S
SecretCatholic
Guest
Okay so my edited post came out after your reply, which I didn’t intend. In any case, I merely expanded and tweaked my answer, so have a look.
Out of nothing comes nothing, So how is creation exnihilo possible?
- Status
S
Sparkythedog
Guest
If there is a non physical (I’m not sure what this actually means) entity that created this physical realm that we exist in, then at some point something physical happened. I want to know what happened from the point when there was no physical universe to the point where there was a physical universe.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would hope that a scientist would make that argument, too! After all, ‘empty space’ exists – it’s not something non-existent! It really seems to have ticked Krauss (et al) off that, once his ‘ex nihilo’ was shown not to have been as ‘nihil’ as he asserted it was, his claims couldn’t be taken seriously.
Still, “empty space” is merely space not filled with observable matter or energy. It is not ‘nothing’, since it is part of the universe. Even the mistaken notion of a ‘vacuum’ (after all, it’s not really a true vacuum… just pretty darn near empty of stuff) doesn’t help us. It exists; it’s part of space-time; it can be described physically (think of an x-y-z-t coordinate mapping). Therefore, it’s not ‘nothing’ (even if it’s extremely sparsely filled).
Except that this ‘vacuum’ will still have stray hydrogen atoms. Not densely packed, mind you – but still present. So… no vacuum.
Your question here confuses me. Doesn’t the question itself presume an “eternal universe”?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The cyclical theory answers the objections you have raised. You are going from an endless cycle of Big Bang followed by Big Crunch, with gravity supplying the necessary energy. At each singular point you have a severe contraction and then explosion, but you are not dealing with nothing or a birth from nothing. You are talking about movement back and forth from a severely contracted point.
I don’t see anything illogical about a real line extending infinitely into the past and future. Mathematicians deal with it all the time. It can be used to model time with the additional requirement that in the real world, it only progresses in the positive or future direction.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The cyclical theory does post such.
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
Okay- The PDF is 48 pages. I have saved it to my computer to peruse later, as I am actually rather interested in science relating to the creation of the universe. However, I do not have time to read 48 pages of dense material to provide you a more detailed response, and I think such a thing is a little much for this level of forum discussion. I will be happy to discuss specific claims of this theory, if you can provide them, however. -Keeping in mind that I am not a scientist.
Is there any PHYSICAL evidence of this cyclical model?
Is this the bouncing universe model, a subset of it, or like it?
I
IWantGod
Guest
From what i can gather, the best argument on offer is that there has to be a first cause and by being so creation ex-nihilo must be in principle possible, even if it is beyond our comprehension.
However, how is it possible if from nothing nothing comes? There is nothing to will into existence, thus how can God will nothing into something without creating it out of himself?
If something can come from nothing, then why assume that one needs a creator?
At some point it does appear as if someone is trying to have their cake and eat it at the same time; it also appears unsatisfactory to merely assert that God can do it because he is God.
Creation ex-nihilo “appears” to be a contradictory concept and i think it is important for theists to not pretend that it doesn’t.
Isn’t there even going to be an attempt at doing real philosophy; an attempt to explain creation exnihilo.
However, how is it possible if from nothing nothing comes? There is nothing to will into existence, thus how can God will nothing into something without creating it out of himself?
If something can come from nothing, then why assume that one needs a creator?
At some point it does appear as if someone is trying to have their cake and eat it at the same time; it also appears unsatisfactory to merely assert that God can do it because he is God.
Creation ex-nihilo “appears” to be a contradictory concept and i think it is important for theists to not pretend that it doesn’t.
Isn’t there even going to be an attempt at doing real philosophy; an attempt to explain creation exnihilo.
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
But mathematical constructs don’t always conform to the physical world. If this conception of time doesn’t apply now, what makes you think it could apply at some other point, or state of the universe?
Also, while I can imagine a line that extends either right to left or left to right, for instance, both have to have a beginning and progress outward. And so, what I can conceive is time running forward for the same point, but both have a beginning. A beginnings time seems untenable in our physical reality. How would a calendar work in such a timeline?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Which is a nice story, but that’s all it is, unless one can demonstrate evidence of a pre-explosion contraction. Without evidence (which is, after all, what science is all about… right?), this is just a nice story that scientists can tell. Which… as it turns out… is what empiricist atheists define as ‘religion’. :yup:
In other words… welcome to the religion pool, my ‘atheist’ friends who believe in the cyclical theory – the water of faith is warm and comforting here!
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would answer that this is merely a statement that there is no natural process through which ‘nothing’ is transformed into ‘something’. It is not a statement that limits God or His abilities; it merely points out that, if we’re looking at natural processes that can be empirically measured, there’s no such process that takes ‘nothing’ and creates ‘something’ from it.
Why do you feel that this is the case? Is God bound by physical law? What is unsatisfactory in the explanation that the God who transcends all creation can therefore create all creation from nothing?
Why do you say that? What’s the contradiction you perceive?
What needs explaining? In your mind, why does creation ex nihilo need a philosophical explanation that has not yet been tendered?
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
It’s a difficult concept. But I don’t think we should just give up on it after centuries of support for it, unless there is a strong defeater for it. I agree we should reason logically and reject contradictions, though.
Here’s the thing: The universe is supposedly still expanding. People often ask “What is it expanding into?” Responses vary, but none is solid. One I’ve heard is that it expands “into a mathematical reality.” In any case there was nothing “real” in that space to begin with, therefore it appears that the universe is expanding into nothing, creating reality where there was none. That sounds like “creation ex-nihilo” to me. If it’s not, please someone point out the difference.
Also, we must understand that God is not simply a being in reality, but He is the reality of being. We don’t have any experience of that- all of us are merely creations which exist in an already existing physical (and spiritual) reality. God IS the reality. He IS being itself. That is something else.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I didn’t think that 48 pages was all that much, at least when I compare it to my Bible which has 1883 pages.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Perhaps. Yet, Bible quotes are usually a verse or two, and pointers to the particular verse or chapter are the norm. It’s rare that the answer to a theological question is “read the whole Bible and then get back to me”…
T
Tomdstone
Guest
there is a marker, but not a beginning. Usually, 0 is taken to the be the marker. In the real world, modelling time, you can think of 0 as the present moment and minus one as one month ago, and plus one as one month into the future. (Of course, you can use day instead of month, ( or year, or hour, etc,). The unit you pick is arbitrary.)
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The cyclical theory has the universe expanding and contracting in an infinite and eternal cycle. So according to that theory there is no time when there was nothing.
S
SecretCatholic
Guest
Well, I think you’re expecting too much for a casual forum discussion. If I had to read the entire Bible again to answer a question, it would also be too much to expect as well. It seems as if you are trying to overwhelm your discussion opponent by throwing lots of material at him. If so, that is neither honest nor charitable. I remind you that it does not matter who “wins” the argument here. What matters is the truth and the destiny of our eternal souls.
If you want to have an honest, fruitful discussion here for all of us, I implore you to present your arguments in a manner which is digestible in an online forum. By all means, post the PDF link, but break it down for us, and refer us to specific passages.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Creation from nothing does not follow logically or deductively from the concept of God as it has been presented on this thread. Its an assertion or an article of faith. Philosophically speaking no argument has been made here that demonstrates the link between God’s nature and the possibility of creating something from nothing. It’s obvious that it has not.
Your argument is that God is not physical or God is all powerful therefore its possible. That is not an tenable argument, because it is has not been made clear how one follows from the other logically.
Out nothing comes nothing because it is nothing. You cannot make nothing something. Positing a causal agent that already exists does not make it anymore possible. At least no-one on this thread has shown how it is possible.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
That is true. However, the paper cited attempts to answer some of the objections.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Is the mathematical real line actually or potentially infinite in your opinion.
Or just take the set:{ …, -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3…}
I
IWantGod
Guest
This is getting very close to the answer.
- Status