How can something come from nothing?

[Kurisu35712]

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

Alright then, I guess we’ll leave it at that. I’m hoping at least someone understood what I was trying to convey. Either way it’s not necessarily important.

 

[oldcelt]

In the beginning was a singularity…and a force, which we now call God, moved against that singularity…and here we are.

John

 

[Linusthe2nd]

In the beginning was a singularity…and a force, which we now call God, moved against that singularity…and here we are.

John

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

In the beginning was a singularity…and a force, which we now call God, moved against that singularity…and here we are.

John

The way i see it:
In the beginning and at the end there is Love in the transcendent form of the Trinity.
All creation has the stamp of the relationality that is God.
Even at its basic material level this universe is comprised of mass which exists in relation to all other mass.
Maintained in existence through the power of the Holy Spirit, it originated from the Word of God, which becoming man, enabled all creation to enter into loving union with God.
Force, power? meh He is all loving and with us every step of the way.
We come to know Him within our depths, in the undeniable reality of our very being, which is a manifestation of His compassion. I am able to love others because He loves me.
How can something come from nothing? I come from nothing, although rooted in eternity I clearly began many decades ago.

:twocents:

 

[Aloysium]

. . . space/empty space is a synonym for nothing, non-being. And I am saying there can be no such thing. . .

To me space/time (I believe that you might disagree that this is one thing, but this is the best we can do for the moment in explaining certain aspects of what we perceive and understand of the world.) represents in part the relationship that all matter has with all other matter. With respect to mass, the characteristic that defines the relationship is gravity.
There was a thread some time ago where someone commented that very solid objects were predominantly empty space, the volume of atoms and molecules constituting only a small fraction of the over-all volume of the substance. I believe I argued something to the effect that if I fall in the street it is very different that falling into bed.
There is the appearance of empty space only if we project something through it that is not hindered the by electro-magnetic forces that make the object “hard”.
In terms of the universe, there is “empty” space, if we consider only what has mass and see it as filling parts of the volume. There is actually light everywhere, going in every which way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To me space/time (I believe that you might disagree that this is one thing, but this is the best we can do for the moment in explaining certain aspects of what we perceive and understand of the world.) represents in part the relationship that all matter has with all other matter. With respect to mass, the characteristic that defines the relationship is gravity.
There was a thread some time ago where someone commented that very solid objects were predominantly empty space, the volume of atoms and molecules constituting only a small fraction of the over-all volume of the substance. I believe I argued something to the effect that if I fall in the street it is very different that falling into bed.
There is the appearance of empty space only if we project something through it that is not hindered the by electro-magnetic forces that make the object “hard”.
In terms of the universe, there is “empty” space, if we consider only what has mass and see it as filling parts of the volume. There is actually light everywhere, going in every which way.

There you go. You just proved to all of us that " space " is not empty because light is something, however one wishes to define it, it is objectively real. Now there are two things in creation that are composed of no matter of any kind, not even light or any form of energy. Can you guess what that would be?

Say, if you are right, that light contains on mass, does that mean we have to redifine what matter is?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

Speaking as an architect, I consider space to be a thing, so maybe I’m just interpreting this the wrong way. Though Aloysium made a good point about light being present in space. Hypothetically though, if any given point in space contains no atoms, photons, etc. it still exists as space. Maybe I just define “space” itself as a thing, but regardless I can’t get why this is such a crucial point.

 

[ericc]

Speaking as an architect, I consider space to be a thing, so maybe I’m just interpreting this the wrong way. Though Aloysium made a good point about light being present in space. Hypothetically though, if any given point in space contains no atoms, photons, etc. it still exists as space. Maybe I just define “space” itself as a thing, but regardless I can’t get why this is such a crucial point.

Agree. Space is indeed a thing. It has minimum 3 physical dimensions, X-Y-Z and other dimensions that I can’t fathom. Before the Big Bang there was no such existence of this 3D void space, even if it has nothing in it. I think we are squabbling over existence vs empty space?

 

[Kurisu35712]

Agree. Space is indeed a thing. It has minimum 3 physical dimensions, X-Y-Z and other dimensions that I can’t fathom. Before the Big Bang there was no such existence of this 3D void space, even if it has nothing in it. I think we are squabbling over existence vs empty space?

Yeah I think so… My point is just that “empty space” is not synonymous with a lack of existence… Like… God created empty space just as much as he created the sun.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Speaking as an architect, I consider space to be a thing, so maybe I’m just interpreting this the wrong way. Though Aloysium made a good point about light being present in space. Hypothetically though, if any given point in space contains no atoms, photons, etc. it still exists as space. Maybe I just define “space” itself as a thing, but regardless I can’t get why this is such a crucial point.

I think it is crucial in this sense. God created something, but truely empty space would not be anything, it would be a condition of non-being, or nothing. And even God cannot create non-being. So all space, even that which some regard as empty, must actually contain some form of being, some kind of substance, theoretically detectable by scientific apparatus…

Alloyisum said that light is present throughout the universe. And maybe that is the matter that fills " empty " space. If not that, then it is some other subtle kind of matter.
Perhaps there really is a kind of aether after all.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

I think it is crucial in this sense. God created something, but truely empty space would not be anything, it would be a condition of non-being, or nothing. And even God cannot create non-being. So all space, even that which some regard as empty, must actually contain some form of being, some kind of substance, theoretically detectable by scientific apparatus…

Alloyisum said that light is present throughout the universe. And maybe that is the matter that fills " empty " space. If not that, then it is some other subtle kind of matter.
Perhaps there really is a kind of aether after all.

Pax
Linus2nd

No. Empty space isn’t the same as nonexistence. Empty space is space. It is 3-dimensional space. It is that. It doesn’t have anything else in it but it is space. It isn’t nonexistence. I can’t express this any other way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No. Empty space isn’t the same as nonexistence. Empty space is space. It is 3-dimensional space. It is that. It doesn’t have anything else in it but it is space. It isn’t nonexistence. I can’t express this any other way.

I understand that you are seeing the area bounded by lines you have drawn on your drafting board. You see " emptiness " between the lines. But God does not create " emptiness, " or nothing, he creates things, substances. Now what science calls " empty space " cannot be empty because it is not nothing, it is not non-being. That is why I say that this so called " empty space " is filled with some kind of subtle substance, perhaps the mythical aether or something similar. But it cannot be empty because then it would be nothing, non-being. Of course I may be wrong but I just cannot think of a truly empty space. To me it is a philosophical question.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

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

I concluded it from what you said, and still see no other way to interpret it.

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.).

I’d have thought the opposite. To me Lemaître has a deep philosophy, and he keeps his faith and science on the same page, for instance he says “Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible.”

quote=inocente;12518108 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.
[/quote]

No, I got it from paying attention to what he said: “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”.

*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 make it sound as if he wrote 20 000 words on an arcane subject rather than a couple of simple sentences. Can you really not work out the meaning of “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”?

Perhaps if I take out the middle bit and simplify one word for you: “For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, it’s like Isaiah speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation.”

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.

“us philosophers”? “us philosophers”? Are you claiming you have a doctorate in philosophy? Or is more like someone claiming to be a chef because they own a microwave oven?

You can dream. John Locke. Confucius. Martin Heidegger. Plato. And you.

btw the phrase is god-of-the-gaps, not as you write it, and it is well known, look it up. It goes back to Henry Drummond: “There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps, gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps? What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness melts from this field or from that, begin to tremble for the place of His abode? What needs altering in such finely jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of God. Nature is God’s writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.”

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

I said it in response to your false, fatuous, uncharitable, paranoid accusation that I am “just looking for excuses to poke the Church in the eye”.

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.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I concluded it from what you said, and still see no other way to interpret it.

I’d have thought the opposite. To me Lemaître has a deep philosophy, and he keeps his faith and science on the same page, for instance he says “Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible.”

No, I got it from paying attention to what he said: “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”.

You make it sound as if he wrote 20 000 words on an arcane subject rather than a couple of simple sentences. Can you really not work out the meaning of “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”?

Perhaps if I take out the middle bit and simplify one word for you: “For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God, it’s like Isaiah speaking of a “Hidden God,” hidden even in the beginning of creation.”

“us philosophers”? “us philosophers”? Are you claiming you have a doctorate in philosophy? Or is more like someone claiming to be a chef because they own a microwave oven?

You can dream. John Locke. Confucius. Martin Heidegger. Plato. And you.

btw the phrase is god-of-the-gaps, not as you write it, and it is well known, look it up. It goes back to Henry Drummond: “There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps, gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps? What view of Nature or of Truth is theirs whose interest in Science is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness melts from this field or from that, begin to tremble for the place of His abode? What needs altering in such finely jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of God. Nature is God’s writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.”

I said it in response to your false, fatuous, uncharitable, paranoid accusation that I am “just looking for excuses to poke the Church in the eye”.

Conspiracy theory.

Looks like you spent your time yesterday sharpening your stick. Oh well, sticks and stones…

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

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?"

Lemaître again “The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”

Here here.

btw Gen 1 is based on Babylonian cosmology, also wrong.

*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. *

You have a short memory. You said “Assuming that you can find a generally accepted scientific definition of " space”". I did. That’s the accepted definition of space. That’s why it’s in a dictionary.

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.

The thread is not about which bits of science you personally cherry pick.

Please cite where you think “nothing” is misused by “certain modern scientists and cosmologists [stet]” so we can discuss something concrete rather than unsubstantiated accusations.

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.

Conspiracy theory.

*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. *

Conspiracy theory.

inocente;12518265:

Please cite where Dr Hawking has said that, so we can see what he says rather than what people say he says.

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

A philosopher would know that when he makes a claim, it’s his job to substantiate it.

You make accusations all over the place and never once produce any evidence.

Your claim is that Hawking “is simply reaching for a way to replace the term " nothing, " so he can say that the universe always existed” (post #130). I found evidence for the exact opposite. In this transcript of a Hawking lecture online, he concludes “that the universe has not existed forever”.

An uncharitable person might think you’re wasting everyone’s time with spurious nonsense. Unless you can produce evidence of course.

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.

The concept of fairies at the bottom of the garden was also dropped “only because no one could ever detect” them.

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.

Has your theory that snide insults win debates ever worked for you?

 

[inocente]

Alright then, I guess we’ll leave it at that. I’m hoping at least someone understood what I was trying to convey.

I think probably most did.

In the beginning was a singularity…and a force, which we now call God, moved against that singularity…and here we are.

Isn’t the expansion of space down to dark energy?

Mind you, there was a poster on CAF who believed dark energy is God. Or at least, he believed in a deity made from dark energy and consciousness, and the deity was created by the singularity. I think he was a blogger.

 

[inocente]

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.

I bow before your greater knowledge.

:bowdown2:

I don’t know much of Hawking, but looking at his lecture I found reminded me of his time-as-a-complex-number idea. Do you know if it caught on?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . does that mean we have to redifine what matter is? . . .

I think so. More to follow.

Before that, in light of your wealth of knowledge about St Thomas, your dedicated research on the subject and many publications here on the Forums, having taught many of us about philosophy (having myself been castigated by sloppy thinking), although it carries no actual legal weight, I confer upon you the honorary title of Professor. I’m serious, thank you so much for your contributions. I truly mean this.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I understand that you are seeing the area bounded by lines you have drawn on your drafting board. You see " emptiness " between the lines. But God does not create " emptiness, " or nothing, he creates things, substances. Now what science calls " empty space " cannot be empty because it is not nothing, it is not non-being. That is why I say that this so called " empty space " is filled with some kind of subtle substance, perhaps the mythical aether or something similar. But it cannot be empty because then it would be nothing, non-being. Of course I may be wrong but I just cannot think of a truly empty space. To me it is a philosophical question.

Pax
Linus2nd

We know scientifically that empty space is actually a thing yes.

 

[Al_Moritz]

We know scientifically that empty space is actually a thing yes.

Once more you prove, as I pointed out before, that your knowledge of science is sketchy at best. Truly empty space (what Linus2nd was talking about in the post you replied to) does not exist in the physical domain. As the eminent astrophysicist Martin Rees points out:

Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can arise “from nothing”. But they should watch their language, especially when addressing philosophers. We’ve realised ever since Einstein that empty space can have a structure such that it can be warped and distorted. Even if shrunk down to a “point”, it is latent with particles and forces — still a far richer construct than the philosopher’s “nothing”. Theorists may, some day, be able to write down fundamental equations governing physical reality. But physics can never explain what “breathes fire” into the equations, and actualised them into a real cosmos. The fundamental question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?” remains the province of philosophers.

Given your sketchy knowledge of science and the scientific method it is awfully hard to take your ‘scientific worldview’ seriously.