Coming from nothing

[OrdinaryClay]

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

This is called the Steady State Model. It has been rejected by science for decades. That's why I just gave you the quote from Guth.

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

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.

Physics defines everything. Science says the laws of physics allowed the Universe to evolve from a singularity. The singularity evolved into space-time and matter - everything. Therefore true nothingness is the lack of the laws of nature which is Physics.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It would depend on the credibility of the witnesses.

Even the best witnesses can't do anything when people change the testimony they gave through forgetting and additions.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Even the best witnesses can't do anything when people change the testimony they gave through forgetting and additions.

Are you sure?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you sure?

Pretty sure a dead person can't prevent people from accidentally or intentionally change the record of what they said.

 

[Nibru]

It would depend on the credibility of the witnesses.

But then, a person that's claimed to be reasonable and logical by society will still not believe that a person really rose from the dead. They will need to see it for themselves and analyze it for something so bizarre. Out of all honesty, believing in an ancient book is not a credible source.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Pretty sure a dead person can't prevent people from accidentally or intentionally change the record of what they said.

So you reject all historical record as told by any deceased historian. That is a pretty radical and, might I say, irrational position to hold.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

believing in an ancient book is not a credible source.

So you don't believe any of the Roman or Greek narratives. You should also reject the existence of Alexander the great. This is again an irrational position to hold.

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is called the Steady State Model. It has been rejected by science for decades. That's why I just gave you the quote from Guth.

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

I'm not describing the steady state model. The steady state model proposed the universe existed as it is eternally, and will exist as is eternally. I do not accept that idea either.

What we are talking about is if something existed in some form prior to the big bang. As for that, we really don't have a clear idea at all.

Physics defines everything. Science says the laws of physics allowed the Universe to evolve from a singularity. The singularity evolved into space-time and matter - everything. Therefore true nothingness is the lack of the laws of nature which is Physics.

Nonsense. If physics allowed the singularity to launch the big bang, then the singularity is a separate entity than physics. Physics are the laws which act upon the singularity, it is not the singularity itself.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you don't believe any of the Roman or Greek narratives. You should also reject the existence of Alexander the great. This is again an irrational position to hold.

Not the Alexander the Great argument again.... That's P.R.A.T.T.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Mysticism is gruel?

Don't get all huffy with me. You just dissed naturalistic spiritualities out of hand and then told me that you pitied me. Don't pity me, since I don't have any gruel.

I can just as easily dis mysticism if it it misinterprets experiences and pretends that one has some special shortcut to knowledge. That is gruel indeed!

Something that has existed in nearly every civilization throughout history is impoverishing?

Gruel isn't impoverishing. You can survive on gruel.

Only someone who is historically myopic could say such a thing.

No, I simply don't think that popularity necessarily indicates high quality or guarantees of truth.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I had written: 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 was talking about observations, not deductive arguments.

And, incidentally, I do not recall agreeing to P1. Perhaps you can point out the post. It is not my view that anything begins to exist if that means popping into existence out of nothing. If by "begins to exist", you are talking about change, I agree that a changed entity has some causal explanation. However, not all entities are necessarily changed entities. If there is an entity, or an aspect of an entity, that is not the product of change, then such an entity would be uncaused.

And, incidentally, I don't subscribe to P2. I don't believe that the universe (if by that you mean physical reality in any form) ever began to exist. It may have begun to change.

And the Standard Model is just that -- a model. We don't have any observations of the universe beginning to exist. We may extrapolate to such a hypothetical beginning, but we haven't observed that beginning.

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

Please try explaining what you mean instead of sending me links. I am already familiar with the four Aristotelian types of causation. I don't know what your point is, and Aristotle isn't making it for you.

So, please explain what you mean when you say that God is the efficient cause and not the material cause.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

I mean that no saints actually witnessed the resurrection. According to the Scriptures they only encountered Jesus after his resurrection.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

When did we observe the universe being created from nothing? That's not an observation I'm aware of. Nor does it permit us to deduce a pre-existing entity since a pre-existing entity would mean that 'nothing' did not actually obtain; there was something, namely that pre-existing entity.

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

Then what was the material cause?

 

[Ruthie24]

Most atheists, in my experience at least, admit the opposite: man doesn't know it all. Interestingly, purveyors of religion will often claim that their system of belief has all the answers to life's deepest questions. Who then is claiming to know it all?

I have heard this before from a lot of Christians but I don't think it's the standard. I don't believe I have all the answers. I think people say this maybe out of a need to be certain and comfortable in their belief systems. I'm ok with not knowing all the answers. I've learned it's an arduous time consuming task to wade through scriptural texts and archeological articles etc. All you really ever has is theories from both sides. Like Christ said it all comes down to faith and belief and I believe it to be true, but I can't prove it 100%, but I still have faith.

 

[FireDragon76]

Then what was the material cause?

The majority of Christians have always believed the universe has no material cause, hence the phrase creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing. If you really think about this, this isn't so hard to understand because physics has advanced well past the point we think of reality made out of indivisible atoms of "stuff".

A minority of Process theologians believe God creates the universe using pre-existing matter. However, process theism developed originally at a time when cosmology and physics was in its infancy and some people assumed an eternal universe of some kind of was "scientific", and that was once of the points of Process theism (developing a theology that harmonizes with science).

 

[Eudaimonist]

The majority of Christians have always believed the universe has no material cause, hence the phrase creation ex nihilo, creation out of nothing.

Thank you. That is clearer. Though it doesn't explain why you replied to my comment:

It is also not clear that "nothing" can be subject to change in order to become something, since nothing is not itself an entity, and causes pertain to entities.

With this comment:

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

I never said that God was the material cause either, and I'm not quite certain how you read that in to my statement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I was talking about observations, not deductive arguments.

I'm talking about evidence. Which is what matters. I ignore red herrings and strawman arguments. Science, real science, can make predictive statements about the past. No one has ever observed a black hole forming, but science understands them to a large extent.

And, incidentally, I don't subscribe to P2. I don't believe that the universe (if by that you mean physical reality in any form) ever began to exist.

Science disagrees with you. I'm sorry. The current science indicates the universe began to exist.

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

It may have begun to change.

You are making a scientific statement here. Please provide evidence for this.

And the Standard Model is just that -- a model.

Professional Physicists and Cosmologists use this model to make large truth claims - namely that the Universe is not past eternal. So they disagree with you I'm sorry.

We don't have any observations of the universe beginning to exist.

You repeat this like a mantra. It's a meaningless statement. You seem to be creating a shell in your mind so you can pretend the evidence does not exist.

Please try explaining what you mean instead of sending me links. I am already familiar with the four Aristotelian types of causation. I don't know what your point is, and Aristotle isn't making it for you.

You don't appear to understand the distinctions.

So, please explain what you mean when you say that God is the efficient cause and not the material cause.

Please explain why you believe the universe is past eternal despite the science to the contrary.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

When did we observe the universe being created from nothing? That's not an observation I'm aware of.

We've never observed the formation of the genome comprising Archaeopteryx, but we can through deduction conclude they existed.

If a person accepts science they must accept the scientific method.

Nor does it permit us to deduce a pre-existing entity since a pre-existing entity would mean that 'nothing' did not actually obtain; there was something, namely that pre-existing entity.

Nothing from a scientific standpoint is the lack of Physics, which means no physical laws existed. God is not the result of physical laws so the state of Nothing does not preclude the existence of God

Then what was the material cause?

There was no material cause. That's what current cosmology seems to indicate.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

It is also not clear that "nothing" can be subject to change in order to become something, since nothing is not itself an entity, and causes pertain to entities.

Your statment is simply false. As I pointed out cuases deal with events not entities. Events are caused not entities.

Creation is a two state process.
Initial State: No physical laws existed.
Final State: The Laws of Nature, aka Physics existed.

Once the laws of nature exist the universe unfolds from a singularity as described by The Standard Mode of Cosmology, aka "The Big Bang Theory".

 

[bhsmte]

It would depend on the credibility of the witnesses.

And how would you determine the credibility of the witnesses, to be able to determine, if you believed their claim, that someone was raised from the dead?