Nothing to something

[Gorgias]

Potentially prompting arguably accurate accusations of “begging the question” as the material base

Wait a second, though! “In the absence of empirical evidence per se, let’s look at eyewitness accounts” isn’t “begging the question”! It certainly calls for a discernment of the relevant texts, but it’s not a foregone conclusion! Nor is it “special pleading”, since for that fallacy to be present, there has to be nothing special about what’s being claimed to be ‘special’. (p.s., if God is who He says He is… then He is ‘special’, so no “special pleading” there!)

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.

Eyewitness accounts of God’s revelation. You can reject the claims, but they’re claims nevertheless, and aren’t “mere belief.”

“Nothing” is just a concept , not an ontologically existing “stuff”.

It’s the lack of ontologically existing stuff. So, “empty set”, not “mere concept”.

The question is just as irrational as asking: “what is on the reverse side of the Mobius strip?”.

Nah. It’s like asking “is it a Mobius strip before you give it a half-twist?”

Vacuum is not “nothing”.

What is it, then? Of what does it consist? (hint: nothing.)

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

Within the context of a temporal framework? Of course it does. Outside of a temporal framework, though? Nope.

Everyone agrees who has a minimum understanding.

I agree; ya’ll seem to have merely minimum understanding.

Just kidding.

What is the difference between “act” and “non-act”?

Give me your definition of ‘act’ (without the reliance on a temporal framework, of course), and we’ll be able to make progress on the question…

 

[Dan123]

Abrosz:

Vacuum is not “nothing”.

What is it, then? Of what does it consist? (hint: nothing.)

Is the second floor of a single story house a vacuum?

 

[Hume]

Wait a second, though! “In the absence of empirical evidence per se, let’s look at eyewitness accounts” isn’t “begging the question”!

We love eyewitness testimony as people. It’s evidence personified.

But it is also one of the most malleable sources of “evidence”, and thus one of the most unreliable.

Nor is it “special pleading”, since for that fallacy to be present, there has to be nothing special about what’s being claimed to be ‘special’.

“It’s not special pleading because it really is special.”
–Every Ideologue in History Trying to Make Their Case

Eyewitness accounts of God’s revelation. You can reject the claims, but they’re claims nevertheless, and aren’t “mere belief.”

As above, there are some fascinating eyewitness claims about the power of voodoo.

I feel about the same about the reliability of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s divinity as you probably do about those attesting to the power of voodoo.

 

[Hume]

What is it, then? Of what does it consist? (hint: nothing.)

Well, in fairness the development there is fairly recent. Like since I graduated HS at the turn of the millennium.

A vacuum, turns out, is not nothing. Quantum foam pops in and out of existence, the “nothing” is expanding which would be a hard attribute to assign to philosophical nothing.

A vacuum seems to be just the absence of readily detectable matter.
From Britannica: Vacuum , space in which there is no matter or in which the pressure is so low that any particles in the space do not affect any processes being carried on there.

---

Science is a field where the knowledge is continually being examined and reexamined. This is why the theories it produces are so darn good. But sometimes that evolution happens faster than you like.

Case in point-

I was obtaining another certification and needed a certain battery of college hours to be no older than 5 years. As college was longer than 5 years ago for me, I had to retake some stuff.
When I took major’s freshman biology originally , the three biological domains were archaea, eukaryia, prokaryia (apologies for likely misspellings).

Lately it’s archaea, eukariota, and bacteria. My original answer was right about 2 decades ago. Now it’s wrong.

 

[Abrosz]

It’s the lack of ontologically existing stuff. So, “empty set”, not “mere concept”.

The empty set is also just a concept. You cannot point to some ontologically existing entity, and declare: “lookee, there is nothing!”.

Within the context of a temporal framework? Of course it does. Outside of a temporal framework, though? Nope.

There is no temporal framework in the abstract concept of change, or act.

 

[Gorgias]

But it is also one of the most malleable sources of “evidence”, and thus one of the most unreliable.

Sure, it can be. Yet, we find that, in distinct contexts, it’s sufficient to reach a conclusion. Here, you’re asserting “nope; I refuse to consider it”. Hmm…

“It’s not special pleading because it really is special.”
–Every Ideologue in History Trying to Make Their Case

“It is special pleading because I don’t think it’s special.”
– Every skeptic trying to make their case.

You know how it goes – you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. Still, though, if you’re making the claim of “special pleading”, I think it’s incumbent on you to demonstrate why it’s not a special case…!

As above, there are some fascinating eyewitness claims about the power of voodoo.

And we are free to discuss whether we give these accounts credence or not.

I feel about the same about the reliability of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s divinity as you probably do about those attesting to the power of voodoo.

It all comes down to why we conclude in the way we do. You can’t just look at the two and conflate them arbitrarily!

A vacuum, turns out, is not nothing. Quantum foam pops in and out of existence, the “nothing” is expanding which would be a hard attribute to assign to philosophical nothing.

This is a good jumping off point. So… if nothing appears out of the pseudo-nothing of a vacuum (since quantum particles are appearing out the substratum and not from ‘nothing’!), then why would we claim that “something from absolutely nothing” is what we’d expect?

The empty set is also just a concept. You cannot point to some ontologically existing entity, and declare: “lookee, there is nothing !”.

Bah. The notion of an “empty bag” is not just a concept; you can look inside and go “nothing!” and be perfectly cogent! (On the other hand, you can be pedantic to the nth degree and claim “well… air.”)

There is no temporal framework in the abstract concept of change, or act.

The context of the act is the temporal framework in which it’s located. Keep up.

 

[Abrosz]

Bah. The notion of an “empty bag” is not just a concept; you can look inside and go “nothing!” and be perfectly cogent! (On the other hand, you can be pedantic to the nth degree and claim “well… air.”)

Precision is not “pedantic”. Nothing is just a concept, not an ontologically existing phenomenon.

The context of the act is the temporal framework in which it’s located. Keep up.

The abstract concept does not have a temporal framework. Any “action” presupposes a “before” and an “after”, otherwise it would be a non-action. Why is it so difficult to understand this?

 

[Gorgias]

Any “action” presupposes a “before” and an “after”, otherwise it would be a non-action. Why is it so difficult to understand this?

Because you’re trying to impose a temporal context on something that even you admit is ‘abstract’. If you want to be truly abstract, then you cannot constrain your definition thusly. Or, if you wish to maintain those constraints, at least be honest about it and modify your claim to be something like “in a temporal context, ‘acts’ have a ‘before’ and an ‘after’”.

 

[Abrosz]

Because you’re trying to impose a temporal context on something that even you admit is ‘abstract’.

Why don’t you try to explain and talk about an “action” without a reference to “before” and an “after”? What is the difference between an action and a non-action? Any change implies a temporality.

 

[Gorgias]

Why don’t you try to explain and talk about an “action” without a reference to “before” and an “after”?

The Christian concept of God’s creation of the universe is one that takes place in eternity, which doesn’t have the notion of temporal ‘before’ or ‘after’.

Now… within the universe, which does have a temporal dimension, things happen in temporal sequence.

So, if you will, consider that, with respect to the “interior” of the universe, there are “before’s” and “after’s”; but, looking at it outside of the universe, it exists within eternity.

 

[Abrosz]

The Christian concept of God’s creation of the universe is one that takes place in eternity, which doesn’t have the notion of temporal ‘before’ or ‘after’.

That makes the Christian concept of creation incoherent. The concept of timeless existence should be called “stasis”, a frozen moment without any change. But since God is supposed to have created the physical universe, there WAS a change in the “greater universe”, the one which contains both the physical universe, and the assumed (but never demonstrated) non-physical part of the universe.

The mere assumption that God ACTED refutes the static, unchanging existence. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

By the way, it is also assumed that there IS time in purgatory. Therefore even your concept of the “timeless” existence is contradicted by some of your other assertions.

Also, the idea of “outside” the universe is just as incoherent as asserting: “it is to the north from the North Pole.” Outside or before the universe are both incoherent ideas.

 

[Hume]

Sure, it can be. Yet, we find that, in distinct contexts, it’s sufficient to reach a conclusion. Here, you’re asserting “nope; I refuse to consider it”. Hmm…

Ok, so I guess you consider Voodoo, then?

You know how it goes – you say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. Still, though, if you’re making the claim of “special pleading”, I think it’s incumbent on you to demonstrate why it’s not a special case…!

Negatory.

Its incumbent on you to prove why it’s special. The folks with these claims never can. They just baldly assert it is.

Then they revel in the fact that the rules of rhetoric no longer apparently apply to them, which is nonsense.

And we are free to discuss whether we give these accounts credence or not.

Precisely!

It all comes down to why we conclude in the way we do. You can’t just look at the two and conflate them arbitrarily!

That’s exactly what special pleaders are doing , though.

What’s more arbitrary than “it’s special because I really, really think it is!”

This is a good jumping off point. So… if nothing appears out of the pseudo-nothing of a vacuum (since quantum particles are appearing out the substratum and not from ‘nothing’!), then why would we claim that “something from absolutely nothing” is what we’d expect?

It’s a great jumping point that illustrates, once again, the observable horizion.

They might just be translocating from DIMENSION X. We just don’t know.

This illustrates a huge difference in the approach of some to knowledge;

“Ah, it wasn’t as we thought… So NOW we finally have the end-truth!”
-vs-
“Ah, it wasn’t as we thought… What else do we not know about it?”

 

[Abrosz]

The Christian concept of God’s creation of the universe is one that takes place in eternity, which doesn’t have the notion of temporal ‘before’ or ‘after’.

That is not an argument. You could say that “the one and only Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church infallibly and dogmatically teaches and asserts that… [and here comes a random proposition]” and consider it as an unquestionable argument.

Let’s pick a few random propositions:

1. God can infallibly foresee the future, free actions of individuals who used their free will.
2. The future does not exist for us (being time constrained), but it exists for God, since he is outside of time.
3. God’s omniscience is absolute and sovereign (independent of everything).
4. God is “simple”, meaning that God’s essence cannot be separated from his existence.
5. From God’s simplicity it follows that God’s essence cannot be separated from his omniscience.
6. In vacuum one pound of lead and one pound of goose down will fall at different speed.
7. two and two makes five.
8. it is true that two and two makes four in the physical reality, but not in the spiritual reality.
9. the law of identity is does not contradict miracles.
10. the stone tablets that God gave to Moses were not destroyed, they still exist in the middle of the Sun.
11. a water molecule contains two protons and one electron.
12. An event exists or does not exist, depending on the observer.

And zillions of others. The point is that prepending a random proposition with “the… church teaches and affirms” will NOT make it a true proposition. If a proposition is incoherent, illogical and irrational in the “physical” part of the universe, it will stay the same in the “eternal” part of the universe.

Also the question needs to be repeated: what is the difference between action and non-action in the “eternity”?

 

[Gorgias]

That makes the Christian concept of creation incoherent.

No it doesn’t; not, unless, you’re trying to shoehorn it into a context of ‘temporality’, which it appears you’re doing. It’s that approach you’re adopting, I’m afraid, which is “incoherent.”

The concept of timeless existence should be called “stasis”, a frozen moment without any change.

sigh … you’re doing it again! You’re imposing contexts of temporality (“a frozen moment”) on an atemporal environment. No wonder it seems confusing to you – you have one foot in one notion and one in the other!

But since God is supposed to have created the physical universe, there WAS a change in the “greater universe”, the one which contains both the physical universe, and the assumed (but never demonstrated) non-physical part of the universe.

sigh… from bad to worse. Now you’re imposing a spatial framework on eternity! Really, friend – if you want to consider the notion of ‘eternity’, you’re going to have to stop treating it as if it were the next-door neighbor of ‘the universe’!

The mere assumption that God ACTED refutes the static, unchanging existence.

No, it doesn’t. God, Himself, is pure Act. Eternal, pure, act. Not a ‘point’, but a ‘continuum’. I’d thought you’d have known that.

By the way, it is also assumed that there IS time in purgatory.

By the way… it isn’t. It was a construct used as analogy. “Twenty years’ indulgence” never meant “twenty years in purgatory”, although that’s the common misunderstanding of it.

Outside or before the universe are both incoherent ideas.

“Not part of the universe” isn’t, however. Keep noodling… you’ll get it, eventually!

Ok, so I guess you consider Voodoo, then?

I must consider it before I reject it, though, no? Else I’m not being ‘rational’.

Its incumbent on you to prove why it’s special.

Too simple to even spend much time on, wouldn’t you say? If God is GOD, then He’s a singleton. He’s literally, explicitly, the very example of a “special case”!!!

What’s more arbitrary than “it’s special because I really, really think it is!”

What’s less arbitrary than “God is unique in all of existence”?

 

[Gorgias]

That is not an argument. You could say that “the one and only Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church infallibly and dogmatically teaches and asserts that… [and here comes a random proposition] ” and consider it as an unquestionable argument.

It’s an assertion.

The point is that prepending a random proposition with “the… church teaches and affirms” will NOT make it a true proposition.

Fair enough. Yet, it stands on the assertion of God’s self-revelation. It’s not “the Church thinks so” or even “Gorgias, in his boundless wisdom, thinks so” – it’s “God has revealed it.”

Also the question needs to be repeated: what is the difference between action and non-action in the “eternity”?

Also, the request needs to be repeated: define these two – without reference to temporal dynamics – and I’ll answer your question! (If you keep responding in terms of temporal notions, I’ll only be able to answer with respect to temporal acts!)

 

[STT]

STT:

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.”

It is not poor. What is the constrain that prohibit nothing to something possible? There are infinite number imaginable possible universes that can come true from nothing without breaking any constrain. What make the process of something out of nothing impossible? Nothing. Therefore, the process of nothing to something is possible. Moreover, the picture of baker is a classical way of thinking.

STT:

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?

How about the creation of electron and positron?

STT:

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

And poorly, at that.

Why?

STT:

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.

Yes, and you left the discussion. What is your point that is missing? If there was no point that universe didn’t exist then the universe is eternal. Eternal act is a wrong concept if you think it thoroughly.

STT:

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!

Can you tell me whether there is a point in eternity that the universe doesn’t exist?

STT:

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.

We will see.

STT:

Could we focus on my argument?

Sure. It’s faulty. Next?

We will see.

 

[STT]

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.

As I mentioned the cyclical universe is possible if it does not break any physical constrain. They all ,however , have a beginning cycle.

 

[STT]

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.

The infinity by definition is unreachable. Therefore, regress is impossible.

 

[STT]

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?”.

There was either something in beginning or not. In first case, something could be material, therefore, there is no need for God. We are discussing the second case in here. Can I see your proof that nothing cannot be a possibility?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

As I mentioned the cyclical universe is possible if it does not break any physical constrain. They all ,however , have a beginning cycle.

Well you’ve repeated that often enough so it must be true I guess. I’ll see if I can find contact details for Sir Roger Penrose and tell him that some guy on a Catholic forum says he’s wrong. He’ll be quite frustrated after spending all that time on the subject.