CCC 32 What does it mean?

[SPBlitz]

Secondly, it is shown that the process of nothing to something is possible. This is suggested by Hawking: The negative gravitational energy can cancel out the positive energy required for creation of particles. Therefore, the net energy is absolute zero. Simply, you need energy for the creation of things. The process of nothing to something is possible since the net energy for this process is zero.

I’m skeptical of this. First off, energy is not nothing, and I’m not terribly convinced by Hawking’s ‘net energy’ argument. It works mathematically, but not in reality. It’s like saying that if you dig a hole, the presence of an equal amount of dirt means that there’s no such thing as the hole. You even say that ‘you need energy for the creation of things’. Hawking seems to be trying a sleight of hand to present something as nothing. Regardless, even if the ‘net energy being zero’ made any sense, that doesn’t change the fact that there’s still something - the laws of physics, space, etc. that is present along with the net energy. Those things aren’t ‘nothing’. Another link to Feser that discusses the topic of nothing:

Fifty shades of nothing

Note: The following article is cross-posted over at First Things . Nothing is all the rage of late. Physicists Stephen Hawking ...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

 

[IWantGod]

That is not the definition ex nihilo.

Ex nihilo is to create something without any existing materials including time.

 

[STT]

I’m skeptical of this. First off, energy is not nothing, and I’m not terribly convinced by Hawking’s ‘net energy’ argument. It works mathematically, but not in reality. It’s like saying that if you dig a hole, the presence of an equal amount of dirt means that there’s not such thing as the hole. You even say that ‘you need energy for the creation of things’. Hawking seems to be trying a sleight of hand to present something as nothing. Regardless, even if the ‘net energy being zero’ made any sense, that doesn’t change the fact that there’s still something - the laws of physics, space, etc. that is present along with the net energy. Those things aren’t ‘nothing’. Another link to Feser that discusses the topic of nothing:

He didn’t say that those thing are nothing. There is a process from nothing to something which this process conserve the energy. You need energy for making things and the net energy for the process is constant, zero. Therefore, the process is possible.

 

[STT]

Ex nihilo is to create something without any existing materials including time.

Or simply creation out of nothing. That indicates that there is a point that only God existed. Isn’t that correct?

 

[SPBlitz]

But net energy is not total energy. It’s just muddleheaded to say that net energy being zero is equal to nothingness. They are fundamentally different things. Even in the example there are two things - gravity and the energy needed to make the particles - and those two things are not nothing, despite them being mathematically opposite. Hawking is not demonstrating that something is coming from nothing - he’s showing something from coming something - the fact that the net energy used is zero is irrelevant. Hawking may be a brilliant physicist, but his philosophy is sorely lacking.

 

[tafan2]

But time is part of the universe. Which is why you are asking for a point in the line, that’s not on the line.

 

[IWantGod]

Or simply creation out of nothing. That indicates that there is a point that only God existed. Isn’t that correct?

No it’s not because God is not a temporal being. To be before something you have to be in a temporal order, otherwise it’s meaningless.

 

[Gorgias]

No. I am proving that time is needed for the act of creation.

Actually, you’re asserting it. And, I’m not certain you’re succeeding…

There are two states of affair: only God (the creation ex nihilo means that there is a point that only God exists) and God plus the creation. One state of affair comes after another. This is a temporal process.

No… and that’s what’s intriguing! If there is no “time” in eternity, then there isn’t any temporal sequence in the creation of the universe! So… God is metaphysically prior to the universe, without being temporally prior to it!

(Remember how that description seems confusing to you? This is why it’s important! God “precedes” – metaphysically, not temporally! – the universe!)

But an agent inside a point cannot possibly cause anything.

We can discuss this assertion, if you wish. However, God is not “inside” anything – He is the first cause!

There are two states of affair in any causation one comes after another one. This is a temporal process. You cannot possibly make it at one point.

You’re invalidly conflating the way things work inside the universe with the question of how things must work in the general case.

Outside of a temporal framework, things do not require temporality for causation.

No. Things are made of points. You need points to define spatiality.

Precisely. And, there’s no spatial extension outside the universe. Your problem, it seems, is that you are attempting to describe all of reality in terms of a subset of it – that is, the subset of the universe!

You need time for creation of time which this leads to regress.

OK… so, if I were to agree with your assertions, then at this point I’d say “see? your proposition leads to infinite regress, which isn’t reasonable in reality.” So, even if I played along with your game, I’d have to remind you that you’re not making sense!

Two states of affair are involved in this process, creation of time: no time and then time. This is a temporal process.

We could talk, perhaps, about whether there’s a “sequence” involved here. However, it’s not obvious that there’s really a sequence involved.

No you don’t. You need a timeless act of creation from which time proceeds

@STT , this is what I’m asserting, as well.

 

[Gorgias]

First, you need to invalidate my argument which shows that the act of creation is a temporal process.

We have. We’ve shown that there’s a logical contradiction in your assertion.

Secondly, it is shown that the process of nothing to something is possible. This is suggested by Hawking: The negative gravitational energy can cancel out the positive energy required for creation of particles. Therefore, the net energy is absolute zero.

“Net energy = zero” is not the same as “nothing → something”. It’s merely “something with negative energy, combined with something with positive energy → no net energy”.

No, I am demonstrating that any causal act requires time. The creation of time is an casual act.

So… you get it that asserting “causal act requires time” is just a bald assertion, right? And therefore, without any supporting evidence, you can’t use it to prove your argument… right?

That is not the definition ex nihilo.

So… “from nothing” doesn’t suffice?

You need energy for making things

Right. Someone who is not God needs “something” – energy, perhaps – in order to make other things. That’s not what we are asserting. We’re asserting that God is the ultimate Creator of all things in the universe… including energy.

Or simply creation out of nothing. That indicates that there is a point that only God existed. Isn’t that correct?

No, since you want “point” to mean “a point in a temporal framework”.

 

[STT]

But time is part of the universe. Which is why you are asking for a point in the line, that’s not on the line.

I am not talking about a point on a line at first place. I say that the creation out of nothing means that there is a point that only God existed. I then proceed and argue that there is at least another point that God and the creation exist. These are two point and one follow another. This is a temporal process which means that time is needed for the creation of the universe which includes time. This is regress.

 

[STT]

But net energy is not total energy. It’s just muddleheaded to say that net energy being zero is equal to nothingness. They are fundamentally different things. Even in the example there are two things - gravity and the energy needed to make the particles - and those two things are not nothing, despite them being mathematically opposite. Hawking is not demonstrating that something is coming from nothing - he’s showing something from coming something - the fact that the net energy used is zero is irrelevant. Hawking may be a brilliant physicist, but his philosophy is sorely lacking.

The total energy in the universe is net energy which is zero.

 

[STT]

No it’s not because God is not a temporal being.

I am asking for a point now. Temporality is argued afterward.

To be before something you have to be in a temporal order, otherwise it’s meaningless.

Yes. But that does say anything against my argument.

 

[tafan2]

No, it’s not a regress. And the analogy holds, almost perfectly.

Is time part of the universe/ creation:. Yes.

The line is analogous to the universe. So, since time is part of the universe, the point (I the analogy) is part of the line. Hence asking if there was a time when the universe did not exist is the same as saying is there a point (a time) on the line (time is part of the universe) that is not on the line? The answer is obviously no.

So if time is part of the universe, there was no time when the universe did not exist.

This is key to the whole point. Creation ex nihilio was not a temporal event from the standpoint of eternity. There are no temporal events in eternity. There is no time in eternity.

 

[STT]

I am afraid that I cannot argue simpler than this.

 

[SPBlitz]

Perhaps, but net energy being zero is not nothing. I’d hope that would be obvious. There still exists the two energies that offset, which is fundamentally different from nothingness. refer to the Edward feser post about nothingness I linked to see the reasons why.

 

[steve-b]

Can you disprove it?

Has anything in your experience ever disproved it?

In this scientific statement’

Cause and Effect

Every effect, requires a cause. That is why Cause is said first in that statement.
Effect regardless of what it is, doesn’t happen without its cause…

going back infinitely to the cause of everything that is

God, the uncaused cause, is the cause of everything that is.

 

[tafan2]

Since you say creation is a temporal process, you are finally admitting your “point when the universe did not exist” is a point in time? So we can dispense with what a “point” or state is and say it’s a period of time?

 

[Gorgias]

I am afraid that I cannot argue simpler than this.

OK. Fair enough. I’m not asking you to argue simply; I’m asking you to argue logically. That’s where the problem is, here, I think…

 

[STT]

No, it’s not a regress. And the analogy holds, almost perfectly.

Is time part of the universe/ creation:. Yes.

The line is analogous to the universe. So, since time is part of the universe, the point (I the analogy) is part of the line. Hence asking if there was a time when the universe did not exist is the same as saying is there a point (a time) on the line (time is part of the universe) that is not on the line? The answer is obviously no.

So if time is part of the universe, there was no time when the universe did not exist.

This is key to the whole point. Creation ex nihilio was not a temporal event from the standpoint of eternity. There are no temporal events in eternity. There is no time in eternity.

It is regress since the act of creation is temporal. I already argued that the act of creation is temporal so I won’t repeat the argument.

 

[STT]

Perhaps, but net energy being zero is not nothing. I’d hope that would be obvious. There still exists the two energies that offset, which is fundamentally different from nothingness. refer to the Edward feser post about nothingness I linked to see the reasons why.

What I am saying is that you need energy for creating things. Of course things exist and they are not nothing. What Hawking argue that the process of nothing to something is possible since the net energy doesn’t change.