"Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing?" An article giving a reason for believing God created the universe

[White_Tree]

Given two necessary entities: N and M, what interactions can there be?

Even if a husband and a wife always sleep in the same bed, that does not mean they are always in marital union.

We are not talking about logical statements of true or false here, we are talking about living, conscious entities, who have a greater range of action than simply existing or not existing.

Making an entity necessary greatly restricts the range of operations it can perform. It has a similar effect to being unchanging; whatever N does now, it has to have been doing for eternity and must continue doing for eternity. Because it cannot change it can never perform any new actions. Anything new is, of necessity, contingent and we are back to my original point.

How does that preclude the possibility of an eternally oscillating system?

At least in mathematics, it is possible to design systems with no unique equilibrium, so the state of the system is perpetually oscillating between two or more different states.

The system itself could be eternal and stable (non-divergent), but its state could be ever changing.

 

[rossum]

If N does not exist then there is no problem. A contingent entity causing a different contingent entity is not a problem.

The problem arises with a necessary entity, where ~E(N) is impossible.

 

[tafan2]

Well, you are getting closer.

~E(N) could be true. But if it is, the (for all S) E(S) is false. In other words ~E(N) => ~E(S). Which if course means E(S)=> E(N). Which is exactly what I have been trying to tell you all along.

 

[rossum]

~E(N) could be true.

No it could not. N is a theologically necessary entity, hence it must always exist. It cannot not exist.

Can God make Himself not exist?

 

[o_mlly]

N => S

Equally true:

N => ~S

N, as a necessary being, does not require S for its existence.

My argument points out the problem with a necessary entity causing a contingent entity because the contingent entity may not exist at some point in time.

Then Let S = time.

It seems your premise reverses the order of predicate and consequent. If the contingent being exists then the necessary being must exist

S => N.

 

[rossum]

Equally true:

N => ~S

If N => ~S, then reversing the implication gives:

S => ~N

Hence S can never exist because ~N is always false.

You need two variants of N, N1 and N2:

N1 => S
N2 => ~S

That requires a change in N from N1 to N2. That is not possible if N is an unchanging entity. It is difficult to see how a necessary entity cannot be unchanging.

Then Let S = time.

If and only if time is contingent. I would be interested to see your proof of that.

 

[o_mlly]

Hence S can never exist because ~N is always false.

But N can never be false.

All is resolved by properly stating the dependence of S on the independent N:

It seems your premise reverses the order of predicate and consequent. If the contingent being exists then the necessary being must exist

S => N.

 

[rossum]

But N can never be false.

Correct; N is necessary so it must always exist.

All is resolved by properly stating the dependence of S on the independent N:

No it is not all resolved. If:

N & (N => S) => S

Whenever N exists then S must also exist because N causes S. hence S must be eternal, as N is.

Since the material universe is not eternal then it cannot have been created by an eternal necessary God.

There was a time, say 20 billion years ago, when God was not the creator of the universe.

Hence my requirement that:

(N & X) => S

where X was not present 20 billion years ago, but was present 13.5 billion years ago.

 

[o_mlly]

Whenever N exists then S must also exist because N causes S. hence S must be eternal, as N is.

OK. “Whenever”, a subordinate conjunction, implies a special condition in which both N and S exist. Absent the time-bound condition of “whenever”, N still exists.

 

[STT]

If the process of nothing to something is logically possible then the universe comes to existence and there is no need for God. If the process is logically impossible then the concept of God cannot help it.

 

[White_Tree]

Since the material universe is not eternal then it cannot have been created by an eternal necessary God.

You keep saying this, and it seems to be based on an assumption you stated earlier:

Making an entity necessary greatly restricts the range of operations it can perform. It has a similar effect to being unchanging; whatever N does now, it has to have been doing for eternity and must continue doing for eternity. Because it cannot change it can never perform any new actions.

And if your assumption is true, then you are correct. However, it’s not clear to me that it is true. You simply assert it as a fact, as if it is obvious, but it is not obvious to me. (And doesn’t seem to be obvious to anyone else here, otherwise you would not be encountering resistance to this idea.)

So could you please explain the reasoning behind that assertion?

Also, please consider this example, and tell me where it produces a logical contradiction:

Imagine there is a system with 4 necessary entities: Two barrels, enough water to fill one of the barrels, and a controller that manages the flow of water between the barrels.

The controller operates according to a fixed decision rule. It has always operated according to this rule, and will continue to follow this rule forever. The rule is this: Whichever barrel the water is flowing into, keep water flowing into that barrel until the barrel is full. Once the barrel fills, drain water from that barrel into the other barrel.

Ignore things like evaporation, entropy, energy, etc. This is just an abstract system.

As I see it, this system contains no logical contradictions. It never diverges, leading to an infinite or negative quantity of water in any barrel. No barrel ever overflows. There is no requirement for there to be a “first” barrel that is filled, or a “final” barrel. The controller has simply been moving the water back and forth between the barrels forever. So what is the problem there?

By the way, I appreciate your engagement on this. The topic being discussed here closely mirrors a discussion I was having with my teacher about the nature of Absolute Reality. We never did reach a satisfactory resolution to our debate, but I would like to learn more and understand it better.

 

[rossum]

Absent the time-bound condition of “whenever”, N still exists.

If N exists then N => S requires that S also exists.

If N is eternal then anything that N causes is also eternal.

 

[o_mlly]

If N exists then N => S requires that S also exists.

All is resolved by properly stating the dependence of S on the independent N:

It seems your premise reverses the order of predicate and consequent. If the contingent being exists then the necessary being must exist

The dependence is correctly symbolized in:
S => N.

If S then N.
If S (contingent beings exist) the N (the necessary being must exist).

If not N then not S.
If not N (no necessary being exists) then no S (no contingent beings can exist).

 

[rossum]

The dependence is correctly symbolized in:
S => N.

So S, a contingent entity, caused God? That is what you are saying here. Perhaps you need to talk to a theologian.

God cannot be God until after He has created something. How do you square that with a (claimed) eternal God? If S is eternal, then S does not need N to cause/create it.

 

[o_mlly]

So S, a contingent entity, caused God?

? Doesn’t follow. Here’s your own explanation of your symbology:

N => S

Perhaps you need to talk to a logician.

If S, a contingent being exists then N, the necessary being must exist. The correct expression of the relationship you are trying to analyze is: S => N, where S is a contingent beings and N is the necessary being.

The expression does not imply causation, only dependence.

The existence of a necessary being by definition is independent of all other beings. The converse of a statement maybe, but is not necessarily false. So, If ~S then ~N can be (and is) true.

The only logical claim to be made is that statement’s contrapositive is equal in truth value to that of the statement.

If S then N. Statement. True
If ~N then ~ S. Contrapostive. True.

 

[IWantGod]

God is the only candidate for a causal explanation of the contingent universe, this article says.

This is true.

“Why Is There Something Instead of Nothing?”

The article makes a good point.

But it really comes down to the question of what nothing is.
Once you realise that the existence of absolutely nothing is meaningless, there is only one possible conclusion. There must exist a being that has a necessary existence, it’s nature is to exist and that it is impossible and meaningless for it not to exist. There are also other consequences that follow. It cannot have any actualised potential in it’s nature because every part of it necessarily exists. Also it must have the fullness of it’s existence since it is meaningless to say that it lacks any existence since it’s nature is the act of existence insomuch that it is the absolute antithesis of nothing.

The obvious question that follows would be “is this necessary being physical reality?”
The answer would be no because we know that physical reality changes and change is an actualised potential. We know that physical things begin to exist. It has emergent properties, and it evolves. Therefore it is not necessary reality and since it does not have the fullness of it’s reality we know that it is not natural to it’s nature to exist, and thus if it exists at all it does not exist by the power of it’s own nature.

Thus we have established that physical reality is not a natural act of existence. It is not natural to existence and therefore it is absolutely dependent on something causing it to exist. Necessary existence is the absolute cause since something has to be necessary before there can be the possibility of a dependent or contingent existence.

We also know that the cause is intelligent because physical reality does not naturally exist. Since physical reality does not exist by it’s nature we know that the existence of physical reality is not natural. Therefore not only does it require a cause, it needs to be sustained in existence, and that is only possible if something is intentionally sustaining it in existence.

 

[rossum]

If S, a contingent being exists then N, the necessary being must exist.

No. Maybe we have N and separately M => S, where M is also a necessary entity.

The negation of (A => B) is (~B => ~A), not (B => A).

 

[catholicray]

To summarise, if a necessary entity is the cause of a second entity then that second entity always exists, and is in effect itself also necessary rather than contingent.

What if that which is caused is only a part of the totality of N?

For example let S = the totality of something and s = a part of something

So S => s and while S in this case is necessary, s is not.

Let’s look at Genesis

And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

So what I am proposing is that light is a form of God’s speech rather than the understanding that there was nothing, God spoke, and then there is this secondary entity known as light. Light then is the speech of God taking on that particular form it’s contingent on the act of the necessary entity because it is a part of the necessary entity.

 

[rossum]

So S => s and while S in this case is necessary, s is not.

If S is necessary then we are back into the same problem of a necessary entity causing a non-necessary entity:

(S => s) => (~s => ~S)

That “~S” is not possible for any necessary entity since it must always exist. Hence “~s” is not possible either and the contingent s is also eternal.

Given that the material universe is not eternal then your proposal does not apply in the case of God creating the material universe.

 

[o_mlly]

No. Maybe we have N and separately M => S, where M is also a necessary entity.

No. Note that I labelled N as the necessary being. Introducing M into the analysis is superfluous.

The negation of (A => B) is (~B => ~A), not (B => A).

Of course, just as I specified. What is your point?