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

[Tomdstone]

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.

That is a question: can a causal agent make something out of nothing ? I suppose you could say that God,who is all powerful could do so, but as you know, God cannot do anything which is essentially contradictory, such as making a stone He cannot lift or making a square circle. Is it contradictory to assert that a causal agent can make something out of nothing? You seem to be saying yes.

 

[IWantGod]

That is a question: can a causal agent make something out of nothing ? I suppose you could say that God,who is all powerful could do so, but as you know, God cannot do anything which is essentially contradictory, such as making a stone He cannot lift or making a square circle. Is it contradictory to assert that a causal agent can make something out of nothing? You seem to be saying yes.

I’m saying that nothing becoming something is impossible, and that therefore God turning nothing into something appears equally impossible. But i know a way around the problem. I’m just not telling you.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

It’s the same answer that a physicist would give to explain how the physical universe began.

What he explains is our explanation.

Not sure why you think you would see something different if God did it.

 

[SecretCatholic]

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.)

That does not make sense in the real world. I will offer an argument taken from Dr. William Lane Craig against an actual infinite past:
Dr. William Lane Craig:

1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

The link is less than a page or two, not 48 pages, so everyone with enough time to post can read it.

Also, as far as the “bouncing universe” theory is concerned take a look at this video. Skip to 6:00 minutes for issues with the bouncing universe if you don’t have time to see the entire 12 or so minutes. You can take a look at this PDF here. You only need to read from page 6-8 for a refutation of the bouncing universe model.

To summarize the the arguments:

The first evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Radiation. If the universe bounced an infinite number of times, then all EM radiation would be CMB radiation. (which is not the case)

The second evidence argues that bounces cannot be infinitive in the past, but end (or being) in the finite past, due to the fact that every bounce produces an increased outward pressure and longer and larger cycles. Run that in reverse and you wind up with a finite, not an infinite beginning.

The third evidence presents the low entropy of the big bang, which does not indicate prior “bounces”.
Fr. Robert Spitzer:

The above three pieces of evidence show the exceedingly high improbability of an infinitely bouncing universe
(including those conceived to occur in higher dimensional space). It is reasonable to conclude from this that if
the universe bounced at all, it did not bounce an infinite number of times, and therefore, had a beginning.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

I haven’t read the whole thread, so I don’t know what you’ve been presented with, nor what you’ve taken from it. However, your stance – the assertion that there’s a question of the possibility of creating something from nothing – seems to stem from an (unstated?) presupposition: creation must follow natural law. That is, you seem to be asserting that, if there is creation from nothing, then there must be a natural process which allows for such a result. (If that’s your case, then your objections make perfect sense: if a natural (i.e., within-the-scope-of-a-created-universe) explanation exists within creation, then it’s possible to find such a process and describe it.)

However, that’s not the case that Jews and Christians make. Instead, we assert that God, who transcends the bounds of the universe and its matter and its physical laws, created. He created from nothing, giving rise to all things. He did not act within the constructs of the physical universe in order to give rise to the physical universe.

Therefore, your demand – that a natural explanation for ex nihilo creation be offered – is unreasonable. It’s not what we posit, and therefore, it’s not what we will defend.

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.

Can you point me to a post in this thread (or elsewhere) that demonstrates that God’s lack of physical extension proves He is unable to create the physical universe? That’s something that Christians would reject, as well.

Out nothing comes nothing because it is nothing. You cannot make nothing something.

We agree. We are not positing some function f with some argument n, such that f->universe. Rather, we’re positing something more akin to God()->universe. These are subtly, but powerfully, distinct arguments. God did not make ‘nothing’ into ‘something’. Rather, starting with nothing, He created everything.

Positing a causal agent that already exists does not make it anymore possible.

That depends on the powers of the causal agent, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Tomdstone]

That does not make sense in the real world. I will offer an argument taken from Dr. William Lane Craig against an actual infinite past:

The link is less than a page or two, not 48 pages, so everyone with enough time to post can read it.

Also, as far as the “bouncing universe” theory is concerned take a look at this video. Skip to 6:00 minutes for issues with the bouncing universe if you don’t have time to see the entire 12 or so minutes. You can take a look at this PDF here. You only need to read from page 6-8 for a refutation of the bouncing universe model.

To summarize the the arguments:

The first evidence is the Cosmic Microwave Radiation. If the universe bounced an infinite number of times, then all EM radiation would be CMB radiation. (which is not the case)

The second evidence argues that bounces cannot be infinitive in the past, but end (or being) in the finite past, due to the fact that every bounce produces an increased outward pressure and longer and larger cycles. Run that in reverse and you wind up with a finite, not an infinite beginning.

The third evidence presents the low entropy of the big bang, which does not indicate prior “bounces”.

The paper I quoted gives a rebuttal to the Tolman argument, which did not take into account the energy supplied by gravity. Unlike some types of energy, the energy from gravity does not exhaust, but is continuously supplied.
Father Spitzer does have a lot of interesting information on his site and it is well worth looking into his site and reading his book. Each argument should be looked at critically and see whether or not they are solid and incontrovertible or whether they reduce to an expression of wonder at the mystery of the universe, without giving a conclusive solution. The universe certainly does have an element of mystery and wonder about it, there is no doubt about that. But with each argument, there appear minor details which on further investigation may not be all that convincing to an agnostic observer.

 

[Tomdstone]

That does not make sense in the real world. I will offer an argument taken from Dr. William Lane Craig against an actual infinite past:
" A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite."

How do you define infinite? You are using the word, but I don;t see the definition of what you are talking about.
If you mean a set of objects which is not finite, then the statement #1 of Craig is clearly false, because the collection {1, 1+1, 1+1+1, 1+1+1+1.,} is actually an infinite set.

 

[ynotzap]

Nothing, what is incapable of existing, the non-existent. God does not fabricate something from something already existing, if He did, He wouldn’t be God, not the Uncaused Cause of all things, but there would be something else that existed eternally, something that would not need a cause to exist. To create is to bring something into existence. (I hope that we agree on this crucial point) It is proven logically that Gods nature is Existence, necessarily, and it also contained in Christian belief. If one knows the Cosmological argument , from cause to effect, one can progress from cause to effect and then regress from effect to cause back to the first cause which necessitates the first uncaused cause. For those who say this argument is flawed, then do us the honor of enlighten us to the flaw, prove your case. You and I had a beginning and it can be calculate as to when in time. Who will deny that? Was there a time in creation that you didn’t exist? Did you or I always exist? If we did, prove it. The point being made is that by God’s Omnipotence He willed creation into existence because He gives existence to what He wills. Now for those we refuse to acknowledge God’s existence,that’s your prerogative, but to say nothing was offered that was not of any consequence, when reasons did not address specific points and offered no proof of what is flawed in the arguments amounts to pure opinion, subjective reasoning. A reference to empirical scientific knowledge to answer ontological, metaphysical questions is a fruitless argument because the empirical sciences do not transcend to ontological knowledge, empirical sciences remain earth bound, and so do it proponents whose only references are empirical. One needs to understand the nature of knowledge, and reasoning, and that’s covered in Metaphysics, not Physics.

 

[Tomdstone]

…do us the honor of enlighten us to the flaw, prove your case…

Some of these arguments have already been discussed. Take for example the Kalam argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Ergo, the universe has a cause*
4. is not true because in a quantum vacuum,virtual particlespop in and out of existence without a prior cause. 0 = 1 + (-1). From zero you get two entities. Further, causality is aphysicalphenomenon which exists withinthe universe. How do you know that causality applies to the universe as a whole?
5. How can you be sure that the universe began to exist and was not always there?

 

[Anthony_V]

Some of these arguments have already been discussed. Take for example the Kalam argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Ergo, the universe has a cause*
4. is not true because in a quantum vacuum,virtual particlespop in and out of existence without a prior cause. 0 = 1 + (-1). From zero you get two entities. Further, causality is aphysicalphenomenon which exists withinthe universe. How do you know that causality applies to the universe as a whole?
5. How can you be sure that the universe began to exist and was not always there?

I’m not entirely sure I’ve ever understood this argument that quantum mechanics somehow defies causality. Would you please elaborate?

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m not entirely sure I’ve ever understood this argument that quantum mechanics somehow defies causality. Would you please elaborate?

The model is not deterministic, but is statistical coupled with an uncertainty principle.
Take the example of an atom undergoing radioactive decay. We know what fraction of the atom will end up in the decayed mode and what fraction will end up in the undecayed mode. But there is no causality correspondence between one instance of the atom before the decay and an instance of the atom after the decay.* So there is no way to predict what outcome you will see. Generally speaking, quantum mechanics says you cannot determine the outcome of a single measurement. You can only describe it as having a random outcome within a predicted distribution.
Further dEdt ~ h/2pi, where h is Planck’s constant. This means that conservation of energy can be brokenfor very short time scales. Particles can therefore be created from the vacuum, and this basically allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle.*
Please see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

For further discussion: Please read:
u.arizona.edu/~rhealey/Causality%20and%20Chance%20in%20Relativistic%20Quantum%20Field%20Theories.pdf
nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n4/full/nphys2930.html
nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n10/full/ncomms2076.html

 

[IWantGod]

I haven’t read the whole thread, so I don’t know what you’ve been presented with, nor what you’ve taken from it. However, your stance – the assertion that there’s a question of the possibility of creating something from nothing – seems to stem from an (unstated?) presupposition: creation must follow natural law.

No. Creation must follow what is metaphysically possible. God cannot create a square circle for example. That is metaphysically impossible.

That is, you seem to be asserting that, if there is creation from nothing, then there must be a natural process which allows for such a result.

I never argued that.

However, that’s not the case that Jews and Christians make. Instead, we assert that God, who transcends the bounds of the universe and its matter and its physical laws, created. He created from nothing, giving rise to all things. He did not act within the constructs of the physical universe in order to give rise to the physical universe.

I never said that God acts within the confines of physical laws.

Therefore, your demand – that a natural explanation for ex nihilo creation be offered – is unreasonable. It’s not what we posit, and therefore, it’s not what we will defend.

I did not demand a natural explanation. I demanded a metaphysical explanation.

Can you point me to a post in this thread (or elsewhere) that demonstrates that God’s lack of physical extension proves He is unable to create the physical universe? That’s something that Christians would reject, as well.

I never argued that God is bound by physical laws.

God did not make ‘nothing’ into ‘something’. Rather, starting with nothing, He created everything.

That sounds like God made nothing into something.

That depends on the powers of the causal agent, wouldn’t you say?

God does not have the power to do the metaphysically impossible.

 

[IWantGod]

Some of these arguments have already been discussed. Take for example the Kalam argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Ergo, the universe has a cause*
4. is not true because in a quantum vacuum,virtual particlespop in and out of existence without a prior cause. 0 = 1 + (-1). From zero you get two entities. Further, causality is aphysicalphenomenon which exists withinthe universe. How do you know that causality applies to the universe as a whole?
5. How can you be sure that the universe began to exist and was not always there?

It is irrelevant whether or not it was always there. It is changing and has always been changing (actualizing potency) and therefore it is contingent as a whole.

 

[IWantGod]

The point being made is that by God’s Omnipotence He willed creation into existence because He gives existence to what He wills. .

I agree with this in principle. But this is not a full metaphysical explanation of creation exnihilo.

This does not go far enough in explaining creation exnihilo. Out of nothing comes nothing, so how is creation exnihilo possible? By your argument, it can be interpreted as saying that God is giving existence to absolutely nothing. This is a contradiction, because if God gives existence to nothing, then what you have is an “existing nothing” which does not exist. Also you must explain what it means for God to give “existence”. What is he giving existence to exactly if it does not exist?

 

[IWantGod]

I’m sick and tired of waiting for somebody to explain it.

1. God is the absolute antithesis of nothing which means that God is the act of existence.
2. The act of existence is a “nature” (God)
3. The act of existence is God’s power; God is his power (identical). God does not have existence, rather he is the nature “existence”
4. God has infinite self knowledge
5. God’s infinite self knowledge eternally contains knowledge of mathematical finite possibilities like the idea of a universe.
6. God is simple
7. Because God is pure actuality, having no unrealized potential in its nature, all finite possibilities are simultaneously actualized in the eternal existence of God.
8. God does not create a new “existence”, because out of nothing comes nothing. There is no reality in nothing. There is no reality or truth out side of God.
9. God gives his “nature” (existence) simultaneously to the idea of a finite possibility. God gives himself to the universe.
10. The universe as an expression of quantum possibilities has God as it act of existence.
11. God is my existence, but my “nature” is not identical in nature with the act of existence. My nature is my own (is not God), but my existence is God because i have no existence accept as a possibility in God’s infinite knowledge. One can also say that God is the truth of you, for God is truth and there is no truth outside of God.

This is creation exnihilo.

This is the explanation i was looking for. What ever God thinks, simultaneously exists in God.

Why couldn’t anyone else give this explanation.

Parmenides:

Reason is our guide; on the latter the eye that does not catch the object and re-echoing hearing. On the former path we convince ourselves that the existent neither has come into being, nor is perishable, and is entirely of one sort, without change and limit, neither past nor future, entirely included in the present. For it is as impossible that it can become and grow out of the existent, as that it could do so out of the non-existent; since the latter, non-existence, is absolutely inconceivable, and the former cannot precede itself; and every coming into existence presupposes a non-existence. By similar arguments divisibility, motion or change, as also infinity, are shut out from the absolutely existent, and the latter is represented as shut up in itself, so that it may be compared to a well-rounded ball; while thought is appropriated to it as its only positive definition. Thought and that which is thought of (Object) coinciding; the corresponding passages of Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and others, which authenticate this view of his theory.

Parmenides argued that the universe is eternal because out of nothing comes nothing. Aquinas changed all that when he identified God as existence itself.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m sick and tired of waiting for somebody to explain it.

1. God is the absolute antithesis of nothing which means that God is the act of existence.
2. The act of existence is a “nature” (God)
3. The act of existence is God’s power; God is his power (identical). God does not have existence, rather he is the nature “existence”
4. God has infinite self knowledge
5. God’s infinite self knowledge eternally contains knowledge of mathematical finite possibilities like the idea of a universe.
6. God is simple
7. Because God is pure actuality, having no unrealized potential in its nature, all finite possibilities are simultaneously actualized in the eternal existence of God.
8. God does not create a new “existence”, because out of nothing comes nothing. There is no reality in nothing. There is no reality or truth out side of God.
9. God gives his “nature” (existence) simultaneously to the idea of a finite possibility. God gives himself to the universe.
10. The universe as an expression of quantum possibilities has God as it act of existence.
11. God is my existence, but my “nature” is not identical in nature with the act of existence. My nature is my own (is not God), but my existence is God because i have no existence accept as a possibility in God’s infinite knowledge. One can also say that God is the truth of you, for God is truth and there is no truth outside of God.

This is creation exnihilo.

This is the explanation i was looking for. What ever God thinks, simultaneously exists in God.

Why couldn’t anyone else give this explanation.

Parmenides:

Reason is our guide; on the latter the eye that does not catch the object and re-echoing hearing. On the former path we convince ourselves that the existent neither has come into being, nor is perishable, and is entirely of one sort, without change and limit, neither past nor future, entirely included in the present. For it is as impossible that it can become and grow out of the existent, as that it could do so out of the non-existent; since the latter, non-existence, is absolutely inconceivable, and the former cannot precede itself; and every coming into existence presupposes a non-existence. By similar arguments divisibility, motion or change, as also infinity, are shut out from the absolutely existent, and the latter is represented as shut up in itself, so that it may be compared to a well-rounded ball; while thought is appropriated to it as its only positive definition. Thought and that which is thought of (Object) coinciding; the corresponding passages of Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and others, which authenticate this view of his theory.

Parmenides argued that the universe is eternal because out of nothing comes nothing. Aquinas changed all that when he identified God as existence itself.

Parmenides identified the universe with the nature of existence. Which is the error that Aquinas was so hungry to destroy.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is irrelevant whether or not it was always there. It is changing and has always been changing (actualizing potency) and therefore it is contingent as a whole.

I don’t see where “contingency” is mentioned in the Kalam argument.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t see where “contingency” is mentioned in the Kalam argument.

I know, i am just saying.

 

[SecretCatholic]

But with each argument, there appear minor details which on further investigation may not be all that convincing to an agnostic observer.

Tomdstone, I’m glad you find Fr. Spitzer’s work interesting. As to being convinced- Well, it convinced this former agnostic. Not his arguments alone, but in conjunction with other arguments, like the moral argument and others.

I think you can always reason your way out of God if you want. There’s enough “plausible deniability” to do so. I looked at all the evidence and came to the conclusion that it took more faith for me to disbelieve in a personal creator of the universe than to actually believe in God. In my estimation, the probably that God exists is certainly over 50%.

To top it off, if He doesn’t exist, then I do not believe that what we are or do has any meaning beyond the subjective, fleeting one we ascribe to them in this short life. No matter what will come, the universe will wind down and die- And it’ll be as if we were never here. As Ecclesiastes 1:2 says:

How do you define infinite? You are using the word, but I don;t see the definition of what you are talking about.
If you mean a set of objects which is not finite, then the statement #1 of Craig is clearly false, because the collection {1, 1+1, 1+1+1, 1+1+1+1.,} is actually an infinite set.

I define it as Dr. Craig does. And I don’t think Dr. Craig puts out “obviously false” arguments, so either you misunderstand or you might want to reconsider your position.

Some of these arguments have already been discussed. Take for example the Kalam argument:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Ergo, the universe has a cause*
4. is not true because in a quantum vacuum,virtual particlespop in and out of existence without a prior cause. 0 = 1 + (-1). From zero you get two entities. Further, causality is aphysicalphenomenon which exists withinthe universe. How do you know that causality applies to the universe as a whole?
5. How can you be sure that the universe began to exist and was not always there?

Tomdstone, a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. Even an atheist scientist has criticized this notion, especially coming from people who should know better, like Lawrence Kraus.

I have decided to stop answering questions about philosophical and scientific proofs for God’s existence in this thread for these reasons:

1. I am an amateur student of philosophy and science who has weighed the evidence enough to make a decision for himself, but I am not an expert on the physics of the Big Bang. The questions here, though interesting, are becoming more and more nuanced and frankly, I don’t think that any of us here is really versed enough in physics to make good arguments at that level of specificity. Certainly, I am not.
2. Since none of us (as far as I know) are versed enough to truly dissect the science without it being broken down into layman’s terms (in other words, already digested by somebody capable of breaking it down and simplifying it for us, like Fr. Spitzer or Dr. Craig), we will eventually, we will eventually appeal to authority. So I will say “but Craig and Spitzer say this” and others will say “But Kraus and Hawking say this!” And there will be no possible consensus or conclusion.
3. This thread has become about proving/disproving God, though it was not meant to be. I can tell you, there is no point to this, especially at this technical level. What will you do- Believe in God if the right scientific proof is shown, but then drop that belief a few years down the line when that “proof” is found false, and then pick it up again when something convincing comes along? Certainly, my belief in God can change, but there is more to believing in God than this or that specific proof.
4. If you are truly seeking answers, your time is better spent at sites like reasonablefaith.org, magiscenter.com and the front page of Catholic.com. You should also delve into deeper resources, like books. That’s not to say that it isn’t good to post questions here, but that you will get much farther reading the questions and answers on those sites and reading good books on these topics than asking them here. For example, I know Dr. Craig responds to the “quantum vacuum” objection, and you will find it if you search on his site. Similarly, I believe Fr. Spitzer discusses objections to his arguments more in a more detailed manner in his books. Also check out Trent Horn’s book “Answering Atheism”.
5. Given all the above, I feel my time is better spent studying these and other arguments (I mean this seriously- since I am interested in apologetics) than responding to objections here with unsure answers of a highly technical field.

 

[SecretCatholic]

IWantGod, this is an intriguing explanation. Have you heard it somewhere else or deduced it yourself?- As I have not run across it before. What I got from it is that:

1. 
   *]God has all thoughts possible in mind.
   *]All of God’s thoughts become reality.
   *]We are the thoughts of God.
   *]Our nature is different from God (I suppose as thoughts are different from the thinker)
   *]God made us from himself.
   
   The first and second ones, if I got them right (which maybe I did not) makes God look like a machine incapable of holding back a thought, rather than a personal being able to decide what to do. And since there is evil in the world, it also suggests to me that God cannot hold back thoughts of evil as well.
   
   The last one I am also unsure of- Did you mean that? If so, that would be at odds with Catholic doctrine. If not, how do you differentiate it from God creating from himself?