Nothing to something

[AlNg]

Nothing, excluding God, is starting position.

There is the assumption here that there is a starting position.

I mean there is only God at the beginning.

There is an assumption here that there is a beginning.

Nothing to something. Possible or impossible?

I would say that nothing to something is impossible.
But i am not convinced that there must have been a beginning in time for the whole universe. Or at least perhaps it is not impossible that there have been infinite cycles of expansion and collapse with total energy being neither created not destroyed. I am still not sure what time is, except that everyone is getting older and never younger.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

@STT, you misunderstand the claim horribly. It’s not that nothing leads to something – it’s the claim that something comes from no previous thing.

Christians claim that there was nothing – and then, God created the universe without relying on previously existing “somethings”. Therefore, “something from nothing”. It’s not that ‘nothing’, as such, gives rise to ‘something’. It’s that ‘something’ comes into existence without any prior ‘something’ from which it is made.

 

[AlNg]

Christians claim that there was nothing

Revelation does say so. The third way says so. But many do not see the argument as convincing.

 

[Gorgias]

Revelation does say so. The third way says so. But many do not see the argument as convincing.

If the self-revelation of God himself does not seem “convincing” to some, then that says something about what exactly they might need in order to ‘convince’ them.

 

[AlNg]

If the self-revelation of God himself does not seem “convincing” to some, then that says something about what exactly they might need in order to ‘convince’ them.

A nice debating point, but unfortunately not too convincing as the number of atheists is increasing.

The Number of Americans with No Religious Affiliation Is Rising | Scientific American

https://www.barna.com/rise-of-atheism/

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m not discussing what you are talking about. I’m discussing a separate proposal entirely. In which terms like before and after are not valid.

What is another proposal?

Good grief…

The cyclical universe.

 

[Gorgias]

A nice debating point, but unfortunately not too convincing as the number of atheists is increasing.

Right. Because, after all, ‘truth’ is a matter of public consensus, eh?

I’ll defer to a wiser person than I:

“Moral principles do not depend on a majority vote. Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

 

[quaestio45]

1. Nothing is neither material cause (in the sense that wood is material cause of a chair) nor efficient cause

Well I believe this ground was already covered and agreed upon by us, wasn’t it STT? That the material cause need not share the essence of the formal cause, but instead need only a potentiality by which can be actualized into the formal cause. Now if nonbeing is pure potentiality, it thus can be actualized into anything, therefore it can be the material cause of being.

1. The idea that in material world things move from potentiality to actuality due to a mover is purely classical and does not necessary apply to nothing unless a separate proof is given since as I mentioned before material world/something and nothing are different categories so the idea that a mover always needed in material world to move something does not necessary applies to nothing.

I humbly disagree with you STT, for if we both agree that nonbeing is pure potentiality and thus actualizable, and if we recognize that potentiality is only actulizable through an efficient cause, it seems safe to say that Aristotelian motion may still very much be applicable. Furthermore, although nothing and something are two separate categories, it does not eliminate the ability for classical change to apply to nothing, for, as I said, if nothing is only truely potency whilst something is only truly act, and change centers around potency coming to act, then classical change can and does apply to even nonbeing.

quaestio45:

Well, lets explore this a little, if we may. If I were to ask the question “can nothing (as a material cause) be actualized into something (as a formal cause) without need of an efficient cause?”,

Yes, that is what I am trying to say.

would it be reasonable and valid for me to rephrase it into, say “can nothing be actualized into something with the efficient cause being nothing”?

No, that is not what I am trying to say. Nothing is not a thing therefore it cannot be efficient cause.

So you would say those two statements are therefore nonequivalent, yes? But if that be so, would you not also be saying that the statements “There are no dragons in reality” and “dragons are nonexistent reality” and “there are zero dragons in reality” are not all communicating the exact same thing?

Of course nothing cannot be an efficient cause since it is not a thing.

I’m glad there is at least common ground and this front.

 

[STT]

I am not arguing against act of creation in here.

 

[STT]

Good grief…

The cyclical universe.

I have nothing against the idea of cyclical universe. I am arguing that there was a first cycle. It is nonsense to say that there was not a previous cycle since time ceased to exist at one point in the past.

 

[AlNg]

Because, after all, ‘truth’ is a matter of public consensus, eh?

I guess it depends on the subject. Not so much for math, but possible to some extent for physics, or more exactly physical models. It is not a question of absolute truth in physics, but what works best within the limitations of the model. As far as torture is concerned, yes the truth is a matter of public consensus. Today the Catholic Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil. That is the truth today.
During the time of the inquisition, torture was allowed and carried out by church officials. According to the book by Charles Lea, some Catholics were excommunicated from the pulpit for denouncing the torture used by the inquisition.

 

[AlNg]

time ceased to exist at one point in the past.

i wasn’t sure if you were arguing for or against this.
I don’t see a convincing proof that time ceased to exist at one point in the past. Maybe, maybe not.

 

[STT]

Well I believe this ground was already covered and agreed upon by us, wasn’t it STT? That the material cause need not share the essence of the formal cause, but instead need only a potentiality by which can be actualized into the formal cause. Now if nonbeing is pure potentiality, it thus can be actualized into anything, therefore it can be the material cause of being.

Ok, then we are in the same page. I can agree with what your definition of pure potentiality.

I humbly disagree with you STT, for if we both agree that nonbeing is pure potentiality and thus actualizable, and if we recognize that potentiality is only actulizable through an efficient cause, it seems safe to say that Aristotelian motion may still very much be applicable. Furthermore, although nothing and something are two separate categories, it does not eliminate the ability for classical change to apply to nothing, for, as I said, if nothing is only truely potency whilst something is only truly act, and change centers around potency coming to act, then classical change can and does apply to even nonbeing.

I am afraid that there is a missing step in your proof that classical Aristotelian mechanical law which states that you need a mover for motion applies to nothing too.

So you would say those two statements are therefore nonequivalent, yes?

Yes, I am saying that two statement are clearly different. In former you are discussing the process of nothing to something which is possible and in another one you discuss that nothing has to be efficient cause too in order to move itself.

But if that be so, would you not also be saying that the statements “There are no dragons in reality” and “dragons are nonexistent reality” and “there are zero dragons in reality” are not all communicating the exact same thing?

These are the same expression.

I’m glad there is at least common ground and this front.

I am glad too. I also would like to say that I have an argument against God which would be happy to share it with you since you are man of your mind and can critically provide a contour argument against it, if there is any.

 

[STT]

Can you prove this?

That is what Penrose suggests. It is not my model. I don’t understand how you could have a cyclic universe which time ceases to exist at a point yet you could motion.

 

[AlNg]

I don’t understand how you could have a cyclic universe which time ceases to exist at a point yet you could motion.

Right. Time is necessary for motion to occur.

 

[STT]

Right. Time is necessary for motion to occur.

I am glad that we agree.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Good grief…

The cyclical universe.

I have nothing against the idea of cyclical universe. I am arguing that there was a first cycle. It is nonsense to say that there was not a previous cycle since time ceased to exist at one point in the past.

There is only one cycle. There cannot have been a first. The universe is part of the cycle not a cycle in itself. There is no first. There is no ‘before’ as time begins again just like it did at the big bang. It’s nonsensical to ask what was ‘before’ the big bang.

 

[Freddy]

AlNg:

Can you prove this?

That is what Penrose suggests. It is not my model. I don’t understand how you could have a cyclic universe which time ceases to exist at a point yet you could motion.

Time is a measure of the rate of change. For change to occur you need motion. There is no motion and therefore no time.

It’s nonsensical to say that you need time for motion to occur. That’s like saying speed is needed for movement or weight is necessary for mass. Speed and weight are measurements as is time.

 

[AlNg]

Time is a measure of the rate of change.

So time is only a measure? IOW, it is only a unit used to express a rate? So time itself is not something real such as space?

It’s nonsensical to say that you need time for motion to occur.

Is it also nonsensical to say that you need space for motion to occur? Can motion occur without space or is space necessary for it to move around ? Can a planet move around the sun without space?

 

[quaestio45]

I am afraid that there is a missing step in your proof that classical Aristotelian mechanical law which states that you need a mover for motion applies to nothing too.

Could you perhaps elaborate on what is missing from the formulation which keeps classical understanding of change from being applicable to nonbeing? Or, if it may not be too much, what I overlook or neglect which invalidates my thinking?

Yes, I am saying that two statement are clearly different. In former you are discussing the process of nothing to something which is possible and in another one you discuss that nothing has to be efficient cause too in order to move itself.

Permitting that we continue using the model of Aristotelian change, and continuing on the assumption that you agree “nothing can be actualized into something with no efficient cause” is a fair representation of your position, I believe that it is fair to say that the statement is equivalent to the statement “nothing can be actualized into something with the efficient cause being nonbeing” on the basis of one-for-one analogy. For, it seems to me that to deny my equalization of the two higher statements would be same as to deny the equalization of the statements “There is no dragon in reality” and “the dragon is nonexistence in reality” and “there are zero dragons in reality”, would you not agree?

I also would like to say that I have an argument against God which would be happy to share it with you since you are man of your mind and can critically provide a contour argument against it, if there is any.

I would be quite glad to hear the argument (inspite of my lacking of great analytical skill ). It would perhaps be an enlightening endevour, and as such, it would foolish of me to refuse to hear you out. In any case, yes, I would like to hear your argument.