To act on nothing is to do something?

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Interesting vid capturing Carrol's view. Personally, I like to listen to Carrol as I do other Theoretical Physicists. And I think he sums up part of what is going on at a social, humanly perceptual scale, one that he nails at point 7:07 - 7:10 in the vid. In essence he says (or admits), "It's Hermeneutics, baby!"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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

So God's word is not sufficient. Interesting. Are you Catholic?

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

I mean any kind whatsoever, so long as it is self-consistent and well defined. No evidence required. These are nonnegotiable as minimum requirements.

Alright. I appreciate your clarification.

Well it's not a clarification... you just misread it initially.

I'm not sure how God acted on "nothing" without asking God directly.

Right, so like I said, unfortunately I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Your religion does not meet the absolute bare minimum requirements to stake a claim at solving the problem of existence.

But since He doesn't seem to be available at the moment for an interview,

And why is that? No, really. Why?

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.)

None of that is relevant to causality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So God's word is not sufficient. Interesting. Are you Catholic?

In another sense of the word, I am..........

I mean any kind whatsoever, so long as it is self-consistent and well defined. No evidence required. These are nonnegotiable as minimum requirements.

As I've said in other places, if the Bible does not provide us comprehensive information on any topic---just indices--then we'll not find what we today would qualify as an 'explanation.' Thus, if the Biblical writers didn't know enough to fill in all of the details in a systematic, comprehensive way, then we're essentially left with existential poetry of sorts. The Bible isn't nothing, but it may not be the 'something' that many are looking for today. Ultimately, since the Bible does not explain God's metaphysics, nor provide a systematic epistemology, then our decision to 'believe' and thereby place faith in Christ will ultimately come down to Axiological qualities that we are either drawn to Existentially through our personal conceptual aptitudes and preferences, or......we'll reject them. For me, it comes down to an Aesthetic, existential choice after I've considered everything else, such as.......the weaknesses of Atheism as a final position on the God question.

Well it's not a clarification... you just misread it initially.

Ok.

Right, so like I said, unfortunately I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Your religion does not meet the absolute bare minimum requirements to stake a claim at solving the problem of existence.

And your atheism, true to form, evades the various Hermeneutical considerations that I personally (Subjectively) think are relevant, at least as I see it. But, there's also those nasty epistemological problems I've so often talked about in the past regarding the nature of the Christian faith, so not all of my complaint can be laid at your doorstep. Some, just not all of it.

And why is that? No, really. Why?

I love vicious circles, don't you?

None of that is relevant to causality.

....forgive me, but it's almost like you want God to show up and provide the final Unification Principle so you can know the full answer to the mystery of our existence, universe and all (i.e. us). Unfortunately, despite what Fundamentalist Christians will say, I don't think God has intended to give us that info. So, what Frank Close said at the end of the short vid I provided is as close as any of us will ever get to even beginning to link the concepts together.

I suggest that if you're REALLY wanting to find belief, you expand your Hermeneutical horizons ... beyond the typical directions in physics and cosmology.

 

[Chriliman]

I believe that is blasphemous. You're implying that everything is God, including, among other things, the contents of a toilet. Is that your position?

I believe there has always been something for God to act on, an eternal relationship if you will and at some point something changed in that relationship which ultimately lead to where we are now. I’ll refer back to our earlier conversation about the possibility of evil. That possibility was always there in eternity past up until it actualized, then God had to remove the evil and the possibility of it from heaven and hopefully eventually earth as well.

I also believe it’s nonsensical to think anything can come from literally nothing. Even the concept of ‘literally nothing’ is itself some’thing’.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In another sense of the word, I am..........

No thanks to the word games. I get it though, good one. Ha ha.

As I've said in other places, if the Bible does not provide us comprehensive information on any topic---just indices--then we'll not find what we today would qualify as an 'explanation.' Thus, if the Biblical writers didn't know enough to fill in all of the details in a systematic, comprehensive way, then we're essentially left with existential poetry of sorts.

False dilemma. Divine dictates don't have to be either comprehensive explanations or cryptic poetry. God could have relayed specific pieces of information to indicate a divine source of knowledge while not giving a comprehensive overview of any field of study. As it is, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that couldn't have come from human beings. And no, there's no prophecy in there - recall that I explained this in detail.

The Bible isn't nothing, but it may not be the 'something' that many are looking for today. Ultimately, since the Bible does not explain God's metaphysics, nor provide a systematic epistemology, then our decision to 'believe' and thereby place faith in Christ will ultimately come down to Axiological qualities that we are either drawn to Existentially through our personal conceptual aptitudes and preferences, or......we'll reject them.

Literally anything at all could be assumed to be true as an axiom. This is worthless, and you know it.

For me, it comes down to an Aesthetic, existential choice after I've considered everything else, such as.......the weaknesses of Atheism as a final position on the God question.

Weaknesses of atheism on the position of the God question? The atheist position is, "I reject your claim" and that is the rational, most reasonable position to take since you have not met your burden of proof. Forget burden of proof, like I said, you don't even meet the absolute bare minimum requirement. Acceptance of Christianity is absolutely and completely irrational.

Ok.

And your atheism, true to form, evades the various Hermeneutical considerations that I personally (Subjectively) think are relevant, at least as I see it.

It's just not relevant to the point I'm asking. Perhaps you have a great point, but even a dumb answer to a question is better than an intelligent point that is not even relevant to what was asked.

But, there's also those nasty epistemological problems I've so often talked about in the past regarding the nature of the Christian faith, so not all of my complaint can be laid at your doorstep. Some, just not all of it.

Or none. Just focus on the OP please.

I love vicious circles, don't you?

My spidey sense is detecting Sye Ten Bruggencate. Please, just don't.

....forgive me, but it's almost like you want God to show up and provide the final Unification Principle so you can know the full answer to the mystery of our existence, universe and all (i.e. us).

Isn't it funny that atheists want your God to show up, and you think it's a terrible idea for your God to show up?

Unfortunately, despite what Fundamentalist Christians will say, I don't think God has intended to give us that info. So, what Frank Close said at the end of the short vid I provided is as close as any of us will ever get to even beginning to link the concepts together.

I suggest that if you're REALLY wanting to find belief, you expand your Hermeneutical horizons ... beyond the typical directions in physics and cosmology.

I don't want to find belief. I want to find the truth. You're wrong from the outset.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I believe there has always been something for God to act on, an eternal relationship if you will and at some point something changed in that relationship which ultimately lead to where we are now. I’ll refer back to our earlier conversation about the possibility of evil. That possibility was always there in eternity past up until it actualized, then God had to remove the evil and the possibility of it from heaven and hopefully eventually earth as well.

I also believe it’s nonsensical to think anything can come from literally nothing. Even the concept of ‘literally nothing’ is itself some’thing’.

As I've said in the thread, this is the best position available to you. However, I don't understand why you think God is necessary given the eternal existence of "stuff." Do you believe that physical reality could absolutely never reach this state without some kind of intelligent guidance?

 

[Chriliman]

As I've said in the thread, this is the best position available to you. However, I don't understand why you think God is necessary given the eternal existence of "stuff." Do you believe that physical reality could absolutely never reach this state without some kind of intelligent guidance?

Recently, I have considered the idea of an eternity past of cycling universes creating our current reality and even an immortal God and I think it’s possible. The challenge is whether or not it’s possible to demonstrate.

Also, if an immortal God was made in this way, then we’d still be held accountable to it, assuming it is the God of Christ. However, I have yet to find evidence of this possibility in scripture.

 

[Shimokita]

Christians agree that God is omnipotent, but disagree on what that means. Some believe that God can do anything, including logically impossible tasks, while others believe that God can do "anything that is logically possible" (we can tentatively assume that this is well defined). This is not a true dichotomy and there might be other interpretations out there, but most Christians accept one of these two definitions and so that is what I will address.

Suppose that God can only perform tasks that are logically possible.

On the list of impossible tasks, right before "make a square circle" and right after "make a one-ended stick," is the task of "do something by acting on nothing."

In the absence of creation, nothing existed except for God. Even given unlimited power, how does one do something by acting on nothing? Creation is a process of causality, and causality requires an input and an output. That's how it works. The Christian assertion is that God used causality to generate an input without an output, which is logically impossible.

Suppose instead that God can perform any task, even if it is logically impossible.

Why, then, did Jesus die on the cross? What is the point of that if God is able to forgive us as an act of will? I don't need to cut off my hand to feed my dog - he will love me just the same if I give him dog food. So I don't see why Jesus would need to pointlessly suffer to show his love for us when he could just do that by giving us eternal life.



So please tell me which horn of this false dilemma you want to defend, or feel free to defend a third horn by redefining omnipotence. Or perhaps explain how it is that acting on nothing is actually doing something. Thanks.

The OP wrote that "causality requires an input and an output."

That is false. His argument rests on the assumption that the above assertion is true, but the assertion is false. He has not proved the assertion, and until he has proved it, the assertion and the rest of his argument should be rejected.

The OP has made the assertion, thus it is his burden to prove that it is true.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Recently, I have considered the idea of an eternity past of cycling universes creating our current reality and even an immortal God and I think it’s possible. The challenge is whether or not it’s possible to demonstrate.

Also, if an immortal God was made in this way, then we’d still be held accountable to it, assuming it is the God of Christ. However, I have yet to find evidence of this possibility in scripture.

True, there's no evidence for that position, either in reality or in your religion. But I'm not asking for evidence here on this thread - just a position that is self-consistent and which does not undermine the core principles of Christianity.

While your position does that, like I've said, it also has the problem of demoting God's existence from necessary to unnecessary. To say that physical material is eternal but that a God is needed to shape the world into its current state is a hard sale given what we know about quantum mechanics.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The OP wrote that "causality requires an input and an output."

That is false.

Can you provide a counter example? The title of this thread is,

To act on nothing is to do something?

Perhaps you can explain how this is so.

His argument rests on the assumption that the above assertion is true, but the assertion is false. He has not proved the assertion, and until he has proved it, the assertion and the rest of his argument should be rejected.

How many times do you need to see an apple fall to the ground to accept that this is just how gravity works?

And yet my position is even stronger than that, because while we've managed to make some things go up and never come back down, we've never performed an act of causality without acting on something. Nor can we even comprehend in principle how that would work. So my claim is based on the entirety of reality, and you reject it based on nothing... or perhaps because of your agenda to preserve the idea of creatio ex nihilo. But I'm saying that's in the category of square circles. If someone thinks a square circle is actually possible to exist, they wouldn't blabber on and on - they would just draw one! And if you think you can perform an action without acting on anything at all, just explain how it's done, or maybe make a YouTube video demonstrating it.

The OP has made the assertion, thus it is his burden to prove that it is true.

You're asking me to prove a negative. How much do you want, exactly? I think we're as sure of my claim as we are that 2+2=4.

 

[Tone]

God's word would be the cause and the creation would be the effect. Naturally, God would be the medium at which His word is the 'cause' for the 'effect' of the universe's existence. Could you please explain as to why this would be logically impossible?

I guess I am just confused as to what you mean by "acting on". I think it is simple. God said "Let there be light" then light came to exist. His word was the cause and the existence of light was the effect.

They think words are nothing...that's why they can't comprehend what you're saying.

 

[Shimokita]

Can you provide a counter example? The title of this thread is,

To act on nothing is to do something?

Perhaps you can explain how this is so.



How many times do you need to see an apple fall to the ground to accept that this is just how gravity works?

And yet my position is even stronger than that, because while we've managed to make some things go up and never come back down, we've never performed an act of causality without acting on something. Nor can we even comprehend in principle how that would work. So my claim is based on the entirety of reality, and you reject it based on nothing... or perhaps because of your agenda to preserve the idea of creatio ex nihilo. But I'm saying that's in the category of square circles. If someone thinks a square circle is actually possible to exist, they wouldn't blabber on and on - they would just draw one! And if you think you can perform an action without acting on anything at all, just explain how it's done, or maybe make a YouTube video demonstrating it.



You're asking me to prove a negative. How much do you want, exactly? I think we're as sure of my claim as we are that 2+2=4.

I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove your assumption that causality requires an input and an output. You have not proved it, thus it is to be rejected. As for what you wrote above, that is not a proof. That is a rant.

 

[Tone]

Can something spring forth from nothing? Perhaps... who knows?

Evidently evolutionists do,since, if life didn't spring from His Word...it sprang from...what...?

 

[Tone]

In the state of reality wherein nothing exists except for God

He is not a thing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove your assumption that causality requires an input and an output. You have not proved it, thus it is to be rejected. As for what you wrote above, that is not a proof. That is a rant.

To act on nothing is to do nothing. There's my proof.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Evidently evolutionists do,since, if life didn't spring from His Word...it sprang from...what...?

Off topic.

He is not a thing.

Then he is no thing, which we refer to as nothing.

 

[Shimokita]

To act on nothing is to do nothing. There's my proof.

Nonsense

 

[Tone]

Off topic.



Then he is no thing, which we refer to as nothing.

Are your words a thing?

 

[Tone]

He is not something or anything also.

 

[Tone]

"To act on nothing is to do something?"

Then he is no thing, which we refer to as nothing.

So, we can change this to:

"To act on God is to do something?"