Nothing to something

[STT]

The process of creation, from nothing to something, without God is impossible. As the early greek philosophers rightly said “from nothing comes nothing,” although they were considering only particular or second causes, not the universal and first cause of all.

What is the proof for “from nothing comes nothing”?

 

[STT]

What if it’s only logically possible through the action of God?

You need to prove that “from nothing comes nothing”, therefore there is needed for God in order to bring something out of nothing.

 

[Gorgias]

You need to prove that “from nothing comes nothing”, therefore there is needed for God in order to bring something out of nothing.

Actually, you need to prove that, from a natural / physical standpoint, “from nothing comes something”, no?

 

[Richca]

Richca:

The process of creation, from nothing to something, without God is impossible. As the early greek philosophers rightly said “from nothing comes nothing,” although they were considering only particular or second causes, not the universal and first cause of all.

What is the proof for “from nothing comes nothing”?

(1) Our reason.
(2) Observation of the universe
(3) The principle of causality

 

[STT]

Actually, you need to prove that, from a natural / physical standpoint, “from nothing comes something”, no?

Actually no. It was you that ask why if nothing to something is only possible through the action of God? I can however show that no principle is violated during the process of nothing to something. Therefore, it is possible.

 

[STT]

(1) Our reason.

What is it?

(2) Observation of the universe

We haven’t been in the starting point. Have we? So we cannot judge how the starting point should be from observing the current state of the universe.

(3) The principle of causality

Principle of causality applies when there is something.

 

[Gorgias]

It was you that ask why if nothing to something is only possible through the action of God?

I didn’t ask ‘why’, I asked the rhetorical question ‘what if?’. It’s something you’d have to account for, in your musings.

I can however show that no principle is violated during the process of nothing to something.

Sure, there’s a violation of principle! Nothing ever is created from nothing!

 

[STT]

I didn’t ask ‘why’, I asked the rhetorical question ‘what if?’. It’s something you’d have to account for, in your musings.

Sorry I should have used “what” instead of “why” in my comment.

Sure, there’s a violation of principle! Nothing ever is created from nothing!

One cannot establish this fact by observing the current state of affair, when there is something. You therefore need a proof for your principle.

 

[IWantGod]

Principle of causality applies when there is something.

Why should causality apply at all if that’s true? If it were a logical possibility for something to come out of nothing without a cause there would be no need to think that there is any causal relation between things at all; it just appears that way. Unless of course you think that logic only applies when things exist.

Your reasons for suggesting that nothing to something without a cause is a possibility are arbitrary, and things don’t just happen for no reason like brute facts. As soon as you are forced to argue for the possibility that something can begin to exist without a cause, the theist has won the debate because you are no longer reasoning. You are essentially saying that something occurred for no reason and has no reason for it’s newly acquired existence; It’s not getting it’s existence from anything and nothing is the absence of existence. You are arguing for the possibility of an irrational existence, like it’s just magic or something. Your position is absurd, going against the principles of reasoning, and that’s why it’s you that needs to prove that something can begin to exist with out a cause. It’s not our Job to make a defence.

 

[IWantGod]

One cannot establish this fact by observing the current state of affair, when there is something. You therefore need a proof for your principle.

There cannot coherently be such a thing as a potential for existence without existence, because non-existence is the complete lack of anything by definition including potential. Secondly if you accept the principle of non-contradiction (the comer stone of reasoning), then you have to accept that at least something has eternally existed because there is absolutely nothing in nothing and the principle of non-contradiction eternally applies. Otherwise it’s meaningless to speak of logic.

Nothing lacks existence and therefore cannot become what it lacks because it’s an absence of reality by definition. If something begins to exist without a cause it has in effect become what it fundamentally lacked, which is an obvious contradiction.

 

[Dan123]

I would first like to know if it’s logical for “nothing” to exist, “nothing” may very well be a square circle.

 

[IWantGod]

I would first like to know if it’s logical for “nothing” to exist, “nothing” may very well be a square circle.

It is comparable to a square circle since if nothing is existing then one is saying that nothing is what it fundamentally lacks.

 

[Gorgias]

One cannot establish this fact by observing the current state of affair, when there is something.

Not true. Even though there is “something”, there could nevertheless still be “something from nothing”, if that principle were true. The problem is… it’s not (at least, not from natural causes).

You therefore need a proof for your principle.

We do, already, don’t we? Everything requires a cause. Therefore, there’s no thing that can come from no cause (i.e., “no thing”). There’s your principle.

 

[STT]

Why should causality apply at all if that’s true? If it were a logical possibility for something to come out of nothing without a cause there would be no need to think that there is any causal relation between things at all; it just appears that way. Unless of course you think that logic only applies when things exist.

The universe in which the causal relation is held is only one possible scenario among other possible scenario.

Your reasons for suggesting that nothing to something without a cause is a possibility are arbitrary, and things don’t just happen for no reason like brute facts. As soon as you are forced to argue for the possibility that something can begin to exist without a cause, the theist has won the debate because you are no longer reasoning. You are essentially saying that something occurred for no reason and has no reason for it’s newly acquired existence; It’s not getting it’s existence from anything and nothing is the absence of existence. You are arguing for the possibility of an irrational existence, like it’s just magic or something. Your position is absurd, going against the principles of reasoning, and that’s why it’s you that needs to prove that something can begin to exist with out a cause. It’s not our Job to make a defence.

This is mechanical and classical way of thinking, things should have reason to happen, that applies to our universe in macro level. It is not even true in micro/quantum scale, pair of electron and positron appear without any cause.

 

[STT]

There cannot coherently be such a thing as a potential for existence without existence, because non-existence is the complete lack of anything by definition including potential.

There is no need for nothing to have any potentiality. The only thing which is needed is that the process of nothing to something is logically possible by this I mean that there is no principle that stop this from happening.

Secondly if you accept the principle of non-contradiction ( the corner stone of reasoning ), then you have to accept that at least something has eternally existed because there is absolutely nothing in nothing and the principle of non-contradiction eternally applies. Otherwise it’s meaningless to speak of logic.

There is no such a thing as eternal nothing. There was only one point at which there was nothing.

Nothing lacks existence and therefore cannot become what it lacks because it’s an absence of reality by definition. If something begins to exist without a cause it has in effect become what it fundamentally lacked, which is an obvious contradiction.

Noting is lack of existence. And nothing to something is possible unless it violate a principle. You could have matter and anti-mater out of nothing. All physical constant are preserved in the process of nothing to something provided that you have the same amount of matter and anti-matter.

 

[STT]

I would first like to know if it’s logical for “nothing” to exist, “nothing” may very well be a square circle.

There was a beginning therefore there was either a God or nothing. In first case, when there is a God, the act of bringing something out of nothing is either possible or impossible. By impossible I mean that there is at least a principle that God cannot defy (this scenario is out of question since even God cannot create yet the universe exists). By possible I mean that there is no principle that God has to defy. If there is no principle that prohibit nothing to something possible then there is no need for God, Ockham’s Razor. Therefore, there was nothing.

Now, it is your turn to show that God is not square-circle. I have an argument that shows that the act of creation leads to a regress therefore it is logically impossible.

 

[STT]

Not true. Even though there is “something”, there could nevertheless still be “something from nothing”, if that principle were true. The problem is… it’s not (at least, not from natural causes).

There is something when there is something.

We do, already, don’t we? Everything requires a cause . Therefore, there’s no thing that can come from no cause (i.e., “no thing”). There’s your principle.

That is mechanical way of thinking, basically the first law of Newton. If something is unmoved it stays in that condition because it has mass. Nothing doesn’t have any mass so there is no need for mover.

 

[Lion_IRC]

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…

There would be a need for God if/since God is the event trigger (causation).

Of course its metaphysically possible that an undesigned, uncaused ‘thing’ might unexpectedly, spontaneously pop into existence ex nihilo.

…but is that really your alternative ‘better’ explanation?

You wont accept (the explanatory power of) a Higher Being but you will happily contemplate a sort of spooky magic/woo where ‘things’ mysteriously pop into existence for no reason, ??? Really?

 

[_root]

It is not even true in micro/quantum scale, pair of electron and positron appear without any cause

Correct me if I’m wrong but Isn’t the cause quantum fluctuation? If so, isn’t that a kind of energy change? If that’s correct then where did the energy come from?

 

[Hume]

We know that something coming out of absolutely nothing by itself is impossible. We know that because absolutely nothing is the complete absence of reality and thus there is no reality for something to begin existing in.

We don’t know if that state is even possible. Philosophical “nothing” might not even be possible, god or no god.

“There was nothing before the big bang”

Ah-ah, the state of affairs before the BB is beyond the observable horizon. To say that it was nothing is a posit for which there is literally no evidence.

It might have been turtles. Or a universe filled to the absolute edge with llamas.

Pick a card.