The following is not a question: Can something come from nothing?

[MindForgedManacle]

@Whateverist I think you've misread Coffee (or maybe I am). He's saying that there had to always be something that existed.

[Coffee Jesus]

@Whateverist I think you've misread Coffee (or maybe I am). He's saying that there had to always be something that existed.

No, although I do agree because time is dependent upon physical things.

I meant that at least one thing, even if that thing is time itself, must have not come from anything (come fro nothing).

[tor]

@Whateverist I think you've misread Coffee (or maybe I am). He's saying that there had to always be something that existed.

No, although I do agree because time is dependent upon physical things.

I meant that at least one thing, even if that thing is time itself, must have not come from anything (come fro nothing).

There is a difference between always existing and coming from nothing.

[Coffee Jesus]

There is a difference between always existing and coming from nothing.

If something is a thing, other things can come from it. Things cannot come from things that are not things, but nothing is not a thing.

came from nothing = never came from anything
Just like
blew up nothing = didn't blow up anything

[MindForgedManacle]

No, although I do agree because time is dependent upon physical things.

I meant that at least one thing, even if that thing is time itself, must have not come from anything (come fro nothing).

...That's exactly what I said, I think. You're saying that that there must have been something that didn't come from anything, yes?

[bennyboy]

Consciousness is not matter it's the interaction between the matter.
This website is not matter it's the magnetic field on a hard drive.
To have a hard drive you need matter but the magnetic field itself is not matter.

Yes, but all matter interacts with all other matter. Anyway, what is it about the interaction between matter that "causes" consciousness? What's the difference between one group of electrochemical interactions and another?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I. . .
don't. . .
know!

Meh, that's what people say when they don't like where things are leading.

No, it's what they say when they're being intellectually and philosophically consistent with the evidence.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Meh, that's what people say when they don't like where things are leading.

No, it's what they say when they're being intellectually and philosophically consistent with the evidence.

As opposed to the special kind of idiot who presumes to know everything, even after gaps in his knowledge have been demonstrated.

Willful ignorance is a helluva drug.

[Whateverist]

I'd like to go on record here, and say that anyone who has made a positive assertion, of any type, in this thread is full of shit.

Congratulations. You just won the full-of-shit prize! Wait, you did say "has made" so perhaps you only meant the criteria to apply to posts which had occurred before your own. Should your own post be included in the set of posts making positive assertions, or didn't you just say anything?

To the ones who suggest [the universe] needn't have, or didn't have, a beginning, I'd ask you why then it exists.

"Why" is too vague. If you mean "how", then you can begin to trace the prior conditions which have led to what we currently know of the universe. But it would be hubris to assume you can follow those preconditions back forever. Sometimes the record may simply dissipate, at least for those equipped with our particular cognitive powers and access. To suppose that our inability to follow the record beyond a certain point is evidence that there is nothing further to follow would be an obvious fallacy.

Be careful of the brute-fact, "Just because," because when you make all of existence a brute fact, you are just invoking the same magical mystery box that Christianity does, just with a less interesting background plot.

Agreed. If I included the dreaded "because", I might be assuming something about intentions. "Why" should probably be reserved for questions of intentions. "Why did you do x instead of y?" If what you really mean is only "how did that come to be", then off we go looking for more prior conditions. So, yes, lets avoid "just because" and just admit we do not know. While we're at it, we might throw in "..and we do not know if we will ever know".

The question of cosmogony isn't meaningless-- it lies at the root of who and what we are. It lies at the center of our awareness, and the bounds of our imagination. But as for answers-- there's only one response to the question that makes sense now, ever did in the past, and ever will in the future. -

*groans* This sounds like the sort of log entry Captain Kirk was fond of making. So suggestive but also cheesy.

- There's nothing wrong, even in an age of science, of accelerated learning and information, with looking the universe in the face and saying. . .

I. . .
don't. . .
know!


If you can't say these words without thinking, ". . . yet!" then congratulations: you have embraced the mysteries of life with an attitude of optimism and faith.

*sigh* Okay. Sure. But I guess we'll have to amend your initial claim about what makes a positive claim bullshit. Anyone who ever makes a positive claim without immediately following up with ".. so far as anyone knows YET" will be considered to be full of shit. In terms of writing style, this is bound to grow tiresome though. It would be on par with always adding IMO to everything you say.

[bennyboy]

".. so far as anyone knows YET"

Actually, "yet" is one of my biggest pet peeves. It should only be used in two ways:
1) the issue being investigated is highly similar to one already solved: "We have mapped many genomes, but haven't mapped that of the blue-footed booby yet."
2) it is known how a process should go ahead, but there are (definitely!) only time or obvious technical limitations: "We haven't covered the entire search area yet."

To use the word "yet" in the context of a scientific problem which is not known to be solvable is ironic-- it is a statement of faith without sufficient evidence.

So:

"We don't fully understand why the universe formed"
-a truthful (if somewhat obvious) statement of our current state of knowledge.

"We don't fully understand why the universe formed, yet."
-unscientific horseshit, which rebrands the scientific process as big-s Science, the institution full of wise elders who we must believe can solve our problems. Sounds a lot like church to me.