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

[Linusthe2nd]

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

thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5259Z.pdf

Linus2nd

 

[N0X3x]

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).

Frank Sheed seems to speak of nothing as an object of creation in Theology and Sanity. He speaks of being “made of nothingness.”

But I suppose that if you look at the creation ex nihilio as you describe it, that would bypass the issue of working with nothingness.

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!

This is what I really feel. I genuinely think that the cosmological argument fails for precisely this reason. I have other reasons for believing that God exists.

As for the two different types of knowing, I absolutely agree that the the second version is more important, but sometimes I wonder if that sort of knowledge is possible for an agnostic to have.

 

[N0X3x]

Both are self-evident to reasonable people.

Linus2nd

And I say that it isn’t self-evident, merely intuitive.

I’ll guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point. I don’t see how we can move forward without a “yes it is”, “no it isn’t” debate.

I will say that more and more atheists are raising this objection, and that I’ve heard theists take this objection seriously.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And I say that it isn’t self-evident, merely intuitive.

I’ll guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point. I don’t see how we can move forward without a “yes it is”, “no it isn’t” debate.

I will say that more and more atheists are raising this objection, and that I’ve heard theists take this objection seriously.

They can object all they want to, that doesn’t mean the objections are valid. You cannot prove the self-evident.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

And I say that it isn’t self-evident, merely intuitive.

I’ll guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree at this point. I don’t see how we can move forward without a “yes it is”, “no it isn’t” debate.

I’m sorry, but it is self-evident. You are claiming that the burden of proof is on us to prove a self-evident truth that “from nothing, nothing comes” is true, when in reality the burden of proof is on you to disprove it and you unfortunately have not done so convincingly.

First you claimed that “from nothing, nothing comes” is not necessarily true because you can conceive of an object coming from nothing. This is essentially David Hume’s argument. However, you are confused. You have not and cannot conceive of an object coming from nothing. At best you have conceived of an object popping into existence whose cause is unknown. “But I know that I can conceive of something being uncaused.” Really? How exactly do you know that said object has really come into existence uncaused and not that it was transported from somewhere else, generated by a mysterious entity, caused by something outside of the universe, etc? You could never know that it was really uncaused unless you ascribed some kind of cause to it to make the claim intelligible, but that defeats your whole argument. By refusing to give the cause, you cannot claim that you know that it is uncaused because the truth of that statement is hitherto unknown. This is essentially Elizabeth Anscombe’s reply to Hume. You claimed that “from nothing, nothing comes” is challenged because you can conceive of something coming from nothing, but you cannot know that you have so conceived and thus cannot appeal to that claim to disprove “from nothing, nothing comes.”

Then you appealed to arguments given by Hawking et al. that basically equivocates on the meaning of the word “nothing.” It is the usual bait-and-switch that we get from the scientific materialists when they claim that something can come from nothing. Redefine nothing to simply mean “potentiality”, what the Aristotelian calls “prime matter”, and then say gravity is sufficient to cause something to come out of this potentiality. In other words, a potentiality can be actualized by some sufficient cause, i.e. something can be caused by something else. Nobody was denying this, so the argument is not addressing the relevant understanding of nothingness. In fact, it seems to affirm “from nothing, nothing comes” by claiming that a sufficient cause like gravity is necessary to bring something into being. The theist is concerned with asking why there is any existence at all. Gravity, or anything short of self-subsistent being, is not logically necessary and does not exist through its own nature, so it does not answer this question.

It’s difficult to see how you have drawn any blood against “from nothing, nothing comes”, given the above.

I will say that more and more atheists are raising this objection, and that I’ve heard theists take this objection seriously.

They can raise it all they want. If they want to convince anyone they’ll have to make this view plausible.

 

[Aloysium]

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

Nothingness is what you see out of the back of your head. It’s not black that you see behind you, it’s nothing

 

[N0X3x]

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

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

Then that simply raises the further question: How do you know that a state which lacks things cannot produce things?

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

Do you mean that the state of affairs in which there are no things is logically impossible?
If so, I disagree.

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.

That probably depends on which theologians you talk to. I concede the point that if you take the view that God did not use nothingness as an object in his creation, this particular part of the argument is invalid.

 

[N0X3x]

I’m sorry, but it is self-evident. You are claiming that the burden of proof is on us to prove a self-evident truth that “from nothing, nothing comes” is true, when in reality the burden of proof is on you to disprove it and you unfortunately have not done so convincingly.

I would say that if it is self-evident, the burden of proof ultimately lies on me to show that it isn’t self-evident, which of course, I wouldn’t be able to do.

On the other hand, if it isn’t self-evident, which is what I believe, the burden of proof lies on you because “nothing comes from nothing” is a positive claim, and in non-self evident claims, the burden of proof always resides with the person making the positive claim.

First you claimed that “from nothing, nothing comes” is not necessarily true because you can conceive of an object coming from nothing. This is essentially David Hume’s argument. However, you are confused. You have not and cannot conceive of an object coming from nothing. At best you have conceived of an object popping into existence whose cause is unknown. “But I know that I can conceive of something being uncaused.” Really? How exactly do you know that said object has really come into existence uncaused and not that it was transported from somewhere else, generated by a mysterious entity, caused by something outside of the universe, etc? You could never know that it was really uncaused unless you ascribed some kind of cause to it to make the claim intelligible, but that defeats your whole argument. By refusing to give the cause, you cannot claim that you know that it is uncaused because the truth of that statement is hitherto unknown. This is essentially Elizabeth Anscombe’s reply to Hume. You claimed that “from nothing, nothing comes” is challenged because you can conceive of something coming from nothing, but you cannot know that you have so conceived and thus cannot appeal to that claim to disprove “from nothing, nothing comes.”

I can’t tell whether you’re making an argument from conception or an argument from reality here, so I’ll adress them both. Forgive me if in doing so I address an objection you never made. You are welcome to dismiss it if you like.

First, the argument from conception. Are you really suggesting that I don’t know whether the thing in my imagination was caused or not? Suppose I tell you to imagine a rock, or a letter from your father. “Ah,” I respond, "but how do you know that the letter you’re imagining really came from your father, or that the rock you’re imagining is really a rock and not an alien in disguise? The question is ridiculous, because I can can simply declare, within my imagination, that those things are what they are. Likewise, I can simply declare within my mind that the thing I imagine popping into existence has no cause. But I can do you one better. Even if I couldn’t do that in my imagination, I could simply ask you to give me a hypothetical list of all the things that could have possibly caused that event. I exhaust the list by claiming that none of the things on the list caused the event. It follows that the event is uncaused.

Second, in reality, if the universe is uncaused, we could never actually find that out through observation. If that’s what you meant, I entirely agree. But the point of the argument is not to show irrevocably that the universe actually is uncaused, the point of the argument is to show that an uncaused universe is logically possible. The fact that we could never* know *it is uncaused is irrelevant.

Then you appealed to arguments given by Hawking et al. that basically equivocates on the meaning of the word “nothing.” It is the usual bait-and-switch that we get from the scientific materialists when they claim that something can come from nothing. Redefine nothing to simply mean “potentiality”, what the Aristotelian calls “prime matter”, and then say gravity is sufficient to cause something to come out of this potentiality. In other words, a potentiality can be actualized by some sufficient cause, i.e. something can be caused by something else. Nobody was denying this, so the argument is not addressing the relevant understanding of nothingness. In fact, it seems to affirm “from nothing, nothing comes” by claiming that a sufficient cause like gravity is necessary to bring something into being. The theist is concerned with asking why there is any existence at all. Gravity, or anything short of self-subsistent being, is not logically necessary and does not exist through its own nature, so it does not answer this question.

I don’t think that’s Hawking’s argument. As I understood it, it is the absence of gravity that makes nothingness unstable and makes things pop into existence without cause. In other words, the only reason we don’t observe things spontaneously popping into existence is that gravity permeates our universe and prevents it from happening.

 

[N0X3x]

Nothingness is what you see out of the back of your head. It’s not black that you see behind you, it’s nothing

You may have a point there.

As a side note, I’ve always wondered if blind people see what we see out of the back of our head, or blackness… but that’s a topic for another thread.

 

[balto]

I would say that if it is self-evident, the burden of proof ultimately lies on me to show that it isn’t self-evident, which of course, I wouldn’t be able to do.

On the other hand, if it isn’t self-evident, which is what I believe, the burden of proof lies on you because “nothing comes from nothing” is a positive claim, and in non-self evident claims, the burden of proof always resides with the person making the positive claim.

Nothing has no actuality. It cannot do anything. Nothing proceeds from it. That has been generally understood for centuries, even millennia. But you are claiming that something can come out of nothing, so you are the one with the positive claim, not us. I don’t mean to be abrasive but I do think that you are the one that needs to be making a defense of your claims .

First, the argument from conception. Are you really suggesting that I don’t know whether the thing in my imagination was caused or not?

Yes, I am suggesting that. You are probably imagining some kind of object just spontaneously appearing in the middle of your room, or something of that nature. Okay, suppose that happens. How do you know it is really uncaused? Later on you admitted that you cannot know that it was uncaused, but said this is “irrelevant.” It is highly relevant given that you said that since you can conceive of an object coming from nothing, “from nothing, nothing comes” is challenged. Consider:

N0X3x: Squares are polygons with 4 right angles.
Balto: Ah, but that’s not true because squares can be circular.
N0X3x: That is a contradiction in terms. It is self-evidently true that the notion of circle excludes the notion of square.
Balto: But you are wrong because I can conceive of a figure being both square and circular.
N0X3x: Really? How did you do that?
Balto: Well it is impossible to know a square circle when you see one, but they are logically possible. The fact that I cannot know that I’ve found one is not relevant.
N0X3x: Then how can you claim that you can conceive of one?
Balto: Uh, well I can’t.
N0X3x: Then how have you cast any doubt on my original statement?

Second, in reality, if the universe is uncaused, we could never actually find that out through observation. If that’s what you meant, I entirely agree. But the point of the argument is not to show irrevocably that the universe actually is uncaused, the point of the argument is to show that an uncaused universe is logically possible. The fact that we could never* know *it is uncaused is irrelevant.

It’s actually much worse than that. Not only could you not find it out “through observation,” but you could not find it out at all in any manner whatsoever because there is literally no explanation for it. There’s nothing to find out. The universe, a thing that need not exist, exists for no reason at all. It is essentially an appeal to magic.

You are correct that this seems to be a somewhat popular argument that non-theists make. Why they make this move is somewhat baffling to me, considering that they allege that appeals to God are inherently unintelligible. Only God is understood to be self-subsistent being, and hence does not need a cause, His own nature is self-explanatory because His nature just is existence, but the universe’s nature is not. Why should we suppose that the universe has no reason for existing when we could easily suppose that it does have a reason for existing and that we just don’t understand the reason? The only way to make an uncaused universe “logically possible” is to deny the principle of sufficient reason, which would make any and all causal explanations, including all scientific ones, meaningless.

I don’t think that’s Hawking’s argument. As I understood it, it is the absence of gravity that makes nothingness unstable and makes things pop into existence without cause. In other words, the only reason we don’t observe things spontaneously popping into existence is that gravity permeates our universe and prevents it from happening.

The absence of gravity makes what unstable exactly? Now he seems to be arguing that this thing called “nothingness” is able to actualize any potency but is restricted from doing so by gravity. Firstly, something purely actual is what is commonly held to be God. Secondly, why would something purely actual be restricted by something finitely actual? It would be more realistic to say that gravity is what is actual, and defines what kinds of things can be generated from pure potency, but that is not “nothing coming from nothing”, but something coming from potentiality receiving a gravitational form, and it doesn’t explain the universe’s existence since it neglects to tell us why a contingent actuality like gravity is real.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I’ve always wondered if blind people see what we see out of the back of our head, or blackness… but that’s a topic for another thread.

There are different types of blindness.
Migraines can have neurological symptoms where a person’s vision can be disorganized and they will say they can’t really see. With a stroke the person may not be able to understand what they see, perhaps flinching at a stimulus but not knowing why.
There are psychological causes of blindness.
Damage to the retina from glaucoma will cause deficits like the one we all have in our blind spot. There is a lack of vision that is not apparent unless the person tries to see something in that particular portion of the visual field.
I knew a guy decades ago who took a gun to his temple and shot a bullet that came of his right eye. He thought he could see because every time he touched something, or someone mentioned the sky or a tree, an image would appear.
Cataracts turn the world to grey.
Last time I had eye surgery, the resident blew out my good eye - causing it to bleed inside as it collapsed like a deflated balloon. The world was a dark brown cammo fun house mirror for a few months.
So blindness can be black, grey, disorganized painful colours, dirty, and distorted. Blindness can be simply a lack of sight.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s actually much worse than that. Not only could you not find it out “through observation,” but you could not find it out at all in any manner whatsoever because there is literally no explanation for it. There’s nothing to find out. The universe, a thing that need not exist, exists for no reason at all. It is essentially an appeal to magic.

But why should we expect there to be “reasons why” when considering a philosophical nothing? A philosophical nothingness has no framework that would allow for or care about “reasons why.” There is no physics which would dictate any sort of causes or effects. There are no metaphysical hierarchies or laws given by law-givers. Asking for the “reason why” something comes from nothing might be like asking where the gasoline goes in an electric car. “Cars can’t go without gas!” you might comfortably assert, but by doing so you’re missing the bigger picture, electric cars do not play by the rules of gasoline. Certainly in our experience, the world needs “reasons why” to go, but we have no experience with philosophical nothingness.

 

[Richca]

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

This is a good point. I think we may be dealing here with the first principles of knowledge and demonstration and first principles, Aristotle says, cannot be demonstrated; as Linus says, it is self evident. Another example of a first principle is “being is not non-being.”

 

[balto]

But why should we expect there to be “reasons why” when considering a philosophical nothing? A philosophical nothingness has no framework that would allow for or care about “reasons why.” There is no physics which would dictate any sort of causes or effects. There are no metaphysical hierarchies or laws given by law-givers. Asking for the “reason why” something comes from nothing might be like asking where the gasoline goes in an electric car. “Cars can’t go without gas!” you might comfortably assert, but by doing so you’re missing the bigger picture, electric cars do not play by the rules of gasoline. Certainly in our experience, the world needs “reasons why” to go, but we have no experience with philosophical nothingness.

Everything you have said above is true. Nothingness has no explanatory value. So why is it being used to explain things? You have given no one any reason to believe that something comes from nothing and have even admitted that there is nothing intelligible about such an event so you could never, even in principle, give anyone a reason to believe it.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Everything you have said above is true. Nothingness has no explanatory value. So why is it being used to explain things? You have given no one any reason to believe that something comes from nothing and have even admitted that there is nothing intelligible about such an event so you could never, even in principle, give anyone a reason to believe it.

Are you perhaps conflating the “reason to believe” with “reason to happen?” Or are you perhaps demanding a proof of non-existence (i.e. the non-existence of a reason.)

The assertion is: it is possible that there is no explanation for everything, that’s just how things are. That seems perfectly intelligible to me. While you may find brute facts distasteful, there is no inherent contradiction or unintelligibility in proposing them.

Also, recall that the title of this thread is pointing out that nothing comes from nothing is a positive claim. I’m not interested in convincing you that there actually are brute facts, just that you can’t ignore them and assert “nothing comes from nothing” in the same way someone might ignore electric cars and assert that cars require gasoline to go.

 

[dcana]

I’m no big-city philosopher, but the way I see it, if something came from “nothing”, then there was no “nothing” to begin with. There was “something” - namely, some potentiality for “something” to come into existence. This potentiality is “something”, not “nothing”.

 

[Mongo]

Let me try this another way

Imagine a rock so hard that it can’t possibly be smashed by anything.

Got it?

OK. Imagine it being smashed.

Worked, right?

The problem is, you’re imagining two different things - an unsmashable rock, and a smashable rock being smashed.

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.

You can’t imagine nothing therefore you can’t imagine something coming from nothing. The most you can do is imagine an empty space and something magically appearing within that empty space. ‘Nothing’ is inconceivable since we have never experienced it.

Second just because you can imagine it doesn’t mean it is possible in the world outside of your own mind. Mel Brooks imagined a creature that was made completely of pizza (called pizza the hut), that ultimately ate itself to death? Is that possible? It was possible to imagine but in the physical universe it can not exist.

 

[balto]

Are you perhaps conflating the “reason to believe” with “reason to happen?” Or are you perhaps demanding a proof of non-existence (i.e. the non-existence of a reason.)

Well you are the one saying that something can come from nothing. I ask you to at least give me some reason to believe this and no reason is forthcoming. It is ironic considering that the skeptic usually criticizes the theist for claiming that God exists and then demanding that the unbeliever prove He doesn’t. It would be unreasonable to structure an argument in that manner.

The assertion is: it is possible that there is no explanation for everything, that’s just how things are. That seems perfectly intelligible to me. While you may find brute facts distasteful, there is no inherent contradiction or unintelligibility in proposing them.

No, that’s not intelligible at all. Brute facts are the very definition of “unintelligibility.” I wonder how you distinguish between brute facts and intelligible facts. Why can’t I say something like “there’s no reason living things exist, it’s just a brute fact about nature that they do.” If you respond with reasons why they exist, then why can I not say “the universe exists contingently, it does not exist through its nature since it could have been otherwise, so it’s ultimate explanation finds its root in a reality that exists through its own nature.” Merely saying “well maybe you’re wrong” is not sufficient to establish that I am indeed wrong.

Also, recall that the title of this thread is pointing out that nothing comes from nothing is a positive claim. I’m not interested in convincing you that there actually are brute facts, just that you can’t ignore them and assert “nothing comes from nothing” in the same way someone might ignore electric cars and assert that cars require gasoline to go.

Yes I can ignore them. If there are asserted with no reason, then I can dismiss them with no reason.

 

[N0X3x]

Nothing has no actuality. It cannot do anything. Nothing proceeds from it. That has been generally understood for centuries, even millennia. But you are claiming that something can come out of nothing, so you are the one with the positive claim, not us. I don’t mean to be abrasive but I do think that you are the one that needs to be making a defense of your claims .

First, I’d like to point out that positive claims are not held against the background of what has been believed for millenia. long-held beliefs do not and should not get preferential treatment in philosophy. Postive claims are instead held against the background of the absence of that claim. That being said, I am not making the claim that something can come from nothing, I am saying that I don’t know whether something can come from nothing or not. You are (or at least seem to be) saying that you know that nothing produces nothing, which is the positive claim.

Yes, I am suggesting that. You are probably imagining some kind of object just spontaneously appearing in the middle of your room, or something of that nature.

I’m actually imagining the possible world which contains no matter, and imagining a star appearing in that world. This is slightly different from your example and relevant further down.

Okay, suppose that happens. How do you know it is really uncaused? Later on you admitted that you cannot know that it was uncaused, but said this is “irrelevant.” It is highly relevant given that you said that since you can conceive of an object coming from nothing, “from nothing, nothing comes” is challenged. Consider:

N0X3x: Squares are polygons with 4 right angles.
Balto: Ah, but that’s not true because squares can be circular.
N0X3x: That is a contradiction in terms. It is self-evidently true that the notion of circle excludes the notion of square.
Balto: But you are wrong because I can conceive of a figure being both square and circular.
N0X3x: Really? How did you do that?
Balto: Well it is impossible to know a square circle when you see one, but they are logically possible. The fact that I cannot know that I’ve found one is not relevant.
N0X3x: Then how can you claim that you can conceive of one?
Balto: Uh, well I can’t.
N0X3x: Then how have you cast any doubt on my original statement?

(continued)

 

[N0X3x]

(continued)

It seems to me that you’re conflating something coming from nothing *in my imagination *with something coming from nothing in reality. If I imagine a rock, I imagine a rock, not an alien disguised as a rock. I can declare, within my imagination, things to be what they are. And I can create an imaginary world in which stars appear without anything causing them to appear. If that doesn’t satisfy you, I’ll imagine a magical list that lists all the possible causes of the stars appearance, and then magically crossing out every item that did not cause the star. If all the items have been crossed out, then the star is uncaused. You can’t create imaginary worlds in which circles have corners and still are circles. All I’m saying here is that the set of all imaginable worlds is a subset of all logically possible worlds. (some worlds are logically possible but not imaginable; for example: infinite worlds).

In reality, of course, if something were to appear from nothing, I would never be able to tell that that particular something had no cause, as you mention below. This is irrelevant because I’m not trying to find an example of something appearing from nothing in the real world, I’m trying to find an example of something appearing from nothing in an imaginary world.

It’s actually much worse than that. Not only could you not find it out “through observation,” but you could not find it out at all in any manner whatsoever because there is literally no explanation for it. There’s nothing to find out. The universe, a thing that need not exist, exists for no reason at all. It is essentially an appeal to magic.

You are correct that this seems to be a somewhat popular argument that non-theists make. Why they make this move is somewhat baffling to me, considering that they allege that appeals to God are inherently unintelligible. Only God is understood to be self-subsistent being, and hence does not need a cause, His own nature is self-explanatory because His nature just is existence, but the universe’s nature is not. Why should we suppose that the universe has no reason for existing when we could easily suppose that it does have a reason for existing and that we just don’t understand the reason? The only way to make an uncaused universe “logically possible” is to deny the principle of sufficient reason, which would make any and all causal explanations, including all scientific ones, meaningless.

No it wouldn’t. There is a significant difference between denying that we can know that all things have causes, and the much stronger claim that nothing has a cause. If we see an effect, or an object, and don’t know what caused it, we can’t immediately assume that it has a cause. If asked whether the thing has a cause, the correct answer is not “yes, until shown otherwise (and it is impossible for anyone to show otherwise, no matter how much technology we eventually achieve)” the correct answer is “we don’t know whether it has a cause or not.” The best we can do is make up an a posteriori scientific theory based on induction, which says something to the effect of “every event has a cause” which is not beyond questioning, especially when we have a scientific reason to doubt it:

The absence of gravity makes what unstable exactly? Now he seems to be arguing that this thing called “nothingness” is able to actualize any potency but is restricted from doing so by gravity. Firstly, something purely actual is what is commonly held to be God. Secondly, why would something purely actual be restricted by something finitely actual?

Apparently, Hawking thinks it is possible for this “nothingness” to be purely actual without also being a mind. I’m inclined to agree. And couldn’t it, in the process of generating everything, generate constraints upon its actuality, such as gravity? I see no reason why it couldn’t.