Being cannot come from Non-being

[Abaddon_ire]

Or Langton's Ant.

Ha. That is one of my GoTo demonstrations for emergent complexity from simplicity

Wrong it's bananananananananas.  See!

Good old smarmy Ray. I really enjoyed seeing him wiped out on that one.

[LastPoet]

Or Langton's Ant.

Ha. That is one of my GoTo demonstrations for emergent complexity from simplicity

Conway's game of life also springs to mind. Order from chaos.

[Alex K]

Ha. That is one of my GoTo demonstrations for emergent complexity from simplicity

Conway's game of life also springs to mind. Order from chaos.

Have you seen the mandelbrot set? It's all just z->z^2+c !

[LastPoet]

Conway's game of life also springs to mind. Order from chaos.

Have you seen the mandelbrot set? It's all just z->z^2+c !

But of course I've seen it. One of the most perspective change work I've saw. RIP Benoit.

---

[Otangelo]

And no. No false dichotomy. Either there is an eternal creator, or not. How it is rational to claim there isn't, and that the universe sprang up out of nothing, is beyond me.

How does the eternal creator do its creating?
What is the process it uses?
Where does it get the stuff to create with?

I want evidence to support your answer....and ...go.

I don't know. Does that make it less likely, compared to absolutely nothing doing something ?

[Mr.wizard]

How does the eternal creator do its creating?
What is the process it uses?
Where does it get the stuff to create with?

I want evidence to support your answer....and ...go.

I don't know. Does that make it less likely, compared to absolutely nothing doing something ?

Well first, in order for a Being who creates universes to be considered as an explanation at all you must prove such a thing exists, otherwise the explanation of a being who creates universes is indistinguishable from something being caused by "absolutely nothing". Second, you haven't shown a time when there was "absolutely nothing", if your argument is that we only have examples of something coming from something, then you must acknowledge that we have no examples of there ever being nothing.

[Otangelo]

you must prove such a thing exists

No, i dont. Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

you must prove such a thing exists

No, i dont. Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

Cool.  So we win, you lose.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They run the fuck away from the hard ones, don't they.

[Mr.wizard]

you must prove such a thing exists

No, i dont. Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason

So if you cant produce evidence for a god, the most logical inference is that the god does exist and he created everything?