How can something come from nothing?

[Overture]

Are you serious here? The Trinity. God is constantly and consistently referred to as HE, as being, and if Jesus is what Jesus is understood to be…then how can you write the above with a straight face and claim that Catholicism holds some non personal understanding of God?

First, I’d suggest you read a USCCB interpretation of some of the claims you made from the Bible. I think you’d be surprised at how Catholics read and interpret Scripture.

I said that God is both transcendent and imminent, meaning that God is both above & beyond God’s creation, as well as capable of operating within it. God the Son (Logos) has eternally Been, and was incarnated as Christ Jesus, a fully human and fully divine person. In this way, God the Son became human in what is called the hypostatic union.

I didn’t say that God wasn’t personal. I said that how you conceive of God Itself is not in Itself a material being within creation. God is much, much more than that.

Human beings have an inherent desire to know God. It is a universal desire. I simply believe that God, having undertook Creation in an act of Love (as all acts of creation are at their core), wants to open communication with Creation and that we aren’t orphans cast into the abyss of meaningless existence, malevolently created in a sea of suffering and cyclical torment. I believe that Creation must have a purpose, and that the purpose is rooted in Love. The opposing view is that Creation is a random Thing (although it is completely eternal and ultimately unchanging) that has no inherent meaning, cause, or purpose, and that our lives are but a consequence of atoms smashing together enough times in random sequences. You do a good job of answering* How* but are entirely satisfied with leaving the question Why unanswered, which is an essential element of why anything exists at all, rather than no thing having ever taken on material form, progressed through stages of development, worked itself into cycles, etc. Does this question not perplex you? If the physical realm is eternal, random, and ultimately without inherent meaning, cause, or purpose: Why is it there at all? This is a fundamental aspect of why I believe in a Creator creating Creation.

Concerning your physicalism (since you seem to deny the divinity of the cosmos, that would mean that you aren’t a pantheist, but rather that you’re a materialist, really): You understand physical existence as your mind allows you to. You superimpose your own subjective experience and faculties upon it, and are therefore ill-equipped to objectively analyze the state of the physical universe. As the subjective experiencer of reality, how are you to even objectively know (let alone analyze) that the physical universe in which you reside is real at all (let alone a physical entity)? It’s hard for me to even wrap my head around the concept that physical reality, as constrained and ordered as it is (containing within it the possibility of all things, yet not the actual realization of all things), is given up entirely to its own self-determined, but altogether mindlessly mechanical, cognition.

I am claiming that existence, reality, the nature of God, the nature of Creation, etc. are all totally Mysterious. That is a big word in the Church, and one of the reasons I was drawn to it as a former militant atheist. Catholic mystics and intellectuals are more than willing to accept, “It is wholly Mysterious, and we don’t understand, nor are capable of understanding.”

St. Augustine once said, “For if you understand-- it is not God.” How does this offend your sensibilities?

 

[schaeffer]

Schaefer, are you asking what catholics believe ?

Personal is not the same thing as human. Humans are persons but that doesn’t mean whenever you speak of a person you speak of a human. You appear to think if catholics believe in a personal God that they believe in a God that is a human being of sorts. That is so far off what catholics believe, I don’t even know where to begin. Yes, God is personal and relational within himself. God is also immaterial, timeless limitless and unchanging. In himself. In relation to us creation, he is transcendent. But immanent.

Jesus’ incarnation is not God’s eternal existence. Its something God did. And his divinity did not become human or phsycal nature. It remained immaterial. but his person took up a human nature. Eternally, God remains completely immaterial in his nature eventhough the divine person remains incarnated in human nature in Jesus.

I’ll chalk this up as part of the Mystery of faith, Jesus is fully God, and fully human, but God is not a human being…except when he is.

I understand God is not limited to human form or human personality.

But either Jesus is fully God or he is not.

I understand the concept of both/and, as opposed to either or.

I understand that God is both/and.

And to be clear, I am not challenging that belief, but the claim that Catholics don’t believe God is a physical person in heaven IS counter to everything I’ve ever heard about Christ from a Catholic.

But truly, I have no interest in challenging or demeaning the understanding of God for Catholics or anyone else.

My point only being that that is not a concept of the Ultimate Reality that I hold.

 

[Overture]

And to be clear, I am not challenging that belief, but the claim that Catholics don’t believe God is a physical person in heaven IS counter to everything I’ve ever heard about Christ from a Catholic.

From the Catechism, discussing the expression “who art in Heaven”:

2794 This biblical expression does not mean a place (“space”), but a way of being; it does not mean that God is distant, but majestic. Our Father is not “elsewhere”: he transcends everything we can conceive of his holiness. It is precisely because he is thrice holy that he is so close to the humble and contrite heart.

“Our Father who art in heaven” is rightly understood to mean that God is in the hearts of the just, as in his holy temple. At the same time, it means that those who pray should desire the one they invoke to dwell in them.

“Heaven” could also be those who bear the image of the heavenly world, and in whom God dwells and tarries.

It’s my earnest belief that if you sat down with the Catechism for a bit and dug into it, the deepness and beauty of Catholicism would be revealed to you. I understand the skepticism, but it is truly a wellspring of wisdom and spiritual insight.

 

[schaeffer]

Cyberspace just swallowed my very detailed reply…I’ll try again but not sure I have the time or patience to reconstruct my responses.

I said that God is both transcendent and imminent, meaning that God is both above & beyond God’s creation, as well as capable of operating within it. God the Son (Logos) has eternally Been, and was incarnated as Christ Jesus, a fully human and fully divine person. In this way, God the Son became human

 

[schaeffer]

Concerning your physicalism (since you seem to deny the divinity of the cosmos, that would mean that you aren’t a pantheist, but rather that you’re a materialist, really)

Divinity is another confusing word in my culture, because it tends to be tied up with the understanding one has of the word “God”.

I don’t believe in anything supernatural.

But I do understand the Universe to be the Ultimate Reality. In that sense then I do see it as divine.

: You understand physical existence as your mind allows you to.

Yes.

You superimpose your own subjective experience and faculties upon it, and are therefore ill-equipped to objectively analyze the state of the physical universe.

Of course I’m ill-equipped to objectively analyze it. We all are. I am fully and wholly contained in it and subject to it.

As the subjective experiencer of reality, how are you to even objectively know (let alone analyze) that the physical universe in which you reside is real at all (let alone a physical entity)?

I don’t pretend to have some logic argument for the reality of the physical Universe. I don’t play logic games. If it’s not real then you and I aren’t having this discussion. For the sake of discussion I suggest we accept that the Universe exists, if you want to argue that then truly (and I dont mean this as an insult) you will have to find a different opponent.

Lets say that this discussion pertains to the Universe as I understand and experience it, as I have already stated that I accept that I can only understand and experience a tiny part of it. Since humans define what is physical, based on the definition that is commonly understood (and sure we can include string theory) it exists in a physical sense. Again, that is by human definition and understanding, the Universe is not bound to behave the way we suggest it does.

It’s hard for me to even wrap my head around the concept that physical reality, as constrained and ordered as it is (containing within it the possibility of all things, yet not the actual realization of all things), is given up entirely to its own self-determined, but altogether mindlessly mechanical, cognition.

It’s hard for me to wrap my head around as well.

I am claiming that existence, reality, the nature of God, the nature of Creation, etc. are all totally Mysterious. That is a big word in the Church, and one of the reasons I was drawn to it as a former militant atheist. Catholic mystics and intellectuals are more than willing to accept, “It is wholly Mysterious, and we don’t understand, nor are capable of understanding.”

I agree, mysterious is the word for it. I don’t know, can’t know and don’t need to know how it all operates. I don’t need to know to be humbled by it, grateful to be a part of it, or to even BE fully a part of it. If I never recognized or determined I was part of something larger, I still would be.

I cannot be separated from it, to imagine myself so is to my own detriment, as it deprives me of joy and keeps me from experiencing life to it’s fullest capacity.

St. Augustine once said, “For if you understand-- it is not God.” How does this offend your sensibilities?

I am not offended by that and I don’t know why you suggest I would be.

I have not claimed to understand the Universe, other than to recognize myself as part of something larger, grander and inexplicable. Indeed I have said the complete opposite.

Faith is acting on what we can and do know, with trust that it is close enough to reality to accomplish our purpose.

Also, for what it’s worth. I believe the Universe to be an event rather than a thing. It is dynamic by nature. Of course I may be wrong, but that is what I BELIEVE.

 

[schaeffer]

From the Catechism, discussing the expression “who art in Heaven”:

In that case, which understanding of heaven did the physical body of Christ ascend to, and to which the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed.

 

[Ignatius]

Yet so far no scientific evidence has shown that cause to be supernatural. Yet believers don’t maintain that their position lacks logic.

so, yes, they are both belief systems. Both which run counter to science as it is currently known.

Incorrect, my friend. It has been shown (see Vilenkin and Borde 1994, pp 3305-9) that all inflationary Cosmologies (ie all actual and theoretical universes or multiverses) must have an external cause prior to the beginning of time 13.7 billion years ago.

 

[inocente]

I have spent days trying to talk someone into believing that nothing is nothing and can therefore do nothing. Doing something would mean it was THERE. It exists! Therefore it cannot be nothing. Nothing is non-existence or non-being. Something that does not exist cannot do anything.

I have always assumed somethings are so basic, they are self-evident. Yet my friend insists that this is an assumption, something someone imagined. HOW…he asks me…do I know that non-existence cannot do anything? My question is, if you believe that NON_EXISTENCE can do things, why on earth do you struggle with the idea that God exists? A least the concept of God has something doing something while it exists?

If this is how atheism reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is what it boils down to. After all. What could be so far fetched as having non-existence doing things?

I think you might do better to respect rather than dismiss. After all, on another forum somewhere your friend might be saying:

*"I have spent days trying to talk someone into believing that nothing is God and therefore nothing can do something. Doing something would mean nothing was THERE. It exists! Therefore nothing cannot be nothing. Nothing is existence or being. Something that does not exist can do anything.

I have always assumed some things are so basic, they are self-evident. Yet my friend insists that this is an assumption, something someone imagined. HOW…he asks me…do I know that non-existence can do anything? My question is, if you believe that God can do things, why on earth do you struggle with the idea that NON_EXISTENCE exists? A least the concept of God as nothing doing something while it doesn’t exist?

If this is how theistic reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is what it boils down to. After all. What could be so far fetched as having non-existence doing things?"*

 

[schaeffer]

Incorrect, my friend. It has been shown (see Vilenkin and Borde 1994, pp 3305-9) that all inflationary Cosmologies (ie all actual and theoretical universes or multiverses) must have an external cause prior to the beginning of time 13.7 billion years ago.

Have they shown that cause to be supernatural?

 

[RBushlow]

Ignatius;12397130:

Incorrect, my friend. It has been shown (see Vilenkin and Borde 1994, pp 3305-9) that all inflationary Cosmologies (ie all actual and theoretical universes or multiverses) must have an external cause prior to the beginning of time 13.7 billion years ago.

Have they shown that cause to be supernatural?

As Ignatius pointed out (see above citation - BTW did you even read the citation? your response indicates that you have not), all time, energy and matter (i.e. all that is in physical nature) was created 13.7 billion years ago (see patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm).

I hate to state the obvious, but since all natural things (all time, energy and matter) were demonstrably created, the creator of them is, by definition, Supernatural.

 

[schaeffer]

As Ignatius pointed out (see above citation - BTW did you even read the citation? your response indicates that you have not), all time, energy and matter (i.e. all that is in physical nature) was created 13.7 billion years ago (see patrickgrant.com/BBTL.htm).

I hate to state the obvious, but since all natural things (all time, energy and matter) were demonstrably created, the creator of them is, by definition, Supernatural.

I read it to the degree that I could, but I’m not a quantum physicist so I won’t pretend I understand it.

Feel free to state the obvious, sometimes I need things spelled out.

I even read some stuff in a book for the common man on the subject above and couldn’t understand it.

I do understand the basic idea that “all this” started 13.9 billion years ago.

I admit I question whether or not that is true, but that isn’t really a matter of faith/religion to me. I’m not confident those things can be definitely determined even from a scientific stand point.

I feel like I’ve lost the thread of the discussion, or it’s made a turn that I have no (name removed by moderator)ut on.

Pantheism isn’t a religion based on scientific discoveries, nor is it dependent upon them. I don’t think Catholicism is either.

I can tell you what I believe and experience, but I can’t and won’t claim that science has proven my religion to be true.

I was a science educator for a lot of years, and I taught my students that science is a great tool, but it’s not the tool that addresses every issue in our life.

I don’t believe in an ineffable something beyond the Universe. And what I perceive at work in the Universe is not something I that I can honestly use the words, person or entity to describe. If that means that according to a scientist or Catholic that means I am illogical or stupid, then so be it.

I feel that many other religions are illogical and it’s beyond me to understand how or why people believe the things they do.

At some point we either make the leap of faith, or we don’t (or claim not to…I can’t understand how anyone truly lives without having faith in something).

For me, the Universe is the biggest thing I know and I am completely subject to it and the way it is ordered.

Some people have the ability to “see” beyond the Universe and say they can know what is beyond it and are subject to the way that “something beyond the Universe” is ordered, what they say is often not in keeping with the way I experience the order of the Universe.

Maybe that is a leap of faith I am unable to make.

 

[yppop]

How can something come from nothing?

No problem for God. Since God is infinite, God understands infinity. We mere humans can’t understand infinity completely, but thanks to the mathematicians, mainly Georg Cantor, we have some rudimentary knowledge. For example, consider the transfinite numbers aleph(0) and aleph(1). Aleph(0) represents the infinity of rational numbers; aleph(1) represents the infinity of real numbers).

It can be shown that: aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1), which is the same as saying subtracting aleph(0) from aleph(1) is the same as: aleph(1) - 0 = aleph(1), or compared to aleph(1), aleph(0) is nothing

Now rephrase the OP to: How can something come from aleph(0)?

The rational numbers are the integers and the ratio of integers; they are denumerable (can be counted) which means there are gaps between the rational numbers on the real number line. The real numbers are all the numbers on the real number, they are not denumerable, there are no gaps which means there is no “next” number.

Since a line is space in 1-dimension, the real numbers define the continuity of the line and the rational numbers define its discreteness. It can be shown that every number on the real number line can represent a point in 3-dimensional space.

The real numbers represent continuous 3-D space and the rational numbers represent “discrete” 3-D space. Hence, one could use the rational numbers to mathematically identify the discrete space immersed within an infinite ocean of continuous space. This structure of dual modalities of space provides the foundation for the hylomorphic duality of matter.

Remember the big bang theory states not only matter, energy, and time emerged from the singularity, but so too did space itself. If space is considered to exist as a single modality (as assumed by science) to be continuous, then there is a paradox about the nature of what existed before and still exists beyond the universe. The before/beyond can only be “space-like”, which if one considers that the universe is finite and the space that emerged from the singularity is continuous and the before/beyond is also continuous then there could be no boundary. But a finite universe must have a boundary.

However this paradox is resolved by assuming that there are two modalities of space and the space that emerged in the big bang and defines the dimensionality of the universe is discrete. Then the before /beyond must have the characteristics of continuous space, namely it is infinite in extent and infinitely divisible, and could only be the substance that provides the spiritual aspect of reality.

This scenario then demands that there is an explanation for the way discrete space acts as the substance from which matter, energy and time are created, in other words how something (matter, energy, time) came from nothing (a finite number of discrete points). But that is a much longer story that can only be grasped by those that have understood and accepted as plausible the duality of space described above.
Yppop

 

[CatSci]

I have spent days trying to talk someone into believing that nothing is nothing and can therefore do nothing. Doing something would mean it was THERE. It exists! Therefore it cannot be nothing. Nothing is non-existence or non-being. Something that does not exist cannot do anything.

I have always assumed somethings are so basic, they are self-evident. Yet my friend insists that this is an assumption, something someone imagined. HOW…he asks me…do I know that non-existence cannot do anything? My question is, if you believe that NON_EXISTENCE can do things, why on earth do you struggle with the idea that God exists? A least the concept of God has something doing something while it exists?

If this is how atheism reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is what it boils down to. After all. What could be so far fetched as having non-existence doing things?

There’s no such thing as nothing. There is no point in time in the Universe in which nothing exists. Something exists at all points in time in the Universe. There has never been nothing.

We have absolutely no experience with nothingness and no data to make any inductions from, so we don’t know anything about nothingness.

To claim that something cannot come from nothing would, actually, be an unevidenced assertion.

But it doesn’t matter because nothingness has not ever existed in our Universe. It is literally irrelevant.

 

[RBushlow]

There’s no such thing as nothing. There is no point in time in the Universe in which nothing exists. Something exists at all points in time in the Universe. There has never been nothing.

We have absolutely no experience with nothingness and no data to make any inductions from, so we don’t know anything about nothingness.

To claim that something cannot come from nothing would, actually, be an unevidenced assertion.

But it doesn’t matter because nothingness has not ever existed in our Universe. It is literally irrelevant.

Actually, before God Created the universe, there was literally nothing. God Created the material universe, everything that exists including space and time, from Nothing.

 

[CatSci]

Actually, before God Created the universe, there was literally nothing. God Created the material universe, everything that exists including space and time, from Nothing.

If there was literally nothing then there wasn’t even a god there.

Too, according to the Bible there were the waters there in existence from which God created the heavens and the earth, i.e. “the surface of the deep”… So there wasn’t even nothing there according to the Bible.

Where do you get your information about there being literally nothing in existence before God separated the upper waters from the lower waters?

 

[Winterwolf00]

I have spent days trying to talk someone into believing that nothing is nothing and can therefore do nothing. Doing something would mean it was THERE. It exists! Therefore it cannot be nothing. Nothing is non-existence or non-being. Something that does not exist cannot do anything.

I have always assumed somethings are so basic, they are self-evident. Yet my friend insists that this is an assumption, something someone imagined. HOW…he asks me…do I know that non-existence cannot do anything? My question is, if you believe that NON_EXISTENCE can do things, why on earth do you struggle with the idea that God exists? A least the concept of God has something doing something while it exists?

If this is how atheism reasoning is, then to me it seems like a fundamental denial of reason. ANTHING IS POSSIBLE. That is what it boils down to. After all. What could be so far fetched as having non-existence doing things?

Atheism is not the belief that something came from nothing, this is a myth if not a strawman.

 

[CatSci]

Atheism is not the belief that something came from nothing, this is a myth if not a strawman.

Even the Big Bang Theory doesn’t have something coming from nothing, the Universe exists at all points in time and there is no point at T=0 because there’s an asymptote there.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Even the Big Bang Theory doesn’t have something coming from nothing, the Universe exists at all points in time and there is no point at T=0 because there’s an asymptote there.

Precisely, or at least that is how it is mostly understood if I remember correctly.

 

[J_Peterson]

Even the Big Bang Theory doesn’t have something coming from nothing, the Universe exists at all points in time and there is no point at T=0 because there’s an asymptote there.

Your just pushing the God question off to infinity. It doesn’t answer anything to say that the universe has been expanding forever. Expanding from what and to where? Can an actual infinity exist in a finite universe?

To the original post:

If something can create itself from nothing than something that doesn’t exist has the power to create. Assume God doesn’t exist. Therefore God has the power to create.

ETA: Also, Aquinas never assumed a temporal beginning of the universe. He showed that it is possible for the universe to exist from eternity and that even if true, doesn’t show that there is no Creator.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Your just pushing the God question off to infinity. It doesn’t answer anything to say that the universe has been expanding forever. Expanding from what and to where? Can an actual infinity exist in a finite universe?

To the original post:

If something can create itself from nothing than something that doesn’t exist has the power to create. Assume God doesn’t exist. Therefore God has the power to create.

ETA: Also, Aquinas never assumed a temporal beginning of the universe. He showed that it is possible for the universe to exist from eternity and that even if true, doesn’t show that there is no Creator.

Nor does it show that there is.

Science neither proves or disproves the existence of a supreme being, because it is improvable, untestable, and immeasurable it is irrelevant to every field of science because the Scientific Method cannot be applied.
Science doesn’t prove that God is impossible or not there, it just shows a universe where a god is unnecessary.