St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[robbodb]

This is the philosophy section of Catholic answers. If you are not interested in a true philosophical discussion then don’t reply to my posts. I certainly won’t be replying to any of yours since all you seem to produce is avoidance tactics. Your favourite here seems to be “pass the buck”.

Linux, who determined that this thread is limited to philosophical commentary??

The fact that the title of the thread include the words “St.Thomas’ Motion Argument” implicitly if not explicitly means that theological commentary is invited.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a theologian and a major part of his works were about defending the Church’s doctrines against several challenges.

Truth, love and Peace

 

[belorg]

Theists believe that the universe was made by God.

They do not believe that it was made “out of” God or “out of” nothing in the way that a table is made out of wood. They don’t believe that it was made out of anything.

So, the universe was not made out of nothing, but it actually was not made out of anything, which means it was made out of nothing. So, by using your own words, this is ridiculous.

Linux: Nobody has said that God can do the logically impossible. But if Krauss is right in his book, then it’s not even physically impossible, let alone logically or metaphysically impossible, for matter to begin to exist without its being composed of previously-existing matter.

If Krauss is right, then Thomas’ Motion Argument is refuted by modern physics. Most critics of Krauss (WL Craig particularly) however, deny that the “nothing” Krauss is referring to is not really “nothing” since it is unstable.
Nobody here is denying that it is logically possible for an omnipotent God to create something out of unstable nothing. What still seems impossible is to crate something from “stable nothing”, because stable nothing neceesrily stays nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So, the universe was not made out of nothing, but it actually was not made out of anything, which means it was made out of nothing. So, by using your own words, this is ridiculous.

If Krauss is right, then Thomas’ Motion Argument is refuted by modern physics. Most critics of Krauss (WL Craig particularly) however, deny that the “nothing” Krauss is referring to is not really “nothing” since it is unstable.
Nobody here is denying that it is logically possible for an omnipotent God to create something out of unstable nothing. What still seems impossible is to crate something from “stable nothing”, because stable nothing neceesrily stays nothing.

So you finally admit that some " scientists " have arbitrarily redefined " nothing. " Whereas for centuries " nothing " meant no being, some " scientists " have redefined it as a " unstable nothing. " You have not stated but they indeed mean some kind of matter, though in a confused, indefinable state of " chaos. " In other words " nothing " has been redefined as a nebulous " something. " Well, that won’t fly. If it quacks, it is still a duck, even if it is off key. The " nothing " out of the which all was created is " non being, " not a nebulous and chaotic " something. " So the universe exists by the creative act of God or it does not exist at all. But it does exist, so Thomas’ account of its existence is validly inferred. Linus

 

[belorg]

So you finally admit that some " scientists " have arbitrarily redefined " nothing. " Whereas for centuries " nothing " meant no being, some " scientists " have redefined it as a " unstable nothing. " You have not stated but they indeed mean some kind of matter, though in a confused, indefinable state of " chaos. " In other words " nothing " has been redefined as a nebulous " something. " Well, that won’t fly. If it quacks, it is still a duck, even if it is off key. The " nothing " out of the which all was created is " non being, " not a nebulous and chaotic " something. " So the universe exists by the creative act of God or it does not exist at all. But it does exist, so Thomas’ account of its existence is validly inferred. Linus

I suppose that answers Eleve’s question where I got these ‘ridiculous’ ideas in which, according to Eleve, theist do not believe. Well, if Eleve reads this: here is one of the sources for my “strawmen”

And FYI, Linus, I have no intention of defending Krauss.

 

[Eleve]

So, the universe was not made out of nothing, but it actually was not made out of anything, which means it was made out of nothing. So, by using your own words, this is ridiculous.

Well, you’re going to have to make up your mind about what it means to be “made out” of something. Earlier you said “I do not think everything needs to be composed of pre-existing matter, but in order for something to come into existence, there must be a pre-existing condition out of which it can arise.” Because you denied in that very sentence that everything needs to be composed of pre-existing matter, I took it that arising “out of” a previous condition does not mean being composed of the constituents of that previous condition. But then when I suggested that God could fill the role of a “pre-existing condition” you said that you were looking for something that the universe would be made “out of,” and said that God could not be the pre-existing condition unless the universe is “made out of God.”

So which is it? Do you think that everything must be composed of pre-existing matter? Then ordinary physics appears to refute your position.

Do you think that all that is required is some already-existing object, a “pre-existing condition”? Then why can God not be that object?

If Krauss is right, then Thomas’ Motion Argument is refuted by modern physics.

If Krauss is right about everything, then sure. My suspicion, though, is that Krauss - a well-regarded professional physicist with a noted distaste for and unfamiliarity with philosophy - is right about the physics and wrong about the philosophy (or at least wrong about the soundness of the arguments he makes).

 

[John_Martin]

So, the universe was not made out of nothing, but it actually was not made out of anything, which means it was made out of nothing. So, by using your own words, this is ridiculous.

If this will help any of your arguments, 1 page discussion of term “creation”:
newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm

As for me, I will now be bowing out of this discussion.

John Martin

 

[Al_Moritz]

If Krauss is right about everything, then sure. My suspicion, though, is that Krauss - a well-regarded professional physicist with a noted distaste for and unfamiliarity with philosophy - is right about the physics and wrong about the philosophy (or at least wrong about the soundness of the arguments he makes).

Krauss is wrong about the philosophy indeed. Like so many atheists he falls into the silly trap of confusing the physical ‘nothing’ of the quantum vacuum with the philosophical ‘nothing’. And he even has the nerve to claim that, given the challenge from physicists, philosophers have recently re-defined ‘nothing’ – a ludicrous accusation from someone who obviously is arrogantly ignorant about the history of philosophy (since millenia the philosophical nothing was always non-being having no properties at all, including no property of ‘instability’).

See also this delicious refutation by cosmologist Luke Barnes (who cites other cosmologists as well who are more well-versed about ‘nothing’ than Mr. Krauss):

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/

 

[robbodb]

There has been a lot of discussion about nothing.

		   This post  responds to Linux  _ Post 212 and Belorg Post 265.

Perhaps we should recall the the definition of the word “nothing”.

My dictionary defines "nothing"as:
1.no thing; not anything; naught.
2.no part,share or trace.
3.that which is non existent.

In his post (no 212) Linux states “… the fact that out of nothing comes nothing.” It is up to Linux to evidence the claimed “fact”.now I contend that the so called fact is not a fact and is false. It is impossible for a nothing to come out of nothing .
Linux then posits how the creator God creates in spite of nothing and then tells us the views of a certain unnamed theoretical physicist. Now we don’t know whether such views match those of Linux but as he says nothing to the contrary or different we can assume he has the same views. We are told that “nothing really exists, everything is a dream.”.If this startling statement refers to creation and our universe then we ask for evidence and rational thinking to support such a claim. We may say that a dream is not a nothing and secondly a dream can only be experienced by a living being,and thirdly we may ask how anyone can experience a dream about “everything” without having the knowledge and experience of everything in a state of nothingness?
Linux goes on to say “but like the Scriptures say at the end of time,that the heavens , or creation will be rolled back.in other words matter is a finely coiled thought in the Mind of God, but this thought is areal thought and has real being”.

We assume that “heavens” means everything in the universe other than Earth. “Creation” is everything visible and invisible. Earth as well as Heaven and Hell are included in creation according to the beliefs of Christians and other religions.Linux tells us “that the heavens or creation will be rolled back.” Which is it , the heavens or creation? What does “rolled back” mean? If it is intended to mean that the universe currently in an expanding state is expected to contract in the future then Linux is probably suggesting an expanding and contracting universe. This is commonly called the bouncing universe theory or cyclic universe. Well there is no evidence by testing or observation to support such theory.Please refer to my original post on this and other theories of the origin if the universe. In any event how did the original universe come to be? I am not aware of any statement in the Bible that says the universe will be “rolled back” or something similar. Perhaps Linux or someone else can point out the relevant bible verse.
Next we are told that “matter is finely coiled spring in the mind of God”. Did God reveal that thought to the theoretical physicist? Incidentally cosmologists contend that matter was not created at the instant of creation - only unimaginable energy in unimaginable density existed initially.Matter came to be after the instant of creation of the universe. Catholic teaching does state that God willed the universe into existence when no thing existed. There was no need for any pre -existing matter for God to create the universe. I realise that we humans do not understand that fact. Catholics and others do believe in God and his existence revealed in tradition, evidenced in sacred scripture and confirmed in the doctrines of the Church.
Next we read some comments which seem to come from string theory.Has the process stated about a wave and particle been tested and observed. String theory is an abstract theory with all sorts of assumptions which may or may not be true. It is unproven and indeed can never be tested so anything can say whatever they want. Investigation reveal that string theory is on the wane because it has failed to live to up to its original perceived promise.

Linux is correct in stating that “love,compassion, mercy,beauty are the guiding principles of the only creatures who can think about their origins”. Such guiding principles have been given by God to man via man’s soul. It is universally accepted that there were several kingdoms in ancient times which did not live by such guiding principles and lived by evil principles.Nonethelees they also had the ability to discover and apply such principles. The point is the contents of the soul (goodness or evil or guiding principles as posited by Linux) drive the behaviour of man. God has given us human beings a unique soul solely for each of us. Such guiding principles and others are immaterial in nature . The soul cannot be inherited fro our parents because it is spiritual and not material. There is no gene for mercy, love etc. or for good or evil. My original post provide additional points and detail.

Continued

 

[robbodb]

continued

I now wish to briefly comment on belorg’s post of February 18 which again discusses “nothing”. Belorg,the Catholic position is that God created the universe when no thing existed other than God.That is what is meant by the Catholics ( me included)or theist contributors to this thread.If i am wrong they will no doubt speak up. God willed creation of the material and immaterial is our position.
Belorg also talks about a stable and unstable nothing. An unstable nothing is impossible as a thing would be necessary to generate and maintain such instability. Belorg, what form is such instability? What caused it? A state of nothingness is neither stable nor unstable. As defined above nothing is no thing or not anything. In context of this thread stable implies a condition of something which is not unstable like stable air (no wind ) or becalmed seas with no wind.Nothing means just what it is as defined in a credible dictionary i.e. not anything.Period!!

It is likely difficult to free one’s mind from existing belief’s and be free from bias and prejudice when something comes about which challenges existing belief.Asking questions, probing, meditating,reading quality material , persistence in searching for truth, use regression where appropriate to find the fundamental cause are useful for finding truth. The vast majority of people stop at superficial causes and/or confuse cause and effect.One example is that the vast majority of people believe inflation is an increase in prices and is measured by the Consumer Price Index or CPI. This is wrong.Inflation is an increase in the money stock or money supply and any increase in overall prices or the general price level is the effect of inflation.But I digress.My point is that all of us should never cease searching for truth and in particular the meaning of our existence. The more truth is known the better the quality of life regardless of bumps along the way.

Truth,Love and Peace.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suppose that answers Eleve’s question where I got these ‘ridiculous’ ideas in which, according to Eleve, theist do not believe. Well, if Eleve reads this: here is one of the sources for my “strawmen”

And FYI, Linus, I have no intention of defending Krauss.

Well, I admit I have no idea what you are saying here. ??? Linus

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Robbdb, appearantly the same question occurred during St. Thomas’s time or earlier, because he had to answer the same silly question. Somwhere, perhaps above somewhere I sited the passage where he answers the question. In summary, he said that " nothing " meant " no-being. " And some of the popularizers of physics errect some pipe dream as valid theory ( contrary to the rules of science ) and even so their fabricated " nothing " is still something - even if nothing but waves and whatever other nebulous matter might exist in their " empty " " space. "

Magicians have " slight of hand . " The loud mouthed pied pipers of modern physics have intellectual Sophistry. It is all Hot Air intended to impress the masses but especially the university dilatants setting in awe at their feet trying so hard to " fit in. " These guys could sell horse dung to street sweepers. And today’s university students would cheer them on, at least many would and do. Linus

 

[robbodb]

Linus, I agree. “Empty” does not mean nothing. Empty space that is the absence of visible matter is not nothing. when you open open a room absent any furniture it appears empty but when the curtains are opened and the sunlight streams in through the window you will notice the floating dust particles and it is evidenced that there is something in the room.
IMO we need to help the atheist community to find the truth.

truth< love and Peace.

 

[belorg]

Well, you’re going to have to make up your mind about what it means to be “made out” of something. Earlier you said “I do not think everything needs to be composed of pre-existing matter, but in order for something to come into existence, there must be a pre-existing condition out of which it can arise.” Because you denied in that very sentence that everything needs to be composed of pre-existing matter, I took it that arising “out of” a previous condition does not mean being composed of the constituents of that previous condition. But then when I suggested that God could fill the role of a “pre-existing condition” you said that you were looking for something that the universe would be made “out of,” and said that God could not be the pre-existing condition unless the universe is “made out of God.”

So which is it? Do you think that everything must be composed of pre-existing matter? Then ordinary physics appears to refute your position.

A pre-existing condition **out of **which X comes means that this condition (whatever it is, it does not have to be ‘matter’ in the usual sense) somehow transforms, is transformed into X.
In quantum mechanics, there is some pre-existing condition which gives rise to quantum fluctuations, e.g. But what theists claim is that something is created by some entity who has no relation whatsover to his creation, other than the assertion that he ‘created’

Do you think that all that is required is some already-existing object, a “pre-existing condition”? Then why can God not be that object?

Because a pre-existing condition must have a relation to whatever it is a condition for and by definition, the Thomist God is unrelated to anything
.

If Krauss is right about everything, then sure. My suspicion, though, is that Krauss - a well-regarded professional physicist with a noted distaste for and unfamiliarity with philosophy - is right about the physics and wrong about the philosophy (or at least wrong about the soundness of the arguments he makes).

As I told Linus, I do not knwo whether Krauss is right or wrong. But if he’s wrong, you can’t use him to support your thesis, and if he is right, this whole discussion is futile, becaue Thomism is refuted.

 

[yppop]

Creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing, is a fundamental doctrine of Catholicism. Furthermore, it is the position of Catholic theology that the Big Bang theory does not contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as long as the BB theory implies an absolute beginning.

The Big Bang theory states that not only did matter, time, and energy emerge from a singularity, but so too did the space that gives dimensionality to the universe.

How “space” emerged from whatever the singularity was immersed in can only be imagined by assuming two modalities of space.

This is not a problem because we can identify two modalities of space: the continuous and the discrete, both of which can be modeled mathematically. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom states that that the real numbers are order-isomorphic to the linear continuum of geometry. In other words the axiom states that there is a one to one correspondence between real numbers and points on a line. Cantor also showed that there are as many points on the real number line as there are in two or three-dimensional space. Hence all points in 3-dimensional space can be associated with the real numbers.

The real numbers, hence continuous space, are described by the second transfinite number, aleph-1. The rational numbers also lie on the real number line, are denumerable, and are described by the first transfinite number aleph-0. Rational numbers define discrete space.

The two modalities of space, discrete and continuous, allow us to explain the duality nature of reality. Objective reality, consisting of space, time, matter, energy, is constructed from discrete space, while continuous space provides a spiritual aspect of reality.

Thus, the mathematical properties of the infinite allow us to describe a scenario in which discrete space is crunched into a singularity and is caused to emerge from continuous space.

Because [aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1)] an infinite amount of discrete space can be removed from an infinite amount of continuous space without changing continuous space one iota; God can create the universe (or an infinite number of universes) from Himself without change. That is the nature of God, the Infinite.

Relative to God, aleph(0) is nihilo. And even more so, God does not require an infinite number of “points” to create the universe, some large finite number will do.

To those skeptics that may bridle at the thought the matter is composed of some form of space, consider what string theory implies. Also consider that the typical atom whose material size is determined by the position of “point-particle” electrons, is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus and the nucleus is composed of “point-particle” quarks. In other words, matter is mostly empty space.

I contend that the empty space that provides the materiality is the continuous space that provides the spiritual aspect of reality. I call, the continuous space from which the universe emerged, infinite nothingness. It is the Mind of God. We are immersed in the Mind of God.

I contend that what I have presented may not be the truth; I offer it as a plausible “philosophical” explanation for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.

Yppop

 

[Eleve]

Because a pre-existing condition must have a relation to whatever it is a condition for and by definition, the Thomist God is unrelated to anything

That is not a view of Thomism or of any other theistic view I’ve ever encountered. Frankly it sounds like gibberish.

Examples of relations that hold between God and other objects:

1. 
   *]X created Y (and you seem to think that this doesn’t count, but you give no reason why)
   *]X is more powerful than Y
   *]X is better than Y
   *]X is the cause of the necessity of Y
   *]X knows that Y (or, if you don’t like propositions as objects, “X knows that Y is red”)
   *]X was born of Y and suffered under Z
   
   Or perhaps by “relation” you actually mean something like “resemblance.” But then you have at least three problems:
   1. 
      *]You have to explain how there are facts about resemblance. For example, does a green apple resemble a red apple? Or does it resemble a green pair? If it resembles both, does that mean that the green pear resembles the red apple? Do they all resemble each other because they are fruits? And, most importantly, at what point does something become “different enough” that it can’t arise from the pre-existing condition?
      *]You have to show that things must in fact resemble the pre-existing conditions from which they arise. This is hardly obvious. For example, what is the resemblance between an electron and the quantum void? Or between a walrus and the quantum void?
      *]You have to show that God does not resemble the universe. But if the universe is created according to a divine plan, then presumably this plan exists in the mind of God, so that there is resemblance between the mind of God and the universe after all.
      

      As I told Linus, I do not knwo whether Krauss is right or wrong. But if he’s wrong, you can’t use him to support your thesis, and if he is right, this whole discussion is futile, becaue Thomism is refuted.

      Again, you assume that Krauss is either right about everything he says or wrong (or at least untrustworthy) about everything he says. But I doubt that anyone has ever been so fortunate, or unfortunate. For example, I’m sure you’ll agree that Leibniz is as good a source as any for certain proofs about derivatives, but I doubt you think that trusting him about calculus means that we also have to trust him about the Principle of Sufficient Reason or his ontological argument.

 

[robbodb]

"Re: St. Thomas’ Motion Argument and Modern Physics
Quote:
Originally Posted by belorg
Because a pre-existing condition must have a relation to whatever it is a condition for and by definition, the Thomist God is unrelated to anything

That is not a view of Thomism or of any other theistic view I’ve ever encountered. Frankly it sounds like gibberish."

Eleve, i agree with your comment.

IMO the atheists who posted to this thread lack credibility. They come up with flawed thinking (to be kind) such as the one quoted above,and do not reply to contributors who respond to their posts.Time and again they have put forward their views of Christian beliefs which caused a response from the theists pointing out their flawed thinking and to set them straight so to speak.I don’t think i need to say what the reaction was from the atheists for the most part but it was more of in the way of reaffirming their position rather than a credible response.
Candidly, the theists IMO do not know what they are talking about most of the time and this has been pointed out to them on many occasions to which they have either failed to respond or respond with twaddle. For the most part they do not understand the Christian position or their own for that matter IMO.

A review of this thread will evidences what i have stated here.

It is regrettable that we did not have the atheist position put forward with clarity, rational thinking and credible supporting evidence.Several of their posts referenced authors who proved to lack credibility.In addition their position was not backed with credible supporting evidence which had been tested or observed.

For my part i will cease contributing to this thread because i am of the view it is a waste of time.I have lots of better things to do.

Goodbye.

Truth, Love and Peace

 

[robbodb]

I have returned from a very short leave of absence. The reason is that I am clearing out my study and found a number of articles in connection with the subject matter of this thread. I took the view that sending them on to the Forum may be useful to both sides of the debate. Refer to the links hereunder.Please note that the links are NOT theological.They are of a scientific and/or philosophical nature and deal with both sides of the debate.

IMO,the key differences between the positions of the atheists and the theists are:

Atheists contend that there must have been energy prior to the instant of the creation of the universe. On the other hand theists contend there was no energy existing prior to the instant of the creation of the universe and that there was no thing or anything other than God prior to the instant of creation of the universe.

Theists believe God willed the creation of the universe at least that is the Catholic posItion. It follows that theists believe in the existence of God which has been theologically proven. Atheists do not believe in God and posit the universe must have been created from a something or always existed

.The two positions are wide apart to say the least – irreconcilable is more apt.The debate then really boils down to the primary issue which is about the whether God exists or he does not.

Both positions cannot be true.

Because of such irreconcilable differences it is, IMO , very important that both sides to the debate put their positions clearly, rationally and with respect,an open mind together with evidence which support their positions. I hope the links below will contribute to the quality of the debate.

I would ask future posts consider my request stated in the immediate preceding paragraph.

I wish to start off with the cosmological argument which is explained in the first link below.

Prima Via (First Way)

P1 Everything is in motion.

P2 In order for movement,something potentiality (potentia) must be actualised (actus) by something already in a state of actuality.

P3 Nothing can be simultaneously in a state of potentiality and actuality, so nothing can move itself.

P4 Following from P3 , everything must be caused to move by something else. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers.

P5 Without a first mover, there would be no subsequent movers. Reductio ad absurdum: We know there are subsequent movers and thus there must be a source of all change

slideshare.net/Pisp.co.uk/the-cosmological-argument-presentation ( this link contain a power point presentation and a transcript which follows the former)

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/why-science-cannot-explain-why-anything-exists/

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/of-nothing/

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/more-sweet-nothings/

bhpublishinggroup.com/apologeticsbible/Studies/CosmologicalArgument-Transcript.pdf

commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_fos_v7n3_causality.pdf (PDF file )

allaboutcreation.org/origin-of-the-universe-video.htm

realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm

arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0402040.pdf

newadvent.org/cathen/05422a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/05422a.htm

lightandmatter.com/html_books/0sn/ch02/ch02.html

This is definitely my last post,i hope.

 

[belorg]

That is not a view of Thomism or of any other theistic view I’ve ever encountered. Frankly it sounds like gibberish.

Examples of relations that hold between God and other objects:

1. 
   *]X created Y (and you seem to think that this doesn’t count, but you give no reason why)
   *]X is more powerful than Y
   *]X is better than Y
   *]X is the cause of the necessity of Y
   *]X knows that Y (or, if you don’t like propositions as objects, “X knows that Y is red”)
   *]X was born of Y and suffered under Z

1. 
   I probably should have used “connection” instead of “relation”.I realize that" relation" is too broad a term.
   
   X is more powerful than Y is a relation but not a connection.
   What I claim is that the phrase "(the Thomist) God is the creator of the universe " is completely meaningless unless it is shown how God and the universe can be connected.
   

   Again, you assume that Krauss is either right about everything he says or wrong (or at least untrustworthy) about everything he says. But I doubt that anyone has ever been so fortunate, or unfortunate. For example, I’m sure you’ll agree that Leibniz is as good a source as any for certain proofs about derivatives, but I doubt you think that trusting him about calculus means that we also have to trust him about the Principle of Sufficient Reason or his ontological argument.

   I merely assume the Krauss is either right or wrong with respect to what you try to argue for. If the nothing Krauss describes is truly nothing, then Thomism is proven wrong. If he isn’t, you cannot use him in your argument. IOW, what Krauss claims or does not claim is completey irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[belorg]

Creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing, is a fundamental doctrine of Catholicism. Furthermore, it is the position of Catholic theology that the Big Bang theory does not contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as long as the BB theory implies an absolute beginning.

The Big Bang theory states that not only did matter, time, and energy emerge from a singularity, but so too did the space that gives dimensionality to the universe.

How “space” emerged from whatever the singularity was immersed in can only be imagined by assuming two modalities of space.

This is not a problem because we can identify two modalities of space: the continuous and the discrete, both of which can be modeled mathematically. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom states that that the real numbers are order-isomorphic to the linear continuum of geometry. In other words the axiom states that there is a one to one correspondence between real numbers and points on a line. Cantor also showed that there are as many points on the real number line as there are in two or three-dimensional space. Hence all points in 3-dimensional space can be associated with the real numbers.

The real numbers, hence continuous space, are described by the second transfinite number, aleph-1. The rational numbers also lie on the real number line, are denumerable, and are described by the first transfinite number aleph-0. Rational numbers define discrete space.

The two modalities of space, discrete and continuous, allow us to explain the duality nature of reality. Objective reality, consisting of space, time, matter, energy, is constructed from discrete space, while continuous space provides a spiritual aspect of reality.

Thus, the mathematical properties of the infinite allow us to describe a scenario in which discrete space is crunched into a singularity and is caused to emerge from continuous space.

Because [aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1)] an infinite amount of discrete space can be removed from an infinite amount of continuous space without changing continuous space one iota; God can create the universe (or an infinite number of universes) from Himself without change. That is the nature of God, the Infinite.

Relative to God, aleph(0) is nihilo. And even more so, God does not require an infinite number of “points” to create the universe, some large finite number will do.

To those skeptics that may bridle at the thought the matter is composed of some form of space, consider what string theory implies. Also consider that the typical atom whose material size is determined by the position of “point-particle” electrons, is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus and the nucleus is composed of “point-particle” quarks. In other words, matter is mostly empty space.

I contend that the empty space that provides the materiality is the continuous space that provides the spiritual aspect of reality. I call, the continuous space from which the universe emerged, infinite nothingness. It is the Mind of God. We are immersed in the Mind of God.

I contend that what I have presented may not be the truth; I offer it as a plausible “philosophical” explanation for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.

Yppop

Yppop, I appreciate that you at least see the problem with an immutable God creating something. The problem is that you claim that you can remove an infinity from an infinite set while the set still remains infinite. That’s true, but that only applies to the cardinality of the set. It is clear that, after removing certain elements from a set, the set qualitatively changes. God, if truly immutable cannot change in any sort of way.

 

[belorg]

continued

I now wish to briefly comment on belorg’s post of February 18 which again discusses “nothing”. Belorg,the Catholic position is that God created the universe when no thing existed other than God.That is what is meant by the Catholics ( me included)or theist contributors to this thread.If i am wrong they will no doubt speak up. God willed creation of the material and immaterial is our position.

I know that is your position.

Belorg also talks about a stable and unstable nothing. An unstable nothing is impossible as a thing would be necessary to generate and maintain such instability. Belorg, what form is such instability? What caused it? A state of nothingness is neither stable nor unstable. As defined above nothing is no thing or not anything. In context of this thread stable implies a condition of something which is not unstable like stable air (no wind ) or becalmed seas with no wind.Nothing means just what it is as defined in a credible dictionary i.e. not anything.Period!!

Sure, but lots of philosphers argue that such a state is impossible, and that the only possible state is “unstable nothing”, which of course is not really nothing.

It is likely difficult to free one’s mind from existing belief’s and be free from bias and prejudice when something comes about which challenges existing belief.Asking questions, probing, meditating,reading quality material , persistence in searching for truth, use regression where appropriate to find the fundamental cause are useful for finding truth. The vast majority of people stop at superficial causes and/or confuse cause and effect.One example is that the vast majority of people believe inflation is an increase in prices and is measured by the Consumer Price Index or CPI. This is wrong.Inflation is an increase in the money stock or money supply and any increase in overall prices or the general price level is the effect of inflation.But I digress.My point is that all of us should never cease searching for truth and in particular the meaning of our existence. The more truth is known the better the quality of life regardless of bumps along the way.

I am still searching forthe truth, and I do not know what exactly is true, the only thing I know for certain is that Thomistic cosmology is not true.