just made up. There's no way to get from "There have always been things," to, "There has always been one particular thing which cannot possibly not exist."
Sure there is such a way. If it is true that there have always been things, then it is also true that there has always been at least one thing common to all of them, viz. existence. If some things have always existed, then there has always been existence (singular). There was never a moment that lacked existence. Existence is eternal.
Quote:But it cannot demonstrate it. It's a non-sequitur.
It would be if it were presented as the Christians you are accustomed to interacting with were presenting it according to their and your understanding. My whole purpose in posting on this thread was to try and show that such an understanding is actually incorrect and a confusion of two very different arguments and propositions as a single one.
The argument from nothing does "nothing more" than show that reality is eternal. There could never have existed a moment in which no thing whatsoever existed. Rather, at every moment, at least one thing has existed, which means that existence has been eternal. If the universe was created or began (which is rationally debatable), that must mean that it came from SOME other existing cause. Is that cause God? Is that cause just some other thing in an infinite regress of things? Is it a ham sandwich? Who knows? If we want to try and find out, we need more information.
Quote:If it's not false, then the universe has always existed, and we have no use for a creator.
Like I've admitted many times already, that is correctly a possibility. However, it would be just as premature to conclude this from what we have stated in premise 1 and 2 as it would be premature to say that all things exist through the creative act of an intelligent God. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to go step by step to get to an eternal universe that exists as an infinite regress of cause and effect.
Quote:In other words, it rejects the claim that nothing comes from nothing. People who care about logic and consistency shouldn't claim both that nothing comes from nothing and that god made something come from nothing . . . The claims cannot both be true.
The creation ex nihilo does NOT reject the claim that nothing comes from nothing (that is what I have tried and failed to point out to you). Rather, creation ex nihilo RESTS on the claim that nothing comes from nothing (i.e. existence cannot come from absolute non-existence). God, so the claim goes, is the something (as opposed to no thing) from which all things come. Every other thing is only a thing insofar as it "participates" (the neo-platonic term) in the "being" of God. In other words, all things that are not god receive their existence from God's own existence. Why must they find their origin in God? Because there is no other thing which has existence to give (so the article of revelation says). It is not an argument, but it also does not contradict the philosophical argument, no matter how poorly other Christians have presented it to you in the past. Ignore that past history. Read my words and try to understand the distinction I am poorly illustrating. I need your help! =)
