Nothing to something

[Hume]

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

And it’s something for which we have no frame of reference.

 

[Abrosz]

The Church doesn’t do that.

Of course not. If it did, it would not be able to deal with changes. This way, the apologist can say that there was no change (when there was!) only our understanding changed. Nice trick, but it is rejected.

By the way, the magisterium would the “teaching authority”, if it could be substantiated.

That’s so amazingly wrong that I’m fairly sure you’ve never studied theology in any sort of serious way.

I studied logic and philosophy. Also mathematics and other sciences. Also languages. “Theology” has nothing to offer to me. After all “theology” would be the study of gods, “demonology” would be the study demons, “angelology” would be the study of angels, “ghostology” would be study of ghosts… etc. “Nothingology” would be the study of nothing. You cannot append “-ology” to some random word and expect it to produce a meaningful concept. Studying something only makes sense if that something actually exists.

However, God’s knowledge is immediate .

How many times does this nonsense come up? Nonexistent objects cannot be “known”.

He simply knows it.

Yea, right. SSDD.

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

I wrote exactly what I meant. Knowing something that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist - though it MIGHT have existed, or MIGHT exist in the present, or MIGHT exist in the future - all these are nonsensical concepts. Knowledge is an internal model of something. Any knowledge! And nonexistence cannot be “modeled”.

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.

This has exactly as much “truth value” as everything else you said - namely NONE. I don’t read blogs. And you are not qualified to declare what I “understand” and what I don’t.

As long as you cannot differentiate between action and non-action; change and no change; time and stasis, you have nothing to say that would even remotely interest me.

 

[STT]

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

I can show nothing at the beginning as an option. The other option is existence of material.

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.

Each state of affiar causes another state of affiar as time passes and before it perishes. This chain will continue and doesn’t need a sustainer.

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.

Think of two universes made of matter and anti-matter which comes out of nothing at the beginning. No principle is broken under such a process. This process therefore is possible. Therefore, nothing is an ontological possibility.

As I mentioned before another possibility, second one, is the existence of material entity at the beginning. I am not ruling the second possibility in here.

 

[STT]

No you can’t.

Think of two universes, one made of matter and another made of anti-matter where there is the same amount if matter and anti-matter in them. These two universe are connected at the point of beginning. Now, reverse the time until you reach the beginning. What you get is nothing. Therefore, nothing is onthologically possible. You can do the same game with positive energy of matter and negative energy of gravitation.

 

[STT]

And it’s something for which we have no frame of reference.

What do you mean?

 

[Veritas6]

I can show nothing at the beginning as an option. The other option is existence of material.

How can you show there was nothing at the beginning?

Each state of affiar causes another state of affiar as time passes and before it perishes. This chain will continue and doesn’t need a sustainer.

What causes these state of affairs to start and continue?

Think of two universes made of matter and anti-matter which comes out of nothing at the beginning. No principle is broken under such a process. This process therefore is possible. Therefore, nothing is an ontological possibility.

But nothing doesn’t exist, how can nothing cause anything? You’re assuming nothing is real at the beginning but if God exists, nothing doesn’t exist and doesn’t cause anything.

 

[STT]

How can you show there was nothing at the beginning?

I already showed that nothing is onthologically possible in the example of two universe.

What causes these state of affairs to start and continue?

The idea that there is a need for mover is a classical idea which is rooted in the first law of Newton. This is a principle for things which have mass. Nothing is not a thing. Therefore, there is no reason that a mover is needed to move nothing to something.

But nothing doesn’t exist, how can nothing cause anything? You’re assuming nothing is real at the beginning but if God exists, nothing doesn’t exist and doesn’t cause anything.

Nothing doesn’t cause anything. This, nothing to something, is just a feasible process, as it is illustrated.

 

[Veritas6]

I already showed that nothing is onthologically possible in the example of two universe.

Which seems to be purely theoretical and doesn’t seem to have existence in reality, unless you have empirical evidence for an empirical model of these two universes. You keep assuming there will be nothing at the beginning, which I honestly don’t follow your example.

The idea that there is a need for mover is a classical idea which is rooted in the first law of Newton. This is a principle for things which have mass. Nothing is not a thing. Therefore, there is no reason that a mover is needed to move nothing to something.

The idea of change was observed much earlier than Newton and doesn’t need to be scientifically proven. We might have to agree to disagree, because I can’t make heads or tails about your assertions. Freely asserted, freely denied.

 

[STT]

Which seems to be purely theoretical and doesn’t seem to have existence in reality, unless you have empirical evidence for an empirical model of these two universes. You keep assuming there will be nothing at the beginning, which I honestly don’t follow your example.

All I am arguing in here is about the possibility therefore I don’t need any evidence to show the truth. Evidence is needed to when you want to claim one possibility as true and others as false.

The idea of change was observed much earlier than Newton and doesn’t need to be scientifically proven. We might have to agree to disagree, because I can’t make heads or tails about your assertions. Freely asserted, freely denied.

Again, I am talking about possibility.

 

[Veritas6]

All I am arguing in here is about the possibility therefore I don’t need any evidence to show the truth. Evidence is needed to when you want to claim one possibility as true and others as false.

I see, then your OP isn’t much of an argument anymore. It is possible that something cannot come from nothing, as I provided the example of nothing not existing at all, so existence cannot come out of non-existence, existence comes from God.

You’re unable to claim your possibility is true and my possibility is false without evidence, so that’s it.

 

[STT]

I see, then your OP isn’t much of an argument anymore. It is possible that something cannot come from nothing, as I provided the example of nothing not existing at all, so existence cannot come out of non-existence, existence comes from God.

You’re unable to claim your possibility is true and my possibility is false without evidence, so that’s it.

I can prove that God is impossible (I have separate argument for that). I can only show that nothing to something is possible. Can you show that nothing to something is impossible?

 

[Veritas6]

I can prove that God is impossible (I have separate argument for that). I can only show that nothing to something is possible. Can you show that nothing to something is impossible?

What is this impossibility argument? Nothing doesn’t exist, because it lacks existence. No thing can come from a lack of existence, so it is nonsensical. If a tiger lacks existence, it cannot cause itself into existence by itself, because it doesn’t exist.

Your example is assuming nothing is reached when you reverse time in these universes and there is no good reason to think this. Even if “nothing” is reached, you are unable to provide a mechanism nothing “uses” to create something.

You could say the universe had the potential to exist (but hadn’t yet), and then actually existed in reality, but that requires something to bring it into reality. You do not have a good argument to prove nothing is real (or has existence, which is nonsense).

 

[Gorgias]

This way, the apologist can say that there was no change (when there was!) only our understanding changed. Nice trick, but it is rejected.

Perhaps you might deign to give an example of your bald accusation?

“Theology” has nothing to offer to me

Then, please, consider deferring making statements in a discipline of which you don’t know the basics. Asking questions, on the other hand, or doing basic research, might yield better results for you than merely railing against things you’re unfamiliar with.

I wrote exactly what I meant.

I know you did. That’s why a correction was needed – your meaning was in error.

And you are not qualified to declare what I “understand” and what I don’t.

No. But I am qualified to speak on what your posts reveal about your lack of knowledge.

As long as you cannot differentiate between action and non-action…

Except that… I did. And you ignored it. Wonderful tactic there – when someone says something you don’t like, just pretend like it isn’t there!

 

[Abrosz]

Except that… I did.

Nope. Try again. Action implies a change. Change implies a temporal before and after.

 

[Gorgias]

Action implies a change. Change implies a temporal before and after.

In a temporal context? Sure. In an atemporal context? Nope – and that’s the problem that you’re unwilling or unable to deal with. I wish you luck. Keep studying… you’ll get there!

 

[Abrosz]

In a temporal context? Sure. In an atemporal context?

What is an action in an a-temporal context? What is a change in an a-temporal context? In those contexts both are meaningless oxymorons, and not just by MY opinion. Maybe you could learn elementary linguistics and elementary logic.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

It’s not a linear progression. You can’t add all the times together. That’s not possible. You can’t use terms like ‘previous’ and ‘next’.

 

[Freddy]

I never considered restart as on option.

Thanks for the seed. Any recommend reading on it?

Penrose wrote a book about it: Cycles of Time. But gee, it’s pretty dense. Better off watching some of the Youtube lectures and interviews he’s done on the subject.

 

[Gorgias]

What is an action in an a-temporal context?

An eternal event.

What is a change in an a-temporal context?

Not a change.

In those contexts both are meaningless oxymorons

Hardly.

Maybe you could learn elementary linguistics and elementary logic.

I’m not the one having the problems here…

 

[Abrosz]

An eternal event.

And what is an eternal event? Hmmm. An a-temporal event? A frozen, unchanging existence? That works. But, of course that is NOT an action.

Not a change.

So there is no change. In a black hole there is no time, no events, no change, no action. So that is “eternity”? Finally you understand.