Here is something you cannot rationally doubt; Out of absolute nothingness comes nothing

[JDaniel]

If science tells us anything, then science is making statements, and those can be true or false. It can be true, for instance, that before the earth formed, numerous stars had formed. The statement is about the past, but that statement nevertheless exists in the here and now, during the age of human beings, and that is why it can be given a truth value. Before the earth formed, that statement did not exist, and so it was neither true nor false.

In other words, when a person discovers something, and even before he chooses to run it through his extraordinary file of saved pictures (in his mind), he cannot a priori know it is true? Or, say a wolf discovers an ancient bone, he can’t chew on it until a human tells him it’s OK? Or, that the futurum exactum merely expresses a factical that is not grounded in true reality? More non-sense?

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m not suggesting that ``2+2=4’’ was false for a long time, and then it became true.

That’s exactly what you are saying. However; if it didn’t exist then it would be false to say that 2+2 necessarily equals 4. It is a contradiction to say that something which has a beginning in truth is necessarily true; since if its being true has a beginning then its truth is not necessary. But 2 + 2 necessarily does equal 4, and thus the truth of it cannot have a beginning in existence; although the symbolic representations initiated by human language do have a beginning. The truth of it is something we discover, it is not something we invent. You cannot discover a truth which did not exist in some way prior to your discovering it.

There are two senses of truth in existence.

1. “I am typing on a computer”. This doesn’t have to be true; it is true because I make it true. .

2. “Where there is “thinking” there is necessarily something in existence doing the thinking.” This is a timeless truth; as in, it cannot possibly be false; the truth of it cannot possibly fail to exist and thus cannot fail to be true.

Rather, the statement ``2+2=4’’ didn’t exist until human beings came on the scene…

If it didn’t exist, then it is not necessarily true. But this is a contradiction and thus your statement amounts to nothing more than a misunderstanding between truth, existence, and the role of human language. You are talking about the tools or mediums we require in order to state facts. I am not talking about language or statements as a tool, I am talking about the truth that 2 + 2 represents. If you have two of something and you add two more of something, then you have definite finite quantity which we represent with the symbol “4” in order to differentiate from other quantities that are not identical to 4. Your observation that we must use language in order to articulate that truth does not negate the objective independent fact of it. You are confusing statements with the essence of what they represent.

Before that time, it was neither true nor untrue nor false—it simply was not…

The statement didn’t exist, but that is not to be confused with the necessary truth that the statement represents. You are giving a greater role to language than is truly justified. A necessary truth cannot begin to be true; which would be the case if a truth didn’t exist at some point. Thus what you are saying is nonsense.

So, in a limited sense, it did begin to be true, because it, like all other statements, began to exist at some point in the past. If your definition of ``necessity’’ precludes such statements from being necessarily true, then so be it.

The symbolic representations did not exist; but the truth of it does exist and has always existed; just as it is always true that a bachelor is unmarried.

But you are saying that it was not true that 2+2 equals 4 before human beings stated it, as if to say that it is only true because humans state it to be true. In doing so you are confusing the role of language and truth; as if truth follows from language rather than the other way round.

If what you are saying is “true”, as in would be true whether I agree with you or not, then we are not talking about truth, but rather something contradictory to it, we are both talking about subjective nonsense. It is evident to me however, that 2+2 does equal 4, and that is an objective fact free of any subjective opinion; the truth of it is also free of its symbolic representations, and that is why the same thing can be expressed through different symbols. The meaning that the statement represents is transcendent of the statements existence. If a things truth is free of subjective opinion then it is objective, as in true whether you agree with it or not or state it; and thus it doesn’t begin to be true merely because there was not a symbolic language to articulate the truth of it. It was always true. Its a **transcendent truth.
**

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Atheism survives because it tells us that this universe works without any interferring God.

What do you mean by “it tells us”? If you mean that atheism is a system of thought that has been proven to represent the objective nature of reality, then this is quite simply false.

Science,* not to be confused with atheism*, tells us that there is a natural world that works according to rules or laws rather than by the direct hand of pagan Gods. The Christian God, when properly understood, is not in conflict with this world view. The Christian God is however in conflict with the idea that the physical universe, at its root, exists of its own accord, with all its complex laws and rules which also just happen to exist with contingency on anything else. That’s not what science tells us. That’s what scientism, the religion of atheism, tells us; and it achieves its popularity by hiding in the mantle of science and presenting a fallacious metaphysical version of what science actually teaches.

 

[BlueShadow123]

Atheists and people who believe in a God are in the same boat when it comes to the beginning. We don’t know what was there before the big bang. Well we do, to a point, but we don’t know where the chemicals came from, and where what came from that they came from.

If you keep asking: "well where did that come from?’ You can only go so long before you cannot answer anymore. Which means science in that subject can only go so far. Or we just don’t know the answer yet. I personally think we can never truly know it.

Its the same with God. Who made God? How was it always possible for him to be there?
A Christian would say God is everything so he was always there. Well that answer is based on faith. You cant scientifically prove that.

So if you think about it to a point, it is based on faith.
What I do know is that we are here, and I use the knowledge that we know based on what we have. I also use faith, because atheist or not, you will need it to some point.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Atheists and people who believe in a God are in the same boat when it comes to the beginning. We don’t know what was there before the big bang. Well we do, to a point…

Beyond speculation, science hasn’t told us anything about what came before the big-bang.

but we don’t know where the chemicals came from, and where what came from that they came from.

I would agree that science cannot tell us much about the qualitative origins of physical things; and that’s because its instrumental limitations render it as such that it can only tell us about differential “processes”.

If you keep asking: "well where did that come from?’ You can only go so long before you cannot answer any-more.

There is only so far one can go with physical explanations. This however doesn’t mean that we cannot attain a general understanding of what physical reality would require in order to exist. Neither do we require an absolute understanding of an absolute explanation in-order to attain the general knowledge that such an explanation has to exist as well as posses a certain kind of nature that transcends the thing which it explains.

Which means science in that subject can only go so far. Or we just don’t know the answer yet. I personally think we can never truly know it.

Science deals with a limited form of knowledge with its own subject matter. The instruments and methodology of science is as such that it is necessarily limited to the study of finite physical causes; and is therefore confined to that context. It cannot give us true knowledge of everything that exists; unless you assume that all is physical. But this doesn’t amount to true knowledge.

Its the same with God. Who made God?

Its a meaningless question.

How was it always possible for him to be there?

God is, by intrinsic nature, existence.

A Christian would say God is everything so he was always there. Well that answer is based on faith. You cant scientifically prove that.

Scientific proof is irrelevant and unnecessary. Depending on what kind of knowledge you wish to attain, there are far superior ways of proving something. Science has its own domain of investigation and is limited to that domain and has its own nature of proof. In terms of proving the existence of an absolute being, we enter a different domain of knowledge with its own rules and methodology. In this context, so long as you accept that out of nothing comes nothing, it is possible for us to attain on those grounds perfect knowledge of the fact that in order to explain the existence of all potential beings as a whole it requires the existence of a absolutely perfect and timeless expression of being at the root of its reality.

So if you think about it to a point, it is based on faith.

Some of the promises and doctrines of religion require faith, but knowledge of the existence of God is attainable by rational enquiry.

What I do know is that we are here, and I use the knowledge that we know based on what we have. I also use faith, because atheist or not, you will need it to some point.

It seems to me that you are a fideist.

 

[BlueShadow123]

It seems to me that you are a fideist.

Think that if you want, but its false.

 

[hatsoff]

That’s exactly what you are saying.

I don’t understand this response at all. Do you think I’m lying or something? Why would I claim to take a position I do not hold?

However; if it didn’t exist then it would be false to say that 2+2 necessarily equals 4. It is a contradiction to say that something which has a beginning in truth is necessarily true; since if its being true has a beginning then its truth is not necessary. But 2 + 2 necessarily does equal 4, and thus the truth of it cannot have a beginning in existence; although the symbolic representations initiated by human language do have a beginning. The truth of it is something we discover, it is not something we invent. You cannot discover a truth which did not exist in some way prior to your discovering it.

There are two senses of truth in existence.

1. “I am typing on a computer”. This doesn’t have to be true; it is true because I make it true. .

2. “Where there is “thinking” there is necessarily something in existence doing the thinking.” This is a timeless truth; as in, it cannot possibly be false; the truth of it cannot possibly fail to exist and thus cannot fail to be true.

If it didn’t exist, then it is not necessarily true. But this is a contradiction and thus your statement amounts to nothing more than a misunderstanding between truth, existence, and the role of human language. You are talking about the tools or mediums we require in order to state facts. I am not talking about language or statements as a tool, I am talking about the truth that 2 + 2 represents. If you have two of something and you add two more of something, then you have definite finite quantity which we represent with the symbol “4” in order to differentiate from other quantities that are not identical to 4. Your observation that we must use language in order to articulate that truth does not negate the objective independent fact of it. You are confusing statements with the essence of what they represent.

The statement didn’t exist, but that is not to be confused with the necessary truth that the statement represents. You are giving a greater role to language than is truly justified. A necessary truth cannot begin to be true; which would be the case if a truth didn’t exist at some point. Thus what you are saying is nonsense.

The symbolic representations did not exist; but the truth of it does exist and has always existed; just as it is always true that a bachelor is unmarried.

But you are saying that it was not true that 2+2 equals 4 before human beings stated it, as if to say that it is only true because humans state it to be true. In doing so you are confusing the role of language and truth; as if truth follows from language rather than the other way round.

If what you are saying is “true”, as in would be true whether I agree with you or not, then we are not talking about truth, but rather something contradictory to it, we are both talking about subjective nonsense. It is evident to me however, that 2+2 does equal 4, and that is an objective fact free of any subjective opinion; the truth of it is also free of its symbolic representations, and that is why the same thing can be expressed through different symbols. The meaning that the statement represents is transcendent of the statements existence. If a things truth is free of subjective opinion then it is objective, as in true whether you agree with it or not or state it; and thus it doesn’t begin to be true merely because there was not a symbolic language to articulate the truth of it. It was always true. Its a **transcendent truth.
**

You can’t have it both ways.

It is indeed correct that there is a contradiction between my position and yours. However, I do not see that there is any contradiction within my own position. After all, the supposed contradiction is as follows:

(1) All truths begin to be true.
(2) No truth which begins to be true is a necessary truth.
(3) Some truths are necessary truths.

These three propositions are inconsistent, and so if anyone holds to them, he is guilty of holding to a contradiction. However, I do not hold to all three points. My position includes (1), but we only get (2) and (3) from your view—which is quite distinct from mine.

So, the contradiction you see is not a part of my view.

Regarding statements, I don’t see how you can divorce them from symbolism. What does it mean for a truth to exist apart from symbolism? That’s not the way I understand the term ``truth.’’ If you have a different understanding, then I invite you to explain what it is, that we can talk about truths independent of symbolic representations.

 

[JDaniel]

Some years ago, when I lived in Madrid, I was impressed by the respect shown the citizenry by Los Gris, the police that controlled the areas within the boundaries of the cities. One of the first things one noticed is that, upon walking up to a policeman, he snapped to attention and saluted you. After that respectful introduction, he would ask you for your inquiry. Then, upon departing, he snapped to attention once again and saluted your departure. What one comes to realize is that policemen, in various countries, can operate in a couple of quite variant ways.

First, they can be the law, that is, they can operate as if they are the law. In this mode of policing, it appears that respect for the policed is all but removed. A citizen, under this mode, is not greeted cordially, nor regarded respectfully. This mode of operation can thus easily extend to the general manner whereby a citizenry is treated during and after harsh interactions. Because of this disrespectful mode of regard, it is my opinion that policemen, in America, are not highly respected. Believing themselves to be the law, has not ingratiated them to a sizable percentage of the American public.

Second, they can represent the law, that is, they can function as though they are not the personification of law, but only the Law’s representative. Through this mode of policing, a two-way respect is formed, though not necessarily between all policemen and all citizens, but, between perhaps a higher percentage of policemen and a higher percentage of citizens. This higher mode of operation causes, in some manner, a mutual respect that translates to the interactions between the policemen and the citizens. The policemen, in Spain, were not trained to believe that they were the law. They were trained to understand that they merely represented the law.

Now, the foregoing was not purposed to persuade one towards factual or representational. It was simply to explain them. The modes of truth are quite the same. Truth can either be a facticity, i.e., a fact itself, or, it can be a representation of the fact. Some think of a fact, such as an event, as brute truth (brute fact). Others do not. They, instead, believe that only man’s artificial representation of that fact, in the form of a string of words, is the Truth. While a string of words can represent Truth, by an accurate description of an event, for example, it is not the brute factical itself. We may call a brute fact a “factical” (a generalized version of a noun), that is, an event that is actually occurring or, a thing in being. If it is occurring or, in being, it is a factical; which is no different than regarding it as a truth. If it is not occurring or in being, it is not a factical; it is not a truth.

What seems to put a damper on this is that the extolling of a statement as a truism, can also be a factical. Interestingly, it, too, can either be or, be represented. In either mode, it is a manifestation of something true that undergirds it. The manifestation of a truth cannot be merely its representation, its word-image. The thing or, event, either was or, it was not; it either is or, it is not. The same cannot be reasonably said or thought about a thing or, event, existing or occurring in the future, as it might not yet be or, might not ever take place – and it certainly hasn’t taken place yet. Truth, therefore, is not dependent upon a perceiving, reasoning mind. A perceiving, reasoning mind is accidental to a Truth, not essential to it. A thing or, an event, by its actuality – by its very act of being, past or present – is a factical, i.e., a Truth.

When we define Truth to be that which conforms,or, a statement which conforms, to reality, some tend to think that that’s what a Truth is. We fail to understand that the undergirding for it is the factical itself; that the undergirding can either be or, not be, and this dichotomy is what is essential to coming away with a knowingness of that which is true. If the thing or, event, underlying the fact exists, the fact is factical: it is a truth. If it does not exist, it is not. Thus, in fact, the actual undergirding of Truth is the facticity underlying the representation. Moreover, its veracity and actuality is its referent to the truth of any of its representations; and, there may be several.

God bless,
jd

 

[mangy_dog]

Can we honestly give rational doubt to this fact?

From that which is absolutely nothing, nothing comes. Atheism survives only by denial of this fact.

This reminds me of Stevie Wonder’s “nothing from nothing leaves nothing…” But I digress…

Nothingness in and of itself…

The moment in which I say "it is…this, that or the other thing, I objectify it as being
,in essence, a stagnant state of null void.

Yet, there it is,…the essence of a thing.

Nothingness cannot be, except in the construct of a sentence, to express its nothingness.
So there is in fact - nothing there.

 

[mangy_dog]

I feel like I just gave birth to nothing. And it has given me a headache.

Good luck with this thread.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

This reminds me of Stevie Wonder’s “nothing from nothing leaves nothing…” But I digress…

Nothingness in and of itself…

The moment in which I say "it is…this, that or the other thing, I objectify it as being
,in essence, a stagnant state of null void.

Yet, there it is,…the essence of a thing.

Nothingness cannot be, except in the construct of a sentence, to express its nothingness.
So there is in fact - nothing there.

The subject of nothing is one of those subjects where one has to objectify nothing in order to explain that it is not an object. The precise point of my argument in my second post is simply to clarify that people treat nothingness as an object when they attribute possibility/potentiality/power to its state. I then go on to say that its meaningless and impossible to do so; and that therefore it would be fundamentally irrational and contradictory to the nature of reality to suggest that an object which was nothing can become something by itself. If a thing begins to exist, it is because there is an existence to come in to and have a beginning in; otherwise it would be coming in to absolutely nothing and would thus remain nothing, since nothing is nothing at all. In reality, if a thing begins to exist, it does so in reference to a being which casually preceded its existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I feel like I just gave birth to nothing. And it has given me a headache…

We must remember that when we talk about nothing, we are talking about the absence of reality. Language makes this subject difficult and it is a headache. But its a battle that we must win, simply because rationality depends on it.

Good luck with this thread

Thanks. I need all the luck in the world at this point in my life.

 

[paduard]

Can we honestly give rational doubt to this fact?

From that which is absolutely nothing, nothing comes. Atheism survives only by denial of this fact.

Surely “out of’” indicates movement; which is something?

 

[mangy_dog]

The inactive, nullity of nothingness has been clearly stated and over-stated.

The bigger picture here is that only an uncaused, first cause is the only one [qualified] to bring “something” from “nothing”.

Nothing and no one else gathers the qualifications to act upon this “nothingness”.

Everything and everyone else has to use the “raw materials” already in existence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The inactive, nullity of nothingness has been clearly stated and over-stated.

What do you mean?

The bigger picture here is that only an uncaused, first cause is the only one [qualified] to bring “something” from “nothing”.

Why?

Nothing and no one else gathers the qualifications to act upon this “nothingness”.

Why? And what is this “nothingness” you are talking about, that we can rationally speak of acting upon it?

Everything and everyone else has to use the “raw materials” already in existence.

Why?

 

[John21652]

What is “nothing”?
Empty space?
Is empty space a “thing”?

Is empty space a “void”"
Is a “void” a “thing”

Is “nothing” a “no thing”?
Is “no thing” a “thing”?

Is it actually possible to have “nothing”?

Much ado about nothing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What is “nothing”?

It is the absence of a possible or impossible essence or being.

Empty space?

Nothing is not an empty space.

Is empty space a “thing”?

Yes

Is empty space a “void”"

In a certain context, Yes

Is a “void” a “thing”

Yes

Is “nothing” a “no thing”?

Yes. Its is non-reality. It is no reality. It is a no-thing or nothing.

Is “no thing” a “thing”?

No.

Is it actually possible to have “nothing”?

Not positively as an act of reality. But it is possible for something to become absent from reality; in the sense of a negation or privation. It is possible for something to cease to exist.

Much ado about nothing.

There is nothing for you to do about it.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Being a former atheist, I would love to join this discussion if nobody minds. About the OP, Lawrence Krauss (I think that is his name) has a good video “A Universe out of the Nothing.” Stephen Hawking’s last book made me lose a little bit of respect for him. His scientific mind is incredible but once he starting dealing with God, his science started to become subjective.

I’m not suggesting that 2+2=4'' was false for a long time, and then it became true. Rather, the statement 2+2=4’’ didn’t exist until human beings came on the scene. Before that time, it was neither true nor untrue nor false—it simply was not.

So, in a limited sense, it did begin to be true, because it, like all other statements, began to exist at some point in the past. If your definition of ``necessity’’ precludes such statements from being necessarily true, then so be it.

“The statement ‘2+2=4’” certainly did not exist before humans. However, the concept or truth did exist. I am speaking purely in a manner of abstractions. For example, although I am inhibited in seeing colors, the leaves on a tree were green before humans lived. the fact that it is green is the concept. I just wanted to clarify this. Anyway, there is a reason why we “discover” concepts and not “create”. Euclid did not “create” perfect numbers but discovered than. The number “system” was invented but the abstraction of the concept of numbers has always existed. It is not the mere fact of the statement being said that makes it true. It is the inherent proportions that make it true. 2+2 has always equaled 4 even before humans have.

Anyway, my point is that all truths were true before humanity. Otherwise, they cannot be considered truths.

 

[JDaniel]

“The statement ‘2+2=4’” certainly did not exist before humans. However, the concept or truth did exist. I am speaking purely in a manner of abstractions. For example, although I am inhibited in seeing colors, the leaves on a tree were green before humans lived. the fact that it is green is the concept. I just wanted to clarify this. Anyway, there is a reason why we “discover” concepts and not “create”. Euclid did not “create” perfect numbers but discovered than. The number “system” was invented but the abstraction of the concept of numbers has always existed. It is not the mere fact of the statement being said that makes it true. It is the inherent proportions that make it true. 2+2 has always equaled 4 even before humans have.

Anyway, my point is that all truths were true before humanity. Otherwise, they cannot be considered truths.

Welcome, Gregg:

For the most part, I agree with you. It would seem, though, that there are Truths that have no beginning, that are timeless. Geometric figures and mathematical quantities seem to be such Truths. But, upon further contemplation, there can only be one Truth that is unconditionally eternal.

The futurum exactum, (and it is in this sense that all Truths are eternal) is an exigency that exhibits eternality, but, a conditional one. The future perfect is conditioned upon the fact of that which actually occurs at some moment or other, usually in the past or present. The present always remains actual as the past of the future present. Thus, to say that the present will have been at some future time, is to say that what took place, or what is taking place, today or, now, is real, is true.

The mode of being of a past event can be fairly defined. It is in its act of being remembered. But, is this all there is to it? If the memory of it fades, or if those present at the time or, event, die, does the time or event lose its facticity? Are we able to say that the futurum exactum of it does not exist, or, no longer exists? That is our problem. We cannot even rationally think it. The futurum exactum is so inexorably grounded in the present that to deny the truth (facticity) of the futurum exactum is identical to denying the current present, and, thus, to deny our very selves.

Eventually, all people will disappear. The earth will disappear. The universe may disappear. But, the truth of such events, or, of each of us, will not somehow alter to become untrue. If it will ever be true that we were not here, then we are not here now. If this is the case, and I think that it is, then how is this eternal Truth being held? If the universe does disappear, does the eternal truth of the present become erased? Is there nothing that permanently takes up all that happens - an absolute consciousness, as it were? If there is such a thing - an absolute consciousness - wouldn’t it be God?

If it wouldn’t, why wouldn’t it? If it is, why wouldn’t it be our Judeo-Christian God? What other kind of god would it be?

God bless,
jd

 

[lemondiesel]

What do you mean by “it tells us”? If you mean that atheism is a system of thought that has been proven to represent the objective nature of reality, then this is quite simply false.
Atheism is a system of thought that proves the objective nature of reality without acknowledging any subjectiveness.

Science

,* not to be confused with atheism*, tells us that there is a natural world that works according to rules or laws rather than by the direct hand of pagan Gods.
Science is the stepping stone; Religions and Atheism are just products of Science.

The Christian God, when properly understood, is not in conflict with this world view.

He is part of the subjective, so yes, he is in conflict with this view point.

The Christian God is however in conflict with the idea that the physical universe, at its root, exists of its own accord, with all its complex laws and rules which also just happen to exist with contingency on anything else.

They are only complex because that is our interpretation. Did you mean to say without contingency on anything else? If so, we do not know the variables that took place to even create the universe.

That’s not what science tells us. That’s what scientism, the religion of atheism, tells us; and it achieves its popularity by hiding in the mantle of science and presenting a fallacious metaphysical version of what science actually teaches.

It achieves its popularity by ridding the individual of his prior beliefs of a personal affectionate God who left his creates on a tiny rock in the middle of a vaste universe, only to watch them suffer and fight amongst themselves.

Religion hides itself in the next life, where Atheism works on the preservation of this life.

-John