Can something come from nothing

[robvalue]

All there is... except this extra special thing which doesn't count.

Apologetics is just filthy wordy games. It's so tiresome. Hopefully it will die a natural death as religion slowly chokes on its own redundancy.

[Cyberman]

It's why it's important to nail down the definition of "universe" right at the start, so the theist can't play Dolphinetics with the word. Is it "the set of everything from the Big Bang onwards", "the set of everything that can possibly exist" or something else? Because they're not all interchangeable.

[emjay]

@Neo. Is everything needed to understand Aquinas' arguments contained in the Summa Theologica? Or does it go all the way back to Plato etc? Are there any particular books you'd recommend to give core understanding of the foundations of the subject?

I am interested in the the stuff you've often mentioned about objects, properties, and essences because it sounds like an ancient version of the thinking behind Object Orientated Programming (OOP) so as a programmer that sort of thinking does appeal to me. It also sounds very similar to how neural networks work with essences as stereotypes etc. I think there's a lot to be gained practically from that type of thinking (ie OOP) but as a tool for searching for absolute truth I have my doubts because to the extent that it's modelling the stereotypes of neural networks, it will always be faced with boundary problems, because it is attempting to define fuzzy logic in binary terms (eg true or false). Ie neurons are both binary and analogue in their output (ie if represented as probability, would be either 0 (false) or say 0.5-1 (ranging essentially from 'maybe' to 'certain'... they have a minimum and maximum firing rate). So a given active neural representation/stereotype consists of a combination of non-binary values... ie a little bit of this, a lot of that, some of the other so say you try to define a 'heap of sand' using binary logic (ie discrete definitions of objects and properties) you'll always face boundary problems if shown a range of possible heaps... where do you define the boundary between heap and not a heap? You can't because that's a 'know it when you see it' result of fuzzy logic, where the name itself is part of the representation and therefore one of those associated non-binary values.

So as much as I love that sort of thinking (OOP etc) and rely on it heavily in my own thinking... I am aware of its boundary limitations. It can certainly drill down to finer and finer levels of detail and essence, as I am trying to do in my course, but I don't believe it can ever reach absolute truth because it always imposes boundaries on analogue data.

[surreptitious57]

Once you define universe as all that there is  then there is no wiggle room for the theist. God has to
fit into that space. He cannot be outside of it because that is both logically and physically impossible

[robvalue]

I don't think "what is possible" is high on apologists' list of concerns.

This is one of my favourite video clips. It tackles the idea of what is possible, and I recommend it to anyone who throws around that term a lot (or deals with people who do).

[The Industrial Atheist]

MJ, I never said you yourself weren't rational. Quite the opposite. I am commenting on the idea that human reason cannot be trusted as a means to attain knowledge since it was selected for fitness not verasity.

Did you come to that conclusion with human reason?

Sent from my LGL52VL using Tapatalk

[Edwardo Piet]

And the definition of universe is all that there is. Ergo there can be nothing outside of it since how can there be something outside of all that there is? So if the entity known as God does actually exist he has to do so within the universe not without it.

As soon as anything exists, you have a universe. If God is real, and at one point nothing else but God existed, then God was the entirety of the universe then. Or quantum foam. Or branes. Or whatever turns out to be the actual case, if we're ever able to find out with some degree of certainty beyond 'the math works and it doesn't violate any evidence or laws of physics that we know of'.

This is fantastically correct. I always think this too.

[Foxaèr]

I don't think "what is possible" is high on apologists' list of concerns.

Too true.

What is possible they ignore for their fantastical scenarios.

I have stated this time and again: a theist may be capable of functioning in the real world yet still hold beliefs with no evidential backing.

[surreptitious57]

Sometimes theists try to find ingenious ways round logical impossibilities regarding God. My personal favourite is the one which claims how he is not restricted by logic so using logical
arguments to deny his existence is therefore self defeating. But if as they also claim the mind of God cannot be known then how can they claim he is not restricted by logic? Now once
your opponent denies all logic then there is zero point in debating them. Arguments where the premises or conclusion are devoid of any are not arguments any way but just assertions

[robvalue]

If logic doesn't apply to God, then they are wasting their time trying to make logical arguments about God. They may as well just say "Magic".

If they have logically come to the conclusion that God is inherently illogical, then that's a great indication that they are actually living with cognitive dissonance. Reality is battling fantasy.