Creation Ex Nihilo- Without God

[Illuminaughty]

I fail to see the value in an "ex-nihilo" creation process in the first place. God might 'create' the heavens and the Earth in a myriad of ways that have nothing to do with getting something from nothing.

There is no evidence the earliest Christians like Paul would even recognize the later definitions of creation ex nihilio as being representative of their thought. I hardly see how it would be obligatory on Christians but I know the Roman Catholic Church includes it as one of their doctrines.

 

[ElijahW]

Present a rational understanding of the term "God".

“Here’s Tom with the weather.”

I’ll start with what an irrational understanding looks like and work my way away from that to something more rational because the superstitious understanding everyone is already familiar with. That understanding comes from taking artistic representations literally, be it from poetic representations in text, or art and statues. The anthropomorphic understanding that we initially build as kids usually never develops past that superstition unless the person becomes familiar with philosophy, in particular the contributions of Plato and Socrates on the understanding of God.

Socrates takes the middle ground between the poets understanding of the gods and the materialists understanding of no god. Socrates argues against the popular belief that everything changes, with the idea that it is actually everything we can see that changes, and therefore what we can’t see doesn’t change. This idea radically changed the thinking about the gods because the idea of prayer and sacrifice requires a god that can be swayed and this theory argued that would be impossible because it would make god corporal/material.

From this discussion some rules were starting to be formulated by people like Aristotle for how to identify something by its properties. In the material realm it is easy to distinguish different things by location but when we are speaking of things that don’t have a location because they don’t have a body then it becomes about other properties. What distinguishes God the creator from the rest of the eternal elements in the universe is that spiritual elements are considered conceivable to the mind and are actually what we are seeing in our thoughts. If our thoughts are created things and the source of those ideas has a different proper/identity then we can never conceive of God the creator in our mind, and any idea we have of him becomes an idol.

While we can’t conceive in the mind what God is like directly, we can get an idea of what he is like by understanding the properties of what God isn’t (Apophatic theology). Just like we know God isn’t like man or matter or an idea that can be conceived of we know that if anything comes before God then what is being spoken of isn’t God. This is where the theist and the typical platonic philosopher deviated because unformed matter was prior to God with Plato so that became illogical and the only rational God was a God that nothing came before. Not in a reified sense of nothing because then we have something before God and then aren’t talking about God any longer.

That is the rational theist understanding but you can also just cut out the ideal side and simplify it down and still have a rational understanding of God. The only real thing to accept is that what happened at the beginning of the universe is still happening and is the constant source of the universe’s continued existence. If we imagine the universe having a beginning then the first cause has two options, it can be temporary action or a constant one and since we assume temporary action to be a property of the material realm we can assume the first cause is still acting and still the cause of what we see now. Here God is the Law of the universe that produces the material realm we see. It is an actual thing that is constant producing something that is in flux.

With God being an unknowable first cause, the only rational way to argue against God is to argue that the universe didn’t have a first cause because the universe has always existed.

 

[Illuminaughty]

They come from the kinetic energy interactions between existing forms of kinetic energy that are present, like photons and neutrinos.

I went back and did some more reading on the subject and it seems that this might not be the most commonly accepted theory. Scientists have repeatedly said (or at least I've read them saying so in a number of books and on the Science channel) that these virtual pairs would violate the law of conservation of energy were it not for the fact that they annihilate themselves so quickly:

"The creation of virtual pairs seems like a violation of the conservation of energy. Nature allows you to violate this principle so long as you repay the energy quickly enough. "

John D Barrow, The Book of Nothing; Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe.
​

and

"The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time—an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so "empty" space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval. Although these particles cannot be observed individually, their existence can be demonstrated."
Science Encylopedia
​

Why bring up conservation of energy at all ? If it's the result of kinetic energy between real particles there is no reason to even worry about it possibly disobeying that law is there?
​

 

[Davian]

Present a rational understanding of the term "God".

“Here’s Tom with the weather.”

I’ll start with what an irrational understanding looks like and work my way away from that to something more rational because the superstitious understanding everyone is already familiar with. That understanding comes from taking artistic representations literally, be it from poetic representations in text, or art and statues. The anthropomorphic understanding that we initially build as kids usually never develops past that superstition unless the person becomes familiar with philosophy, in particular the contributions of Plato and Socrates on the understanding of God.

Socrates takes the middle ground between the poets understanding of the gods and the materialists understanding of no god. Socrates argues against the popular belief that everything changes, with the idea that it is actually everything we can see that changes, and therefore what we can’t see doesn’t change. This idea radically changed the thinking about the gods because the idea of prayer and sacrifice requires a god that can be swayed and this theory argued that would be impossible because it would make god corporal/material.

From this discussion some rules were starting to be formulated by people like Aristotle for how to identify something by its properties. In the material realm it is easy to distinguish different things by location but when we are speaking of things that don’t have a location because they don’t have a body then it becomes about other properties. What distinguishes God the creator from the rest of the eternal elements in the universe is that spiritual elements are considered conceivable to the mind and are actually what we are seeing in our thoughts. If our thoughts are created things and the source of those ideas has a different proper/identity then we can never conceive of God the creator in our mind, and any idea we have of him becomes an idol.

While we can’t conceive in the mind what God is like directly, we can get an idea of what he is like by understanding the properties of what God isn’t (Apophatic theology). Just like we know God isn’t like man or matter or an idea that can be conceived of we know that if anything comes before God then what is being spoken of isn’t God. This is where the theist and the typical platonic philosopher deviated because unformed matter was prior to God with Plato so that became illogical and the only rational God was a God that nothing came before. Not in a reified sense of nothing because then we have something before God and then aren’t talking about God any longer.

That is the rational theist understanding but you can also just cut out the ideal side and simplify it down and still have a rational understanding of God. The only real thing to accept is that what happened at the beginning of the universe is still happening and is the constant source of the universe’s continued existence. If we imagine the universe having a beginning then the first cause has two options, it can be temporary action or a constant one and since we assume temporary action to be a property of the material realm we can assume the first cause is still acting and still the cause of what we see now. Here God is the Law of the universe that produces the material realm we see. It is an actual thing that is constant producing something that is in flux.

With God being an unknowable first cause, the only rational way to argue against God is to argue that the universe didn’t have a first cause because the universe has always existed.

Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I don't see how you made your way from 'first cause' all the way to the character in the bible, "God".

 

[Michael]

I went back and did some more reading on the subject and it seems that this might not be the most commonly accepted theory. Scientists have repeatedly said (or at least I've read them saying so in a number of books and on the Science channel) that these virtual pairs would violate the law of conservation of energy were it not for the fact that they annihilate themselves so quickly:

"The creation of virtual pairs seems like a violation of the conservation of energy. Nature allows you to violate this principle so long as you repay the energy quickly enough. "

John D Barrow, The Book of Nothing; Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas about the Origins of the Universe.
​

and

"The meaning of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that "something" can arise from "nothing" if the "something" returns to the "nothing" after a very short time—an interval too short in which to be observed. These micro-violations of energy conservation are not only allowed to happen, they do, and so "empty" space is seething with particle-antiparticle pairs that come into being and then annihilate each other again after a very short interval. Although these particles cannot be observed individually, their existence can be demonstrated."
Science Encylopedia
​

Why bring up conservation of energy at all ? If it's the result of kinetic energy between real particles there is no reason to even worry about it possibly disobeying that law is there?
​

That's sort of a "reader's digest" version of an explanation.

A lot of what we "believed" about "virtual particles" preceded what we now understand about neutrinos, their ability to oscillate, the fact they have mass, and the hindsight of modern QM. VP's aren't "created", nor destroyed from "nothing". They appear from the interactions of kinetic energy particles that flow through every 'vacuum' that we've ever built or are capable of building. No matter what we do, we can't take all the kinetic energy out of any system. The best we can do is achieve a 'low energy' state that can and will vary to higher and lower energy states and the kinetic energy flow in and through the vacuum changes over time. The particles can and do interact at local positions for short periods of time, thereby creating the "appearance" of them "popping in and out of existence", but there cannot ever be 'nothing' in the system to begin with, and the VP's are not appearing out of "nothing'. They appear out of a sea of moving particles of kinetic energy.

Those quotes are typical of a 'virtual particle' explanation, but they don't really tell the whole explanation, nor do they accurately represent the true kinetic energy state of any vacuum. All vacuums contain some flow of particle kinetic energy and the VP's are therefor not forming from 'nothing', nor does that energy that was temporarily in the form of a VP go back to "nothing". It arises from a sea of moving kinetic energy and it returns back to that same sea of moving particle kinetic energy.

 

[Illuminaughty]

You restated your point but you didn't really answer the question. Is the theory you are proposing widely accepted or is it maybe part of a non mainstream theory (something that is mostly limited to electric universe theorists for example)? That's what I was wondering about because it seems to contradict everything I've read on the subject. Dont get me wrong I'm not trying to emphatically imply that it is but it does seem possible.

 

[Illuminaughty]

John Barrow is a well known and respected scientist and I would be suprised if he would bring up the conservation of energy thing when it's really not even relevant because It's just kinetic interaction between real particles. I don't see how doing so would even be a legitimate simplification if you are correct. It would be downright misleading.

 

[Jamin4422]

There is no evidence the earliest Christians like Paul would even recognize the later definitions of creation ex nihilio as being representative of their thought.

Paul was a Pharisees not a Kabbalah. So he would not studied a lot about that subject the way a Kabbalist would have.

 

[ElijahW]

Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause?

I don't understand the alternative if the universe has a beginning. Unless you you are arguing that the universe has always existed then there is going to be an initial cause that has an effect on the following causes.

I don't see how you made your way from 'first cause' all the way to the character in the bible, "God".

What is your understanding of God in the Bible that differs from what I have said and where did you pick up that understanding from? Just for clarity how is your understanding not an anthropomorphic guy in the sky granting wishes? Please explain the key understandings of God that you feel is necessary to hold to distinguish between someone just taking things literally out of the Bible and imaging God is a talking cloud or something equally silly? How do you distinguish between a child's understanding of God and someone educated on the subject?

 

[Davian]

I don't understand the alternative if the universe has a beginning. Unless you you are arguing that the universe has always existed then there is going to be an initial cause that has an effect on the following causes.

Did the universe have a beginning? At the instantiation of the cosmos, did what what we think of as cause-and-effect apply? Is this something that is knowable?

What is your understanding of God in the Bible that differs from what I have said and where did you pick up that understanding from? Just for clarity how is your understanding not an anthropomorphic guy in the sky granting wishes? Please explain the key understandings of God that you feel is necessary to hold to distinguish between someone just taking things literally out of the Bible and imaging God is a talking cloud or something equally silly? How do you distinguish between a child's understanding of God and someone educated on the subject?

All you said in your post was that you presume that the universe had a beginning, that it required a 'first cause', and that you labelled it "God". Is that as far as you are going to rationalize it?

 

[Michael]

You restated your point but you didn't really answer the question. Is the theory you are proposing widely accepted or is it maybe part of a non mainstream theory (something that is mostly limited to electric universe theorists for example)? That's what I was wondering about because it seems to contradict everything I've read on the subject. Dont get me wrong I'm not trying to emphatically imply that it is but it does seem possible.

Hmmm. I would say that the ideas that I expressed are accepted inside of the QM and QED communities (perhaps not universally), but I've never taken a pole within the EU/PC community to see which orientation most EU proponents prefer.

I have heard VP's 'explained' in both ways (several different times) in QM, and I simply prefer the kinetic energy exchange orientation, over any concept of short (or long) term energy violations. FYI, that preference for a kinetic energy explanation for VP's began *long* (decades?) before I was even formally introduced to PC/EU theory so I don't believe it's in any way related to any particular cosmology theory. It's more of a QM preference in terms of how one looks at the actual energy state of a "vacuum".

In my experience, after awhile of looking at the vacuum from the perspective that it containing flowing particles of kinetic energy, one starts to cringe when someone claims that there is 'nothing' in any vacuum, or they claim that VP's arise from 'nothing'. The idea of getting something from nothing, even for a short while, is in fact a violation of the conservation laws of physics. On the other hand, small kinetic energy exchanges that generate local flux do not violate any laws of physic and they do generate the same basic effects. The kinetic energy approach also happens to better represent, and more correctly represent, the true kinetic energy state of any vacuum. Once you start to see VP production from both orientations and perspectives, the kinetic energy approach is "simpler", more logical, and it's actually less confusing IMO. It's also much more accurate in terms of representing the true (kinetic) energy state of any vacuum. There is no vacuum in the entire universe that contains "nothing", and energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it's physically impossible that VP's come from "nothing".

IMO it technically "works" from the perspective of mathematics to think of VP's in terms of very short term energy violations, and a 'zero' energy state vacuum. In the real world of particle kinetic energy and actual particle physics however, that's not really what's going on. There are no energy violations occurring in VP production, either long term or short term. The kinetic energy that is contained in the VP was always present in the vacuum and the energy state of the vacuum will vary up and down over time from it's relatively low energy state.

Like I said, once you see QM and VPs and 'vacuums' from the perspective of particle kinetic energy, it's virtually impossible to "go back" to believing that something comes from nothing. It's also impossible to believe that any vacuum contains 'nothing' from which VP's might arise.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Thank you for the detailed answer.

 

[ElijahW]

Did the universe have a beginning? At the instantiation of the cosmos, did what what we think of as cause-and-effect apply? Is this something that is knowable?

They aren't arguing against the universe having a beginning, but if they were, then saying that the universe doesn't require God wouldn't demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject.

All you said in your post was that you presume that the universe had a beginning, that it required a 'first cause', and that you labelled it "God". Is that as far as you are going to rationalize it?

Could you explain your understanding of the word God and how it has evolved from something you would see on television?

The first cause is God. God doesn't mean a guy in the sky. That is just an assumption you are working with, that you are going to have a difficult time supporting, other then by the fact that other people who are uneducated on the subject think that is what the word automatically means.

 

[Davian]

They aren't arguing against the universe having a beginning, but if they were, then saying that the universe doesn't require God wouldn't demonstrate a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Saying that "God" *is* required would require demonstrating knowledge that may not be accessible.

Could you explain your understanding of the word God and how it has evolved from something you would see on television?

"God" is a character in a book. TV and movies too.

What does that have to do with you presenting your "rational understanding of 'God'"?

The first cause is God.

Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause? Is this what you are claiming?

God doesn't mean a guy in the sky. That is just an assumption you are working with, that you are going to have a difficult time supporting, other then by the fact that other people who are uneducated on the subject think that is what the word automatically means.

Which brings us back around to: Present your rational understanding of "God".

 

[ElijahW]

Saying that "God" *is* required would require demonstrating knowledge that may not be accessible.

Lost me.

"God" is a character in a book. TV and movies too.

What does that have to do with you presenting your "rational understanding of 'God'"?

It’s seeing where you are at with your understanding that makes you assume there isn’t one. From there we can examine what makes it irrational so you can start to have some understanding of a rational understanding of God. Right now you are working with assumptions based on taking artistic representations literally.

Where did you establish that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause? Is this what you are claiming?

The universe either had a beginning or it didn’t. Those are the only two options available. If there was a beginning then something was first.

Which brings us back around to: Present your rational understanding of "God".

What did I say that was irrational about God in the initial response?

 

[Davian]

Lost me.

Do we, scientifically, have access to what happened prior to the first moments of the instantiation of the cosmos? Would you not need that knowledge in order to determine what, if anything, was required at that point?

It’s seeing where you are at with your understanding that makes you assume there isn’t one. From there we can examine what makes it irrational so you can start to have some understanding of a rational understanding of God. Right now you are working with assumptions based on taking artistic representations literally.

The universe either had a beginning or it didn’t. Those are the only two options available. If there was a beginning then something was first.

How do you know that this 'first' thing was, or had to be, as it applies to the instantiation of the cosmos?

What did I say that was irrational about God in the initial response?

We're not going to see this "rational understanding of "God"", are we?

No, you were pretty vague, beyond your presumption of a beginning to the universe, a requirement for a unknowable first cause, and that its name is "God". A bit of a rocky start, IMO.

When you use the label "God", do you mean the Christian "God"?

 

[ElijahW]

Do we, scientifically, have access to what happened prior to the first moments of the instantiation of the cosmos? Would you not need that knowledge in order to determine what, if anything, was required at that point?

We consider the alternatives. The only alternative is that the universe has existed an infinite amount of time and if you can put forward how that could be possible rationally then people would stop concerning themselves about what the nature of the beginning was like. Just because we don’t have a time machine that goes back to before the universe existed doesn’t mean we assume there wasn’t a beginning to what we see.

How do you know that this 'first' thing was, or had to be, as it applies to the instantiation of the cosmos?

Because the only alternative is that the universe had no beginning and has existed an infinite amount of time.

We're not going to see this "rational understanding of "God"", are we?
No, you were pretty vague, beyond your presumption of a beginning to the universe, a requirement for a unknowable first cause, and that its name is "God". A bit of a rocky start, IMO.

When you use the label "God", do you mean the Christian "God"?

I wasn’t asked to make you "see" this, just present it. You are 48; the idea that someone online is going to convince you that your assumptions about God are based on what you saw in cartoons as a child isn’t going to be something I’m going to make you see. But regardless is you can see it, I’m obligated to present it if asked for one. And if you can see an error in logic I will do my best to respond.

On a Christian forum when using the word “God” I mean the Christian God, unless otherwise specified like I did in the second little bit of my response where I deviated from the Christian position and got rid of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Davian]

We consider the alternatives. The only alternative is that the universe has existed an infinite amount of time and if you can put forward how that could be possible rationally then people would stop concerning themselves about what the nature of the beginning was like. Just because we don’t have a time machine that goes back to before the universe existed doesn’t mean we assume there wasn’t a beginning to what we see.
Because the only alternative is that the universe had no beginning and has existed an infinite amount of time.

So your rationalization is bult on an assumption.

How do you know this is the only alternative, without access to those initial moments? Your statement may not even make sense in those terms. At the quantum scales that the universe may have been at in that instant, what we think of as logic and common sense go out the window.

There is always the alternative of, we don't know. However, that does shelve your 'first cause' claim.

I wasn’t asked to make you "see" this, just present it. You are 48; the idea that someone online is going to convince you that your assumptions about God are based on what you saw in cartoons as a child isn’t going to be something I’m going to make you see. But regardless is you can see it, I’m obligated to present it if asked for one. And if you can see an error in logic I will do my best to respond.

On a Christian forum when using the word “God” I mean the Christian God, unless otherwise specified like I did in the second little bit of my response where I deviated from the Christian position and got rid of the Holy Spirit.

In post #35, you said: "They are assuming an irrational understanding of the term God, and that is the concept they are actually arguing against, which in reality is a simple straw-man construction."

I do not disagree with this. In the absence of a rational understanding of "God", that is what you will get.

All you have done is to assert "The first cause is God, " and tell me what it isn't.

 

[ElijahW]

So your rationalization is bult on an assumption.

How do you know this is the only alternative, without access to those initial moments? Your statement may not even make sense in those terms. At the quantum scales that the universe may have been at in that instant, what we think of as logic and common sense go out the window.

There is always the alternative of, we don't know. However, that does shelve your 'first cause' claim.

Logic is how I can make those claims; in particular the law of excluded middle. It is illogical to argue against the statement that either the universe has been around finite amount of time, or not a finite amount of time.

In post #35, you said: "They are assuming an irrational understanding of the term God, and that is the concept they are actually arguing against, which in reality is a simple straw-man construction."

I do not disagree with this. In the absence of a rational understanding of "God", that is what you will get.

All you have done is to assert "The first cause is God, " and tell me what it isn't.

There isn’t an absence of a rational understanding. There has been over two millennium spent discussing a rational understanding of God by philosophers. You just have chosen to not seek them out and find this out yourself, because you have an assumption that all understandings of God are understood like literal representations in art. And you have the majority who think just like you and that makes it comfortable to never question that assumption.

 

[Davian]

Logic is how I can make those claims; in particular the law of excluded middle. It is illogical to argue against the statement that either the universe has been around finite amount of time, or not a finite amount of time.

And with that you have committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, or false dilemma. The third choice is that we cannot know.

There isn’t an absence of a rational understanding.

In what you presented, there was.

There has been over two millennium spent discussing a rational understanding of God by philosophers. You just have chosen to not seek them out and find this out yourself, because you have an assumption that all understandings of God are understood like literal representations in art.

Now you are telling me what I think.

And you have the majority who think just like you and that makes it comfortable to never question that assumption.

And in addition to how I think, you know how much I have examined my life, what I know of philosophy, the bible, religion, neuroscience, and astrophysics, etc.

Anything else you want to tell me about me?

Let's look at your statement again, from post #35, from a different angle. You said: "They are assuming an irrational understanding of the term God, and that is the concept they are actually arguing against, which in reality is a simple straw-man construction."

It follows that only one concept of "God" can be right, the balance being false. Maybe all I have see are the false ones. How would you demonstrate that yours is correct?