A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Doubt based on what evidence? Or based on your preconceived notions, dogmas of your mind?
- Status
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Just based on your wording.
C
CatSci
Guest
What the heck does “being the case” even mean then?
If it ain’t existing then what is it doing? Nothing? How isn’t that just not existing at all?
I doubt that’s possible.
It might, how do you know it doesn’t?
I mean, we have a Universe here right now. According to the Big Bang Theory, it exists at all points in time in the past direction. That means there is no place in time where nothing can exist. Something exist at all points in time.
There is literally no where and no time for nothing to be the case.
Except that my assumption perfectly matches reality. So its got that going for it, which is nice.I think you are stuck in your mindset of believing everything must be necessary, and therefore, pure nothingness could not be a viable option. You assume too much.
I reject that premise as an unsupported assertion.
I’m comfortable with the reason for existence being unexplainable.
With the tacit assumption that nothingness is possible in the first place.
And I contend that it may be more simple for stuff to exist than for it to not.
Like, if we’re gonna have nothingness, then where is all this stuff we have going to go? It has existed at all points in time, so its going to have to go somewhere…
Not at all.
One of the solutions I’ve proposed to this paradox is that our Universe is an inevitability and it is impossible for there to be any case that is not our Universe. That is, the probability of getting a Universe like ours is exactly 100%.
That is the challenge to your proof, specifically line #4, that you still have not addressed.
Well, you’ve addressed it by calling it randomness, but it is clearly not that.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Following up on my post # 84 I would like to quote from Fr. Lamaitre’ who said:
" We may speak of this event ( the " Big Bang " ) as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.23 ( parentheses and underlining are mine) "
If one may use the authority of a great scientist and priest who also studied philosophy, he concludes that there are some questions that are properly reserved by philosophy, thus indicating his conviction that philosophy is a valuable tool suited to the intellect God has given us and should be used.
And again: " Both of them (the scientist-believer and the scientist-nonbeliever) attempt at decoding the palimpsest of nature with multiple imbrications in which the traces of the various stages of the world’s lengthy evolution has been overlapped and blended. The believer perhaps has an advantage of knowing that the riddle possesses a solution, that the underlying writing finally comes from an intelligent being, and consequently that the problem proposed by nature has been posed in order to be solved, therefore, that its degree of difficulty is presumably measurable with the present and future capacities of humanity. ( underlining, mine )35 "
It is clear then that one of the avenues open to the capacity of human intelligence to know both the universe and God is the science of philosophy. in which man has been engaged for at least five thousand years. It is a deep reflection on reality as valid as any science since it employs the tools God has given us, the intellect and its power to reason. And it is most reasonable to assume that the author of Creation has revealed much about himself and his creation in his creation and that man can learn what God has naturally revealed about himself and his creation.
Man has ever been a philosopher it seems and continues to be so to the present day. Though, some whom I regard as obstrustionists of the most ideological kind, would deny any real value to this science. They would say, indeed insist, that philosophy can tell us nothing about God or his nature. Yet that has been a burning question in man’s heart since he has existed. Should manthen have abandoned this search for God simply because he may not have been exposed to Divine Revelation? I think reasonable men would recoil in horror at such a thought. Indeed, the Catholic Faith teaches that such philosophical knowledge pointing to the existence of God can be a preperation for Faith in the Divine Revelation. Once one is philosophically convinced that a God exists it makes it easier to accept a Divine Revelation, and accept what this Revelation tells us about God and what it teaches as necessary and salutary for salvation. .
Quotations taken from the Article " The Faith and Reason of Father George Lamaitre’ "
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
Pax
Linus2nd
" We may speak of this event ( the " Big Bang " ) as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.23 ( parentheses and underlining are mine) "
If one may use the authority of a great scientist and priest who also studied philosophy, he concludes that there are some questions that are properly reserved by philosophy, thus indicating his conviction that philosophy is a valuable tool suited to the intellect God has given us and should be used.
And again: " Both of them (the scientist-believer and the scientist-nonbeliever) attempt at decoding the palimpsest of nature with multiple imbrications in which the traces of the various stages of the world’s lengthy evolution has been overlapped and blended. The believer perhaps has an advantage of knowing that the riddle possesses a solution, that the underlying writing finally comes from an intelligent being, and consequently that the problem proposed by nature has been posed in order to be solved, therefore, that its degree of difficulty is presumably measurable with the present and future capacities of humanity. ( underlining, mine )35 "
It is clear then that one of the avenues open to the capacity of human intelligence to know both the universe and God is the science of philosophy. in which man has been engaged for at least five thousand years. It is a deep reflection on reality as valid as any science since it employs the tools God has given us, the intellect and its power to reason. And it is most reasonable to assume that the author of Creation has revealed much about himself and his creation in his creation and that man can learn what God has naturally revealed about himself and his creation.
Man has ever been a philosopher it seems and continues to be so to the present day. Though, some whom I regard as obstrustionists of the most ideological kind, would deny any real value to this science. They would say, indeed insist, that philosophy can tell us nothing about God or his nature. Yet that has been a burning question in man’s heart since he has existed. Should manthen have abandoned this search for God simply because he may not have been exposed to Divine Revelation? I think reasonable men would recoil in horror at such a thought. Indeed, the Catholic Faith teaches that such philosophical knowledge pointing to the existence of God can be a preperation for Faith in the Divine Revelation. Once one is philosophically convinced that a God exists it makes it easier to accept a Divine Revelation, and accept what this Revelation tells us about God and what it teaches as necessary and salutary for salvation. .
Quotations taken from the Article " The Faith and Reason of Father George Lamaitre’ "
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847
Pax
Linus2nd
C
CatSci
Guest
Perhaps it is inevitable. You have yet to address this.
C
CatSci
Guest
We have the exact same amount of information pointing towards it being inevitable as we do for it being one of two undefined probabilities (to paraphrase your proof). That amount is none.
You can’t expect rules that happen within the Universe to apply to the Universe as a whole.Indeed, it is self-evident to me that if there is one universe, there could be others. If we know one thing about the material universe, it’s that if there’s one - there’s more than one, e.g. planets, stars, black holes, galaxies, even people. That’s common sense.
I
inocente
Guest
Another example of “only comprehensible as a concept” is a square circle. The existence of non-existence is a logical contradiction.Pure nothingness is not a logical impossibility. Pure nothingness is quite logical. It is only your insistence that pure nothingness take on the attribute of its opposite, i.e. existence, that makes it appear illogical. It is your thinking that’s illogical. That’s my point.
Pure nothingness is not existence. Pure nothingness is where existence itself is not REAL. Sure, you can never visualize pure nothingness without appealing to an impermissible attribute of existence, but your inability to visualize pure nothingness doesn’t mean it’s illogical. Pure nothingness is only comprehensible as a concept - and as a concept, it’s not illogical nor impossible.
It’s possible that all the world’s scientists are arrogantly illogical as you claim, but when someone says things like “only comprehensible as a concept”, and “nothingness is the absence of all states of existence” while insisting on an “impermissible attribute of existence”, it can signal that he has a subjective notion which makes some kind of sense to him but doesn’t bear examination by others, so he gets frustrated and insists everyone else is being unreasonable.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Richard Feynman
C
CatSci
Guest
Things just don’t work that way.
Does the team behave as one of the individuals? Does a corporation behave like an employee?
Does an apple behave like one of its seeds?
Does the Earth behave like a continent? Does the beach behave like a grain of sand?
Does a video game behave like the vectors that make up the graphics?
Most things behave differently as a whole than they do as their individual components, why should I expect the Universe to be different?
Well, spacetime as a whole behaves neither like time by itself, nor like space by itself.
Even the manifolds that can be used to describe spacetime have rules the operate within them that do not apply to the manifold as a whole.
That’s just standard cosmology.
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Speculation is not a valid answer.
C
CatSci
Guest
But it is a valid counter-point to a proof.
C
CatSci
Guest
Now all you have to do is apply your reasoning to gods…An apple may not behave like a seed, but the apple has many seeds. The apple tree may not behave like an apple, but the apple tree has many apples. The field may not behave like an apple tree, but the field has many apple trees. The countryside may not behave like a field, but the countryside has many fields. The country may not behave like a countryside, but the country has many countrysides. The Earth may not behave like a country, but the Earth has many countries. The Solar System may not behave like Earth, but the solar system has many planets. The Galaxy may not behave like a solar system, but the galaxy has many solar systems. The Galaxy Cluster may not behave like a galaxy, but the Galaxy cluster has many galaxies. The Universe may not behave like a Galaxy Cluster, but the Universe has many Galaxy Clusters. Now, you wonder why I take the possibility of other Universes seriously?
And if you’re going to draw an exception there, then you can just as easily draw it at the Universe.
Too, multiple Universes is an oxymoron. As being a UNIverse implies that there is only one.
I
inocente
Guest
You say “I am arguing existence not being REAL”. Seems incoherent. If non-existence is real then every bizarre fantasy ever dreamed up would have to be counted real and words would lose all meaning.
Twas you who forced scientists out of your corner when you said “Arrogant scientists redefining well understood terms to suit their own philosophy! What a lie!” (post #76).
So point me to the amazon.com entry for your bestselling book. Also, please cite your peer-reviewed paper, and a few of the citations it has attracted on Google Scholar.
Or do you mean you signed up to one of thousands of internet forums, like thousands of others with pet “proofs”? Or did you get yourself a free blog site like thousands of others with pet “proofs”?
Please say which, so I can accord you your full worth.
C
CatSci
Guest
I’m not sure I’m following you. Can you expand on that?
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Not it’s really not actually.
It would be more honest to merely say you don’t know.
C
CatSci
Guest
Um, that’s why I qualified my statement with “perhaps”…
W
Winterwolf00
Guest
Ah. Fair enough.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Certain scientists and Cosmologists massage the meaning of " nothing or nothingness " in such a way so as to make it seemingly impossible to prove the existence of God by means of an a priori argument based on the observation of the natural world and the phenomena in it.
This is a facetious argument. Thomas Aquinas defines " nothingness " as the absence of any created substance. This would mean the absence of all forms of matter, whether of waves, energy, ultimate particles, or any other thing or " law ", outside of God’s own eternal Being. Modern scientific skeptics have intentionally caused confusion over the meaning of " nothingness " precisely to attempt to " prove " that the universe has always existed in some form. But this simply won’t wash and has no weight except in the minds of those who either hate philosophy or who are ideological skeptics or atheists.
So I once again repeat that the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that God created the existence of the entire universe, both the material and the spiritual, in time, out of nothing. And that the existence of this personal God can be known, without error, simply by unaided reason reflecting on the reality of the universe as it has existed at any time in the history of man. In other words all men, from the very beginning of man, have had sufficient reasoning power to conclude that an eternal and personal creator of all that he sees and experiences does indeed exist.
The Church as further elucidated and commented on the types of arguments which can lead man to a valid knowledge of God’s existence. These run from formal to informal and personal arguments based on man’s observation of himself and the universe in which he lives. Only the ideological skeptic, atheist, or intellectual obstructionist can and do object to these insights. Or perhaps also those who lack the intellectual facility or who have been otherwise obstructed in their reflections.
But so that all men can know with certainty that a personal God does indeed exist and that he has created all, out of nothing, in time, the Church has defined this Revelation dogmatically in these later days. So that now no man has any excuse for non-belief.
Praise be to God, the Eternal Father and Creator of All that Exists.
Linus2nd
This is a facetious argument. Thomas Aquinas defines " nothingness " as the absence of any created substance. This would mean the absence of all forms of matter, whether of waves, energy, ultimate particles, or any other thing or " law ", outside of God’s own eternal Being. Modern scientific skeptics have intentionally caused confusion over the meaning of " nothingness " precisely to attempt to " prove " that the universe has always existed in some form. But this simply won’t wash and has no weight except in the minds of those who either hate philosophy or who are ideological skeptics or atheists.
So I once again repeat that the Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that God created the existence of the entire universe, both the material and the spiritual, in time, out of nothing. And that the existence of this personal God can be known, without error, simply by unaided reason reflecting on the reality of the universe as it has existed at any time in the history of man. In other words all men, from the very beginning of man, have had sufficient reasoning power to conclude that an eternal and personal creator of all that he sees and experiences does indeed exist.
The Church as further elucidated and commented on the types of arguments which can lead man to a valid knowledge of God’s existence. These run from formal to informal and personal arguments based on man’s observation of himself and the universe in which he lives. Only the ideological skeptic, atheist, or intellectual obstructionist can and do object to these insights. Or perhaps also those who lack the intellectual facility or who have been otherwise obstructed in their reflections.
But so that all men can know with certainty that a personal God does indeed exist and that he has created all, out of nothing, in time, the Church has defined this Revelation dogmatically in these later days. So that now no man has any excuse for non-belief.
Praise be to God, the Eternal Father and Creator of All that Exists.
Linus2nd
I
inocente
Guest
I don’t know as any cosmologist is trying to prove that, although I guess maybe some Hindus might be hopeful.
Does Thomas think empty space is a “created substance”?
My understanding is that Thomas argues it’s impossible to prove that the universe is temporal as Genesis claims, or eternal as his hero Aristotle maintains. But Thomas overcomes this by arguing that the universe is continuously caused by his unmoved mover. So even if it does turn out to be eternal it is still created, and either way faith in a Creator is not absurd, QED.
It would seem his sophisticated argument never satisfied many Christians. Rather than proving the Genesis account he hedges his bets, and 400 years later some people got really upset with Galileo for challenging not just the literal reading of Genesis but also Aristotle’s celestial spheres.
So getting indignant about new ideas is nothing new, and with the physics we now know, neither Aristotle’s nor Thomas’ arguments from motion (which I think reach opposite conclusions) make much sense anymore, although Thomas’ conception that God has the whole world in his hands still works fine.
But Lemaître approaches this from what I think is a new angle.
He says “God cannot be reduced to the role of a scientific hypothesis. …] It does not mean that cosmology has no meaning for philosophy. Philosophy and theology, when kept in isolation from scientific thought, either change into an outdated self-enclosed system, or become a dangerous ideology."
Which will delight some while making others come over all indignant.
Then: “As far as I can see, such a theory [his big bang] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in nonsingular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, as were Laplace’s “flick” or Jean’s “finger [of God agitating the ether]” consonant, it is consonant with the wording of Isaiah’s speaking of a “Hidden God”, hidden even in the beginning of creation.“
So Lemaître poses the question: Although we know far more than Aristotle or Thomas, God is still hidden. If we knew twice as much, would God still hide? If we knew all there is to know, would God still hide?
I think the obvious answer is yes, God will not be tested. In which case there’s no more reason to get hot under the collar with modern cosmology than there was to get upset with Galileo.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I do believe that Stephen Hawking, and many like him do attempt to do that…
I don’t think Thomas ever used the term " empty space. " He did speak of motion in a void when discussing the opinions of Aristotle and the Muslim philosophers. But he never gave an opinion of his own about the actual existence of the void that these men spoke of. And neither these men nor Thomas ever addressed the question in terms of " created substance." So we can only say that if Thomas had private thoughts about the actual existence of a " void, " he would have said that it was a part of the universe and so was created along with the rest of the universe. Now he did speak of the " heavens " and celestial movement in the heavens, but he never gave an opinion of the actual composition of the heavens except in reference to the heavenly bodies and their movements. But those were good questions.
Correct. Very good.
Remember, he was writing for the educated class, most of whom were clerics. So we would have to restrict this comment to this class. In which case we would have to say that, until the 17th century most of the educated class would have agreed. He was not " hedging " his bets, he was speaking philosophically and was showing that whether one was speaking as a philosopher or was addressing truths of faith, one must conclude that God created the universe, that there was a true creation under either scenario…
Not indignant about new ideas except when they contradict what we know through Revelation. And Aristotle’s and Thomas’ arguments are just fine when explained properly. Though one must interpret Aristotle through Thomas. Taken by itself, Aristotle’s argument does not hold up given that his God had no direct contact with the universe…
Not sure what you mean but I agree with Lemaitre’. I think he said that science and philosophy and theology must stick to their own territory. The only exception he would make would be that if anything in either philosophy or science contradicted Revelation, the offending proposition would be wrong because Faith is trumps.
To be continued.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Inocente Post 119 continued
Again, your meaning is obscure. You are making an obscure conclusion based on obscure premises.
Linus2nd
Here I disagree. When the materialist concludes that there is no " transcendental Being, " he has stepped into the science of philosophy and theology. He has made a conclusion science cannot make. Since this conclusion violates both the truths of philosophy and Faith, it is wrong. And it is wrong because the science is wrong - somewhere. And we would have to say it is wrong precisely when the scientist tries to redefine the words " nothing " and " nothingness. " Further, it is wrong because all his arguments are conditionals. He is making hypothetical suppositions. And there is nothing conclusive about a hypothetical or conditional statement.
Have no idea what you mean here. But we are still talking about something that cannot be proven because it cannot be seen or measured - as Lemaitre’ says.
Again, your meaning is obscure. You are making an obscure conclusion based on obscure premises.
Not sure what you mean by " hidden. " If you are saying that God cannot be clearly known through the things he has made, then that would be wrong, as St. Paul says and as the Psalmist says in many places. Even God, himself, tells us that in many places in the Old Testament. For example, in Job he famously remarks, " …Where you there when I ( did this or that, etc. ).".
So who’s testing God? And it is right to get upset with modern cosmologists who make comments they cannot back up and which contradict Faith. I am not upset with Galileo, I am upset with what how modern scientific apologists have blown the Galileo incident out of all proportion to its significance.
Linus2nd
- Status