Ex-Nihilo: a meaningless concept

[JapaneseKappa]

A state where absolutely nothing exists is self-contradictory, therefore you can no more create something ex-nihilo than you can create something ex-square-circle.

0A. If something does not exist, it cannot have properties
0B. Emptiness is a property.
0C. If something does not exist, it cannot be empty.

1. Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists, then the set is empty.
2. If the set of things that exist is empty, it does not contain itself.
3. If the set of things that exist does does not contain itself, it does not exist.
4. If the set of things that exist does not exist, then it cannot be empty, according to 0C.
5. Therefore asserting that the set of things that exist is empty leads to a self-contradiction.

Objection:
Unicorns do not exist, yet we still say they have properties. Therefore 0A is not true, that things which do not exist do have properties.

Response:
It is certainly true that the definition of unicorns requires that unicorns meet certain necessary conditions (i.e. have certain properties.) When we say that unicorns do not exist, we are asserting that there is nothing that meets the necessary conditions for being a unicorn. We are not saying that some non-existence has the properties of a unicorn. In other words, “unicorns don’t exist” does not mean “There is a unicorn-shaped bit of non-existence out there.”

 

[Alindawyl]

A state where absolutely nothing exists is self-contradictory, therefore you can no more create something ex-nihilo than you can create something ex-square-circle.

If absolutely nothing exists then yes you are correct. From nothing comes nothing. So if there is only nothing, then nothing is all there will ever be. No person would exist to do any creating if there was absolutely nothing.

But the “set of things that exist” has always contained, and will always contain, God, because God is eternal.

Your premise is flawed.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If absolutely nothing exists then yes you are correct. From nothing comes nothing. So if there is only nothing, then nothing is all there will ever be. No person would exist to do any creating if there was absolutely nothing.

But the “set of things that exist” has always contained, and will always contain, God, because God is eternal.

Your premise is flawed.

Either everything always existed…which begs the question…how…what is the universe floating through, what is the source for all of this.

The answer is that their is something that transcends the universe…this something is God, the unmoved mover.

I suggest you view this video…“What Christians Mean by God”

youtube.com/watch?v=W_Yjue8MXAI

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A state where absolutely nothing exists is self-contradictory, therefore you can no more create something ex-nihilo than you can create something ex-square-circle.

0A. If something does not exist, it cannot have properties
0B. Emptiness is a property.
0C. If something does not exist, it cannot be empty.

1. Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists, then the set is empty.
2. If the set of things that exist is empty, it does not contain itself.
3. If the set of things that exist does does not contain itself, it does not exist.
4. If the set of things that exist does not exist, then it cannot be empty, according to 0C.
5. Therefore asserting that the set of things that exist is empty leads to a self-contradiction.

Objection:
Unicorns do not exist, yet we still say they have properties. Therefore 0A is not true, that things which do not exist do have properties.

Response:
It is certainly true that the definition of unicorns requires that unicorns meet certain necessary conditions (i.e. have certain properties.) When we say that unicorns do not exist, we are asserting that there is nothing that meets the necessary conditions for being a unicorn. We are not saying that some non-existence has the properties of a unicorn. In other words, “unicorns don’t exist” does not mean “There is a unicorn-shaped bit of non-existence out there.”

As pointed out above your premise is false because God always exists. He willed to create the universe, in time, out of nothing. That is he created the universe out of no pre-existing matter ( i.e. no gravity, no radiation, no ultimate particles, no waves, no quantum field, zero anything ). So it is not contradictory that God can create ex nihilo. What is contradictory is that you or I or any group of people can create anything out of nothing.

Further more, simple logic tells us that God created the universe, because the universe cannot account for its own existence. Only a vast Intelligence, having a vast Power can account for the existence of the universe. And since nothing can create itself, that Intelligence must exist eternallly outside the universe. That is, it is not a part of the universe itself.

Please excuse me for not following your " sylogism, " I always find these flawed. For example, your definition of ’ empty ’ is incorrect. Just check the dictionary. Its meanings are several but always included is the idea of the absence of all reality.

Linus2nd .

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If absolutely nothing exists then yes you are correct. From nothing comes nothing. So if there is only nothing, then nothing is all there will ever be. No person would exist to do any creating if there was absolutely nothing.

No. My conclusion is that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because nothing existing is a contradiction. What I’m saying is that it is impossible for triangles to be round, and you are talking about triangles that were round to begin with.

There can be no “creation out of absolutely nothing” because there can be no “absolutely nothing.”

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Further more, simple logic tells us that God created the universe, because the universe cannot account for its own existence. Only a vast Intelligence, having a vast Power can account for the existence of the universe. And since nothing can create itself, that Intelligence must exist eternallly outside the universe. That is, it is not a part of the universe itself.

But my argument is precisely pointing out that there is no need to explain the fact that something exists, because it is impossible for nothing to exist.

It’s like saying that if it weren’t for God, triangles would be round. Triangles can’t be round. Triangles don’t need a God to make them not-round.

In the same way, it doesn’t make sense to say “well if God didn’t exist, we can’t explain why there is something instead of nothing.” There can’t be nothing. You don’t need a god to explain existence, anymore than you need a god to explain non-round triangles.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Either everything always existed…which begs the question…how…what is the universe floating through, what is the source for all of this.

The answer is that their is something that transcends the universe…this something is God, the unmoved mover.

Asking “how does existence always exist” is like asking “how are triangles always triangular.” It’s impossible for triangles to not be triangular, and it is impossible for absolutely nothing to exist. We’ve put no constraints on what existence could look like, so we aren’t ruling out the possibility of a god, but we don’t need a god to explain why absolutely nothing doesn’t exist.

You can certainly ask “why is the universe the way it is?” Or “is there a sense in which the universe came into existence?” but the simple fact that the universe exists does not demand explanation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Asking “how does existence always exist” is like asking “how are triangles always triangular.” It’s impossible for triangles to not be triangular, and it is impossible for absolutely nothing to exist. We’ve put no constraints on what existence could look like, so we aren’t ruling out the possibility of a god, but we don’t need a god to explain why absolutely nothing doesn’t exist.

You can certainly ask “why is the universe the way it is?” Or “is there a sense in which the universe came into existence?” but the simple fact that the universe exists does not demand explanation.

It seems your understanding of ex Nihilo is flawed.

When Christians say “God created ex Nihilo” note that we are not saying “absolutely nothing exists” we are saying God exists but the known universe did not exist.

So if you have a different hypothesis, share it, but saying everything always existed is no hypothesis at all.

Existence has always existed…we call that existence God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But my argument is precisely pointing out that there is no need to explain the fact that something exists, because it is impossible for nothing to exist.

You are laboring under the misconception that ’ nothing ’ is somehow ’ somthing,’ and therefore it is impossible that there is a condition of affairs in which ’ something ’ should not exist. This is due to your failure to nothtice that ’ nothing, ’ is that state of affairs in which there is no being. It is the absence of all being. Now in this universe of contingentr of things it is indeed possible that there could be a state of affairs in which no being existed.

Thomas Aquinas pointed this out in his Third Way to prove the existence of God. Since we live in a contingent universe in which it is possible for all beings to either exist or not exist, then now nothing would exist, given that we have already passed an infinity of time. So the universe cannot explain its own existence. It can only be explained if God created it out of no prior being or nothing, ex nihilo.

It’s like saying that if it weren’t for God, triangles would be round. Triangles can’t be round. Triangles don’t need a God to make them not-round.

No, it is like saying that if God did not exist, nothing else would exist - including triangles.

In the same way, it doesn’t make sense to say “well if God didn’t exist, we can’t explain why there is something instead of nothing.” There can’t be nothing. You don’t need a god to explain existence, anymore than you need a god to explain non-round triangles.

That is where we disagree. As I said above nothing in this universe can explain its own existence, Therefore there has to be a cause outside its ontological, contingent structure which does explain its existence. Think about it awhile.

Linus2nd

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It seems your understanding of ex Nihilo is flawed.

When Christians say “God created ex Nihilo” note that we are not saying “absolutely nothing exists” we are saying God exists but the known universe did not exist.

So if you have a different hypothesis, share it, but saying everything always existed is no hypothesis at all.

Existence has always existed…we call that existence God.

The fact that something exists does not require explanation because it is impossible for absolutely nothing to exist. It could be that there was a God who did not create the universe who became the God who created this universe, but that is in no way required by the observation that “something exists.” It could just as easily be “The universe is everything that exists.”

 

[Son_of_Jonah]

I find your conception of “nothing” to be flawed, personally. You are treating the word “nothing” as if it is something, at least rhetorically, but that’s not what we mean when we say “nothing.” Your idea of nothing here is positive. In other words, you are trying to ascribe to nothing qualities such as existence, which require an object in which to inhere. However, what we mean when we say nothing is precisely the absence of something. So when you say that it is a contradiction for “nothing” to exist, you treat nothing as thoughit is a something, which is a rhetorical and verbal possibility, but one that treats “nothing” as something other than what we mean.

In short, when I say “There was a time when nothing existed apart from God,” I mean that there was a time when everything other than God was existentially absent. Ergo, I am not ascribing the properties of existence to nothing as though it is a positive concept. Quite the contrary, nothing is nothing. It isn’t there.

 

[Elizium23]

Meetville Blog - CURRENT TRENDS ON EVERY ASPECT OF DATING, RELATIONSHIPS AND LOVE

 

[Tom_Baum]

A state where absolutely nothing exists is self-contradictory, therefore you can no more create something ex-nihilo than you can create something ex-square-circle.

0A. If something does not exist, it cannot have properties
0B. Emptiness is a property.
0C. If something does not exist, it cannot be empty.

1. Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists, then the set is empty.
2. If the set of things that exist is empty, it does not contain itself.
3. If the set of things that exist does does not contain itself, it does not exist.
4. If the set of things that exist does not exist, then it cannot be empty, according to 0C.
5. Therefore asserting that the set of things that exist is empty leads to a self-contradiction.

Objection:
Unicorns do not exist, yet we still say they have properties. Therefore 0A is not true, that things which do not exist do have properties.

Response:
It is certainly true that the definition of unicorns requires that unicorns meet certain necessary conditions (i.e. have certain properties.) When we say that unicorns do not exist, we are asserting that there is nothing that meets the necessary conditions for being a unicorn. We are not saying that some non-existence has the properties of a unicorn. In other words, “unicorns don’t exist” does not mean “There is a unicorn-shaped bit of non-existence out there.”

To me, create, means to make something out of nothing.

We, humans, create nothing, all that we do is make stuff out of what is already there, in other words, rearrange things, not create things.

We say that stars, and other things, are constantly being created and destroyed but actually all that is happening is that a bunch of stuff is in constant rearrangement mode.

God either Is or God isn’t.

God either created everything out of nothing or God didn’t.

I think/believe that it is beyond our “power” to prove whether God Is or God isn’t and also whether God created everything out of nothing or didn’t.

And as far as, “Ex-Nihilo: a meaningless concept”, just because something is beyond our reasoning ability, does not mean that it is “a meaningless concept”, it may mean something else but not that it is a meaningless concept.

Would you also consider God a “meaningless concept” since the “proof” of God is beyond our reasoning abilities?

 

[Alindawyl]

No. My conclusion is that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because nothing existing is a contradiction. What I’m saying is that it is impossible for triangles to be round, and you are talking about triangles that were round to begin with.

There can be no “creation out of absolutely nothing” because there can be no “absolutely nothing.”

Your statement 5 from your original post is:

“Therefore asserting that the set of things that exist is empty leads to a self-contradiction”

The Catholic Church doesn’t assert this. The Catholic Church asserts that God is eternal. To use your terminology, the Catholic Church asserts that the set of things that exist has never been empty because it has always contained (and will always contain) God. When God created everything else, then the set of things that exist became God plus everything else that exists. But it has never been empty.

So since the Church doesn’t teach something that you assert leads to a self-contradiction, what’s the problem? I suggest that perhaps you should direct your comments to those who need to be corrected for actually teaching such a contradiction, whoever they may be.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I find your conception of “nothing” to be flawed, personally. You are treating the word “nothing” as if it is something, at least rhetorically, but that’s not what we mean when we say “nothing.” Your idea of nothing here is positive. In other words, you are trying to ascribe to nothing qualities such as existence, which require an object in which to inhere. However, what we mean when we say nothing is precisely the absence of something. So when you say that it is a contradiction for “nothing” to exist, you treat nothing as thoughit is a something, which is a rhetorical and verbal possibility, but one that treats “nothing” as something other than what we mean.

In short, when I say “There was a time when nothing existed apart from God,” I mean that there was a time when everything other than God was existentially absent. Ergo, I am not ascribing the properties of existence to nothing as though it is a positive concept. Quite the contrary, nothing is nothing. It isn’t there.

It kind of sounds like you just copy pasted some response that seemed like it applied.

I defined absolute nothing as: a state where, if you sat down to make a list of things that exist, the list would have 0 things on it. I reasoned that such a state is logically impossible. If that is not compatible with your conception, you’ll need to elaborate.

 

[ynotzap]

A state where absolutely nothing exists is self-contradictory, therefore you can no more create something ex-nihilo than you can create something ex-square-circle.

0A. If something does not exist, it cannot have properties
0B. Emptiness is a property.
0C. If something does not exist, it cannot be empty.

1. Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists, then the set is empty.
2. If the set of things that exist is empty, it does not contain itself.
3. If the set of things that exist does does not contain itself, it does not exist.
4. If the set of things that exist does not exist, then it cannot be empty, according to 0C.
5. Therefore asserting that the set of things that exist is empty leads to a self-contradiction.

First half of your first statement is true, because the word “state” concerns things that have being, exist. Non-being means non-existent, nothing The second half of your statement is false if referring to God, true if referring to man.

oA If it doesn’t exist is doesn’t have properties, true.
OB; Emptiness is a property: true if you mean emptiness is a capacity, false if you mean emptiness means non-existent, non-being
OC: If something does not exist it can not be empty. True if empty means "having potency, or a capacity that can be filled. False, if something does not exist it can’t be existent and non-existent at the same time, it can not exist and not be non-existent (empty) is a double negative make a positive.

quote: Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists then the set is empty. You have equated the word “empty” with the meaning "non-existent.

As a result OA is true, OB is false, and OC is false, You contradicted yourself.

 

[tdgesq]

It kind of sounds like you just copy pasted some response that seemed like it applied.

It applies because he’s defining “nothing” the way that philosophy traditionally has. You are defining it differently.

I defined absolute nothing as: a state where, if you sat down to make a list of things that exist, the list would have 0 things on it. I reasoned that such a state is logically impossible. If that is not compatible with your conception, you’ll need to elaborate.

This is equivalent to mathematical set theory, which allows for the possibility of the existence of the empty set. Not really sure what you are talking about then, because (1) this isn’t the definition of “nothing” used generally by philosophers or the public lexicon and (2) it is logically possible for the empty set to exist according to set theory.

 

[Protector]

JapaneseKappa;12566429] A state where absolutely nothing exists is self-contradictory, therefore you can no more create something ex-nihilo than you can create something ex-square-circle.

YOU cannot, but God certainly can!

“But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”
Matthew 19:26 (KJV)

JapaneseKappa;
0A. If something does not exist, it cannot have properties
0B. Emptiness is a property.
0C. If something does not exist, it cannot be empty.

1. Consider the set of things that exist. If absolutely nothing exists, then the set is empty.
2. If the set of things that exist is empty, it does not contain itself.
3. If the set of things that exist does does not contain itself, it does not exist.
4. If the set of things that exist does not exist, then it cannot be empty, according to 0C.
5. Therefore asserting that the set of things that exist is empty leads to a self-contradiction.

Objection:
Unicorns do not exist, yet we still say they have properties. Therefore 0A is not true, that things which do not exist do have properties.

Response:
It is certainly true that the definition of unicorns requires that unicorns meet certain necessary conditions (i.e. have certain properties.) When we say that unicorns do not exist, we are asserting that there is nothing that meets the necessary conditions for being a unicorn. We are not saying that some non-existence has the properties of a unicorn. In other words, “unicorns don’t exist” does not mean “There is a unicorn-shaped bit of non-existence out there.”

In response to my question to the internet,

“Are unicorns mentioned in the Bible?”

the following was obtained,

Answer: In several passages (Numbers 23:22, 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6; Isaiah 34:7), the King James Version of the Bible mentions a unicorn. The original Hebrew is the word re’em which was translated monokeros in the Septuagint and unicornis in the Latin Vulgate.

So it appears that unicorns did once and still might exist - I mean, nobody has found Big Foot yet have they, but there are people who insist that it exists. In regard to the presumed non-existence of unicorns, Harry Potter fans would most probably take you to task on that one.

Protector.

 

[ynotzap]

Existence proceeds from God as First Cause. When anything is said to be made from nothing the preposition “from-ex” does not signify the material cause, but only order as "after one comes two…

 

[Neoplatonist]

So basically it sounds like we’re talking about pure magic, right? God thought of something that was imaginary (since not real before he thought of it) and it suddenly popped into existence - like if I imagined a winged, purple tortoise and suddenly there was one flying around in front of me in the next instant.

(Even then we can only talk about the example coherently because there are already things like space and animals and colors around.)

Now if this all happened inside my mind, well and good. In which case we and space-time and everything in it from quarks to quasars are still inside God’s mind. If, however, we are going to talk about it as if it were outside God’s mind, real like a turtle flying around my study, rather than a turtle that plays a recurring role in my imagination or dreams, we run into trouble:

How could there be an “outside world” into which the turtle appears, and so on, unless I also “popped that into being”? But then, we have merely begun a kind of regress, for how could I pop the outside world into being as “outside” of me, rather than that, too, being merely a (more complex) part of my imagination as well?

What would it mean for something to be “real” to God, rather than just “in His imagination.” Once we can navigate this terrain without resorting to “it’s all a mystery that’s beyond us” - which is always an effective full thermo-nuclear end to any meaningful discussion or intellectual progress - then we might ?] be able to talk about what “existing” and “nothingness” mean by introducing some subscripts to the terms.