To act on nothing is to do something?

[2PhiloVoid]

That's the term they use for it. Yep. I didn't make it up. I thought you did a lot of reading...?

I have done a lot of reading, but that doesn't mean I've necessarily read ... everything.

Even if nearly all of creation is neither profane nor divine, but "neutral," there are a lot of unclean things that God could not look upon. Just read the Torah. Imagine if someone walked up to Moses and told him that shellfish are part of the essence of God. Such a person would probably be executed for blasphemy.

And which Rabbinical writings are you referring to in your report of this semantic assessment? As far as I know, the world as it was originally created (y'know, supposedly BEFORE the Fall) was 'Good.' And I'd think that Good in the Hebrew sense is a far-cry from that of Profane in the English sense.

Do you think that God is unclean, or that unclean things are God, or that unclean things are part of God's being? None of those things would be blasphemous?

I'm not even sure what your saying here. As far as I'm concerned theologically, we don't know exactly how God made/brought about/created the Heavens and the Earth? I don't know since the Bible doesn't say.

Is it because I don't use the words "epistemology" and "ontology" enough? Is that what would bridge the gap in communication?

No, not really, but if you refer to terms like the "Gettier problem" or "Skepticism" or Existentialism, those kind of concepts might make it all more palpable for me.

OK so let me get this straight. Christians ridicule atheists for believing that "nothing exploded and here we are."

I'm not aware of having ridiculed any atheists for believing what they believe cosmologically. Maybe you're confusing me with some other Christians? I'm a Critical Realist with Existential leanings. You do remember this tid-bit about me, don't you?

Christians claim to have the answer to the problem of existence, which is that God created us.

Yes, some Christians claim to have an answer to the problem of existence through some simple assertions. But I don't think we all can fully understand how God enables us to conceptually harness any 'answers' He might have for any one of us to ponder.

And then here you are acting like Christians don't have to explain the process of how it all occurred! I'm sorry, but yes you do.

Maybe you think they do, but as I explained to one of the more Fundamentalistic Christians here, since the Bible isn't comprehensive in it information and it wasn't intended to explain much of anything outside of 'salvation history,' then if we can find out anything apart form the Bible on our own, it will only come by way of science and in disconnection from God.

Otherwise, you're not explaining anything at all. In what world can you just help yourself to a heap of assumptions and then act like you don't have to make use of them to give an explanation?

It essentially boils down to Existential Aesthetics on the one side, NV, and an application of Critical Realism to atheistic complaints on the other side, with Philosophical Hermeneutics somewhere in the middle of it all.

I'm already granting you literally any theological assumption you might want, so long as you explicitly define your terms. Absolutely zero evidence is required. You're granted that a being with unlimited power exists, and all I ask is that you don't contradict yourself in the process of answering me (whether that is undermining Christ's sacrifice or blaspheming God).

I can't guarantee that I'll perform flawlessly for your unmitigated entertainment and/or enlightenment. But, I'll try not to contradict myself. Of course, it's kind of difficult to fully contradict myself when most atheists around here never allow me to get into the meat of Critical Realism and all that jazz.

I believe I can speak for most atheists in saying that I do not positively affirm that everything came from nothing, nor that the "stuff" of physical reality is eternal, nor some third possibility that I cannot think of. Obviously something happened, but I don't know what it was. Even if I could somehow explain the mechanics of how something could come from nothing, you'd still tell me that I've only established the possibility and that I need empirical evidence to support my claim. And yet at the same time, you think you can just blurt out "God done it" while providing neither plausible mechanics nor empirical evidence, and then you act like your explanation is better!

I don't blurt out that "God did it"! You've got me confused with someone else. It's not your fault, I know. There's so many views out there that the average atheists can't keep up with the smorgasbord of options that that all of us Christians constantly put out there.

Your explanation is absolutely not better, and in fact it is objectively worse because it provides no extra explanatory power but carries with it an unjustified assumption.

I don't think I've yet even attempted to give any explanation of Cosmology in connection to the Bible as such, especially not in any systematic, William Lane Craig kind of way. Then again, the Kierkegaardian influence within me, along with my Pascalian sympathies, make me deeply grimace at the assumptions that these things, particularly Christian theology, can somehow be fully systematized. As if.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess the conclusion would be that an omnipotent being such as God doesn't need wood to make a table.

No, that's not the conclusion. That's just ignoring the question. I've asked this many times:

"What did God act on?"

Nothing? Ok, great, now let's catch up to the thread title:

"Acting on nothing is doing something?"

Because the reality is that to act on nothing is to do nothing. If nothing is being acted on, then there is no causality. It would just be a table appearing out of nothing for no reason and with no cause, and God would merely be an unparticipating observer who is doing nothing.

Unless, of course, you can explain exactly how it is that acting on nothing is actually doing something. What you can't do is just throw up your hands and say, "God done it."

See, I'm already allowing you to make any theological assumption you like, as long as you're clear on your terms. You can have your disembodied mind who has unlimited power. Given that, you need to give me something in return. You need to do something with the assumption you've been granted.

I mean, imagine if you said, "Ok, let's suppose that the universe came from nothing. But then how did life arise?" And then I reply, "Well I've already got a universe from nothing, so I'm done here!" How stupid would that conversation be?

After all, God, who is a spiritual being, can manifest himself into a physical being. Why then would it not be possible for such a being to manifest matter from a spiritual realm to a physical one?
You just have to use you imagination
View attachment 257449

Ok. And you can just imagine a universe coming from nothing without a God.

Or maybe we could have a serious conversation.

Are you suggesting that God is limited by the laws of conservation of mass?

No. I'm literally allowing for the possibility that he can do anything. You're the one who said he cannot make a square circle, yet somehow he can do something by acting on nothing. I insist that your position be consistent.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It would just be a table appearing out of nothing for no reason and with no cause, and God would merely be an unparticipating observer who is doing nothing.

As opposed to the secular scientific option where we find the table (universe) appearing out of nothing for no reason and with no cause and absent of an unparticipating observer who is doing nothing? That sound more absurd than magic. Because at least with magic you have a guy with a wand making rabbits appear out of nowhere. Yeah...I thing God is a more logical option.

No. I'm literally allowing for the possibility that he can do anything. You're the one who said he cannot make a square circle, yet somehow he can do something by acting on nothing. I insist that your position be consistent.

So you concede that an omnipotent being is not limited by the laws of physics to include the Law of Conservation of Mass. Meaning God is capable of creating or destroying matter. Thus, you concede that God can create matter?

BTW...I said that God cannot do anything contrary to His nature or anything that is a logical contradiction. Just because you don't think it is "logical" doesn't mean that God cannot do it. For example, God doesn't need anything to act on in order to act. Meaning, if God wanted matter to appear, there is nothing stopping him from doing it.

Are you a Marvel fan? Have you watched the Avengers Infinity War? I am only asking because I think I can use it for an illustration.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

As opposed to the secular scientific option where we find the table (universe) appearing out of nothing for no reason and with no cause and absent of an unparticipating observer who is doing nothing? Yeah...I thing God is a more logical option.


So you concede that an omnipotent being is not limited by the laws of physics to include the Law of Conservation of Mass. Meaning God is capable of creating or destroying matter. Thus, you concede that God can create matter?

BTW...I said that God cannot do anything contrary to His nature or anything that is a logical contradiction. Just because you don't think it is "logical" doesn't mean that God cannot do it. For example, God doesn't need anything to act on in order to act. Meaning, if God wanted matter to appear, there is nothing stopping him from doing it.

Are you a Marvel fan? Have you watched the Avengers Infinity War? I am only asking because I think I can use it for an illustration.

If you're just going to redact half of what I have to say, there's no point here. Obviously you're more interested in talking than listening.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If you're just going to redact half of what I have to say, there's no point here. Obviously you're more interested in talking than listening.

I redacted the information that wasn't replying to so it would be easier to focus on what information I am responding. If you would prefer that I not "redact" anything I would be happy to oblige. Now, have you seen infinity war?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I redacted the information that wasn't replying to so it would be easier to focus on what information I am responding. If you would prefer that I not "redact" anything I would be happy to oblige. Now, have you seen infinity war?

Let's keep it simple then. I'll have to just ask you one question at a time.

What's the difference between doing nothing and acting on nothing?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

It depends, do you have omnipotent power over reality, time, and space? Are you capable of thought without acting?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It depends, do you have omnipotent power over reality, time, and space? Are you capable of thought without acting?

In case I wasn't clear on this before, I'm really not interested in games.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In case I wasn't clear on this before, I'm really not interested in games.

It is not a game. Are you capable of thinking without acting on anything? Obviously the answer is "Yes". Therefore you are capable of doing something without acting on anything.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is not a game. Are you capable of thinking without acting on anything?

You are indeed playing games with me. I'm talking about God existing with nothing else, and you ask about having power over reality and space. THERE IS NO REALITY AND SPACE IN THIS SCENARIO. You then go on to ask how powerful you get to be in this hypothetical, despite the fact that I've made it clear from the beginning that God is as powerful as you want him to be. At this point I'm done talking. Either you're going to genuinely answer the question, or I'm out. Your call, I literally don't care.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

You are indeed playing games with me. I'm talking about God existing with nothing else, and you ask about having power over reality and space. THERE IS NO REALITY AND SPACE IN THIS SCENARIO. You then go on to ask how powerful you get to be in this hypothetical, despite the fact that I've made it clear from the beginning that God is as powerful as you want him to be. At this point I'm done talking. Either you're going to genuinely answer the question, or I'm out. Your call, I literally don't care.

Okay, let me break this down for you. Obviously, since you are capable of thought without acting on anything we can conclude that it is possible to do something (think) without acting on anything...right? So if God, who is omnipotent over reality (as you conceded) then what ever thought came to mind, God could make into reality. You may be able to say that God's thought was the "material" that He acted upon with His word. Going back to the table analogy. God would be the carpenter, His word would be the hammer, and His thoughts would be the lumber.

Since I have clearly demonstrated that it is possible to do something without acting upon anything (thought), your entire argument is based on a false premise. Thus, it fails.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Okay, let me break this down for you.

Ok, having read the rest of this post I see where you've been coming from. I retract my statement that you were playing games with me. You've given this some thought, and I appreciate that. However, I still maintain that you're doing much more talking than listening, and I don't appreciate that as much.

Obviously, since you are capable of thought without acting on anything we can conclude that it is possible to do something (think) without acting on anything...right?

No, this is not obvious. And I never agreed to it, if you recall. What else would a disembodied mind be doing besides thinking? How is it that thought and "speaking" are different things for a disembodied mind? Recall you said that God's word brought about creation, and I kept asking you (getting no answer) what God's word ACTED ON. So I can grant that God's thoughts or words can act on things. But what if there's nothing to act on?

So if God, who is omnipotent over reality (as you conceded)

Not relevant. Reality doesn't exist until God creates it and this whole discussion is about what exactly God is doing when he creates.

then what ever thought came to mind, God could make into reality.

How? By acting on what?

You may be able to say that God's thought was the "material" that He acted upon with His word.

This is blasphemous so I reject it as a legitimate Christian explanation.

People in here have been kicking around the idea that the universe is part of God's being. I rejected that for solid reasons. You're just repackaging that idea and passing it off like it's something new. Again, God is a disembodied mind, so his mind *is* his being, so if we are made of God's mind then we are made of God's being, and that is blasphemy.

Going back to the table analogy. God would be the carpenter, His word would be the hammer, and His thoughts would be the lumber.

Nice try, but no. God is his mind. We are not God.

Since I have clearly demonstrated that it is possible to do something without acting upon anything (thought),

Again, what does a disembodied mind even do aside from thinking? Your point makes zero sense.

your entire argument is based on a false premise. Thus, it fails.

Nice try.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Ok, having read the rest of this post I see where you've been coming from. I retract my statement that you were playing games with me. You've given this some thought, and I appreciate that. However, I still maintain that you're doing much more talking than listening, and I don't appreciate that as much.
No, this is not obvious. And I never agreed to it, if you recall. What else would a disembodied mind be doing besides thinking? How is it that thought and "speaking" are different things for a disembodied mind? Recall you said that God's word brought about creation, and I kept asking you (getting no answer) what God's word ACTED ON. So I can grant that God's thoughts or words can act on things. But what if there's nothing to act on?
Not relevant. Reality doesn't exist until God creates it and this whole discussion is about what exactly God is doing when he creates.
How? By acting on what?
This is blasphemous so I reject it as a legitimate Christian explanation.
People in here have been kicking around the idea that the universe is part of God's being. I rejected that for solid reasons. You're just repackaging that idea and passing it off like it's something new. Again, God is a disembodied mind, so his mind *is* his being, so if we are made of God's mind then we are made of God's being, and that is blasphemy.
Nice try, but no. God is his mind. We are not God.
Again, what does a disembodied mind even do aside from thinking? Your point makes zero sense.
Nice try.

You assume that God is a "disembodied mind". I do not think that is correct. God is a spiritual being with a spiritual body with the supreme power to turn the supernatural (spiritual) into what we would call the natural (physical). Therefore, we cannot conclude that God did not have a voice. If indeed God has a spiritual body (which I do), God would have a voice. However, the voice would not be a physical voice (obviously because sound can only travel through particles), rather, it would be a spiritual voice with the power to create. Perhaps this is the same type of "voice" you hear when you are thinking to yourself? Many Christians would consider this inaudible "voice" to be the one used by the Holy Spirit to communicate with them.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Nihilist Virus
I've been following along. I'm not going to make a mess of digging through quotes, but I saw some folks suggest everything is God, and you refuted it by saying that things such as the contents of a toilet can't be God. I think @Tinker Grey is right that that point doesn't work because a distaste for poo is just a subjective dislike.

I think you're on to something when you point out that God can't be sin and evil stuff though. I'd say that it creates a distinct problem for people who consider Hell to be the absence of God though. How many people have told you, "Hell is just the absence of God. You dirty atheists hate Him so much, you get what you want, to be apart from Him!"? That doesn't work anymore. If God is everything, then Hell is God, and we're still in His "presence" or whathaveyou.

That may be a context dependent point because I think it would work in the favor of Annihilationists, and I don't have a skin in this game because I'm not sure why magic can't make things poof into existence out of nothing, but I'm bored and things are slow around here.

Hey @2PhiloVoid, I haven't seen you posting much. I've been looking for a good excuse to use a joke I learned that I think you'll like, but I haven't found one, so here it is without any context whatsoever!

I majored in Philosophy and Literature in college. And by that I mean I thought about reading a book.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You assume that God is a "disembodied mind". I do not think that is correct.

Ok, like I said you're allowed to make any theological assumption that you want, provided you define your terms.

God is a spiritual being with a spiritual body

Meaning what, exactly?

with the supreme power to turn the supernatural into what we would call the natural. Therefore, we cannot conclude that God did not have a voice.

I never said God didn't have a voice. Re-read.

If indeed God has a spiritual body (which I do), God would have a voice. However, the voice would not be a physical voice (obviously because sound can only travel through particles), rather, it would be a spiritual voice with the power to create. Perhaps this is the same type of "voice" you hear when you are thinking to yourself? Many Christians would consider this inaudible "voice" to be the one used by the Holy Spirit to communicate with them.

A bit off topic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I have done a lot of reading, but that doesn't mean I've necessarily read ... everything.

OK.

And which Rabbinical writings are you referring to in your report of this semantic assessment? As far as I know, the world as it was originally created (y'know, supposedly BEFORE the Fall) was 'Good.' And I'd think that Good in the Hebrew sense is a far-cry from that of Profane in the English sense.

I'm going with the Torah.

I'm not even sure what your saying here. As far as I'm concerned theologically, we don't know exactly how God made/brought about/created the Heavens and the Earth? I don't know since the Bible doesn't say.

So then Christianity has no explanation for the problem of existence, right?

No, not really, but if you refer to terms like the "Gettier problem" or "Skepticism" or Existentialism, those kind of concepts might make it all more palpable for me.

I'm not aware of having ridiculed any atheists for believing what they believe cosmologically. Maybe you're confusing me with some other Christians? I'm a Critical Realist with Existential leanings. You do remember this tid-bit about me, don't you?

I said "Christians." Not you. I didn't address you by name or in the second person.

Yes, some Christians claim to have an answer to the problem of existence through some simple assertions. But I don't think we all can fully understand how God enables us to conceptually harness any 'answers' He might have for any one of us to ponder.

Maybe you think they do, but as I explained to one of the more Fundamentalistic Christians here, since the Bible isn't comprehensive in it information and it wasn't intended to explain much of anything outside of 'salvation history,' then if we can find out anything apart form the Bible on our own, it will only come by way of science and in disconnection from God.

It essentially boils down to Existential Aesthetics on the one side, NV, and an application of Critical Realism to atheistic complaints on the other side, with Philosophical Hermeneutics somewhere in the middle of it all.

I can't guarantee that I'll perform flawlessly for your unmitigated entertainment and/or enlightenment. But, I'll try not to contradict myself. Of course, it's kind of difficult to fully contradict myself when most atheists around here never allow me to get into the meat of Critical Realism and all that jazz.

I don't blurt out that "God did it"! You've got me confused with someone else. It's not your fault, I know. There's so many views out there that the average atheists can't keep up with the smorgasbord of options that that all of us Christians constantly put out there.

I don't think I've yet even attempted to give any explanation of Cosmology in connection to the Bible as such, especially not in any systematic, William Lane Craig kind of way. Then again, the Kierkegaardian influence within me, along with my Pascalian sympathies, make me deeply grimace at the assumptions that these things, particularly Christian theology, can somehow be fully systematized. As if.

We're getting quite off topic here. I wanted to know how it is that God could act on nothing to create something. You seem to have indicated that there is no answer to this, so I don't know what there is to talk about.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you capable of thinking without acting on anything? Obviously the answer is "Yes".

No, actually. I can't think without neurons in my brain firing. So thinking is acting on something even if the thing I'm thinking about isn't acted on.

As opposed to the secular scientific option where we find the table (universe) appearing out of nothing for no reason and with no cause and absent of an unparticipating observer who is doing nothing?

Who thinks this?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Nihilist Virus
I've been following along. I'm not going to make a mess of digging through quotes, but I saw some folks suggest everything is God, and you refuted it by saying that things such as the contents of a toilet can't be God. I think @Tinker Grey is right that that point doesn't work because a distaste for poo is just a subjective dislike.

I think you're on to something when you point out that God can't be sin and evil stuff though. I'd say that it creates a distinct problem for people who consider Hell to be the absence of God though. How many people have told you, "Hell is just the absence of God. You dirty atheists hate Him so much, you get what you want, to be apart from Him!"? That doesn't work anymore. If God is everything, then Hell is God, and we're still in His "presence" or whathaveyou.

That may be a context dependent point because I think it would work in the favor of Annihilationists, and I don't have a skin in this game because I'm not sure why magic can't make things poof into existence out of nothing, but I'm bored and things are slow around here.

Hey @2PhiloVoid, I haven't seen you posting much. I've been looking for a good excuse to use a joke I learned that I think you'll like, but I haven't found one, so here it is without any context whatsoever!

I majored in Philosophy and Literature in college. And by that I mean I thought about reading a book.

A distaste of poo is subjective, sure. But the Torah made it clear that some things are unclean. There's no way that the authors of the OT would've said that unclean things are part of the being of God. And, as you pointed out, there's no way the authors of the NT thought that the lake of fire is part of the being of God. I think this is pretty much a lethal argument against Christianity. Their only defense is the age-old tactic of deliberate obfuscation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK.



I'm going with the Torah.

Oh, ok. But I NEVER go with "just" the Bible. Doing so these days is just so contextually 'yesterday.'

So then Christianity has no explanation for the problem of existence, right?

Not a scientific one, if that's what you mean.

I said "Christians." Not you. I didn't address you by name or in the second person.

Alright. I appreciate your clarification.

We're getting quite off topic here. I wanted to know how it is that God could act on nothing to create something. You seem to have indicated that there is no answer to this, so I don't know what there is to talk about.

I'm not sure how God acted on "nothing" without asking God directly. But since He doesn't seem to be available at the moment for an interview, I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess that if He could be interviewed, He'd give me a preface to the meat of the interview that sounds ... something like this [particularly the second half of this short, 4 minute vid]: (And yes, I'm choosing Frank Close OVER Lawrence Krauss. Besides, the later of these two is on paid leave from his position for the moment ... I figure that "means" something, contextually speaking.)

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not sure how God acted on "nothing" without asking God directly. But since He doesn't seem to be available at the moment for an interview, I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess that if He could be interviewed, He'd give me a preface to the meat of the interview that sounds ... something like this [particularly the second half of this short, 4 minute vid]: (And yes, I'm choosing Frank Close OVER Lawrence Krauss. Besides, the later of these two is on paid leave from his position for the moment ... I figure that "means" something, contextually speaking.)

I've heard Larry agree with Frank that atoms are mostly empty space. Sean Carrol disagrees, though. How do you feel about him? He starts talking about it in this video about three minutes in. There is a decent amount of casual swearing.