Something from nothing and God

[Shane Roach]

I still present the alternative of "chaos" as the beginning of everything.

Max said that "nothing" would include also "no potentials". That is correct. But he also allows "God" to act beyond the rules of logic... and so does Chaos. "Nothing" also means "no logic".

So there can be potentials without there being potentials. And where there are potentials, there are actualities.

Is there some formal scientific definition of "chaos"? Where is all of this coming from?

 

[Shane Roach]

There are cyclic models of the universe positing infinite series of expansions and contractions. The Steinhardt model is one. I'm not an expert by any means, but I know they avoid the thermodynamic death which might be assumed by the 2nd Law. And they are consistent with the evidence that is thought to support the Big Bang. Steinhardt draws from M-Theory, which is controversial. But the point is that there are coherent scientific theories for an eternal universe which obviate the need for some supernatural creative force.

I believe they finally did this one in with the discovery that the universe's expansion is still accelerating. In about 2000, 2001, somewhere in there.

Dark matter and dark energy somehow means the universe ends in chaos, which leads me right back to my previous question, albeit of a different poster.

I'm not real up to date on the dark energy and dark matter, and all that their existence would supposedly imply.

 

[tcampen]

It's a comparison that is unwarranted, the swimming one.
Sinning is not choosing God; if we could only choose God would free will be free? No, it would be just another function of God, not separate from Him.
If you have a mouse in maze that is just a straight corridor, is it a maze? Does the mouse choose? In order for it not to be a choice, we would have to be completely unaware of anything but good, which makes choosing good not a choice.
You can swim 1000 fathoms under the sea. But you will die. You have the choice to, but there are consequences.

Consequences are irrelevant to the issue of free will.

In the diving analogy, no human can dive down 1000 fathoms. It cannot be done no matter how much a person wants to. They might die trying, but they couldn't actually do it. Thus, this illustrates how we always have limits on our possible options, yet remain having free will.

Eliminating evil choices does not mean all option would be good. There are nutral options. Choosing to eat an apple over an orange does not necessarily implicated good over evil. Like most choices we use our free will with daily, good or evil are simly not implicated. Yet, our free will in these decisions remain.

Removing sinful options also does nothing to eliminate free will. There is no such requirement in free will. Free will requires the ability to free choose among more than one viable option. There are innumerable things any individual cannot do regardless of free will, but this does not eliminate that person's free will.

Finally, what pleasure would God derive from people not choosing him? What aspect of existence was/is God lacking that required he create humans who could reject him? This whole concept implies an imperfect and incomplete God. A god that needed more to be whole, and required fallible creations, a vast majority of whom would reject him, in order to be fully god. If this is not the case, then creating humans would just an unecessary and arbitrary joke.

Which is it?

 

[Freodin]

I allow God to act beyond logic nowhere; His omnipotence is enough of a logical explanation.

Quote from the OP: "Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality."

So he can do anything, even if it is logically impossible. Because he is "omnipotent"... which does not mean anything but that he can do anything.

Well, "Chaos" is omnipotent as well.

Firstly, if you think logic does not apply, this argument does not apply. Because it can make sense. It uses premises and makes a conclusion; a logical argument. So your own premise that logic does not apply violate your argument.

No. The logical conclusion only goes as far as that logic does not apply to chaos/nothing. What happens then is not dealt with logic, but with chaology.

Secondly, potentialities do not imply actualities. Much potential is never moved into actuality, and anyway, what is there to move nothing into something, to move potentiality into actuality?

But logic can´t apply. As soon as you introduce a concept where logic can be transcended, it becomes meaningless.

You allowed you God-concept to transcend logic (...can do anything - "logically" possible or not...) and thus no logic argument you make has any back-up any more. You don´t need God´s will, God´s nature or whatever you use to explain the how and why of this existence... is is no longer necessary.

And don't say logic can't apply, because to support that argument you use logic.

I only follow your footsteps.

 

[Freodin]

Is there some formal scientific definition of "chaos"? Where is all of this coming from?

There is no formal scientific definition... this concept of "chaos" does not derive from science, but a thorough following of the though what "nothing" really means.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

In asserting something cannot come from nothing, some think I have run into an apparent contradiction - how can God create something from nothing if something cannot come from nothing?
For the sake of this thread, accept these two premises:
1) God exists as Creator
2) He is omnipotent

Now, something cannot come from nothing because nothing is absolute lack - lack of any actuality or potentiality. That which has no potential to exist will not, ever, exist. Thus nothing can only beget nothing.

God is something. He is omnipotent. There was no prior substance to His creation, "nothing," that we have now, but not absolute nothing as in the example above. Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality. So, when God exists, you have potentiality from which things can move into actuality, but with absolute nothing, you have no such potentiality.

Bravo.

Looks like a free thinking mind created yet another decent thread.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

There is no formal scientific definition... this concept of "chaos" does not derive from science, but a thorough following of the though what "nothing" really means.

The usual suspects?

I'm voting yes due to all observable data.

 

[MaxP]

Consequences are irrelevant to the issue of free will.

But they're not. We have the ability to try anything, successful or not.

In the diving analogy, no human can dive down 1000 fathoms. It cannot be done no matter how much a person wants to. They might die trying, but they couldn't actually do it. Thus, this illustrates how we always have limits on our possible options, yet remain having free will.

But sin is different. If we were aware of sin, and could try it, that would be a sin in and of itself. So we can only know God, not sin. But if we only knew God, our only choice would be God. No choice means no free will.

Eliminating evil choices does not mean all option would be good. There are nutral options. Choosing to eat an apple over an orange does not necessarily implicated good over evil. Like most choices we use our free will with daily, good or evil are simly not implicated. Yet, our free will in these decisions remain.

Eating isn't so much a choice as it is a matter of preference.I eat what tastes good, and anyway, eating can be sinful.
And if good or evil was not implicated in everyday life, why are we not all priests, worshiping God 24/7? Why are we not all mass murderers? We constantly make the choice to avoid bad and go for good, or ignore good and give in to bad.

Removing sinful options also does nothing to eliminate free will. There is no such requirement in free will. Free will requires the ability to free choose among more than one viable option. There are innumerable things any individual cannot do regardless of free will, but this does not eliminate that person's free will.

Free will is the ability to choose. If one takes away all the oranges, do we choose to eat apples? We have no choice.

Finally, what pleasure would God derive from people not choosing him? What aspect of existence was/is God lacking that required he create humans who could reject him? This whole concept implies an imperfect and incomplete God. A god that needed more to be whole, and required fallible creations, a vast majority of whom would reject him, in order to be fully god. If this is not the case, then creating humans would just an unecessary and arbitrary joke.

Which is it?

So why did God create us? I can honestly say I do not know.
But why does God separating us from Himself imply He is incomplete? It could be He placed us here out of love, to see us join Him, not for Him, but for us.
I don't know why he created us; but I know He did.

 

[MaxP]

Quote from the OP: "Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality."

So he can do anything, even if it is logically impossible. Because he is "omnipotent"... which does not mean anything but that he can do anything.

Yes, that is the definition of omnipotence. God as the first cause would have to be omnipotent... how does that not logically follow? Like I said, the mechanism, not the concept, eludes us. Like gravity.

Well, "Chaos" is omnipotent as well.

Why?

No. The logical conclusion only goes as far as that logic does not apply to chaos/nothing. What happens then is not dealt with logic, but with chaology.

Actually, your argument goes beyond saying logic cannot apply, it goes into saying since logic doesn't apply, anything goes. A conclusion following from the premise and previous conclusion. Logic.
But if logic doesn't apply, chaology doesn't; if logic doesn't apply then you cannot make the conclusion anything is possible. You simply have to stop there, and make no more statements, unless the statements themselves in no way make any kind of logical sense.

But logic can´t apply. As soon as you introduce a concept where logic can be transcended, it becomes meaningless.

Logic can be violated by omnipotence, but omnipotence can be logically defended. So omnipotence is not a logic-transcending concept.

You allowed you God-concept to transcend logic (...can do anything - "logically" possible or not...) and thus no logic argument you make has any back-up any more. You don´t need God´s will, God´s nature or whatever you use to explain the how and why of this existence... is is no longer necessary.

Not true - God's omnipotence as a necessary being can be defended, demonstrated, but like I said, all God's omnipotence means is that the mechanism eludes us in our base understanding of Him, not the concept.

I only follow your footsteps.

Nuh-uh!

 

[pantless rationalist]

Free will is the ability to choose. If one takes away all the oranges, do we choose to eat apples? We have no choice.

I think you may have looked over that pile of other assorted fruits just beyond the oranges. Sorry we don't have any apples. Anyone want a banana or kiwi instead?

Your dichotomy doesn't exist.

 

[MaxP]

I think you may have looked over that pile of other assorted fruits just beyond the oranges. Sorry we don't have any apples. Anyone want a banana or kiwi instead?

Your dichotomy doesn't exist.

Kiwi is good.
But the point is if we have no ability to choose evil, we can only choose good(or neutral-good).

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, it took me some time to get back to this thread.

Yes, that is the definition of omnipotence. God as the first cause would have to be omnipotent... how does that not logically follow? Like I said, the mechanism, not the concept, eludes us. Like gravity.

The concept of omnipotence is a linguistic machination, not a logical conclusion.

Why?

Because!
Why is God omnipotent? Because he is, he necessarily must be (how can something necessarily be when there is no logic?), because our system would break down if he wasn´t.

Chaos is omnipotent because chaos is everything.

Actually, your argument goes beyond saying logic cannot apply, it goes into saying since logic doesn't apply, anything goes. A conclusion following from the premise and previous conclusion. Logic.
But if logic doesn't apply, chaology doesn't; if logic doesn't apply then you cannot make the conclusion anything is possible. You simply have to stop there, and make no more statements, unless the statements themselves in no way make any kind of logical sense.

That´s why I discribed "chaos" as undescribable. It transcends our ability to make statements about it.

Logic can be violated by omnipotence, but omnipotence can be logically defended. So omnipotence is not a logic-transcending concept.

Not quite. As soon as you introduce a concept that can violate logic, you do away with the need for logical reasoning to conclude it.

Not true - God's omnipotence as a necessary being can be defended, demonstrated, but like I said, all God's omnipotence means is that the mechanism eludes us in our base understanding of Him, not the concept.

Basically, I don´t debate against the concept of "omnipotence" or even "violating logic". In my view, Chaos does the same.

All I am doing is trying to show that as soon as you introduce such a concept, every other statement becomes meaningless.

 

[MaxP]

Sorry, it took me some time to get back to this thread.

The concept of omnipotence is a linguistic machination, not a logical conclusion.

And why do you think that?

Because!
Why is God omnipotent? Because he is, he necessarily must be (how can something necessarily be when there is no logic?), because our system would break down if he wasn´t.

Chaos is omnipotent because chaos is everything.

Alright.

That´s why I discribed "chaos" as undescribable. It transcends our ability to make statements about it.

Than you can't say it implies something will come from it.

Not quite. As soon as you introduce a concept that can violate logic, you do away with the need for logical reasoning to conclude it.

No, you do away with the need to logical reason for the mechanism the omnipotence, not the concept or application of the omnipotence.

Basically, I don´t debate against the concept of "omnipotence" or even "violating logic". In my view, Chaos does the same.

Yeah, but you say the overarching concept violate logic, not an aspect of it.

All I am doing is trying to show that as soon as you introduce such a concept, every other statement becomes meaningless.

It's not God that violates logic, it's that He can in a mechanism. Basically, you can logically conclude He exists, is willful, and is omnipotent.

 

[Freodin]

And why do you think that?

Because "everything" is a vague a concept as "nothing"... but it sounds good.

Than you can't say it implies something will come from it.

That is correct. But I can still say something might come from it.

No, you do away with the need to logical reason for the mechanism the omnipotence, not the concept or application of the omnipotence.

Yeah, but you say the overarching concept violate logic, not an aspect of it.

Doesn´t matter. It´s a kind of backlash... as soon as you introduced something that violates logic, it invalidates (logically speaking) anything connected with it.

It's not God that violates logic, it's that He can in a mechanism. Basically, you can logically conclude He exists, is willful, and is omnipotent.

Perhaps you could help me out here: in other posts in this thread, several concepts were brought that you denied would violate logic, and this not touch the topic of omnipotence. The square triangles were such an example.

Perhaps you could give me some (or one) example of what you consider "violation logic" but where God is still able to do it?

 

[MaxP]

Because "everything" is a vague a concept as "nothing"... but it sounds good.

Not really. The definition of everything, is, of course, the broadest of all, but it is not badly defined. It is a thing with no boundaries.
And nothing is the lack of something. Both are well enough defined, and essential if you want to discuss metaphysics.

That is correct. But I can still say something might come from it.

But the only reason you're prejudiced to say that is that you see there is something, so you must conclude chaos could or did in some way cause it. But why is there not still chaos? Why did chaos "kill" itself? Why did the universe limit itself in logic? In chaos, both something and nothing existed. Neither bound by logic, apparently. Still is this true?

Doesn´t matter. It´s a kind of backlash... as soon as you introduced something that violates logic, it invalidates (logically speaking) anything connected with it.

Not necessarily. If you can logically conclude a mechanism that could violate logic, is it so illogical?

Perhaps you could help me out here: in other posts in this thread, several concepts were brought that you denied would violate logic, and this not touch the topic of omnipotence. The square triangles were such an example.

I don't recall the square triangles, I think that was another user.

Perhaps you could give me some (or one) example of what you consider "violation logic" but where God is still able to do it?

Creating something with no prior substance.
Separating a thing(the soul, intellect) from Himself.

 

[Freodin]

Not really. The definition of everything, is, of course, the broadest of all, but it is not badly defined. It is a thing with no boundaries.
And nothing is the lack of something. Both are well enough defined, and essential if you want to discuss metaphysics.

And metaphysics are, as we both know, one of the most exact of sciences.

But the only reason you're prejudiced to say that is that you see there is something, so you must conclude chaos could or did in some way cause it. But why is there not still chaos? Why did chaos "kill" itself? Why did the universe limit itself in logic? In chaos, both something and nothing existed. Neither bound by logic, apparently. Still is this true?

Oh, I see where this misunderstanding comes from now. (Or rather, I do not: the same concepts would apply to "God")
There still IS Chaos. Chaos does not change. The "visible" universe is simply a subset of Chaos.

Not necessarily. If you can logically conclude a mechanism that could violate logic, is it so illogical?

Yes... I´ll come back to that at the end.

I don't recall the square triangles, I think that was another user.

Correct. And in response that that proposal you said: "And making round squares isn't impossible, per se, but a paradox."
Well, what is a paradox, if not something that is logically impossible, because it violates its own definition?
But if I understood you correctly, you say that God can do the logically impossible, but not the paradox. Am I right in this? How does that jive with omnipotence?

Creating something with no prior substance.
Separating a thing(the soul, intellect) from Himself.

Before I comment and continue the thought from above, I would you to answer another question: why do you think these examples are logically impossible?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In asserting something cannot come from nothing, some think I have run into an apparent contradiction - how can God create something from nothing if something cannot come from nothing?
For the sake of this thread, accept these two premises:
1) God exists as Creator
2) He is omnipotent

Now, something cannot come from nothing because nothing is absolute lack - lack of any actuality or potentiality. That which has no potential to exist will not, ever, exist. Thus nothing can only beget nothing.

God is something. He is omnipotent. There was no prior substance to His creation, "nothing," that we have now, but not absolute nothing as in the example above. Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not - and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality. So, when God exists, you have potentiality from which things can move into actuality, but with absolute nothing, you have no such potentiality.

Wrong forum, isn't it? This would be more appropriate in C&E.

Actually, I find it pretty hard to even take your premises for granted, as "something cannot come from nothing, so it must have been created by that supercomplex überbeing" strikes me as a rather simplistic and fallacious approach to begin with.

Now, regardless of whether a divine being exists, you cannot apply a simple cause-and-effect approach to the beginning of spacetime, as time itself did not exist independently of space, and was thus nonexistant prior to what is commonly referred to as the "Big Bang". Technically, there simply was no "before", and the conditions that could be found inside a singularity like the one that supposedly gave birth to our universe are totally outside of anything we can conceive of. No "before" or "after", no "here" nor "there", just infinity, caught up in a point that does not take up any space.
Tohu va bohu, to say it with a Hebrew term. Chaos.

 

[No Swansong]

Peter Kreeft argues that God cannot do anything that is not logically possible. He cannot make round squares or a universe where free will exists but the possibility to sin does not, for example. There is no evidence to suggest that God can do the impossible, since it is by definition impossible.

Man I like Kreeft. It seems to me his conclusion disregards the possibility of the metaphysical being supernatural in this case. But I still like his writings. Have you been to his website? He has some great stuff.

 

[MaxP]

And metaphysics are, as we both know, one of the most exact of sciences.

Oh, I see where this misunderstanding comes from now. (Or rather, I do not: the same concepts would apply to "God")
There still IS Chaos. Chaos does not change. The "visible" universe is simply a subset of Chaos.

So chaos, being invisible and above logic, would simply be another supernatural thing, no?

Yes... I´ll come back to that at the end.

Ok.

Correct. And in response that that proposal you said: "And making round squares isn't impossible, per se, but a paradox."
Well, what is a paradox, if not something that is logically impossible, because it violates its own definition?
But if I understood you correctly, you say that God can do the logically impossible, but not the paradox. Am I right in this? How does that jive with omnipotence?

He can do the paradox, but will He? No. He's not a stupid Guy. Also, what may be an apparent paradox to us might not be so to Him.

Before I comment and continue the thought from above, I would you to answer another question: why do you think these examples are logically impossible?

For the first one, in order for something to come into being it must move from potentiality to actuality, and with no prior substance you have no potentiality. But that's where God comes from.
For the second one, God is everything, everywhere, and for Him to separate a thing from Himself is a feat indeed.

 

[MaxP]

Wrong forum, isn't it? This would be more appropriate in C&E.

Actually, I find it pretty hard to even take your premises for granted, as "something cannot come from nothing, so it must have been created by that supercomplex überbeing" strikes me as a rather simplistic and fallacious approach to begin with.

Um, I must say you have a certain talent for completely misrepresenting a person's argument. And God isn't "supercomplex."
The argument is not about God's existence, but about how He can do an apparent something from nothing. Other threads I discuss His existence, I stated in the OP just to take those premises for granted for the sake of the thread.

Now, regardless of whether a divine being exists, you cannot apply a simple cause-and-effect approach to the beginning of spacetime, as time itself did not exist independently of space, and was thus nonexistant prior to what is commonly referred to as the "Big Bang". Technically, there simply was no "before", and the conditions that could be found inside a singularity like the one that supposedly gave birth to our universe are totally outside of anything we can conceive of. No "before" or "after", no "here" nor "there", just infinity, caught up in a point that does not take up any space.
Tohu va bohu, to say it with a Hebrew term. Chaos.

Again, chaos fails to make sense to me because the entire argument goes, to take a page out of your book, "something didn't exist so everything existed."
If there really was nothing, then there still would be nothing. There is no potentiality in nothing. When we speak of nothing, we imply it obeys the rules of something, because in order to define nothing we must use something. They are in the same family and logically obey the same rules.