Why is there something rather than nothing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hangnail
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomdstone said:
The mathematical real line has an infinite regress and it has been proven to be both satisfactory and useful for any number of applications.
Click to expand...
Physical approximations are an inadequate guide to the nature of reality. They certainly don’t explain why there is something rather than nothing…
 
hangnail said:
The theory of an oscillating universe doesn’t qualify as a satisfactory explanation because it implies an infinite regress.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:It also presupposes an eternal process for which there is no evidence.** Oscillation is not self-explanatory.
**
 
Tomdstone said:
Mathematics has more depth to it than the curiosity of a mouse carrying an elephant. Although it does have a certain amount of abstractness, nevertheless, mathematics has been proven and is well known to be effective in having solved a multitude of real life problems.
Click to expand...
of course, I will not deny any of this. My point still stands. Just because an infinite regress is a possibility in the abstract sense, that is to say in the imagination, does not mean it is possible in any concrete way, such as an infinite regress of causal events.
 
ivebeenshown said:
of course, I will not deny any of this. My point still stands. Just because an infinite regress is a possibility in the abstract sense, that is to say in the imagination, does not mean it is possible in any concrete way, such as an infinite regress of causal events.
Click to expand...
I would like to see you prove that it is impossible.
 
inocente said:
Lemaître again "The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . .[snip]…btw Gen 1 is based on Babylonian cosmology, also wrong.
Click to expand...
Are we to assume then you do not think the Bible tells you anything about the creation of the universe, that it does not tell us whether or not that God created the universe in time out of nothing or whether he created it at all? So you are a " fence sitter " on these issues? Interesting. Oh BTW, Gen. 1 is not based on Babylonian cosmology. Moses was giving an account of creation by God in terms they could understand. Certainly the Babylonians had an idea of creation, after all the original Revelation of God had not entirely died out and we can assume that Abraham was one of those who still retained some notion of the true God and of creation. And Abraham would have handed these notions, along with his personal knowledge of God, down to his prosperity.
You have a short memory. You said “Assuming that you can find a generally accepted scientific definition of " space”". I did. That’s the accepted definition of space. That’s why it’s in a dictionary.
Click to expand...
Did I say that. Anyway that particular understanding is restricted to a particular mathematical/physical theory. It is not the common understanding of the term.
The thread is not about which bits of science you personally cherry pick.
Click to expand...
Well, you should know more about that than I do, since it is a specialty of yours.
Please cite where you think “nothing” is misused by “certain modern scientists and cosmologists [stet]” so we can discuss something concrete rather than unsubstantiated accusations.
Click to expand...
He does it in the Grand Design. See this video by Fr. Barron.
youtube.com/watch?v=S-yx5WN4efo

Fr. Barron quoting from excerpts from the Book says Hawking says, " …because of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing…" It does look like he is equation " nothing " to gravity, and so redefining it so that it does not mean absolutely nothing, non-being. In his view gravity must be " nothing. "
Conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
So that is your response to my statement, " You will have to excuse unenlightened neanderthals like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and tens of thousands of philosophers and theologians who followed after them - and the Catholic Church. We all prefer the philosophical definition. And the modern pseudo-scientists have flitched the term for propaganda purposes. And of course that doesn’t bother you at all. Whatever your motive, it will never help the goals of any religion, which is the salvation of all men. " A very odd response.
Conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
A very odd response to my statement, " His book is a little more nuanced than that. Oh, I’m sure the world agrees, yes indeed. My point was that the apology hasn’t done much good. And of course no other religion has ever made any mistakes, at least none the world thinks they should apologize for " But then we have to consider the sourse.
A philosopher would know that when he makes a claim, it’s his job to substantiate it.
Click to expand...
I just did :p.
You make accusations all over the place and never once produce any evidence.
Click to expand...
Again 😛

QUOTE]Your claim is that Hawking “is simply reaching for a way to replace the term " nothing, " so he can say that the universe always existed” (post #130). I found evidence for the exact opposite. In this transcript of a Hawking lecture online, he concludes “that the universe has not existed forever”

Well it is hard to pin him down. Once he redefines the meaning of " nothing " he can have his cake and eat it too. He can claim that the universe creates itself ( which he does in the Grand Design as explained by Fr. Barron in the video above or he can claim that the universe has existed forever. Now if gravity means nothing then he can say the universe had a beginning, but only if we assume that gravity can make the universe " grow " or evolve out of that. On the other hand if gravity is not nothing but something, he can say that the universe has always existed. So he can have it both ways. It doesn’t really matter who said it, the fact is Hawking has made it possible for some scientists to say either is true and these men are gulling the public.
The concept of fairies at the bottom of the garden was also dropped “only because no one could ever detect” them.
Click to expand...
An odd response to, " It may be spelled either way.( aether or ether )
The points is that until the 20th century no one had a concept of outer space being empty. And though I know no more about the subject than you do, I believe the concept of space being filled by " aether " was dropped only because no one could ever detect it. But that does not prove there is not some subtle form of matter suffusing all of space. "
Has your theory that snide insults win debates ever worked for you?
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean you don’t use a " pointed stick? " Do you ever reread some of your stuff? Should be enlightening. Besides I don’t think, " You’re as slippery as a greased pig at the fair! Is there some grand point that you wish to make about all your talks about space? Or are simply trying once again to obfuscate a point of contention… " amounts to a snide insult.

Linus2nd
 
ivebeenshown said:
of course, I will not deny any of this. My point still stands. Just because an infinite regress is a possibility in the abstract sense, that is to say in the imagination, does not mean it is possible in any concrete way, such as an infinite regress of causal events.
Click to expand...
An infinite regress is possible among secondary causes. Dog begets puppy, puppy grows up to be a dog and begets a puppy ad infinitum. However, neither the parent dog nor the puppey can account for their own existence. Even if they had a brain they could not tell you any more than we can explain how we continue to exist. Nor can the parent account for the form ( dog ) that it passes on to its offspring, It does not make the form. Nor can it account for the matter, the material stuff, it passes on to its offspring. And there is nothing in the entire universe that can account for the existence, the form, or the matter of anything that exists.

This can only be caused by an eternal causality which has the power to create eternally all the things in the universe at any one time. And this Cause must be Uncaused itself, as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas insist and perfect in being itself, having no potential to be more or less than it is. This Uncaused Cause is the cause of the matter, the forms, and the existence which exists in either an eternal or a time bound universe. And this is the Unmoved Primary Cause of all that is, God. 🙂

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Fr. Barron quoting from excerpts from the Book says Hawking says, " …because of gravity the universe can and will create itself out of nothing…"
Click to expand...
When there is nothing, there is no gravity, so gravity cannot cause anything to happen if it is not there.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
An infinite regress is possible among secondary causes. Dog begets puppy, puppy grows up to be a dog and begets a puppy ad infinitum. However, neither the parent dog nor the puppey can account for their own existence. Even if they had a brain they could not tell you any more than we can explain how we continue to exist. Nor can the parent account for the form ( dog ) that it passes on to its offspring, It does not make the form. Nor can it account for the matter, the material stuff, it passes on to its offspring. And there is nothing in the entire universe that can account for the existence, the form, or the matter of anything that exists.

This can only be caused by an eternal causality which has the power to create eternally all the things in the universe at any one time. And this Cause must be Uncaused itself, as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas insist and perfect in being itself, having no potential to be more or less than it is. This Uncaused Cause is the cause of the matter, the forms, and the existence which exists in either an eternal or a time bound universe. And this is the Unmoved Primary Cause of all that is, God. 🙂

Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Generally, why is the universe caused, but God is uncaused?
 
Tomdstone said:
When there is nothing, there is no gravity, so gravity cannot cause anything to happen if it is not there.
Click to expand...
That is not what Fr. Barron was getting at. He was pointing out that Hawking was redefining the term " nothing " when he says that gravity is nothing. And that is not correct, gravity is something, it is not nothing.

Linus2nd
 
Tomdstone said:
Generally, why is the universe caused, but God is uncaused?
Click to expand...
Fr. Barron explained that. The universe we live in is contingent, it may either be or not be. Each thing in the universe is limited in its existence. So nothing in the universe can cause that in which all share. Existence can only be caused by that which has existence perfectly and that can only be something that does not exist in this universe. And that which has existence perfectly cannot be caused by anything else, it just is without cause. And this is God.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Fr. Barron explained that. The universe we live in is contingent, it may either be or not be. Each thing in the universe is limited in its existence. So nothing in the universe can cause that in which all share. Existence can only be caused by that which has existence perfectly and that can only be something that does not exist in this universe. And that which has existence perfectly cannot be caused by anything else, it just is without cause. And this is God.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
But if the universe has existed eternally, there is no need for God. That was Bertrand Russell’s argument. So the only way to get around the Big Bang, which posits a created universe, is to argue that we are the spawn of another universe, and that this spawning of universes is* ad infinitum et ad aeternam*. There is no way to disprove this hypothesis. But unfortunately for atheists, there is also no way to prove it, and certainly no way to scientifically prove it.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
But if the universe has existed eternally, there is no need for God. That was Bertrand Russell’s argument. So the only way to get around the Big Bang, which posits a created universe, is to argue that we are the spawn of another universe, and that this spawning of universes is* ad infinitum et ad aeternam*. There is no way to disprove this hypothesis. But unfortunately for atheists, there is also no way to prove it, and certainly no way to scientifically prove it.
Click to expand...
There is the cyclic theory and there is the multiverse theory.
 
Tomdstone said:
Is that an assumption? Perhaps it must be because of Mother Nature.
Click to expand...
It is not an assumption because we see, even at the level of normal observation that all we see comes into existence and goes out of existence. Therefore they can either be or not be. Now if all things were of this nature, even now nothing would exist. There must exist something which, by nature, has always existed and this cannot be a part of the universe where everything can either be or not be and to this being we attribute the cause of existence for all things in the universe which are contingent.

And we call this God, not " Mother Nature. "

Linus2nd
 
Charlemagne_III said:
But if the universe has existed eternally, there is no need for God. That was Bertrand Russell’s argument. So the only way to get around the Big Bang, which posits a created universe, is to argue that we are the spawn of another universe, and that this spawning of universes is* ad infinitum et ad aeternam*. There is no way to disprove this hypothesis. But unfortunately for atheists, there is also no way to prove it, and certainly no way to scientifically prove it.
Click to expand...
We are speaking philosophically. Even if the universe were eternal, it would still be contingent and unable to explain its own existence. Even if we extend this theory to multiverses we would still be dealing with contingent universes. So there would be need of an eternal creation, not in time but in origin. That is God would have been eternally creating the universe. That is the only way to explain the existence of any imagined contingent universe or universes.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
We are speaking philosophically. Even if the universe were eternal, it would still be contingent and unable to explain its own existence.
Pax
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
If the universe is eternal, why would it need to explain its own existence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top