Creation ex nihilo

[Wiccan_Child]

Prove to me, if you will, that something can't come from nothing, that true randomness doesn't exist, that an event cannot occur without a cause, that an object can't exist without a beginning.

You may address these four questions individually or en masse. Go!

 

[Resha Caner]

Prove to me, if you will, that something can't come from nothing, that true randomness doesn't exist, that an event cannot occur without a cause, that an object can't exist without a beginning.

1. Well, I believe that "objects" without beginnings exist, so I'm not going to try to prove they don't. There's something a bit unsettling about calling God an object, but that would be my example. The difference is that I consider "eternal" to be an aspect of the immaterial.

2. My take on ex nihilo may be different than what you're expecting (and you're probably not surprised by that). I wouldn't say that God's creation of the universe came from "nothing", but rather that nothing material existed before the creation.

3. In the past you and I have differed on what "true randomness" is, so I need to ask you for a definition. Also, I will note that my opinion on randomness has changed, so I wouldn't argue that it doesn't exist. Rather, I think we would differ on what the consequences of randomness mean.

4. I don't really think the burden is mine. I think the burden is yours to demonstrate an event without a cause. With that said, I already know what my reply is. How can you distinguish an event with no cause from an event with an unknown cause? In addition, I'll say that my initial reaction to this thread was: sigh. I didn't answer your post in our last discussion (A reasoned argument to suggest that God probably exists) because you said you didn't want to extrapolate too far. I still maintain that the reason you lack the language to express this idea of yours is because it is nonsensical.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Prove to me, if you will, that something can't come from nothing

What does "come from" mean in that sentence? If it means "be caused by", then I don't see how nothing can cause anything since it doesn't have any attributes, and therefore no causative powers.

that true randomness doesn't exist

What is "true randomness"?

that an event cannot occur without a cause

What is an "event"?

that an object can't exist without a beginning.

A beginning in what sense?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What does "come from" mean in that sentence? If it means "be caused by", then I don't see how nothing can cause anything since it doesn't have any attributes, and therefore no causative powers.

The phrase refers to one answer to the question, "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" - we have something rather than nothing because, if we did 'have' nothing, 'then' something would inevitably come into existence. It is precisely because nothingness has no attributes, that somethingness is 'permitted' to exist. It's not that there's something to cause it, but that there's nothing to stop it.

That's the idea of 'something from nothing'. Prove, then, that it's not true.

What is "true randomness"?

As opposed to faux randomness. Rolling a die is apparently random, but the outcome is completely determined by prior factors. True randomness, by contrast, is where the outcome is not completely determined by prior factors, where some aspect is fundamentally unpredictable - not because of technological or methodological limitations, but because the current state of affairs simply don't enforce any single outcome.

A truly random roll of a die, then, would be one in which all six outcomes are actually unpredictable, fairly distributed, etc.

What is an "event"?

Anything - literally.

A beginning in what sense?

A time when it wasn't, and a time when it was. The changeover is the time when it 'begins'. What changed is the 'beginning'.

Honestly, I feel like a dictionary would be useful

 

[elopez]

Are you asking these questions in regards to a theological concept of creation ex nihilo?

 

[ADTClone]

Just to cut this discussion short, we have two options:

a) Something can come from nothing
b) Something can not come from nothing

When arguing for an existence of a God, if you ask the question "where did God come from", if you believe in a), you can say God can come from nothing. Alternatively you can also say the universe came from nothing, whereby you then have the burden of proof to prove that a God exists and did come from nothing rather than the universe.

If you believe in b), you can claim God always existed. In the same way, you can claim the universe always existed, therefore once again you have the burden of proof to prove your God exists and always existed rather than the universe alone.

Neither of these burden of proofs have been met, therefore there is no good reason to believe in the existence of a God with laws of either a) or b).

Furthermore, we know the universe exists, or at least it is a reasonable assumption and necessary for our own existence(which without, this question would be pointless). However, we don't know if a God exists. Since in theology, God created the universe, in a dependency of existence, God would be an exterior factor to the creation and existence of the universe. In that in our view, since his existence has not been proven, he is not required. Therefore, by Occam's razor why should we complicate the origins of the universe by supposing a non-proven being outside of material space-time which apparently created it?

Until the burden of proof is met for a God creating and bringing our universe into existence, and evidence of the existence of a God, the concept of God is redundant.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The phrase refers to one answer to the question, "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" - we have something rather than nothing because, if we did 'have' nothing, 'then' something would inevitably come into existence. It is precisely because nothingness has no attributes, that somethingness is 'permitted' to exist. It's not that there's something to cause it, but that there's nothing to stop it.

That's the idea of 'something from nothing'. Prove, then, that it's not true.

If someone were to say to you, "prove that God can't possibly exist", wouldn't you be tempted to say in response: "I can't prove how it is impossible unless I have some idea of how someone might think that it is possible. How do you think that it is possible for a God to exist?"

I find myself in just that situation. You suggest that it is inevitable that something would come into existence from "nothingness", but what is this process of something coming into existence? How am I to make sense of that?

True randomness [...] is where the outcome is not completely determined by prior factors

I don't really have a problem with such randomness, though I don't think it is causeless except according to certain models of causality. Perhaps "the universe" or "the fabric of spacetime" has the causative power to generate genuinely unpredictable phenomena, but this wouldn't be the same sort of causation as the "deterministic" sorts.

Anything - literally.

I ask this because an "event" is often thought of (in classical Newtonian mechanics) as caused by a prior "event".

In any case, I would simply ask you: "how do you explain causeless events? Why are there causeless events and not no causeless events? Don't you think that begs for an explanation?"

A time when it wasn't, and a time when it was.

Then we have a problem, since I don't believe that time exists outside of physical reality. So, it is senseless to me to think of there ever being a "time" in which physical reality did not exist.

That doesn't require that physical reality has an infinite past, but simply that its "beginning" just isn't like the beginning of any entity within the context of the universe.

Anyway, since I can treat all of physical reality as an "object", I don't think that I am willing to say that it is impossible for it to exist without a beginning as you have defined it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

Honestly, I feel like a dictionary would be useful

If someone were to say to you, "prove that God can't possibly exist", wouldn't you be tempted to say in response: "I can't prove how it is impossible unless I have some idea of how someone might think that it is possible. How do you think that it is possible for a God to exist?"

I find myself in just that situation. You suggest that it is inevitable that something would come into existence from "nothingness", but what is this process of something coming into existence? How am I to make sense of that?

 

[nebulaJP]

The phrase refers to one answer to the question, "Why do we have something rather than nothing?" - we have something rather than nothing because, if we did 'have' nothing, 'then' something would inevitably come into existence. It is precisely because nothingness has no attributes, that somethingness is 'permitted' to exist. It's not that there's something to cause it, but that there's nothing to stop it.

That's the idea of 'something from nothing'. Prove, then, that it's not true.

Substituting numbers to stand for nothing and something, you are basically saying if there is 0 to stop a 0 from changing into a 1 then it will but that seems to be a baseless non sequitur:

"The phrase refers to one answer to the question, "Why do we have 1 rather than 0?" - we have 1 rather than 0 because, if we did 'have' 0, 'then' 1 would inevitably come into existence. It is precisely because 0 has no attributes, that 1ness is 'permitted' to exist. It's not that there's 1 to cause it, but that there's 0 to stop it.

That's the idea of '1 from 0'. Prove, then, that it's not true."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If someone were to say to you, "prove that God can't possibly exist", wouldn't you be tempted to say in response: "I can't prove how it is impossible unless I have some idea of how someone might think that it is possible. How do you think that it is possible for a God to exist?"

Actually, I'd be tempted to say, "No" .

Thinking about it, I wouldn't say what you said. God, however defined, is automatically possible unless proven impossible - otherwise, we're making unjustified a priori assumptions. Given the definition of 'God', once might then be able to show that he can't, in fact, exist, but the default is that his existence is possible, not that it's impossible.

I find myself in just that situation. You suggest that it is inevitable that something would come into existence from "nothingness", but what is this process of something coming into existence? How am I to make sense of that?

You aren't, as it's not a process - that implies something material changing over time, neither of which is true.

I'm suggesting that, without anything to prevent it from happening, a thing can happen spontaneously, and, in the absence of time, will happen immediately.

I don't really have a problem with such randomness, though I don't think it is causeless except according to certain models of causality.

I don't understand. It's not causeless, unless it's causeless?

Perhaps "the universe" or "the fabric of spacetime" has the causative power to generate genuinely unpredictable phenomena, but this wouldn't be the same sort of causation as the "deterministic" sorts.

Genuinely unpredictable phenomena of the deterministic sort?

I ask this because an "event" is often thought of (in classical Newtonian mechanics) as caused by a prior "event".

Yes, well, so much for Newton

In any case, I would simply ask you: "how do you explain causeless events? Why are there causeless events and not no causeless events? Don't you think that begs for an explanation?"

Maybe, but the OP asks you to prove they aren't; it makes no claims that they are. But if these are causeless events, they wouldn't have an explanation, not in terms of, "Oh, it was this thing here that caused it to happen".

Then we have a problem, since I don't believe that time exists outside of physical reality. So, it is senseless to me to think of there ever being a "time" in which physical reality did not exist.

That doesn't require that physical reality has an infinite past, but simply that its "beginning" just isn't like the beginning of any entity within the context of the universe.

Anyway, since I can treat all of physical reality as an "object", I don't think that I am willing to say that it is impossible for it to exist without a beginning as you have defined it.

Score one for me

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Substituting numbers to stand for nothing and something, you are basically saying if there is 0 to stop a 0 from changing into a 1 then it will but that seems to be a baseless non sequitur:

Yes, but that's an artefact of your substitution, not my argument.

You could replace 'something' with 'apples' and 'nothing' with 'oranges', and that too would make little logical sense. But I'm not saying 'apples' and 'oranges', I'm not say '1' and '0', I'm saying 'something' and 'nothing'.

"God exists because we have a sense of morality"
"Apples exist because we have oranges"

Arbitrarily replacing key terms in an argument will always (or, at least, usually) turn it into a non sequitur, simply because an argument tends to rely on those key terms to make its point. Change the terms, and suddenly the argument is calling on properties that no longer exist - but that tells us nothing about the veracity of the original argument.

 

[nebulaJP]

Yes, but that's an artefact of your substitution, not my argument.

You could replace 'something' with 'apples' and 'nothing' with 'oranges', and that too would make little logical sense. But I'm not saying 'apples' and 'oranges', I'm not say '1' and '0', I'm saying 'something' and 'nothing'.

"God exists because we have a sense of morality"
"Apples exist because we have oranges"

Arbitrarily replacing key terms in an argument will always (or, at least, usually) turn it into a non sequitur, simply because an argument tends to rely on those key terms to make its point. Change the terms, and suddenly the argument is calling on properties that no longer exist - but that tells us nothing about the veracity of the original argument.

You have nothing and there is nothing to stop it from changing into something, therefore it will change into something, due to nothingness containing nothing to stop something from happening. In it's original form it's non-sequitur, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of it by substituting other words.

"I have no money.

There is nothing to stop me from becoming rich.

Therefore, I will become rich.

It is the very nature of my poverty that 'permits' me to become rich, precisely because I have no money."

How is your argument different than that? Where are you getting that just because there is a lack of any opposing forces something will happen? I don't see how it follows. This follows:

There is nothing.

There's nothing to stop something from happening.

There is still nothing.

 

[KCfromNC]

You have nothing and there is nothing to stop it from changing into something, therefore it will change into something, due to nothingness containing nothing to stop something from happening. In it's original form it's non-sequitur, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of it by substituting other words.

"I have no money.

There is nothing to stop me from becoming rich.

Therefore, I will become rich.

It is the very nature of my poverty that 'permits' me to become rich, precisely because I have no money."

Nope, that's not what's being said here. It's not a lack of money which makes you rich in this example, it's the lack of anything stopping you from becoming rich. The lack of money is just a starting point.

 

[nebulaJP]

Nope, that's not what's being said here. It's not a lack of money which makes you rich in this example, it's the lack of anything stopping you from becoming rich. The lack of money is just a starting point.

It is precisely because nothingness has no attributes, that somethingness is 'permitted' to exist.

He seems to be saying you don't have anywhere to go but up, but what I'm asking is "what evidence is there that it will go ANYWHERE?". The money example doesn't perfectly parallel it because I could have less than nothing, i.e. debt. But whatever. Just the three lines then without:

"It is the very nature of my poverty that 'permits' me to become rich, precisely because I have no money."

 

[Resha Caner]

Thinking about it, I wouldn't say what you said. God, however defined, is automatically possible unless proven impossible - otherwise, we're making unjustified a priori assumptions. Given the definition of 'God', once might then be able to show that he can't, in fact, exist, but the default is that his existence is possible, not that it's impossible.

It seems you're basically saying that anything is possible. I suppose. But don't you often make the "show me the evidence" statement? I don't see why the same thing can't be asked of you in this instance.

If that can't be asked of you here, then why is it fair to make that demand of theists?

I think Eudaimonist and I are asking similar, though slightly different questions. Mine is: How can no cause be distinguished from an unknown cause? I don't see how anything could be proven one way or the other until that is settled.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have nothing and there is nothing to stop it from changing into something, therefore it will change into something, due to nothingness containing nothing to stop something from happening. In it's original form it's non-sequitur, I'm just trying to get a better understanding of it by substituting other words.

And as I pointed out, substituting other words turns it into a different argument altogether.

"I have no money.

There is nothing to stop me from becoming rich.

Therefore, I will become rich.

It is the very nature of my poverty that 'permits' me to become rich, precisely because I have no money."

How is your argument different than that?

The absence of wealth doesn't permit the spontaneous generation of wealth. Again, by substituting different words, you change the argument - it is the nature of nothingness that allows the argument to work. Arbitrarily substituting other words is a futile exercise - if you want an analogy, try this:

There is no law forbidding X.
Therefore, people might do X.
Eventually, therefore, someone will do X.

There is nothing to stop people becoming rich.
Therefore, people might get rich.
Eventually, therefore, someone will get rich.

Where are you getting that just because there is a lack of any opposing forces something will happen? I don't see how it follows. This follows:

There is nothing.

There's nothing to stop something from happening.

There is still nothing.

Let's try another substitution: Where are you getting that just because there is a lack of any opposing forces nothing will happen? I don't see how it follows.

Remember, the thread is about proving it's wrong, not proving it's right.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It seems you're basically saying that anything is possible. I suppose. But don't you often make the "show me the evidence" statement? I don't see why the same thing can't be asked of you in this instance.

It can, it absolutely can! If I make a claim, the onus is on me to back it up, not on you to tear it down.

However, this isn't the case here. The point of the thread is to see if anyone can refute them, empirically or otherwise. I make no bones that there's a dearth of evidence, nor do I claim they actually happen (to me, they're interesting and plausible ideas, and some elements of science, particularly partial physics, leans somewhat towards them).

If that can't be asked of you here, then why is it fair to make that demand of theists?

You'd be surprised by the amount of theists who are genuinely surprised (and even offended) when you ask them to justify their beliefs, and the beliefs they're asking you to adopt. It's almost as if God is exempt from scrutiny - but then, that's faith

I think Eudaimonist and I are asking similar, though slightly different questions. Mine is: How can no cause be distinguished from an unknown cause? I don't see how anything could be proven one way or the other until that is settled.

For the purposes of the OP, that problem must be settled by you, not me.

 

[nebulaJP]

Let's try another substitution: Where are you getting that just because there is a lack of any opposing forces nothing will happen? I don't see how it follows.

Remember, the thread is about proving it's wrong, not proving it's right

There just isn't any evidence for it. In our experience, you need something for something to happen. If there is nothing, there is nothing. Junk in, junk out.

I make no bones that there's a dearth of evidence,

I'm bailing. Thank you.

 

[good brother]

Prove to me, if you will, that something can't come from nothing

I just unloaded 17,000,000,000 tons of nothing in your front yard. Feel free to make the biggest something you can. And by the way, you can only use the nothing I unloaded. You cannot use any of the dirt in your yard as that is already something. You cannot use the air that surrounds the nothing I unloaded in your yard, because the air is already something. You can't even use your brain, intelligence, or wisdom in the project to make something from the nothing because your intelligence and wisdom is something. Go!

In Christ, GB

 

[Resha Caner]

You'd be surprised by the amount of theists who are genuinely surprised (and even offended) when you ask them to justify their beliefs, and the beliefs they're asking you to adopt. It's almost as if God is exempt from scrutiny - but then, that's faith

Well, he is exempt, but the question doesn't offend me. Rather, I'm confused by the stubbornness of the question. There does come a point where trust is necessary. You can talk all you want about how anyone can verify physics. But that is only an idealistic statement, not a reality. There is no practical reality whereby every person on the face of the planet can have access to the resources necessary to duplicate every aspect of physics. So, most who accept physics simply have to trust those who do have access. To then turn around and claim spiritual matters can be rejected because it should be based on evidence and not trust simply becomes a double standard.

We don't have the same access that God does. So, at some point we must trust him.

An example of how these discussions often come across to me:

A: The set of integers is infinite.
B: Show me the evidence.
A: For every integer, n, I can formulate n+1.
B: Maybe there is an integer for which you can't formulate n+1. Can you prove to me that's not possible?
A: Yes, I can. Actually I just did.
B: No. I mean I want you to actually show me every integer and show me that you can add 1 to it.
A: That's impossible.
B: Exactly. So there's no evidence for infinite integers.
A: Yes there is. I gave it to you. The proof using n+1.
B: That's not the evidence I asked for. Given the evidence I asked for, you can only show me something finite. Not something infinite. Therefore, there is no evidence that the integers are infinite.

... and on and on it goes. The "evidence" being asked for just can't be given.

For the purposes of the OP, that problem must be settled by you, not me.

Why? I truly don't understand what you're after. As far as I'm concerned, the question I raised is undecidable. Therefore, the premise of something from nothing is undecidable. It's simply pointless to discuss it unless you give me something more ... or unless you tell me more about what you're trying to accomplish by pushing this off on me.