Something from nothing and God

[MaxP]

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.

Missing the point. God can do the impossible, but only God can do the impossible.

 

[brightmorningstar]

I still agree with 70x7's comment on the first page, some are trying to limit Gods abilites by the "rules" of logic and human understanding. We cant correct their limited human understanding through limited human understanding.

 

[MaxP]

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?

Than how can you conclude for it? It seems, to me, a cop-out. There's nothing stopping, but there's nothing to cause, but hey! Logic doesn't apply so I'm wrong.

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.

Yes, admittedly I don't think He would violate the laws of this universe in such an instance.

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.

Mine was cooler.

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

How so?

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.

I go often on the assumption God will not violate the rules of the universe He himself set in place, so I could make a true/false statement with that premise.

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"?

In a logical argument, you can make a statement based on physical reasons. That's what we mean when we say truth: that which has basis in reality.

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.

I would have to make a couple points here. As I stated earlier, God is completely outside our existence, but through our existence we can get a rudimentary intellectual knowledge of Him. There are some aspects we can't understand, at least not from this perspective. And God created the laws of this universe, so while He is above them, He is not completely seperate from them, and made them so we could know Him. I also believe when God operates He operates within the bounds of this universes' laws, at least on a macro scale.

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

Yes.

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

It is?
As far as I knew, formal logic only had 3 kinds of verbal expression and 4 kinds of statements, none of which are "necessarily," although two come close.
My question is, though, where do you say stop? It seems to me logic only doesn't apply when its use appears to contradict chaos. And so far you have only given explanations of nothing for chaos, but it is not enough to demonstrate it may be possible, but you have to demonstrate why.

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.

God hasn't changed. His relationship with us has.
Personally, I think your chaos to be foremost an atheist's god and secondly invalid.

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

1) God existed first
2) God knew everything that would ever happen throughout time
3) God created us
4) Therefore God created us to do everything that would ever happen **
5) Therefore God created us to sin and then spend eternity suffering in Hell when we did not repent
6) Therefore God is evil
7) God does not exist

** Since God knew everything that will ever happen, he knew whether I would pick an apple or a banana from the fruit bowl today, therefore he must have created me to do just that

And who said something can't come from nothing?
http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

 

[Freodin]

Than how can you conclude for it? It seems, to me, a cop-out. There's nothing stopping, but there's nothing to cause, but hey! Logic doesn't apply so I'm wrong.

It is not a cop-out. It is the full picture. It is a complete presentation of what happens when you disregard logic.

How so?

I have shown all the examples you brought in answer to my question as to what God does that violates logic as lacking. You could not think of some example where God would really do that what you claimed he can. The counterexamples I brought on you almost ignored and always tried to relativate with "Yes, he can, but he doesn´t."

That makes me think that you have not really thought about what it would really mean if God could violate logic. You do not seem to understand the consequences when I tell you about Chaos violating logic. It seem that you simply cannot fathom that concept... but still you want to apply it to God.

Yes, admittedly I don't think He would violate the laws of this universe in such an instance.

I go often on the assumption God will not violate the rules of the universe He himself set in place, so I could make a true/false statement with that premise.

I don´t want to sound harsh... but in the light of the first sentence of your quoted post perhaps you can how this could be seen as a cop-out.

There are certain consequences of "violating logic". You used the image of a hammer, a tool, but that is incorrect. "Violating logic" is not something that you can use and put away when it becomes inconvenient. "Violating logic" means that "true" and "false" lose their meaning - and thus any statement you might make, any premise is no longer based on logic, but on faith.

I would have to make a couple points here. As I stated earlier, God is completely outside our existence, but through our existence we can get a rudimentary intellectual knowledge of Him. There are some aspects we can't understand, at least not from this perspective. And God created the laws of this universe, so while He is above them, He is not completely seperate from them, and made them so we could know Him. I also believe when God operates He operates within the bounds of this universes' laws, at least on a macro scale.

Faith, not logic again. This might be fine for Christians, but does not convince an unbeliever.

Yes.

The same logic that God can violate, but does not because it would invalidate your argument?

My question is, though, where do you say stop? It seems to me logic only doesn't apply when its use appears to contradict chaos. And so far you have only given explanations of nothing for chaos, but it is not enough to demonstrate it may be possible, but you have to demonstrate why.

I know that this is an extremely difficult concept, but I think that you are approaching it from the wrong side.
You assume that I postulate "Chaos", attribute something to it and deny your attempts to argue against it by stating "Nja, nja, logic does not apply."

This is wrong. The starting point is "What is when logic does not exist?" The end-point of this thought is something that is not possible to describe. I chose the term "Chaos" as name, because the connotations almost fit, because people just shut down mentally when I call it "nothing".
What the results of such a state might be is speculation. It is a valid speculation, one that does withstand any attack because it simply evaporates the attackers ammunition. That does not mean it is correct, it only means that you cannot show it wrong.

As for "demonstrating why"... again these are ideas, speculations, that I do not attribute "absolute truth" to. But as long as they are not defeated, they stand as a valid alternative to the common God-concept.
Idea: Chaos does not "create". Chaos does not "cause". Chaos, for the lack of a better term, just "is". But within this "state of being", a subset might - if logic would apply I would even say "must" - exist where logic works. This would be the basis for a stable, logical existence, imbedded in a greater existence without logic.
If you want to call that "God", it would be a pantheistic god.

But the "demonstrating why" is at least possible here. Or rather not necessary... there does not need to be a "why" when everything is.
On the other hand, a God who creates specific things outside of him would need to answer the question "why". You need a cause to explain action - I don´t, because I don´t postulate actions.

So why did God create the universe in the way he did? What caused him?

 

[tcampen]

1) God existed first
2) God knew everything that would ever happen throughout time
3) God created us
4) Therefore God created us to do everything that would ever happen **
5) Therefore God created us to sin and then spend eternity suffering in Hell when we did not repent
6) Therefore God is evil
7) God does not exist

** Since God knew everything that will ever happen, he knew whether I would pick an apple or a banana from the fruit bowl today, therefore he must have created me to do just that

And who said something can't come from nothing?
http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm

Matt, you bring up the great unresolved question of free will vs. omniscience. How can I possibly do anything other than what God already knew I would do since before the universe was created? This is a subtle distinction between forcing a particular choice, and eliminating viable options thereby leaving only one choice - whether the person choosing knows it or not.

If I cannot make any choice except of the exact one God knows I will choose, where is my free will. If God knows with perfect and absolute certainty that I will choose the apple from the fruit bowl, do I really have the freedom to instead pick the apple? From this perspective, free will requires a point at which the actual choice is simply not known by any being. Omniscience is contrary to this aspect of free will. Thus, true omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.

 

[Joachim]

The proof of God's existence are in the laws of science. If there was no God we could not be here because the Big Bang could not have been a random occurance. This is why theistic evolution (not intelligent design) is the most likely reason for existence.

 

[Freodin]

The proof of God's existence are in the laws of science. If there was no God we could not be here because the Big Bang could not have been a random occurance. This is why theistic evolution (not intelligent design) is the most likely reason for existence.

I have to disagree.

First there is nothing that would enable someone to state "the Big Bang could not have been a random occurance".

Second you don´t need God to start it.

 

[tcampen]

The proof of God's existence are in the laws of science. If there was no God we could not be here because the Big Bang could not have been a random occurance. This is why theistic evolution (not intelligent design) is the most likely reason for existence.

We really don't know if this is true or not true. It is a metaphysical statement without any real basis behind it. Perhaps this is the only type of laws that we could have had from a naturally "created" universe. Perhaps there are countless universes as part of a multi-verse. Perhaps our universe and its laws are the necessary result of a big, impersonal god-like being that just poops out universes like ours. Perhaps its the result of a quantum fluctuation from nothingness. Who knows? Nobody really does, and its possible we never really will. So, for now, it's all just speculation.

 

[b&wpac4]

Peter Kreeft is Catholic, and known to me. He believe God created world, so it not impossible for all powerful God to create world, just impossible to defy logic. Logic, say Kreeft, demand that something start everything: unmove mover- God. No infinite regress. Right?

Those are the points that he suggests, correct.

 

[Wyzaard]

Now, something cannot come from nothing because nothing is absolute lack - lack of any actuality or potentiality. That which has no potential to exist will not, ever, exist. Thus nothing can only beget nothing.

And thus is not any sort of something that can be meaningfully explicated by any existing means.

God is something. He is omnipotent. There was no prior substance to His creation, "nothing," that we have now, but not absolute nothing as in the example above.

Errr... you're muddying your terms.

Due to God's omnipotence, He can do anything - "logically" possible or not

If we were to take this state of 'indeterminable contradiction' at face value, then everything spoken about this 'god' may be trivially complete and true for any reason. God is evil, good, and an infinite pecan pie... yummy!

- and thus while God exists, everything is in the realm of potentiality.

This could be the case with nay number of other potentiality-laden 'somethings'.

 

[tcampen]

How is it logically possible to create something, meaning real matter and energy, from absolute nothing by a non-material force? Inductively speaking, I've seen no reason to thing this is anything but speculation. When has the possiblity of such a thing happening ever been demonstrated?