Why "nothing" cannot exist?

[STT]

Do you have an argument which prove that “nothing” cannot exist? If so then existence is the default and there is no need for a creator.

 

[Wesrock]

Anything beyond metaphysical simplicity (absolutely not composite) requires a cause. The only thing your argument establishes, if it works, is the existence of a metaphysically simple, intellect/will/pure act being as an absolute necessity.

 

[STT]

Anything beyond metaphysical simplicity (absolutely not composite) requires a cause.

I am afraid that I cannot see that. Could you please elaborate?

The only thing your argument establishes, if it works, is the existence of a metaphysically simple, intellect/will/pure act being as an absolute necessity.

The creator is defined as a being who brings something out of “nothing”. Therefore there is no creator if “nothing” cannot exist.

 

[Wesrock]

I am afraid that I cannot see that. Could you please elaborate?

It’s pretty much explained as part of every cosmological argument, from Aristotle to Liebniz. I hope I have time to expand later.

The creator is defined as a being who brings something out of “nothing”. Therefore there is no creator if “nothing” cannot exist.

Nothing is not a material. Theists never say there ever was nothing. There was always at least one “thing,” that being God. God simply wills things to be, and “poof” they can be. He did not find a source of matter to create out of. Neither did he portion off his own divine substance and then form things out of that as if from clay. That’s all people mean when they say He created from nothing. Not that there ever was a state of absolute nothingness, only that He wills things into being without needing to form it from any prior substance.

No composition can determine how it is to be arranged before it exists. Therefore, if something is composed a certain way, it must have a cause or reason for its composition. The only thing necessary that could follow from your example is a metaphysically simple being, which is itself the reason for the present composition of anything that ever exists.

I haven’t given a demonstration here, but as a recommended point of research, I would first look into arguments about why divine simplicity is necessary.

 

[STT]

It’s pretty much explained as part of every cosmological argument, from Aristotle to Liebniz. I hope I have time to expand later.

Ok, I am waiting for that.

Nothing is not a material. Theists never say there ever was nothing. There was always at least one “thing,” that being God. God simply wills things to be, and “poof” they can be. He did not find a source of matter to create out of. Neither did he portion off his own divine substance and then form things out of that as if from clay. That’s all people mean when they say He created from nothing. Not that there ever was a state of absolute nothingness, only that He wills things into being without needing to form it from any prior substance.

Suppose that there is no God and no universe. That is a state of existence that I call it “nothing”. The question – why “nothing” cannot exist?-- is then valid.

No composition can determine how it is to be arranged before it exists. Therefore, if something is composed a certain way, it must have a cause or reason for its composition. The only thing necessary that could follow from your example is a metaphysically simple being, which is itself the reason for the present composition of anything that ever exists.

What do you mean with composition? Composition: the nature of something’s ingredients or constituents; the way in which a whole or mixture is made up. Is that a good meaning? If so things like soul also are metaphysically simple.

I haven’t given a full demonstration here, but as a recommended point of research, I would first look into arguments about why divine simplicity is necessary.

Ok, I will wait for that.

 

[Wesrock]

Ok, I am waiting for that.

I pray I can deliver.

Suppose that there is no God and no universe. That is a state of existence that I call it “nothing”. The question – why “nothing” cannot exist?-- is then valid.

Whether or not absolutely nothing (even God) is not really my concern. That anything does exist, even in finite terms, implies that God must also exist [insert all cosmological arguments]. If existence is necessary in any way, it only means God is necessary.

What do you mean with composition? Composition: the nature of something’s ingredients or constituents; the way in which a whole or mixture is made up. Is that a good meaning? If so things like soul also are metaphysically simple.

The Intellect is simple in significant ways, but it is not metaphysically simple, as it’s a composite of its act of existence and its essence, and it’s a composite of act and potential. I mean, the ontology simply stated here begs elaboration, I understand that, but it’s a point that has been rigorously defended and explained elsewhere.

As to what I mean, here are a few details from Edward Feser:

To say that God is simple is to say that He is in no way composed of parts – neither material parts, nor metaphysical parts like form and matter, substance and accidents, or essence and existence. Divine simplicity is affirmed by such Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes. It is central to the theology of pagan thinkers like Plotinus. It is the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the fourth Lateran council and the first Vatican council, and the denial of which amounts to heresy.

Why is divine simplicity regarded by classical theists as so important? One reason is that in their view, nothing less than what is absolutely simple could possibly be divine, because nothing less than what is absolutely simple could have the metaphysical ultimacy that God is supposed to have. For anything which is in any way composed of parts would be metaphysically less fundamental than those parts themselves, and would depend on some external principle to account for the parts being combined in the way they are. In that case, either the external principle itself (or perhaps some yet further principle) would have to be simple, and thus ultimate, and thus the truly divine reality; or there is no simple or non-composite first principle, and thus no metaphysically ultimate reality, and thus nothing strictly divine.

Ok, I will wait for that.

Well, this last bit wasn’t a promise but a recommendation on what you could self-research if interested. Using “divine simplicity” as part of a search keyword may get you a a thorough presentation.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Do you have an argument which prove that “nothing” cannot exist? If so then existence is the default and there is no need for a creator.

“Nothing” is a concept, not an entity or a being. To point to “something” and declare that it is “nothing” is nonsense. Not all concepts have an actual referent. From that it follows that something in GENERAL must exist, but it does not follow that something SPECIFIC must exist. Since the existence of the universe is unquestionable (we experience it), that is sufficient. However, the universe is not a being, and not an entity, it is a collection of entities.

 

[BobCatholic]

Nothing can exist.

I’m here.

 

[STT]

I pray I can deliver.

Thanks.

Whether or not absolutely nothing (even God) is not really my concern. That anything does exist, even in finite terms, implies that God exists. If existence is necessary in any way, it only means God is necessary.

This is not an answer to my question. The state of nothingness is conceivable. The relevant question is why it cannot exist?

The Intellect is simple in significant ways, but it is not metaphysically simple, as it’s a composite of its act of existence and its essence, and it’s a composite of act and potential. I mean, the ontology simply stated here begs elaboration, I understand that, but it’s a point that has been rigorously defended and explained elsewhere.

I have an argument against the claim that God sustains things like soul. I will create an thread for that shortly. This means that existence and essence are same for soul. There is also no potentiality in soul. We mistakenly equate potentiality of the person with potentiality of soul.

As to what I mean, here are a few details from Edward Feser:

To say that God is simple is to say that He is in no way composed of parts – neither material parts, nor metaphysical parts like form and matter, substance and accidents, or essence and existence. Divine simplicity is affirmed by such Christian, Jewish, and Muslim thinkers as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes. It is central to the theology of pagan thinkers like Plotinus. It is the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church, affirmed at the fourth Lateran council and the first Vatican council, and the denial of which amounts to heresy.

Why is divine simplicity regarded by classical theists as so important? One reason is that in their view, nothing less than what is absolutely simple could possibly be divine, because nothing less than what is absolutely simple could have the metaphysical ultimacy that God is supposed to have. For anything which is in any way composed of parts would be metaphysically less fundamental than those parts themselves, and would depend on some external principle to account for the parts being combined in the way they are. In that case, either the external principle itself (or perhaps some yet further principle) would have to be simple, and thus ultimate, and thus the truly divine reality; or there is no simple or non-composite first principle, and thus no metaphysically ultimate reality, and thus nothing strictly divine. In short, to deny divine simplicity is, for the classical theist, implicitly to deny the existence of God.

Thanks for the quote. This is however off topic.

Well, this last bit wasn’t a promise but a recommendation on what you could self-research if interested. Using “divine simplicity” as part of a search keyword may get you a a thorough presentation.

I think I fail to understand why divine simplicity implements that God is uncaused-cause.

 

[STT]

“Nothing” is a concept, not an entity or a being.

That I know. Nothing is a state of existence.

To point to “something” and declare that it is “nothing” is nonsense.

I can conceive a state of existence that there is no God and universe. That is what I call
“nothing”.

Not all concepts have an actual referent.

That I agree. But you need an argument to show that “nothing” as a concept cannot be actual.

From that it follows that something in GENERAL must exist, but it does not follow that something SPECIFIC must exist. Since the existence of the universe is unquestionable (we experience it), that is sufficient. However, the universe is not a being, and not an entity, it is a collection of entities.

That obviously follows. It obviously follows that there is no need for creator too.

 

[STT]

Nothing can exist.

I’m here.

“Nothing” cannot be uncaused-cause as you are!

 

[Wesrock]

This is not an answer to my question. The state of nothingness is conceivable. The relevant question is why it cannot exist?

Is it conceivable that no thing be in existence? Perhaps. I don’t think I have an issue with that. My point is that true or false, given that there are beings that exist, we arrive at the conclusion that God must exist (insert cosmological arguments).

I have an argument against the claim that God sustains things like soul. I will create an thread for that shortly. This means that existence and essence are same for soul. There is also no potentiality in soul. We mistakenly equate potentiality of the person with potentiality of soul.

Interesting. Keep in mind that the composition is the *act of *existence with an essence. And an essence in Thomist terms is not a postive principle, but a negative principle, a delimit on the act of existence. When people say that within God, His act of existence is His essence, they basically mean that there is no delimit on His act of existence: that it is not a conditioned act of existence. So, if Aquinas is right, there could only be one such being due to the law of identity (for immaterial beings, the only distinguishing factor is the essence, the delimit for each act of existence, so there can only be one of each essence. For material beings, multiple beings can share the same essence and not be identical, as they can further be distinguished by the matter and extension in space, but this is a tangent). And it seems inconceivable to me that a human soul could be called an unconditioned act of existence, but that can wait for your next topic.

I think I fail to understand why divine simplicity implements that God is uncaused-cause.

That phrase is putting the cart before the horse. Only something that is metaphysically simple is argued to be capable of being an uncaused-cause, which is what we call God. I recommend it as a search term because research into the topic of divine simplicity can provide you with resources as to why it is necessary for the uncaused mover to be metaphysically simple, and why anything not metaphysically simple must have a cause/external reason for being so.

 

[davidv]

Do you have an argument which prove that “nothing” cannot exist?

No argument is necessary. Not existing is the definition of nothing.

If so then existence is the default and there is no need for a creator.

Non-sequitur - Anything that comes into existence must have a cause. God, the uncaused cause, must exist necessarily.

 

[Wesrock]

David, I am afraid you are mistaken. Quantum physics proves that something can come into existence from nothing ie without a cause, just extremely rarely. I suggest a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Cheers.

We should be clear that quantum physics has not proved causality untrue, and neither do all physicists accept an interpretation of such results that undermines causality. Furthermore, causality in an Aristotlean-Thomist sense is not as restricted in meaning as causality as used in some fields of contemporary philosophy, nor is at as reductionist. This is not to say we have empirically conclusive proof that causality holds in all circumstances, but the point is we have no empirically conclusive reason to reject the notion that it does.

Radioactive decay is often used as an example of an event that happens without a cause, but an Aristotlean can easily just point out that this occurrence is itself merely a property natural to the substance [the particular atom] according to its essence, and that the efficient cause of those events is simply the efficient cause of the atom itself in which it occurs. Causation for the Aristotlean is also better understood as a sort of ontological dependence, not only a series of physical events in some type of reductionist model. If it’s natural to a substance to have X behavior by virtue of being what it is, that is seen as sufficient cause for X to occur. Same can be said of any type of quantum fluctuations.

But again, even many non-Aristotlean physicists do not agree that causality is broken by QM. The belief that causality is broken is only one interpretation of results, and also based possibly on a definition of causality I would not limit myself to.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Do you have an argument which prove that “nothing” cannot exist? If so then existence is the default and there is no need for a creator.

What do you mean by "prove that “nothing” cannot exists? The term nothing means non existence. You can’t have some nothing. Nothing is not a state of existence, it is the lack of existence.

 

[STT]

Is it conceivable that no thing be in existence? Perhaps. I don’t think I have an issue with that.

It is conceivable to me. One can show that existence is the default and there is no need for a creator if “nothing” is logically an impossibility.

My point is that true or false, given that there are beings that exist, we arrive at the conclusion that God must exist (insert cosmological arguments).

I have several arguments against that. We can discuss them here.

Interesting. Keep in mind that the composition is the *act of *existence with an essence. And an essence in Thomist terms is not a postive principle, but a negative principle, a delimit on the act of existence. When people say that within God, His act of existence is His essence, they basically mean that there is no delimit on His act of existence: that it is not a conditioned act of existence. So, if Aquinas is right, there could only be one such being due to the law of identity (for immaterial beings, the only distinguishing factor is the essence, the delimit for each act of existence, so there can only be one of each essence. For material beings, multiple beings can share the same essence and not be identical, as they can further be distinguished by the matter and extension in space, but this is a tangent). And it seems inconceivable to me that a human soul could be called an unconditioned act of existence, but that can wait for your next topic.

That means that God cannot create soul either since that is equivalent to creation of another prisoned God unless creation of only prisoned God is logically possible. To me things sound that we are mere material. There are tons of evidence for that either (there is a center in any brain which creates the sense of self, etc.) unless God is Evil and tons of evidences there are fake.

Please find the another thread entitled “Soul does not need sustainer” in here.

That phrase is putting the cart before the horse. Only something that is metaphysically simple is argued to be capable of being an uncaused-cause, which is what we call God. I recommend it as a search term because research into the topic of divine simplicity can provide you with resources as to why it is necessary for the uncaused mover to be metaphysically simple, and why anything not metaphysically simple must have a cause/external reason for being so.

I think we are uncaused-cause too otherwise there is no free will (free will is in fact the ability to break the chain of causality).

Thanks for the complement. I will look for it and discuss things in the forum if I find any problem.

 

[IWantGod]

If so then existence is the default and there is no need for a creator.

Are you agreeing here that if a state of absolutely nothing cannot exist that therefore something necessarily exists. Its existence (its nature) is absolutely necessary in every respect.

 

[STT]

No argument is necessary. Not existing is the definition of nothing.

No, an argument for that is needed. There could exist nothing at all.

Non-sequitur - Anything that comes into existence must have a cause. God, the uncaused cause, must exist necessarily.

It is not non-sequitur. You need to provide a reason to show otherwise.

 

[STT]

What do you mean by "prove that “nothing” cannot exists?

To show whether that the state of nothingness could exist. By that I mean if nothing could exist at all.

The term nothing means non existence. You can’t have some nothing. Nothing is not a state of existence, it is the lack of existence.

Could you conceive that nothing could exist at all? No God, No universe.

 

[STT]

Are you agreeing here that if a state of absolutely nothing cannot exist that therefore something necessarily exists. Its existence (its nature) is absolutely necessary in every respect.

Yes. That thing could be the universe which has a beginning which is not initiated. Time cannot be initiated!