The claim that "nothing comes from nothing" is a positive claim which must be backed up

[N0X3x]

Logically, a child is an effect of it’s parents.
Therefore, a child can not pre-exist its parents. (per the definition of an effect)
Imagine your grandmother as an infant.
Now, imagine your mother as an adult.

So here’s the question:
Can you imagine your mother giving birth to your grandmother? I can.

To my understanding, logically impossible just means that there’s an inherent contradiction, as there is in the above.

Even if what you say is true, it still raises the question: is there an inherrent contradiction in something coming from nothing? I answer: no.

As to the rest of your post, I either imagine the grandmother still being the mother by some whacky time travel shenanigans, and thus is not logically impossible, or else the grandmother is not really the mother of your mother, in which case, I can imagine a clone of my grandmother being birthed by my mother, But I cannot imagine the Actual woman who birthed my mother being birthed by my mother.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Actually, I can think of one thing that might fit here. If our wills are truly free, as Catholicism teaches, then their orientation (inclination towards either good or evil) is uncaused.

Incorrect. Our souls are created oriented towards God, as he is their ultimate fulfillment. They, however, stained by original sin which gives us a propensity for sin. Our choices in either direction are cause by the sum total of our life experiences and the way in which we respond to God’s grace, and as such also cannot be considered uncaused.

 

[TomFromMD]

I think that you can prove something false by showing an inconsistency in a belief.

You can lead a person to a point where there is a contradiction that they can’t explain. That doesn’t necessarily prove it to them. Ever see a “proof” that 1=0? Basically, you could “know” in your heart than 1!=0, and not see the logical hole in the proof. So you can reject the proof, or you accept the proof and end up believing something that’s false.

I’d also like to mention that I have been convinced that I was wrong by the other party in an online argument before.

You’re a good man, Charlie Brown

My understanding of Stephen Hawking’s book, “the Grand Design,” is that his hypothesis is that the reason we don’t observe things coming from nothing is that the negative energy due to gravitational fields that permeate the entire universe prevents matter from popping into the universe without cause. Nothingness (including the lack of gravity), on this view, is actually inherrently unstable and always decays into something, which is why something(the universe) appeared from nothing many billions of years ago.

This is what my wife, the scientist, calls “hand waving”. There are a few problems here - First of all, he’s basically taking conjecture, and presenting it as science. Second, it doesn’t sound like he’s talking about “nothing”, but rather “something that looks kind of like nothing”. Lastly, “decay” is an action, implying time, an object (which can’t be nothing) and cause.

outside or before the universe, the law of cause and effect might not apply (and by one argument, is more likely to not apply, because a law of cause and effect would be “something”).

I don’t think of a law of cause and effect as a “something”. Rather, it strikes me as a logical truth, just as the truth 1+1=2 doesn’t depend on there being any two things to add, or (A->B)->(!B->!A), even with A and B being undefined. But I’m not a strict empiricist. Your mileage may vary.

 

[N0X3x]

If there were nothing, there would be no potentiality to be moved to actuality.

What is your basis for claiming that nothing includes no potentiality? Perhaps nothingness has more potentiality than any other state!

Even if you argue that by definition, nothingness includes no potentiality because it is the absence of all things, how do you know that nothingness (defined as such) ever existed at all, or even could exist?

An additional point would be that we know that the nothingness God worked with to create the universe did not include the absence of potentiality; if it did, it would be impossible for him to create anything with it, as God cannot do the logically impossible.

 

[N0X3x]

If there were nothing, there is no governor, nor rules.

Since there is something, considering “nothing” seems like idle speculation.

And yet theists tend to make seemingly unverifiable claims about it.

 

[TomFromMD]

Actually, I can think of one thing that might fit here. If our wills are truly free, as Catholicism teaches, then their orientation (inclination towards either good or evil) is uncaused.

Ah, now that’s a big kettle of fish, isn’t it?

And of course, the one other uncaused cause - God himself, in whose image we are made.

I’d go down the path of special pleading here, which is easier for me than many, as I’m not a materialist. Previously we were discussing the physical world. If we’re made in the image of God, and God is the uncaused cause, and spiritual in nature, then it seems reasonable to posit that our wills are similarly (to some degree) capable of the same.

 

[N0X3x]

And who says that there are not self-evident facts? " Nothing can be and not be at the same time in the same respect. " is a self-evident fact. Likewise, that " nothing comes from nothing " is a sef-evident fact.

Linus2nd

I would agree that your first statement is self-evident. “nothing comes from nothing” is not. It is not, or at least, it doesn’t seem to be, an inherrent logical contradiction. It is merely an intuitive assertion, much like the claim that history as a whole didn’t start 20 minutes ago in a way that makes it look and feel as if it started much earlier.

 

[unstoppable_II]

The claim that nothing comes from nothing is often cited as irrefutable fact.

In actuality, it is a positive claim which, though intuitive, is not self evident, and like any positive claim, the burden of proof resides with those making it.

So, can the belief that nothing comes from nothing be defended? If so, how?

Father Robert Spitzer goes into some detail about this in his book,* New Proofs of the Existence of God*, available on line. Now if you are thinking of replying with an ad hominem attacking Fr. Spitzer, don’t bother.

 

[TomFromMD]

An additional point would be that we know that the nothingness God worked with to create the universe did not include the absence of potentiality; if it did, it would be impossible for him to create anything with it, as God cannot do the logically impossible.

I don’t know that it makes sense to say one “works with nothing” in the same sense that one “works with something”. In my mind the former means one doesn’t work with anything, not that nothing is an actual true object of the verb phrase “works with”. I think it’s just a linguistic trick of our language (and the latin criatio ex nihilo, for that matter).

In any case, it’s Friday night, and I’m off to have a beer, so just one parting thought.

In my search for God, the cosmological argument is what got my foot in the door - looking at it in my own mind, it seemed the stronger possibility than the eternal universe. But I know that others disagree. In the end, it isn’t philosophical knowledge of God that’s important. It’s actually knowing God with familiarity; having that in your life. English is funny in that we use the same word for these, “to know”, but they’re really two different things (in German it’s wissen vs kennen, in Spanish it’s saber vs conocer). Be careful about putting yourself in the “devil’s advocate” position where you argue beyond what you really feel, as we often get entrenched in whatever position we take, even when backed into it. Best of luck to you!

 

[N0X3x]

What I’m saying is that you can’t actually imagine it. Since being able to imagine it is the entire premise of your argument, if you actually can’t then your argument is faulty. You cannot imagine something coming from nothing because anything you imagine coming from that nothing is pre-existing in your mind, and therefore from something. I’d also say you can’t imagine true nothingness. We can’t imagine it because we’ve never experienced it or anything even remotely like it. Even if you imagine a completely empty “space”, that space is still something. Do you imagine that space as completely white, or completely black? Well, both of those colors constitute “something.” You can think about it sure, but you can’t actually -imagine- it in any tangible way.

All of that is inconsequential though, since, as Tom points out, we -can- imagine illogical things.

A faulty premise, as Tom has already proven.

You might as well claim that is impossible to imagine a room without minds in it, because as soon as you imagine such a room, it has a mind in it, namely, yours.

In order to imagine concepts like “rooms without minds in them” we have to be able to distinguish reality from the concepts of reality we hold in our mind. or rather, concepts of reality and concepts of concepts of reality. My imagining something appearing from nothing is a conception of a possible reality. When you start talking about how things aren’t actually appearing from nothing because they are caused by mental experiences, you’ve moved beyond a conception of reality and are talking about my conception of a conception of reality, and are talking about something similar but different.

 

[N0X3x]

Similarly, if I think about something coming from nothing, I think really imagining nothing, and then imagining something. The something isn’t really coming from the nothing.

I’m not really imagining something coming from nothing so much as I’m imaging an event occurring without a cause.

 

[N0X3x]

Oh, that wasn’t directed at you, I can imagine what you said just fine. What you cannot imagine, however, is true nothingness. No matter what, that nothingness will be populated with some aspect of your experiences, even if it’s only a color. It seems we agree though ^^

blackness is defined as an absence; the absence of light. Thus, it follows that nothingness would be black.

 

[N0X3x]

Incorrect. Our souls are created oriented towards God, as he is their ultimate fulfillment. They, however, stained by original sin which gives us a propensity for sin. Our choices in either direction are cause by the sum total of our life experiences and the way in which we respond to God’s grace, and as such also cannot be considered uncaused.

But that simply raises the question of why we respond to God’s graces in the way we do. Is that also a result of the sum total of our life experiences? If not, isn’t the way we respond to God’s graces a choice that is uncaused?

No matter how you spin it, if we actually have free will, then at some point down the line, some choice we make must be uncaused. An orientation of the will that has been caused by an outside source can not truly be free.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would agree that your first statement is self-evident. “nothing comes from nothing” is not. It is not, or at least, it doesn’t seem to be, an inherrent logical contradiction. It is merely an intuitive assertion, much like the claim that history as a whole didn’t start 20 minutes ago in a way that makes it look and feel as if it started much earlier.

Both are self-evident to reasonable people.

Linus2nd

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Something that isn’t possible doesn’t need to be prevented in order not to occur.

No thing prevents me from turning into a carrot, yet I am not a carrot.

But things are only possible or impossible in the context of rules. Rules can not exist if nothing exists.

 

[davidv]

What is your basis for claiming that nothing includes no potentiality?

It is very simple. Nothing is no thing. It cannot be or contain anything.

Perhaps nothingness has more potentiality than any other state!

Such an entity is not nothing, it is something. And that something has potential.

Even if you argue that by definition, nothingness includes no potentiality because it is the absence of all things, how do you know that nothingness (defined as such) ever existed at all, or even could exist?

Nothingness is nonexistence. It cannot exist. An existing nothing is a logical contradiction.

An additional point would be that we know that the nothingness God worked with to create the universe did not include the absence of potentiality; if it did, it would be impossible for him to create anything with it, as God cannot do the logically impossible.

I believe this a serious straw man of creation by God. God does not work with nothing. He simply brings into being that which was not, using only His power.

 

[davidv]

And yet theists tend to make seemingly unverifiable claims about it.

Only if Church teaching is grossly misrepresented.

 

[N0X3x]

You can lead a person to a point where there is a contradiction that they can’t explain. That doesn’t necessarily prove it to them. Ever see a “proof” that 1=0? Basically, you could “know” in your heart than 1!=0, and not see the logical hole in the proof. So you can reject the proof, or you accept the proof and end up believing something that’s false.

I think that sometimes, our subconcious is better at detecting rational flaws than we are. If I reject the proof that 1 = 0, it isn’t because I’m being unreasonable, It’s because I know that one does not equal zero, and can use that knowledge to determine that there is something wrong with the proof, even if I couldn’t actually see the problem.

This is what my wife, the scientist, calls “hand waving”. There are a few problems here - First of all, he’s basically taking conjecture, and presenting it as science.

I agree that this is a problem with the book.

Second, it doesn’t sound like he’s talking about “nothing”, but rather “something that looks kind of like nothing”.

I didn’t get that impression.

Lastly, “decay” is an action, implying time, an object (which can’t be nothing) and cause.

I don’t think that there is a word in english that accurately describes what’s going on when nothing becomes something. Decay would work, if those implications were removed.

I don’t think of a law of cause and effect as a “something”. Rather, it strikes me as a logical truth, just as the truth 1+1=2 doesn’t depend on there being any two things to add, or (A->B)->(!B->!A), even with A and B being undefined. But I’m not a strict empiricist. Your mileage may vary.

The problem is that it isn’t a logical truth. for example, time travel could, in some ways, violate causality, but it isn’t logically impossible.

 

[N0X3x]

Ah, now that’s a big kettle of fish, isn’t it?

And of course, the one other uncaused cause - God himself, in whose image we are made.

I’d go down the path of special pleading here, which is easier for me than many, as I’m not a materialist. Previously we were discussing the physical world. If we’re made in the image of God, and God is the uncaused cause, and spiritual in nature, then it seems reasonable to posit that our wills are similarly (to some degree) capable of the same.

hmm. good point.

 

[N0X3x]

Father Robert Spitzer goes into some detail about this in his book,* New Proofs of the Existence of God*, available on line. Now if you are thinking of replying with an ad hominem attacking Fr. Spitzer, don’t bother.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll keep it on my book wishlist.