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

[catholicray]

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

I would think about it this way. When I speak I share myself with others, mainly what is already formed in my mind and is me takes form in my speech which is a part of me but is not the totality of me. It also becomes separate from me in a very real way and it’s lifespan will not be my own.

So you’ll understand I am necessary for my speech to occur, my speech is contingent, it becomes separated from my body though it is still the product of my mind and does not cease to be so, and its lifespan is different from my own.

So I’m thinking your symbols are faulty.

 

[rossum]

Note that I labelled N as the necessary being. Introducing M into the analysis is superfluous.

Is the Father necessary? Is Jesus necessary? Is the Holy Spirit necessary? Seems to me you have three necessary entities right there.

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

My point is that (N => S) => (~S => ~N). Since S (for example the material universe) has not existed eternally then back then we had ~S, and hence also ~N.

If N causes S and there is no S, then there can be no N either. Are you happy with the non-existence of a necessary entity? That is what ~N means.

 

[rossum]

So you’ll understand I am necessary for my speech to occur, my speech is contingent,

You are a necessary cause in this example, but you are not a theologically necessary entity, as is claimed for God.

The logical is with a Thomist/theological necessary entity causing something on its own. In terms of causation is can be a necessary cause, but is cannot be a sufficient cause.

The problem is partly with the ambiguity of “necessary”, meaning either causally necessary (as opposed to causally sufficient) and theologically necessary (as opposed to contingent).

A necessary cause, as with your speech, may be theologically non-necessary.

 

[o_mlly]

Is the Father necessary? Is Jesus necessary? Is the Holy Spirit necessary? Seems to me you have three necessary entities right there.

The three persons are one in being. You are straying from the abstraction you proposed.

My point is that (N => S) => (~S => ~N). Since S (for example the material universe) has not existed eternally then back then we had ~S, and hence also ~N.

Back to the logical inferences. First, the above has a categorical error. Eternity has no “back then” as a reference point. There is no “then” in eternity; only “now”. And, as already noted N => S does not properly reflect the dependence so examining the truth of its contrapositve is not useful.

 

[catholicray]

I suppose I am not following. I understand I am not necessary as God is. The same way I am not necessary for the birth of my son the way God is. But how does it not follow that what comes from God is not necessary as God is as the source?

 

[rossum]

Eternity has no “back then” as a reference point.

Eternity does not, but the material universe does: it had a beginning. Therefore ~S is allowed – the material universe did not always exist.

That gives ~S. In conjunction with ~S => ~N that gives us ~N, which is not possible for a necessary being N.

Hence, ~S is false and S cannot not exist. i.e. S is also eternal.

 

[rossum]

But how does it not follow that what comes from God is not necessary as God is as the source?

If God is the source, and God is necessary, and hence eternal, then N => S implies that S is also eternal since its cause always exists. If the cause N (God in this context) exists then S (the material universe) also must exist.

Since S is observably not eternal then N => S is incorrect. There must have been some auxiliary X that was a co-cause of the universe:

(N & X) => S

The alternative is that ~S => ~N, which would say that God has only existed as long as the material universe.

 

[o_mlly]

Eternity does not, but the material universe does: it had a beginning. Therefore ~S is allowed – the material universe did not always exist.

Yes.

That gives ~S. In conjunction with ~S => ~N that gives us ~N, which is not possible for a necessary being N.

If ~N is not logically possible then this method of analysis is inappropriate.

However, ~N is imaginatively possible so ~S => ~N defines the logical possibility that no things exist.

 

[catholicray]

Since S is observably not eternal then N => S is incorrect. There must have been some auxiliary X that was a co-cause of the universe:

Yes it’s a tricky situation but I don’t think a co-cause solves the problem entirely.

Now the Trinity suggests what you have said to some degree as God is eternally Father Son and Holy Spirit but it doesn’t get us a separate entity.

If the source of creation is eternal, which I believe must be necessary then one of two issues arise from your suggestion to me. If the co-cause it not eternal then it has its source in the eternal and we loop back to the primary problem you have highlighted, mainly that it must be eternal.

If it is a separate eternal entity, the problem is a lack of coherence as two eternal entities would, like math problems, be expressed in its simplest form as one and the same eternal being. Basically there can be only one. LOL

Which brings me to disagree with you sort of…

As far as I know our souls are eternal but not exactly as God is eternal. We may be necessary in a sense but not exactly as God is necessary. We have been known to the mind of God always as far as I can tell but our existence is limited as compared to God. Our existence in the mind of God is eternal but our existence in our actuality is limited. So that’s basically the answer is that to some degree our reality is eternal and necessary as it exists in the mind of God but limited in it’s actuality.

 

[rossum]

If ~N is not logically possible then this method of analysis is inappropriate.

No. If ~N is not possible then one or both of our premises is incorrect. Either N => S is incorrect or N is not a necessary entity.

I prefer the first, N => S is incorrect; the premise should be (N & X) => S, where X is contingent, not necessary.

 

[rossum]

If the source of creation is eternal, which I believe must be necessary then one of two issues arise from your suggestion to me. If the co-cause it not eternal then it has its source in the eternal and we loop back to the primary problem you have highlighted, mainly that it must be eternal.

Excellent. Any eternal cause of a non-eternal entity hits this problem. It needs a non-eternal co-cause, and you get an infinite regress of non-eternal co-causes.

An eternal entity cannot change, and something that cannot change is very tightly restricted in what is can and cannot do.

The God of the Bible is not changeless. If He were, then the Bible would read very differently:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the second day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the third day God said, “Let there be light.” And on the fourth day…

God also operates inside time as well. He is omnipresent, so He is present inside space-time. He parted the sea for Moses inside space-time. Again, your changeless God is not the God of the Bible:

MOSES: Lord! Part the sea so that your people may cross.

THE LORD: I cannot do that Moses, for I did not part the sea yesterday and being changeless I cannot do today what I did not do yesterday.

Not being able to change is a severe restriction.

As far as I know our souls are eternal but not exactly as God is eternal.

If the soul is eternal then it cannot change, and you are into the Calvinist approach, or OSAS where salvation can be neither gained nor lost because the soul cannot change from saved to unsaved or vice versa. If the soul can change then it is not eternal.

 

[o_mlly]

If ~N is not possible then one or both of our premises is incorrect. Either N => S is incorrect or N is not a necessary entity.

The proper analysis requires an “only if” proposition:

• A contingent being (S) exists only if a necessary being (N) exists.
• S only if N. True.
• N only if S. False.
• The necessary condition in an “only if” proposition always is to the right of the symbol:
• S ⇔ N – True.
• ~N ⇔~S – True.

 

[rossum]

~N ⇔~S – True.

Then S always exists. Hence you logic does not apply to anything that is not eternal. The material world is not eternal.

 

[o_mlly]

Then S always exists. Hence you logic does not apply to anything that is not eternal. The material world is not eternal.

Eerily similar to the quantum world, the disposition of S depends on who and from where one is looking. S is a subset of N. For the being in eternity and from the eternal perspective, S always exists. For the being in time and from the temporal perspective, S exists sequentially.

 

[Dan123]

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.

Why does it need to be a being? Why can’t the nature of the universe be to exist? (that is to say not just spacetime as it exists now but something, whatever it might be, before the big bang, ‘big U’ Universe).

 

[rossum]

S is a subset of N.

That is panentheism: the material universe is a subset of God. I suggest you consult a theologian on this.

 

[o_mlly]

That is panentheism: the material universe is a subset of God. I suggest you consult a theologian on this.

Nope. Suggest you consult a Catholic theologian.

 

[Freddy]

IWantGod:

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.

Why does it need to be a being? Why can’t the nature of the universe be to exist? (that is to say not just spacetime as it exists now but something, whatever it might be, before the big bang, ‘big U’ Universe).

So instead of a deity we could call it…a university. Exists, ceases to exist, is reborn, doesn’t care about us. Ticks all my boxes.

 

[AlNg]

Now let N cause something other than itself; call that something S.

N => S is not the same as N causes S.
N => S is the same as ~S => ~N
But S does not exist (i.e. ~S) does not cause ~N (or for N to not exist).

The proper analysis requires an “only if” proposition:

• A contingent being (S) exists only if a necessary being (N) exists.
• S only if N. True.
• N only if S. False.
• The necessary condition in an “only if” proposition always is to the right of the symbol:
• S ⇔ N – True.
• ~N ⇔~S – True.

I think his mistake is to confuse => (if then) with causality. If A then B is not the same as A causes B. To see this please realize that => is transitive. A => B and B => C implies that A => C. But not so with causality.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost,
For want of a shoe the horse was lost,
For want of a horse the rider was lost,
For want of a rider the battle was lost,
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost,
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. But the want of a nail did not cause the loss of the kingdom.

Another example showing causality is not transitive:
A large rock is rolling down a mountain.

The hiker sees it and this causes the hiker to duck.

The hiker has ducked and this causes the rock to sail harmlessly over his head and therefore survive.

But the fall of the large rock down a mountain did not cause the hiker to survive.

 

[o_mlly]

I think his mistake is to confuse => (if then) with causality.

Agree! The correct symbology is “⇔”.

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 .