We know existence can't come from non-existence without a power or some kind of action happening and nothingness cannot act. — Gregory

Do we? I've not seen a good argument to that end. What I have seen are theologians struggling with ideas they misplace. For a start, the arguments treat existence as a first-order predicate; it isn't - or at best it's debatable.

But once we no longer believe in "something from nothing" the material world no longer makes any sense as a sole reality. — Gregory

Why? Will my kettle suddenly disappear if I stop believing in PSR?

Again, why not just admit that these issues are intractable?

Do you expect a monkey to come out of your computer right now? You don't because the world is understood by you to be rational — Gregory

Are you suggesting that the only way for any object in the universe to appear rational is for it to have been "created with purpose", or for any occurrence in the universe to appear rational is for it to be purposeful?

what's wrong with rationalism? — Shawn

In a nutshell, it doesn't rule out enough. Observation is also needed to rule out the unicorns - to choose the actual from the merely possible.

Isn't this question begging? — Shawn

How?

But, ex nihilo and something from nothing doesn't have to be true, doesn't it, and we rely on the PSR through science to prove this! — Shawn

thanks. Yes, as I'm noting that 'Nothing' cannot be productive, much less be or even be meant; Thus this is the sufficient reason for the eternal base existent of necessity which both the God case and the non God case have to employ.

In the non God case, it is simple, such as the 'vacuum', but in the God case it is not just a lot more than simple but infinitely more and thus infinitely impossible because not even any composite or complexity can be First.

For further confirmation, we look to our universe and see that the lesser evolved to the greater over 14 billion years of Cosmic and Biological evolution.

In a nutshell, it doesn't rule out enough. — Banno

How much is enough?

I'm just going to lay this out as I see it. The PSR is the bedrock upon which rationalism stands on, so why do away with it especially when it comes down to refuting the notion that ex nihilo doesn't 'obtain' when scrutinizing God's existence with respect to the PSR and scientific thought.

All I'm saying is that people are persuaded by the PSR due to its inherent reasonableness. The methodology of the PSR is sound even if the validity can be put into doubt.

Doesn't science come after the PSR anyway?

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

Because no one can define 'God'. I've yet here a coherent expression of what anyone means when they say 'God'. People generally don't know what they mean when they speak though so it's not entirely surprising.

Because no one can define 'God'. — I like sushi

It's enough to say God created the universe by using His Mind.

Because you say so or because you've written a poem about it you wish to share? :D

Seriously, No. It's not enough to say something like "Him the be ending up the start" and say that suffices as a coherent remark.

Seriously, No. It's not enough to say something like "Him the be ending up the start" and say that suffices as a coherent remark. — I like sushi

It's still the minimum common basis of the notion of the Creator.

Do we? I've not seen a good argument to that end. — Banno

The idea of nothing doesn't refer to anything. So it can't produce anything. It's just a word

Will my kettle suddenly disappear if I stop believing in PSR? — Banno

Notice that at crucial junctures in these debates, Banno always ends up with these quotidian examples - such as coffee cups, whether they really are in the cupboard when it's closed, spoons, whether there really are five if nobody counts them, and kettles, which might dissappear if I stop believing in its reason for existence.

So, I take it your not a fan of the PoSR? — Shawn

I haven't studied it at length, although I'm interested in Schopenhauer's version of it. But ask yourself this question. According to naturalist accounts of the origin of life, it can't have come about by anything other than chance, if the only other alternative is by design. Now I don't want to lean towards intelligent design, as my philosophical approach is not biblically-oriented, and certainly nothing like Protestant fundamentalism, which is what drives a lot of ID theory. But at the same time, I can't see how the belief that life exists for no reason or that there is no cause for it to exist avoids nihilism. The belief seems to be something like the 'million monkeys' trope - given enough time, and a big enough universe, then it will simply happen - as if this amounts to any kind of understanding.

science has done very well with assuming that there is a cause and effect for every phenomena in nature and at the heart of it that's just human intelligibility at it's core. — Shawn

The point about science since Galileo, is that it has eschewed the idea of formal and final causation, which in the broader sense provide the rationale for why anything exists. In modern thinking, the reasons why anything happens are given by its antecedent causes, in the sense of material and efficient causes. But that doesn't touch the larger question of why anything exists at all.

I recall a televised debate between Richard Dawkins and a bishop. I noticed this exchange:

Bishop: Well, what is the reason that science gives why we're here? Science tells us how things happen, science tells us nothing about why there was the Big Bang. Why there is a transition from inanimate matter to living matter. Science is silent on we could solve most of the questions in science and it would leave all the problems of life almost completely untouched. Why be good?

RICHARD DAWKINS: Why be good is a separate question, which I also came to. Why we exist, you're playing with the word "why" there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, "why" in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.

So, the question 'why are we here?' which I take to be a fundamental and basically intelligible question in philosophy, is 'not meaningful' according to Richard Dawkins. But he won't be able to see why someone with his kind of philosophical commitments must see it that way; lacks the self-awareness, I would say.

It's still the minimum common basis of the notion of the Creator. — PoeticUniverse

It's not 'minimum' it's meaningless and empty. I cannot 'disprove' something that has no substance or bounds within experience.

OR I can simply say that I create things therefore I am a God. I'm okay with that and don't require that anyone (dis)prove my existence.

The idea of nothing doesn't refer to anything. — Gregory

Yeah, it does. It's what's in my pocket.

And stuff like that. Philosophy made from ill-chosen metaphors.

Notice that at crucial junctures in these debates, Banno always ends up with these quotidian examples - such as coffee cups, whether they really are in the cupboard when it's closed, spoons, whether there really are five if nobody counts them, and kettles, which might dissappear if I stop believing in its reason for existence. — Wayfarer

You say that like it was a bad thing.

Just keeping it real. :wink:

Yeah, it does. It's what's in my pocket. — Banno

That's only within the universe. With regard to cosmology nothing refers to no thing

I appreciate kitchen-sink wisdom, and all, but still......

That's only within the universe. With regard to cosmology nothing refers to no thing — Gregory

And there you have stepped outside of the uses of "nothing" that we understand and set off up the garden path. Have fun.

But at the same time, I can't see how the belief that life exists for no reason or that there is no cause for it to exist avoids nihilism. The belief seems to be something like the 'million monkeys' trope - given enough time, and a big enough universe, then it will simply happen - as if this amounts to any kind of understanding. — Wayfarer

There's nothing special about life and it's origins. The building blocks of life are here on earth as well as on Mars. I don't think it will come off as a surprise in the near future that Mars was once habitable for life, and actually had life.

The PSR lays the groundwork where Spinoza's God seemed to make sense to Einstein and others around him. It just seems as of late that science disproves the necessity that everything has a cause and effect. Which, to me, seems to imply that if you take the cause of the universe as a sufficient reason from the PSR, then a creator wasn't necessary. For all I know according to membrane theory two membranes might have collided or somesuch.

And there you have stepped outside of the uses of "nothing" that we understand and set off up the garden path. Have fun. — Banno

Ok, but if there is first nothing then there would be no action and so no beginning. I believe time starts with the first motion and so there is nothing before the big bang but by "nothing" I don't express a real thought. There is no beginning to universe, just a first motion. See the work of Adolf Grünbaum

I think this discussion is helpful: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-origin-and-creation-of-the-universe-a-response-to-adolf-gruenbaum

It just seems as of late that science disproves the necessity that everything has a cause and effect. — Shawn

Right. Which is why some famous philosopher predicted nihilism (and its various offspring, relativism and subjectivism) would become ascendant in the 20th Century. Not that it actually disproves such an idea, so much as simply lost sight of it.

But that doesn't touch the larger question of why anything exists at all. — Wayfarer

It can be touched by noting that the Something is, so either its alternative could not be here instead of it or it has no alternative; thus, it cannot not be, which is the first attribute we can get out of it.

Second, since it has to be, it is the eternal existent.

Third, what never begins or is timeless can't have any specific direction or design put into it.

Fourth?

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

1. The nonscientfic relation between existence and physical:
If X is physical then X exists.

2. The scientific relation between existence and physical:
X is physical if and only if X exists.

As you can see,

from 1, if X is nonphysical it doesn't follow that X doesn't exist (denying the antecedent/inverse fallacy). God, a nonphysical entity, can exist.

from 2, if X is nonphysical then X doesn't exist. God, in science, doesn't exist.

The problem: For science, the nonphysical = nonexistence. For religion the nonphysical $\neq$ nonexistence.

God doesn't exist for science. If scientists believe God exists then they're using relation 1 (vide supra) between the physical and existence.

Logic can disprove God if God entails the truth of certain propositions which can then be assessed for consistency with other known to be true propositions.

Wishful thinking. Not all believers are alike. I am a believer in God and I will stop believing if you refute my argument for God's existence, as it is solely on its basis that I believe in him. I doubt, however, that your failure to refute it would have any influence over your disbelief. Just a hunch. — Bartricks

I think we are all well aware that believers are a heterogeneous group. I wasn't thinking of you and whatever arguments you have for your belief - and I have no idea what those are. My point is believers (whatever the belief - Scientology, moon landing skeptics, Muslims) are often incapable of recognising when that their arguments have been refuted. I am sure you feel that way about atheists.

I am sure you feel that way about atheists. — Tom Storm

Yes. There are dogmatists who are uninterested in what reason has to say until or unless they think reason supports their own view. It's kind of pathetic.

There are dogmatists who are uninterested in what reason has to say until or unless they think reason supports their own view. It's kind of pathetic. — Bartricks

Yes, I think that may be the same point I am making. The problem with reason is everyone thinks they are using it correctly and often as a kind of cudgel with which to whack about the others.

Why is it that neither science nor logic can disprove God? — Shawn

That is a very vague question that can be interpreted in so many ways.

What is your definition of God?

How would you describe God? As a person who lives in the sky, consciousness being without a body or a sentient Universe or sentient reality?

Reason for me asking is because my perception of God may be different than yours and it various based on the individual.

To prove or disprove something you must elaborate on the question. And describe the kind of God your speaking of.

Than the next thing that comes to mind, why ask the question, what is the purpose for the question and what is your motive for knowing the answer.

Than the question “Is there a God?” A very multidimensional question that can be interpreted in numerous ways.

Similar to asking “What does salt taste like?” Or “What does the color red looks like?”

Is an experience that cannot be validated but we inheriting know is real based on mutual shared experience.

We all shared the experience of tasting salt but yet we struggle to describe how salt taste like. So we take for granted that you had the experience of tasting salt. So we simply say it taste salty to describe the experience of its flavor. But if you encounter someone who never had the sense of taste how would you describe the experience of tasting salt?

That is God, God being the salt and the non-believer is someone without sensation of taste. And a believer having been blessed with the sensation of taste.

Only someone who has a shared mutual experience will understand the philosophy of faith. And those who never had the experience will never understand.

Neither science, nor logic, can disprove God. Though you can make a study of His qualities and even apply logic to him. God can be very logical. Hawking even said He is a mathematician. I think one of them indeed has mathematical powers, but a lot stronger ones than us, simple mortals. To disprove the gods is to deny their existence.

For science, the nonphysical = nonexistence. — TheMadFool

This premise is false. Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist. Your statement would pertain truly to the "life sciences", though, but only if taken in isolation (meaning, I'm sure that Biologists and Chemists believe that force and energy exist, even though considerations thereof do not generally pertain to their work).