Nothing to something

[STT]

It is impossible, because act and non-act are inherently tied to temporality. So your answer should have been: “I cannot”. Now there is a favorite assertion, namely “God eternally willed the universe to pop into existence.” So I will re-phrase: "what is the difference between ‘WILLED’ and ‘not-WILLED’. The temporal reference cannot be avoided.

That is very true. Time is needed for the act of creation. Time is a element of creation. This leads to regress. Regress is impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

 

[STT]

Must be possible.

So what is the need for God?

 

[o_mlly]

So what is the need for God?

Still needs a cause.

 

[STT]

Can you show a natural process that does this? Can you show any examples of this happening naturally? (No.)

You are talking about nothing to something process when there is something!?

OK… so, this isn’t an “argument”, it’s just your imagination . Got it.

If what I imagine is logically possible then that thing could exist.

Conservation of matter and energy, perhaps?

First conservation of energy is valid when there is something. Second, there are possible scenarios that doesn’t violate any principle.

So? That doesn’t make it wrong.

You are taking about the process of something to something which need a cause. I am talking about the process of nothing to something which doesn’t need any cause.

There aren’t “points” in eternity. That’s the whole idea.

So, eternity is one point?

 

[STT]

Still needs a cause.

Cause to do what?

 

[Hume]

Therefore there should be a beginning cycle.

There doesn’t have to be. You just insist there must be. It’s like the theists argument from causality.

All you know is that the current cycle is cycle, “p” for “present”.

As far as cycle p+1 or p-1, you’ve literally nothing that demonstrates that the “n” in p±n has a limit.

When p-n reaches the big bang, the idea that there’s no way to reduce p by one more cycle is just an axiom with no observable basis.

Again, what exists before or outside our universe is unknown.

It could be nothing. It could be anything.

 

[STT]

There doesn’t have to be. You just insist there must be. It’s like the theists argument from causality.

All you know is that the current cycle is cycle, “p” for “present”.

As far as cycle p+1 or p-1, you’ve literally nothing that demonstrates that the “n” in p±n has a limit.

When p-n reaches the big bang, the idea that there’s no way to reduce p by one more cycle is just an axiom with no observable basis.

Again, what exists before or outside our universe is unknown.

It could be nothing. It could be anything.

The BB is either the beginning of the first cycle or the beginning of a cycle. We are dealing with a beginning in the first case. In second case, there was a cycle before. Etc. This cannot go to infinitum though. Therefore, there is a beginning.

 

[Abrosz]

Not a problem. We assert that God can act within space-time, but is not contained within or constrained by it.

That is just another “mystery”, aka “magic”. If God acts within the space-time, then his action separates the “before” and the “after” - which IS time.

Your hyper-literalistic interpretation of Scripture is your problem, not mine. I’m not asserting it (nor, as it turns out, is the Catholic Church asserting it), and therefore, I’m not beholden to argue for it.

Since the church never presented a “catholic annotated bible”, separating the literal (not literalistic!) verses from the rest, you are not in the position to argue which is literal and which is allegorical.

You’ve shown no contradiction, but merely claimed it exists.

Well, if you cannot recognize a logical contradiction… that pretty much excludes you from rational consideration.

Thank you for finally admitting that you cannot enter into this discussion rationally. Your honesty – finally! – is refreshing!

I wish if you exhibited some honesty, and realize that action cannot be separated from temporality. That is the contradiction you wish to deny.

Everything that is , is willed by God. There is nothing that is , which is not willed. That which is ‘not willed’ by God, does not exist. There ya go!

That is also contradicted by the assertion of “free will”. If our actions are “willed” by God, then we are just puppets on a string. Since our actions happen within the space-time continuum, therefore God’s action also happen in the space-time continuum. The usual expression of “eternally willed” is just another incoherent speculation.

But that is sufficient. If you are unable to recognize a logical contradiction, there is no reason to take you seriously.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

There doesn’t have to be. You just insist there must be. It’s like the theists argument from causality.

All you know is that the current cycle is cycle, “p” for “present”.

As far as cycle p+1 or p-1, you’ve literally nothing that demonstrates that the “n” in p±n has a limit.

When p-n reaches the big bang, the idea that there’s no way to reduce p by one more cycle is just an axiom with no observable basis.

Again, what exists before or outside our universe is unknown.

It could be nothing. It could be anything.

The BB is either the beginning of the first cycle or the beginning of a cycle. We are dealing with a beginning in the first case. In second case, there was a cycle before. Etc. This cannot go to infinitum though. Therefore, there is a beginning.

Why can’t it go to infinity, other than because someone said so?

Causality? No clear refutation there Ive ever seen, but I’m willing to see what you have.

 

[Abrosz]

I can prove that there is no God. There was a beginning, therefore there was a point that there was either nothing or something, by something I mean the material entity.

Unfortunately the “beginning” cannot be demonstrated. The Big Bang is not the beginning of the universe, it is only the beginning of the current form of the universe. Apart from that imprecision I agree with you.

You are talking about annihilation of two particles in physical vacuum which is different from nothing. Matter and anti-matter. Positive energy and negative energy. Negative charge and positive charge. Etc.

That is what I was talking about. “Nothing” is just a concept, which does not exist ontologically.

 

[STT]

Why can’t it go to infinity, other than because someone said so?

Because infinity is a quantity which by definition cannot be reached. It is as same as regress. There is always another thing to follow no matter how far you go.

Causality? No clear refutation there Ive ever seen, but I’m willing to see what you have.

Casualty simply applies to the behavior of things. It is basically the first law of Newton. Things have mass, therefore, a cause is needed to move them. Nothing does not have a mass so no cause is needed to move from nothing to something.

 

[Gorgias]

You are talking about nothing to something process when there is something!?

Hold on a second: I think you misunderstand what ex nihilo means. What it doesn’t mean is that there mustn’t be anything else, anywhere else. What it does mean is that, in the act of creation, of God started with no pre-existing materials. That’s what ex nihilo (or “from nothing to something”) means. That’s why it’s relevant that this process doesn’t occur naturally – any other process of ‘creation’ takes pre-existing materials as its basis.

STT:

First conservation of energy is valid when there is something.

Umm… the principle states that energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed, but are conserved. That’s the question you’ve raised.

STT:

I am talking about the process of nothing to something which doesn’t need any cause.

So, you’re proposing that there is matter (or energy) which could exist and be created… but not caused? No… that’s nonsense. Everything that’s created has a cause.

Gorgias:

There aren’t “points” in eternity. That’s the whole idea.

So, eternity is one point?

No. Not “one point”, not “two points”, not any number of points. NO POINTS.

That is just another “mystery”, aka “magic”.

How quickly you forget the quote from Einstein! He talks about mystery in the universe, too … and he’s not talking about ‘magic’, either!

Abrosz:

If God acts within the space-time, then his action separates the “before” and the “after” - which IS time.

We’re not talking about actions within space-time, though. And, even if we were, there’s no contradiction here. God isn’t part of the universe, and He isn’t constrained in such a way as to be unable to act within it!

Abrosz:

Since the church never presented a “catholic annotated bible”, separating the literal (not literalistic!) verses from the rest, you are not in the position to argue which is literal and which is allegorical.

Sigh. The Church teaches that there is figurative narrative in the Bible (especially in the beginning of Genesis). Please do your research.

Abrosz:

That is also contradicted by the assertion of “free will”. If our actions are “willed” by God, then we are just puppets on a string.

Read up on “primary and secondary causation”, please.

Abrosz:

Since our actions happen within the space-time continuum, therefore God’s action also happen in the space-time continuum.

God’s creation of the universe didn’t occur within a space-time continuum. There’s no contradiction here.

Abrosz:

If you are unable to recognize a logical contradiction, there is no reason to take you seriously.

On the other hand, if you see contradictions everywhere, then you’re just tilting at windmills, friend. You might want to read ‘Don Quixote’.

 

[Veritas6]

Why? What is your proof?

What is your definition of nothing? If we are assuming God exists, He is the only one who can bring something out of “nothing”, but I think the concept of true “nothing” would be nonsensical here. I would agree He can create anything, but it comes from Him, not from some “nothing”.

Example? Big Bang. Nothing to something is possible if it does not violate any principle. Big Bang is a very special moment at which there was nothing before. Nothing moves to something without any need for a mover if the motion doesn’t require any force.

If God exists, there is no such thing as true “nothing”. The Big Bang had the potential to occur but hadn’t yet (at some point), but was actualized by the Unactualized Actualizer. The universe potentially existed, but then actually existed. Do you have a mechanism that caused the Big Bang to occur?

What existed before the Big Bang was God who continues to exist now. There only exists being and non-being, “nothing” cannot positively exist.

 

[STT]

Hold on a second: I think you misunderstand what ex nihilo means. What it doesn’t mean is that there mustn’t be anything else, anywhere else. What it does mean is that, in the act of creation, of God started with no pre-existing materials. That’s what ex nihilo (or “from nothing to something”) means. That’s why it’s relevant that this process doesn’t occur naturally – any other process of ‘creation’ takes pre-existing materials as its basis.

I know what creation is.

So, you’re proposing that there is matter (or energy) which could exist and be created… but not caused? No… that’s nonsense. Everything that’s created has a cause.

I am talking about matter and anti-matter which can come out nothing.

No. Not “one point”, not “two points”, not any number of points . NO POINTS .

So what it is?

 

[STT]

What is your definition of nothing?

Absence of anything.

 

[Veritas6]

Absence of anything.

Which I would say is nonsensical regardless if God exists or not. If God doesn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be anything at all. Nothing would actually exist. But the very concept of nothing having some form of existence just seems illogical to me. Can we demonstrate an “absence of anything” existing out in the world?

 

[STT]

Which I would say is nonsensical…

Why? Could you please elaborate?

 

[o_mlly]

Cause to do what?

To be something.

 

[Hume]

Because infinity is a quantity which by definition cannot be reached.

If you think time can potentially move forward ad infinitum then you have a disharmony in your proposal. Some might even be so bold as to brazenly call it an “obvious” disharmony.

I’d also like to point out that some credible men and women of science seem to disagree with you. These aren’t just sassy atheists like me on a Catholic forum.

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning | Live Science

At any rate, I find your argument unconvincing, but I also appreciate your willingness to defend it.

Last is yours, for now anyway.

 

[Veritas6]

Why? Could you please elaborate?

An absence of anything doesn’t make any sense because I’m assuming things have existence. If there is something that lacks existence, then it wouldn’t exist. In this case true nothing would not exist.

If we think of a space and say there are no things there, such as no builders in the church, then there would be an absence of anything within the church (excluding the church as a thing). We wouldn’t say the absence of builders has a positive existence.

If there is some real absence of anything in the world, then it wouldn’t have any positive existence. We can’t say a new organ can come from the absence of builders in the church (or something coming from nothing) because what builds the organ?