Nothing to something

[Abrosz]

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

Where does the church separate the literal from the allegorical? Show me the exhaustive list of the verses in both categories.

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

Sure there is. But since you don’t understand it, what is the point?

What the heck, I will throw you a lifeline. In a commedia dell arte theater performance, there are TWO kinds of time. One is in the realm where the author/director dwells, and the other one is within the play itself. So to have several manifestations of “time” is rational. What is not rational is to consider that the author/director is “frozen” in his time, and still be able to interfere with the actors’ actions. Yes, this is an allegory, but quite precise.

The performers/actors have the “free will” to follow the author’s/director’s commands, or defy them. Which contradicts the “omniscience” of the author/director. He cannot foresee what will happen in the second scene/act, until it actually rolls around.

But the point is that action without change is an oxymoron. And change is just another expression of time. As long as you don’t realize this, you stay irrational.

 

[Freddy]

Hume:

Yeah… this concept of “reaching” infinity. That’s what doesn’t make sense.

The idea that things must have a discrete beginning and end is refuted by a simple circle. There is no beginning, there is no end.

The idea of cycle cannot resolve the problem of beginning. Let’s say that we are in the current cycle which has a period T. There was before cycle with period of T too. And before, etc. This time we are dealing with a regress in cycle. Therefore there should be a beginning cycle. Therefore, time has a beginning.

The term ‘before’ is not relevant. ‘Before’ indicates an earlier time. There isn’t an earlier time. Time restarts. It doesn’t continue. Hence no infinite regress.

 

[Gorgias]

I know what creation is.

Yeah, but your comments indicated that you were looking at ex nihilo creation in a way divergent from its meaning.

So what it is?

It simply exists, without physical or temporal extension.

Where does the church separate the literal from the allegorical? Show me the exhaustive list of the verses in both categories.

There’s no “exhaustive list”. That’s just a red herring that atheists like to construct and pretend that it should or must exist.

Nevertheless, the Church teaches about proper interpretation of Biblical verses. I’d recommend CCC 390 as one example, as well as the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s essay, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, especially the section on fundamentalist approaches (which the Church eschews).

In a commedia dell arte theater performance, there are TWO kinds of time.

That’s irrelevant: timeline-within-timeline is different than universe-and-eternity.

Which contradicts the “omniscience” of the author/director.

Again, this analogy doesn’t encapsulate God and humanity; if that’s what you’re trying to do, then this is flawed.

But the point is that action without change is an oxymoron. And change is just another expression of time.

Again, your entire construct is within a context of temporal frameworks. It’s as if you’re trying to prove that chocolate ice cream doesn’t exist, and each and every one of your examples is vanilla ice cream! (“See! That’s not chocolate! Therefore, chocolate ice cream is an oxymoron, and asserting that it’s otherwise is irrational!”).

 

[lelinator]

The term ‘before’ is not relevant. ‘Before’ indicates an earlier time. There isn’t an earlier time. Time restarts. It doesn’t continue. Hence no infinite regress.

This has always been one of my objections to Penrose’s CCC model. If sufficient information passes from one aeon to the next, then you could in fact determine the causal order of those aeons. Which would indeed result in an infinite regress of aeons. If however no information passes from one aeon to the next then it wouldn’t be possible to establish their causal order, and an infinite regress wouldn’t exist. You would simply have a set of all possible aeons with seemingly no linear causal connection. All aeons would simply co-exist.

Now it may be that Penrose is right, yet the information that passes from one aeon to the next is insufficient to establish a causal order, in which case an infinite regress would still be impossible.

 

[Abrosz]

There’s no “exhaustive list”. That’s just a red herring that atheists like to construct and pretend that it should or must exist.

It should exist, because the lack of it allows any “apologist” to pick and choose which are literal and which are allegorical. Which is dishonest. Also one apologist can argue that verse “X” is literal and another apologist can argue that it is allegorical.

That’s irrelevant: timeline-within-timeline is different than universe-and-eternity.

It is an analogy, and quite fitting. It shows that God being outside our temporal framework is an acceptable hypothesis, but to be static (eternal???) leads to logical absurdities.

Again, your entire construct is within a context of temporal frameworks.

There is NO a-temporal framework. And your analogy about ice-creams is really incorrect. Action without change is an oxymoron. Change without time is an oxymoron.

As I asked before, show us how the a-temporal hypothesis works. What is an action without change? How does it differ from non-action? The fact that you are unable to do so - is obvious. No matter what God can or cannot do, creating logical contradictions is not one of the possibilities.

We are talking about elementary linguistics here - not even philosophy. Simple, everyday concepts, “action” vs. “non-action”. “Change” vs. “no change”. “Time” vs. “stasis”. There cannot be an “action” which is the same as “non-action”. Truly elementary logic - the law of non-contradiction. You don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Gorgias]

It should exist

Says you.

because the lack of it allows any “apologist” to pick and choose which are literal and which are allegorical.

If they’re doing their job right – that is, defending the teachings of the Church – then they’re not making the claims, they’re just passing along the claims that the Church makes.

Also one apologist can argue that verse “X” is literal and another apologist can argue that it is allegorical.

Yes, they can. Are you unfamiliar with literary analysis? Don’t you realize that this is the way that discussion about texts works? Still, though, it doesn’t mean that an arbitrary person is accurate in all his statements and claims. In the present context, it means that the claims have to be backed up by the teaching of the Church.

It is an analogy, and quite fitting.

Yes, it is an analogy. No, it’s not a good one.

It shows that God being outside our temporal framework is an acceptable hypothesis, but to be static (eternal???) leads to logical absurdities.

The “god” in your analogy is constrained by his own temporal framework. That’s why the analogy is a poor one.

There is NO a-temporal framework.

Close. There is no temporal framework in eternity. That’s the whole point.

And your analogy about ice-creams is really incorrect.

More vanilla ice cream…

What is an action without change? How does it differ from non-action?

It is singular, eternal act. No beginning, no ending. That’s what we claim about God. (After all, if it were otherwise, then we would say that God changes! He doesn’t, though.)

There cannot be an “action” which is the same as “non-action”.

It’s not “non-action”. However, it is “not the same kind of action as occurs within temporal frameworks.”

So, just in case you’re not catching it, here’s what we’ve got:

temporal-act =/= temporal-non-act

• (easy enough, right?)

temporal-act =/= eternal-act

• (this is your invalid assumption)

temporal-non-act =/= eternal-act

• (this is, likewise, an invalid assertion on your part)

Truly elementary logic - the law of non-contradiction.

Your grammar is correct, but your semantics are wrong. That’s why your assertions here fail.

 

[Abrosz]

If they’re doing their job right – that is, defending the teachings of the Church – then they’re not making the claims, they’re just passing along the claims that the Church makes.

The “Church” does not make claims, does not “teach”. Members of the church do, all the way from the pope to the lowest laymen. That is why I asked for an authoritative enumeration of the literally correct verses. So that the members are bound by the authoritative interpretation.

Don’t try to anthropomorphize the church. Even if you consider it the “body of Christ”, it cannot be separated from its members. Only the members can speak or teach.

The “god” in your analogy is constrained by his own temporal framework. That’s why the analogy is a poor one.

If there is an action, then there must be a temporal framework. Otherwise you keep on talking about confusing action and non-action. When will you tire of spouting logical absurdities?

It is singular, eternal act. No beginning, no ending. That’s what we claim about God. (After all, if it were otherwise, then we would say that God changes! He doesn’t, though.)

Just another unsubstantiated utterance. And, of course God constantly changes. Just think about God’s alleged “knowledge”. Our, physical part of the universe changes all the time. God’s omniscience reflects the changing reality. Therefore God’s knowledge changes, and since God is simple, God’s essence also changes.

Also God is supposed to sustain the ever-changing reality - therefore God is changing.

Your only “recourse” is just another logical absurdity - something that God sees all the reality. And God sees everything not only what exists, but also what does not exist. Which leads to “knowing” non-existent objects and events.

Your grammar is correct, but your semantics are wrong.

Logic is correct. Just because you try to introduce some new logical absurdities, it does not fail.

This is getting nowhere. You keep spouting logical absurdities and then deny them. The whole “god of the philosophers” is nothing but a huge collection of logical errors and absurdities.

 

[STT]

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.

Time doesn’t reach infinite future. It just keep going. So there no 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.

https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

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

Last is yours, for now anyway.

Scientific community is apparently wrong.

 

[STT]

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.

Things of course have existence. Nothing is not something which lack existence. It is lack of exsitence.

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?

Where is your proof that anything has to have a builder? Moreover, we are not discussing about something to something, instead we are talking about nothing to something.

 

[STT]

It simply exists, without physical or temporal extension.

That doesn’t say anything.

 

[STT]

The term ‘before’ is not relevant. ‘Before’ indicates an earlier time. There isn’t an earlier time. Time restarts. It doesn’t continue. Hence no infinite regress.

Yeah, time restart but each cycle has a period of T. Now define time’ where time’ is the sum of all time passed in previous cycle. Time’ cannot go to infinity.

 

[Gorgias]

The “Church” does not make claims, does not “teach”. Members of the church do, all the way from the pope to the lowest laymen.

Then call it the ‘magisterium’, if your heart is set on pedantic quibbling. There are members of the Church with the duty to teach authoritatively. These are the ones to whom we should listen. There are also members of the Church who likewise convey that teaching; inasmuch as they convey it accurately, they are teaching correct doctrine, too.

Abrosz:

That is why I asked for an authoritative enumeration of the literally correct verses.

The Church doesn’t do that. Rather, the Church teaches. It teaches doctrine, it teaches dogma, it teaches discipline. If you want an enumeration of the teachings of the Church, there are many out there. The Catechism is one such document.

Don’t try to anthropomorphize the church .

It’s a shorthand, @Abrosz. Give me a break.

And, of course God constantly changes. … God’s omniscience reflects the changing reality. Therefore God’s knowledge changes, and since God is simple, God’s essence also changes.

sigh. In all charity, friend, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t posture as if you do. That’s so amazingly wrong that I’m fairly sure you’ve never studied theology in any sort of serious way. Let’s talk about your assertions here:

• Since the universe changes, therefore God’s knowledge changes.
  • That’s actually how human knowledge works; however, that’s not how God knows things. When I woke up this morning, I had no idea how ill-informed you were, with respect to Christian theology. I read your post, and I learned. I gained new knowledge. It – in a certain sense – changed me. I learn by observation, by experience, by reasoning. However, God’s knowledge is immediate. He doesn’t “observe” and thereby have knowledge – it’s not like He ‘waited’ until you experienced this morning and then said to himself, “a-ha! Abrosz has a red polo shirt!”. He is outside of time; He knows all the universe – immediately! – and without sequence. Therefore… God’s knowledge never changes.
• Since God’s knowledge changes, God’s essence changes.
  • See the first point. Your premise is faulty, and therefore, so is your conclusion.

Abrosz:

Your only “recourse” is just another logical absurdity - something that God sees all the reality.

Nope. He doesn’t have eyes. He doesn’t “see” all reality. He simply knows it.

And God sees everything not only what exists, but also what does not exist. Which leads to “knowing” non-existent objects and events.

They don’t exist to you and to me, since we don’t have the ability to know those things which – to us – are ‘future’. Nothing is ‘future’ to God; all things are present to Him, without mediation.

Abrosz:

Which leads to “knowing” non-existent objects and events.

I’d nuance that a bit: God knows objects that are unknown to us.

 

[Gorgias]

Logic is correct.

Like I said – the grammar? The meaning?

This is getting nowhere.

You betcha.

You keep spouting logical absurdities and then deny them.

No – you keep mis-stating the argument (and then characterizing your misstatements as ‘logical absurdity’), and then I correct your erroneous assertions. (Maybe we are getting somewhere!)

The whole “god of the philosophers” is nothing but a huge collection of logical errors and absurdities.

I’m beginning to think that this is a term that you simply read on a blog somewhere, and think you understand it, but don’t.

 

[Veritas6]

Nothing is not something which lack existence. It is lack of exsitence.

Can you point to a lack of existence either inside the universe or outside of it?

Where is your proof that anything has to have a builder? Moreover, we are not discussing about something to something, instead we are talking about nothing to something.

Any thing that is a composite and is dependent on its parts for existence doesn’t have a sufficient explanation in itself for its existence. The universe is made up of parts (spacetime and everything inside itself) and changes. What is the cause of change in the universe?

My example was shown to explain we always need to have something, because if “nothing” lacks existence, then it doesn’t exist. If nothing lacks existence and is said to be somehow “outside” (or inside) space and time, it is still nonsensical to point to nothing as a cause of something because nothing doesn’t exist.

If you would like to appeal to the universe without a cause, that isn’t a problem, but it doesn’t explain why things change and move right now. The insistence of nothing somehow having existence but lacking existence is nonsensical and pointless to argue about.

I think you are assuming nothing must “exist” in order to point to it as a cause of something. But if nothing lacks existence, then it doesn’t exist, and this discussion doesn’t make much sense.

 

[Hume]

I never considered restart as on option.

Thanks for the seed. Any recommend reading on it?

 

[STT]

Can you point to a lack of existence either inside the universe or outside of it?

I can point to lack of existence at the beginning.

Any thing that is a composite and is dependent on its parts for existence doesn’t have a sufficient explanation in itself for its existence. The universe is made up of parts (spacetime and everything inside itself) and changes. What is the cause of change in the universe?

Matter has properties. The motion of matter is due to this properties.

My example was shown to explain we always need to have something, because if “nothing” lacks existence, then it doesn’t exist.

Nothing is lack of existence. By this I mean there is no object, no time, no space, etc.

 

[Hume]

The dividing line between past present and future is an illusion.
Albert Einstein

As to science being wrong, it can be. But if a scientist tells me in good faith that something might be possible and someone on an Internet forum tells me it’s impossible, I think I’ll leave the door open.

Thanks again.

 

[Hume]

All right you appear to be someone, at least through your messages, that appears to somewhat tacitly accept the notion that infinite regress may not be possible. Is there a way that you could explain to me why this is the case? I guess this is just a great big hole I’ve had my education, But I’m not willing to surrender and concede unless someone can provide something that is at least reasonably convincing to me.

 

[Veritas6]

I can point to lack of existence at the beginning.

Can you prove that? There’s a few who suggest there’s an infinite multiverse or that the universe always existed.

Matter has properties. The motion of matter is due to this properties.

Exactly what I mean, because these properties are limited and cannot cause themselves into existence, especially if it hadn’t existed before itself to cause itself into existence.

Nothing is lack of existence. By this I mean there is no object, no time, no space, etc.

Unless you can prove nothing has some ontological status “somewhere”, it doesn’t make sense to point to no existence as the cause of existence, it’s absurd.

 

[Hume]

I can point to lack of existence at the beginning.

No you can’t.