Nothing to something

[Gorgias]

You can never KNOW what is in alignment with God, since he never communicates with us.

No; it’s merely the case that you refuse to recognize the ways in which God communicates with us. Subtle, yet critical difference.

So we can ONLY rely on the secular understanding of good and evil.

This conclusion relies on the invalid premise, above.

Looks like that we cannot agree on even the most fundamental categories. How can we have a conversation when we talk past each other?

Finally! A word of truth!

For the sake of discussion I accept that God exists, but NOT that he is good.

You realize that’s the logical equivalent of “I accept that he’s a bachelor, but NOT that he’s unmarried”!

Regress and infinity are sort of the same thing.

Umm… no. The problem with regress is that it goes on, unresolved and without end. But that doesn’t mean that regress is infinity, just as “universe” and “infinity” aren’t the same thing.

 

[quaestio45]

I use the starting point that God is the creator of the universe - nothing else.

So we are discussing a deistic God then and not the biblical all good God of the bible? If that be the case, I concede that you are correct; it doesn’t seem to me possible that we can draw a line between vague creator and his objective moral highness. Such would require external knowledge which I do not pocess.

If God is axiomatically “good”, then there is nothing to talk about. All the misery, mayhem, rapes and tortures along with the natural disasters are “good” because God either directly causes or indirectly permits / allow them to happen.

It does not necessarily follow from God’s axiomatic goodness (if we were to hold such as true) that all things in the world are good as well. You’re argument that it must be good because God permits it I would say misses the mark; for simply on the holding of idea A does not mean that you must eliminate the existence of idea B nor does it follow on the allowing of the idea B’s existence that you somehow support it.

Now, one could say that if God was all good he would not allow for the alternative to him to exist (that being, of course, evil), but it seems to me the refutation to this is simple; it may be to bring ultimately a good higher then if the choice for evil never existed in the first place. As such, we cannot necessarily say that an all good God results in either an all good universe or a contridiction.

quaestio45:

Well, I see in this argument you identify God as good for the sake of argument, so lets follow that road.

No, that is also a misunderstanding. If one accepts that Satan is evil, then it means that he attempts to cause harm to humans.

You said, however:

And since Satan is the quintessential “evil”, a good God could or would simply CHOOSE NOT to create it.

You identify God as good here. My argument followed from such assertion.

 

[quaestio45]

That is a cop out.

Is it?

Again - freely, knowingly and intentionally creating evil is evil.

I agree.

And unbridled free will is not an excuse.

Correct; your free will does not exonerate you from choosing evil, if thats what you were saying.

And God is under no obligation to create those who would reject him.

One could say that a will free to choose or reject God would never be guaranteed to go one route over the other due to the nature of free will. As such, even those that may not choose to reject good still could reject it, and are therefore not guaranteed to stay in choosing good.

But God knows all, and therefore can see all in the future as well as the present and past with perfect clarity; as such, he could just create those who he already knows never reject him. But perhaps to limit creation on the basis of the actions that one may take might be something which isn’t good, for it might be similar to punishing a man for a crime he has yet to commit (for example, executing child Hitler for crimes he did not commit is something not necessarily good, therefore it can be bad. Therefore, it might be that punishing before the thing punishable happens is bad). As such, we may say that God is obligated to not limit creation on the basis of the choices said created would take in the future, for it would be like punishment for what has not even occured. As such, it isn’t necessarily true that God could simply not create those who would reject him.

 

[Abrosz]

So we are discussing a deistic God then and not the biblical all good God of the bible?

Not at all. I am willing to concede - but only for the purposes of the discussion - that God created the universe. Everything else is merely a hypothesis, which needs to be substantiated. I do not dismiss out of hand all the attributes of God, but they are not accepted axiomatically. They could be accepted, but they need to be argued for.

It keeps happening that in some threads some of God’ certain attributes are the focus of the discussion, and then some posters indignantly proclaim: “but you are not talking about the Christian God! You are talking about something totally different.” And that would be the joke of the century, if it would not be offered as a serious argument.

You identify God as good here. My argument followed from such assertion.

No, I started from the hypothetical that God is “good”, and if this were the case, then God would not create Satan.

After all we agree that freely, knowingly and intentionally creating evil is evil itself.

 

[quaestio45]

Not at all. I am willing to concede - but only for the purposes of the discussion - that God created the universe.

Great, so for the sake of argument, a creator of reality exists.

Everything else is merely a hypothesis, which needs to be substantiated. I do not dismiss out of hand all the attributes of God, but they are not accepted axiomatically. They could be accepted, but they need to be argued for.

So I guess my confusion stems from this clarification then. Because if we were arguing over whether or not an all good God (or the God of Christianity which is described as the good itself) is compatible with the creation of satan, wouldn’t we both have to entertain the premise that one, an all good God exists, and two, that he created satan? If that be so, we must discuss a God who is not simply creater of the universe, but also the author of good, right? Otherwise we are discussing a deistic God, wouldn’t you agree?

This is unless, of course, we were to say that we need argumentation as to the binding of God and goodness, but that be so we would be discussing something entirely different (namely, whether a God musy necessarily hold the attribute of goodness). But I must confess Abrosz, I don’t think I’m capable of making that defense (as I’ve said above).

The other possibility is that we are asking whether a plain and generic creator can be compatible with evil, to which I must concede he can be if he is not the good (for there could only be a problem of incompatibility if there were contridicting elements at play here).

 

[quaestio45]

It keeps happening that in some threads some of God’ certain attributes are the focus of the discussion, and then some posters indignantly proclaim: “but you are not talking about the Christian God! You are talking about something totally different.” And that would be the joke of the century, if it would not be offered as a serious argument.

Well I’d have to have some sympathy with the individual who responds in this way, Abrosz, if the discussion was anchored upon the nature of the Christian God as opposed to simply a generic creator (to whom, if you would allow, I will refer to as simply the deistic God). For, if I’m not mistaken, to go from discusing God of the bible to generic God is like going from a discussion of the specific attributes of dog to the attributes of animals more broadly. We should rather stick with the premises of discussion, if those are what is at play, rather then jump to the questioning of the premises, which would result in another discusion entirely.

No, I started from the hypothetical that God is “good”

Fantastic! Thats all I ask for; that we entertain the premises to see if they may be compatible with each other.

and if this were the case, then God would not create Satan.

In other words, an all good God is incompatible with the creation of satan, yes?

After all we agree that freely, knowingly and intentionally creating evil is evil itself.

Yes, I did agree this was true. I don’t think my response was badly put, however, when I said:

perhaps to limit creation on the basis of the actions that one may take might be something which isn’t good, for it might be similar to punishing a man for a crime he has yet to commit (for example, executing child Hitler for crimes he did not commit is something not necessarily good, therefore it can be bad. Therefore, it might be that punishing before the thing punishable happens is bad). As such, we may say that God is obligated to not limit creation on the basis of the choices said created would take in the future, for it would be like punishment for what has not even occured. As such, it isn’t necessarily true that God could simply not create those who would reject him.

I’ll admit, this was an on the spot thought, so your objections are welcome.

 

[lelinator]

Sorry for the delay in responding. Sometimes I just get too busy.

lelinator:

supposedly God created something from nothing, but what specifically did God create? It would seem that about the only thing that God created was potential.

Not sure how you’re seeing that.

Let me back up a bit and see if I can explain. Awhile back I asked if someone could describe the hierarchical causal series for a loaf of bread, and you responded with the following:

God >> loaf of bread.

That’s your description of the entire hierarchical causal series for a loaf of bread, and I accept that as being perfectly reasonable. God is ultimately the sustaining cause of absolutely everything. But the actual creator of the loaf of bread is the baker, using flour created by the miller, from wheat grown by the farmer. But that’s a per accidens causal series and Aquinas believed that there was no way to prove that such a per accidens causal series couldn’t be infinite.

Which means that we could follow a per accidens causal series backwards forever, without ever coming to a metaphysical need for a creator. At every point along that causal series there would always be a sustaining cause, which is what Aquinas was arguing, but nowhere is there a need for a creator. There may indeed be one, but if Aquinas is right, then there isn’t a demonstrable need for one.

Which would make God simply a sustaining cause. But sustaining what? Well, the farmer’s potential to grow wheat, if he so chooses. And the miller’s potential to make flour. And the baker’s potential to make a loaf of bread. God doesn’t cause these things to happen, after all, we have free will, but because of God, and our sustained existence, they have the potential to happen.

I have the potential to make a loaf of bread, and I have it because of the presence of that sustaining cause.

He created all the material and energy in the universe that ever is or ever will be!

Let’s assume that this is true, and just to keep it simple let’s assume that God did this via what scientists describe as the Big Bang.

Then what?

You now have matter, but where did everything else come from? Is the emergence of galaxies, and stars, and planets, and life, and us, just a fortunate bit of serendipity? Or did God cause the universe to evolve exactly the way it did? Just how far beyond mere matter does God’s creative influence extend?

 

[Abrosz]

Great, so for the sake of argument, a creator of reality exists.

Yes, exactly.

Fantastic! Thats all I ask for; that we entertain the premises to see if they may be compatible with each other.

Well said.

In other words, an all good God is incompatible with the creation of satan, yes?

Also well said.

So I guess my confusion stems from this clarification then. Because if we were arguing over whether or not an all good God (or the God of Christianity which is described as the good itself) is compatible with the creation of satan, wouldn’t we both have to entertain the premise that one, an all good God exists, and two, that he created satan?

No, we only have to entertain that God exists, and in this particular discussion also that he created the arch-adversary - Satan. God’s alleged goodness is simply a hypothesis. And as with every hypothesis, we need to examine the evidence, both pro and con.

As for evidence (in this discussion!) we only have one, that God created the embodiment of evil - Satan (and created freely, knowingly and deliberately). And we agreed that creating evil makes the creator evil, too. So I see no reason for confusion.

perhaps to limit creation on the basis of the actions that one may take might be something which isn’t good, for it might be similar to punishing a man for a crime he has yet to commit (for example, executing child Hitler for crimes he did not commit is something not necessarily good, therefore it can be bad.

Not “may take” - “will take” according to omniscience. I did not suggest execution, merely lack of creation. And that cannot be viewed as “punishment”. It would be prevention. Someone who does not exist, cannot be punished.

 

[quaestio45]

we only have to entertain that God exists, and in this particular discussion also that he created the arch-adversary - Satan.

Well, if we keep our entertainment to the premise that a God (reality creator) made satan, then, as I said before, I must concede and say I certainly cannot argue that this God is either good or incompatible with evil, and thus evil itself may be created by him.

quaestio45:

In other words, an all good God is incompatible with the creation of satan, yes?

Also well said.

I’m receiving many mixed signals, I’m afraid.

Not “may take” - “will take” according to omniscience. I did not suggest execution, merely lack of creation. And that cannot be viewed as “punishment”. It would be prevention. Someone who does not exist, cannot be punished.

So, a couple of things I’d like to say in response: one, the distinction between “may” and “will” is irrelevant here (though I understand the clarification), as the point of the matter is that there is a lack of action which is detrimental to a being on the basis of some decision they have not even taken yet; and detrimental action driven by consequence towards a being may be seen as something like “punishment”, yes? As such, a being who has not yet had the opportunity to act in a way deserving of punishment is being punished for what they have not done; that punishment being in the form of a prevention of their existence. But executing a man is also preventing them of further existence (even if only bodily). Therefore, God, if choosing on the basis of consequence to create a being or not, would be in all practicality punishing men for crimes they have not yet commited by ceasing their possibility for existence. Some may call this unjust and therefore bad which would be in contridction to the good; as thus, if an all good God exists he cannot simply create men who would not reject him.

And we agreed that creating evil makes the creator evil, too. So I see no reason for confusion.

I still think that the distinction between creating a being of free will (even if they do choose to reject God and God knows that) and creating an evil (such as if God made satan a being of pure evil at the moment of creation) is important here. In the first example, God makes a being and the being himself rejects God, thus the evil stems from Satan and not God; in the second God himself was the direct cause if the evil, and he made it fully intending his evil, thus God is the origin of evil, not Satan.

 

[lelinator]

As to the documented discovered facts about how reality works, there has been zero accounts of anything that demonstrates that the supernatural is anything but an idea; not part of reality at all other than in our active imaginations. That’s just something to consider.

But perhaps you’re missing the point. Perhaps that’s all that the supernatural is…an idea. But that idea isn’t nothing. It has real physical effects. It’s like a bias. A bias is nothing more than an idea, but it’s an idea that permeates everything that you do. When someone says that God is love, maybe that’s literally what God is. Maybe the supernatural really is just an idea, but an idea isn’t nothing. And an idea can have real physical effects.

As you said, that’s something to consider.

 

[lelinator]

No disagreement here. But when making claims about reality that is independent of our thoughts, then no there is no demonstrable evidence that the supernatural exists as anything in reality other than an idea.

Fair enough.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

There is no need for God in the first case since the process of nothing to something is possible.

The creation of the universe is history, and we cant change history. Either at least 'One God created the universe or there is no creator god. Regardless of what you or I believe is logically possible, we can’t change history.

All we are left with are clever arguments with little evidence.

 

[STT]

The creation of the universe is history, and we cant change history. Either at least 'One God created the universe or there is no creator god. Regardless of what you or I believe is logically possible, we can’t change history.

All we are left with are clever arguments with little evidence.

You don’t need evidence when all options but one are excluded.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You don’t need evidence when all options but one are excluded.

Fair enough, you just have to show how the universe came to be purely by natural causes.

 

[lelinator]

Fair enough, you just have to show how the universe came to be purely by natural causes.

Well that certainly seems to be a double standard. Can you show how God came to be through causes natural or otherwise?

@IWantGod…who believes that metaphysics is irrefutable…has previously argued that the existence of nothing is impossible, if this is true then there’s no need to show how “something” came into existence from “nothing”, because as you just agreed, when all other options are excluded, no evidence is necessary.

So since “nothing” supposedly can’t exist, “something” must exist by default. Therefore no evidence is necessary to demonstrate why there’s something rather than nothing.

 

[STT]

Fair enough, you just have to show how the universe came to be purely by natural causes.

The process of noting to something, possible or impossible?

 

[Gorgias]

That’s your description of the entire hierarchical causal series for a loaf of bread

In an abbreviated sense. Lots of steps in between, of course.

But ok, I get where you’re coming from, now. I had always been a bit uneasy with my response to you in that thread; it seemed, intuitively, that I might have been too casual with “per se” and “per accidens” series in that conversation, to the point of conflating the two. So, let’s revisit that question a little bit:

But the actual creator of the loaf of bread is the baker, using flour created by the miller, from wheat grown by the farmer. But that’s a per accidens causal series

No, that’s a per se causal series. After all, what makes it possible (NB: possible, and not necessarily so) for a per accidens causal series to be infinite is that the causality of the series in a per accidens series is possessed within the members of the series. (So, father begets a son, who begets a son, who begets a son… and so on. Each person in the series possesses the causality in himself (inasmuch as he has the ability to beget.)

So, the analogue here would be the per accidens series of wheat: a grain of wheat produces another wheat plant, which produces another wheat plant, and so on and so on.

However, this doesn’t get you your loaf of bread. It seems to me that you do need a per se series for that (along the lines of Aquinas’ mind → hand → stick → stone example): mind of the baker → hand → bread materials → bread. Here, the causality rests in the mind of the baker.

(I think that there’s the possibility to take this a bit further, and ask “whence the baker”, which could lead you either to the per accidens series (his dad… and his dad… and his dad…) or the per se series, which would end up requiring a starting point in which esse is existence.

I feel a lot more comfortable with this answer.

I don’t agree that “wheat → flour → bread” is a per accidens series, since none of these have causality in them. You have to start with “mind-of-baker ->” to get the series started, and this is the cause, and it’s a per se series.

(There are other series involved, which give rise to the various ingredients and actors in our bread series, some of which can be described as per accidens series, and others of which can be described as per se series. However, I see these intersecting into the bread series and terminating in one or another of its terms.

So, which do you want to talk about? The per se series, which terminates in God at the beginning, or any of the per accidens series, which could ‘potentially’ be infinite but which I think we’ll find are not, practically speaking.

 

[Gorgias]

let’s assume that God did this via what scientists describe as the Big Bang.

Then what?

You now have matter, but where did everything else come from? Is the emergence of galaxies, and stars, and planets, and life, and us, just a fortunate bit of serendipity? Or did God cause the universe to evolve exactly the way it did? Just how far beyond mere matter does God’s creative influence extend?

I think you’re asking whether God is actively causing acts at each moment in time; that is, acts that would not happen without God’s active ‘tinkering’. I see it as being somewhat different: God set things in motion, knowing where they’d go. He continues to sustain his creation at every instant, but doesn’t have to continually ‘tinker’ and ‘nudge’ for His plan to go from ‘potential’ to ‘actuality’.

 

[IWantGod]

Therefore no evidence is necessary to demonstrate why there’s something rather than nothing.

True, but it is necessary to explain why “contingent beings” exist rather than none at all.

 

[AlNg]

The process of noting to something, possible or impossible?

Nothing to something is impossible in nature, unless you redefine nothing in some way so that it allows natural virtual creations. But then it is nothing according to the physicists but not philosophical nothing. With theism, God is the perfect Being so when He created the universe, it might have been out of nothing in the sense of no material existence before, but it was not exactly nothing to something since it was God to something. With theism, God always existed and in fact He is above time in some sense. I still can’t figure out exactly what time is unless the passage of time is an increase in entropy. Time is unlike the three dimensions we know about because first of all time has an arrow and only moves in one direction and secondly, you cannot go backwards in time and you cannot see what a future time will be like even though many of the laws or models of physics make no distinction between backwards and forwards. And was it not LaPlace who claimed that if you know everything about a particular object here and now at this moment in time, you would be able to know what it would be in the future since according to him, the laws of physics will tell you what will happen provided you have all of the relevant information at the present time?