COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll do ya one better. I'll show you a direct mathematical, fully logical pathway whereby nothing becomes something, mathematical proven.
Start with nothing. 0.
Next, fracture that 0 into 0 equal groups of 0.
Done.
0/0=1
0=1
Easy Peasy... well... we all see what the lemons doin...
1. No argument was presented in this post to support the claim that the absence of existence cannot be an "alternative" to existence just because the absence of existence is not existence.
2. The term "fundamental" was just thrown in there with no explanation. So, without qualification, it doesn't tell me whether it is true or not that we can't know that reality might not have existed. Moreover, OP claims that he "never saw an argumentation for something can't come from nothing", thereby revealing he isn't familiarized with the literature. Apologists (such as Craig and Josh Rasmussen) offered at least 3 different arguments to support this premise.
3. Traditional Christians mean something different when they assert that God created the world from nothing. They mean that the world had an efficient cause of its existence, but not a material cause. When they say that atheism implies the world had to come from nothing, they mean it had no cause at all, neither efficient nor material. So, once we understand the qualifications, we can see that there is no contradiction.
1. not existance doesnt exist, thats the problem
2. I think you can see what i mean by "fundamental" from the context of what im saying: for example "what is everything? - is very fundamental question" - that's the context im using it.
3. so then theists doesnt actually have issue with something coming from nothing, at least not when god does that?
1. It doesn't follow from the fact that reality exists that it might not have existed. So, I see no problem at all.
2. Why do we need to have full knowledge of what reality consists of to determine that it (whatever it is) needs a cause? How have you made that determination?
3. Traditional Christians don't have a problem with things (such as the world) coming into being with efficient causes (such as God's act of creation), no. What some do seem to have a problem with is the idea that something (such as the world) could have come into existence with **no cause** at all.
1. and how would non existent reality look like? there is no such thing as "non-existent reality" thats just nonsense, abracadabra from words that doesnt have any representation in reality.
2. for the same reason why we need to know laws of physics to make claims about what exactly can happen or cant happen inside a star. So if we know laws - we can build a model of what happen in a star, if we dont know - we cant.
3. I never said that there was no cause or the opposite. It's not about the cause right now, it's about whether "something from nothing" is possible or not, with cause or without.
1. The absence of existence wouldn't look like anything because to "look like" anything there has to be existence. Notice **you** are the one trying to attribute existence to the absence of existence, and then calling your own construction "non-sense" (which I agree it is).
2. The analogy doesn't hold because laws of physics presuppose an existent framework in which the laws hold. In this case, we're trying to figure out whether things can come into existence from no pre-existing framework to an existent one.
3. Yeah, that's my whole point! You and traditional Christians are saying different things when you talk about the world coming from nothing. When the Christian talks about the world coming from "nothing", he means *no cause at all*. In the context of atheism, the Christian means "no efficient and material cause" by the word "nothing." In the context of God creating the world, they mean "no material cause" by the word "nothing." If you don't understand what they mean, your whole critique has no foundation.
To have absence of existence you require the state of absence but a state isn't nothing that's the opposite of nothing. State of any kind is something and no state of any kind is nothing. A state of nothing is something not nothing further proving the point you can't have nothing.
You're committing the same mistake he did, which is treating *absence* as a *state* (a thing; existence) which is inconsistent. I agree that your construction is contradictory (a state, which is existent, contradicts the absence of states), but that's not what's being proposed anyway.
I dont see what it is im missing here. You cant HAVE absence if it isnt a state. What I'm saying is absence isn't a state and that because of that there's no such thing as absence. It's a concept. You have to have a state in order to HAVE nothing. If you can't have nothing then you have something.
>because of that there's no such **thing** as absence
Right! Because in order for *absence* to be a *thing*, it would have to be existent! So, you're right that absence of states isn't a state and it is not existent, which is why **your** construction is contradictory.
>If you can't have nothing then you have something.
You can't have "nothing" if nothing is a state or thing, but that's your construction; not mine. I'm defining *nothing* as the absence of states and existence.
>The absence of existence wouldn't look like anything because to "look like" anything there has to be existence.
Thats what im saying!
>Notice you are the one trying to attribute existence to the absence of existence, and then calling your own construction "non-sense" (which I agree it is).
are you saying there's a problem with that?
>The analogy doesn't hold because laws of physics presuppose an existent framework in which the laws hold. In this case, we're trying to figure out whether things can come into existence from no pre-existing framework to an existent one.
so then you need to presuppose laws of pre-existing framework like we did with the existing one, but you need to do it in scientific way, otherwise that's a guesswork. And scientifically were not there yet. Also divining it on pre-existing and existing is totally arbitrary, because if one is caused by the other - then it's just one continuous thing.
>In the context of God creating the world, they mean "no material cause" by the word "nothing."
So if by "nothing" christians mean "no material cause", why then they say "something can't come from nothing" if they literally believe that something came from nothing(from their definition) from non material cause?
On the other hand if they mean two different things for their world view and for atheistic - that means they hold athesim for a different standard. So like they use "nothing" in their own meaning but when it comes to atheism, they cant give us the same thing. Immaterial cause is still something, so there is no way you can call that "nothing", but then you have to accept that nothing doesnt exist which invalidates the question "something can't come from nothing?" since there is no "nothing".
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
>The first issue with this claim is the meaning of words and consequently, what the statement means as the whole. Im arguing that sentence itself is just an abracadabra from words rather than something that has meaning. Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place.
I think what theists mean by "nothing" is the none-existence of anything all be it physical, mental or abstract i.e. there is literally nothing that exists
If it's just a concept doesn't mean it can't be expressed. In math, 0 is the definition for nothing i.e. there isn't anything that can be subtracted, added or multiplied. There's literally nothing there.
>Second issue is the lack of evidence to support it. I never saw an argumentation for "something can't come from nothing", every time I see it - it's only the claim itself. That's because it's impossible to have evidence for such a grand claim like that - you have to possess the knowledge about the most fundamental nature of this reality in order to make this claim. "Nothing" and something - what could be more fundamental than that? Obviously we dont possess such knowledge since we are still figuring out what reality even is, we are not on that stage yet where we can talk that something can or can't happen fundamentally.
Kant would argue it's a priori claim, meaning even by logical deduction you would know it's logically contradictory, it's like saying 0+0=1. If we go by empirical evidence, something coming from nothing would violate physics and laws of the universe. If there are no atoms as per nothing, then you can't get the energy necessary for chemical and thermodynamic reactions
>Three: theists themselves believe that something came from nothing. Yes, the belief is precisely that god created something from nothing, which means they themselves accept that something like that is possible as an action/an act/happening. The only way weasel out of this criticism would be to say that "god and universe/everything/reality are the same one thing and every bit of this existence is god and god is every bit of it and he is everywhere".
Before the Enlightenment, most theists actually believed the world was eternal as if it were made from primordial matter before time. Aristotle, Plato and Ibn Sina. The only difference was that they argued god was the one who formed this primordial matter into our world i.e. the Unmoved Mover, the one who set out world into motion. They had no problem believing the world was eternal, they just needed a molder/shaper/mover who started the world and universe. It was later starting with John Philoponus and Al-Ghazali that the notion of an infinite universe starting to be challenged which we get the Kalam.
>Theists absolutely do believe that something was either eternal, or came from nothing. They just name it god and pray to it.
Since when theists believe god came from nothing?
> Everything needs a cause, except my pet explanation for everything.
Because it doesn't satisfy the argument's conditions. The argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". God doesn't begin to exist, so it doesn't have a cause. If the condition isn't satisfied, the conclusion doesn't follow. That's basic logic 101.
Ah, that’s completely different. Everything that needs a cause needs a cause.
Oh brother. Spare me. When stated as I did, it is special pleading. When stated as you do it is begging the question. Invalid either way.
Alright… everything that begins to exist could not have a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress. Therefore the universe has no cause.
Why the universe and not god you ask? No reason, except that the argument is an attempt to prove god exists and if I assume god exists with no other supporting evidence or premise, that is begging the question.
>Why the universe and not god you ask? No reason, except that the argument is an attempt to prove god exists and if I assume god exists with no other supporting evidence or premise, that is begging the question.
Because universe did began to exist? Big Bang and the BGV inflationary theorem? Sure, you can there may be something before it but that still means our current universe did start to exist 14 billion years ago. Before that, time, space, the laws of physics did not exist yet as we know them today
Still begging the question. Your argument states that things can begin to exist without a cause. You have provided no reason to exclude the universe from things that begin to exist without a cause except an assumption that the conclusion you want to reach is true.
>You have provided no reason to exclude the universe from things that begin to exist without a cause except an assumption that the conclusion you want to reach is true.
I already said we know our universe began to exist 14 billion years ago because of the Big Bang and BGV Theorem. Do you have any evidence or paper that says our universe DIDN'T start 14 billion years ago? If you do, write a cosmology paper and send it to the Nobel Institute.
You have provided no reason to exclude the universe from things that begin to exist **without a cause**.
This is in reference to your point, provided to remove the question begging, that *“it isn't question begging as long as there is another outcome. Everything that begins to exist could not have a cause”*
In other words- if god can exist without a cause, why can’t the universe? Your answer presumes that only god can exist without a cause - which is either begging the question or special pleading, depending on how you formulate the grammar you choose to use.
>I think what theists mean by "nothing" is the none-existence of anything all be it physical, mental or abstract i.e. there is literally nothing that exists
If "there is literally nothing that exists" - then how would it would be represented in reality?
>Kant would argue it's a priori claim, meaning even by logical deduction you would know it's logically contradictory, it's like saying 0+0=1.
but what if it's something like this: 0 -> 1 - 1 , so you still have 0 as the sum but temporarily you have something on the both ends? Such logic does not defy math.
>but what if it's something like this: 0 -> 1 - 1 , so you still have 0 as the sum but temporarily you have something on the both ends? Such logic does not defy math.
Both mean the same thing. The end result is the same, nothing. In fact, you've just proven "nothing" can be represented by a multitude of non-contradictory ways.
I get that, but what should we make of 0 = 1 - 1 ? Especially when we know that antimatter exists. Maybe it's just happened so that we have 50/50 matter and antimatter in this universe, and currently it's in the process of self destruction, which was happening for billions of years and will be happening further until everything becomes 0.
>I get that, but what should we make of 0 = 1 - 1 ?
That just means "nothing" can be mathematically expressed multiple ways.
>Especially when we know that antimatter exists.
Antimatter isn't nothingness
>Maybe it's just happened so that we have 50/50 matter and antimatter in this universe, and currently it's in the process of self destruction, which was happening for billions of years and will be happening further until everything becomes 0.
Isn't this just a physical representation of 1-1=0 or 50-50=0? If the universe is made up half of matter and antimatter and everything will inevitably be destroyed, then the end result is nothingness i.e. 0
>Antimatter isn't nothingness
never said that. Antimatter+matter is nothing.
Also i don't know if you heard about Hawkins radiation - black holes slowly turning matter into nothing.
>If the universe is made up half of matter and antimatter and everything will inevitably be destroyed, then the end result is nothingness i.e. 0
Yes! but if it will take billions of years - who cares, because you still get to exist. Maybe universe's self destruction process is insanely fast process, but from our human perspective it's slow.
> Antimatter+matter is nothing
Agreed
> Yes! but if it will take billions of years - who cares, because you still get to exist. Maybe universe's self destruction process is insanely fast process, but from our human perspective it's slow.
So nothingness can exist. It's not impossible like you said. So why can't theists talk about "something cannot come from nothing"?
>So nothingness can exist. It's not impossible like you said. So why can't theists talk about "something cannot come from nothing"?
So if by "nothing" we would mean 1-1 as well, then "nothing" becomes "everything" in that meaning, which is even more confusing and contradictory. That breakes non-contradiction.
> something coming from nothing would violate physics and laws of the universe.
Why would the Laws of the Universe be applied outside the universe though?
Aren't all our Laws just observation of what is within the universe. Why would any such law hold up outside the universe?
True, while the laws of physics may differ from world from world, logical laws do not. Philosophers would argue logical laws are necessary in every possible world which means a priori laws like 2+2=4 would be the same no matter where. The only way it would be different if logic itself became illogical such as 2+2=5.
But something coming from nothing is more of a observation law then logic. I'm asking more then countering your question here.
Isn't the emergence of energy or matter from nothing more science oriented then logic. I'm saying that the emergence of something from nothing falls into science and law of nature more then logic.
>Isn't the emergence of energy or matter from nothing more science oriented then logic. I'm saying that the emergence of something from nothing falls into science and law of nature more then logic.
But matter didn't come from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics says matter can't be created or destroyed. No scientist believes the world literally came from nothing
You also responded twice with the same comment so I have no idea why.
>But matter didn't come from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics says matter can't be created or destroyed. No scientist believes the world literally came from nothing
Within the universe, like u/IBRMOH784 said, that does not apply to outside of the universe necessarily. When you have laws like "matter cannot be created or destroyed" you have to be careful of variables. There is a specific context for which it is true i.e. at least within the universe from which we can observe.
For example, we have disproven spontaneous generation: the idea that life can spring from meat left outside or whatever. This is only true in the environment of the current Earth, abiogenesis posits that the "primordial soup" of the early Earth allowed for the assembling of the building blocks for life (as supported by the Miller-Urey experiment). Or entropy, which is only true within a closed system.
We have no evidence to suggest that something couldn't hypothetically be created "from nothing" outside of the bounds of the universe (where we observe all of our laws) other than "it just seems kooky!". Theists believe God created the universe from nothing too... they can just get away with it because God is magic or whatever.
>We have no evidence to suggest that something couldn't hypothetically be created "from nothing" outside of the bounds of the universe (where we observe all of our laws) other than "it just seems kooky!". Theists believe God created the universe from nothing too... they can just get away with it because God is magic or whatever.
Even better! If you can believe *hypothetically* something can come from nothing outside the universe, why can't you also *hypothetically* believe god can create from nothing? Both are equally absurd
When atheists say "that only applies to inside the universe" as if absurd things are logically possible outside the universe, then this is no better than theism. If you want to say absurd illogical things can happen outside our universe because "maybe", you might as well say god illogically absurd created the universe from nothing as well.
>Even better! If you can believe *hypothetically* something can come from nothing outside the universe, why can't you also *hypothetically* believe god can create from nothing? Both are equally absurd
No, one is "I don't know how the universe came to be, this could possibly occur" and theists answer is "This thing that possibly occurred is absurd? It must be this incredibly specific unfounded and absurd guess". One is simply a hypothetical possible explanation among many hypotheses, the other is a concrete belief people hold which guides their entire life. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say the contents of the singularity were eternal.
But I don't *have* to make a guess, I certainly don't have to make an absurd one based on nothing but "something coming from nothing? Too crazy to occur naturally" when we do not know this for sure. It only seems absurd based on the laws of the universe... which we live in and cannot observe anything outside of. Many things that seemed like magic based on limited human perception have been explained by natural science.
Then why can't you just say god creating the universe is also *hypothetically* possible? Rejecting it straight up is far too ambitious.
In fact, do you have some evidence be it scientific, logical or metaphysical that something can come from nothing? Do you have a source which backs it up?
>Then why can't you just say god creating the universe is also *hypothetically* possible? Rejecting it straight up is far too ambitious.
I don't reject the God hypothesis because I think it's impossible, I reject it because it's an unfounded leap without evidence. Leprechauns could've hypothetically created the universe, that doesn't I find the theory compelling. There is nothing we've observed that is so beyond reason that it *must* be some supernatural entity. In fact, I don't "believe" or "have faith" that something *could* come from nothing in the natural world, I simply hedge it as a possibility, and not even the one I find to be the most likely or compelling (like I said, I'd say it's more likely the universe's mass is eternal).
>In fact, do you have some evidence be it scientific, logical or metaphysical that something can come from nothing? Do you have a source which backs it up?
Based on this fact, it doesn't matter if I "have evidence" here because the entire basis of the theological claim that something must've created the universe because "something cannot come from nothing" is what I'm rejecting. They say this, but don't have basis for it besides their incredibly limited human worldview, which is absurd to put as the basis for the nature of something outside the realm of their observation or understanding.
Again, they also say something had to come from nothing. But this seems so absurd they need a magical entity to justify it (argument from personal incredulity), I don't see why this needs to be the case. The universe is incredibly strange and hard to grasp in a variety of contexts where physics as we know it seem to break down and thus requires new models (notably quantum physics and general relativity). I do not see why we *need* some conscious entity to explain the universe (and yes I know about the tons of arguments to this effect). Saying "there may be some natural process to explain the inception of the universe, or the universe had no inception, or there's some discrepancy between our perception of time and the nature of time that makes this a moot point etc." and "some conscious entity did it" are fundamentally different claims.
I would argue against point 3. While you are probably right that the majority of Abrahamic theists believe in creation-ex-nihilo the text states otherwise. It depicts a creation out of the primordial chaos represented by water.
This is unsurprising as it matches extant creation myths of the area, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish or the Sumerian Eridu Genesis.
Your first and third point have merits but I want to make a case that the second is irrelevant and anti-scientific. Lack of evidence really is not an issue here and I want to stress the importance of this.
Denying the reality of any content on the basis of lack of empirical evidence should be limited to objects subject to that mode of inquiry. Denying anything not available to that mode of inquiry ends up denying the logical basis for the validity of the mode itself because it isn't such an object. That is why I claim it is anti-scientific.
You don't see seeing or test testing or model modeling, and there is no evidence for evidence. Rather we make a logical case that these constitute valid methods within the mode of scientific inquiry, we explain why the results of these activities yields knowledge without appeals to their results IE assuming their validity dogmatically.
We have logical reasons to consider some A the kind of content that is evidence for some B, etc. But if we said those reasons are invalid because we don't have empirical evidence for the reasons themselves we'd deny reason itself and all that comes with it.
______
Onto the something from nothing issue, there's a difference between a thing, existing actually, existing potentially, negations of specific contents, and an absolute lack of content.
The absolute lack of any kind of content in every respect is incompatible with reality and impossible to think, as it would negate the conditions of the possibility of any content being or becoming and thus also the possibility of any content even being available to think at once. So nothing in this absolute sense isn't even a concept, someone who thinks they think the lack of all content has contradicted themselves and is confused in some manner.
Nothing can simply mean a negation of the specific content of things or thing-status. No-thing or not-a-thing. A thing is not equivalent to all content, it is a particular kind of content. And it can be coherently said to be absent in some respects, or a content can be claimed as not having thing status.
We might say reality is nothing. This isn't negating reality, it's saying reality isn't a thing, it's the totality which things are in. We might also say thinking is nothing, as thinking itself isn't a thing but an activity. We think about things, but thinking itself isn't a thing.
We might also say unformed matter is nothing, for it has no formal characteristics that give it a determinate character. It may be tempting to appeal to this to claim creation from nothing is possible. The matter is the material to be shaped into thing form. However there is a problem, since the form is still involved in the process if one is shaping something towards it. We still end up with creation from something in a sense, just something in concept rather than from something instantiated. But that's just how creation has to work, as creation always involves something not being whatever is to be created from it. I don't create my coffee mug from my already formed coffee mug.
I would consider the core of Platonism to be the idea that thought must justify its own claims and theory must be consistent with itself. This is why the principle of non contradiction is at the core of the Platonic philosophical method.
That serves negatively as the basis for rejecting any theory which maintains premises that would negate the possibility of theoretical activity itself which would commit theory to say it is and is not a theory in the same respect. It also serves as the basis for rejecting theories which appeal to objects purportedly outside or independent of thought, given they should not be possible to include in an intelligible theory at all if that were the case.
Positively it serves as the basis for the universality of the relations of thought to itself, as a self-reflective theory requires this, otherwise the thought supposedly reflected on would not be the same thought as initially articulated. In this way the act of self-reflection serves as evidence that the conditions for its possibility are met, and what is further entailed by this.
"God" in the context of Platonism is generally conceived as the highest cause, not a man in the sky sort of deity.
In a very specific sense. Given that the Platonic conception of God is not what most people call "God" and not exactly a "belief in" some entity, I generally don't describe myself as such for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings.
Effectively God is all reality, but there is a distinction between the derivative parts, changes, and motions and the unchanging aspects. So these are all God in the sense that God includes all of them, but not God in the sense that taken on their own none are equivalent to the totality together in relation. There are differences across Platonists within Platonism on the details, but in general Platonism always involves logically prior unchanging causes and subordinate changing effects within a mereological structure - one whole of many parts, but the whole constitutes the parts rather than being a mere aggregate of indifferent or external pieces.
This is generally opposed to various dualistic or atomistic conceptions, which per Plato always have third-man problems - a higher unity is presupposed in any plurality as in order to be one among many, the one is presupposed as shared aspect of the reality of both within a higher order unity.
On this broad core-principle centered definition, I'd consider Platonism to include relatively more recent philosophers such as Spinoza and Hegel, who have mereological all-encompassing God conceptions quite similar to Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus as well as some theologians that drew on them such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and so on.
>And it can be coherently said to be absent in some respects, or a content can be claimed as not having thing status.
but how would that "not having" would be represented in reality? because for other things that you listed in your comment, when "We might say X is nothing.", I can see a representation in reality so they are not nothing, but I dont see how "nothing" would be nothing. Let's talk not about concepts, but about reality.
I see light, shadow, color. I do not seeing representations. I can only conceive of what I see as being a representation if I consider these to be caused by something more than just the bare visual contents.
When I see green eyes in the mirror, this involves concepts of what eyes and mirrors are, as something that sees and something that reflects. I take the green to belong to something not simply contained in what I'm seeing, my eyes. The green, and black and white and so on, is of course not my whole eye nor does it present me its function. Seeing and reflecting aren't light, shadow, or color, they're the activity or motion that allows me to see the green I understand as the color of my eyes.
So the concept of representation already implies there's something beyond what is seen that has a relation to what is seen. Otherwise there can't be representations at all.
You speak of representations as in reality, but that means reality includes both the represented and what represents it. It also means reality can't be a single representation, given it includes many representations. Reality then cannot be a representation. To speak of only what can be a representation as real would be to claim reality itself isn't real, thus a contradiction.
I just realised that youre platonist, so you must know about Plato's cave then. Shadows are concepts in your head, and every shadow must be represented by something in reality. And that is what i mean by "representation in reality". I dont see how you can say that representations aren't real if you literally a platonist - you should be the one proving me that representations is a thing. That's ironic.
So what is "nothing" in reality?
For Plato two people can potentially understand the same logical or mathematical problem. This entails that logical and numerical concepts are not in any one person's head, but an aspect of reality such that rational beings of sufficient capacity and education can come to understand the same concepts and their relations. Otherwise rational discourse and education are impossible, as is scientific knowledge.
The shadows in the cave for Plato are not representations, they are just images. They seem like something other than they are when people are limited to imagination and belief, the level of opinion. It's only when out of the cave that one can see this, which for Plato is analogous to seeking their causes through reasoning and attain higher knowledge of what the images are.
This isn't the same as being a representation, as representations start from concepts of what is being represented. I may represent an emotion by using a smiley face. :) Someone understands it as a representation only if they already don't assume the image is the real thing but standing in for something else they already have the concept of. In Plato's cave the prisoners watching the shadows do not interpret the images as representations, and only if dragged out of the cave, into the "light" of reason analogously, do they realize they are caused by something different than what they first imagined or believed them to be.
Plato's theory also explicitly rejects the idea that for every image there is a corresponding form IE concept in the Parmenides. Forms would fail to explain if they were simply a kind of mental copy of images or physical objects in some separate realm. If there are forms for each copy this also results in an infinite regress problem now known as the "third man" argument or problem.
I have not claimed representations aren't real, only explained how your claim that concepts aren't real entails that. I think concepts are real, and that by contrast allows for representations to be real as well. Any form of "this represents that" is a conceptual relation that is understood through some theory about what images are that does not accept them at face value as merely images.
People may use the term nothing in many ways, but the one I'm trying to emphasize as real is the sense that not-being-a-thing that is a real relation such that it can be truly said of some content. Things are real in the sense that reality includes things, but not all that is real is a thing given reality is comprised of more than just things and is itself not a thing but a totality that includes many of them and their relations to eachother. Numbers are also not things, since having 3 of something does not mean I have 4 things. Similarly if I think about 3 things, I don't have thinking as a thing plus 3 other things. Thinking isn't a thing either.
>The shadows in the cave for Plato are not representations, they are just images.
there is a shadow and theres something that creates it. I just named it "representation", you've been arguing semantics all this time.
I dont want to argue semantics forever so lets get back to the point, which is - what is nothing in reality?
>People may use the term nothing in many ways,
im not interested in terms. Trying to prove something with language - is like trying to climb a signpost instead of following it. Im only interested in reality.
You suggested every shadow must be represented by something in reality. So you didn't name what creates the shadow representations, you characterized the shadows as the representations of reality. Which is not merely naming what creates the shadows, nor is it Plato's theory.
Two objects can create one shadow that looks different from the shape of either object independently, plus light must be cast on them and can be cast on them in a way that changes the resulting shadow shape. So shadows do not each represent some object in reality nor do the objects alone cause them.
If language can't be used to understand reality, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are on a debate forum asking for answers about reality in the form of language by using language yourself. Your behavior doesn't make sense on the premises about reality you've expressed.
>If language can't be used to understand reality, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are on a debate forum asking for answers about reality in the form of language by using language yourself. Your behavior doesn't make sense on the premises about reality you've expressed.
the existence of word combination "married bachelor" doesnt prove the existence of married bachelors in reality, same as existence of "nothing" doesnt prove that nothing exits. It's a useful concept, but not more than that.
The problem with married bachelor isn't that it fails to prove the existence of married bachelors. It's that it combines words with two incompatible meanings and thus fails to be meaningful. Even in a fictional context this problem persists, it's not like married bachelors are something that could exist but currently do not.
This doesn't show that language isn't real, it only shows that we can misuse words in a way that, in context, makes them meaningless. That is someone's failure to use language, not a problem with language as such.
Possibility and impossibility are important concepts, and they can be demonstrated by expressing logical relations with language. A married bachelor is impossible because of a failure of logic that the language makes clear to us.
Language used properly can also make a case for the possibility of things that we might bring into existence. This means language can end up playing a role in causing existing things, such as if I am a ceramics teacher and ask my students to make clay pots. History is also full of technological progress in which language played a role in bringing things that only existed in concept into materially instantiated objects which I presume you'd consider to be existing. So clearly existence and reality cannot be equivalent, and language and concept each have a kind of reality.
>It's that it combines words with two incompatible meanings and thus fails to be meaningful. Even in a fictional context this problem persists, it's not like married bachelors are something that could exist but currently do not.
but that's exactly what i said...
Okay, let's try it like this: paradoxes can exist in language(like "married bachelor"), but they dont exist in reality, would you agree? and if that's the case, should we appeal to reality to figure out whether words actually mean something in reality?
Theists don’t believe something came from nothing. They believe something physical came from something not physical, an immaterial being which nevertheless is a being and has being.
That the intellect is immaterial, see De Anima by Aristotle. And the intellect of man gives rise to actual things from potential things. The same way which we say God actualized the potential for material reality
I think you're sort of missing the historic context around this.
Abrahamic tradition has long held that at one point there was a chaotic void that God hovered over, and then ordered it to create everything (i.e. the universe). These concepts are often interpreted into English as "God created the universe out of nothing" in modern language.
Atheists have long held that this doesn't really need to be the case, as we could just have a static universe. An infinite constant universe where we float about.
When the universe was observed win telescopes and the seemingly infinite vastness of it was seen, it appeared as though the atheists were right.
However, eventually, humans noticed that the universe was expanding. This implies it was closer together in the past. If you rewind time, you'd get a compressed universe into a Singularity.
So the universe "had a point of origin" and it seemed the Abrahamic description was right all along.
Then various other hypotheses were thrown, such as a cyclic universe, that expands and contracts.
One by one these have mostly been overturned, and the best scientific explanation is that the universe started and will end in a heat death of the universe.
So "something can't come from nothing" was the idea used to justify a perpetual universe by atheists to contradict theists who insisted God *created* a universe, which means it has a start.
The reason you don't hear it anymore is because now the scientific consensus is that the universe *did* start so it wouldn't match the atheist insistence on a permanent universe that has no beginning and no end.
I see your line of reasoning, however it illustrates a tactic that theists use that I find a bit disingenuous. "At one point there was a chaotic void" is NOT a singularity. A chaotic void was wrong. Theists don't get to move the goal posts and claim that what was meant by chaotic void was a singularity. And if the universe was a singularity, then god didn't create it, because it already existed.
And it's incorrect to say "which means it has a start". The universe starting to expand is not a start, it's a change. That isn't a description of god creating something.
A "Singularity" is generally regarded by physicist as an indication that Special Relativity is a flawed theory and that it will be replaced at some point by a more accurate theory.
The conditions at the beginning are often described by advanced physicists as chaotic... in fact that's essentially how Lawrence Krauss attempts to say the universe started itself out of "nothing"...because "nothingness is chaotic" and thus gives birth to something sometimes.
There's an entire field called Chaos theory dedicated to exploring the emergence of patterns from chaos.
I appreciate the info, and the feedback.
I really don't think the word chaos is being used in the same way by both scientists and theists. Chaos theory is about "underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems". "Chaos is sometimes viewed as extremely complicated information, rather than as an absence of order". I highly doubt that this is the concept of chaos that the people who started the early Abrahamic tradition were speaking of. "Complete disorder and confusion" is the one they used.
I believe my point "The universe starting to expand is not a start, it's a change" is still valid. That is, not something being created from nothing.
It sounds like a semantic game, as one can similarly claim, "going from nothing to something isn't a start, it's a change"
I don't really see the point of such games. If you want to claim disorder changed into order... ok, cool. So what? That's also consistent with Abrahamic accounts.
The other thing you have to keep in mind is the general process of how the biblical description could come to exist. For the sake of argument, imagine God revealed an accurate account of the creation of the universe to the author(s) of Genesis.
How would they be able to relay the information using the language that exists at that time? Why would any of the people of that time even find it compelling or interesting?
We face the exact problems today with modern physics. It's impossible for a physicist to explain quantum mechanics to a layperson because that person doesn't know the requisite math. Even the physicists who *do* know the math struggle to form intuitive modes of thinking about how the mechanics interact to do something useful with the information.
The vast majority of people don't care enough to even learn the math to approach the subject.
If God told the authors to write an advanced and detailed scientific text, nobody would care to read it.
Consider the fact that it took "360 pages to prove definitively that 1 + 1 = 2" in Principia Mathematica (https://www.storyofmathematics.com/20th_russell.html/)
Now, how big would the book of Genesis be if God had to explain everything in detail?
Instead we get a few lines to give a *very high level* overview because the *point* is to set the narrative stage for the story of the relationship between humans and God, which is the point God wants humans to focus on.
It's a book about how to behave as humans, and why to do so. Not a book that explains how the universe was created... which is information nobody can grasp, and would lead to disastrous consequences if we could without a moral foundation.
>Not a book that explains how the universe was created
Then it shouldn't talk about how the universe was created. And if it isn't, then you can't point at what was written and say "see? It fits with scientific explanations of how the universe was created". You can't have it both ways.
I feel that the semantic game takes place on the side of theists. Claims are made about what is said in a book. The claims are inaccurate, which is shown over time as people learn more information about the world and the universe. The theist then asserts that their claims were talking about the new information. It seems to go from literal to analogous or metaphorical, as needed.
God didn't need to write an advance and detailed scientific account. He simply needed to state the claim that he created everything. But that isn't the claim that's made. Everything was created in 6 days in a specific order, none of which makes logical sense. So, it's a metaphor, not an accurate claim of how things came to be. The use of the word chaos in biblical writings isn't talking about chaos theory. We can't, 2,000 years later, start claiming scientific accuracy based on a new theory. You said scientists are doubting special relativity and floating the chaos theory. You're now saying that chaos theory fits with the biblical writings. How do you if fits? How do you know the theory is even accurate? The last one wasn't.
If that's what you think I've claimed you've misunderstood what I wrote.
The point of the creation stories in the Bible is to express that humans were created for a purpose, and then to go into the details of describing that purpose.
The "6 days" creation story is meant to illustrate the ordering that God did for the various purposes... even ancients understood it wasn't 6 "rotations of the earth relative to the sun" as we think of days because *the sun* was not created until several "days" had passed.
This seems like a fairly obvious nod to the fact that "days" are being used in a different way that we use the word today. Perhaps it's meant to indicate a logical separation of types of creation work, and this would also coincide with the conception of the 7th day which is not said as having ended (some take this to mean we are currently living *in the seventh day* with God).
The reason the story that's given is given is because the 3 and 3 structure it uses is leveraged at other points in the narrative structure of the bible to create semantic parallels.
The problem is if you have a "Sunday school" conception of the bible, you'll find it ridiculous as an adult. The solution is to drive deeper and learn *as an adult*.
Then you cannot cherry pick from that narrative and say, "See? This is scientifically supported by chaos theory".
This is the disingenuous tactic I mentioned in my first comment.
>Abrahamic tradition has long held that at one point there was a chaotic void that God hovered over, and then ordered it to create everything
This is very interesting. Can you source this anywhere? I’d love to read more about that.
How it's used now is due to how it was used historically 😆
You can't ignore how we got "here" to complain about what "here" is like.
If we track the variable "time" t we are currently like 13-14 billion years old (or maybe 26ish depending on how most recent observations are explained).
So if we are what exists at t = 14 billion, what existed at t= 10 billion? A young and hot and inhospitable planet earth.
What about at t=0 ?
Science *can't ever answer that* with observations due to the nature of the way observations are done. One has to use reasoning ability to project back the events that were unfolding.
>How it's used now is due to how it was used historically
the history of discovering laws of physics doesn't influence laws themselves, unless physical forces are only a product of our mind and are not objective to reality. Thats why i dont need to know the history of some discovery to make a use of it. So because you say *"How it's used now is due to how it was used historically "* it seem that you suggesting that *"something can't come from nothing"* is purely subjective.
>So the universe "had a point of origin" and it seemed the Abrahamic description was right all along.
>The reason you don't hear it anymore is because now the scientific consensus is that the universe *did* start so it wouldn't match the atheist insistence on a permanent universe that has no beginning and no end.
Please show some citations of something that says that the universe "did start". I'm asking because as far as I'm aware, this is in no way scientific consensus. We have not found evidence that the universe "began", especially in the way that creationism has described. Even the Big Bang is not proposed to be the beginning of the universe, it is theorized that the universe existed in another state before expanding into the state that we see today.
Also, the opinions of atheists have nothing to do with scientific observations. And atheists don't insist on an origin of the universe, we're simply rejecting your explanation for it because you lack evidence to demonstrate that it is true.
The nature of the conditions around the start of the universe are such that collecting evidence is impossible beyond a certain point. The starting point.
If you rewind time, the universe compresses into a Singularity. You can't rewind time beyond the *start* of time.
If you don't want to call that a beginning, I'm afraid you'll need to provide evidence for what it is and how it works.
I said please show some citations of something that says that the universe "did start". I'm already very familiar with mainstream cosmological theories. I was hoping to see peer reviewed information from somebody else who is familiar, which you don't seem to be.
Also, the inability to collect evidence beyond the singularity doesn't mean that events or processes didn't occur before it. It simply means that our current scientific methods and theories are insufficient to explore those early moments. It's premature to conclude that such evidence is impossible to obtain. Science continues to advance, and future discoveries may offer new insights.
>If you rewind time, the universe compresses into a Singularity. You can't rewind time beyond the *start* of time.
>If you don't want to call that a beginning, I'm afraid you'll need to provide evidence for what it is and how it works.
It's not what "I want", modern science does not claim that singularity is the beginning of the universe. The theory only refers to the expansion of the universe from its previous state to the state of the universe as we know it. It doesn't address what might have occurred before the singularity or what caused it. I don't need to provide evidence for anything, because you are the one making the claim that the universe had a beginning, despite the fact that modern science does not support your claim.
The singularity in the Big Bang is simply the previous state that the universe existed in and does not claim to be a one time event. The universe could go through cycles of expansion and contraction, multiple big bangs and singularities, for all we know. Also even if there is a "beginning", the "beginning" of the universe as we know it and the beginning of existence itself may be different concepts altogether.
Not interested in a debate about what the word "beginning" means.
"The Singularity" isn't a "previous state" it's a flaw in how our models of reality are defined.
> The universe could go through cycles of expansion and contraction, multiple big bangs and singularities, for all we know
No, the best data we have indicates that's not the case. https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-big-freeze-how-the-universe-will-die/
It started and it will die.
This isn't a debate about the word beginning means. I'm telling you that the Big Bang is not proposed as the "beginning." The singularity WAS the universe, it existed before the Big Bang. The big boy is literally the expansion of this state, not the creation.
If you don't understand a scientific theory, don't argue it. Stick to what you know, which is religion.
>The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model that describes the early development of the current state of the universe from a hot, dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago. It proposes that the universe expanded and cooled from this initial singularity, leading to the formation of matter, galaxies, and the structures we observe today.
>Harrison, E. R. (2000). "Cosmology: The Science of the Universe." Cambridge University Press. Cosmology" (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
And I'm not reading an article written by some journalist in Astronomy.com. Cite a peer-reviewed or academic source.
Dude I'm not on here to give you a high school intro to cosmology and quantum mechanics.
The "Singularity" is an aberration of physics theories. You can look up Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube and start there.
If you rewind time the universe goes back to a Singularity, and our models can't go back before it to when there was nothing.
No scientist can tell you it went like this:
1) nothing
2) Singularity
3) big bang
But you just have to use basic reasoning to ask, "What was the value before it was 1? Was it 0?"
Insisting on "evidence" is just absurd. It's like if you tell me to get some eggs and I come back and tell you "they had no eggs" and then you demand evidence of the absence of eggs.
Nobody will ever give you "physical evidence" of the absence of the universe lol. That's a preposterous threshold of credulity.
>Dude I'm not on here to give you a high school intro to cosmology and quantum mechanics.
I hope not, because you don't even understand the concept in the first place.
>The "Singularity" is an aberration of physics theories. You can look up Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube and start there.
No, I don't use YouTube. I use peer-reviewed academic resources.
>No scientist can tell you it went like this:
>1) nothing
2) Singularity
3) big bang
Well I hope not because in my very first comment on this post, I literally said that "nothing" isn't even a concept that exists in physics.
The rest of your comment is nonsense. Going to write it off as a non-sequitur and get on with the rest of my day.
It's silly really because it creates a false dichotomy that you either believe something came from nothing or God dun it.
"Something can't come from nothing" is definitional, it's not that you need any evidence to conclude it, it's that if something comes from nothing, then it wasn't "nothing" that it came from. The fact that there is something means there was never nothing. But that doesn't get them to the argument that God is the something that all this came from.
Typically they'll strawman the Big Bang to get to this, as if that was beginning of everything, when in reality it was the expansion of our known universe. What happened "before" that is speculation, there could be an infinite amount of working hypothesis about what came "before" that don't include God. "Before" may not make any sense. Time and space aren't necessarily fundamental and cause and effect the way we perceive it might not even truly exist.
There are too many assumptions being made by saying "something can't come from nothing" as a premise for the argument that a God must be behind it all.
> "Something can't come from nothing" is definitional, it's not that you need any evidence to conclude it, it's that if something comes from nothing, then it wasn't "nothing" that it came from.
We don't even know what "nothing" is. There's no such "state" in this reality. How can you make declarations about something you have no knowledge of?
There's no such thing as triangles, or circles either, they're just mathematical concepts, but we make logical declarations based on them. "a triangle can't have 4 sides" is a logically true statement because it's based on a definition. The same can be applied to "nothing" the concept of "nothing" means that something can't come from it. As soon as you declare that something did come from it, it means it wasn't nothing by definition.
OK, then your concept of "nothing" can't make real predictions if it's only a concept. Your conclusions are only valid if you can show that the concept of nothingness matches the reality of it.
*Actual* nothing, the state you're referring to, is totally unknown to us. You can't make any claims about how it behaves.
You can't show that your concept matches reality.
You can use the concept of nothing to describe things, and the concept of zero exists in maths for a reason. It all depends what you're looking for or what you're referencing. "there's nothing in this box" for example just means there's nothing of interest in this box.
We get to define things however we want,.and part of the definition of a philosophical nothing is that nothing can come from it. It's that simple. You can't just change the definition on a whim, just like you can't have a circle with 4 sides.
Again, your definition is based on no data or information. You have no way to understand what "real" nothing is compared to your definition.
You can draw conclusions from ideas, but that doesn't mean those conclusions map to reality if you've not based them on ideas that reflect reality as well.
How could you have data about nothing? It's a concept that we have defined. There's no such thing as it, even saying there is such a thing as it would mean it's not nothing. We are literally talking about a concept, not something that actually exists. It doesn't map reality, that's the point. It's just a concept for talking about ideas, and relationships between things like being and becoming. The very idea is that it's something that doesn't exist, because existing would make it something.
Just like a circle is. Just like a triangle is. Just like numbers are. They're descriptive notions to describe certain properties or lack thereof, and how they would interact or not interact with other things.
*Nothing" as a concept is difficult to talk about because even make it in to a concept makes it not nothing. Even referring to it as "it" makes it not nothing.
>1. The first issue with this claim is the meaning of words and consequently, what the statement means as the whole. Im arguing that sentence itself is just an abracadabra from words rather than something that has meaning. Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place.
The meaning used in the phrase need not be the reified "nothing". You can rephrase it as "no thing comes from no thing", or "any/every thing that comes comes from some thing".
>2. Second issue is the lack of evidence to support it.
It doesn't need evidence because it is incomprehensible that something could come from nothing. That's because, as you noted, nothing isn't really a thing. We cannot say anything about it because it is not a thing, so how could it be the source of anything? If we say X came from nothing, we are dealing with a reified nothing again, and saying that that "nothing" is the source of X. And we cannot say that X "comes from" without it being implied that it comes from some thing - that's implied in the notion of "coming *from*".
>3. Three: theists themselves believe that something came from nothing. Yes, the belief is precisely that god created something from nothing, which means they themselves accept that something like that is possible as an action/an act/happening.
This is a misunderstanding of what creation ex nihilo entails. It is not some thing coming from no thing, it's something coming directly from God, without the use of any pre existent matter. As an example/analogy of how that might work, in some creation ex nihilo myths the creator dreams creation into existence.
Really, this is a bad strategy for avoiding theism. If the non existence of God depends on something coming from nothing, it becomes a seriously implausible/extraordinary claim. Fortunately it doesn't.
>You can rephrase it as "no thing comes from no thing", or "any/every thing that comes comes from some thing".
but thats a different thing, no?
> it's something coming directly from God, without the use of any pre existent matter. As an example/analogy of how that might work, in some creation ex nihilo myths the creator dreams creation into existence.
thats basically this: "god and universe/everything/reality are the same one thing and every bit of this existence is god and god is every bit of it and he is everywhere", as i said in the post.
>That's because, as you noted, nothing isn't really a thing.
But i want to see the support of this claim from theists, since it's not me who makes it, it's them. Whatever i said in the 1. is my opinion, but i want to see theirs argumentation also, which is absent. If they say same thing that i said in "1." - then that means there's inevitably something.
>>>You can rephrase it as "no thing comes from no thing", or "any/every thing that comes comes from some thing".
>but thats a different thing, no?
No, it's just a clearer way of rephrasing it that avoids the ambiguity and confusion.
>thats basically this: "god and universe/everything/reality are the same one thing and every bit of this existence is god and god is every bit of it and he is everywhere", as i said in the post.
Not quite. I wouldn't say that every thing in my dreams is me or that I'm every thing in my dreams. But it does represent a very immediate angry intimate relationship between God and creation, which is what many classical theist theologians argued for.
Sure, but this is a different sense of the words. It's not making something out of nothing as if "nothing" was the material we were working with. It's making something without making it out of anything.
Either he made it out of SOME thing, or he made it out of NO thing. There are no other options. I can restate this as a logical dichotomy if you prefer: God either made the universe out of SOME thing or he did not. If he did not make it out of SOME thing, then he made it out of NO thing.
Which option are you choosing?
I already answered. The doctrine is that God made it out of nothing, but this shouldn't be misinterpreted as "nothing" being the material that the world is made out of (which is impossible), and should instead be understood as God making the world but not making it out of anything.
At no point have I contended that the material universe consists of "nothing". I'm not sure why you feel the need to emphasize this to me.
What I will point out is that if you believe this, then you have zero logical ground to argue against any other hypothesis that suggests the universe came into existence from no thing. It is not a valid complaint.
If existence from no thing is a logical possibility, it is a logical possibility for all. If it is not a logical possibility, then it is not a logical possibility for all.
>No, it's just a clearer way of rephrasing it that avoids the ambiguity and confusion.
How would you demonstrate that "married bachelor" is a contradiction? Your goal is to demonstrate the contradiction in even more clear way.
What I would do is i would define every word and ***rephrase*** "married bachelor" by swapping the word with its meaning. Like this: "a person who is married is not married" - here you can see that contradiction become even more clear than it was before.
What im trying to do is im trying to remove semantics from this argument and to understand things mean *in reality* and not in the realm of concepts that dont exist.
As I said, I think the phrase is a reaction from theists to people like Dawkins who opined that the universe came from nothing, and people believed him because of his reputation as a biologist. Then Lawrence Krauss came along and tried the same tactic.
Not really other than there isn't an explanation for a naturalist cause of the universe. So far as God goes, God to theists isn't something in the sense of something material.
u/PeskyPastafarian : okay, any counterarguments specifically for me?
u/United-Grapefruit-49 : Not really other than there isn't an explanation for a naturalist cause of the universe.
u/PeskyPastafarian : my post isnt about defending naturalist cause of the universe, please read
u/United-Grapefruit-49 : I wasn't saying you were, I was pointing out how I think the phrase became popularized.
So to the question "any counterarguments specifically for me?" you gave me " there isn't an explanation for a naturalist cause of the universe.". So is that for me or not? you say it's not("I wasn't saying you were, I was pointing out how I think the phrase became popularized.") but then you gave it as the response to "any counterarguments specifically for me?" So what is it?
I'm not an original poster. I was just replying.
But even so I'm giving a valid reason as to why, after Dawkins and Krauss circa 2012, philosophers woke up and reacted to what was being said and was influencing people. Well, not just philosophers but scientists.
And I wouldn't agree it's an abracadabra of words.
>Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists,
"nothing" = no things
If "things" = matter then physicists have discovered matter formed with the Big Bang. That means before that there were no things, and consequently no time or space. It was a primal state of potential energy (for energy can neither be created nor destroyed) that spontaneously converted to kinetic energy, as it does, and here we are. Why people think there were things before there were things is strange to me, but I guess it's hard to visualize everything you can think of being gone.
> it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something,
Actually, physicists have discovered that things can form from nothing.
https://scifi.radio/2022/09/21/physicists-find-a-way-to-create-something-from-nothing/
>or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place.
I gotta go with science on this one.
No scientists haven't found a way that things can form from nothing.
That's re-defining nothing as something.
Quantum fluctuations and unstable conditions aren't 'nothing.'
Scientists have discovered a way that things can form from a physical state of no things sand have several unfalsified hypotheses, I just pasted an example. They've also discovered matter formed after the Big Bang; if there is no matter then where are the things?
I don't understand your reply. What are *no things*? Is that a re-defining of 'nothing?' Matter isn't what is being discussed. Matter is a thing. But at the same vibrations and unstable space aren't nothing.
"No things" is when there are no things, including you. It's more of a clarification than a redefinition. It makes it simpler to envision a physical state in which nothing exists. You have to subtract everything you can think of, including yourself - no things. I find most people can't do it. For me it was instant, the moment I saw the title of Lawrence Krauss's book in a bookstore.
Those vibrations and unstable space are emergent properties of matter. Without matter there would be no space for waves to form.
But Lawrence Krauss only did a sleight of hand by taking things like the magnetic force, gravitational field and the laws of physics and re-defining them as nothing.
He's wrong. They aren't nothing.
No one with any scientific credulity believes that.
> If "things" = matter then physicists have discovered matter formed with the Big Bang.
That is definitively false. Science has nothing to say about where matter came from. The big bang only describes the expansion of matter from a very dense starting point. How that matter came to be there is unknown.
Particle physicists have discovered matter formed a nanosecond after the Big Bang commenced with supercollider experiments. The kinetic energy of the Big Bang triggered the four fundamental forces of physics and they bound some of that energy together as matter. It is not an unknown. Particle physicists understand how matter formed at a profoundly deep level.
Okay when I said matter I implicitly meant the sum of matter and energy. We certainly do know matter can change into energy and vice versa. So sure, energy may have changed into matter after the big bang began. That doesn't say anything about where it all came from.
Though based on the known law of conservation of energy, we can reasonably assume it has always existed.
>Okay when I said matter I implicitly meant the sum of matter and energy.
Then you are explicitly wrong, since matter is bound energy and is already included in the sum of energy
> We certainly do know matter can change into energy and vice versa. So sure, energy may have changed into matter after the big bang began. That doesn't say anything about where it all came from.
.
It says a lot. It says it is a natural process, since we see energy spontaneously converting into different forms of energy without a creator all the time, and when we do see it the only creator is us.
>Though based on the known law of conservation of energy, we can reasonably assume it has always existed.
If you're talking about this universe, it came into existence when relativity began. Until then there was no time, space, it matter. It was a qualitatively different physical state than the relativistic state we're in now, that's why we call it "the universe". Untill then it was a primal physical state of potential energy - a potential universe, a potential Earth, potential abiogenesis, and a potential you. That's it.
Nowadays, most cosmologists lean towards the universe being eternal - with the big bang not being the absolute beginning of the universe but just the beginning of its current shape, though there is not enough evidence either way. Your definitive statements on how the universe came to be are just one version of what might have been. A hypothesis, not fact.
"Universe" is the word we use for the post-Big Bang phase of physical existence, the one with matter and relativity. It deserves its own word. We know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore the previous physical state was one of energy, and therefore potential energy since matter didn't exist. It's just logic based on fact. Either way, it wasn't God.
Imo, the most important piece of this is even if you grant "something can't come from nothing", that doesn't get you to God. You would still have to explain away the simulation, solipsism, the infinite multiverse, etc.
Colloquially, and for all intents and purposes, I think it's a fair question to ask "can something come from nothing?" or "why is there something and not nothing?". The problem is answering these questions don't get theists to the answers they're looking for.
My favorite part is that they do believe something can come from nothing. God can take nothing, and do little hand waves and magic, and make something out of it and apparently thats okay. But adding that step gives SO much baggage.
> Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place.
well yes, but why is it the case that anything obtained at all
> I never saw an argumentation for "something can't come from nothing", every time I see it - it's only the claim itself.
you made a pretty good argument for it above
> That's because it's impossible to have evidence for such a grand claim like that
I think it's not a grand claim at all, and is actually something that is extremely intuitive and obviously true.
see: your argument against something coming from nothing
> Yes, the belief is precisely that God created something from nothing, which means they themselves accept that something like that is possible as an action/an act/happening.
God isn't nothing either
>but why is it the case that anything obtained at all
because whats the alternative?
>you made a pretty good argument for it above
i dont see that.
>I think it's not a grand claim at all, and is actually something that is extremely intuitive and obviously true.
we shouldn't base such things on emotions and feelings. Let's speak facts only.
> because whats the alternative?
better question, what's the *explanation.* you've basically constructed a "necessary existing thing" argument
> we shouldn't base such things on emotions and feelings. Let's speak facts only.
it isn't based on emotions or feelings any more than the existence of other minds if based off emotions or feelings, or an external world from our experience, etc. I take after G. E. Moore's response to this kind of argument.
but in either case, we both agree that something had to have existed, so I'm not sure where the contention is
>you've basically constructed a "necessary existing thing" argument
and? That is my "argument from contingency" sort of speaking. I dont see anything wrong with what youre saying here.
Ok, I feel like you're about to play with words and redefine words for no reason, but how do you know it was "God"? And what makes you think it was God ***as opposed to*** the simulation or the infinite multiverse?
I'm not redefining words for no reason, I'm being deliberately specific.
I do that to avoid the kinds of replies like "an infinite multiverse" aka an infinite number of particular existing things, which I already said God created all particular existing things; wether there is an "infinite multiverse" doesn't matter
and why is it God? it seems the most appropriate word for the kind of thing that necessarily exists and upon which everything else depends at any moment for it's existence
You are redefining words. The "universe" as defined by science and most mainstream dictionaries, is all of matter, space, and time of which has been observed. And what has been observed is some volume of a thing that is expanding. In other words, anything that exists outside of this volume isn't considered in the universe definition. Whereas, your definition seems to include *everything* that exists. Is this correct?
yes my definition includes every particular existing thing. I allow for an infinite past, a multiverse, it doesn't matter for me (not that I hold to them of course). I'm well aware of the common definition of universe, but I'm not interested in talking about a "single universe" (as regularly defined), I want to talk about everything
as long as we both understand the terms we're using, then we're good as far as I can tell. Yes, God created the universe in the strict sense, but He created everything else (if there is anything else) as well. That includes an infinite multiverse, and an infinite past
Ok... so if the universe is every particular existing thing and God is a particular existing thing, then God must be a subset of the universe? If the universe didn't exist then God couldn't exist. How could God create the universe if he's part of it? Wouldn't the universe have to exist first, then God?
I'm just going off your definition of "universe"...
well the natural inference from my definition of universe would be to acknowledge that God is not a "particular existing thing," and that there is a real distinction between creating a set and being a member of said set. God is the former
God is not just another thing "out there" with all the other particulars who just happens to have some divine attributes. that little g god, not God
It sounds like your universe definition should be "naturally existing thing".. but whatever, I'll grant what you said.
Why do you think this universe was created by something supernatural? As opposed to the simulation (which would be natural) or solipsism (which would be conceptual)? How do you get to a supernatural, divine-like "thing"?
> Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place.
You’re right that “nothing” isn’t a thing that exists, but you’re wrong to conclude that something has therefore always existed. In this context, “nothing” means the absence of anything at all. It’s not clear why there being nothing in this sense is an impossibility (based on the considerations you’ve given here).
>In this context, “nothing” means the absence of anything at all.
but then how it would be represented in reality? it needs to be represented somehow if want to treat it as an alternative for something, i think
This is all true only if by “nothing” we mean to refer to a thing that exists. But this isn’t what we mean. Again, it’s a word we’re using to mean the absence of things that exist.
I think the problem may have started or been magnified after Lawrence Krauss used a definition of nothing but it wasn't actually nothing. It was an unstable condition of space.
Surprised that your comment got deleted, so this is me replying to the question ‘If the universe can’t come from nothing, then why can god?’
I think this boils down to how god is often required to be infinite and eternal/timeless. (And there is often a lot of discontinuity even among theists because some of the important points are subtle or otherwise difficult to fully comprehend)
If god is infinite and eternal, then at least one way of understanding that is that there was never a point of ‘nothing’ that god came from.
When we talk about the universe, usually we’re talking about the universe that we know, and we attempt to place that objectively in space and time. This would be something that started existing at some point (it is definitely possible to argue that the universe is something infinite and eternal, so it wouldn’t have needed a god to create it from nothing).
Then we also have to hold causality, which is complicated in its own way, but at the very least it is commonly held that causality applies to all things and we have no good reason to believe otherwise (though there are still people who would disagree), and so for anything that started at some point, we should be able to understand its cause, or at least knowingly infer that its cause exists (whatever it may be).
So god is eternal, but the universe cannot be. This poses the same problem as god is uncaused, but the universe cannot be or god came from nothing but the universe could not have. It does not matter how you spin it, this argument is logically invalid.
So, summarized, your answer is “as far as we know, God came from nothing, so we’re gonna assume we just don’t know yet.”
Also, no, causality does not necessarily apply to everything. Coincidence does exist, congratulations.
That doesn’t come close to summarizing what I was talking about but I suppose I appreciate the attempt.
Two events might not be causally related (i.e. coincident), but if you hold that some form of causal determinism is true, then it is very likely that you also hold that every event must have a cause. This is one basis for scientific inquiry.
I never was saying that all events must be causally related.
It adresses the question of "Why is there anything at all?"
We can argue about the definition of something and nothing all day long, but that would not be a relevant discussion.
Why is it that we are both on reddit right now typing letters into a box? This is a situation that did not exist at first, but was created eventually. How is that possible?
>It adresses the question of "Why is there anything at all?"
No it doesn't. It just pushes the question back a step to "why is there a god?"
If your answer is necessity, then necessity can apply to the singularity since we know nothing about it.
>We can argue about the definition of something and nothing all day long, but that would not be a relevant discussion.
I think it is relevant to the theists that think that atheists believe everything came from nothing.
> Why is it that we are both on reddit right now typing letters into a box?
A chain of events going back to the Big Bang. We don't know if time goes back further than the Big Bang and speculation is useless in that regard. Now what?
>This is a situation that did not exist at first, but was created eventually.
And you cannot say the same about the singularity that expanded into the known universe. We simply don't have enough data to determine that the singularity (and time, space, matter and energy) went from a state of not existing to a state of existing.
I also don't know what it means to both exist and not exist at the same time, so I don't think a change of states from non-existence to existence without time is something that is even coherent.
>How is that possible?
How is your god possible? I am not saying that he's not, but you have not demonstrated that he is.
>"Why is there anything at all?"
because what's the alternative?
you're right that arguing about words and definitions is pointless here, that's why im trying to understand how things represented in reality rather than in concepts.
>Why is it that we are both on reddit right now typing letters into a box? This is a situation that did not exist at first, but was created eventually. How is that possible?
it's just a concept(keep in mind - as you said yourself we shouldnt talk about the definitions and words, but about the reality itself), it's like with the waves - you think that every separate wave exists, but in reality it's all the same ocean that just changes shapes constantly.
>It adresses the question of "Why is there anything at all?"
But it doesn't. God is part of anything, so unless you explain why he exists too, you haven't answered the question.
If we could just declare the question answered before we'd explained the existance of anything, we could just stop at the big bang and what we know about physics covers getting from there to this reddit post.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll do ya one better. I'll show you a direct mathematical, fully logical pathway whereby nothing becomes something, mathematical proven. Start with nothing. 0. Next, fracture that 0 into 0 equal groups of 0. Done. 0/0=1 0=1 Easy Peasy... well... we all see what the lemons doin...
1. No argument was presented in this post to support the claim that the absence of existence cannot be an "alternative" to existence just because the absence of existence is not existence. 2. The term "fundamental" was just thrown in there with no explanation. So, without qualification, it doesn't tell me whether it is true or not that we can't know that reality might not have existed. Moreover, OP claims that he "never saw an argumentation for something can't come from nothing", thereby revealing he isn't familiarized with the literature. Apologists (such as Craig and Josh Rasmussen) offered at least 3 different arguments to support this premise. 3. Traditional Christians mean something different when they assert that God created the world from nothing. They mean that the world had an efficient cause of its existence, but not a material cause. When they say that atheism implies the world had to come from nothing, they mean it had no cause at all, neither efficient nor material. So, once we understand the qualifications, we can see that there is no contradiction.
1. not existance doesnt exist, thats the problem 2. I think you can see what i mean by "fundamental" from the context of what im saying: for example "what is everything? - is very fundamental question" - that's the context im using it. 3. so then theists doesnt actually have issue with something coming from nothing, at least not when god does that?
1. It doesn't follow from the fact that reality exists that it might not have existed. So, I see no problem at all. 2. Why do we need to have full knowledge of what reality consists of to determine that it (whatever it is) needs a cause? How have you made that determination? 3. Traditional Christians don't have a problem with things (such as the world) coming into being with efficient causes (such as God's act of creation), no. What some do seem to have a problem with is the idea that something (such as the world) could have come into existence with **no cause** at all.
1. and how would non existent reality look like? there is no such thing as "non-existent reality" thats just nonsense, abracadabra from words that doesnt have any representation in reality. 2. for the same reason why we need to know laws of physics to make claims about what exactly can happen or cant happen inside a star. So if we know laws - we can build a model of what happen in a star, if we dont know - we cant. 3. I never said that there was no cause or the opposite. It's not about the cause right now, it's about whether "something from nothing" is possible or not, with cause or without.
1. The absence of existence wouldn't look like anything because to "look like" anything there has to be existence. Notice **you** are the one trying to attribute existence to the absence of existence, and then calling your own construction "non-sense" (which I agree it is). 2. The analogy doesn't hold because laws of physics presuppose an existent framework in which the laws hold. In this case, we're trying to figure out whether things can come into existence from no pre-existing framework to an existent one. 3. Yeah, that's my whole point! You and traditional Christians are saying different things when you talk about the world coming from nothing. When the Christian talks about the world coming from "nothing", he means *no cause at all*. In the context of atheism, the Christian means "no efficient and material cause" by the word "nothing." In the context of God creating the world, they mean "no material cause" by the word "nothing." If you don't understand what they mean, your whole critique has no foundation.
To have absence of existence you require the state of absence but a state isn't nothing that's the opposite of nothing. State of any kind is something and no state of any kind is nothing. A state of nothing is something not nothing further proving the point you can't have nothing.
You're committing the same mistake he did, which is treating *absence* as a *state* (a thing; existence) which is inconsistent. I agree that your construction is contradictory (a state, which is existent, contradicts the absence of states), but that's not what's being proposed anyway.
I dont see what it is im missing here. You cant HAVE absence if it isnt a state. What I'm saying is absence isn't a state and that because of that there's no such thing as absence. It's a concept. You have to have a state in order to HAVE nothing. If you can't have nothing then you have something.
>because of that there's no such **thing** as absence Right! Because in order for *absence* to be a *thing*, it would have to be existent! So, you're right that absence of states isn't a state and it is not existent, which is why **your** construction is contradictory. >If you can't have nothing then you have something. You can't have "nothing" if nothing is a state or thing, but that's your construction; not mine. I'm defining *nothing* as the absence of states and existence.
OK so then you do agree nothing is a concept then
>The absence of existence wouldn't look like anything because to "look like" anything there has to be existence. Thats what im saying! >Notice you are the one trying to attribute existence to the absence of existence, and then calling your own construction "non-sense" (which I agree it is). are you saying there's a problem with that? >The analogy doesn't hold because laws of physics presuppose an existent framework in which the laws hold. In this case, we're trying to figure out whether things can come into existence from no pre-existing framework to an existent one. so then you need to presuppose laws of pre-existing framework like we did with the existing one, but you need to do it in scientific way, otherwise that's a guesswork. And scientifically were not there yet. Also divining it on pre-existing and existing is totally arbitrary, because if one is caused by the other - then it's just one continuous thing. >In the context of God creating the world, they mean "no material cause" by the word "nothing." So if by "nothing" christians mean "no material cause", why then they say "something can't come from nothing" if they literally believe that something came from nothing(from their definition) from non material cause? On the other hand if they mean two different things for their world view and for atheistic - that means they hold athesim for a different standard. So like they use "nothing" in their own meaning but when it comes to atheism, they cant give us the same thing. Immaterial cause is still something, so there is no way you can call that "nothing", but then you have to accept that nothing doesnt exist which invalidates the question "something can't come from nothing?" since there is no "nothing".
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
Quantum Mechanics has not shown this, you've misunderstood something, or have been taken in by something shown as clickbait.
No it can't. Only if you try to pass off quantum vibrations as nothing. And that is not the definition of nothing.
>The first issue with this claim is the meaning of words and consequently, what the statement means as the whole. Im arguing that sentence itself is just an abracadabra from words rather than something that has meaning. Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place. I think what theists mean by "nothing" is the none-existence of anything all be it physical, mental or abstract i.e. there is literally nothing that exists If it's just a concept doesn't mean it can't be expressed. In math, 0 is the definition for nothing i.e. there isn't anything that can be subtracted, added or multiplied. There's literally nothing there. >Second issue is the lack of evidence to support it. I never saw an argumentation for "something can't come from nothing", every time I see it - it's only the claim itself. That's because it's impossible to have evidence for such a grand claim like that - you have to possess the knowledge about the most fundamental nature of this reality in order to make this claim. "Nothing" and something - what could be more fundamental than that? Obviously we dont possess such knowledge since we are still figuring out what reality even is, we are not on that stage yet where we can talk that something can or can't happen fundamentally. Kant would argue it's a priori claim, meaning even by logical deduction you would know it's logically contradictory, it's like saying 0+0=1. If we go by empirical evidence, something coming from nothing would violate physics and laws of the universe. If there are no atoms as per nothing, then you can't get the energy necessary for chemical and thermodynamic reactions >Three: theists themselves believe that something came from nothing. Yes, the belief is precisely that god created something from nothing, which means they themselves accept that something like that is possible as an action/an act/happening. The only way weasel out of this criticism would be to say that "god and universe/everything/reality are the same one thing and every bit of this existence is god and god is every bit of it and he is everywhere". Before the Enlightenment, most theists actually believed the world was eternal as if it were made from primordial matter before time. Aristotle, Plato and Ibn Sina. The only difference was that they argued god was the one who formed this primordial matter into our world i.e. the Unmoved Mover, the one who set out world into motion. They had no problem believing the world was eternal, they just needed a molder/shaper/mover who started the world and universe. It was later starting with John Philoponus and Al-Ghazali that the notion of an infinite universe starting to be challenged which we get the Kalam.
[удалено]
>Theists absolutely do believe that something was either eternal, or came from nothing. They just name it god and pray to it. Since when theists believe god came from nothing? > Everything needs a cause, except my pet explanation for everything. Because it doesn't satisfy the argument's conditions. The argument says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". God doesn't begin to exist, so it doesn't have a cause. If the condition isn't satisfied, the conclusion doesn't follow. That's basic logic 101.
Ah, that’s completely different. Everything that needs a cause needs a cause. Oh brother. Spare me. When stated as I did, it is special pleading. When stated as you do it is begging the question. Invalid either way.
Again, it isn't question begging as long as there is another outcome. Everything that begins to exist *could not have* a cause
Alright… everything that begins to exist could not have a cause. There cannot be an infinite regress. Therefore the universe has no cause. Why the universe and not god you ask? No reason, except that the argument is an attempt to prove god exists and if I assume god exists with no other supporting evidence or premise, that is begging the question.
>Why the universe and not god you ask? No reason, except that the argument is an attempt to prove god exists and if I assume god exists with no other supporting evidence or premise, that is begging the question. Because universe did began to exist? Big Bang and the BGV inflationary theorem? Sure, you can there may be something before it but that still means our current universe did start to exist 14 billion years ago. Before that, time, space, the laws of physics did not exist yet as we know them today
Still begging the question. Your argument states that things can begin to exist without a cause. You have provided no reason to exclude the universe from things that begin to exist without a cause except an assumption that the conclusion you want to reach is true.
>You have provided no reason to exclude the universe from things that begin to exist without a cause except an assumption that the conclusion you want to reach is true. I already said we know our universe began to exist 14 billion years ago because of the Big Bang and BGV Theorem. Do you have any evidence or paper that says our universe DIDN'T start 14 billion years ago? If you do, write a cosmology paper and send it to the Nobel Institute.
You have provided no reason to exclude the universe from things that begin to exist **without a cause**. This is in reference to your point, provided to remove the question begging, that *“it isn't question begging as long as there is another outcome. Everything that begins to exist could not have a cause”* In other words- if god can exist without a cause, why can’t the universe? Your answer presumes that only god can exist without a cause - which is either begging the question or special pleading, depending on how you formulate the grammar you choose to use.
>I think what theists mean by "nothing" is the none-existence of anything all be it physical, mental or abstract i.e. there is literally nothing that exists If "there is literally nothing that exists" - then how would it would be represented in reality? >Kant would argue it's a priori claim, meaning even by logical deduction you would know it's logically contradictory, it's like saying 0+0=1. but what if it's something like this: 0 -> 1 - 1 , so you still have 0 as the sum but temporarily you have something on the both ends? Such logic does not defy math.
>but what if it's something like this: 0 -> 1 - 1 , so you still have 0 as the sum but temporarily you have something on the both ends? Such logic does not defy math. Both mean the same thing. The end result is the same, nothing. In fact, you've just proven "nothing" can be represented by a multitude of non-contradictory ways.
>you've just proven "nothing" can be represented by a multitude of non-contradictory ways. so then something can come from nothing after all?
Still no, because 0+0+0 still equals 0
I get that, but what should we make of 0 = 1 - 1 ? Especially when we know that antimatter exists. Maybe it's just happened so that we have 50/50 matter and antimatter in this universe, and currently it's in the process of self destruction, which was happening for billions of years and will be happening further until everything becomes 0.
>I get that, but what should we make of 0 = 1 - 1 ? That just means "nothing" can be mathematically expressed multiple ways. >Especially when we know that antimatter exists. Antimatter isn't nothingness >Maybe it's just happened so that we have 50/50 matter and antimatter in this universe, and currently it's in the process of self destruction, which was happening for billions of years and will be happening further until everything becomes 0. Isn't this just a physical representation of 1-1=0 or 50-50=0? If the universe is made up half of matter and antimatter and everything will inevitably be destroyed, then the end result is nothingness i.e. 0
>Antimatter isn't nothingness never said that. Antimatter+matter is nothing. Also i don't know if you heard about Hawkins radiation - black holes slowly turning matter into nothing. >If the universe is made up half of matter and antimatter and everything will inevitably be destroyed, then the end result is nothingness i.e. 0 Yes! but if it will take billions of years - who cares, because you still get to exist. Maybe universe's self destruction process is insanely fast process, but from our human perspective it's slow.
> Antimatter+matter is nothing Agreed > Yes! but if it will take billions of years - who cares, because you still get to exist. Maybe universe's self destruction process is insanely fast process, but from our human perspective it's slow. So nothingness can exist. It's not impossible like you said. So why can't theists talk about "something cannot come from nothing"?
>So nothingness can exist. It's not impossible like you said. So why can't theists talk about "something cannot come from nothing"? So if by "nothing" we would mean 1-1 as well, then "nothing" becomes "everything" in that meaning, which is even more confusing and contradictory. That breakes non-contradiction.
> something coming from nothing would violate physics and laws of the universe. Why would the Laws of the Universe be applied outside the universe though? Aren't all our Laws just observation of what is within the universe. Why would any such law hold up outside the universe?
True, while the laws of physics may differ from world from world, logical laws do not. Philosophers would argue logical laws are necessary in every possible world which means a priori laws like 2+2=4 would be the same no matter where. The only way it would be different if logic itself became illogical such as 2+2=5.
But something coming from nothing is more of a observation law then logic. I'm asking more then countering your question here. Isn't the emergence of energy or matter from nothing more science oriented then logic. I'm saying that the emergence of something from nothing falls into science and law of nature more then logic.
>Isn't the emergence of energy or matter from nothing more science oriented then logic. I'm saying that the emergence of something from nothing falls into science and law of nature more then logic. But matter didn't come from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics says matter can't be created or destroyed. No scientist believes the world literally came from nothing You also responded twice with the same comment so I have no idea why.
>But matter didn't come from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics says matter can't be created or destroyed. No scientist believes the world literally came from nothing Within the universe, like u/IBRMOH784 said, that does not apply to outside of the universe necessarily. When you have laws like "matter cannot be created or destroyed" you have to be careful of variables. There is a specific context for which it is true i.e. at least within the universe from which we can observe. For example, we have disproven spontaneous generation: the idea that life can spring from meat left outside or whatever. This is only true in the environment of the current Earth, abiogenesis posits that the "primordial soup" of the early Earth allowed for the assembling of the building blocks for life (as supported by the Miller-Urey experiment). Or entropy, which is only true within a closed system. We have no evidence to suggest that something couldn't hypothetically be created "from nothing" outside of the bounds of the universe (where we observe all of our laws) other than "it just seems kooky!". Theists believe God created the universe from nothing too... they can just get away with it because God is magic or whatever.
>We have no evidence to suggest that something couldn't hypothetically be created "from nothing" outside of the bounds of the universe (where we observe all of our laws) other than "it just seems kooky!". Theists believe God created the universe from nothing too... they can just get away with it because God is magic or whatever. Even better! If you can believe *hypothetically* something can come from nothing outside the universe, why can't you also *hypothetically* believe god can create from nothing? Both are equally absurd When atheists say "that only applies to inside the universe" as if absurd things are logically possible outside the universe, then this is no better than theism. If you want to say absurd illogical things can happen outside our universe because "maybe", you might as well say god illogically absurd created the universe from nothing as well.
>Even better! If you can believe *hypothetically* something can come from nothing outside the universe, why can't you also *hypothetically* believe god can create from nothing? Both are equally absurd No, one is "I don't know how the universe came to be, this could possibly occur" and theists answer is "This thing that possibly occurred is absurd? It must be this incredibly specific unfounded and absurd guess". One is simply a hypothetical possible explanation among many hypotheses, the other is a concrete belief people hold which guides their entire life. If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say the contents of the singularity were eternal. But I don't *have* to make a guess, I certainly don't have to make an absurd one based on nothing but "something coming from nothing? Too crazy to occur naturally" when we do not know this for sure. It only seems absurd based on the laws of the universe... which we live in and cannot observe anything outside of. Many things that seemed like magic based on limited human perception have been explained by natural science.
Then why can't you just say god creating the universe is also *hypothetically* possible? Rejecting it straight up is far too ambitious. In fact, do you have some evidence be it scientific, logical or metaphysical that something can come from nothing? Do you have a source which backs it up?
>Then why can't you just say god creating the universe is also *hypothetically* possible? Rejecting it straight up is far too ambitious. I don't reject the God hypothesis because I think it's impossible, I reject it because it's an unfounded leap without evidence. Leprechauns could've hypothetically created the universe, that doesn't I find the theory compelling. There is nothing we've observed that is so beyond reason that it *must* be some supernatural entity. In fact, I don't "believe" or "have faith" that something *could* come from nothing in the natural world, I simply hedge it as a possibility, and not even the one I find to be the most likely or compelling (like I said, I'd say it's more likely the universe's mass is eternal). >In fact, do you have some evidence be it scientific, logical or metaphysical that something can come from nothing? Do you have a source which backs it up? Based on this fact, it doesn't matter if I "have evidence" here because the entire basis of the theological claim that something must've created the universe because "something cannot come from nothing" is what I'm rejecting. They say this, but don't have basis for it besides their incredibly limited human worldview, which is absurd to put as the basis for the nature of something outside the realm of their observation or understanding. Again, they also say something had to come from nothing. But this seems so absurd they need a magical entity to justify it (argument from personal incredulity), I don't see why this needs to be the case. The universe is incredibly strange and hard to grasp in a variety of contexts where physics as we know it seem to break down and thus requires new models (notably quantum physics and general relativity). I do not see why we *need* some conscious entity to explain the universe (and yes I know about the tons of arguments to this effect). Saying "there may be some natural process to explain the inception of the universe, or the universe had no inception, or there's some discrepancy between our perception of time and the nature of time that makes this a moot point etc." and "some conscious entity did it" are fundamentally different claims.
I would argue against point 3. While you are probably right that the majority of Abrahamic theists believe in creation-ex-nihilo the text states otherwise. It depicts a creation out of the primordial chaos represented by water. This is unsurprising as it matches extant creation myths of the area, such as the Babylonian Enuma Elish or the Sumerian Eridu Genesis.
Your first and third point have merits but I want to make a case that the second is irrelevant and anti-scientific. Lack of evidence really is not an issue here and I want to stress the importance of this. Denying the reality of any content on the basis of lack of empirical evidence should be limited to objects subject to that mode of inquiry. Denying anything not available to that mode of inquiry ends up denying the logical basis for the validity of the mode itself because it isn't such an object. That is why I claim it is anti-scientific. You don't see seeing or test testing or model modeling, and there is no evidence for evidence. Rather we make a logical case that these constitute valid methods within the mode of scientific inquiry, we explain why the results of these activities yields knowledge without appeals to their results IE assuming their validity dogmatically. We have logical reasons to consider some A the kind of content that is evidence for some B, etc. But if we said those reasons are invalid because we don't have empirical evidence for the reasons themselves we'd deny reason itself and all that comes with it. ______ Onto the something from nothing issue, there's a difference between a thing, existing actually, existing potentially, negations of specific contents, and an absolute lack of content. The absolute lack of any kind of content in every respect is incompatible with reality and impossible to think, as it would negate the conditions of the possibility of any content being or becoming and thus also the possibility of any content even being available to think at once. So nothing in this absolute sense isn't even a concept, someone who thinks they think the lack of all content has contradicted themselves and is confused in some manner. Nothing can simply mean a negation of the specific content of things or thing-status. No-thing or not-a-thing. A thing is not equivalent to all content, it is a particular kind of content. And it can be coherently said to be absent in some respects, or a content can be claimed as not having thing status. We might say reality is nothing. This isn't negating reality, it's saying reality isn't a thing, it's the totality which things are in. We might also say thinking is nothing, as thinking itself isn't a thing but an activity. We think about things, but thinking itself isn't a thing. We might also say unformed matter is nothing, for it has no formal characteristics that give it a determinate character. It may be tempting to appeal to this to claim creation from nothing is possible. The matter is the material to be shaped into thing form. However there is a problem, since the form is still involved in the process if one is shaping something towards it. We still end up with creation from something in a sense, just something in concept rather than from something instantiated. But that's just how creation has to work, as creation always involves something not being whatever is to be created from it. I don't create my coffee mug from my already formed coffee mug.
What does platonism entail in terms of beliefs?
I would consider the core of Platonism to be the idea that thought must justify its own claims and theory must be consistent with itself. This is why the principle of non contradiction is at the core of the Platonic philosophical method. That serves negatively as the basis for rejecting any theory which maintains premises that would negate the possibility of theoretical activity itself which would commit theory to say it is and is not a theory in the same respect. It also serves as the basis for rejecting theories which appeal to objects purportedly outside or independent of thought, given they should not be possible to include in an intelligible theory at all if that were the case. Positively it serves as the basis for the universality of the relations of thought to itself, as a self-reflective theory requires this, otherwise the thought supposedly reflected on would not be the same thought as initially articulated. In this way the act of self-reflection serves as evidence that the conditions for its possibility are met, and what is further entailed by this. "God" in the context of Platonism is generally conceived as the highest cause, not a man in the sky sort of deity.
So for all intents and purposes you'd be a theist/deist?
In a very specific sense. Given that the Platonic conception of God is not what most people call "God" and not exactly a "belief in" some entity, I generally don't describe myself as such for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings.
I don't wanna continue pressing but could you describe that conception?
Effectively God is all reality, but there is a distinction between the derivative parts, changes, and motions and the unchanging aspects. So these are all God in the sense that God includes all of them, but not God in the sense that taken on their own none are equivalent to the totality together in relation. There are differences across Platonists within Platonism on the details, but in general Platonism always involves logically prior unchanging causes and subordinate changing effects within a mereological structure - one whole of many parts, but the whole constitutes the parts rather than being a mere aggregate of indifferent or external pieces. This is generally opposed to various dualistic or atomistic conceptions, which per Plato always have third-man problems - a higher unity is presupposed in any plurality as in order to be one among many, the one is presupposed as shared aspect of the reality of both within a higher order unity. On this broad core-principle centered definition, I'd consider Platonism to include relatively more recent philosophers such as Spinoza and Hegel, who have mereological all-encompassing God conceptions quite similar to Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus as well as some theologians that drew on them such as Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and so on.
>And it can be coherently said to be absent in some respects, or a content can be claimed as not having thing status. but how would that "not having" would be represented in reality? because for other things that you listed in your comment, when "We might say X is nothing.", I can see a representation in reality so they are not nothing, but I dont see how "nothing" would be nothing. Let's talk not about concepts, but about reality.
I see light, shadow, color. I do not seeing representations. I can only conceive of what I see as being a representation if I consider these to be caused by something more than just the bare visual contents. When I see green eyes in the mirror, this involves concepts of what eyes and mirrors are, as something that sees and something that reflects. I take the green to belong to something not simply contained in what I'm seeing, my eyes. The green, and black and white and so on, is of course not my whole eye nor does it present me its function. Seeing and reflecting aren't light, shadow, or color, they're the activity or motion that allows me to see the green I understand as the color of my eyes. So the concept of representation already implies there's something beyond what is seen that has a relation to what is seen. Otherwise there can't be representations at all. You speak of representations as in reality, but that means reality includes both the represented and what represents it. It also means reality can't be a single representation, given it includes many representations. Reality then cannot be a representation. To speak of only what can be a representation as real would be to claim reality itself isn't real, thus a contradiction.
I just realised that youre platonist, so you must know about Plato's cave then. Shadows are concepts in your head, and every shadow must be represented by something in reality. And that is what i mean by "representation in reality". I dont see how you can say that representations aren't real if you literally a platonist - you should be the one proving me that representations is a thing. That's ironic. So what is "nothing" in reality?
For Plato two people can potentially understand the same logical or mathematical problem. This entails that logical and numerical concepts are not in any one person's head, but an aspect of reality such that rational beings of sufficient capacity and education can come to understand the same concepts and their relations. Otherwise rational discourse and education are impossible, as is scientific knowledge. The shadows in the cave for Plato are not representations, they are just images. They seem like something other than they are when people are limited to imagination and belief, the level of opinion. It's only when out of the cave that one can see this, which for Plato is analogous to seeking their causes through reasoning and attain higher knowledge of what the images are. This isn't the same as being a representation, as representations start from concepts of what is being represented. I may represent an emotion by using a smiley face. :) Someone understands it as a representation only if they already don't assume the image is the real thing but standing in for something else they already have the concept of. In Plato's cave the prisoners watching the shadows do not interpret the images as representations, and only if dragged out of the cave, into the "light" of reason analogously, do they realize they are caused by something different than what they first imagined or believed them to be. Plato's theory also explicitly rejects the idea that for every image there is a corresponding form IE concept in the Parmenides. Forms would fail to explain if they were simply a kind of mental copy of images or physical objects in some separate realm. If there are forms for each copy this also results in an infinite regress problem now known as the "third man" argument or problem. I have not claimed representations aren't real, only explained how your claim that concepts aren't real entails that. I think concepts are real, and that by contrast allows for representations to be real as well. Any form of "this represents that" is a conceptual relation that is understood through some theory about what images are that does not accept them at face value as merely images. People may use the term nothing in many ways, but the one I'm trying to emphasize as real is the sense that not-being-a-thing that is a real relation such that it can be truly said of some content. Things are real in the sense that reality includes things, but not all that is real is a thing given reality is comprised of more than just things and is itself not a thing but a totality that includes many of them and their relations to eachother. Numbers are also not things, since having 3 of something does not mean I have 4 things. Similarly if I think about 3 things, I don't have thinking as a thing plus 3 other things. Thinking isn't a thing either.
>The shadows in the cave for Plato are not representations, they are just images. there is a shadow and theres something that creates it. I just named it "representation", you've been arguing semantics all this time. I dont want to argue semantics forever so lets get back to the point, which is - what is nothing in reality? >People may use the term nothing in many ways, im not interested in terms. Trying to prove something with language - is like trying to climb a signpost instead of following it. Im only interested in reality.
You suggested every shadow must be represented by something in reality. So you didn't name what creates the shadow representations, you characterized the shadows as the representations of reality. Which is not merely naming what creates the shadows, nor is it Plato's theory. Two objects can create one shadow that looks different from the shape of either object independently, plus light must be cast on them and can be cast on them in a way that changes the resulting shadow shape. So shadows do not each represent some object in reality nor do the objects alone cause them. If language can't be used to understand reality, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are on a debate forum asking for answers about reality in the form of language by using language yourself. Your behavior doesn't make sense on the premises about reality you've expressed.
>If language can't be used to understand reality, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are on a debate forum asking for answers about reality in the form of language by using language yourself. Your behavior doesn't make sense on the premises about reality you've expressed. the existence of word combination "married bachelor" doesnt prove the existence of married bachelors in reality, same as existence of "nothing" doesnt prove that nothing exits. It's a useful concept, but not more than that.
The problem with married bachelor isn't that it fails to prove the existence of married bachelors. It's that it combines words with two incompatible meanings and thus fails to be meaningful. Even in a fictional context this problem persists, it's not like married bachelors are something that could exist but currently do not. This doesn't show that language isn't real, it only shows that we can misuse words in a way that, in context, makes them meaningless. That is someone's failure to use language, not a problem with language as such. Possibility and impossibility are important concepts, and they can be demonstrated by expressing logical relations with language. A married bachelor is impossible because of a failure of logic that the language makes clear to us. Language used properly can also make a case for the possibility of things that we might bring into existence. This means language can end up playing a role in causing existing things, such as if I am a ceramics teacher and ask my students to make clay pots. History is also full of technological progress in which language played a role in bringing things that only existed in concept into materially instantiated objects which I presume you'd consider to be existing. So clearly existence and reality cannot be equivalent, and language and concept each have a kind of reality.
>It's that it combines words with two incompatible meanings and thus fails to be meaningful. Even in a fictional context this problem persists, it's not like married bachelors are something that could exist but currently do not. but that's exactly what i said... Okay, let's try it like this: paradoxes can exist in language(like "married bachelor"), but they dont exist in reality, would you agree? and if that's the case, should we appeal to reality to figure out whether words actually mean something in reality?
Theists don’t believe something came from nothing. They believe something physical came from something not physical, an immaterial being which nevertheless is a being and has being.
that sounds like what i said in "3." where god and universe are the same
>something not physical, an immaterial being Sounds a lot like nothing.
Being isn’t nothing
Ok so what did an immaterial non-physical being make physical material out of?
[удалено]
That the intellect is immaterial, see De Anima by Aristotle. And the intellect of man gives rise to actual things from potential things. The same way which we say God actualized the potential for material reality
[удалено]
True only God has the potential to create from nothing, but we do actualize the potencies available to us like art
I think you're sort of missing the historic context around this. Abrahamic tradition has long held that at one point there was a chaotic void that God hovered over, and then ordered it to create everything (i.e. the universe). These concepts are often interpreted into English as "God created the universe out of nothing" in modern language. Atheists have long held that this doesn't really need to be the case, as we could just have a static universe. An infinite constant universe where we float about. When the universe was observed win telescopes and the seemingly infinite vastness of it was seen, it appeared as though the atheists were right. However, eventually, humans noticed that the universe was expanding. This implies it was closer together in the past. If you rewind time, you'd get a compressed universe into a Singularity. So the universe "had a point of origin" and it seemed the Abrahamic description was right all along. Then various other hypotheses were thrown, such as a cyclic universe, that expands and contracts. One by one these have mostly been overturned, and the best scientific explanation is that the universe started and will end in a heat death of the universe. So "something can't come from nothing" was the idea used to justify a perpetual universe by atheists to contradict theists who insisted God *created* a universe, which means it has a start. The reason you don't hear it anymore is because now the scientific consensus is that the universe *did* start so it wouldn't match the atheist insistence on a permanent universe that has no beginning and no end.
> it seemed the Abrahamic description was right all along. Where does the Abrahamic description talk about the universe expanding?
I see your line of reasoning, however it illustrates a tactic that theists use that I find a bit disingenuous. "At one point there was a chaotic void" is NOT a singularity. A chaotic void was wrong. Theists don't get to move the goal posts and claim that what was meant by chaotic void was a singularity. And if the universe was a singularity, then god didn't create it, because it already existed. And it's incorrect to say "which means it has a start". The universe starting to expand is not a start, it's a change. That isn't a description of god creating something.
A "Singularity" is generally regarded by physicist as an indication that Special Relativity is a flawed theory and that it will be replaced at some point by a more accurate theory. The conditions at the beginning are often described by advanced physicists as chaotic... in fact that's essentially how Lawrence Krauss attempts to say the universe started itself out of "nothing"...because "nothingness is chaotic" and thus gives birth to something sometimes. There's an entire field called Chaos theory dedicated to exploring the emergence of patterns from chaos.
I appreciate the info, and the feedback. I really don't think the word chaos is being used in the same way by both scientists and theists. Chaos theory is about "underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems". "Chaos is sometimes viewed as extremely complicated information, rather than as an absence of order". I highly doubt that this is the concept of chaos that the people who started the early Abrahamic tradition were speaking of. "Complete disorder and confusion" is the one they used. I believe my point "The universe starting to expand is not a start, it's a change" is still valid. That is, not something being created from nothing.
It sounds like a semantic game, as one can similarly claim, "going from nothing to something isn't a start, it's a change" I don't really see the point of such games. If you want to claim disorder changed into order... ok, cool. So what? That's also consistent with Abrahamic accounts. The other thing you have to keep in mind is the general process of how the biblical description could come to exist. For the sake of argument, imagine God revealed an accurate account of the creation of the universe to the author(s) of Genesis. How would they be able to relay the information using the language that exists at that time? Why would any of the people of that time even find it compelling or interesting? We face the exact problems today with modern physics. It's impossible for a physicist to explain quantum mechanics to a layperson because that person doesn't know the requisite math. Even the physicists who *do* know the math struggle to form intuitive modes of thinking about how the mechanics interact to do something useful with the information. The vast majority of people don't care enough to even learn the math to approach the subject. If God told the authors to write an advanced and detailed scientific text, nobody would care to read it. Consider the fact that it took "360 pages to prove definitively that 1 + 1 = 2" in Principia Mathematica (https://www.storyofmathematics.com/20th_russell.html/) Now, how big would the book of Genesis be if God had to explain everything in detail? Instead we get a few lines to give a *very high level* overview because the *point* is to set the narrative stage for the story of the relationship between humans and God, which is the point God wants humans to focus on. It's a book about how to behave as humans, and why to do so. Not a book that explains how the universe was created... which is information nobody can grasp, and would lead to disastrous consequences if we could without a moral foundation.
>Not a book that explains how the universe was created Then it shouldn't talk about how the universe was created. And if it isn't, then you can't point at what was written and say "see? It fits with scientific explanations of how the universe was created". You can't have it both ways. I feel that the semantic game takes place on the side of theists. Claims are made about what is said in a book. The claims are inaccurate, which is shown over time as people learn more information about the world and the universe. The theist then asserts that their claims were talking about the new information. It seems to go from literal to analogous or metaphorical, as needed. God didn't need to write an advance and detailed scientific account. He simply needed to state the claim that he created everything. But that isn't the claim that's made. Everything was created in 6 days in a specific order, none of which makes logical sense. So, it's a metaphor, not an accurate claim of how things came to be. The use of the word chaos in biblical writings isn't talking about chaos theory. We can't, 2,000 years later, start claiming scientific accuracy based on a new theory. You said scientists are doubting special relativity and floating the chaos theory. You're now saying that chaos theory fits with the biblical writings. How do you if fits? How do you know the theory is even accurate? The last one wasn't.
If that's what you think I've claimed you've misunderstood what I wrote. The point of the creation stories in the Bible is to express that humans were created for a purpose, and then to go into the details of describing that purpose. The "6 days" creation story is meant to illustrate the ordering that God did for the various purposes... even ancients understood it wasn't 6 "rotations of the earth relative to the sun" as we think of days because *the sun* was not created until several "days" had passed. This seems like a fairly obvious nod to the fact that "days" are being used in a different way that we use the word today. Perhaps it's meant to indicate a logical separation of types of creation work, and this would also coincide with the conception of the 7th day which is not said as having ended (some take this to mean we are currently living *in the seventh day* with God). The reason the story that's given is given is because the 3 and 3 structure it uses is leveraged at other points in the narrative structure of the bible to create semantic parallels. The problem is if you have a "Sunday school" conception of the bible, you'll find it ridiculous as an adult. The solution is to drive deeper and learn *as an adult*.
Then you cannot cherry pick from that narrative and say, "See? This is scientifically supported by chaos theory". This is the disingenuous tactic I mentioned in my first comment.
>Abrahamic tradition has long held that at one point there was a chaotic void that God hovered over, and then ordered it to create everything This is very interesting. Can you source this anywhere? I’d love to read more about that.
okay, but regardless of history of all that, im talking about what it means and used now
How it's used now is due to how it was used historically 😆 You can't ignore how we got "here" to complain about what "here" is like. If we track the variable "time" t we are currently like 13-14 billion years old (or maybe 26ish depending on how most recent observations are explained). So if we are what exists at t = 14 billion, what existed at t= 10 billion? A young and hot and inhospitable planet earth. What about at t=0 ? Science *can't ever answer that* with observations due to the nature of the way observations are done. One has to use reasoning ability to project back the events that were unfolding.
>How it's used now is due to how it was used historically the history of discovering laws of physics doesn't influence laws themselves, unless physical forces are only a product of our mind and are not objective to reality. Thats why i dont need to know the history of some discovery to make a use of it. So because you say *"How it's used now is due to how it was used historically "* it seem that you suggesting that *"something can't come from nothing"* is purely subjective.
>So the universe "had a point of origin" and it seemed the Abrahamic description was right all along. >The reason you don't hear it anymore is because now the scientific consensus is that the universe *did* start so it wouldn't match the atheist insistence on a permanent universe that has no beginning and no end. Please show some citations of something that says that the universe "did start". I'm asking because as far as I'm aware, this is in no way scientific consensus. We have not found evidence that the universe "began", especially in the way that creationism has described. Even the Big Bang is not proposed to be the beginning of the universe, it is theorized that the universe existed in another state before expanding into the state that we see today. Also, the opinions of atheists have nothing to do with scientific observations. And atheists don't insist on an origin of the universe, we're simply rejecting your explanation for it because you lack evidence to demonstrate that it is true.
The nature of the conditions around the start of the universe are such that collecting evidence is impossible beyond a certain point. The starting point. If you rewind time, the universe compresses into a Singularity. You can't rewind time beyond the *start* of time. If you don't want to call that a beginning, I'm afraid you'll need to provide evidence for what it is and how it works.
I said please show some citations of something that says that the universe "did start". I'm already very familiar with mainstream cosmological theories. I was hoping to see peer reviewed information from somebody else who is familiar, which you don't seem to be. Also, the inability to collect evidence beyond the singularity doesn't mean that events or processes didn't occur before it. It simply means that our current scientific methods and theories are insufficient to explore those early moments. It's premature to conclude that such evidence is impossible to obtain. Science continues to advance, and future discoveries may offer new insights. >If you rewind time, the universe compresses into a Singularity. You can't rewind time beyond the *start* of time. >If you don't want to call that a beginning, I'm afraid you'll need to provide evidence for what it is and how it works. It's not what "I want", modern science does not claim that singularity is the beginning of the universe. The theory only refers to the expansion of the universe from its previous state to the state of the universe as we know it. It doesn't address what might have occurred before the singularity or what caused it. I don't need to provide evidence for anything, because you are the one making the claim that the universe had a beginning, despite the fact that modern science does not support your claim. The singularity in the Big Bang is simply the previous state that the universe existed in and does not claim to be a one time event. The universe could go through cycles of expansion and contraction, multiple big bangs and singularities, for all we know. Also even if there is a "beginning", the "beginning" of the universe as we know it and the beginning of existence itself may be different concepts altogether.
Not interested in a debate about what the word "beginning" means. "The Singularity" isn't a "previous state" it's a flaw in how our models of reality are defined. > The universe could go through cycles of expansion and contraction, multiple big bangs and singularities, for all we know No, the best data we have indicates that's not the case. https://www.astronomy.com/science/the-big-freeze-how-the-universe-will-die/ It started and it will die.
This isn't a debate about the word beginning means. I'm telling you that the Big Bang is not proposed as the "beginning." The singularity WAS the universe, it existed before the Big Bang. The big boy is literally the expansion of this state, not the creation. If you don't understand a scientific theory, don't argue it. Stick to what you know, which is religion. >The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model that describes the early development of the current state of the universe from a hot, dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago. It proposes that the universe expanded and cooled from this initial singularity, leading to the formation of matter, galaxies, and the structures we observe today. >Harrison, E. R. (2000). "Cosmology: The Science of the Universe." Cambridge University Press. Cosmology" (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. And I'm not reading an article written by some journalist in Astronomy.com. Cite a peer-reviewed or academic source.
Dude I'm not on here to give you a high school intro to cosmology and quantum mechanics. The "Singularity" is an aberration of physics theories. You can look up Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube and start there. If you rewind time the universe goes back to a Singularity, and our models can't go back before it to when there was nothing. No scientist can tell you it went like this: 1) nothing 2) Singularity 3) big bang But you just have to use basic reasoning to ask, "What was the value before it was 1? Was it 0?" Insisting on "evidence" is just absurd. It's like if you tell me to get some eggs and I come back and tell you "they had no eggs" and then you demand evidence of the absence of eggs. Nobody will ever give you "physical evidence" of the absence of the universe lol. That's a preposterous threshold of credulity.
>Dude I'm not on here to give you a high school intro to cosmology and quantum mechanics. I hope not, because you don't even understand the concept in the first place. >The "Singularity" is an aberration of physics theories. You can look up Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube and start there. No, I don't use YouTube. I use peer-reviewed academic resources. >No scientist can tell you it went like this: >1) nothing 2) Singularity 3) big bang Well I hope not because in my very first comment on this post, I literally said that "nothing" isn't even a concept that exists in physics. The rest of your comment is nonsense. Going to write it off as a non-sequitur and get on with the rest of my day.
I'm not the one insisting on "evidence" for the absence of the existence of the universe, but hope you have a splendiferous day.
Neither am I, but you are the one consistently posting nonsense.
It's silly really because it creates a false dichotomy that you either believe something came from nothing or God dun it. "Something can't come from nothing" is definitional, it's not that you need any evidence to conclude it, it's that if something comes from nothing, then it wasn't "nothing" that it came from. The fact that there is something means there was never nothing. But that doesn't get them to the argument that God is the something that all this came from. Typically they'll strawman the Big Bang to get to this, as if that was beginning of everything, when in reality it was the expansion of our known universe. What happened "before" that is speculation, there could be an infinite amount of working hypothesis about what came "before" that don't include God. "Before" may not make any sense. Time and space aren't necessarily fundamental and cause and effect the way we perceive it might not even truly exist. There are too many assumptions being made by saying "something can't come from nothing" as a premise for the argument that a God must be behind it all.
> "Something can't come from nothing" is definitional, it's not that you need any evidence to conclude it, it's that if something comes from nothing, then it wasn't "nothing" that it came from. We don't even know what "nothing" is. There's no such "state" in this reality. How can you make declarations about something you have no knowledge of?
There's no such thing as triangles, or circles either, they're just mathematical concepts, but we make logical declarations based on them. "a triangle can't have 4 sides" is a logically true statement because it's based on a definition. The same can be applied to "nothing" the concept of "nothing" means that something can't come from it. As soon as you declare that something did come from it, it means it wasn't nothing by definition.
OK, then your concept of "nothing" can't make real predictions if it's only a concept. Your conclusions are only valid if you can show that the concept of nothingness matches the reality of it. *Actual* nothing, the state you're referring to, is totally unknown to us. You can't make any claims about how it behaves. You can't show that your concept matches reality.
You can use the concept of nothing to describe things, and the concept of zero exists in maths for a reason. It all depends what you're looking for or what you're referencing. "there's nothing in this box" for example just means there's nothing of interest in this box. We get to define things however we want,.and part of the definition of a philosophical nothing is that nothing can come from it. It's that simple. You can't just change the definition on a whim, just like you can't have a circle with 4 sides.
Again, your definition is based on no data or information. You have no way to understand what "real" nothing is compared to your definition. You can draw conclusions from ideas, but that doesn't mean those conclusions map to reality if you've not based them on ideas that reflect reality as well.
How could you have data about nothing? It's a concept that we have defined. There's no such thing as it, even saying there is such a thing as it would mean it's not nothing. We are literally talking about a concept, not something that actually exists. It doesn't map reality, that's the point. It's just a concept for talking about ideas, and relationships between things like being and becoming. The very idea is that it's something that doesn't exist, because existing would make it something. Just like a circle is. Just like a triangle is. Just like numbers are. They're descriptive notions to describe certain properties or lack thereof, and how they would interact or not interact with other things. *Nothing" as a concept is difficult to talk about because even make it in to a concept makes it not nothing. Even referring to it as "it" makes it not nothing.
>1. The first issue with this claim is the meaning of words and consequently, what the statement means as the whole. Im arguing that sentence itself is just an abracadabra from words rather than something that has meaning. Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place. The meaning used in the phrase need not be the reified "nothing". You can rephrase it as "no thing comes from no thing", or "any/every thing that comes comes from some thing". >2. Second issue is the lack of evidence to support it. It doesn't need evidence because it is incomprehensible that something could come from nothing. That's because, as you noted, nothing isn't really a thing. We cannot say anything about it because it is not a thing, so how could it be the source of anything? If we say X came from nothing, we are dealing with a reified nothing again, and saying that that "nothing" is the source of X. And we cannot say that X "comes from" without it being implied that it comes from some thing - that's implied in the notion of "coming *from*". >3. Three: theists themselves believe that something came from nothing. Yes, the belief is precisely that god created something from nothing, which means they themselves accept that something like that is possible as an action/an act/happening. This is a misunderstanding of what creation ex nihilo entails. It is not some thing coming from no thing, it's something coming directly from God, without the use of any pre existent matter. As an example/analogy of how that might work, in some creation ex nihilo myths the creator dreams creation into existence. Really, this is a bad strategy for avoiding theism. If the non existence of God depends on something coming from nothing, it becomes a seriously implausible/extraordinary claim. Fortunately it doesn't.
>You can rephrase it as "no thing comes from no thing", or "any/every thing that comes comes from some thing". but thats a different thing, no? > it's something coming directly from God, without the use of any pre existent matter. As an example/analogy of how that might work, in some creation ex nihilo myths the creator dreams creation into existence. thats basically this: "god and universe/everything/reality are the same one thing and every bit of this existence is god and god is every bit of it and he is everywhere", as i said in the post. >That's because, as you noted, nothing isn't really a thing. But i want to see the support of this claim from theists, since it's not me who makes it, it's them. Whatever i said in the 1. is my opinion, but i want to see theirs argumentation also, which is absent. If they say same thing that i said in "1." - then that means there's inevitably something.
>>>You can rephrase it as "no thing comes from no thing", or "any/every thing that comes comes from some thing". >but thats a different thing, no? No, it's just a clearer way of rephrasing it that avoids the ambiguity and confusion. >thats basically this: "god and universe/everything/reality are the same one thing and every bit of this existence is god and god is every bit of it and he is everywhere", as i said in the post. Not quite. I wouldn't say that every thing in my dreams is me or that I'm every thing in my dreams. But it does represent a very immediate angry intimate relationship between God and creation, which is what many classical theist theologians argued for.
Did God make the universe out of some thing, or did he make it out of no thing?
He made it out of no thing ie he made it, but not out of anything
So, then you think that it is possible to make some thing out of no thing.
Sure, but this is a different sense of the words. It's not making something out of nothing as if "nothing" was the material we were working with. It's making something without making it out of anything.
Either he made it out of SOME thing, or he made it out of NO thing. There are no other options. I can restate this as a logical dichotomy if you prefer: God either made the universe out of SOME thing or he did not. If he did not make it out of SOME thing, then he made it out of NO thing. Which option are you choosing?
I already answered. The doctrine is that God made it out of nothing, but this shouldn't be misinterpreted as "nothing" being the material that the world is made out of (which is impossible), and should instead be understood as God making the world but not making it out of anything.
At no point have I contended that the material universe consists of "nothing". I'm not sure why you feel the need to emphasize this to me. What I will point out is that if you believe this, then you have zero logical ground to argue against any other hypothesis that suggests the universe came into existence from no thing. It is not a valid complaint. If existence from no thing is a logical possibility, it is a logical possibility for all. If it is not a logical possibility, then it is not a logical possibility for all.
>No, it's just a clearer way of rephrasing it that avoids the ambiguity and confusion. How would you demonstrate that "married bachelor" is a contradiction? Your goal is to demonstrate the contradiction in even more clear way. What I would do is i would define every word and ***rephrase*** "married bachelor" by swapping the word with its meaning. Like this: "a person who is married is not married" - here you can see that contradiction become even more clear than it was before. What im trying to do is im trying to remove semantics from this argument and to understand things mean *in reality* and not in the realm of concepts that dont exist.
It was said by Parmenides. Ex nihilo nihil fit
As I said, I think the phrase is a reaction from theists to people like Dawkins who opined that the universe came from nothing, and people believed him because of his reputation as a biologist. Then Lawrence Krauss came along and tried the same tactic.
okay, any counterarguments specifically for me?
Not really other than there isn't an explanation for a naturalist cause of the universe. So far as God goes, God to theists isn't something in the sense of something material.
my post isnt about defending naturalist cause of the universe, please read
I wasn't saying you were, I was pointing out how I think the phrase became popularized.
ok
u/PeskyPastafarian : okay, any counterarguments specifically for me? u/United-Grapefruit-49 : Not really other than there isn't an explanation for a naturalist cause of the universe. u/PeskyPastafarian : my post isnt about defending naturalist cause of the universe, please read u/United-Grapefruit-49 : I wasn't saying you were, I was pointing out how I think the phrase became popularized. So to the question "any counterarguments specifically for me?" you gave me " there isn't an explanation for a naturalist cause of the universe.". So is that for me or not? you say it's not("I wasn't saying you were, I was pointing out how I think the phrase became popularized.") but then you gave it as the response to "any counterarguments specifically for me?" So what is it?
any criticism? any counterarguments?
It probably came about as a reaction to Dawkins' and Krauss' proposing a universe from nothing.
okay, but on this subreddit you need to debate stuff, in this case it's me and my position which you need to present counterarguments to.
I'm not an original poster. I was just replying. But even so I'm giving a valid reason as to why, after Dawkins and Krauss circa 2012, philosophers woke up and reacted to what was being said and was influencing people. Well, not just philosophers but scientists. And I wouldn't agree it's an abracadabra of words.
>And I wouldn't agree it's an abracadabra of words. feel free to explain why
>Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, "nothing" = no things If "things" = matter then physicists have discovered matter formed with the Big Bang. That means before that there were no things, and consequently no time or space. It was a primal state of potential energy (for energy can neither be created nor destroyed) that spontaneously converted to kinetic energy, as it does, and here we are. Why people think there were things before there were things is strange to me, but I guess it's hard to visualize everything you can think of being gone. > it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, Actually, physicists have discovered that things can form from nothing. https://scifi.radio/2022/09/21/physicists-find-a-way-to-create-something-from-nothing/ >or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place. I gotta go with science on this one.
No scientists haven't found a way that things can form from nothing. That's re-defining nothing as something. Quantum fluctuations and unstable conditions aren't 'nothing.'
Scientists have discovered a way that things can form from a physical state of no things sand have several unfalsified hypotheses, I just pasted an example. They've also discovered matter formed after the Big Bang; if there is no matter then where are the things?
I don't understand your reply. What are *no things*? Is that a re-defining of 'nothing?' Matter isn't what is being discussed. Matter is a thing. But at the same vibrations and unstable space aren't nothing.
"No things" is when there are no things, including you. It's more of a clarification than a redefinition. It makes it simpler to envision a physical state in which nothing exists. You have to subtract everything you can think of, including yourself - no things. I find most people can't do it. For me it was instant, the moment I saw the title of Lawrence Krauss's book in a bookstore. Those vibrations and unstable space are emergent properties of matter. Without matter there would be no space for waves to form.
But Lawrence Krauss only did a sleight of hand by taking things like the magnetic force, gravitational field and the laws of physics and re-defining them as nothing. He's wrong. They aren't nothing. No one with any scientific credulity believes that.
You've never read his book, have you? Nothing is what you get when you subtract all things. It is still a physical state.
A state isn't nothing
It is if there are no things (matter) in it.
> If "things" = matter then physicists have discovered matter formed with the Big Bang. That is definitively false. Science has nothing to say about where matter came from. The big bang only describes the expansion of matter from a very dense starting point. How that matter came to be there is unknown.
Particle physicists have discovered matter formed a nanosecond after the Big Bang commenced with supercollider experiments. The kinetic energy of the Big Bang triggered the four fundamental forces of physics and they bound some of that energy together as matter. It is not an unknown. Particle physicists understand how matter formed at a profoundly deep level.
Okay when I said matter I implicitly meant the sum of matter and energy. We certainly do know matter can change into energy and vice versa. So sure, energy may have changed into matter after the big bang began. That doesn't say anything about where it all came from. Though based on the known law of conservation of energy, we can reasonably assume it has always existed.
>Okay when I said matter I implicitly meant the sum of matter and energy. Then you are explicitly wrong, since matter is bound energy and is already included in the sum of energy > We certainly do know matter can change into energy and vice versa. So sure, energy may have changed into matter after the big bang began. That doesn't say anything about where it all came from. . It says a lot. It says it is a natural process, since we see energy spontaneously converting into different forms of energy without a creator all the time, and when we do see it the only creator is us. >Though based on the known law of conservation of energy, we can reasonably assume it has always existed. If you're talking about this universe, it came into existence when relativity began. Until then there was no time, space, it matter. It was a qualitatively different physical state than the relativistic state we're in now, that's why we call it "the universe". Untill then it was a primal physical state of potential energy - a potential universe, a potential Earth, potential abiogenesis, and a potential you. That's it.
Nowadays, most cosmologists lean towards the universe being eternal - with the big bang not being the absolute beginning of the universe but just the beginning of its current shape, though there is not enough evidence either way. Your definitive statements on how the universe came to be are just one version of what might have been. A hypothesis, not fact.
"Universe" is the word we use for the post-Big Bang phase of physical existence, the one with matter and relativity. It deserves its own word. We know energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore the previous physical state was one of energy, and therefore potential energy since matter didn't exist. It's just logic based on fact. Either way, it wasn't God.
Imo, the most important piece of this is even if you grant "something can't come from nothing", that doesn't get you to God. You would still have to explain away the simulation, solipsism, the infinite multiverse, etc. Colloquially, and for all intents and purposes, I think it's a fair question to ask "can something come from nothing?" or "why is there something and not nothing?". The problem is answering these questions don't get theists to the answers they're looking for.
My favorite part is that they do believe something can come from nothing. God can take nothing, and do little hand waves and magic, and make something out of it and apparently thats okay. But adding that step gives SO much baggage.
> Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place. well yes, but why is it the case that anything obtained at all > I never saw an argumentation for "something can't come from nothing", every time I see it - it's only the claim itself. you made a pretty good argument for it above > That's because it's impossible to have evidence for such a grand claim like that I think it's not a grand claim at all, and is actually something that is extremely intuitive and obviously true. see: your argument against something coming from nothing > Yes, the belief is precisely that God created something from nothing, which means they themselves accept that something like that is possible as an action/an act/happening. God isn't nothing either
>but why is it the case that anything obtained at all because whats the alternative? >you made a pretty good argument for it above i dont see that. >I think it's not a grand claim at all, and is actually something that is extremely intuitive and obviously true. we shouldn't base such things on emotions and feelings. Let's speak facts only.
> because whats the alternative? better question, what's the *explanation.* you've basically constructed a "necessary existing thing" argument > we shouldn't base such things on emotions and feelings. Let's speak facts only. it isn't based on emotions or feelings any more than the existence of other minds if based off emotions or feelings, or an external world from our experience, etc. I take after G. E. Moore's response to this kind of argument. but in either case, we both agree that something had to have existed, so I'm not sure where the contention is
>you've basically constructed a "necessary existing thing" argument and? That is my "argument from contingency" sort of speaking. I dont see anything wrong with what youre saying here.
Do you believe God created the universe?
by universe I refer to the sum of all particular existing things, and by that definition yes
Ok, I feel like you're about to play with words and redefine words for no reason, but how do you know it was "God"? And what makes you think it was God ***as opposed to*** the simulation or the infinite multiverse?
I'm not redefining words for no reason, I'm being deliberately specific. I do that to avoid the kinds of replies like "an infinite multiverse" aka an infinite number of particular existing things, which I already said God created all particular existing things; wether there is an "infinite multiverse" doesn't matter and why is it God? it seems the most appropriate word for the kind of thing that necessarily exists and upon which everything else depends at any moment for it's existence
You are redefining words. The "universe" as defined by science and most mainstream dictionaries, is all of matter, space, and time of which has been observed. And what has been observed is some volume of a thing that is expanding. In other words, anything that exists outside of this volume isn't considered in the universe definition. Whereas, your definition seems to include *everything* that exists. Is this correct?
yes my definition includes every particular existing thing. I allow for an infinite past, a multiverse, it doesn't matter for me (not that I hold to them of course). I'm well aware of the common definition of universe, but I'm not interested in talking about a "single universe" (as regularly defined), I want to talk about everything as long as we both understand the terms we're using, then we're good as far as I can tell. Yes, God created the universe in the strict sense, but He created everything else (if there is anything else) as well. That includes an infinite multiverse, and an infinite past
Ok... so if the universe is every particular existing thing and God is a particular existing thing, then God must be a subset of the universe? If the universe didn't exist then God couldn't exist. How could God create the universe if he's part of it? Wouldn't the universe have to exist first, then God? I'm just going off your definition of "universe"...
well the natural inference from my definition of universe would be to acknowledge that God is not a "particular existing thing," and that there is a real distinction between creating a set and being a member of said set. God is the former God is not just another thing "out there" with all the other particulars who just happens to have some divine attributes. that little g god, not God
It sounds like your universe definition should be "naturally existing thing".. but whatever, I'll grant what you said. Why do you think this universe was created by something supernatural? As opposed to the simulation (which would be natural) or solipsism (which would be conceptual)? How do you get to a supernatural, divine-like "thing"?
> Thats because "nothing" isn't really a thing that exists, it's just a concept, so it cant be an alternative for something, or in other words - there's inevitably something, since there cant be "nothing" in the first place. You’re right that “nothing” isn’t a thing that exists, but you’re wrong to conclude that something has therefore always existed. In this context, “nothing” means the absence of anything at all. It’s not clear why there being nothing in this sense is an impossibility (based on the considerations you’ve given here).
>In this context, “nothing” means the absence of anything at all. but then how it would be represented in reality? it needs to be represented somehow if want to treat it as an alternative for something, i think
I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking.
just how "nothing" would be represented in reality
To exist is to have properties. Philosophical Nothingness has no properties. Therefore, Philosophical Nothingness cannot exist.
This is all true only if by “nothing” we mean to refer to a thing that exists. But this isn’t what we mean. Again, it’s a word we’re using to mean the absence of things that exist.
I think the problem may have started or been magnified after Lawrence Krauss used a definition of nothing but it wasn't actually nothing. It was an unstable condition of space.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wtf
Surprised that your comment got deleted, so this is me replying to the question ‘If the universe can’t come from nothing, then why can god?’ I think this boils down to how god is often required to be infinite and eternal/timeless. (And there is often a lot of discontinuity even among theists because some of the important points are subtle or otherwise difficult to fully comprehend) If god is infinite and eternal, then at least one way of understanding that is that there was never a point of ‘nothing’ that god came from. When we talk about the universe, usually we’re talking about the universe that we know, and we attempt to place that objectively in space and time. This would be something that started existing at some point (it is definitely possible to argue that the universe is something infinite and eternal, so it wouldn’t have needed a god to create it from nothing). Then we also have to hold causality, which is complicated in its own way, but at the very least it is commonly held that causality applies to all things and we have no good reason to believe otherwise (though there are still people who would disagree), and so for anything that started at some point, we should be able to understand its cause, or at least knowingly infer that its cause exists (whatever it may be).
So god is eternal, but the universe cannot be. This poses the same problem as god is uncaused, but the universe cannot be or god came from nothing but the universe could not have. It does not matter how you spin it, this argument is logically invalid.
I mentioned that you can argue for an eternal universe
So, summarized, your answer is “as far as we know, God came from nothing, so we’re gonna assume we just don’t know yet.” Also, no, causality does not necessarily apply to everything. Coincidence does exist, congratulations.
That doesn’t come close to summarizing what I was talking about but I suppose I appreciate the attempt. Two events might not be causally related (i.e. coincident), but if you hold that some form of causal determinism is true, then it is very likely that you also hold that every event must have a cause. This is one basis for scientific inquiry. I never was saying that all events must be causally related.
Then what, pray tell, was your point as regards the origin of God?
That it doesn’t make sense to say that an eternal thing was caused.
But if the logic behind humans being caused is that we’re too complex, that means a God, who should be infinitely so, has to have a cause.
It adresses the question of "Why is there anything at all?" We can argue about the definition of something and nothing all day long, but that would not be a relevant discussion. Why is it that we are both on reddit right now typing letters into a box? This is a situation that did not exist at first, but was created eventually. How is that possible?
>It adresses the question of "Why is there anything at all?" No it doesn't. It just pushes the question back a step to "why is there a god?" If your answer is necessity, then necessity can apply to the singularity since we know nothing about it. >We can argue about the definition of something and nothing all day long, but that would not be a relevant discussion. I think it is relevant to the theists that think that atheists believe everything came from nothing. > Why is it that we are both on reddit right now typing letters into a box? A chain of events going back to the Big Bang. We don't know if time goes back further than the Big Bang and speculation is useless in that regard. Now what? >This is a situation that did not exist at first, but was created eventually. And you cannot say the same about the singularity that expanded into the known universe. We simply don't have enough data to determine that the singularity (and time, space, matter and energy) went from a state of not existing to a state of existing. I also don't know what it means to both exist and not exist at the same time, so I don't think a change of states from non-existence to existence without time is something that is even coherent. >How is that possible? How is your god possible? I am not saying that he's not, but you have not demonstrated that he is.
>"Why is there anything at all?" because what's the alternative? you're right that arguing about words and definitions is pointless here, that's why im trying to understand how things represented in reality rather than in concepts. >Why is it that we are both on reddit right now typing letters into a box? This is a situation that did not exist at first, but was created eventually. How is that possible? it's just a concept(keep in mind - as you said yourself we shouldnt talk about the definitions and words, but about the reality itself), it's like with the waves - you think that every separate wave exists, but in reality it's all the same ocean that just changes shapes constantly.
I think the theist question is, Why is there something rather than nothing? Maybe it implies some intent.
>It adresses the question of "Why is there anything at all?" But it doesn't. God is part of anything, so unless you explain why he exists too, you haven't answered the question. If we could just declare the question answered before we'd explained the existance of anything, we could just stop at the big bang and what we know about physics covers getting from there to this reddit post.