Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Everyone!

Following is a “restatement” of St. T. A.'s first proof of God’s existence by causuality (especially directed to all “non-believers”):

non-believers = Q.

believers = A.

Begin:
  1. Q: How can God exist since even He would have had to come from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.
  2. A: We propose that our God is of infinite power, thus He came from nothing by His infinite power.
  3. Q: If there is nothing in the beginning, this means that there is nothing, period (God, or all of creation).
  4. A: We are aware of existence, even if only ourselves, right?
  5. Q: So?
  6. A: Well creation must have come from nothing, right?
  7. Q: So?
  8. A: If nothing else, we know creation has a cause, right?
  9. Q: So?
  10. A: We propose that if there is a (only one) God He must be His own cause…is a uncaused cause.
Sincerely,
Jerry Vilt
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
Hi Everyone!

Following is a “restatement” of St. T. A.'s first proof of God’s existence by causuality (especially directed to all “non-believers”):

non-believers = Q.

believers = A.

Begin:

Q: How can God exist since even He would have had to come from nothing, and from nothing comes nothing.

A: We propose that our God is of infinite power, thus He came from nothing by His infinite power.

Q: If there is nothing in the beginning, this means that there is nothing, period (God, or all of creation).

A: We are aware of existence, even if only ourselves, right?

Q: So?

A: Well creation must have come from nothing, right?

Q: So?

If nothing else, we know creation has to have a cause, right?

Q: So?

A: We propose that God caused creation, but He, being His own cause, is the Uncaused Cause.

(Does this make any sense?)
Click to expand...
In terms of strict metaphysical logic, this argument broke down as soon as you bought the straw-man that God had a beginning and brought himself into existence by his infinite power. It seems to me that the atheist won this argument.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
In terms of strict metaphysical logic, this argument broke down as soon as you bought the straw-man that God had a beginning and brought himself into existence by his infinite power. It seems to me that the atheist won this argument.
Click to expand...
Why do you view that as a strawman?

God bless,
jd
 
Yes!..we start from what we know…are you denying what we know has a cause?

(In order for the conclusion not be reached, one must deny what we know with certainty…namely all of creation has a cause!)

(Our knowledge of God is not self-evident.)
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
Yes!..we start from what we know…are you denying what we know has a cause?

(In order for the conclusion not be reached, one must deny what we know with certainty…namely all of creation has a cause!)

(Our knowledge of God is not self-evident.)
Click to expand...
We can know that everything which begins to exist or proceeds potentially in to being must have a cause independent of its form. The idea that we know for certain that everything has a cause in principle is a fallacy and a straw-man of the above argument. We do not, and cannot possibly, know that everything must have a cause; and it certainly doesn’t follow logically that everything must have cause.

A thing must either find the explanation for its existence in its own nature of being, or it must find it in the nature of something else external to its form or being.
 
“We do not know that everything must have a cause; and it certainly doesn’t follow logically that everything must have cause.”

“A thing must either find the explanation of its existence in its own nature of being, or it must find it in the nature of something else external to its form or being.”

Both of the above statements are of the same thing!

First statement above - “we don’t know…”
Second statement above then says “we do know…”!
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
What you are saying here is essentially denying a neccesary fact of logic. You are denying logic inorder to justify a belief. God cannot make 2+2 =5 no more than God can both be and not be at the same time. And as for saying that logic is a powerful aspect…well, if you have succeeded in anything, it is by making logic abirtray and useless an thus meaningless in terms of dicerning neccesary truths.

I am disapointed.
Click to expand...
You should not be. What you are saying is that logic is precedent over God. And, if it isn’t precedent over God then you are disappointed. Do you really think Logic is precedent over, or even equal to, in any possible way, God?

Your Faith in Logic IS fully and only from the Fact that God is Omnipotent; that He can do and has done everything. It is at this time, the way you “see” it, but, it could have been different - which would have it appear different to us at this time The Creative Act takes place instantly, and all of it simultaneously. It was well thought out. And, therefore, everything actually is as it actually is. He does not tinker around and change things as WE move through time, and as we mortals do. The permanence of what God has wrought is the very fact that it has already been done and what you see is what you got, so to speak. That we “see” it in time is our dilemma, not Heaven’s.

ONLY a tinkering God would make Logic and Truth arbitrary and useless. Not the other way around.

Does this make any sense? (You’re killing me, here!) 😊

God bless,
jd
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
“We do not know that everything must have a cause; and it certainly doesn’t follow logically that everything must have cause.”

“A thing must either find the explanation of its existence in its own nature of being, or it must find it in the nature of something else external to its form or being.”

Both of the above statements are of the same thing!

First statement above - “we don’t know…”
Second statement above then says “we do know…”!
Click to expand...
They are expressed in two different context. To find the explanation of ones being in ones own nature does not require that such a nature has a beginning to its reality. It merely means that it has a reason for its existence which doesn’t imply a cause in the sense that you are talking about causes.

When you say that everything must have a cause, I take you to mean that everything is caused into existence; has come in to existence and is thus finite; as opposed to existing necessarily from all eternity (timelessly) because of its intrinsically eternal nature.
 
greylorn said:
WSP:

I don’t think so. The evidence for the BB is entirely inferential. The only evidence I know of is the expansion of the universe, which is also inferential. Dark energy is sufficient to account for expansion.
Click to expand...
Greylorn:

I am not WSP, but I don’t think that the BB is inferential, as you indicate, unless you were to nominally define “inferential.”. We see the change of colors returned to us as we delve further into space. The farther we are is a scientific phenomenon, borne out by those changes of color. Science trusts it as not being inferential.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
You should not be. What you are saying is that logic is precedent over God.
Click to expand...
No. What I am saying is that metaphysical logic is a natural expression of Gods nature; as in, things are logical ordered because of Gods eternal and perfect nature. Its not something that is chosen; because metaphysical truth is a natural expression of what God is.
 
JDaniel said:
Does this make any sense? (You’re killing me, here!) 😊

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
The only sense that it makes to is that you have not really understood what I have said, or perhaps you have dismissed it in assuming that you cannot possibly be wrong…
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
We can know that everything which begins to exist or proceeds potentially in to being must have a cause independent of its form. The idea that we know for certain that everything has a cause in principle is a fallacy and a straw-man of the above argument. We do not, and cannot possibly, know that everything must have a cause; and it certainly doesn’t follow logically that everything must have cause.

A thing must either find the explanation for its existence in its own nature of being, or it must find it in the nature of something else external to its form or being.
Click to expand...
MoM:

So far, mankind has inhabited this planet for in excess of 4,500 years, up to 50,000 years (depending upon who you side with) and, so far, outside of creation, no one has ever found a non-causal occurance.

Call it intuition, call it what you want, but, it seems that that is as solid as deductive logic! 🙂

God bless,
jd
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
No. What I am saying is that metaphysical logic is a natural expression of Gods nature; as in, things are logical ordered because of Gods eternal and perfect nature. Its not something that is chosen; because metaphysical truth is a natural expression of what God is.
Click to expand...
MoM:

But, we don’t precisely KNOW what God’s Nature really is. We EXPECT it to be what we think it is, but, there’s no guaranty that it is. You are Anthropomorphizing! Or rather, you are MoM-izing!😛

God bless,
jf
 
JDaniel said:
MoM:

So far, mankind has inhabited this planet for in excess of 4,500 years, up to 50,000 years (depending upon who you side with) and, so far, outside of creation, no one has ever found a non-causal occurance.

Call it intuition, call it what you want, but, it seems that that is as solid as deductive logic! 🙂

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
It is certainly not deductive logic. Its a poor assumption that fails to distinguish between being and change. You assume that because all the beings that you sense are caused or are in motion, that therefore all beings are caused and are in motion. That is not a valid deductive argument.

I suspect that you are not really J Daniel. I do not remember him making the kind of weak arguments that you are now saying.

A thing cannot bring itself from absolutely nothing.

The so called God that you think to be God is not the God that I believe in.
 
JDaniel said:
MoM:

But, we don’t precisely KNOW what God’s Nature really is. We EXPECT it to be what we think it is, but, there’s no guaranty that it is. You are Anthropomorphizing! Or rather, you are MoM-izing!😛

God bless,
jf
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JDaniel:
saintaquinas.com/omnipotence.html

Go to this site
 
“A thing cannot bring itself from absolutely nothing.”

Right! but if it exists it must have!
 
There’s a statement in the “Plams” I think (terriable mispelling) that says, more or less:

One who, deep in his heart, denys God’s existence is a fool! (as in everyone has this instilled in him by God, and thus to deny it…foolish!)
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
It is certainly not deductive logic. Its a poor assumption that fails to distinguish between being and change. You assume that because all the beings that you sense are caused or are in motion, that therefore all beings are caused and are in motion. That is not a valid deductive argument.

I suspect that you are not really J Daniel. I do not remember him making the kind of weak arguments that you are now saying.

A thing cannot bring itself from absolutely nothing.

The so called God that you think to be God is not the God that I believe in.
Click to expand...
MoM:

I’m not labeling it “deductive logic.” I am saying that it carries the weight of deductive logic. (By the way, I AM the one and only, original JDaniel. I took some time away, while I was living in Wyoming, but, I’m back in Florida now.)

Perhaps a better way - however it may still be unsatisfying - of verbalizing Creation is to remove the human conventions requiring making things out of existing substances, etc., from the vernacular. So, what we shall say instead of, “He Created something out of nothing,” is, “He created something where nothing was before.” In order to do this, He had to bring the fullness of his Power and Omnipotence to bear.

I believe that if you ask the Church, you will see that this is fully correct. He doesn’t take Nothing and make something out of it, probably not even God can do that, but - and this is a difficult concept to grasp - He posits something into being through the shear power of his Infinite and Omnipotent Will. There’s no logic here. This is based upon what has happened and what He has revealed to us.

Does this help,

jd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top