Creation ex nihilo?

[smichhertz]

My position restated/expanded:

The universe as we have experienced it, must have come from nothing.

1. Everything we have experienced to date has a beginning and an end.
2. Therefore, at each individual moment in time, there is a extremely remote possibility that nothing exists.
3. However, this extremely remote possibility, stretched over a long enough time into the past, turns into inevitable certainty.

As an aside, I would argue this holds true for the future as well - one day nothing will exist again.

 

[Betterave]

Then I applaud your motives, we may well be on the same side. I have to rush today so the following is just as it comes out, apologies, but it may explain my angle.

Hey don’t take your bat home, you don’t annoy me, I’m fine and dandy with unusual concepts.

But …

I have an engineering background so dogma is nada to me, either something works or it doesn’t, theory for theory’s sake goes straight in my bin. One of my issues with some creationists is they insist on messing around with good science to shoe-horn in the Creator. For instance the YEC folk who change the speed of light to make their theory come out right, but never go back over all the science involving c to see what happens, and of course if they did they’d find they’d made a right old mess. I think they probably generate quite a few atheists by being so vocal – if the choice is a gospel of bad science or walk away, many will run.

I used to be one of those running until someone taught me a bit of the real gospel, then I realized it stands on its own two feet. As far as the second law is concerned, this practical guy thinks no way, where’s the experiments, where’s the evidence? I’d look for that in your book, and if you don’t cite peer reviewed papers detailing the work it would go straight in the bin, and as the second law is so well grounded there will have to be a whole lot of citing going on. Sorry and all, but Stephen Hawking also goes in the bin when he steps over into speculation.

So imho you may get plaudits from an existing choir, and make some converts from those without a science background, but you’ll turn off all those who have. There are a lot of Christians who appear compelled to make their religion fit with science. The big problem is they don’t really understand what science is, they get caught up in whatever Hawking or whoever says in his books, not appreciating there’s a difference between that and real science.

…]

Great post.

 

[Betterave]

Let’s take a separate look at the “physical realm” silliness. By definition, whatever is physical is that which interacts with anything else which is physical. That includes invisible energy forms and unseen forces as well as matter, The soul must interact with the physical brain, and is therefore physical. God cannot have created a single atom without somehow shaping it from the energy fields which compose it; therefore God is physical. To hypothesize the existence of something which is non-physical yet interacts with the physical universe denies the meaning of “physical,” becoming irrelevant in the process.

I understand that you do, but that’s simply not how we generally sort out those concepts. (I’ll try to explain this from Aquinas’ perspective, but please don’t dismiss it for that reason.) The physical realm, or the realm of natural things, is composed of substances that are composed of matter (a principle of potentiality, of becoming) and forms (principles of actuality, of being). The interactions or operations of natural or physical things proceed *only according to what each one is, *according to the particular active causal principles that constitute it in being, as these affect the particular passive causal principles present in other beings which it interacts with. It is this limitation to a particular natural kind of material (or ‘energy-field,’ if you prefer) operation that is characteristic of natural/physical beings. Clearly nothing is thereby implied about the causal impotence of a super-natural being which is not limited in this way to a particular kind of causal operation within space-time. God is not said to be non-physical because He cannot interact with the physical realm, but because he transcends the physical realm, while also immanently grounding all of the particular causal powers which exist in the physical realm.

 

[Qoeleth]

This is where I think our theories might converge. Within Catholic thought, the “intelligent agent” describe above would either be a created being (such as an Angel), or possibly God Himself manipulating a finite energy that God created the “beginning of time” within the physical realm.
.

Interesting- of course it is quite usual to say that God created, but THROUGH His Word- later on equated with Christ.

The Jewish Zohar speaks about the Primal God, not as creator, but as an emanation from Him as creator.

The Gnostics tended to go with some Demiurge- which I suppose could be equated with the Logos.

The Cathars believed, as you suggest, that God created an angel, which rebelling, was cast down, and created the material realm.

 

[greylorn]

I understand that you do, but that’s simply not how we generally sort out those concepts. (I’ll try to explain this from Aquinas’ perspective, but please don’t dismiss it for that reason.) The physical realm, or the realm of natural things, is composed of substances that are composed of matter (a principle of potentiality, of becoming) and forms (principles of actuality, of being). The interactions or operations of natural or physical things proceed *only according to what each one is, *according to the particular active causal principles that constitute it in being, as these affect the particular passive causal principles present in other beings which it interacts with. It is this limitation to a particular natural kind of material (or ‘energy-field,’ if you prefer) operation that is characteristic of natural/physical beings. Clearly nothing is thereby implied about the causal impotence of a super-natural being which is not limited in this way to a particular kind of causal operation within space-time. God is not said to be non-physical because He cannot interact with the physical realm, but because he transcends the physical realm, while also immanently grounding all of the particular causal powers which exist in the physical realm.

I confess to being unable to understand this stuff, and unwilling to try. Too many complex words and phrases, with no suggestion that anything interesting lies behind them. Sorry.

 

[greylorn]

Then I applaud your motives, we may well be on the same side. I have to rush today so the following is just as it comes out, apologies, but it may explain my angle.

Hey don’t take your bat home, you don’t annoy me, I’m fine and dandy with unusual concepts.

But …

I have an engineering background so dogma is nada to me, either something works or it doesn’t, theory for theory’s sake goes straight in my bin. One of my issues with some creationists is they insist on messing around with good science to shoe-horn in the Creator. For instance the YEC folk who change the speed of light to make their theory come out right, but never go back over all the science involving c to see what happens, and of course if they did they’d find they’d made a right old mess. I think they probably generate quite a few atheists by being so vocal – if the choice is a gospel of bad science or walk away, many will run.

I used to be one of those running until someone taught me a bit of the real gospel, then I realized it stands on its own two feet. As far as the second law is concerned, this practical guy thinks no way, where’s the experiments, where’s the evidence? I’d look for that in your book, and if you don’t cite peer reviewed papers detailing the work it would go straight in the bin, and as the second law is so well grounded there will have to be a whole lot of citing going on. Sorry and all, but Stephen Hawking also goes in the bin when he steps over into speculation.

So imho you may get plaudits from an existing choir, and make some converts from those without a science background, but you’ll turn off all those who have. There are a lot of Christians who appear compelled to make their religion fit with science. The big problem is they don’t really understand what science is, they get caught up in whatever Hawking or whoever says in his books, not appreciating there’s a difference between that and real science.

What is really needed is a book for Christians that tells them how to read science, tells them that scientific knowledge is provisional, and puts science in its place. Then I think a lot of problems might melt away. Something on the lines of Fenyman’s lectures to generalists but from a Christian perspective.

In support of this idea, I found the following for another thread. Lemaître (Catholic priest and originator of big bang theory for those who don’t know) says things a million miles away from many Christians’ view of science.

*He (the Christian researcher) knows that not one thing in all creation has been done without God, but he knows also that God nowhere takes the place of his creatures. Omnipresent divine activity is everywhere essentially hidden. It never had to be a question of reducing the supreme Being to the rank of a scientific hypothesis.

… Perhaps the theologians themselves have a responsibility in the misunderstanding which places science against faith. An appearance of conflict originates between a traditional point of religious teaching and a new hypothesis which begins to establish itself on the basis of facts, they show a too easy tendency to wait till the last moment when the hypothesis would be definitely proved. They would have done much more useful work to have carefully investigated these points of the doctrine which seem to lead to conflicts . . . Anyway, their intelligent courtesy would be very appreciated in scientific circles, and it would constitute an apologetic of the best type.

… The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

I have to leave for the rest of the day but one last thought. The big science of the 20th century was physics, but I think it will be replaced by the science of the mind in the 21st. That may be the saving grace, by understanding ourselves better we may move towards a new spirituality and away from this old conflict.

On the basis of this post, I conclude that you have no need for any ideas on the nature or purposes of the Creator which do not precisely match those which you have already been well programmed to believe. You should therefore ignore all further posts of mine, and never, never buy my book unless you need the pages for the bottom of a small birdcage— and if that were the case, you’d be better off with an old phone book. I appreciate your being upfront, forestalling more inconsequential conversations. Thanks!

I hope that you are wrong about the coming century being about the science of mind, I would prefer it to be about the science of conscious creation and the physical properties of the soul-brain interaction.

 

[yppop]

On the basis of this post, I conclude that you have no need for any ideas on the nature or purposes of the Creator which do not precisely match those which you have already been well programmed to believe. You should therefore ignore all further posts of mine, and never, never buy my book unless you need the pages for the bottom of a small birdcage— and if that were the case, you’d be better off with an old phone book. I appreciate your being upfront, forestalling more inconsequential conversations. Thanks!

I hope that you are wrong about the coming century being about the science of mind, I would prefer it to be about the science of conscious creation and the physical properties of the soul-brain interaction.

Hey GL,
When is that book being published; I’m tired of waiting so why don’t you give all these latest debaters, to whom you’ve been uncharacteristically polite, a synopsis of your thesis, you know the stuff on your web site. Better yet, why not refer them to your web site so they can judge for themselves instead of being made do with your sly allusions about how things were created.

Now I am off at the break of dawn for a week’s vacation at the Jersey shore.

Careful where you wash your overalls!!!

Yppop

 

[inocente]

On the basis of this post, I conclude that you have no need for any ideas on the nature or purposes of the Creator which do not precisely match those which you have already been well programmed to believe. You should therefore ignore all further posts of mine, and never, never buy my book unless you need the pages for the bottom of a small birdcage— and if that were the case, you’d be better off with an old phone book. I appreciate your being upfront, forestalling more inconsequential conversations. Thanks!

Special pleading? I’m not at the stage of disagreeing on theological or philosophical grounds, it’s the basic physics. Evidence is evidence, not an optional set of beliefs, the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

yppop is right, you’ve not had an opportunity to positively state your thesis on this thread, point me at your website (by PM if you like). I used to be an atheist and can flip around to see other points of view.

 

[greylorn]

Hey GL,
When is that book being published; I’m tired of waiting so why don’t you give all these latest debaters, to whom you’ve been uncharacteristically polite, a synopsis of your thesis, you know the stuff on your web site. Better yet, why not refer them to your web site so they can judge for themselves instead of being made do with your sly allusions about how things were created.

Now I am off at the break of dawn for a week’s vacation at the Jersey shore.

Careful where you wash your overalls!!!

Yppop

YP,
I apologize for being polite to this crop of debaters. Thought I’d experiment with a different strategy but it doesn’t seem to do a peck of good. I’ll try to improve.

I actually have provided a complete synopsis of my primary theory in snippets here and there, as appropriate to the conversation. It does not seem appropriate to initiate a thread with the entire thing all put together without first contacting the moderators, and I’d be in a better position to get their okay if the book were available between covers. Then, they might allow a place on the alternative religion section, which my stuff does not belong, being an alternative theology rather than a religion, and a theology in which beliefs are a prerequisite for disbelief rather than belief, which could confuse a lot of good people who took precious time away from their afternoon soap operas. They deserve better.

Moreover, after spending 50 years writing the darned thing and still having to publish it on my nickel, it would be a terrible disappointment if I didn’t sell at least a half-dozen copies. And whose going to buy them if not an occasional curious soul encountered on CAF? Why would anyone buy something he could get for free on the internet?

And another thing. It is the kind of book best read by someone with a bit of an investment in finishing it. Its paltry purchase price won’t faze even a student accustomed to $50 textbooks, but it is better than free.

Moreover, if I did as you propose, how would I get in my sly allusion practice?

I certainly did underestimate the time it would take to finish the book, but you’ll be pleased to know that the penultimate chapter is in my editor’s competent hands. It was an ugly piece of work, 7 months in the doing, I’ll finish the last short thing while you’re in the jacuzzi this weekend.

No problem with the overalls anymore— can’t wear 'em. My house has become infested with kalorys, those nasty little critters that sneak into closets in the dead of night and sew your clothes tighter.

You be careful not to fall off that shore in Jersey. I hear the ocean is deep this time of year.

 

[greylorn]

Special pleading? I’m not at the stage of disagreeing on theological or philosophical grounds, it’s the basic physics. Evidence is evidence, not an optional set of beliefs, the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

yppop is right, you’ve not had an opportunity to positively state your thesis on this thread, point me at your website (by PM if you like). I used to be an atheist and can flip around to see other points of view.

I’ve been unable to determine what your basis for agreement/disagreement is, but it seems, from our few discussions, not to be something I have any skill at accommodating. I agree with you about the universe— my only reliable bible. Just like the Christian Bible, it needs some interpretation, and IMO both have been interpreted wrongly in some major fundamental respects.

Anyone seriously looking into the core of physics and cosmology must see major problems, unless his mind is numb. The wonderful discoveries already made have allowed us to look deeper, at the great mysteries which remain. Anyone who has become too greatly taken with the accomplishments of physics might busy himself looking for the physics (not the mathematical models) behind quantum phenomena. Why is the universe quantized? Where is the physics? Why didn’t physics predict dark energy and dark matter?

My theories explain these things in the context of the same Miracle that created God and the half-vast numbers of human souls awaiting consciousness, but it is a rare mind that will be able to understand them. This is not for any lack of intelligence— the ideas are simple enough for a 8th grade B-student to figure out on his own— but for the burden of beliefs already in the way.

Here on CAF I can barely deal with religious dogmatists. Your previous replies and comments suggest to me that you are a science dogmatist as well. Dealing with double-barreled dogmatism, with both loads firing from the same trigger, seems like considerable work and trouble for no predictable return.

That’s why I advise you not to read my book. You will dislike the ideas on both my levels of argument, theological and physical alike, leaving no perspective from which to win you over.

I’ve only entrusted my website to those who were willing, and of a right mind, to offer some constructive criticism. Last year would have been a better time. I’m certain that I’d get criticism from you, but I life is too short to spend it finding a way to deal with every possible argument from myriad varieties of doctrine. I mean to get it done.

 

[inocente]

I’ve been unable to determine what your basis for agreement/disagreement is, but it seems, from our few discussions, not to be something I have any skill at accommodating.

The basis is very simple - you appear to contradict known facts. It’s nothing to do with dogma.

I’ve only entrusted my website to those who were willing, and of a right mind, to offer some constructive criticism. Last year would have been a better time. I’m certain that I’d get criticism from you, but I life is too short to spend it finding a way to deal with every possible argument from myriad varieties of doctrine. I mean to get it done.

Think I found your website, took about 15 minutes of googling. I won’t give the url as you don’t want to let on, but if I’m right the pages have “nearly everything” in their title block.

Not read it yet, I guess you’ll want me to keep any criticism to myself.

 

[greylorn]

The basis is very simple - you appear to contradict known facts. It’s nothing to do with dogma.

Think I found your website, took about 15 minutes of googling. I won’t give the url as you don’t want to let on, but if I’m right the pages have “nearly everything” in their title block.

Not read it yet, I guess you’ll want me to keep any criticism to myself.

Admirable persistence!

What I’d tried to do in our communications, among other things, was invite you to consider the 2nd Law from the perspective of a force, with no success. The website may help with this because it gives me more space to explain.

I trust that you will find no contradictions of scientifically determined fact, and promise that you will find plenty of arguments contrary to pseudo-scientific doctrine. You will also find no contradictions to that wonderful body of information which keeps human beings kind of connected— common knowledge.

Now that you’ve swum the crocodile-free moat, I’d be stupid to not want your criticisms. I welcome them. Given the title of this thread, and that the chapters you’ll be reading are an argument against creation ex nihilo, it might even be appropriate to post them here. I shall trust you to word your comments as considerately as you did this post.

While I anticipate plenty of criticism, it would be okay to mention anything positive that you happen to find. Would you kindly PM me with the browser you used to find the website, so that I can close the holes? You will find that the site pages disconnect from the control switches at page VIII. Beyond that point you’d need to fish for individual page URLs or have established the kind of working relationship with me that would make me want to cough up a site map. You’re off to a decent start!

When I formally invite someone to peruse my website, I am implicitly promising to address their comments and criticisms. I cannot promise that in this case, because I’m in the throes of finishing the book, but I begin every writing day with CAF posts to get my fingers warmed up, and will try to address your issues. .

 

[miguel]

…The crux of the entropy argument is that when energy forms are left to their own devices, they tend to produce disorder rather than order…

This seems a succinct enough statement of the 2nd Law. I think the key phrase is if left to their own devices.

…Instead of tossing the bricks and mortar, lay the bricks and set the mortar, using strings and levels and a few tools to trim things properly…this alternative technique requires the guidance of a functional mind…

Yep. The 2nd Law is still operating. Bringing order out of chaos is not leaving things to their own devices. It moves in the opposite direction but it doesn’t violate the 2nd Law. The gradual process of deterioration is still at work.

 

[greylorn]

This seems a succinct enough statement of the 2nd Law. I think the key phrase is if left to their own devices.

Yep. The 2nd Law is still operating. Bringing order out of chaos is not leaving things to their own devices. It moves in the opposite direction but it doesn’t violate the 2nd Law. The gradual process of deterioration is still at work.

Thank you for the confirmation!

Next, add in the notion of soul as a kind of general purpose Maxwellian demon…