The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Anguspure]

I've read thought a few of these so far. Some interesting insights there.

However one thing that I'm having trouble grasping is W L Craig seems to favour 'creatio ex nihilo', creation out of nothing. Now we have debated this here and agreed that something from nothing is impossible, so how do we explain God creating something out of nothing? I suppose we could say God could do that if he wanted to since he isn't bound by any laws, but that doesn't sit too well with me in light of what we have been discussing in this thread so far. The thought bubble I presented earlier on came out of my trying to avoid this creatio ex nihilo idea.

I like the thinking thats going on along the lines of string theory. That the physical universe is a manifestation of "vibrations" on single dimensional "strings". In this way we might come to an understanding of space/time/energy/matter that makes it come into existence simply from the expressed will of the uncaused cause that we call God.

 

[Everybodyknows]

I like the thinking thats going on along the lines of string theory. That the physical universe is a manifestation of "vibrations" on single dimensional "strings". In this way we might come to an understanding of space/time/energy/matter that makes it come into existence simply from the expressed will of the uncaused cause that we call God.

Strings and vibrations still need their single dimension to manifest in. It still doesn't get me past this something from nothing problem. We always have to start with something.

Even so, as interesting as string theory is, it still hasn't made it to the stage of being a proper theory. So far it doesn't give us any testable predictions, just a whole bunch of very interesting mathematics that shows promise in explaining some things that our other theories are struggling to make sense of.

 

[Anguspure]

Strings and vibrations still need their single dimension to manifest in. It still doesn't get me past this something from nothing problem. We always have to start with something.

Even so, as interesting as string theory is, it still hasn't made it to the stage of being a proper theory. So far it doesn't give us any testable predictions, just a whole bunch of very interesting mathematics that shows promise in explaining some things that our other theories are struggling to make sense of.

Yeah, thats why I only said I like the thinking, I'm watching that space but it's all a bit of a tentative offering.
As I wrote earlier, I also have an issue with strict Ex Nihilo, recognising that whatever the substance of what is, including space itself, it must have come from something, and ultimately the only thing that did exist at some point was the unified uncaused cause.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The ex nihilo nihil fit principle simply indicates that being cannot come from non-being so that should something arise, it arises from something else.

Exactly. The universe arises out of God because that is the only possible thing it can arise from. That is why I say I view the universe as part of God, or somehow part of his nature. I have great difficulty accepting this creation from nothing idea.

There must come a point in our investigation where we admit that what lies beyond the horizon of our comprehension is too awesome and mysterious for us to grasp. There must be that element of wonder when we think of such things. There must be that place where we come to and say, "this is just too grand for me to understand, too wonderful and awe inspiring to be reduced into the common currency of human language."

It is our tendency as adults to want to take the wonder and mystery out of things but God will only allow us to go so far in doing that. I rejoice that I cannot wrap my mind around God speaking all of physical reality into existence. It makes sense to me that I cannot. It makes sense to me that His ways are higher than ours and that His thoughts are higher than ours.

I was kind of getting at this idea previously, but didn't express it quite so well. Maybe we think more alike than I first thought. I like spirituality that retains some mysticism. Maybe we can't understand the process by which God made the universe. Maybe the words of 'cause', 'create' or 'bring into being' fail us because these are just artefacts of our language based in time. Sure, it is fun and challenging to have a bit of fiery debate on this stuff but I don't kid myself into thinking I can figure out cosmic beginnings in my mind. No matter how much science eventually reveals about the nature of existence we well always be able to ask a more fundamental question 'why is it this way and not some other way'? Maybe I dismiss that cab one stop before you when it comes to arguments like Kalam, and I think we just don't know enough to be able to say what is more plausible.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Maybe we can't understand the process by which God made the universe. Maybe the words of 'cause', 'create' or 'bring into being' fail us because these are just artefacts of our language based in time.

Yes, this is my thinking also. The process by which we have come to exist is likely something we can't understand or explain. This should obviously not stop us trying to explain it, but recognizing there will always be mystery keeps the awe in awesome

 

[Anguspure]

Yes, this is my thinking also. The process by which we have come to exist is likely something we can't understand or explain. This should obviously not stop us trying to explain it, but recognizing there will always be mystery keeps the awe in awesome

There's a certain Lewis or Tolkeinesque thinking you are presenting here that I tend to like, the appreciation of the beauty in mystery. A certain yearning for the world before the age of rational enlightenment that embraced the unknown and didn't feel the need to break into every detail, and that maintained a sense of child like wonder at the creation of God.
The trouble is that at this point the opposition starts muttering about fairies at the bottom of the garden etc and so forth...

 

[Everybodyknows]

@anonymous person @Anguspure @YouAreAwesome

With all this talk about something and nothing, I have a kind of theory about it. You want to hear it? Well too bad cause I'm going to tell you anyway!

I've been pondering this question of why is there something rather than nothing? So here goes:

1. Ex nihilo nihil fit, something cannot come form nothing.
2. Nothing cannot come from something either.
3. The fact that there is something means there is no possible reality of nothingness.
4. Something and nothing are mutually exclusive.

I'm not a philosopher so I'm not sure if I've structured this well, so I'll explain in case I've lost you. 1 & 2 hopefully make sense, it would be the same magic if I made a rabbit appear out of nothing as if I caused one to vanish out of existence. We live in a state of affairs of something and that reality could only come from or be caused by another state of affairs where there is something. If a state of affairs of nothingness was possible then the only possible state of affairs would be nothing (if it could even be called a state of affairs). The possibility of nothing is exuded by the existence of something. This is why there is something rather than nothing. Confused?

I share this to give you an idea of why I have such difficulty with creatio ex nihilo.

 

[anonymous person]

@anonymous person @Anguspure @YouAreAwesome

With all this talk about something and nothing, I have a kind of theory about it. You want to hear it? Well too bad cause I'm going to tell you anyway!

I've been pondering this question of why is there something rather than nothing? So here goes:

1. Ex nihilo nihil fit, something cannot come form nothing.
2. Nothing cannot come from something either.
3. The fact that there is something means there is no possible reality of nothingness.
4. Something and nothing are mutually exclusive.

I'm not a philosopher so I'm not sure if I've structured this well, so I'll explain in case I've lost you. 1 & 2 hopefully make sense, it would be the same magic if I made a rabbit appear out of nothing a if I caused one to vanish out of existence. We live in a state of affairs of something and that reality could only come from or be caused by another state of affairs where there is something. If a state of affairs of nothingness was possible then the only possible state of affairs would be nothing (if it could even be called a state of affairs). The possibility of nothing is exuded by the existence of something. This is why there is something rather than nothing. Confused?

I share this to give you an idea of why I have such difficulty with creatio ex nihilo.

Yes, there must have always been something. In other words, something must exist necessarily. The notion of the necessity of existence when applied to God is what theologians refer to as the aseity of God. God exists necessarily. He always was and always will be. He cannot cease to exist and is dependent upon nothing outside of Himself for His existence. There are numerous scriptures which support this notion.