How can something come from nothing?

[DanAl]

Given what I know of the Universe (which I am pretty sure is diddly squat) the idea that it follows any sort of human logic seems ridiculous, and to apply some idea of logic as to how it has to be, or how it has to have originated is likewise ridiculous and pretty presumptuous.

The idea that “I can’t understand how the Universe came to be…therefore God”…still explains exactly nothing other than a human mind wanting to know what it probably cannot know or ever understand.

I am not denying the existence of God, but the idea that someone else is more comfortable with the idea of one, or that it’s easier for them to explain what cannot be explained if they assign it to some being, isn’t a compelling argument.

I’ve spoken to many thousands of people about their religious and spiritual beliefs and in the end most of them do not believe out of logic, they believe because of personal experience. And most who don’t believe, dont’ believe because they’ve never had a compelling personal experience.

I don’t think my brain can truly conceive nothing, or whether or not what I would call nothing, is nothing…or simply something that as a human I do not have the capacity to detect. I know there is much I do not know. But I cannot know the nature of what I do not know.

I have no reason to believe that my mortal and finite human self has been given the intellectual ability or physical ability to detect or know all there is of the Universe or beyond.

I can’t understand how the Universe came to be…therefore God," You’re jumping the gun.

We use ancillary arguments to reach to God, for example:

Something exists.

It is either necessary or not.

If not it is contingent.

A regress of contingent or simultaneous contingents is logically impossible.

There must be something necessary.

Since there are contingent beings that are one way and not another it must possess free-will.

Since free-will requires knowledge, requires intelligence the necessary existent must be intelligent.

And you keep that way until reach God. It’s not like theologians/ philosophers haven’t thought of this.

And people that belief on God out personal conviction does not strike me as bad argument, perhaps we possess an awareness of God, call it grace, sensus divinus, etc. I wouldn’t rule it out as a form to know that there’s a God. Whether other people do not have a personal experience of God I find the claim dubious since it could be weakened as a test in life or it could be lack of grace, or even a punishment for a bad life. I do not know.

That people feel more comfortable with the notion of God as unpersuasive sounds simplistic as well. Religious people live healthier, happier lives and if there’s an afterlife then things turned out better for the theist on this life and the next than for the atheist.

 

[DanAl]

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.

Science also lacks evidence for the existence of abstract objects like mathematics. Science deal with empirical matters.

 

[DanAl]

Do theists accept the belief in trancendental and ineffable nature as a belief in God?

I thought in order to be considered a theist, one had to understand God as a being?

I see no contradiction in saying that God transcends natural order or that he is too great with the notion that he’s a being.

 

[Kurisu35712]

What Inocente means by, " That God is profoundly Almighty, far too great to ever be reduced to a scientific hypothesis, to any mere god-of-the-gaps, to the god who some modern Christians seem to imagine fits neatly into their back pocket. We are too puny to even imagine God. God is the holy of holies. And so Lemaître rediscovers Isaiah’s philosophy and his science leads him towards God, " is not quite as benign as first appears.

He means that any effort to " prove " that a personal God exists is not available to man either through science or through philosophical reflection, but only by Revelation. He rejects absolutely any philosophical proof of God’s existence as well as all the types of arguments the Church teaches as valid in paragraphs 31-34 of the Catechism. So be wary of what you agree to.
You know that the Church teaches De Fide that unaided human reason can know for certain that a personal God exists. If you read the Catechism you can read it for yourself. And that was the whole point of St. Paul’s teaching that God can be known through the things he has made.

Pax
Linus2nd

Honestly, I think you may have misinterpreted his meaning. What I understood from all of this was that the Big Bang theory, and scientific experiment by extension, cannot prove God’s existence undoubtedly. I did not gather that inocente meant that God’s existence cannot be realized with reason and logic. Likewise, nor do I think Lemaitre would agree with that. But that wasn’t the assertion anyway.

I am very aware of the Church’s teachings regarding unaided reason and the existence of God. In fact, my opinion is that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the Big Bang theory is that God was the cause of it, given the other sources we have in philosophy and theology.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Honestly, I think you may have misinterpreted his meaning. What I understood from all of this was that the Big Bang theory, and scientific experiment by extension, cannot prove God’s existence undoubtedly. I did not gather that inocente meant that God’s existence cannot be realized with reason and logic. Likewise, nor do I think Lemaitre would agree with that. But that wasn’t the assertion anyway.

I am very aware of the Church’s teachings regarding unaided reason and the existence of God. In fact, my opinion is that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the Big Bang theory is that God was the cause of it, given the other sources we have in philosophy and theology.

O.K., if you stick around long enough you will see.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

O.K., if you stick around long enough you will see.

Pax
Linus2nd

Very well. Honestly this thread is really interesting. The philosophical section of CA is my favorite.

If indeed inocente is trying to prove that Revelation is the only way to come to discover God, then I will disagree, since the Church teaches that reason can bring one to God, and I stand behind that completely. But as yet, I haven’t gotten that from their posts.

 

[inocente]

I already said that John Paul was not teaching about faith and morals and therefore was expressing a prudential judgment - which no Catholic is bound to adhere to. It is similar to the situation when Vatican sources might claim that " global warming :" is caused partially by the activities of man. No Catholic would be bound to adhere to such a statement.

Strawman. You said it was not the error of the theologians, while Pope John Paul II clearly said it was.

There are those who believe in aliens in Area 51, and that 9/11 was a plot by the US military-industrial complex, and man never landed on the Moon, and Elvis is living in a condo in suburban Las Vagas, so yes, if a Pope and a Pontifical Commission of experts from many disciplines which spent years on the Galileo case yet didn’t come to someone’s preferred conclusion, I guess that can be added to the list.

*You seem to be errecting a straw man here. The fact that some theologians might have considered the " Big Bang " as proof that God created the universe out of nothing in time was some how illustrative of some imagined proof that Catholic theologians were opposed to scientific evidence and, by extension, that such an extrapolation is proof that the Church is opposed to the facts or efforts of science. I doubt that Lemaitre’ held such a view, I’m certain he didn’t. He might well object to the opinions of some theologians on their interpretations of the meaning of the " Big Bang, " but that is not the extrapolation your comment implies. If you want to interpret his comments that way that is your business. But that is only your opinion. *

Lemaître clearly says theologians, yet you somehow manage to extrapolate that into a conspiracy to bring down the Church.

*Your objection here is unreasonable. The Dogma was formulated at a time when the definition given by Thomas Aquinas was the accepted view and the Church has never nuanced that understanding. It was the prevaling view. And still is except in the opinion of some scientists and cosmologists. The latter are welcome to their interpretation, but it is an artiface to " save the appearances, " something akin to a scientific " god of the gaps."

Please! That was a very poor effort. It is pretty far fetched that they were, generally, unaware of how the Catholic Church interprets the terms " nothing " and " nothingness. " In fact, the very reason why they treated it as a nuance proves that they were quite aware of the Church’s historic interpretation - that is what they intended to challenge, they made a point of it. Otherwise, why did they draw attentiion to it, why did they make a point of it? Further, they were not unaware of the traditional dictionary definition.*

You apparently believe that all cosmologists across the world, from all faiths, including presumably Catholics, are part of a conspiracy to bring down the Church by fiendishly sticking to standard dictionary definitions of words. A conspiracy to which even the authors of the CCC have fallen victim.

Is it just me or is there a trend here?

*As far as I am concerned you can have any opinion you want, but you shouldn’t be surprised if it is challenged by opposing views. After all it is an open market, though the general effort of the social market place is to ridicule and sideline opinions and views which challenge the prevailing, secular " Weltanschuung. " By the way, what is you Biblically based view, do you believe that God created the entire universe, both the material and the spiritual, out of no prior existing matter or " stuff, " even " quantum fluxations ( that is, nothing - no prior existing being.) The only alternative is some kind of eternal universe. So what is your insightful, Biblical opinion? Or are you truely perplexed?

An army, really? My oh my. And the Weltanschuung you seem to favor is not an army I suppose? But no you are free to adhere to whatever unreasonable views you care to adhere to

Since you seem comitted to arguing with a " pointed stick " don’t be surprised if others employ the same strategy .*

Agreed that the German word for “worldview” has more letters and sounds more exotic, but other than that you lost me.

 

[inocente]

Now this surprises me. He specifically warned Pius XII, not to use the " Big Bang " as proof of this. And the Pope took his advice. Lemaitre’ did not think the " Big Bang " was such proof, for the reason that science could not see what lay behind this event, if anything. So, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make, which you seem to think scores some point against something I have said?

You logic seems to be (1) Lemaître knew his big bang theory didn’t prove a creation event; (2) Lemaître therefore stopped believing in a Creator, because before he came up with his theory he had no proof, and after he had his theory he still had no proof.

Do you see where you might have gone wrong there?

So to repeat what I said before, only a bit more pedantically: Lemaître seems to be saying: (1) God is Creator, because Lemaître is a Catholic, and that’s in the Apostle’s Creed, and Catholics profess belief in that through faith, so as he was a priest and all, Lemaître definitely believed in a Creator, we can take that for granted. (2) Therefore the place where we might most expect God to show Himself is at the point of creation, the big bang itself. (3) But even here we find no evidence either way. (4) This tells us something about God.

It isn’t exactly complimentary to your views when you accuse all arguments which disagree with them of being " god of the gaps " arguments simply because they are not scientifically based. This highly is perjorative and is reductive to a general ad hominem directed against anyone disagreeing with you.

You appear to have made up your own definition of god-of-the-gaps to mean something it doesn’t. It is a phrase invented by theologians and is exclusively aimed at attempts to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge as arguments from ignorance. It has nothing to do with other disciplines.

Yes, we cannot fathom the reality of God but I’m not sure what Lemaitre’ meant, so I don’t see how you can be. It may be helpful if you provided the context and reference. But whatever it is, Lemaitre’ is welcome to his opinions as well.

Quotes are from the link I gave earlier, which gives some context and cites original sources.

Isaiah is well worth studying. I was taught comparative religion by a devout doctor of divinity who was particularly fond of him for his insights. Perhaps that gives me an advantage in seeing what Lemaître means, although I wouldn’t think Isaiah is particularly opaque or complicated, he’s one of various OT writers who each had an interesting philosophy.

Fiddlesticks, you are just looking for excuses to poke the Church in the eye. Your extrapolations are truely fabulous. Congratulations on your completer absence of any objectivity.

Ah, you saw through my disguise. I’m obviously part of the worldwide conspiracy. Yes, I’m one of 42 activists assigned the important task of posting to you, by which those above my pay grade insist we will somehow poke the Church in the eye. Also we wish to end civilization and promote Congolese nose-flute music.

It seems to me you are making a valient effort to " sensor history." You seem to think that the prevaling, secular Weltanschuung is some kind of infallible law to which all must bow or be hounded out of polite company. Congratulations again.

First time I’ve seen my acceptance of JPII’s word described as “sensor history”.

btw a sensor is something from Star Trek. Censor?

 

[Kurisu35712]

Likewise I feel like I should add, beliefs on Revelation aside, inocente definitely seems to know what he is talking about on this topic. Especially given his last two responses.

 

[inocente]

What difference does it make and who says there is a distinction between the concepts of " space " and " empty space " and who in the world has actually defined what these mean? Can you tell me what they mean? And why do you ask? I just don’t see the importance of your question.

Up to now you’ve insisted that cosmologists are using the wrong definition of nothing just to upset you, now you say who cares either way.

< sigh >

*Well, you haven’t mentioned this before. But I beg to differ. Nothing in this universe is excluded from God’s creation, as found in Gen. 1,1. And nothing is excluded from the Catholic Church’s Dogma defining God’s creative act, not even " space. " ( more on that later ).

Assuming that you can find a generally accepted scientific definition of " space, " so what? *

We’ve known for centuries that the Genesis 1 cosmology is wrong.

Space is a component of spacetime and so of course it’s defined: “A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended in three mutually perpendicular directions. [etc.]” - Oxford Dictionary of Physics

*I don’t see your two points as connected at all. You are assuming that " space " is either the absence all forms of existence, or that " space " has been defined ( and it has not ) as the nuanced " nothing " which scientists like Hawing claim it is. Such arguments are illigitimate in that they attempt to gull the public by using a term, " nothing, " in a non-traditional way, hoping to capitalize on its exaulted status, hoping the public does not notice the slight of hand. And you know, it was nearly successful. The problem was the duplicity of the whole sordid attempt was immediately seen by alert philosophers and ordinary individuals like myself. *

Ah, that conspiracy theory again. But look at the scientific definition of space I gave above and you’ll see it’s a “property of the universe”, not “nothing” as you define it.

So while the Church is continuously pilliored for the Gallileo affair, science gets off scott free for its own " sins. " So, the Church evil and science is good. Seems like a double standard to me.

You say the Church is continuously pilloried yet on another thread you couldn’t give any evidence. I guess there are some internet blogs somewhere but any man and his dog can get a blog. Get your own blog and have blog wars or whatever bloggers do.

JPII said the Church done wrong and the world agrees. The church is highly unlikely to make the same mistake ever again.

Why are you concerned about where the term " space " comes from? I really don’t see how some scientists and cosmologists can legitimately redefine a term whose definition has been crystal clear far into the 20th century. It has only been with the advent of men like Stephen Hawking that anyone thought any differently at all. And even he says, " …well, it is not really nothing, rather it is a near nothing ( paraphrased ). " So he is simply reaching for a way to replace the term " nothing, " so he can say that the universe always existed.

Please cite where Dr Hawking has said that, so we can see what he says rather than what people say he says. I don’t know much about him except his black hole joke:

What is a black hole?
Something you get in a black sock.

I snipped the rest of what you wrote to make the post fit, but also because I think you’re complaining that nostalgia isn’t what it was.

*You are aware aren’t you that well into the 20th century, not only philsosphers but scientists as well, did not think space was " empty, " but considered it to filled with a very subtle kind of matter called ether. So the idea of a genuine empty space has existed only since Einstein, and even he hung on to the ether for quite awhile.

My personal opinion is that there actually is no " empty space, " that if it is real, it is a thing, however rareified, and it was part of God’s creation… *

It was called aether, not ether, and was more-or-less disproved by the famous Michelson–Morley in the 1880’s. Einstein tried to reintroduce the word with a new meaning so the previous generation could hang on to the idea in some way.

Atoms are mainly space, but that space is continually crossed by photons. Inter-galactic space is crossed by far fewer photons, from the distant stars, and the occasional cosmic ray and such. Neutrinos too. But I’d have thought you could take small regions for short intervals and be reasonably sure they’re completely empty space. Might be wrong, I’m not a physicist.

 

[inocente]

We cannot find evidence as to what was or was not prior to the Big Bang. As a result, the theory certainly can point towards a creator, at least in the sense that something had to be there to start the Big Bang, since nothing in our universe is observed to begin without the influence of something else. However, we cannot observe what that original influence was. For a Catholic (and any Christian really), it is pretty much obvious that the thing that started the Big Bang was God, who exists outside of the time He created. However, that fact cannot be studied through the scientific method. We would logically expect God to reveal Himself as that initiating force that began creation. But there is no hard evidence for that, as we cannot measure or observe prior to that point. Hence Lemaitre claiming that God is “hidden,” referencing Isaiah.

I agree with you on interpreting Lemaître’s theology.

The issue with the big bang is that his theory says the universe was once a point (a “singularity”) and with no space the laws of physics as we know them don’t work, they predict infinities which is not on. So that stops us knowing if there was a before. But one day someone might work it out. Also I think some cosmologists are unhappy with the idea of the singularity, and say maybe the universe was never that small anyway.

From what I can see, cosmologists disagree on many things and it’s a myth to say they don’t.

Honestly, I think you may have misinterpreted his meaning.

I’m getting the feeling he misinterprets quite a lot! On the bottom of a school report: Argues with himself and loses.

Likewise I feel like I should add, beliefs on Revelation aside, inocente definitely seems to know what he is talking about on this topic. Especially given his last two responses.

On arguments for the existence of god: One issue is that many arguments are called a posteriori, meaning they depend on experience (observable evidence), and that kind of argument can be disproved (which is how science works) but never proved.

For instance Romans 1:20 is this type of unprovable argument, and Paul acknowledges it as such: “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made.”

But some people insist on calling that a proof, even though Paul makes a little joke about it (invisible but seen).

 

[CatSci]

The issue with the big bang is that his theory says the universe was once a point (a “singularity”) and with no space the laws of physics as we know them don’t work,

Minor quibble: and this may be more of a terminology issue than a conceptual one…

The Big Bang Theory doesn’t actually have the Universe existing AS the singularity. That is, going back in time the Universe never becomes the singularity.

The singularity is not a thing, and it doesn’t do anything. It is a mathematical construct. It can be viewed kinda like an asymptote.

The plot of 1/X never actually reaches the Y-axis, its just approaches it. But there is not point in the plot that is at the Y-axis.

Similarly, there is no point in The Big Bang Theory where the Universe becomes the singularity.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Strawman. You said it was not the error of the theologians, while Pope John Paul II clearly said it was.

There are those who believe in aliens in Area 51, and that 9/11 was a plot by the US military-industrial complex, and man never landed on the Moon, and Elvis is living in a condo in suburban Las Vagas, so yes, if a Pope and a Pontifical Commission of experts from many disciplines which spent years on the Galileo case yet didn’t come to someone’s preferred conclusion, I guess that can be added to the list.

Lemaître clearly says theologians, yet you somehow manage to extrapolate that into a conspiracy to bring down the Church.

You apparently believe that all cosmologists across the world, from all faiths, including presumably Catholics, are part of a conspiracy to bring down the Church by fiendishly sticking to standard dictionary definitions of words. A conspiracy to which even the authors of the CCC have fallen victim.

Is it just me or is there a trend here?

Agreed that the German word for “worldview” has more letters and sounds more exotic, but other than that you lost me.

I see that your stick is still pointed and you still conflate, obfuscate, and extrapolate whatever anyone says. The trend here is that your intellectual bias is clearly manifest in just about everything you say.

Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

The trend here is that your intellectual bias is clearly manifest in just about everything you say.

From the exchange I’ve read from you and inocente, you are the one displaying intellectually biased behavior while they are showing a clear unbiased understanding and explanation of the topic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You logic seems to be (1) Lemaître knew his big bang theory didn’t prove a creation event; (2) Lemaître therefore stopped believing in a Creator, because before he came up with his theory he had no proof, and after he had his theory he still had no proof.

I will just say I have no idea how you concluded that from what I said. As usual you twist whatever one says out of all proportion. One has to wonder what in the world you are responding to. There is absolutely nothing I have said which would lead an honest reader to the conclusion you have just made. Lemaitre’ believed God exists and that he created the universe, in time, out of nogthing. But he clearly, from the article quoted, believed much like you that there was no way for cosmology demonstrate the existence of a personal God. It should be noted however that this is an opinion and it depends much on how he would be defining cosmology. And that is a different question all together.

So I didn’t " go wrong, " what is wrong is your warped tunnel vision.

So to repeat what I said before, only a bit more pedantically: Lemaître seems to be saying: (1) God is Creator, because Lemaître is a Catholic, and that’s in the Apostle’s Creed, and Catholics profess belief in that through faith, so as he was a priest and all, Lemaître definitely believed in a Creator, we can take that for granted.

I would agree, if we base our knowledge simply on the article. Based on that it would appear Lemaitre’ draws a rather sharp line between Faith and Science. And he seems to avoid philosophy, including metaphysics ( though I believe he mentioned the word once.).

(2) Therefore the place where we might most expect God to show Himself is at the point of creation, the big bang itself.

But what exactly did he mean by that? I don’t pretend to know. But I’m sure you do, since you seem expert at reading minds.

(3) But even here we find no evidence either way. (4) This tells us something about God.

If that is what he meant, then I would agree. And he advised the Pope not to use the " Big Bang " as evidence for a Creation event.

The problem here is interpreting what he actually did mean by what he said. I do not claim to be able to do that. Apparently you have no hesitation. Good for you. You are welcome to your opinions.

You appear to have made up your own definition of god-of-the-gaps to mean something it doesn’t. It is a phrase invented by theologians and is exclusively aimed at attempts to exploit gaps in scientific knowledge as arguments from ignorance. It has nothing to do with other disciplines.

I’m glad you excluded us philosophers, though it isn’t very kind of you to accuse the theologians. You are always throwing " god in the gaps " to refute anything a philosopher might say, whether or not it applies. So the " trick " should equally apply to those of the other side who claim that the only valid knowledge comes from science and since scinece cannot demonstrate the existence of God, then God does not exist. That is a sort of science " god in the gaps " argument used by modern some scientists and some modern cosmologists. Personally, I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In your mind it only applies to the goose because he makes the best Thanksgiving dinner.

Quotes are from the link I gave earlier, which gives some context and cites original sources.

OIsaiah is well worth studying.

Right now I am on the last few pages of 4 Kings, so Isaiah will have to wait awhile.

I was taught comparative religion by a devout doctor of divinity who was particularly fond of him for his insights. Perhaps that gives me an advantage in seeing what Lemaître means, although I wouldn’t think Isaiah is particularly opaque or complicated, he’s one of various OT writers who each had an interesting philosophy.

The point is not whether Isiah is opaque or not but just what Lemaitre’ meant by his remark. And I don’t think you know any more than I do, since he didn’t elaborate. And there is no point in speculating.

Ah, you saw through my disguise. I’m obviously part of the worldwide conspiracy. Yes, I’m one of 42 activists assigned the important task of posting to you, by which those above my pay grade insist we will somehow poke the Church in the eye. Also we wish to end civilization and promote Congolese nose-flute music.

Not worthy of comment, Let’s just call it typical fair, ventage Inocente.

First time I’ve seen my acceptance of JPII’s word described as “sensor history”.

btw a sensor is something from Star Trek. Censor?

Gee you missed it again. Obviously objective of the modern secular world view is to censor all forms of belief in a transcendent God right out of life of modern man, and they are targeting the children in a big way. It has nothing whatever to do with JPII’s views about anything. BTW, it isn’t just Catholicism they are attemptying to drive from the public square, but all belief in the transcendent and spiritual, including the human sould. Where have you been for the last 50 years? The effort goes back much further, at least to the Age of Enlightenment.

P.S., you don’t need Star Treck find sensors. You can just look outdoors at your street lights .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Up to now you’ve insisted that cosmologists are using the wrong definition of nothing just to upset you, now you say who cares either way.

< sigh >

Let me put it another way, " Why do you ask? " or " What are you asking? "

We’ve known for centuries that the Genesis 1 cosmology is wrong.

Oh, so you are not a literalist? But you do believe the Scriptures contain the Truth, that they are the inspired word of God? So just where is the Genesis " cosmology " wrong and what exactly do you mean by the Genesis " cosomology?"

Space is a component of spacetime and so of course it’s defined: “A property of the universe that enables physical phenomena to be extended in three mutually perpendicular directions. [etc.]” - Oxford Dictionary of Physics

Are we forced to accept that definitiion? I don’t think so, in fact I would say that definition would more properly be applied to one of Einstein’s mathematical theorms. In which case it is not the common understanding of space but a very restricted useage in physics.

Ah, that conspiracy theory again. But look at the scientific definition of space I gave above and you’ll see it’s a “property of the universe”, not “nothing” as you define it.

And I do not accept the mathematical construct as a " property of the universe. " Sorry we have been all through that many times. If you do, that is your look out. And I repeat, certain modern scientists and cosmologist have indeed defined the beginning state of " their " universe as " nothing, " but it turns out that their beginning is not actually a condition of no-bing or nothing. Are you unaware of this or are you once again just trying to obfuscate? One never knows.

You will have to excuse unenlightened neanderthals like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and tens of thousands of philosophers and theologians who followed after them - and the Catholic Church. We all prefer the philosophical definition. And the modern pseudo-scientists have flitched the term for propaganda purposes. And of course that doesn’t bother you at all. Whatever your motive, it will never help the goals of any religion, which is the salvation of all men.

You say the Church is continuously pilloried yet on another thread you couldn’t give any evidence. I guess there are some internet blogs somewhere but any man and his dog can get a blog. Get your own blog and have blog wars or whatever bloggers do.

So all blogs are bad? Gee, that sounds like a gross generalization to me.

JPII said the Church done wrong and the world agrees. The church is highly unlikely to make the same mistake ever again.

His book is a little more nuanced than that. Oh, I’m sure the world agrees, yes indeed. My point was that the apology hasn’t done much good. And of course no other religion has ever made any mistakes, at least none the world thinks they should apologize for.

Please cite where Dr Hawking has said that, so we can see what he says rather than what people say he says. I don’t know much about him except his black hole joke:

Well, if he or Dawkin, or Hawking are your heros, you go find it.

What is a black hole?
Something you get in a black sock.

Who said anything about a black hole?

It was called aether, not ether, and was more-or-less disproved by the famous Michelson–Morley in the 1880’s. Einstein tried to reintroduce the word with a new meaning so the previous generation could hang on to the idea in some way.

It may be spelled either way.
The points is that until the 20th century no one had a concept of outer space being empty. And though I know no more about the subject than you do, I believe the concept of space being filled by " aether " was dropped only because no one could ever detect it. But that does not prove there is not some subtle form of matter suffusing all of space.

Atoms are mainly space, but that space is continually crossed by photons. Inter-galactic space is crossed by far fewer photons, from the distant stars, and the occasional cosmic ray and such. Neutrinos too. But I’d have thought you could take small regions for short intervals and be reasonably sure they’re completely empty space. Might be wrong, I’m not a physicist.

I might be wrong too. However I do not think it can ever be proven that there is such a thing as " empty " space. My position is a philosophical one. When God created the universe, he created " something, " he did not create " nothing. " Therefore, " empty space " cannot exist, since " empty space " would be nothing.

You’re as slippery as a greased pig at the fair! Is there some grand point that you wish to make about all your talks about space? Or are simply trying once again to obfuscate a point of contention.

Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

I might be wrong too. However I do not think it can ever be proven that there is such a thing as " empty " space. My position is a philosophical one. When God created the universe, he created " something, " he did not create " nothing. " Therefore, " empty space " cannot exist, since " empty space " would be nothing.

I stated in an earlier post that, at least in my own understanding, empty space is not nothing because empty space still exists. Empty space is space that is not filled. But it is space. It is a thing. It’s a container that isn’t filled. Empty space certainly can and does exist, and claiming that it does not is rather absurd.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I stated in an earlier post that, at least in my own understanding, empty space is not nothing because empty space still exists. Empty space is space that is not filled. But it is space. It is a thing. It’s a container that isn’t filled. Empty space certainly can and does exist, and claiming that it does not is rather absurd.

My argument is simple. God created something, he did not create non-being/nothing. Therefore there is no empty space. What we regard as empty space must be filled with something real. It may be some form of subtle energy or force or even aether. But whatever it is, it is something.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

My argument is simple. God created something, he did not create non-being/nothing. Therefore there is no empty space. What we regard as empty space must be filled with something real. It may be some form of subtle energy or force or even aether. But whatever it is, it is something.

Pax
Linus2nd

I still don’t think you’re getting me. God created space. Empty space. No particles necessarily located at that coordinate. Not nothing, just space. But not not particles, not aether, not dark matter. Just space.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I still don’t think you’re getting me. God created space. Empty space. No particles necessarily located at that coordinate. Not nothing, just space. But not not particles, not aether, not dark matter. Just space.

And that I disagree with. Your space/empty space is a synonym for nothing, non-being. And I am saying there can be no such thing. But you are welcome to your opinion.

Pax
Linus2nd