How does God create "the act of existing" out of nothing?

[johnweeder]

With regard to resurrecting someone out of nothingness… I think I missed the most obvious counter point:

If we accept that the universe is eternal (whether cycling or whatever) or if we accept infinite multiverses or any of a number of other scenarios (infinitely expanding or unbounded universe), then the math says that at some time in some reality, I will die and 3 days later I will resurrect. This will happen completely by pure chance (because of introducing the mathematical infinity). I.e. it’s like the old saying that 100 monkeys typing at random will eventually produce the complete works of william shakespeare.

Interesting… if one were an atheist, one could argue that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead but that it was a purely quantum event. One could extend this argument to say that every possible action associated with “God” is merely a very unlikely quantum event. I.e. someone has to win the lottery.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Interesting… if one were an atheist, one could argue that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead but that it was a purely quantum event. One could extend this argument to say that every possible action associated with “God” is merely a very unlikely quantum event. I.e. someone has to win the lottery.

One already did. Hitchens. Argued it wasn’t proof of divinity

 

[JohnMichaels]

With regard to resurrecting someone out of nothingness… I think I missed the most obvious counter point:.

You ever seen “The Man from Earth” ?
Good movie, poses another speculation.

 

[johnweeder]

Not to mention the individual creation of the soul at conception.

peace
steve

Interesting point Steve, let’s say someone is chimeric (there are documented cases of this). This means that two human beings were conceived (i.e. there are now 2 souls according to catholic doctrine) but the result was only one physical person.

This is different from siamese twins… chimeras have, for example, a heart from with one set of DNA, maybe a finger with different DNA but other than this are normal baseline humans. Think of it like maybe the first two cells were the two conceived embryos instead of just a single embryo splitting in 2.

So, as a matter of debate, do we have one body with multiple souls? If not, what happened to the excess souls? If so, who is responsible for the actions? The soul contributing the genetic material for the brain? What body is resurrected at the judgement day? Who gets it and why?

I am also curious what happens to the non-viable embryos. Science says that between 30 and 80% of conceived embryos are either non viable or do not implant. Yet, we know they have a soul. So, when I reach the after life, I can expect 30 to 80% of the population to have never existed in a physical state beyond consisting of 1 - 2 cells.

(I’m not intending this as a disparaging indictment of catholic theology. These are honest questions I have.)

 

[JohnMichaels]

So, as a matter of debate,.)

I like you so much…no debate needed on that:thumbsup:

 

[JohnMichaels]

Please “demonstrate” that it is impossible?

I’ve argued a lot of things over my years, but I’ve generally been unsuccessful in proving something/anything impossible (with the exception of some trivial self referential tautologies).

I missed this post. Why would I need to demonstrate it as impossible? I didn’t think it up, someone else did
I can say something is demonstratively impossible when said “thing” for lack of a better term is presented to me. In this case it was Multiverse.
As for your never being able to prove something impossible, why were you trying? Fun?

 

[johnweeder]

One already did. Hitchens. Argued it wasn’t proof of divinity

The mathematician in me rejects the premise. One can quite literally prove pretty much whatever ones wants after having inserted an infinity somewhere in the equation.

 

[JohnMichaels]

The mathematician in me rejects the premise. One can quite literally prove pretty much whatever ones wants after having inserted an infinity somewhere in the equation.

I can’t argue his case, & even in the clip I could present he runs through it quickly with no mention of disproving, only reasons it itself did not offer proof. Nothing about an infinity…

Beyond any of that, not like he’s likely to elaborate on it now

Also never said he was right, just that he argued the case as you presented “one could argue” and he did

Cheers!

 

[johnweeder]

demonstratively impossible

I believe you used the phrase “demonstratively impossible” at some point. For all but trivial cases, I consider the phrase to be oxymoronic and I usually reply “then please demonstrate it”. Unless I screw up, I generally either win the following debate or am subjected to an ad hominem attack followed by the other party leaving the debate (I consider this a victory in my scorebook).

 

[JohnMichaels]

I believe you used the phrase “demonstratively impossible” at some point. For all but trivial cases, I consider the phrase to be oxymoronic and I usually reply “then please demonstrate it”. Unless I screw up, I generally either win the following debate or am subjected to an ad hominem attack followed by the other party leaving the debate (I consider this a victory in my scorebook).

I agree, my wording allowed you to switch the burden of proof onto me, when I proclaimed it “impossible”
It was up to me to prove it impossible. I didn’t have to, I could have just said “Multiverse hasn’t been proven”
I already admitted my defeat in the word play game debate

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I did not say it was the “meaning” of the heisenberg principle. I said it was an “implication” of it. In layman’s term’s, if a space was “empty”, I would know the position and momentum of the particles within that space. Hence, virtual particles come from “nothing” so that I, as an observer, can never know with 100% certainty.

There are multiple instances of the effect of “creation of something nothing” in the scientific world including the work of Dirac (matter/antimatter), the Casimir Effect (which has been experimentally verified) or the “evaporation” of black holes (which CERN’s LHC may possibly verify experimentally).

Linus II… you are making the scientific equivalent here of asserting that the earth is flat.

Further, I would argue that if nature can create something from nothing (and it obviously does) then it seems pretty likely that God, if he exists, also can.

I respectfully disagree. Space is the condition of materiality. If there is no materiality, there is no space. Science and faith cannot be contradictory. The Church has spoken on the matter. The problem is that some scientists are drawing the wrong conclusion from their theories. They are making a metaphysical conclusion rather than stating a scientific fact. That is in valid. It is a conclusion they cannot prove.

Linus2nd

 

[johnweeder]

Nothing about an infinity…

Perhaps he did not recognize them. The classic example of 100 monkeys eventually typing out the complete works of William Shakespeare contains the implied infinity within the “eventually”. Essentially, the infinity guarantees that anything which is possible will at some point be realized.

One also, obviously, has to watch for divide by zeros (though these seldom happen in a spoken debate). The closest (though bad) analogy I have is the old “if a tree falls in a forest but no one hears it…”.

While we’re on numbers and infinities, tell me which is greater:
1
or
.999999 (where the 9s repeat forever).

The answer is that they represent the same quantity. Nature seems to be full of these dualities where things appear different depending on perspective but are actually the same.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suggest you Space Cadets read the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas or " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. We are not numbies here, we aren’t impressed by slight of hand scientism. Hey Linux why haven’t chimed in here ? This detour should eat up the rest of the 1,000 post maximum .

Linus2nd

 

[JohnMichaels]

Perhaps he did not recognize them. The classic example of 100 monkeys eventually typing out the complete works of William Shakespeare contains the implied infinity within the “eventually”. Essentially, the infinity guarantees that anything which is possible will at some point be realized…

He wasn’t challenging the validity of the event, so that would negate the need for him to consider it eventually being realized.
He was describing it’s banality.

Then he died, pretty much putting an end to his debating

 

[johnweeder]

They are making a metaphysical conclusion rather than stating a scientific fact.

Also, respectively… what conclusion did I draw? I stated scientific facts. I.e. that the laws of nature demonstrate the apparent “creation” of things out of nothingness.

I believe the scientific community accepts the Casimir effect almost as completely as the apparent fact that the Earth is roughly spherical and that relativity is correct. Granted there are many interpretations of the Casimir. However, even rejecting that, one finds great reliance on the creation/destruction of virtual particles in a wide variety of physical processes.

I would further state the your position that the “Science and faith cannot be contradictory.” boils down to “If science and faith contradict, and science is right, then faith must be wrong”. The church can say “2+2=3” all it wants. The earth is not flat nor is it the center of the universe. Faith will never make it so.

===

Please be careful because we are mixing the scientific meanings of words like space with other meanings. I plead guilty here because I selected mainstream terms over the more precise scientific terms.

In a more precise sense, Heisenberg states that the product of the standard deviation of the position and standard deviation of the momentum is always greater or equal to .5 of the reduced Planck constant (a dimensionless quantity).

In this case, we are concerned primarily with dx (the difference in position) and d(mv) representing the difference in momentum (mv). Our primary quantities here are x, with units of dimension, and m, a quantity with units of mass. v, obviously, is equivalent to dx/dt. We can obviously extend to 2 or 3 (or even more) dimensions by changing x to a vector though still having units of dimension.

In this case, for any N-d region bounded by dimensions sufficiently larger than the Planck length, the Heisenberg principle will apply. Necessarily, so will the interpretation that that bounded region, or space, can never be strictly “empty”… in the sense of containing no mass. Further, any attempt at measurement ensures creation/destruction of new masses with new momentums (yet, conserving overall energy and momentum) such that there always remains an uncertainty in this measurement.

Further, apparently it is not even possible to know the values. This carries the implication that even God CANnot (as opposed to “DOES not”) know them.

Please do not try to tell me that “God knows everything” and then forcing me to tender you a remedial lesson in how asking God to “create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it” is the fallacy of expecting God to do the impossible. God can only do and know that which is possible and which is not against his nature.

I accept there are alternate ways to characterize this physical process. Much as we can view quanta through the dual lenses of being particles and waves, there are undoubtedly many ways to view the uncertainty principle or the casimir effect. However, regardless of how you characterize it, for the purposes of this debate, the result is essentially the same.

 

[johnweeder]

He was describing it’s banality.

I can empathize with that. My problem with the concept of heaven is precisely its banality. The quantity of eternal-ness mathematically guarantees either a steady state existence or an endless repeating cycle.

I like to say I will be the equivalent of either Sisyphus or his rock. Not sure which alternative is preferable.

Then he died, pretty much putting an end to his debating

Well, that sucks, but it is possible he’s still alive in another universe.

Alternately, if our universe is not bounded or is eternal, then it is probably a mathematical certainty that an identical-in-all-respects copy either currently exists (unbounded universe) or will exist again at some point (endless universe).

 

[JohnMichaels]

Well, that sucks, but it is possible he’s still alive in another universe.

Alternately, if our universe is not bounded or is eternal, then it is probably a mathematical certainty that an identical-in-all-respects copy either currently exists (unbounded universe) or will exist again at some point (endless universe).

That made me happy. Thanks

Do you think it possible an individual can become acutely aware he existed before?

 

[johnweeder]

We are not numbies here, we aren’t impressed by slight of hand scientism.
Linus2nd

Nice try. If one can’t counter a point, then throw out a book title (as if that proves something, I doubt you’ve even read it or correctly understood it) or just dismiss the premise using some pejorative comment. Or do both. At least you didn’t call me or my mother a name. That’s something.

Numbers and science don’t lie. They are what they are. They aren’t here to impress you. Numbers and facts merely exist. You can accept them. You can disprove them if they are wrong. Or, you can persist in a self imposed ignorance. I really don’t care either way.

I am in search of God’s truth. I will not be distracted by someone’s belief that the earth is flat and is the center of the universe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Also, respectively… what conclusion did I draw? I stated scientific facts. I.e. that the laws of nature demonstrate the apparent “creation” of things out of nothingness.

I believe the scientific community accepts the Casimir effect almost as completely as the apparent fact that the Earth is roughly spherical and that relativity is correct. Granted there are many interpretations of the Casimir. However, even rejecting that, one finds great reliance on the creation/destruction of virtual particles in a wide variety of physical processes.

I would further state the your position that the “Science and faith cannot be contradictory.” boils down to “If science and faith contradict, and science is right, then faith must be wrong”. The church can say “2+2=3” all it wants. The earth is not flat nor is it the center of the universe. Faith will never make it so.

===

Please be careful because we are mixing the scientific meanings of words like space with other meanings. I plead guilty here because I selected mainstream terms over the more precise scientific terms.

In a more precise sense, Heisenberg states that the product of the standard deviation of the position and standard deviation of the momentum is always greater or equal to .5 of the reduced Planck constant (a dimensionless quantity).

In this case, we are concerned primarily with dx (the difference in position) and d(mv) representing the difference in momentum (mv). Our primary quantities here are x, with units of dimension, and m, a quantity with units of mass. v, obviously, is equivalent to dx/dt. We can obviously extend to 2 or 3 (or even more) dimensions by changing x to a vector though still having units of dimension.

In this case, for any N-d region bounded by dimensions sufficiently larger than the Planck length, the Heisenberg principle will apply. Necessarily, so will the interpretation that that bounded region, or space, can never be strictly “empty”… in the sense of containing no mass. Further, any attempt at measurement ensures creation/destruction of new masses with new momentums (yet, conserving overall energy and momentum) such that there always remains an uncertainty in this measurement.

Further, apparently it is not even possible to know the values. This carries the implication that even God CANnot (as opposed to “DOES not”) know them.

Please do not try to tell me that “God knows everything” and then forcing me to tender you a remedial lesson in how asking God to “create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it” is the fallacy of expecting God to do the impossible. God can only do and know that which is possible and which is not against his nature.

I accept there are alternate ways to characterize this physical process. Much as we can view quanta through the dual lenses of being particles and waves, there are undoubtedly many ways to view the uncertainty principle or the casimir effect. However, regardless of how you characterize it, for the purposes of this debate, the result is essentially the same.

I assume that you know what it means to be a Catholic.

Linus2nd

 

[johnweeder]

Do you think it possible an individual can become acutely aware he existed before?

I reject the implied assumption you made when inserting the word “before”.

I generally accept the catholic dogma concerning God. However, consider that God (as defined) is unchanging. There is no before or after. The statement “I AM” is literal. In this sense, we have free will in this temporal domain. Free will has an implication of causality and causality, I believe, can only exist in a temporal domain. And, yet, God knows everything because, unbounded by temporal constraints he both is, was and will-be all at the same time.

How this applies to me or this universe or the multiverse, if it exists, I don’t know. I can say I have spent hours upon end pondering it. I generally believe that in the larger picture there is no before or after. Accepting the Catholic God I would say that God has always “known” me and therefore, in essence, I have always and will always exist.

The closest I have come is to posit that perhaps I am like Schroedinger’s Cat. In this universe, the box has been opened and I am (as of now) alive. My wave function has collapsed into this reality. Perhaps in another 'verse I am dead (if many-worlds is correct). Or, perhaps, “I” am defined by the equivalent of the wave function which defines defines Schroedinger’s simultaneously half dead and half alive cat?

I think we assume to much based on what we directly perceive in the world immediately around us. I accept the “everything” is much stranger and complex than I know. Probably more than it is possible for me to know. I suspect that most everything I think I know about my physical universe is either wrong or substantially incomplete.

I pointedly reject those closed minds who accept everything at face value. They recite unquestioning dogma and attempt to augment it with out of context quotes or misunderstood quotes from sources they consider to be authoritative. They aren’t generally worth debating with but it takes a bit to identify them. If a southern baptist thinks the world was created 8,000 years ago, then there is just no sense wasting your breath debating him. Nothing can possibly be gained. I have only started to identify those people here.

The world is populated with probably thousands of religions. In every case, their adherents were as fervent in there beliefs as anyone here is. I would extend the anthropic principle to question why I believe that my beliefs are right when so many others have, do or will believe just as fervently in theirs. I still believe I am right. But, if I am right, it also means that it was God’s plan for the other’s to believe they were right. God must then have necessarily also created the atheists.

So, in the end, no answer for your question. Only more questions. Perhaps it is always intended to be so. Enough for today.