Coming from nothing

[Dave Ellis]

The witness of the saints.

But we have no contemporary records of such a thing.

So what are you referring to?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It is not even clear that anything can even be "caused into existence".

Stars are "caused into existence". In a word, gravity.

Causes involve interactions between (or within) pre-existing entities that change the entities in question.

That's the point. Our current observation that the universe was created from nothing allows us to deduce a pre-existing entity - God.

Nothing is created, only changed in some way.

This is a faith based statement on your part.

It is also not clear that "nothing" can be subject to change in order to become something,

So what. An explanation is still worth seeking.

since nothing is not itself an entity, and causes pertain to entities.

The creating entity is God which is the causing agent - Efficient Cause. No one is claiming He is the Material Cause.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Stars are "caused into existence". In a word, gravity.

That's not an equivalent example. Stars are created from pre-existing matter, your assertion is saying something came from nothing.

That's the point. Our current observation that the universe was created from nothing allows us to deduce a pre-existing entity - God.

Except our current observation isn't that the universe was created from nothing... We know the big bang happened, and we don't know anything about what would have preceded it. We have no reason to assert a state of nothingness ever existed.

This is a faith based statement on your part.

Well, not really.... We have no examples of something being created from nothing, so his statement is correct. Also, by definition "nothingness" doesn't exist. If it existed, then it would be something, and not nothing.

So what. An explanation is still worth seeking.

Not if it doesn't exist.

The creating entity is God which is the causing agent - Efficient Cause. No one is claiming He is the Material Cause.

Do you have evidence for that?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

That's not an equivalent example. Stars are created from pre-existing matter, your assertion is saying something came from nothing.

Ergo, "they are caused" into existence.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Except our current observation isn't that the universe was created from nothing... We know the big bang happened, and we don't know anything about what would have preceded it. We have no reason to assert a state of nothingness ever existed.

Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.
MIT Department of Physics

Just because the idea of a true nothing causes you problems in internet debates does not mean that real Physicists do not genuinely entertain and admit to the concept and problem of true nothingness preceeding the singularity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ergo, "they are caused" into existence.

No.... Go back and read what I wrote.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.
MIT Department of Physics

Just because the idea of a true nothing causes you problems in internet debates does not mean that real Physicists do not genuinely entertain and admit to the concept and problem of true nothingness preceeding the singularity.

That doesn't address what I said at all...

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Well, not really.... We have no examples of something being created from nothing, so his statement is correct.

This does not justify a positive claim that "Nothing is created", unless you are saying what he meant to say was "We have never observed anything created."

Also, by definition "nothingness" doesn't exist. If it existed, then it would be something, and not nothing.

Then he should have chosen his words more carefully.

Cold is a lack of heat. Nothing is the lack of Physics. This is a perfectly legitimate definition and allows Creation to be defined as a logical two state system. The initial state is no physics. The end state is the existence of physics.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Not if it doesn't exist.

We exist therefore we know without any doubt an explanation exists.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Do you have evidence for that?

We exist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This does not justify a positive claim that "Nothing is created", unless you are saying what he meant to say was "We have never observed anything created."

If it's impossible for a state of pure nothingness to exist (for lack of a better word), then his statement is certainly justified.

Then he should have chosen his words more carefully.

Cold is a lack of heat. Nothing is the lack of Physics. This is a perfectly legitimate definition and allows Creation to be defined as a logical two state system. The initial state is no physics. The end state is the existence of physics.

Nothing is the lack of absolutely everything, not just physics.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We exist therefore we know without any doubt an explanation exists.

We exist.

How do you figure? Just because we exist has nothing to do with if there was ever a state of pure nothingness.

We could also exist if there was always something in some form. So, the fact we exist can not be used as evidence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are satisfied with such gruel, then I pity you.

I could say the same thing to you about mysticism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Stars are "caused into existence". In a word, gravity.

That's not what I mean. By "caused into existence", I mean that something "pops" into existence out of nothing. I don't mean that entity A changes into entity B, such as interstellar gas condensing into stars.

That's the point. Our current observation that the universe was created from nothing allows us to deduce a pre-existing entity - God.

What observation would that be? I'm not aware that we have observed the universe created from nothing.

This is a faith based statement on your part.

No, it's an empirical statement. That is my point. I'm talking about human experience.

So what. An explanation is still worth seeking.

Good luck with that. I'm not talking about what is worth seeking.

The creating entity is God which is the causing agent - Efficient Cause. No one is claiming He is the Material Cause.

If God is the efficient cause and not the material cause, are you suggesting that God never created matter?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FireDragon76]

Strictly speaking, no saints witnessed the resurrection.

What do you mean by that? No witnesses of a disappearing body? I suppose that's true, but belief in a disappearing body is not the substance of the Christian faith in the resurrection.

 

[FireDragon76]

I could say the same thing to you about mysticism.

Mysticism is gruel? Something that has existed in nearly every civilization throughout history is impoverishing? Only someone who is historically myopic could say such a thing.

 

[bhsmte]

What do you mean by that? No witnesses of a disappearing body? I suppose that's true, but belief in a disappearing body is not the substance of the Christian faith in the resurrection.

Let me ask you a question.

If in some remote part of the world, if a few people came forward and claimed, someone had risen from the dead after three days, and then a bunch of people in that area claimed they saw the person alive later on, would you believe them?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

What observation would that be? I'm not aware that we have observed the universe created from nothing.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

• You've repeatedly agreed this is true

P2: The universe began to exist

• The Standard Model

C: Therefore the universe has a cause

...I'm not talking about what is worth seeking.

Yes, I know.

If God is the efficient cause and not the material cause, are you suggesting that God never created matter?

No, take the time to understand. That's why I gave you the links. Of course God created matter.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

So what. An explanation is still worth seeking.

Not if it doesn't exist.

We exist therefore we know without any doubt an explanation exists.

How do you figure? Just because we exist has nothing to do with if there was ever a state of pure nothingness.

The subject was an explanation. We exist therefore we know an explanation exists, and explanations are always worth seeking.

 

[FireDragon76]

Let me ask you a question.

If in some remote part of the world, if a few people came forward and claimed, someone had risen from the dead after three days, and then a bunch of people in that area claimed they saw the person alive later on, would you believe them?

It would depend on the credibility of the witnesses.