Something from nothing and God

[Jane_the_Bane]

Um, I must say you have a certain talent for completely misrepresenting a person's argument.

And yet, this is what it boils down to ultimately. "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore God." Or, in other words: if you can't fathom it, apply to the supernatural. Just like people did with thunderstorms, draughts, epidemics and other natural phenomena in the past.

And God isn't "supercomplex."

Not? And here I thought we were talking about an omnipotent superbeing that lies almost completely beyond our ability to grasp. "God is unfathomable" and all that.

The argument is not about God's existence, but about how He can do an apparent something from nothing. Other threads I discuss His existence, I stated in the OP just to take those premises for granted for the sake of the thread.

We'd need to define omnipotence and its origin for that, which leads us automatically back to the premise of God's existence.

Again, chaos fails to make sense to me because the entire argument goes, to take a page out of your book, "something didn't exist so everything existed."
If there really was nothing, then there still would be nothing. There is no potentiality in nothing. When we speak of nothing, we imply it obeys the rules of something, because in order to define nothing we must use something. They are in the same family and logically obey the same rules.

And this is one of the situations in which St. Augustine would have said something like: "If you don't know what you're talking about, well-meaning creationist: don't. Just don't."
Now, I am not exactly an astrophysicist, either, and I don't even claim to understand HALF of this rather esoteric field (with its superstrings, twelve dimensions an so on and so forth). But I understand enough to figure out that you don't even seem to know what a singularity is.

 

[valhalladclxvi]

In asserting something cannot come from nothing, some think I have run into an apparent contradiction - how can God create something from nothing if something cannot come from nothing?
For the sake of this thread, accept these two premises:
1) God exists as Creator
2) He is omnipotent

A lot of people have a hard time accepting these premises hahaha.

Look, I'm going to break this down the best I can. If you claim that the universe couldn't have came from nothing, then it is also true that God couldn't have came from nothing. If you claim that God always existed, then it follows that the Universe could have always existed. The nonexistence of God isn't yet completely falsifiable, but our explanation of the universe doesn't rely on the existence of a god.

 

[Freodin]

So chaos, being invisible and above logic, would simply be another supernatural thing, no?

Correct.

He can do the paradox, but will He? No. He's not a stupid Guy. Also, what may be an apparent paradox to us might not be so to Him.

Again, I will comment on that later... in this post. I won´t keep you in suspense any longer.

For the first one, in order for something to come into being it must move from potentiality to actuality, and with no prior substance you have no potentiality. But that's where God comes from.
For the second one, God is everything, everywhere, and for Him to separate a thing from Himself is a feat indeed.

It seems that one of the misunderstandings we have here is about the base of logic.

Logic is a form of reasoning that enables you to make correct conclusions from correct premises. That means that you have to start with correct premises.
But if you arrive at a wrong conclusion, it is not possible to say whether your premise was wrong, or your reasoning transcended logic.

In your first example, you start from the premise "something must move from potentiality to actuality to exist".
But if there is a way to do that, to "[create] something with no prior substance", it would not mean that this feat violates logic per se... only that your premise was incorrect, or at least incomplete.

Logic can only be "violated", when you have a paradoxon... a conclusion that validates and invalidates the premise at the same time.

So one could say that your second example does indeed present such a violation of logic.
God "seperated" something from himself, created something that is "not-God"... and still is "everything and everywhere".
That, provided that both statements are correct, would indeed be a violation of logic:
1. God is everything.
2. There is something that is not God.

Do you agree with me so far?

 

[MaxP]

A lot of people have a hard time accepting these premises hahaha.

Look, I'm going to break this down the best I can. If you claim that the universe couldn't have came from nothing, then it is also true that God couldn't have came from nothing. If you claim that God always existed, then it follows that the Universe could have always existed.

You seem to misunderstand God arguments; it goes like so:
1. Everything in the universe can be or not be.
2. because it can be or not be, it is caused.
3. infinite regress makes no sense because then nothing would be mover per se, but just moved, like a tool manipulating itself.
4. God has no possibility of being or not being, is unchanging and moves everything else.

Now, that's just the argument for dummies, boiled down.

The nonexistence of God isn't yet completely falsifiable, but our explanation of the universe doesn't rely on the existence of a god.

Not until you think of metaphysics.

 

[b&wpac4]

You seem to misunderstand God arguments; it goes like so:
1. Everything in the universe can be or not be.
2. because it can be or not be, it is caused.
3. infinite regress makes no sense because then nothing would be mover per se, but just moved, like a tool manipulating itself.
4. God has no possibility of being or not being, is unchanging and moves everything else.

Now, that's just the argument for dummies, boiled down.


Not until you think of metaphysics.

Still at this?

I told you, and you even agreed, that there was faith involved in this belief. So you can't create a proof. Why do you keep persisting?

 

[MaxP]

And yet, this is what it boils down to ultimately. "Something cannot come from nothing, therefore God." Or, in other words: if you can't fathom it, apply to the supernatural. Just like people did with thunderstorms, draughts, epidemics and other natural phenomena in the past.

Again, this thread is NOT about the existence of God; the argument was not geared toward such. The arguments for His existence is different.

Not? And here I thought we were talking about an omnipotent superbeing that lies almost completely beyond our ability to grasp. "God is unfathomable" and all that.

No more so than the universe itself. I assumed by supercomplex you meant above the normal complexity.

We'd need to define omnipotence and its origin for that, which leads us automatically back to the premise of God's existence.

No, not really...
I defined omnipotence in the OP.

And this is one of the situations in which St. Augustine would have said something like: "If you don't know what you're talking about, well-meaning creationist: don't. Just don't."
Now, I am not exactly an astrophysicist,

Well, considering this not so much an astrophysical question...

either, and I don't even claim to understand HALF of this rather esoteric field (with its superstrings, twelve dimensions an so on and so forth). But I understand enough to figure out that you don't even seem to know what a singularity is.

The discussion of various singularities that could give rise to the universe is, again, irrelevant to the topic. It's even irrelevant to origins of the universe, and definitely irrelevant to something from nothing, and again, you stated:

No "before" or "after", no "here" nor "there", just infinity, caught up in a point that does not take up any space

And you contradict yourself as well. You first disregard the rules of the universe around you, then proceed to take those rules to insist that all that(nothing, which is again an invalid thought process) is caught up at one "point," - but there are no points. You point to the lack of time and space, then somehow bridge the lack of this - and our inability to grasp nothing - as an indication pure nothing cannot exist except in that which will become or could become something.
So it seems to me you are clouding your view of this pure chaos through the inborn knowledge you have about something, and are attempting to apply it to something it doesn't.

 

[MaxP]

Still at this?

I told you, and you even agreed, that there was faith involved in this belief. So you can't create a proof. Why do you keep persisting?

There is a faith involved int he choosing of an active God, but not in the logical constructs for God.

 

[MaxP]

Correct.

So you're not really so much an atheist or naturalist?

Again, I will comment on that later... in this post. I won´t keep you in suspense any longer.

I'm on the edge of my seat.

It seems that one of the misunderstandings we have here is about the base of logic.

Logic is a form of reasoning that enables you to make correct conclusions from correct premises. That means that you have to start with correct premises.
But if you arrive at a wrong conclusion, it is not possible to say whether your premise was wrong, or your reasoning transcended logic.

In this metaphysical discussion, one cannot really prove another's conclusion to be false, but can demonstrate his logic is flawed.

In your first example, you start from the premise "something must move from potentiality to actuality to exist".
But if there is a way to do that, to "[create] something with no prior substance", it would not mean that this feat violates logic per se... only that your premise was incorrect, or at least incomplete.

That's what I have been saying - the mechanism is what would apparently defy logic, not the concept or the act itself. And even then, it would not quite be a violation of logic.

Logic can only be "violated", when you have a paradoxon... a conclusion that validates and invalidates the premise at the same time.

Yes, although I disagree with your definition of logic - much too narrow.

So one could say that your second example does indeed present such a violation of logic.
God "seperated" something from himself, created something that is "not-God"... and still is "everything and everywhere".
That, provided that both statements are correct, would indeed be a violation of logic:
1. God is everything.
2. There is something that is not God.

Do you agree with me so far?

Yes, but one note: God is not necessarily everything, but is everywhere. He is the origin of everything, though.

 

[b&wpac4]

There is a faith involved int he choosing of an active God, but not in the logical constructs for God.

I disagree. A lot of men much more intelligent and learned than either of us have decided to believe in or not believe in God. I believe it is all a matter of faith, unless you can point directly to God and say "there he is"

 

[MaxP]

I disagree. A lot of men much more intelligent and learned than either of us have decided to believe in or not believe in God. I believe it is all a matter of faith, unless you can point directly to God and say "there he is"

It really depends which intelligent men you think were right. If God does exist, and is active as those more expert on the subject have believed, then why would He have made it purely a matter of faith?
I think it's a mixture of conclusion, openness to God, and, as you said, faith.

 

[b&wpac4]

It really depends which intelligent men you think were right. If God does exist, and is active as those more expert on the subject have believed, then why would He have made it purely a matter of faith?
I think it's a mixture of conclusion, openness to God, and, as you said, faith.

And again, God existing proves you are correct, God not existing proves you are wrong. You can't prove it, so the conclusions you draw are 50/50 at best.

 

[MaxP]

And again, God existing proves you are correct, God not existing proves you are wrong. You can't prove it, so the conclusions you draw are 50/50 at best.

And if an active God exists, He would at least make you able to know Him.
Hence the openness to God.

 

[LightSeaker]

I subscribe to the idea of creation by Emanationism. LINK But that’s partly because I don’t know how to separate God from His own Creation.

.

 

[LightSeaker]

And if an active God exists, He would at least make you able to know Him.

The mystics say that He does.

.

 

[Freodin]

So you're not really so much an atheist or naturalist?

Words and boxes. I don´t believe in the actuality of any "god-concept" that I have ever run across... that makes me an atheist. I also do believe that everything that we are even theoretically able to observe is "natural"... that would make me a naturalist.

But if you want to call me something else... be my guest.

In this metaphysical discussion, one cannot really prove another's conclusion to be false, but can demonstrate his logic is flawed.

Difficult. What have you demonstrated then: that my logic is flawed, or that I can violate logic?

That's what I have been saying - the mechanism is what would apparently defy logic, not the concept or the act itself. And even then, it would not quite be a violation of logic.

Keyword: apparently. Conclusion: actually, it does not, it only appears to do. So we are back to square one.

Yes, although I disagree with your definition of logic - much too narrow.

Then you´ll have to offer me yours and we´ll have to find out if yours is to wide.

Yes, but one note: God is not necessarily everything, but is everywhere. He is the origin of everything, though.

I´m uncertain about the reason why you introduced this limitation. "Not necessarily" means" does not have to be, but might be", right?

The "might be" part is the one I am focusing on... what happens when God is both everything and not everything. I take it that you agree that this is indeed violating logic, even in my narrow definition, and that God can do it.

So we now have established that "God can violate logic" can mean that God both can be and can not be something.

What does that mean for your previous statements? (I said I would come back to them, did I not?)

"He can do the paradox, but will He? No."
Wrong!
If he does not do something, the act is not done. This is logical reasoning. But God can violate logic: so the act can be done, even if God does not do it.
So, without logic, your statement becomes: "He can do the paradox, but will He? No. But still he does."

And one statement that I wanted to adress further:
"If you can logically conclude a mechanism that could violate logic, is it so illogical?"
You have logically concluded a mechanism that could violate logic. Because this mechanism is now no longer bound by logic, it can exist / function without the premises you used to make the logical conclusion.
Your mechanism can be concluded using the exact opposite of your initial argument, and would still have to be considered valid. That is illogical.


Now what does all that means in regard to your God-argumentation? It renders it meaningless. As soon as you allow this concept to violate logic, and further conclusion you make, such as "he must have will, for without willing, something would not go from potentiality to actuality" becomes void.

 

[MaxP]

Words and boxes. I don´t believe in the actuality of any "god-concept" that I have ever run across... that makes me an atheist. I also do believe that everything that we are even theoretically able to observe is "natural"... that would make me a naturalist.

Just trying to get an idea.

But if you want to call me something else... be my guest.

How bout Freodin?

Difficult. What have you demonstrated then: that my logic is flawed, or that I can violate logic?

Well, as I said earlier, I believe chaos logic to be flawed, because it takes nothing as more than it is. Nothing, as a lack and not an actual thing, is bound by the same laws that bind what it is lacking, as demonstrated by the fact it is impossible to define nothing without something. That's where I have a problem with chaos.

Keyword: apparently. Conclusion: actually, it does not, it only appears to do. So we are back to square one.

Not really. So the argument is resolved if you don't believe the mechanism defies logic, but only our understanding of it?

Then you´ll have to offer me yours and we´ll have to find out if yours is to wide.

Logic is, simply, the science of right thinking.

I´m uncertain about the reason why you introduced this limitation. "Not necessarily" means" does not have to be, but might be", right?

Yes.

The "might be" part is the one I am focusing on... what happens when God is both everything and not everything. I take it that you agree that this is indeed violating logic, even in my narrow definition, and that God can do it.

So we now have established that "God can violate logic" can mean that God both can be and can not be something.

Like I said - He does not have to be everything, and since he is not in the human intellect/soul, He is not everything. And since we can choose that which lacks Him(evil) He is not everything.

What does that mean for your previous statements? (I said I would come back to them, did I not?)

"He can do the paradox, but will He? No."
Wrong!
If he does not do something, the act is not done. This is logical reasoning. But God can violate logic: so the act can be done, even if God does not do it.

No. The act can only be done by God. Just like I can take a sip from my cup, but can you take a sip from my cup?

So, without logic, your statement becomes: "He can do the paradox, but will He? No. But still he does."

No, my statement stays.

And one statement that I wanted to adress further:
"If you can logically conclude a mechanism that could violate logic, is it so illogical?"
You have logically concluded a mechanism that could violate logic. Because this mechanism is now no longer bound by logic, it can exist / function without the premises you used to make the logical conclusion.

Not necessarily. If I conclude a hammer can violate logic, the hammer itself cannot do it, so the logical reasoning would be in application and concept of that hammer.

Your mechanism can be concluded using the exact opposite of your initial argument, and would still have to be considered valid. That is illogical.

What exact opposite of my initial argument?

Now what does all that means in regard to your God-argumentation? It renders it meaningless. As soon as you allow this concept to violate logic, and further conclusion you make, such as "he must have will, for without willing, something would not go from potentiality to actuality" becomes void.

No, again, the omnipotence is like a hammer; a tool. It is not used unless manipulated, and like I said, only violates logic in mechanism, whereas the examples you give violate logic in concept. It's the difference between the hammer breaking through a wall and the hammer being invisible and able to shoot lasers.

 

[Freodin]

Well, as I said earlier, I believe chaos logic to be flawed, because it takes nothing as more than it is. Nothing, as a lack and not an actual thing, is bound by the same laws that bind what it is lacking, as demonstrated by the fact it is impossible to define nothing without something. That's where I have a problem with chaos.

Nothing cannot be bound by any laws, because that would imply that these laws still exist. But "nothing" is also a lack of laws.

Not really. So the argument is resolved if you don't believe the mechanism defies logic, but only our understanding of it?

We could say so. If only our understanding of logic is violated, the logic itself stays firm. That could lead to the conclusion that God cannot do the illogical - it is only because his followered can´t accept any limits on him.

The problematic areas are the ones where we do understand the mechanism... and it is violated.

Logic is, simply, the science of right thinking.

Now that is a little vague. How does this science work?

Like I said - He does not have to be everything, and since he is not in the human intellect/soul, He is not everything. And since we can choose that which lacks Him(evil) He is not everything.

Than this example also would not violate logic. It would not even violate our understanding of logic.
That would mean that both of your examples do not answer my question: what is it that God can do that violates logic?

I presented, based on your second example, such a case: God is everything, while there is something that is not God. This would be a violation of logic. Can God do that or not?

No. The act can only be done by God. Just like I can take a sip from my cup, but can you take a sip from my cup?

I´m not quite sure if I understood that example: yes, of course I can take a sip from your cup. There might be physical reasons that prevent me from doing it now, or indeed completely... but there is no logical reason that would keep me.

But let´s say there was such a reason. It is logically impossible for me to drink from your cup. But I, being omnipotent, can do it regardless... I can violate logic.
In the same way, it is logically impossible for someone to be doing and not doing the same act at once. But not for God, he is omnipotent, he can violate logic.

So even if God does not do an act, he can still do it.
Yes, that does not make sense. It is illogical. A violation of logic... the base of our reality.

No, my statement stays.

Your statement is based on logic. And God can violate this logic.

Not necessarily. If I conclude a hammer can violate logic, the hammer itself cannot do it, so the logical reasoning would be in application and concept of that hammer.

What exact opposite of my initial argument?

You have concluded that a hammer can violate logic. This (whatever it might be) is your "initial argument". But if that hammer can violate logic, it can do so even if you made up a different argument that concluded that a hammer must not violate logic.

No, again, the omnipotence is like a hammer; a tool. It is not used unless manipulated, and like I said, only violates logic in mechanism, whereas the examples you give violate logic in concept. It's the difference between the hammer breaking through a wall and the hammer being invisible and able to shoot lasers.

The problem is that the wall that this hammer is breaking through is the one that tells us what a hammer is. Once it is broken... and it is broken by the very fact that the hammer exists... there is no way to state that a hammer is not invisible and able to shoot lasers.

You want to keep your cake and eat it too. You want to free God from any limits, but have to place limits on him in order to keep your position.

 

[MaxP]

Nothing cannot be bound by any laws, because that would imply that these laws still exist. But "nothing" is also a lack of laws.

Like I said, "nothing" is a comparative term, not an absolute one. Nothing is lack of something. And another problem I see with chaos, you say because there are no laws nothing can be anything, but that is flawed. Nothing is just lack. Lack of potentiality as well. I still see now logic in "nothing's stopping it, so this is what happens." Nothing stopping it, sure, but nothing is causing it either. The fact those laws don't exist also implies nothing else does. And can't without the presence of those laws.

We could say so. If only our understanding of logic is violated, the logic itself stays firm. That could lead to the conclusion that God cannot do the illogical - it is only because his followered can´t accept any limits on him.

He doesn't have limits. The logical extension of this construct is that anything is logical, but possibly beyond our understanding.

The problematic areas are the ones where we do understand the mechanism... and it is violated.

Do you have something in mind when you say this?

Now that is a little vague. How does this science work?

Premise(s) -> Statement(s) -> Conclusion(s)

Than this example also would not violate logic. It would not even violate our understanding of logic.
That would mean that both of your examples do not answer my question: what is it that God can do that violates logic?

Well, once you believe things can be logical that we can't understand, not anything I know of. Perhaps rising from the dead. Multiplying the loaves and fishes. Various miracles since.

I presented, based on your second example, such a case: God is everything, while there is something that is not God. This would be a violation of logic. Can God do that or not?

Yes, but God is not everything, there is that which is not God.

I´m not quite sure if I understood that example: yes, of course I can take a sip from your cup. There might be physical reasons that prevent me from doing it now, or indeed completely... but there is no logical reason that would keep me.

Physical is not logical?

But let´s say there was such a reason. It is logically impossible for me to drink from your cup. But I, being omnipotent, can do it regardless... I can violate logic.
In the same way, it is logically impossible for someone to be doing and not doing the same act at once. But not for God, he is omnipotent, he can violate logic.

Yes, but my point was that act can only be done by God.

So even if God does not do an act, he can still do it.
Yes, that does not make sense. It is illogical. A violation of logic... the base of our reality.

Not really. The act is in potential, not actuality. Also, God would be the origin of our reality... and outside of it.

Your statement is based on logic. And God can violate this logic.

But not necessarily.

You have concluded that a hammer can violate logic. This (whatever it might be) is your "initial argument". But if that hammer can violate logic, it can do so even if you made up a different argument that concluded that a hammer must not violate logic.

It can, but you can demonstrate that the hammer's application and function makes sense.

The problem is that the wall that this hammer is breaking through is the one that tells us what a hammer is. Once it is broken... and it is broken by the very fact that the hammer exists... there is no way to state that a hammer is not invisible and able to shoot lasers.

Once I state logic can be violated, I don't disregard it's use.

You want to keep your cake and eat it too. You want to free God from any limits, but have to place limits on him in order to keep your position.

No, what I do is demonstrate that God is logical, and makes sense, from our standpoint. That is not restricting him, but simply evidence He gave us ability to know Him.

 

[Freodin]

Like I said, "nothing" is a comparative term, not an absolute one. Nothing is lack of something. And another problem I see with chaos, you say because there are no laws nothing can be anything, but that is flawed. Nothing is just lack. Lack of potentiality as well. I still see now logic in "nothing's stopping it, so this is what happens." Nothing stopping it, sure, but nothing is causing it either. The fact those laws don't exist also implies nothing else does. And can't without the presence of those laws.

That would still imply that there is a law that "it can´t happen without the presence of those laws". And these don´t exist.
Yes, I understand why you don´t see any logic in that... there is no logic. It violates logic.

So what?

He doesn't have limits. The logical extension of this construct is that anything is logical, but possibly beyond our understanding.

Do you have something in mind when you say this?

Like the "God is everything, but there is something that is not God" example. We understand that... you yourself said: "The definition of everything, is, of course, the broadest of all, but it is not badly defined."
So here is something that violates logic. It contradicts its own definition. And you agreed that God can do that.

Premise(s) -> Statement(s) -> Conclusion(s)

That´s what I said: "Logic is a form of reasoning that enables you to make correct conclusions from correct premises.". It seems we agree.

Well, once you believe things can be logical that we can't understand, not anything I know of. Perhaps rising from the dead. Multiplying the loaves and fishes. Various miracles since.

Maybe it is your understanding then that is to blame? That you made a statement without having really thought what the consequences are?

Yes, but God is not everything, there is that which is not God.

The initial "yes" is all that is needed. See, it is logic that tells us the limits of concepts.
You made a statement now: "God is not everything". There are logical consequences from this statement. For example, one consequece would be that you know that the statement "God is everything" is wrong.
But if these logical consequences can be violated, the limits of this concept are violated as well. You cannot make a "true" or "false" statement any more.

Physical is not logical?

No, physical is not logical. Physical is based on physical circumstances. Logical is based on the meaning of concepts.
Perhaps you are falling for the common misunderstanding between "logical" and "reasonable"?

Yes, but my point was that act can only be done by God.

So what? We are not talking about humans or ants here... we are talking about the supernatural, either "God" or "Chaos".
It is enough that "God" can do it to show the consequences.

Not really. The act is in potential, not actuality. Also, God would be the origin of our reality... and outside of it.

Is it logical that "potential" is not "actual"?

But not necessarily.

Necessarily is a term of logic. Logic that does not apply.

No, what I do is demonstrate that God is logical, and makes sense, from our standpoint. That is not restricting him, but simply evidence He gave us ability to know Him.

No, it is evidence that your God-concept is based on human imagination. God is everything that humans can imagine, and as soon as this imagination is shown to have some unwanted side-effects, the concept is changed.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

ok so lets get this straight.

God cant do the impossible "like make a square circle"
So god cant make something from nothing since that impossible.
Or if it is possible then god isnt needed.