Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

[DeathMagus]

It is impossible to create something from nothing, so something must have created everything...

G

OP aside - that doesn't even follow.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

I don't assume it.

Yes you do. You cannot have a definite answer to this unless you are omnipotent because it spans before literally anything existed. You are not, therefore you cannot have a definite answer to this question.

Why it means there is no before? Because that "before" would be part of the totality, and therefore not "before" the totality, but part of it . If it is "before" it is, besides, temporally connected to ours (e.g. temporally anterior in the same temporal extension), and therefore itself part of the universe's own temporal continuity and not properly speaking "before" the universe. We could have something which is "outside" our part of the universe, rather, but that would still be a part of the totality of the spatiotemporal world in the end, even if separated, just like galaxies (and like the multiverse or an inflationary model of the universe).

Not actually before, since when this (hypothetically) happened our space time continuum is not in existence, but since I don't believe that the English language has a word to describe the specific phrase: "occurring separately from the beginning of the universe not within our space time continuum", I used the simplified "before".

I disagree. There could be a first event which is itself the start of time, but it is not before time, it's source must ultimately be outside of time, not 'before' since that presumes time before time itself.

Again, this is just playing with words. The principal remains the same.

If it exists, it is something in some sense. I believe that is the minimal of what must be accepted to make any sense out of "existence". You can of course disagree, but I'm not going to argue over it. Something which seems to be nothing in every sense we can grasp it, and yet exists, is definitely something existing, even if we have no grasp of it's substance or essence.

No, that's vacuum. This is lack of existence, or rules, or anything at all.

I wasn't speaking literally, but figuratively. Vacuum is not nothing, which was my only point.

No, vacuum is not nothing, vacuum is space that has a lack of matter. Not nothing.

But we can never transverse it in that infinite time because we can never at any point reach infinite time. We can transverse it in infinite time constantly potentially because infinity means there is always an infinite potential, no boundary on potential, but never actually an infinity, because we can never actually reach an infinite potential without there being an infinite potential more than that actuality.

The language is a little murky here, but if what I'm about to write doesn't address your question, it would be nice if you could rephrase it for me.

If I understand, this is why for domain and range the notation is (-infinity, infinity) instead of [-infinity, infinity]. We never actually get to infinity because it is a concept, not a real number. But I don't see why that is relevant to the conversation.

If we do say we can actually transverse infinity definitely, then we are putting a boundary or a closing on infinity, and making it finite, not infinite, because if it is infinite there is always an infinity more than what has been reached. 2 is not closer to infinity than 1.

What is your point though?

I would disagree and deflect that accusation to some more reflection on your side on infinity, things like Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

I really don't understand what this has to do with the conversation. Infinity is weird, I get it. What is your point?

 

[Luddite]

You cannot have a definite answer to this unless you are omnipotent because it spans before literally anything existed

Which assumes that "something existed before anything existed", a self-contradiction. If time existed, something existed. That temporality is something.

No, that's vacuum. This is lack of existence, or rules, or anything at all.

But you didn't say lack of existence. You used phrases such as "In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed."

If I understand, this is why for domain and range the notation is (-infinity, infinity) instead of [-infinity, infinity]. We never actually get to infinity because it is a concept, not a real number. But I don't see why that is relevant to the conversation.

You invoked infinity yourself to explain the emergence of the universe from some kind of probability from "an infinite amount of time in which nothingness existed", that is what it is relevant to.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

Which assumes that "something existed before anything existed", a self-contradiction. If time existed, something existed. That temporality is something.

I just explained that there is no temporal dimension, but because of the limitations of our language, that is a hard thing to describe, so I simplified it into terms that imply time. In this context, I do not mean to imply the temporal dimension, but it is very hard to phrase without doing so.

But you didn't say lack of existence. You used phrases such as "In the infinite amount of time that the nothingness existed."

We've already been over that this was a confusion of terms. Like 3 times now.

You invoked infinity yourself to explain the emergence of the universe from some kind of probability from "an infinite amount of time in which nothingness existed", that is what it is relevant to.

I don't actually mean "time", but until there is something, there is nothing. If nothing does not produce something indefinitely, than it is nothing for an infinite amount of "time" (which again is not actually implying a temporal dimension, but it is hard to phrase without this word).

 

[Luddite]

It's not just about your confusion of time and non-time, but just as much between existence and nothing.

I don't actually mean "time", but until there is something, there is nothing.

There is not actually nothing then, in the sense of a nothingness which actually exists. So we cannot speak of this nothing producing something, because it doesn't exist.

If nothing does not produce something indefinitely, than it is nothing for an infinite amount of "time" (which again is not actually implying a temporal dimension, but it is hard to phrase without this word).

Well, no, there is no infinity here. There is no lack of boundary, because there is nothing which has even the potentiality for a boundary. There is simply nothing at all.

So you cannot argue from nothing to a probability, because a probability assumes already that there is something which elicits that probability. And since there is nothing, and certainly not the infinity of time you originally confusedly talked about, there is no probability for anything at all; unless it is because there is something which arouses a probability and makes it even meaningful to start speaking about probabilities.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

It's not just about your confusion of time and non-time, but just as much between existence and nothing.
There is not actually nothing then, in the sense of a nothingness which actually exists. So we cannot speak of this nothing producing something, because it doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist. The lack of existence by definition does not exist.

Well, no, there is no infinity here. There is no lack of boundary, because there is nothing which has even the potentiality for a boundary.

Explain

There is simply nothing at all.

The lack of existence is different from space without matter, which is what you are describing.

So you cannot argue from nothing to a probability, because a probability assumes already that there is something which elicits that probability. And since there is nothing, and certainly not the infinity of time you originally confusedly talked about, there is no probability for anything at all; unless it is because there is something which arouses a probability and makes it even meaningful to start speaking about probabilities.

The concept described does not follow the laws of logic, therefore it can arouse probability without cause.

 

[Luddite]

The concept described does not follow the laws of logic, therefore it can arouse probability without cause.

No, "it" does not exist. There is no "it". If it does not exist, then there is nothing to elicit anything. If there is, then "it" is something, and if nothing more, than an actual elicitation to a probability, and then we are again back to a something and an actuality, an elicitation which itself is part of our world and reality.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

No, "it" does not exist. There is no "it". If it does not exist, then there is nothing to elicit anything. If there is, then "it" is something, and if nothing more, than an actual elicitation to a probability, and then we are again back to a something and an actuality, an elicitation which itself is part of our world and reality.

Eh no? "It" in that context refers to the idea of the lack of existence. The word "it" does not automatically imply existence. Furthermore, you are trying to play with words to avoid the premise, and have been attempting to do so with the many of your posts. The wording doesn't matter, the concept does. Regardless of the diction I use, you haven't challenged the idea.

 

[Luddite]

The word "it" does not automatically imply existence. Furthermore, you are trying to play with words to avoid the premise, and have been attempting to do so with the many of your posts. The wording doesn't matter, the concept does. Regardless of the diction I use, you haven't challenged the idea.

It's not playing with words, I am showing that you have been confusing words and metaphysics since your original post and throughout the thread.

There is a difference between saying nothing exists, which means that there is no elicitation of a probability for something to start existing (since that elicitation is not nothing, but something), and saying that "nothingness exists" (directly quoted from you) which is a confused ambiguity which informs nothing and can be used to say either that something actually does exist, or that indeed, nothing exists.

What you have been confusing it to imply with this ambiguity is the suggestion of a something that does exist, however much you try to define it as nothing.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Why can't this 'nothingness' be God, Bluster?

 

[quatona]

Why can't this 'nothingness' be God, Bluster?

I guess it can - "God" is not a copyrighted or properly defined term, after. God can be nothingness just as God can be the mousepad on my desk - we would just have to define it so.
Then again, I can´t think of any fairly common god-concept that resembles "nothingness", and I am afraid that the average theist will be unwilling to follow the definition of God as being "nothingness".
E.g., I was just trying to read the bible by replacing "God" by "nothingness" and got pretty funny results.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why can't this 'nothingness' be God, Bluster?

Because God is a thing, he exists. 'Nothingness' is not a thing, it's an absence of any extant thing.
If God exists, then we don't have nothingness. If we have nothingness, then God doesn't exist.

 

[Luddite]

Because God is a thing, he exists.

God is not a "thing". And many apophaticists would argue that God does not rely on human notions such as existence. But save that for another debate, it's too complex to involve here.

'Nothingness' is not a thing, it's an absence of any extant thing.
If God exists, then we don't have nothingness.

We have the absence of any things, yes, because God is not a thing. He transcends all things.

If we have nothingness, then God doesn't exist.

If nothingness simply means the absence of any things we can observe or conceive which is simply created things, then nothingness (e.g. the absence of any created thing) does not contradict Gods existence at all.

Then again, I can´t think of any fairly common god-concept that resembles "nothingness", and I am afraid that the average theist will be unwilling to follow the definition of God as being "nothingness".
E.g., I was just trying to read the bible by replacing "God" by "nothingness" and got pretty funny results.

Most of the bible is not about Gods essence but with his actions and relation with the world.

It does affirm that he created all things, which means his essence is not a thing, and therefore, a notion of God as no thing is certainly biblical. Whether that literally translates into nothing is an ontological question which depends on how you define nothing.

 

[quatona]

Most of the bible is not about Gods essence but with his actions and relation with the world.

It does affirm that he created all things, which means his essence is not a thing, and therefore, a notion of God as no thing is certainly biblical. Whether that literally translates into nothing is an ontological question which depends on how you define nothing.

Nothingness is a He, nothingness creates, nothingness acts and interacts and nothingness has relations...okey dokey.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God is not a "thing". And many apophaticists would argue that God does not rely on human notions such as existence. But save that for another debate, it's too complex to involve here.

God is a 'thing' because the word 'thing' is universally applicable. If it exists, it is a 'thing'. Apophatics talk about what God is not (e.g., he is not male), but they don't say he doesn't exist.

We have the absence of any things, yes, because God is not a thing. He transcends all things.

But he is still a thing himself. God may be an unusual or unique type of thing, but, if extant, he is still a thing.

If nothingness simply means the absence of any things we can observe or conceive which is simply created things, then nothingness (e.g. the absence of any created thing) does not contradict Gods existence at all.

It's the absence of any thing, created, observable, conceivable, or otherwise. This includes God.

Most of the bible is not about Gods essence but with his actions and relation with the world.

It does affirm that he created all things, which means his essence is not a thing, and therefore, a notion of God as no thing is certainly biblical.

If says God created everything that was made. It doesn't say anything about things which weren't made.
It also says that God is a spirit, that God is this and that. God is very much a thing.

 

[tanzanos]

Correct, it does not rule out G-d, but it does present an argument against the annoying creationists (who shall not be named due to forum rules) who say "Yadda yadda atheism is just 0 * 0 = 1 Derp Derp Derp". It's an alternative theory.

It does rule out God; for how can God exist when nothing exists? Also if we use the logic of the creationists then a purple pasta God is also possible!

Let's stick to science for the time being and leave faith to the realms of religion.

Now yall have a nice day

 

[Luddite]

Nothingness is a He, nothingness creates, nothingness acts and interacts and nothingness has relations...okey dokey.

No, I never spoke of "nothingness". You are simply twisting my words now.

God is a 'thing' because the word 'thing' is universally applicable. If it exists, it is a 'thing'. Apophatics talk about what God is not (e.g., he is not male), but they don't say he doesn't exist.

Yes, they do believe he in ousia in se (in his essence apart from what he does) is completely beyond any human predicate like existence. You simply haven't dug deep enough into apophatic theology. But anyway, I didn't say apophatic theology is a must.

It's the absence of any thing, created, observable, conceivable, or otherwise. This includes God.

God is neither created, observable or conceivable.

If says God created everything that was made. It doesn't say anything about things which weren't made.
It also says that God is a spirit, that God is this and that. God is very much a thing.

God can be described conceptually, but it doesn't mean God is that thing or concept, only that it reflects our understanding of his essentia ad extra in which God is many things, rather than his ousia in se in which God is indeed no thing but wholly transcendent.

 

[Luddite]

It does rule out God; for how can God exist when nothing exists? Also if we use the logic of the creationists then a purple pasta God is also possible!

It doesn't rule God out that nothing conceivable exists. For God is in ousia in se no thing; as I've repeated, only in essentia ad extra is he something.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, they do believe he in ousia in se (in his essence apart from what he does) is completely beyond any human predicate like existence. You simply haven't dug deep enough into apophatic theology.

Wow. Just... wow. Are you always this arrogant?

Negative theologians talk about God's existence as being wholly separate from ours. He does not exist in the sense that we do, but he nonetheless exists. The twelfth century Maimonides was a negative theologian, and said:

"God's existence is absolute, that it includes no composition, as will be proved, and that we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence."

Negative theologians concern themselves with his essence, but they don't deny his existence. Or rather, they consider his existence to be different to what we are used to; he exists in a different manner to, say, my cup.

God is neither created, observable or conceivable.

Which misses my point entirely.

God can be described conceptually, but it doesn't mean God is that thing or concept, only that it reflects our understanding of his essentia ad extra in which God is many things, rather than his ousia in se in which God is indeed no thing but wholly transcendent.

Trotting of the word 'transcendent' doesn't change the facts.

 

[Luddite]

Wow. Just... wow. Are you always this arrogant?

Negative theologians talk about God's existence as being wholly separate from ours. He does not exist in the sense that we do, but he nonetheless exists. The twelfth century Maimonides was a negative theologian, and said:

"God's existence is absolute, that it includes no composition, as will be proved, and that we comprehend only the fact that He exists, not His essence."

Negative theologians concern themselves with his essence, but they don't deny his existence. Or rather, they consider his existence to be different to what we are used to; he exists in a different manner to, say, my cup.

I didn't intend to be arrogant. Sorry if that's the way it came out.

And what you are saying is a completely valid way to look at negative theology.

I was just wanted to point out that there are also many negative theologians who believe God transcends even existence, such as the Cappadocian Fathers.