Nothing to something

[Freddy]

Dan123:

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…

I keep pointing out that this is an assumption. ‘On the assumption that there was a begining…’

Carry on from there.

 

[Gorgias]

There is something when there is something.

So we agree, then. There is no “from nothing to something” in the physical universe.

Therefore, what is asserted is that God created ex nihilo. This is not, as you baldly asserted without any support, “logically impossible.”

Nothing doesn’t have any mass so there is no need for mover.

Ahh, but this is where St Thomas Aquinas makes a masterful argument: he says, “but, we know that there is something; therefore there must have been a first mover.”

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?

You’re correct: the “appearance” proceeds from the quantum substratum… which is, naturally, something and not nothing.

“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.

Right. Which is why the whole “multiverse” thing, which people love to trot out (putatively as a way to get around the whole “creation ex nihilo” question), really has no legs.

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

Pick a card.

Or it might have been ‘nothing.’ With no physical evidence possible, with which to form a hypothesis, we (as Christians) turn to Divine Revelation as a guide. Not that it’s ‘scientific’, so to speak, but because we’re trying to wrap our heads around it. And, the answer there is “ex nihilo”.

 

[Hume]

Right. Which is why the whole “multiverse” thing, which people love to trot out (putatively as a way to get around the whole “creation ex nihilo ” question), really has no legs.

I agree completely.

Ardent multiverse-ers are peddling ideology with no material base.

Ardent ex nihilo-ers are also peddling ideology with no material base.

The rational have an obligation to hold folks like that at arms-length.

Or it might have been ‘nothing.’ With no physical evidence possible, with which to form a hypothesis, we (as Christians) turn to Divine Revelation as a guide. Not that it’s ‘scientific’, so to speak, but because we’re trying to wrap our heads around it. And, the answer there is “ex nihilo”.

Hey, believe what you want. Really. Life is short. Find meaning and community where you can.

I just tilt my lance at those that insist it’s more than a belief.

 

[STT]

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?

The energy in quantum regime can be violated by Delat-E (Delta-E is an interval of E) during the period of Delta-t where Delta-t =hbar/Delta-E. This violation doesn’t have any cause too.

 

[STT]

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

There is no need for trigger-er if nothing is unstable.

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

I am arguing that if nothing to something is logically possible therefore there is no need for God. God, if existed, simply doesn’t need to defy any principle in order to bring something out of nothing. What would be the need for God if no principle is broken in the process of nothing to something?

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

I am arguing that there is no need for God in this thread rather than there is no God. I have a separate argument against the existence of God. Basically, the creation of time requires time which this leads to a regress. Therefore, the act of creation is logically impossible, therefore, there is no God.

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?

I am not arguing against God. I am arguing that there is no need for God here, in this thread.

 

[STT]

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.

That, that something material existed at the point zero, is a possibility. I am arguing another thing.

 

[STT]

I keep pointing out that this is an assumption. ‘ On the assumption that there was a begining…’

Carry on from there.

Otherwise there is no beginning. This is regress. Regress is impossible. Therefore there was a beginning.

 

[STT]

So we agree, then. There is no “from nothing to something” in the physical universe.

There is a universe which is present everywhere, therefore, you cannot find nothing now.

Therefore, what is asserted is that God created ex nihilo . This is not, as you baldly asserted without any support, “logically impossible.”

No. I am arguing that there is no need for God.

Ahh, but this is where St Thomas Aquinas makes a masterful argument: he says, “but, we know that there is something; therefore there must have been a first mover.”

There is no first mover. I have an argument against that. We discussed it to depth in another thread. The problem is that any act is temporal, the act of creation requires time, which this leads to a regress.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I keep pointing out that this is an assumption. ‘ On the assumption that there was a begining…’

Carry on from there.

Otherwise there is no beginning. This is regress. Regress is impossible. Therefore there was a beginning.

Not if it’s cyclical. So your argument must begin: ‘On tbe assumption that the universe is not cyclical…’ and then go from there.

 

[STT]

Not if it’s cyclical. So your argument must begin: ‘On tbe assumption that the universe is not cyclical…’ and then go from there.

Set of cycles also cannot go into infinitum because of regress therefore even if the universe was cyclical there was a first cycle.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Not if it’s cyclical. So your argument must begin: ‘On tbe assumption that the universe is not cyclical…’ and then go from there.

Set of cycles also cannot go into infinitum because of regress therefore even if the universe was cyclical there was a first cycle.

No, there was no first cycle. As Sir Roger Penrose says: “In cyclic cosmology,” he says, “there is no beginning, and nothing is lost."

Is he right? Hey, this is way above my pay grade. Hence the disclaimer I mentioned above. We can add to it if you like: ‘On the assumption that the universe is not cyclical and there is no beginning and nothing is lost…’

And continue from there.

 

[STT]

No, there was no first cycle. As Sir Roger Penrose says: “In cyclic cosmology,” he says, “there is no beginning, and nothing is lost."

He is wrong as I argued in the previous post. I can buy the concept of cyclic universe. Yet there should be a first cycle as it is argued in my previous post.

Is he right? Hey, this is way above my pay grade. Hence the disclaimer I mentioned above. We can add to it if you like: ‘On the assumption that the universe is not cyclical and there is no beginning and nothing is lost…’

And continue from there.

Could we focus on my argument?

 

[Gorgias]

Ardent ex nihilo-ers are also peddling ideology with no material base.

The “material base” is the self-revelation of God (as found in His Scriptures and His Church). “The rational” can choose to disregard these grounds, but it’s on them that they do so. What they can’t do is say “there’s nothing out there as a basis”. They can say “I reject the basis that’s been given.” That, at least, would be intellectually honest.

I just tilt my lance at those that insist it’s more than a belief.

Ahh, but it is more than a mere belief! There’s definitely a faith component there, but it’s faith in contact with one’s rationality.

I am arguing that if nothing to something is logically possible therefore there is no need for God.

This is a poor argument. Here’s your counter-example: “a pile of ingredients → a chocolate cake is ‘logically possible’, therefore, there is no need for a baker.”

There is a universe which is present everywhere, therefore, you cannot find nothing now.

That’s a really, really nice try! Yet, it fails: the vast majority of the universe is a void. Literally, nothing. So… why do we not see “something” appearing out of the “nothing” that’s there?

No. I am arguing that there is no need for God.

And poorly, at that.

There is no first mover. I have an argument against that. We discussed it to depth in another thread.

Yep, and you were soundly disabused of your claim. Yet, you continue to posture as if it were logical and accepted by your interlocutors.

The problem is that any act is temporal

Any act within the bounds of the temporal framework in the universe. That’s a critical distinction!

the act of creation requires time, which this leads to a regress.

Says you. No one agrees with this, but you keep positing it as if it were true.

No, there was no first cycle. As Sir Roger Penrose says: “In cyclic cosmology,” he says, “there is no beginning, and nothing is lost."

I’ll point you back to the little side-discussion @Hume and I were having: there’s no evidence of “cyclic cosmology”. There’s a nice story, but nothing to back it up. (To be fair, that’s the same criticism that non-believers make of Christianity… )

Could we focus on my argument?

Sure. It’s faulty. Next?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No, there was no first cycle. As Sir Roger Penrose says: “In cyclic cosmology,” he says, “there is no beginning, and nothing is lost."

He is wrong as I argued in the previous post. I can buy the concept of cyclic universe. Yet there should be a first cycle as it is argued in my previous post.

Is he right? Hey, this is way above my pay grade. Hence the disclaimer I mentioned above. We can add to it if you like: ‘On the assumption that the universe is not cyclical and there is no beginning and nothing is lost…’

And continue from there.

Could we focus on my argument?

He might be wrong. Perhaps he is. But gee, he is one of the smartest people on the planet so his views are worth considering. Hence ‘On the assumption that the universe is no cyclical etc’.

This isn’t a proposal that some guy in the pub thought up after a few beers. You either accept that as a possibility or you ignore it. If you ignore it then no, we cannot focus on your argument.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No, there was no first cycle. As Sir Roger Penrose says: “In cyclic cosmology,” he says, “there is no beginning, and nothing is lost."

I’ll point you back to the little side-discussion @Hume and I were having: there’s no evidence of “cyclic cosmology”. There’s a nice story, but nothing to back it up. (To be fair, that’s the same criticism that non-believers make of Christianity… )

There’s a boat load of maths that would make your head spin. I bought his book on the assumption that it would be accesible to the guy on the street. But it’s a tough read. And the appendix has all the equations he’s used. It might as well be Sanskrit. Completely unintelligable.

So no, it’s not just a nice story. And yes, there is no evidence (although he proposes situations where that could be obtained). Hence ‘On the assumption that he is wrong and the universe is not cyclical…etc’.

I am accepting that it can be assumed that he is wrong if you want to put forward a competing theory. But I am not accepting that it can be discounted as being wrong.

 

[Hume]

The “material base” is the self-revelation of God (as found in His Scriptures and His Church).

Potentially prompting arguably accurate accusations of “begging the question” as the material base helping to prove the deity comes from the deity. This and “special pleading” are the lances that pop all the classical “proofs”.

Ahh, but it is more than a mere belief! There’s definitely a faith component there, but it’s faith in contact with one’s rationality.

Absolutely, there’s substantial rational reason for us to seek membership in social groups as we are social animals. Security, socialization, meaning. We need these things and groups provide them.

But concerning the specific claim of creation ex nihilo, it’s mere belief. In 300,000 years of human history no one has offered any material proof for it. I sincerely doubt anyone ever will.

 

[Hume]

Otherwise there is no beginning. This is regress. Regress is impossible. Therefore there was a beginning.

There’s absolutely no reason “regress is impossible” other than “Aristotle said so”. He also said everything was made of a combination of earth, wind, water and fire (and heart! Goooooo Planet!). The “proofs” demonstrating the impossibility of regress invoke special pleading or they beg the question in their premises.

Where does a circle begin? Perhaps our universe is a product of another infinitely cyclical universe that produces and recycles other universes.

As said earlier, pick a card.

 

[Abrosz]

It is amazing that this “something from nothing” keeps popping up. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontologically existing “stuff”. The question is just as irrational as asking: “what is on the reverse side of the Mobius strip?”.

 

[Hume]

It is amazing that this “something from nothing” keeps popping up. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontologically existing “stuff”. The question is just as irrational as asking: “what is on the reverse side of the Mobius strip?”.

Yes! YEEEESSSS!

Could not agree more.

 

[Abrosz]

What they can’t do is say “there’s nothing out there as a basis”. They can say “I reject the basis that’s been given.” That, at least, would be intellectually honest.

Indeed. Because the basis is just hearsay. There are many “hearsay” based “bases”, and everyone will reject them outside the group which accepts it without any FURTHER substantiation.

Literally, nothing.

There is no such ontologically existing entity called “nothing”. Vacuum is not “nothing”.

Any act within the bounds of the temporal framework in the universe . That’s a critical distinction!

Any “act” presupposes a “before” and an “after”, which describes a temporal sequence.

Says you. No one agrees with this, but you keep positing it as if it were true.

Everyone agrees who has a minimum understanding. What is the difference between “act” and “non-act”?