For monotheists, God is considered to be omnipotent. In the definition of this characteristic falls the idea that God is the ultimate creator; God always was and always will be.
My problem with this is that in my mind, the willingness to believe in God’s omnipotence is the willingness to believe that some substance has the ability to exist without having been created.
My question then is why can this characteristic not be applied to what we would consider physical matter? Why are monotheists capable of believing that an unknown substance (God) can be the ultimate end, but not be capable of believing that physical matter (a universe or multi-verse) can be the base of creation?
Welcome to ILP, degausser. The problem is that either something existed without having been created or something came to exist out of nothing. It’s the problem of necessary being. Now scientists talk about an infinite sea of sub-atomic particles flickering in an out of existence from which our local universe inflated. However, in that scenario you still have the question: Where did the sub-atomic particles come from?
I don’t know. To be fair though, atheists seem to have the same problem. Many of them insist that there really is an objective difference between something and nothing. See Felix’s “sub-atomic particles flickering in an out of existence” for instance.
I don’t think a difference between “something” and “nothing” can be objectively established. You may not agree with me, but that is what I see as the fundamental problem in the “why is there something rather than nothing” question. Many atheists accept the basic premise of the question. An example was provided by Felix. What could “in and out of existence” even mean? Is “existence” some kind of objectively established realm or something?
whether or not you see a difference has nothing to do with the idea that atheists believe it more often than anybody else, and it doesn’t explain how it’s the same as the other problem.
I didn’t say all atheists believe it and I didn’t make a sweeping statement about theists either. I pointed out what I think the problem is, and I claimed that the problem isn’t limited to theists. Seems like you’re trying to be offended or something.
I have no idea what you’re referring to when you say “it doesn’t explain how it’s the same as the other problem”. What do you mean? What other problem?
The two problems are not the same. They’re not similar. What other problem do you think? The one that you said was the same. If it’s the same, it’s got to be the same AS SOMETHING, right? You’re the one who said it was the same, you should know what it’s the same as.
He pointed out one problem with the approach theists take, and you said atheists have the same problem (by which I guess you mean similar, as you clearly spelled out a different problem but maybe you think they have something in common), but they’re not the same, they’re not similar, and if it’s a problem at all, it’s a problem with atheists and an EXTRA problem with theists, on top of the problem he already listed.
Right. The steady state theory has the universe exiting eternally. Theists have God existing eternally. We seem to prefer eternal being to something coming from nothing. We can’t imagine how something can be produced by nothing. But it’s impossible to imagine something existing without a beginning too. Now quantum physicists tell us that sub-atomic particles are ontologically uncertain. Electrons in atoms are not little bodies but probability clouds surrounding the nucleus. It is the probability of their being one place or another that is real. Maybe something like that is what anon is driving at.
doesn’t sound like it to me. don’t know why what he’s saying is even relevant here. the OP is about a fallacy committed by theists in arguing for god. i don’t see why anon doesn’t just make a new thread if he wants to talk about quantum physics, as you think he’s saying, or whatever other irrelevant topic he’s trying to bring up. if he thinks there’s something wrong with people thinking there’s a difference between nothing and something, he should go make a thread about that. it doesn’t have any weight in the context of this thread.
The OP asked, “Why are monotheists capable of believing that an unknown substance (God) can be the ultimate end, but not be capable of believing that physical matter (a universe or multi-verse) can be the base of creation?” I have the same basic question, even if I wouldn’t have phrased it exactly the same way.
Put that way, Degausser was directly addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing. He specifically asked what the problem is with the idea that there was always something.
On the other hand, Felix presented an atheistic position that takes these categories “something” and “nothing” at face value. He used the phrase “in and out of existence” in describing one particular atheistic point of view. He also seemed to me to suggest that Degausser’s proposal might prove problematic for its lack of positing a first cause, though I may be mistaken. I can’t think of any other good reason though for suggesting that one keep following causes backwards in time. I don’t think that exercise will get anyone any closer to the crux of the problem.
I think the problem with this classic question is that these categories “nothing” and “something” can’t be objectively established. For instance, if something is defined as “real” if it has causal efficacy, and nothing gave rise to something, then this nothingness has causal efficacy and is, therefore, something and not nothing. But we might call that state a state of nothingness because we don’t (and possibly can’t, for whatever reason) recognize any particular properties or qualities in order to characterize that state as something.
This is actually the topic at hand, FJ. I have no idea why this is so irritating to you.
anon–The problem with with an infinite regress is that it leads to no conclusion. As Wikipedia points out, an infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, … , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity. So an infinite regress never reaches an ultimate explanation its really just a complicated way of saying that we don’t know, which, I have already admitted.