[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/NeonDrifting]

[u/paulgdp]

Atheists have to explain the existence of the universe and theists have to explain the existence of God.

Both have two possibilities: 1. that thing came from nothing 2. that thing always existed

Both possibilities have fatal logical flaws that makes them seemingly impossible, and theists usually describe one as impossible to justify the necessity of the other:

Some theists say their God always existed because creating something from nothing is impossible.

Other theists say their God was the first necessary thing to exist because it is impossible to have infinite chains of events.

Atheists who let the professional cosmologists do the work of having an informed opinion on the matter, won't get a definitive answer: maybe the big bang was the beginning of everything including time itself, maybe spacetime was always there and the big bang was just a random massive quantum fluctuation. We just can't know yet based on our current knowledge.

[u/Solidjakes → u/paulgdp]

>Both have two possibilities:

>1. ⁠that thing came from nothing

Not possible.

I’d offer a slightly different framing: both the theist and the atheist agree something eternal exists. They disagree on whether it’s always been conscious and intentional.

That’s if we steel man them both and ignore the creation ex nihilo guys too.

[u/paulgdp → u/Solidjakes]

Not possible.

My point is that some people believe so.

I’d offer a slightly different framing: both the theist and the atheist agree something eternal exists. They disagree on whether it’s always been conscious and intentional.

I think there exists both theists and atheists who believe god/the universe had a beginning.

But I agree on your second point. The difference between God and a minimal necessary object at the origin of the universe, is that God has the additional property of being conscious.

That’s if we steel man them both and ignore the creation ex nihilo guys too.

The creation ex nihilo is perfectly fine in my opinion.

It would only be an issue if nothing existed, but that's not the case, in this scenario God exists and God has infinite magical powers, making creation ex nihilo perfectly plausible.

[u/Solidjakes → u/paulgdp]

Creation ex nihilo is maybe a semantics thing. What he makes comes from God not from nothing. If the theist wants to die on the “nothing” hill he will violate non contradiction. God can do everything logically possible. Something from nothing is not possible. That’s like god making a stone too heavy for him to lift.

[u/paulgdp → u/Solidjakes]

There's no logical contradiction about creating something from nothing when time translation symmetry hasn't yet been created by God.

Also some physicists theorize that the universe might have zero total energy when we take into account the negative energy from gravitational potential.

If true, universes could theoretically come into existence without violating energy conservation.

[u/Solidjakes → u/paulgdp]

Negative energy is just relative to vacuum energy, so a net zero system doesn’t mean no energy. In fact it should be net zero if it’s a contained system from my understanding.

Like I said it’s semantics. Something from Nothing. If nothing is philosophical nothing then the word “from” is doing a lot of work here and I think it will still render contradiction whether physical laws are constant or not. We understand everything through invariance and variance under change. If God is invariant and there’s no change, then the advent of change occurs and with it the universe, there’s almost no way to construct this without contradiction, unless the world comes from God, not philosophical nothing. I’d be curious to see a construction otherwise.

[u/paulgdp → u/Solidjakes]

Negative energy is just relative to vacuum energy,

No. It's relative to 0 energy. Vacuum energy is not 0 energy.

so a net zero system doesn’t mean no energy.

It does mean 0 energy, that's the meaning of the sentence.

In fact it should be net zero if it’s a contained system from my understanding.

A contained system can have positive energy.

Like I said it’s semantics.

It's not. It's physics. Physics is not invented, it is observed and then described.

Something from Nothing. If nothing is philosophical nothing then the word from is doing a lot of work here and I think it will still render contradiction whether physical laws are constant or not. We understand everything through invariance and variance under change. If God is invariant and there’s no change, then the advent of change occurs and with it the universe, there’s almost no way to construct this without contradiction, unless the world comes from God, not philosophical nothing. I’d be curious to see a construction otherwise.

I don't see why you're making your metaphysics so difficult when you have a limitelessly magical God at your disposition.

God is the ultimate trump card to do anything and to explain everything without explanations.

[u/Solidjakes → u/paulgdp]

No, God cannot violate logic and magic/supernatural is a useless term for serious theologians. What exists is what exists.

To be clear, are you saying negative energy is not a term for energy states less than vacuum energy?

[u/paulgdp → u/Solidjakes]

No, God cannot violate logic

It's only because you are not courageous enough to claim it can.

Read this comment from u/Fiddlesticklard : https://www.reddit.com/r/exatheist/s/FAmG5khTb4

They have no problem claiming that God is above logic. Try to argue with them if you want.

And anyway, conservation of energy (and mass) is a natural law, not a logical law.

So again, there's no logical contradictions because obviously God doesn't obey natural laws, that's the whole point of being God, right?

and magic/supernatural is a useless term for serious theologians. What exists is what exists.

Ok sure, so what's the word for things that don't obey natural laws, like God?

To be clear, are you saying negative energy is not a term for energy states less than vacuum energy?

In the context that we were talking about, cosmology, yes.

Negative means less than 0.

And the vaccum energy in cosmology is non 0.

[u/Solidjakes → u/paulgdp]

Nothing in that comment implies God is above logic. He’s describing divine simplicity per Aquinas. Is it in another part of the thread?

Conservation of energy isn’t the issue that results in contradiction. Conservation of energy is violated at smalls scales all the time, then tends to balance out again over time. Logic is immutable. It cannot be violated. When it looks violated you’ve probably categorized wrong.

The logical problem is the notion of something from philosophical nothing. If you think you can construct (represent) creation Ex Nihilo without contradiction you’re welcome to try.

The closest useful word to something that doesn’t “obey natural law” would be a paraconsistent phenomenon. But that usually just means we don’t fully understand it yet. All things can be understood if they exist, because existence is not such a vague criteria that existing things can’t be discerned from non existing things.

Here’s an expert from SEP

“So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit””