How can something come from nothing?

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

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.

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.

Conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theory.

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.

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

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

I have better things to do than to satisfy your curiosity. I’m not trying to win a debate, I’m trying to uphold the truth. I’m not trying to impress anyone with " come backers " and pointed witticisms.

I did ask you what you thought your Bible taught you about the beginning of the universe. Does it tell you that the universe always existed or does it tell you that the universe was created in time out of nothing ( nothing being defined as non-being )? And you have not answered. So we are even.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Thank you Aloysium, even though that is an exaggeration. I wish I knew as much as I should and could remember what I should. The truth is I am more of a fan than anything. But I do think Thomas has come as close to reaching the limiting threshold of human reason than any other single human being ever has. And that is a great achievement.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

If you look at the question philosophically you will see that that cannot be possible. A thing or a substance must contain matter of some sort, however subtle. So space cannot be empty of some matter. By that I mean there is no absence of some matter, there are no " gaps, " however minute, between measurable and detectable particles. What we think of as gaps or empty spaces, merely reflect the outer threshold of our ability to detect.

And that is what I am getting at when I say that God creates something, it is literally impossible for him to create non-being or nothing. So something, some subtle matter occupies the gaps even if we cannot detect it. And I think that is absolutely fascinating.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

If you look at the question philosophically you will see that that cannot be possible. A thing or a substance must contain matter of some sort, however subtle. So space cannot be empty of some matter. By that I mean there is no absence of some matter, there are no " gaps, " however minute, between measurable and detectable particles. What we think of as gaps or empty spaces, merely reflect the outer threshold of our ability to detect.

And that is what I am getting at when I say that God creates something, it is literally impossible for him to create non-being or nothing. So something, some subtle matter occupies the gaps even if we cannot detect it. And I think that is absolutely fascinating.

Pax
Linus2nd

I not sure that Aquinas is using the word matter in the same way modern science uses that word. Space is a thing, its not nothing. You can call it matter, but again i would not confuse it with todays usage of the term. It is simply the absence of particular things that could possibly displace it, rather than the absence of actual existence itself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I not sure that Aquinas is using the word matter in the same way modern science uses that word. Space is a thing, its not nothing. You can call it matter, but again i would not confuse it with todays usage of the term. It is simply the absence of particular things that could possibly displace it, rather than the absence of actual existence itself.

To be honest I’m not sure that Thomas or even Aristotle ever used the term " matter. " I used it because it is a word that all moderns recognize. Aristotle I think would say that matter was some sort body, a physical substance that actually existed, it was some sort of " thing. " And I think Thomas would agree with that.

With that understanding, if space existed it would have to be some sort of body or composed of conjoined bodies, no matter how subtle we might imagine them. So in that sence space could never be empty. Even if we could not detect these discrete, conjoined bodies or substances, they must exist, because God does not create or sustain in existence ( in the physical universe ) non-being, non-substances. Therefore there cannot exist a substance , a space which is empty.

But this is precisely what science, or at least some scientists, say and teach. And that is wrong. What they should say is that there exists space in which we cannot detect any discrete bodies. That is entirely different, that would be a more objective answer. What I am saying here is that philosophy has something to teach science on the subject of " empty space. " Namely that there is no such thing. That discrete bodies cannot be detected does not mean they are not present. And it is philosophy which tells me that such bodies do in fact exist. Therefore there is no such thing as " empty space. "

So if we speak of space as a thing, we should always explain that it is a thing precisely because it is always filled with discrete bodies, however subtle they may be. And this space is filled so completely by these conjoined bodies that there is no empty spaces between them.

And perhaps the presumed " empty space, " instead of being filled with conjoined discrete bodies is, instead, filled with some form of subtle plasma or energy or force. That would still meet the definition of a body, a kind of substantial matter that completely filled space. In which case we would say that the universe is filled every where with discrete bodies and plasma, but never with non-being or nothing, that there is no empty space…

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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 .[snip ]

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

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.

Did I say that. Anyway that particular understanding is restricted to a particular mathematical/physical theory. It is not the common understanding of the term.

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

Well, you should know more about that than I do, since it is a specialty of yours.

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.

He does it in the Grand Design. See this video by Fr. Barron.
youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

Fr. Barron quoting from excerpts from the Book says Hawking says, " …because of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing…" It does look like he is equation " nothing " to gravity, and so redefining it so that it does not mean absolutely nothing, non-being. In his view gravity must be " nothing. "

Conspiracy theory.

So that is your response to my statement, " 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. " A very odd response.

Conspiracy theory.

A very odd response to my statement, " 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 " But then we have to consider the sourse.

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

I just did .

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

Again

QUOTE]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”

Well it is hard to pin him down. Once he redefines the meaning of " nothing " he can have his cake and eat it too. He can claim that the universe creates itself ( which he does in the Grand Design as explained by Fr. Barron in the video above or he can claim that the universe has existed forever. Now if gravity means nothing then he can say the universe had a beginning, but only if we assume that gravity can make the universe " grow " or evolve out of that. On the other hand if gravity is not nothing but something, he can say that the universe has always existed. So he can have it both ways. It doesn’t really matter who said it, the fact is Hawking has made it possible for some scientists to say either is true and these men are gulling the public.

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

An odd response to, " It may be spelled either way.( aether or ether )
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. "

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

Oh, you mean you don’t use a " pointed stick? " Do you ever reread some of your stuff? Should be enlightening. Besides I don’t think, " 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… " amounts to a snide insult.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

With that understanding, if space existed it would have to be some sort of body or composed of conjoined bodies, no matter how subtle we might imagine them.

Why does space have to be essentially a grouping of conjoined bodies? And why is empty space a problem?

To me empty space or what ever you want to call it is merely empty of bodies that are not spatial in nature or are not identical with the nature we call space. Space itself is not empty of space. To say there is nothing is space is not the same thing as saying there is no existence.

Nobody knows what space is, we just know its there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why does space have to be essentially a grouping of conjoined bodies? And why is empty space a problem?

To me empty space or what ever you want to call it is merely empty of bodies that are not spatial in nature or are not identical with the nature we call space. Space itself is not empty of space. To say there is nothing is space is not the same thing as saying there is no existence.

Nobody knows what space is, we just know its there.

I am just speculating. To me it does not seem possible, on the philosophical grounds I have explained above, that God would create truly empty space, it seems a logical contradiction to me. God creates something and truly empty space would not be something because it would be non-being or nothing.

But it seems impossible even on scientific grounds. Doesn’t radiation suffuse the entire universe? Doesn’t gravity suffuse the universe? And if these substances ( things which exist ) are not composed of some form of ultimate particles, at least they form some kind of unified plasma, some type of one thing. So, even scientifically, it seems to me there is no such thing as " empty space. "

To me it is a fascinating speculation.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

I am just speculating. To me it does not seem possible, on the philosophical grounds I have explained above, that God would create truly empty space, it seems a logical contradiction to me. God creates something and truly empty space would not be something because it would be non-being or nothing.

But it seems impossible even on scientific grounds. Doesn’t radiation suffuse the entire universe? Doesn’t gravity suffuse the universe? And if these substances ( things which exist ) are not composed of some form of ultimate particles, at least they form some kind of unified plasma, some type of one thing. So, even scientifically, it seems to me there is no such thing as " empty space. "

To me it is a fascinating speculation.

Pax
Linus2nd

You keep saying that God cannot create a non-existent thing. You keep insisting that “truly empty space” cannot exist because it is nonexistence.

Our point is simply that it is not nonexistence. It is space. Space is a thing in and of itself, even if it doesn’t have anything in it. If you have a bowl with no fruit in it, you don’t have some nonexistent paradox, you have a bowl. Likewise, if you have space with no gravity, no particles, no radiation, no matter, no whatever, you still have space. You still have the container. Space is a container. And spacetime is an even better way to describe it, as space only exists in our universe where time does, as caused by the expansion of spacetime. Which is the universe. Space and time are innately linked, as time proceeds forward (theoretical wormholes and whatnot aside), and space proceeds with that. Space has time in it. Space has space in it. It is space. It is a three dimensional location that exists. It is not nonexistence because it exists. Why do you keep insisting that empty space cannot possibly exist, because it is simply space that is unfilled, it isn’t nonexistence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You keep saying that God cannot create a non-existent thing. You keep insisting that “truly empty space” cannot exist because it is nonexistence.

Our point is simply that it is not nonexistence. It is space. Space is a thing in and of itself, even if it doesn’t have anything in it. If you have a bowl with no fruit in it, you don’t have some nonexistent paradox, you have a bowl. Likewise, if you have space with no gravity, no particles, no radiation, no matter, no whatever, you still have space. You still have the container. Space is a container. And spacetime is an even better way to describe it, as space only exists in our universe where time does, as caused by the expansion of spacetime. Which is the universe. Space and time are innately linked, as time proceeds forward (theoretical wormholes and whatnot aside), and space proceeds with that. Space has time in it. Space has space in it. It is space. It is a three dimensional location that exists. It is not nonexistence because it exists. Why do you keep insisting that empty space cannot possibly exist, because it is simply space that is unfilled, it isn’t nonexistence.

My point is that you can’t find a " space " that doesn’t contain some kind of substance, however subtle. In other words there is no such thing as " empty space. "

So called space-time is not a being of existence, it is a being of mathematical operations. It has no real existence in the world,

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

My point is that you can’t find a " space " that doesn’t contain some kind of substance, however subtle. In other words there is no such thing as " empty space. "

So called space-time is not a being of existence, it is a being of mathematical operations. It has no real existence in the world,

Pax
Linus2nd

Why is there no such thing as empty space? How do you justify saying that every inch of space is displaced by a substance?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My point is that you can’t find a " space " that doesn’t contain some kind of substance, however subtle. In other words there is no such thing as " empty space. "

So called space-time is not a being of existence, it is a being of mathematical operations. It has no real existence in the world,

Pax
Linus2nd

I have explained my position clearly. No one has to accept it.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You keep saying that God cannot create a non-existent thing. You keep insisting that “truly empty space” cannot exist because it is nonexistence.

Our point is simply that it is not nonexistence. It is space. Space is a thing in and of itself, even if it doesn’t have anything in it. If you have a bowl with no fruit in it, you don’t have some nonexistent paradox, you have a bowl. Likewise, if you have space with no gravity, no particles, no radiation, no matter, no whatever, you still have space. You still have the container. Space is a container. And spacetime is an even better way to describe it, as space only exists in our universe where time does, as caused by the expansion of spacetime. Which is the universe. Space and time are innately linked, as time proceeds forward (theoretical wormholes and whatnot aside), and space proceeds with that. Space has time in it. Space has space in it. It is space. It is a three dimensional location that exists. It is not nonexistence because it exists. Why do you keep insisting that empty space cannot possibly exist, because it is simply space that is unfilled, it isn’t nonexistence.

And I will keep saying it. I have explained my reasons. I think the problem is that modern readers have been mislead by Einstein’s theories of Relativity and other similar theories. Which makes them incapable of considering metaphysical and theological implications of creation.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why is there no such thing as empty space? How do you justify saying that every inch of space is displaced by a substance?

And I will keep saying it. I have explained my reasons. I think the problem is that modern readers have been mislead by Einstein’s theories of Relativity and other similar theories. Which makes them incapable of considering metaphysical and theological implications of creation.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I think the problem is that modern readers have been mislead by Einstein’s theories of Relativity and other similar theories. . .

I think time will prove you right. I’m not sure why, because space-time has been ingrained in me. That space and time are related is clear, but this does not make them one thing. Change is the constant in matter-energy, space and time; the entire universe exists in perpetual movement, and changes in one aspect affect the others. Space and time are obviously related because we move. As we move at increasingly greater speeds, the total amount of change possible remains the same so that clocks slow down. It’s perhaps not so much that space-time exists, but that a relationship exists between one type of change and another in the same body. This can be described mathematically because events in different spheres are related through universal movement rather than their being one thing. I don’t know; I’m not a physicist and I like to keep an open mind in these sorts of things. (name removed by moderator)ut would be appreciated from people who are physicists…

 

[ChainBreaker]

And I will keep saying it. I have explained my reasons. I think the problem is that modern readers have been mislead by Einstein’s theories of Relativity and other similar theories. Which makes them incapable of considering metaphysical and theological implications of creation.

Pax
Linus2nd

Why would relativity undermine metaphysics?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why would relativity undermine metaphysics?

It doesn’t undermine metaphysics, I said it does not portray reality, it is a mathematical tool. The problem is modern cosmologists portray it as reality and the gullible swallow that tale hook, line, and sinker.

Linus2nd

 

[CatSci]

It doesn’t undermine metaphysics, I said it does not portray reality, it is a mathematical tool. The problem is modern cosmologists portray it as reality and the gullible swallow that tale hook, line, and sinker.

Linus2nd

But you don’t know that. You’re just making that up because you don’t like the results.

 

[DanAl]

I

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?

So long the dreaded G word is omitted anything is possible. Last Thursday, an otherwise intelligent atheist tried to convince me that miracles, and ancient technology came from aliens from other higher dimensions…Oh, dear.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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?

If nothing at all existed, then what would prevent something from coming into existence? In fact, if there there was something preventing things from coming into existence, then that something would exist, and we would not have a state where nothing at all existed.