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

[po18guy]

The Big Band(?) Theory does not rule out God. The Big Bang was an effect; the theory behind it does not attempt to surmise the cause.

Since it was developed by Belgian astrophysicist and Jesuit Fr. Georges Lemaitre, one may safely assume that it is not intended to exclude God as the origin.

Notice also that the theory of the heat destruction of the universe, matches well with Saint Peter’s description of the end of the world (2 Peter 3:10-12).

 

[po18guy]

I have my own philosophical position on this matter, but i like to hear why you think creation exnihilo is possible.

If there was no God, then certainly nothing can come from nothing. But, there was God, who is the very definition of existence. Therefore, from Existence (Creator) another existence comes into being. Creator > creation.

We so very often think as man does, and not as God does.

 

[PRmerger]

1. is not true because *in a quantum vacuum,virtual particlespop in and out of existence without a prior cause. 0 = 1 + (-1).

LOL!

That’s NOT an example of something popping out from nothing.

That’s an example of something popping out from* something.*

A quantum vacuum is NOT nothing, Tom.

1. How can you be sure that the universe began to exist and was not always there?

I’ve already given 2 examples of how we can surmise that the universe began to exist.

What evidence do you have that the universe is eternal?

 

[IWantGod]

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?

1. 
   A quick response: a human nature is not God. We are absolutely distinct from God, however we have God (existence) and that distinction remains even when a potential becomes actual.
   
   God is not the actual idea of a hippo. God is not creating out of himself because his nature is not a hippo. His nature would have to be a hippo before one can say he is creating out of himself.
   
   God’s existence is identical with his will which is identical with his knowledge, which is identical with his love so on and so forth. Thus only that which is consistent with his nature is potentially actual.

 

[IWantGod]

If there was no God, then certainly nothing can come from nothing. But, there was God, who is the very definition of existence. Therefore, from Existence (Creator) another existence comes into being. Creator > creation.

We so very often think as man does, and not as God does.

I don’t believe God creates “existence”. God “actualizes” potential. We have existence but our nature is not identical with it. Existence is eternal.

 

[Partinobodycula]

1. 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.

Sometimes the hardest thing to say…is nothing. May I offer you some popcorn?

 

[PRmerger]

1. is not true because *in a quantum vacuum,virtual particlespop in and out of existence without a prior cause.

From David Albert:

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-*theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.–http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...e-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

 

[Tomdstone]

T
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…

You haven’t answered the questions about the collection {1, 1+1, 1+1+1, 1+1+1+1.,} being actually an infinite set.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone, a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”.

The argument does not depend on that.The question concerns the violation of local causality and whether or not quantum mechanics obeys the conservation of energy for short time periods. The amount of energy changes because of the creation of a particle antiparticle pair thereby violating local causality and the conservation of energy. *QM experiments can violate Bell’s inequalities, which means that according to quantum mechanics, nature is incompatible with local causal realism. According to both Bell and Einstein a locally causal reformulation of quantum theory is possible only with a local hidden variables program. But Bell’s 1964 theorem proved that no such local hidden variable theory could produce correct results for a certain experiment.
Please see:
arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0401v3.pdf

 

[ynotzap]

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?

The quantum theory is just that, a theory and not fact.- that energy is not radiated or absorbed continuously, or discontinuously, and only in multiples of definite, individual units (mathematical measurement, the second degree of conceptual abstraction) being applied to a theory, not fact. You use the word “virtual particles” which means, being such practically or in effect (here’s the kicker)although not in actual fact. So here we got a theory, not a fact, and virtual reality, not a fact and this represents truth? We are dealing with a lot of subjective thinking and error, treating them as facts.

You have these virtual particles poping in and out of existence, how do you explain if a thing is not existing at one time, and existing at another without a cause? If the thing didn’t exist on one time, how in the world is it going cause itself to exist, this is a logical contradiction, unless you posit a “cause” outside of the particle that doesn’t exist. If it had existence as it’s nature, it couldn’t pop out of existence.

Mathematical symbols are just that, symbols with no meaning until we give them meaning. The foundation of math is based on the unit 1, we give one a meaning “a singularity” which is applied to an individual objective unit, or used in mathematical abstraction to symbolize a conceptual singularity. The rest to me, is mental gymnastics in the form of adding,multiplying, dividing, formulating. It is regarded as the "second degree of abstraction dealing with measurements. There are universal principles used in math, eg. the whole is equal to the sum of it’s parts, and can be verified in objective reality. Much of the trouble today is that mathematical formula is used to explain reality, that’s the empirical influence

Causality is not just a physical phenomena, but applies to reality as a whole. If I study and learn a science, I moved from a mental state of ignorance to one of acquired knowledge, the study caused the effect, knowledge. Is the mental state just physical, what are abstractions, or ideas, has empirical science ever discover a physical idea? Or knowledge? Or thought, or abstraction? Explain the nature of thought? Or motion? Or energy? Are these things physical? Make a guess. Is the truths of Faith about God physical, or did these truths have a non-physical cause?

If the Universe always existed that necessarily means that it didn’t need a cause, if it didn’t need a cause, then it would never change, because change is movement towards being, and in material things there is constant movement, meaning they do not have total being
Or if the Universe always existed, would mean the Universe has existence for it’s nature, it would have total being, that means no change in the Universe, which is contrary to the facts.
eg. Water can be ice, ice can be steam but not at once. Changes are the effects of causes and this is verified by objective facts in reality, whether physical, or non-physical, the principle of cause and effect is a universal principle. So logically, if we regress from effect to first cause, to explain the first cause in the series, we posit a first uncaused cause as the necessary cause for the first cause in the series, the first cause in the series can not explain itself.

 

[Tomdstone]

You have these virtual particles poping in and out of existence, how do you explain if a thing is not existing at one time, and existing at another without a cause? If the thing didn’t exist on one time, how in the world is it going cause itself to exist,.

Right. The production of the particle antiparticle pair comes about not because of deterministic causality, but because of quantum indeterminism given by the uncertainty principle. Before the particle antiparticle creation, the energy in the vacuum was E(0) say. But because of the quantum theory uncertainty principle there will be an increase in energy of the order of dE = (h/2pi)/dt over a very short period of time. So the energy increases from E(0) to E(0) + dE, not by any deterministic causal principle, but by quantum uncertainty which arises because of the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

1. 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.

1. God gives his “nature” (existence) simultaneously to the idea of a finite possibility. God gives himself to the universe.

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.

It sounds like you’re saying something that tends toward the notion that the universe is necessary, not contingent. If that’s where you’re going, then it makes sense that no one would have gone there. Personally, I don’t see the strength of your argument that creation from nothing is (even potentially) metaphysically impossible. You seem to be tilting at a windmill that others don’t see.

Incidentally, if we say that God’s essence is his existence, we’re still talking about God’s existence. He gives existence to the universe, but He does not give the universe His existence. (If he did, then Christianity would espouse pantheism or panentheism. It does not.) So, your #8 is in error – God does not give His existence to creation; rather, He gives creation its own existence. (Which, btw, means that your #7 is sketchy, too: there is existence and reality outside of God – the universe really is real.)

 

[Tomdstone]

Causality is not just a physical phenomena, but applies to reality as a whole. If I study and learn a science, I moved from a mental state of ignorance to one of acquired knowledge, the study caused the effect, knowledge. Is the mental state just physical, what are abstractions, or ideas, has empirical science ever discover a physical idea? Or knowledge? Or thought, or abstraction? Explain the nature of thought? Or motion? Or energy? Are these things physical? Make a guess. Is the truths of Faith about God physical, or did these truths have a non-physical cause?

If the Universe always existed that necessarily means that it didn’t need a cause, if it didn’t need a cause, then it would never change, because change is movement towards being, and in material things there is constant movement, meaning they do not have total being
Or if the Universe always existed, would mean the Universe has existence for it’s nature, it would have total being, that means no change in the Universe, which is contrary to the facts.
eg. Water can be ice, ice can be steam but not at once. Changes are the effects of causes and this is verified by objective facts in reality, whether physical, or non-physical, the principle of cause and effect is a universal principle. So logically, if we regress from effect to first cause, to explain the first cause in the series, we posit a first uncaused cause as the necessary cause for the first cause in the series, the first cause in the series can not explain itself.

Causality does apply in the Newtonian sense to phenomena observed in the world. However, the question being asked is whether causality applies in either of two cases: the quantum world or the universe as a whole.

 

[Tomdstone]

If the Universe always existed that necessarily means that it didn’t need a cause, if it didn’t need a cause, then it would never change,

Quantum fluctuations (relying on the uncertainty principle) do not need a local deterministic cause for their explanation, but they do change in a short period of time.

 

[HelenRose]

I agree that the Big Bang Theory doesn’t rule out God. God said “let it be” and the universe banged into existence (although I think now they’re saying it wasn’t so much of a bang as an expansion.)

I’d be interested in hearing about your Big Band theory

The Big Bang Theory is not only NOT in opposition to Catholic Doctrine but a gift given to science by Christian (specifically Catholic) and Jewish teaching - " In the Beginning God said let there be Light and there was Light and God saw that it was good."

physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

…"Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.

 

[IWantGod]

It sounds like you’re saying something that tends toward the notion that the universe is necessary, not contingent. If that’s where you’re going, then it makes sense that no one would have gone there. Personally, I don’t see the strength of your argument that creation from nothing is (even potentially) metaphysically impossible. You seem to be tilting at a windmill that others don’t see.

Incidentally, if we say that God’s essence is his existence, we’re still talking about God’s existence. He gives existence to the universe, but He does not give the universe His existence. (If he did, then Christianity would espouse pantheism or panentheism. It does not.) So, your #8 is in error – God does not give His existence to creation; rather, He gives creation its own existence. (Which, btw, means that your #7 is sketchy, too: there is existence and reality outside of God – the universe really is real.)

Its not pantheism. Distinct natures that are not God are actual through his act of existence. God is not the nature of a Cow, so God giving himself to the idea of a cow does not make him identical to the nature of a cow. Pantheism makes no distinction between the nature of the world and the act of existence. The universe has ‘actuality’, that is to say it is a universe so long as it has God, but the universe is not identical in nature with the act of its existence. I am not my own reality. Otherwise i would be God and that would be equal to pantheism.

I’m not tilting at windmills. There is no reality in nothing. Existence is a nature that exists absolutely without beginning or end. God creates natures not existence. Saying that God creates existence is the same thing as saying God creates God.** Metaphysically speaking you cannot get more from less, which is exactly what God would be doing if he created existence from nothing. It is a metaphysical contradiction.**

 

[Tomdstone]

Metaphysically speaking you cannot get more from less,

Metaphysics is wrong because the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics applied to quantum fluctuations shows that over short periods of time you can get more energy than what you started with, thus violating the conservation of energy principle.
dEdt ~ h/2pi.
Further under the principle of emergence, new properties which are not shared with its components are produced as the system grows. The system is more than the sum of its parts.

 

[Anthony_V]

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

I’m still reading through your sources, but I don’t understand how what you’ve pointed out even in principle undermines the concept of efficient causality. It seems as though it simply proves is that there is non-deterministic causality. Any good theist who believes in free will would say that same.

 

[Anthony_V]

Metaphysics is wrong because the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics applied to quantum fluctuations shows that over short periods of time you can get more energy than what you started with, thus violating the conservation of energy principle.
dEdt ~ h/2pi.

I’m not sure I understand this either. Why do you assume that there are no non-energy components in a system which give rise to energy components? It seems like we’re arbitrarily picking what kinds of things must be conserved. Aristotelian metaphysics is not classical Newtonian physics.

Further under the principle of emergence, new properties which are not shared with its components are produced as the system grows. The system is more than the sum of its parts.

Essentialist metaphysics would agree that the system is more than the sum of its parts. That’s what the concept of natural kinds is all about.

 

[IWantGod]

Metaphysics is wrong because the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics applied to quantum fluctuations shows that over short periods of time you can get more energy than what you started with, thus violating the conservation of energy principle.
dEdt ~ h/2pi.
Further under the principle of emergence, new properties which are not shared with its components are produced as the system grows. The system is more than the sum of its parts.

Metaphysics is not wrong. More potency is being actualized. That is not the same thing as getting more existence from less. It is essentially more, but the components themselves are not the “existential cause” of emergent essences. The components are not the source of their own power precisely because they are contingent. You are confusing too entirely different subjects.

You’re yelling check mate in a game of black jack.