1_individual Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Hi Everybody. This is my first post and being a new member I am looking forward to learning from other that have gone before me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_individual Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 Hi Everybody. This is my first post and being a new member I am looking forward to learning from other that have gone before me Sorry about that. I don't know how my message got posted before I was finished editing. My pondering is something that I am requesting comments on and help with. Being a former fundie Christian, I have been wrestling with this one for a while now. I see the logic of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." But can't possibly move beyond that closer the god of the bible any longer. Does anybody have any suggestions, reference/essays? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 I see the logic of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." But can't possibly move beyond that closer the god of the bible any longer. Hey there 1_Individual. Welcome to the forums. I don't suppose that you could tell those of us who don't speak Latin what "Ex nihilo nihil fit" means could you? What does it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_individual Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 I see the logic of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." But can't possibly move beyond that closer the god of the bible any longer. Hey there 1_Individual. Welcome to the forums. I don't suppose that you could tell those of us who don't speak Latin what "Ex nihilo nihil fit" means could you? What does it mean? Sorry. In my brevity I forgot to "Translate" Ex nihilo nihil fit <-> Nothing comes from nothing It's a concept I heard a radio preacher talking up a couple years back. Thanks, Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Sorry. In my brevity I forgot to "Translate" Ex nihilo nihil fit <-> Nothing comes from nothing It's a concept I heard a radio preacher talking up a couple years back. Thanks, Frank In answering that, if that were the case then were did/does God come from? If the earth can't just exist due to nature or natural causes then the same must apply to a deity.... Right? Welcome to Ex-C!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_individual Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 Sorry. In my brevity I forgot to "Translate" Ex nihilo nihil fit <-> Nothing comes from nothing It's a concept I heard a radio preacher talking up a couple years back. Thanks, Frank In answering that, if that were the case then were did/does God come from? If the earth can't just exist due to nature or natural causes then the same must apply to a deity.... Right? Welcome to Ex-C!!! Yes, true from a Rational and Naturalistic world view. But from the fried brain cells induced by fundamtalistic xtianity, we're talking about the supernatural here, and he supercedes any of those laws. Seriously, I love the Last Quote in your sig. Thanks for taking the time. -F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Yes, true from a Rational and Naturalistic world view. But from the fried brain cells induced by fundamtalistic xtianity, we're talking about the supernatural here, and he supercedes any of those laws. Seriously, I love the Last Quote in your sig. Thanks for taking the time. -F If something can supersede the 'law' of existence what's to stop anything else from doing the same supernatural or otherwise? I understand the concept of god being untouchable to any science or logic and has existed long before time and space via the Christian mindset. I also understand the Christian concept that god is beyond any human understanding. I disagree is all. I think if Christians can come up with the excuse that God must exist because we are here and nothing can come from nothing, they have to apply that same types of questions to Gods existence also. They say we as people can't just exist but say that god can, it's a contradictory stance to have is all I'm saying. I don't have the answers to where we came from, I also don't have the answers to the origin of life and how I became a individual person living here on this earth. Because one doesn't have the answers doesn't mean it's tossed in the earth is flat pile. I contend there is an answer we just don't know it yet. Thanks for the nice complement on the Siggy I'm just helping you ponder the OP... Nothing I say is ment to be offensive, hope you don't take it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Yes, true from a Rational and Naturalistic world view. But from the fried brain cells induced by fundamtalistic xtianity, we're talking about the supernatural here, and he supercedes any of those laws. If it was a radio preacher, then he was probably trying to make a case for the universe or life being unable to come from nothing, so therefore there had to be a source. Of course, that source doesn't have to be God, but that's beyond where he cares to explore in his thoughts. Simply put, no one has ever postulated the universe or life popped out of nothing (except for those who believe life popped into being from the thought of a god). Life came from existing elements following laws of physics. All the elements that make up the planets and eventually biological life came from exploding stars. If life and matter came from the gods, then the gods are/were exploding stars! Bottom line, "Nothing from Nothing" is a good argument to take issue with - if anyone were actually making that argument (besides the preacher himself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_individual Posted September 7, 2007 Author Share Posted September 7, 2007 Yes, true from a Rational and Naturalistic world view. But from the fried brain cells induced by fundamtalistic xtianity, we're talking about the supernatural here, and he supercedes any of those laws. Seriously, I love the Last Quote in your sig. Thanks for taking the time. -F If something can supersede the 'law' of existence what's to stop anything else from doing the same supernatural or otherwise? I understand the concept of god being untouchable to any science or logic and has existed long before time and space via the Christian mindset. I also understand the Christian concept that god is beyond any human understanding. I disagree is all. I think if Christians can come up with the excuse that God must exist because we are here and nothing can come from nothing, they have to apply that same types of questions to Gods existence also. They say we as people can't just exist but say that god can, it's a contradictory stance to have is all I'm saying. I don't have the answers to where we came from, I also don't have the answers to the origin of life and how I became a individual person living here on this earth. Because one doesn't have the answers doesn't mean it's tossed in the earth is flat pile. I contend there is an answer we just don't know it yet. Thanks for the nice complement on the Siggy I'm just helping you ponder the OP... Nothing I say is ment to be offensive, hope you don't take it that way. Excellent points. No apology necessary, no offense was taken in the least. Thanks for your thoughts on the matter. It's amazing how long it has taken and continues to take for me to heal mentally and emotionally from all of it. Thanks again, -F Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 7, 2007 Share Posted September 7, 2007 Sorry. In my brevity I forgot to "Translate" Ex nihilo nihil fit <-> Nothing comes from nothing It's a concept I heard a radio preacher talking up a couple years back. Thanks, Frank No scientist believe the universe came from nothing. So it's a strawman argument. The Big Bang is the event when a certain singularity of hot, highly compressed energy had the first quantum event that caused it to expand rapidly. No one says Big bang banged a "Nothing" into "Something". What's really funny is that it is only the religious people that believe that the Universe came from nothing by the help of God, scientists don't believe that Ex Nihilo in one or any other form. So the argument is moot. It's like me arguing that Christianity is a pagan religion because they do human sacrifices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 I see the logic of "Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit." But can't possibly move beyond that closer the god of the bible any longer. Hey there 1_Individual. Welcome to the forums. I don't suppose that you could tell those of us who don't speak Latin what "Ex nihilo nihil fit" means could you? What does it mean? Sorry. In my brevity I forgot to "Translate" Ex nihilo nihil fit <-> Nothing comes from nothing It's a concept I heard a radio preacher talking up a couple years back. Thanks, Frank The laws of thermodynamics do not contradict this statement at all and all the various scientific theories do not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. The materialist's position in no way contradicts either. If we are going to speak of what might be eternal....well we know matter and energy exists and the laws of thermodynamics has somethin' to say about that as well....matter/energy is not created or destroyed. Change is what we observe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Mankey, matter can be destroy - in the sense that it can be transformed into energy, and matter can be created to - from energy. After the Big Bang there was for a short while only energy, before the quarks started to pair up and make matter (IIRC). There should be a fixed amount of energy in the universe though, but no one really can calculate exactly how much since dark matter and dark/vacuum energy is still quite theoretical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 There once was a guy named Aristotle. He posited that there were four categories of causation: material, efficient, formal, and final cause. Why do we seem to be so quick to focus on the material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Mankey, matter can be destroy - in the sense that it can be transformed into energy, and matter can be created to - from energy. After the Big Bang there was for a short while only energy, before the quarks started to pair up and make matter (IIRC). There should be a fixed amount of energy in the universe though, but no one really can calculate exactly how much since dark matter and dark/vacuum energy is still quite theoretical. I know that is isn't reasonable but I have a hard time seeing matter as anything but energy. I don't know why. Still as far as I know any scientific theories we got so far do not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. Damn it. I should be refreshing before giving any opinions...hehe. Thanks Hans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 There once was a guy named Aristotle. He posited that there were four categories of causation: material, efficient, formal, and final cause. Why do we seem to be so quick to focus on the material? Point me to where immaterial is. Hahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 There once was a guy named Aristotle. He posited that there were four categories of causation: material, efficient, formal, and final cause. Why do we seem to be so quick to focus on the material? Very good point! Maybe it has something to do with materialism, or maybe only just certain cultures do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 I know that is isn't reasonable but I have a hard time seeing matter as anything but energy. I don't know why. Very true. I see matter as energy too, energy in motion, so in that sense "matter" doesn't get destroyed. But yet, light is energy without being purely matter (in a sense), eventhough it has some properties of matter. Still as far as I know any scientific theories we got so far do not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. That I agree to. Except that there might be a problem to apply the LoT to the whole Universe, since I think there could be a possibility that the Universe is an open system. Since the whole dark matter/energy question isn't really solved, who knows, maybe there's a surprise somewhere? Damn it. I should be refreshing before giving any opinions...hehe. Heck no. Just let it all out... that's what I do, that's the best way to get new information! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 It seems to me we can be a bit too arrogant about our humanity and logic. I mean, our ancestors could have told you that without fire, there can be no light, and it would have been so self-evident to them that to deny it would have been utterly absurd. But I'm sitting at a laptop with a bright screen, and it isn't on fire. So why can't something come from nothing? Just because our intellectual capacity is the greatest we know of, that doesn't mean it can understand the universe as it really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Just because our intellectual capacity is the greatest we know of, that doesn't mean it can understand the universe as it really is. I think that's a good point Robbie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Very true, and also, what do we mean with "something" and "nothing"? What do we define as such, and what do we include in it and what do we not include in it? I sometimes hear religious people argue that God isn't part of "something" or "everything", and that's why he/she/it doesn't fall under the "everything must have a beginning" clause in the first argument. Very silly in my opinion, but hey, words only means what we make them to mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mankey Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Just because our intellectual capacity is the greatest we know of, that doesn't mean it can understand the universe as it really is. I think that's a good point Robbie. Yea well this could easily be an intro for an argument from ignorance or begging the question. 'sides it don't mean we can't either. I think yall forget that technology proves we can understand some things about nature...... All we got is our senses and abilities to reason and its our lot in life to work within those and keep making adjustments until we get things right or until things work better than yesterday. I see no value in your statement. We can be open minded, but this statement rubs me the wrong way as it should anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts