Hi Masbury.

I'm not familiar with the British philosopher Anthony Flew but wondered if in any of his works he mused about how a creator might have come into existence with supreme knowledge already in place before the existence of anything to be intelligent about?

A philosopher should not automatically reject a creator, but should focus on how such a creator can exist without cause.

The world is complex, therefore a creator, only leaves an even more complex creator in need of its own creator for the first "therefore" to be valid.

How did Flew reconcile this (if you're familiar with his work)?

This is why the argument of complexity always seems irrelevant to me. It's a false "A theref...

Hi Masbury.

I'm not familiar with the British philosopher Anthony Flew but wondered if in any of his works he mused about how a creator might have come into existence with supreme knowledge already in place before the existence of anything to be intelligent about?

A philosopher should not automatically reject a creator, but should focus on how such a creator can exist without cause.

The world is complex, therefore a creator, only leaves an even more complex creator in need of its own creator for the first "therefore" to be valid.

How did Flew reconcile this (if you're familiar with his work)?

This is why the argument of complexity always seems irrelevant to me. It's a false "A therefore B" form of logic.

Perhaps you've already thought about this and can explain it. Thanks.

PS: Thanks for all your hard work. You never wavered in trying to set the record straight. You are greatly respected (by me anyway)!

If you follow the causal links all the way back to the beginning you end up with the question 'what caused the universe to be created from nothing?' This is not a question that science can possibly answer as the starting position is 'no space, no energy, no matter, no natural laws'. Some scientists consider that existence can start in the same way that fundamental particles do as they continually pop into existence in empty space. But empty space as we know it is not the same as 'nothing', it is teeming with dark energy and in any case exists in conjunction with matter and time.
So we are left with an intractable problem, one that cannot be answered by science. The non-religious say that it ...

If you follow the causal links all the way back to the beginning you end up with the question 'what caused the universe to be created from nothing?' This is not a question that science can possibly answer as the starting position is 'no space, no energy, no matter, no natural laws'. Some scientists consider that existence can start in the same way that fundamental particles do as they continually pop into existence in empty space. But empty space as we know it is not the same as 'nothing', it is teeming with dark energy and in any case exists in conjunction with matter and time.
So we are left with an intractable problem, one that cannot be answered by science. The non-religious say that it is just a 'brute fact'. The religious will say that it was formed by an intelligence. Neither argument can be proved or disproved. This is where faith comes in.

@jimbo1000

You stated:

"If you follow the causal links all the way back to the beginning you end up with the question 'what caused the universe to be created from nothing?'"

Oops. Created? From nothing?

Something cannot come from nothing is provable, particularly by "causal links." Also "created" is a presupposition unsupported by the existence of matter (which can neither be created nor destroyed - an elementary law of physics).

Sorry Jimbo, you're starting with a false premise right off the bat.

Try to start with something that's provably true or supportable as logically valid. Doing that tends to remove the circular trap of starting with the thing tryin...

@jimbo1000

You stated:

"If you follow the causal links all the way back to the beginning you end up with the question 'what caused the universe to be created from nothing?'"

Oops. Created? From nothing?

Something cannot come from nothing is provable, particularly by "causal links." Also "created" is a presupposition unsupported by the existence of matter (which can neither be created nor destroyed - an elementary law of physics).

Sorry Jimbo, you're starting with a false premise right off the bat.

Try to start with something that's provably true or supportable as logically valid. Doing that tends to remove the circular trap of starting with the thing trying to be proved.

I do, however, appreciate your thought process; it follows a clear logical path. It's just that you're starting, albeit covert, where you're trying to end...

Just food for thought: but when I follow the causal links all the way back, I realize there is no start point, because every event (effect) is the result a prior cause, which was itself an event.

In which flavor would you like? (Remember the old Faygo commercial?) Math, physics, logic, philosophy...?

Math:
Identity property - tells us that zero added to any number is the number itself; y + 0 = y. Here, y = the quantity something, and 0 (zero) = the quantity nothing. 0 + 0 = 0.

For something to come from nothing (mathematically) you'd be faced with proving 0 + 0 = y, where y is not equal to 0.
-------

Physics:

Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy (relativity) including the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Conservation in its simplest form states that...:

"... energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or tr...

In which flavor would you like? (Remember the old Faygo commercial?) Math, physics, logic, philosophy...?

Math:
Identity property - tells us that zero added to any number is the number itself; y + 0 = y. Here, y = the quantity something, and 0 (zero) = the quantity nothing. 0 + 0 = 0.

For something to come from nothing (mathematically) you'd be faced with proving 0 + 0 = y, where y is not equal to 0.
-------

Physics:

Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy (relativity) including the First Law of Thermodynamics. The Law of Conservation in its simplest form states that...:

"... energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of energy remains constant (the same)."

Philosophy: First the definitions, then the explanation.

[1] Change -- To cause to be different (American Heritage Dictionary); Change denotes the transition that occurs when something goes from being the same to being different. (Wikipedia)

[2] Cause -- A person or thing responsible for an action or result. (AHD); Causality is the relationship between cause and effect.... Most generally, causation is a relationship that holds between events, properties, variables, or states of affairs.

Explanation:

Something from nothing, represents a change (from nothing to something). [1]

Cause, by definition, is anything producing an effect or result. [2]

In the complete absence of existence, there can be no cause, because nothing exists in which to produce a cause. And, of course, nothing exits in which to change.

The absence of existence, thereby, precludes cause.

The absence of existence makes it impossible, in advance, for a cause to produce or effect a result, (the result, of course, being "something").

Therefore, something cannot come from nothing.

Aside Note: And since we currently exist, there could never have been a state of absolute nothing!

All true, and all useful. I just want to be sure we don't overstate the case. For none of them prove the thesis of the absence of a beginning; all of them could be fairly said to suggest or imply it. And that is important.

But our moment in history is no different than any other in terms of our finality of knowledge. I mean that through most of history we have held views that were the most sophisticated our culture could empower us to think, and many of them proved to be - well, if not wrong, at least incomplete. Electricity is not a fluid, after all, for instance. (though there is a story told in a no-electricity religious community hear here that a woman who bought a house wit...

All true, and all useful. I just want to be sure we don't overstate the case. For none of them prove the thesis of the absence of a beginning; all of them could be fairly said to suggest or imply it. And that is important.

But our moment in history is no different than any other in terms of our finality of knowledge. I mean that through most of history we have held views that were the most sophisticated our culture could empower us to think, and many of them proved to be - well, if not wrong, at least incomplete. Electricity is not a fluid, after all, for instance. (though there is a story told in a no-electricity religious community hear here that a woman who bought a house with electric features threatened the utility that if they didn't turn off the power right away, she'd unscrew the light bulbs and let it run out.)

[And, as an aside, I believe this to be at least as true of theology and epistemology as of science.]

So, I guess I'm just a little more skeptical than you are about trusting that our current understanding of the "laws" of science [and, to continue to aside, theology] are the last word, without a hearty, "I think."

Cheers!

Good point, ...I think. You're essentially saying that there's no such thing as a valid proof since our knowledge and information changes.

I can accept that so long as you're not confusing the process of sound thinking (i.e., correctly applied logic) with sound "information".

If A is larger than B, and B is larger than C, then A is larger than C ...is logically sound (and represents a valid statement).

We may find out later that B was actually the same size as C, or A was actually smaller than B, etc., representing a change in INFORMATION. But the process of logical thinking remains sound!

As an aside: it cannot EVER be shown that something CAN come from absolute nothing because such a...

Good point, ...I think. You're essentially saying that there's no such thing as a valid proof since our knowledge and information changes.

I can accept that so long as you're not confusing the process of sound thinking (i.e., correctly applied logic) with sound "information".

If A is larger than B, and B is larger than C, then A is larger than C ...is logically sound (and represents a valid statement).

We may find out later that B was actually the same size as C, or A was actually smaller than B, etc., representing a change in INFORMATION. But the process of logical thinking remains sound!

As an aside: it cannot EVER be shown that something CAN come from absolute nothing because such a state violates the existence of an observer to validate such a state. By definition, the observer doesn't exist. It is not, in other words, falsifiable.

Since it is not falsifiable, it most certainly can never be used as a premise from which to base a subsequent conclusion (referring to jimbo's attempt to do so) because it can never be shown to be true. Something that can never be shown to be true is hardly a valid candidate as a premise.

But I'd be delighted to see the framework for a good try. Try to prove that something CAN come from nothing, would be a novel exercise!

On the flip side, that "something cannot come from nothing" is demonstrated in practically every physical science to the point of being a "law" in physics.

I don't know what else to give that would satisfy your qualification of proof. What would it take?

And so my statement to jimbo "Try to start with something that's provably true OR supportable as logically valid" I think is good advice for a sound argument.

I have attempted to do so theoretically (math), empirically (physics) and logically. What am I missing?