Out of nothing comes nothing, So how is creation exnihilo possible?

[Sparkythedog]

What you said was that speaking involves “sending sound waves through the air.”

And that’s why you putatively couldn’t understand the phrase “God spoke it into existence”.

Now, it turns out you understand very well how one can speak without “sending sound waves through the air.”

Or is it that you understand “speaking without the use of vocal cords” for yourself, but, curiously, when we are discussing theology there is the weird literalist and fundamentalist framework you appeal to?

I find the witticism, “Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist” quite apropos here.

I don’t know how much more clear I There are two ways to use the word speak. One is in the literal physical and one is metaphorical. When I was asking how God created the universe I was asking for a physical literal description. I was not looking for poetic metaphor. If can’t grasp that, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.

The personal comments about me being a fundamentalist are uncharitable, uncalled for, and against forum rules. Refrain from making them in the future or you’ll be reported.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Some on here insist on trying to understand non-physical things via physical processes. Asking how God “spoke” or “how” he made the universe physically is like kind of like asking how the number “5” can exist immaterially or what physical process takes place between 3 and 5 to make 8. Not all causes are physical. Aristotle sheds some light on this.

You reject the supernatural because the naturalist worldview is so entrenched. The fact that the universe began to exist, according the best of our science, essentially requires a supernatural cause, since nature cannot have caused itself. From that and other arguments, like the insane odds of this being a life-permitting universe, we can reason to an immaterial personal creator.

Now how God exists and acts outside of nature is something which either requires no explanation, or of it does, perhaps cannot be grasped by those of us in the material universe.

The only thing I can say is that this cannot be a reality ruled by some primordial “supernatural laws” akin to our “physical laws”, but rather one where the very center, source and matrix of reality is God himself. He is not dependent upon “supernatural processes” to exist- as we here need lungs to breathe and the laws of physics to make our bodies work. All that comes from the creator and is not required for him to exist. If it were, then he would not be God and that reality would require another cause.

I don’t pretend to really understand the supernatural world/God. I can only speak of this by analogy. But, through reason, I know it/He exists and that it/He “precedes” the physical universe. I don’t think we can truly understand without direct experience, as a 2-dimensional being could not possibly fully grasp the 3-dimentional world, but could use analogy to describe it.

 

[Tomdstone]

The fact that the universe began to exist, according the best of our science, essentially requires a supernatural cause, since nature cannot have caused itself.

The cyclical theory of the universe has the universe being born and dying in infinite cycles of time. So it does not require that the universe began to exist.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know how much more clear I There are two ways to use the word speak. One is in the literal physical and one is metaphorical. When I was asking how God created the universe I was asking for a physical literal description. I was not looking for poetic metaphor. If can’t grasp that, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.

Ah. I see then.

So you are reserving for yourself, a physical being, the right to use metaphors, but also demand that when we speak of God, a NON-physical being, literal and physical terms.

That’s certainly confusing to me, yes.

And it’s also confusing to me how you can claim to not understand “God speaks”, seemingly making a defining absolute: speech always involves sending sound waves through the air…

…while also using “speak” in a way that DOESN’T involve “sending sound waves through the air.”

But I don’t want to dwell on this any more.

I think my point has been made, as well as received.

The personal comments about me being a fundamentalist are uncharitable, uncalled for, and against forum rules. Refrain from making them in the future or you’ll be reported.

Wow…you do understand that you are being, er, uncharitable to the many fundamentalist Christians on this forum, yeah?

How dare you call this term “uncharitable”.

In fact, I may report you for insulting them.

Imagine if I said, “Scratch an atheist, find a woman” and you responded with, “You are uncharitable in calling me a woman!”

Incidentally, one of the best Catholic apologists, a frequent guest and contributor to Catholic Answers, uses this very phrase, so perhaps you should ask that Mark Shea not be permitted to comment here?

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/scratch-an-atheist-find-a-fundamentalist/

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

However, to see the cosmos as merely a collection of particles, forces and other material events is like approaching your beloved in the same manner. But, if you don’t see it, you don’t see it.

Hmm, interesting. I think that I do approach my beloved in the same manner. My partner is a collection of particles and forces, just like the rest of the physical universe. My partner’s quirkiness, tenderness, sense of humour, devotion (and all of the other characteristics that make them who they are) are emergent properties that arise from that physical matter. I see no need to believe that there is any other non-physical thing that makes them who they are. So, it seems that I don’t see what you see.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, folks, I hope that there is no demonstration of a fundamentalism here with posters who are unable to refute objections, and respond with, “I am through arguing with you!”

This demonstrates an inability to defend one’s position.

And when one cannot defend one’s arguments, that is…a blind faith.

 

[ynotzap]

Hmm, interesting. I think that I do approach my beloved in the same manner. My partner is a collection of particles and forces, just like the rest of the physical universe. My partner’s quirkiness, tenderness, sense of humour, devotion (and all of the other characteristics that make them who they are) are emergent properties that arise from that physical matter. I see no need to believe that there is any other non-physical thing that makes them who they are. So, it seems that I don’t see what you see.

What you see arising from physical matter in your partner is not physical, such as tenderness, devotion, humor and many untold qualities, your partner is more than physical, and you would be richer in understanding that you have more than you realize.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, folks, I hope that there is no demonstration of a fundamentalism here with posters who are unable to refute objections, and respond with, “I am through arguing with you!”

This demonstrates an inability to defend one’s position.

And when one cannot defend one’s arguments, that is…a blind faith.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Well this thread has been somewhat of a disappointment so far. And me with still half a box of popcorn.

Although I’m reticent to pick on anyone in particular, I would have expected a higher level of discussion from a Forum Elder, than what has been exhibited in this thread. Perhaps I hope for too much. But then again, maybe it’s not too late.

 

[Nixbits]

ynotzap:

What you see arising from physical matter in your partner is not physical, such as tenderness, devotion, humor and many untold qualities, your partner is more than physical, and you would be richer in understanding that you have more than you realize.

It’s clear we’re not going to agree on this. I see no evidence that, for example, my partner’s sense of humour can be attributed to anything non-physical beyond the physical processes in a human brain. To my way of thinking, this view doesn’t in any way diminish the quality of that sense of humour. I don’t see how a belief in something non-physical adds richness to my appreciation of my partner’s qualities.

But this is rather off-topic, so I suggest we discontinue our exchange of disagreements.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know how much more clear I There are two ways to use the word speak. One is in the literal physical and one is metaphorical. When I was asking how God created the universe I was asking for a physical literal description. I was not looking for poetic metaphor. If can’t grasp that, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.

I don’t think anybody other than perhaps a very advanced physicist can explain such a thing to you, if even one of them can. I don’t think physics has even remotely approached such a thing.

All the same, I don’t have a lot of difficulty with the concept in a physical way. We are informed there is such a thing as antimatter which, if it comes into contact with matter turns both into nothing.

One wonders, then, whether creation of matter is the result of “pulling two aspects of nothing apart”. Does that, then, make “nothing” into a “something”? Perhaps it does. Maybe our human notion of “nothing” is the problem here.

 

[Tomdstone]

I would have expected a higher level of discussion from a Forum Elder, than what has been exhibited in this thread.

I know what you mean.

 

[Sparkythedog]

I would have expected a higher level of discussion from a Forum Elder, than what has been exhibited in this thread. Perhaps I hope for too much. But then again, maybe it’s not too late.

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one.

 

[Tomdstone]

Well this thread has been somewhat of a disappointment so far. And me with still half a box of popcorn.

There are problems with how the leading question of the thread is stated. First of all, there is a question about the word “nothing”. Many people use the word nothing to mean empty space. But the theist will argue that empty space is something after all, because it is space. And then ask, where did space or space time come from. Nothing means different things to different people. Some, mathematically inclined, will say that the number 0 specifies nothing. Others will say that 0 is a number and so cannot be nothing. Of course, another question is whether or not 0 exists? Exactly how do numbers exist in the real world, or are they Platonic ideals? OTOH, 0 = 1 + (– 1). So if you add the two together, plus one and minus one, you will get 0, or nothing? Is 0 = 1 + (– 1) and example of something from nothing? From a philosophical POV, is nothingness, or the total absence of everything possible in the real world? It seems to be a contradiction, because if you have a real world, then you don’t have total absence of everything possible. In a sense it is like a square circle. It is not that easy to define nothing and it is contradictory to conceive of its existence. If nothing exists it is not nothing but something that exists. But suppose you have a region of space in the vacuum state, supposedly a state of lowest energy, which many people call nothing. You will still have the Higgs field that contains less energy (negative) than nothing (zero energy), and it will be accompanied by particles and antiparticles which pop in and out of existence. I guess a better question would be whether or not there was a universe before the Big Bang, and what was the universe doing all that time before the Big Bang. Many theists will say that God created the universe at the time of the BB, but a few others will say that perhaps the universe existed an infinite amount of time before the BB, but what caused the existence of the eternal universe? The atheist might say that the concept of causality does not apply, whereas the agnostic will say that this argument is undecidable and will not go away regardless of how long it is considered.

 

[Anthony_V]

When I was asking how God created the universe I was asking for a physical literal description.

Why is it necessary to conflate the two concepts?

 

[fisherman_carl]

The cyclical theory of the universe has the universe being born and dying in infinite cycles of time. So it does not require that the universe began to exist.

Last time I checked the cyclical theory has a number of problems and is not the prevailing scientific view. Not to mention the fact that an infinite cycles in the past would mean we have already achieved infinite time, which I think is impossible, since no matter how much time you have been around for you could always be around longer. Therefore an actual infinite can not be achieved, only a potential infinite.

This is one reason the First Cause must be timeless.

 

[SecretCatholic]

The cyclical theory of the universe has the universe being born and dying in infinite cycles of time. So it does not require that the universe began to exist.

Do you see the problems with this statement?

For one “began to exist” = “born” so your statement also reads:

“The cyclical theory of the universe has the universe being born and dying in infinite cycles of time. So it does not require that the universe be born.”

Additionally, time can have a potentially eternal future, but not an actual eternal past. If you dispute this, then please give me evidence that time can have an eternal past, for reason seems to oppose it. Also, the science strongly suggests that time did have a beginning. If you deny the scientific evidence, then you are arguing metaphysical possibilities, which makes me wonder why you don’t take the simplest and most complete answer instead, which is God.

If you want to give me a link to an entry explaining the theory you are referring to, I would be happy to respond more specifically.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you see the contradiction with this statement?.

It is not a contradiction because it simply means going back and forth from one singularity to another.

 

[Gorgias]

When I was asking how God created the universe I was asking for a physical literal description.

No one has that ‘physical literal description’. If someone tells you that they do… run. Run fast and far away, 'cause they’re either mistaken or are lying.

Here’s the thing: we know how – in a metaphysical sense – God created the universe: He willed it into existence. This is what is typically meant when we say (metaphorically) that “God spoke creation into existence.” The metaphor of speaking describes the literal reality of God’s will which causes the universe to burst into existence.

However, we do not have access to the mechanics of how that occurrence unfolded physically. From a scientific perspective, we are coming closer and closer to the start of the universe, and therefore, more subtle and complete understandings are being revealed to us every day. Yet, these are necessarily scientific understandings – they deal in physical causes and effects; they cannot reach beyond the physical and uncover the spiritual.

Therefore, you are asking a question which, by its very construction, is impossible to answer. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an answer, or that God is not the author of creation – it just means that we cannot have access to the answer you seem to wish to obtain. To paraphrase God, in His response to Job: “What? Were you here when I made the universe? Then don’t get all high and mighty on me and think you’ll have or deserve all the answers. The minute you become God, come to me and we’ll talk…”

I was not looking for poetic metaphor. If can’t grasp that, I don’t think this conversation is worth continuing.

We can talk about God and theology, or we can talk about science and cosmology. The two aren’t in conflict with each other, but they deal in different questions and different contexts. The only thing we can’t do is what you seem to want to do: to explain God in empirical, physical (i.e., ‘scientific’) terms. :nope:

The personal comments about me being a fundamentalist are uncharitable, uncalled for, and against forum rules.

To quote that great philosopher, Sgt Hulka: “lighten up, Francis.” I think that the assertions of ‘fundamentalist’ are merely a way of expressing the objection that you seem to want to insist on one sole particular way of discussing creation, as if a “physical literal description” is the only possible way to discuss creation. Along those lines, fundamentalists tend to assert that a literal interpretation of the Genesis passage of a six-day creation is the only possible way to discuss creation.

 

[Tomdstone]

If you want to give me a link to an entry explaining the theory you are referring to, I would be happy to respond more specifically.

physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf