Nothing to something

[Gorgias]

Outside the universe is exactly as nonsensical as talking about something to the north of the North Pole or the reverse side of the Mobius strip. The universe is everything that exists, therefore there can be nothing “outside” or “prior to”.

I get it: you’re a materialist. To you, there’s only the physical universe, and to suggest that there’s anything else is the height of folly. Moreover, the only standard that you’re willing to accept is one that’s applicable only within spacetime. So, the conceptual problem is yours, my friend: you refuse to consider anything outside of the physical universe, and you refuse to consider any methods other than physical ones. That’s quite a limitation you’re working under!

That is YOUR problem, not mine.

Nope. Not my problem. You’re familiar with the old saying “when all you have is a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail”? I simply refuse to accept your notion that I must screw in a screw with your hammer.

their existence can be deduced from the known laws of physics and the universe.

So either direct observaiton, or indirect demonstration would be fine.

You really think you’ve got me, don’t you?

Friend… “known laws of physics and the universe” applies only to the universe! You’re suggesting I replace one irrelevant measure with another!

Really, now… and you style yourself “rational”.

And we all know which elements are fantastic.

We do! They’re the fantasies you’re spouting!

I explicitly said: “based upon”, but you are free to extend the realm if you can substantiate that such an extension is rational.

No – your requirements do not instantiate “rational”, they instantiate “empirical”. You’re still in that same old corner that you’ve painted yourself into!

unfortunately for you, the existence of the supernatural could be demonstrated rationally - due to the fact that there is an (alleged) interface between the two realms. Too bad for you that every attempt came back with a negative result.

Once you can demonstrate that you have the power to know when the interface makes itself known, you can make that claim. Otherwise, you’re merely looking for polar bears in the Amazon, and claiming they don’t exist in reality when you don’t find them there!

I am also skeptical about the existence of the paranormal. But as soon as it could be demonstrated, I would admit that my skepticism was incorrect. The same applies to the supernatural.

It does not, because the “paranormal” is explicitly an assertion about empirically-verifiable activity. The ‘supernatural’ is not. But hey… nice job trying to conflate them!

 

[Gorgias]

And you STILL did not explain what a “timeless action” would be. And how does it differ from a timeless “inaction”? Any chance of that? Or will you just continue to deflect? I will not hold my breath.

Well… “hope springs eternal”, as they say.

Nevertheless, I have answered – albeit not in terms that you’re willing to accept. (You’re really gonna have to learn to distinguish between “no answer” and “no answer that I like”!)

Still, let’s try again (“hope springs…” as it were!): God is pure act. The operation of His will is an eternal act. It has no beginning and no end.

There ya go! “Timeless act”! Please don’t claim it hasn’t been explained, friend. You just embarrass yourself when you do!

You are welcome to assert that the universe is composed of two parts, a physical and a spiritual

You’re getting it wrong, friend. We do not assert that the “spiritual” is part of the universe, nor must we accept your taxonomy. The two – physical and spiritual – are distinct. Perhaps this is where you’re having difficulties understanding. God is not some bearded guy who lives in the clouds, and the spiritual realm is not part of the universe, way out beyond the galaxy. That’s why we cannot use empirical means to measure it.

Hope that helps.

 

[STT]

I think you’ve reached a point where you’re making this up as you go.

I think I know what I am talking about.

 

[Abrosz]

We do not assert that the “spiritual” is part of the universe , nor must we accept your taxonomy.

The linguistics is simple. Universe means everything that exists. If you don’t accept it, that is one more reason to see that you are hopelessly irrational.

 

[Gorgias]

The linguistics is simple. Universe means everything that exists.

No; in a theological context, it means “the entirety of physical creation.” Now, if you’re a materialist, then for you, it means “everything that exists.”

If you don’t accept it, that is one more reason to see that you are hopelessly irrational.

No. It just means that we’re coming from different perspectives. What’s really interesting is that you seem to fail to realize that your worldview is just one worldview, and when people don’t share your worldview, that doesn’t mean that they’re “irrational.” I’d invite you to ponder this distinction.

 

[Pattylt]

I don’t think believers are irrational! I just can’t accept some “other” reality that we can not interact with except in our minds. I know some claim to have interacted with the supernatural but I also know we are easily self deceived. If I’ve never experienced any interaction other than a mental, one sided conversation with this other realm, I have no way to distinguish it from make believe and wishful thinking.

I’m presented with the dilemma of claiming that if I ask to see or understand it, I will, and the fact that I have and nothing happened. The non believer is stuck in circular reasoning of having to have faith in order to ask for faith. What else are we supposed to think other than it’s a very complex ancient fantasy propagated by parental and authoritarian people to answer questions we still have about things we don’t know. There is no way to properly distinguish your supernatural from any well thought out fantasy.

 

[quaestio45]

Nothing to something is either logically possible or it is logically impossible. There is no need for God in the first case since the process of nothing to something is possible. Introducing God in the second case cannot help to have something out of nothing since the process is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no need for God to have something out of nothing.

There seems to be an error in your logic, @STT. For were we to accept the first possibility over the second (which any theist believing in creation ex nihilo would), that would not immediately and necessarily eliminate the necessity of God. Allow me to explain:

There are two types of “something coming from nothing”; in the sense that nothing is a material cause, or in the sense that it is the efficient cause. Now, were we to accept (as ex nihilo creationist believe) that nothing (as in, absolute nonbeing) can be the material cause of something (being), that does not automatically give justification that something can just pop out of the nothing (which is to say, that nonbeing can’t also be the efficient cause based soley on its ability to be the material cause). So the question then becomes, can nothing be the efficient cause of something? Now, I feel as if I may know the answer to that, but for relevance sake, I just want to point out that were we to come into your reasoning with the extra context of this specific type of nothing to something, there seems to be no way one could eliminate, simply on this fact, that there is no need for God (or an ultimate efficient cause).

 

[STT]

There are two types of “something coming from nothing”; in the sense that nothing is a material cause, or in the sense that it is the efficient cause.

Could you please elaborate? I don’t understand how nothing could be a material or efficient cause.

 

[quaestio45]

Could you please elaborate? I don’t understand how nothing could be a material or efficient cause

Certainly. If you are asking what the terms mean, a material cause is the material by which form is actualized (for example, the material cause of a wooden table is wood, whilst the material cause of a brick house is brick) whilst an efficient cause is that which initiates the change in the material cause so that it may transform into the formal cause (for instance, I make the wooden table, therefore I am the effecient cause - I am he who changed the wood pieces into a wood table).

If you ask how nothing (total deprivation of being; nonbeing) may be an efficient cause or a material cause, it would simply be by it uptaking in the role of either creator (efficient cause) or the material by which under goes formal change (material cause). Nothing (nonbeing) as a material cause is an idea that is held by theist (in the doctrine of creation ex nihilo), whilst nothing as an effecient cause is strongly rejected by them. Their logic is that nothing is causally inert, and therefore cannot bring about change (such as creation), but simply on the basis that it cannot bring change does not eliminate it of the possibility to be changed; thus, it is not a contridiction to say that nothing cannot be an effecient cause whilst simultaneously saying that it holds the attributes to be the material cause. Of course, theres more to it than that, but in all practicality, thats the thesis of their claim. I hope that may have satisfied your request for further elaboration @STT

 

[quaestio45]

Ah yes, one more thing @STT; the reason that theist like myself hold in the idea that nonbeing can undergo change as a material cause is because nonbeing is something that we would call total potentiality (it holds no attributes yet could hold any attribute). And because all change (including creation) is simply a reduction of potentiality to actuality, it follows that so long as there is potential (in this case, nonbeing) and something by which to actualize said potential (efficient cause) change is possible.

 

[STT]

Certainly. If you are asking what the terms mean, a material cause is the material by which form is actualized (for example, the material cause of a wooden table is wood, whilst the material cause of a brick house is brick) whilst an efficient cause is that which initiates the change in the material cause so that it may transform into the formal cause (for instance, I make the wooden table, therefore I am the effecient cause - I am he who changed the wood pieces into a wood table).

If you ask how nothing (total deprivation of being; nonbeing) may be an efficient cause or a material cause, it would simply be by it uptaking in the role of either creator (efficient cause) or the material by which under goes formal change (material cause). Nothing (nonbeing) as a material cause is an idea that is held by theist (in the doctrine of creation ex nihilo), whilst nothing as an effecient cause is strongly rejected by them. Their logic is that nothing is causally inert, and therefore cannot bring about change (such as creation), but simply on the basis that it cannot bring change does not eliminate it of the possibility to be changed; thus, it is not a contridiction to say that nothing cannot be an effecient cause whilst simultaneously saying that it holds the attributes to be the material cause. Of course, theres more to it than that, but in all practicality, thats the thesis of their claim. I hope that may have satisfied your request for further elaboration @STT

Nothing of course cannot bring a change since it is not a thing. The question is whether nothing can lead to something. In another word whether the process of nothing to something is possible. I think that theists owe a proof that nothing cannot lead to something. You hear the answer this is evident by looking at natural world. But this understanding is pure mechanical and applies when there is something rather than nothing.

By the way, thanks for elaboration.

 

[STT]

Ah yes, one more thing @STT; the reason that theist like myself hold in the idea that nonbeing can undergo change as a material cause is because nonbeing is something that we would call total potentiality (it holds no attributes yet could hold any attribute). And because all change (including creation) is simply a reduction of potentiality to actuality, it follows that so long as there is potential (in this case, nonbeing) and something by which to actualize said potential (efficient cause) change is possible.

Is the process of nothing to something is possible (whether there is a God or not)?

 

[quaestio45]

The question is whether nothing can lead to something.

That is indeed a good question. Well first, I wish to identify what position you believe nothing cannot be in; the material, or efficient cause? Or, is it perhaps both?

 

[STT]

That is indeed a good question. Well first, I wish to identify what position you believe nothing cannot be in; the material, or efficient cause? Or, is it perhaps both?

Nothing cannot be efficient cause since it is not a thing. It cannot be essence of something too therefore it cannot be material cause. Nothing and something are different category therefore our understanding of causation in general whether it is material or efficient that applies to something doesn’t apply to nothing.

 

[Abrosz]

Is the process of nothing to something is possible (whether there is a God or not)?

My, oh my. “Nothing” is not an ontological entity (let’s call it: “OL”). There is and cannot be be an ontological entity, which would have the descriptive label of “nothing”. Nothing is just a concept… nothing more! (Sorry for the pun.) And since there is no such entity as “OL”, even the question of “is the process of nothing to something is possible” is exactly as nonsensical as "can a sour tasting color can become a loud middle ‘C’?. Such a question is simply a meaningless word salad, even if it uses syntactically valid sub-entities or words.

 

[STT]

My, oh my. “Nothing” is not an ontological entity (let’s call it: “OL”). There is and cannot be be an ontological entity, which would have the descriptive label of “nothing”. Nothing is just a concept… nothing more! (Sorry for the pun.) And since there is no such entity as “OL”, even the question of “is the process of nothing to something is possible” is exactly as nonsensical as "can a sour tasting color can become a loud middle ‘C’?. Such a question is simply a meaningless word salad , even if it uses syntactically valid sub-entities or words.

Consider the act of creation which is an act which leads to process of nothing to something. That is a process therefore it could be imagined/observed.

 

[quaestio45]

It cannot be essence of something too therefore it cannot be material cause.

It does not seem to me that this objection properly demonstrates that nonbeing cannot be the material cause in causation. For, I don’t make the claim that the material cause must be the thing by which the formal cause follows in essence (and if I did make that claim, I beg your pardon). But rather, that through the transformation of the material cause, the formal cause is brought about. Perhaps it is best we observe these things through the lens of potency and act, yes?

Because wood boards hold potency (it can hold a form it does not yet hold as wood boards alone) it therefore can change, can we agree? For, as we may have agreed upon, change is the reduction of potency to act. So because the boards hold potency (perhaps the potency of being a wooden table), it can therefore be actualized to possess such thing. So, if that be so, and change is all on the basis of simply actualizing what holds potential, and were we to agree that nonbeing is completely deprived of actuality and therefore holds infinite potential, it follows that nonbeing can be the material cause of a contingent being. Would you agree, @TSS?

 

[STT]

It does not seem to me that this objection properly demonstrates that nonbeing cannot be the material cause in causation. For, I don’t make the claim that the material cause must be the thing by which the formal cause follows in essence (and if I did make that claim, I beg your pardon). But rather, that through the transformation of the material cause, the formal cause is brought about. Perhaps it is best we observe these things through the lens of potency and act, yes?

Something is not made of nothing as table is made of wood therefore nothing cannot be material cause.

Because wood boards hold potency (it can hold a form it does not yet hold as wood boards alone) it therefore can change, can we agree? For, as we may have agreed upon, change is the reduction of potency to act. So because the boards hold potency (perhaps the potency of being a wooden table), it can therefore be actualized to possess such thing. So, if that be so, and change is all on the basis of simply actualizing what holds potential, and were we to agree that nonbeing is completely deprived of actuality and therefore holds infinite potential, it follows that nonbeing can be the material cause of a contingent being. Would you agree, @TSS?

Do you mind to elaborate on the bold part? I agree that nothing has infinite potential. I have an idea about this. I was wondering whether you are having proof or following the same idea that I have. It would be nice of you if you could demonstrate that why if nothing has infinite potential then it follows that it could be the material cause of contingent being.

 

[Abrosz]

Consider the act of creation which is an act which leads to process of nothing to something. That is a process therefore it could be imagined/observed.

How do you hope to observe the starting position of “nothing”?

 

[STT]

How do you hope to observe the starting position of “nothing”?

Nothing, excluding God, is starting position. You then have something if the process is possible.