Creatio Ex Nihilo - Forming Something out of Nothing?

[Mudhammam]

that the revealed monotheistic god (Jewish, Christian, or of Islam) claims for himself, viz. eternal being.

I think you mean rather it has the qualities that ancient myth-makers borrowed from ancient philosophers who thought about the same questions and came up with no better solutions.

[Ignorant]

that the revealed monotheistic god (Jewish, Christian, or of Islam) claims for himself, viz. eternal being.

I think you mean rather it has the qualities that ancient myth-makers borrowed from ancient philosophers who thought about the same questions and came up with no better solutions.

Well, no, that isn't what I meant, but you are certainly free to put it that way if you like! But I'm confused. I thought the authors of the bible were iron-age, myth-making idiots who thought the sky was really a dome of water and that the earth was a giant disc and made up irrational stories about a god to make sense of the world? Now they are philosophizing myth-making idiots who borrow ideas from other cultures? What a promotion! =)

Seriously though, I only meant to suggest that god, as the monotheistic traditions present him as having revealed himself, has this trait.

[bennyboy]

It's almost like they are saying, "Stuff coming from nothing is impossible, so you need someone who can do things that are impossible."

That's a great quote. I'd rep you all over again for that one if it was possible.

Miracles CAN happen. Just +1'd him for ya.

[Esquilax]

What I was trying to point out is that, quite frequently, the two arguments/conclusions are conflated in a conversation (by theists and atheists alike, as you demonstrate). There must be a distinction between the two arguments/conclusions present. 1) The philosophical argument for necessary existence (which is not a stand-alone argument for the existence of god) and 2) The faith-based belief in a creation ex nihilo as opposed to a belief in the "making" or "forming" of the universe out of some primordial "matter" by a god (e.g. in the Gilgamesh Epic). The former is an argument in a series which (as the arguments go) lead to the conclusion of something "like" a god existing. The latter already presupposes the existence of such a god and claims knowledge of its action. See the difference?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you're saying, I was just commenting that it makes the god proposition a complete non-starter. There are plenty of contentions to be made about the first argument too, but I see no reason to even come into that conversation if the interlocutor is just going to fall back on faith after poking holes in an opposing view: argument from ignorance+ really wanting something to be true =/= argument.

[Ignorant]

If "nothing comes from nothing" means that nothing exists without a precursor cause, then it's not a matter of "as far as I can tell." If nothing comes from nothing, then we are the result of infinite regress. No two ways about it.

But "nothing comes from nothing" does not mean "nothing exists without a precursor cause." Those are two very different propositions, and I would think that they are OBVIOUSLY different. I know that many theists have presented this argument in a particular way that causes you to jump to this way of thinking. It isn't your fault. Follow me here:

If no thing exists, then no thing will ever exist. Where is the talk of causality? Effects? Precursor causes? You say we are the result of an infinite regress. Your proposition assumes that some thing MUST exist, namely, an infinite regress. You AGREE with the argument in your attempt to refute it. Don't over-think it. It is not trying to demonstrate god. It is stating something so utterly basic it seems silly that it even needs an argument (so silly that someone thinks its circular!). It starts with two ideas; if at one time, no thing was existing, then no thing would ever exist, and some things are currently existing. Therefore, there could never have been a time when no thing existed. In other words, at every moment, at least one thing has existed. You say it is an infinite regress. Fine, but you agree that some thing has always existed. I say it is one thing, viz. existence. You say that it is many things successively without any interruption of existence. Fine. That is a topic for a different thread I think.

Well, that argument just makes stuff up. There is no way to get from "nothing comes from nothing" to something cannot not-exist.

Well, I'd hope you'd give more benefit of the doubt before accusing me of "making stuff up". Your conclusion above about an infinite regress does the same thing. If there never was a moment in which no thing was existing, then every moment ever has always included the existence of some thing(s). You say that thing or things vary (i.e. go in and out of existence) over the different moments. I say that some thing is the always same, i.e. it is existence itself (which would be common to every particular and individual thing in an infinite regress). Existence is the one, eternal, and necessary thing which cannot not exist. If there never was "existence" or "being", then nothing could have "existence" or "being". However, things have existence now, and things in an infinite regress have "existence". Therefore, existence itself, the principle act of being, must have always just "been". Granted, in order to speak about existence in this way, I am in fact drawing upon other logical principles and syllogism, but I am certainly not "making stuff up". Even ff we are the result of an infinite regress, there is one single aspect of that regress of cause and effect that is common throughout its infinitely eternal span, i.e. "being" or "existence" It is the most basic thing about things. All existing things have it. =)

Usually, Christians claim that nothing comes from nothing, which would entail an infinite regression, and then they reverse themselves by claiming that infinite regression is impossible. The first cause argument is typically based on premises that contradict each other.

I'm happy to know what Christians usually claim, but is that what I have claimed? I claimed that "nothing comes from nothing" can only have one conclusion. Something must have always existed. Some thing(s) cannot not exist. There are only two possibilities: an eternal infinite regress of things, or a finite regress terminating in an eternal thing. I think the former is impossible and irrational, you think the latter one is. There has always been some thing. What is that thing? Is it an infinite regress? Is it an eternal singular cause? Is it the universe itself? Is it The Agrocrag from Nickelodeon's Guts? More must be proposed and said first. If you think the actual argument that informed theists propose is that there must exist an infinite regress, but an infinite regress is impossible, therefore, God created the world... then you have been fighting either a straw man or well-intentioned but ultimately unprepared Christians.

Again, that's just made up. There's no way to get from "There have always been things," to, "There has always been one particular thing which cannot possibly not exist."

Sure there is such a way. If it is true that there have always been things, then it is also true that there has always been at least one thing common to all of them, viz. existence. If some things have always existed, then there has always been existence (singular). There was never a moment that lacked existence. Existence is eternal.

But it cannot demonstrate it. It's a non-sequitur.

It would be if it were presented as the Christians you are accustomed to interacting with were presenting it according to their and your understanding. My whole purpose in posting on this thread was to try and show that such an understanding is actually incorrect and a confusion of two very different arguments and propositions as a single one.

The argument from nothing does "nothing more" than show that reality is eternal. There could never have existed a moment in which no thing whatsoever existed. Rather, at every moment, at least one thing has existed, which means that existence has been eternal. If the universe was created or began (which is rationally debatable), that must mean that it came from SOME other existing cause. Is that cause God? Is that cause just some other thing in an infinite regress of things? Is it a ham sandwich? Who knows? If we want to try and find out, we need more information.

If it's not false, then the universe has always existed, and we have no use for a creator.

Like I've admitted many times already, that is correctly a possibility. However, it would be just as premature to conclude this from what we have stated in premise 1 and 2 as it would be premature to say that all things exist through the creative act of an intelligent God. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to go step by step to get to an eternal universe that exists as an infinite regress of cause and effect.

In other words, it rejects the claim that nothing comes from nothing. People who care about logic and consistency shouldn't claim both that nothing comes from nothing and that god made something come from nothing . . . The claims cannot both be true.

The creation ex nihilo does NOT reject the claim that nothing comes from nothing (that is what I have tried and failed to point out to you). Rather, creation ex nihilo RESTS on the claim that nothing comes from nothing (i.e. existence cannot come from absolute non-existence). God, so the claim goes, is the something (as opposed to no thing) from which all things come. Every other thing is only a thing insofar as it "participates" (the neo-platonic term) in the "being" of God. In other words, all things that are not god receive their existence from God's own existence. Why must they find their origin in God? Because there is no other thing which has existence to give (so the article of revelation says). It is not an argument, but it also does not contradict the philosophical argument, no matter how poorly other Christians have presented it to you in the past. Ignore that past history. Read my words and try to understand the distinction I am poorly illustrating. I need your help! =)

[KUSA]

Himself.

Fuck that's stupid. What did he do, shit us out?

[Ignorant]

What I was trying to point out is that, quite frequently, the two arguments/conclusions are conflated in a conversation (by theists and atheists alike, as you demonstrate). There must be a distinction between the two arguments/conclusions present. 1) The philosophical argument for necessary existence (which is not a stand-alone argument for the existence of god) and 2) The faith-based belief in a creation ex nihilo as opposed to a belief in the "making" or "forming" of the universe out of some primordial "matter" by a god (e.g. in the Gilgamesh Epic). The former is an argument in a series which (as the arguments go) lead to the conclusion of something "like" a god existing. The latter already presupposes the existence of such a god and claims knowledge of its action. See the difference?

Don't get me wrong, I do understand what you're saying, I was just commenting that it makes the god proposition a complete non-starter. There are plenty of contentions to be made about the first argument too, but I see no reason to even come into that conversation if the interlocutor is just going to fall back on faith after poking holes in an opposing view: argument from ignorance+ really wanting something to be true =/= argument.

Fair enough. Do I strike you as a person who begins a rational discussion only to fall back on faith when my arguments are rationally critiqued?

[ManMachine]

Just had a good think about this idea thanks to another thread. And what confuses me is that a lot of theists will argue that "out of nothing, nothing comes" but then go on to say that God created stuff from this "nothing".

I guess what my issue with this is how is this logical if "nothing" (in the philosophical sense that most theists stick to) is not meant to have any sort material from which to form anything. Nothing supposedly means no stuff, no properties, no material, etc.

I know I've posted this thought experiment before but here goes for those who missed it.

Imagine a cube of 'nothing' 200 miles in each direction, and now imagine yourself in the middle of this cube. What you observe is 'nothing'.

If you decide you want to go travelling so you set off in a direction, any direction it doesn't matter, what you see is still nothing. Although you have moved in space you have not observed any change in the properties of 'nothing', so you have demonstrated that 'nothing' is invariant or has symmetry of translations in space.

Now you find your way back to the centre of the cube, this time you want to see what happens if you wait, so you wait 20 years. After 20 years you observe no change in the 'nothing', you have just demonstrated that 'nothing' is invariant or has symmetry of translations in time.

Meanwhile back in reality your lab assistant is about to conduct an experiment in London while you are conducting the exact same experiment in New York. You make a note of your observations and you discover that your experiment in London yields the exact same result as your experiment in New York, so you determine that the results as you observe them are invariant or have symmetry in translations in space.

You then wait a month and conduct the exact same experiment in the Bahamas because London is wet and New York too busy. The experiment yields the exact same result, you can now conclude that the results as you observe them are invariant or have symmetry in translations in time. So what, you might think, that's just a thought experiment and up to this point you'd be right, but here's where it gets interesting.

If we take the symmetry of translations in space, together with the principle of least action and apply a very special theorem called Noether's Theorem (first discovered by Emmy Noether) what we arrive at is the law of conservation of momentum. This 'interesting' observation of symmetry leads to a fundamental law of physics.

This is the also the case for other symmetries. Translational symmetry in space, together with the principle of least action when applied to Noether's Theorem gives us the conservation of momentum. We also know that the laws of physics are the same in any orientation, this symmeter of rotation in space together with the principle of least action when applied to Noethr's Theorem gives us the conservation of angular momentum.

Symmetry is clearly important on a fundamental level, in fact it is deeply powerful. We know that in Quantum Mechanics that a quantum wave is symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space (global phase change), this is called gauge symmetry. This symmetry happens to lead to the conservation of electric charge. But, the Schrödinger equation tells us that Quantum waves are not symmetrical under 'local' rotations in complex space (local phase change). However if we apply a field of force, like the electromagnetic field we can restore symmetry. This remarkably means that through the use of symmetry we have a powerful way of finding new laws of physics, e.g. another field used to restore symmetry is the nuclear 'strong' field that glues together quarks.

If we go back to the beginning of our thought experiment we remember that 'nothing' has exactly the same symmetries that are fundamental to the laws of physics in our Universe, which means either you do not need to change the laws of physics to get from 'nothing' to a Universe full of matter or that there is no difference between 'nothing' and our Universe full of matter.

We may simply be patterns in a void.

MM

For those of you who find this interesting here's a Google Tech Talk on Emmy Noether and the Fabric of Reality.

[wiploc]

If "nothing comes from nothing" means that nothing exists without a precursor cause, then it's not a matter of "as far as I can tell." If nothing comes from nothing, then we are the result of infinite regress. No two ways about it.

But "nothing comes from nothing" does not mean "nothing exists without a precursor cause." Those are two very different propositions, and I would think that they are OBVIOUSLY different.

It's an ambiguous phrase, can be interpreted different ways. Tell me what you mean by it.

I know that many theists have presented this argument in a particular way that causes you to jump to this way of thinking. It isn't your fault. Follow me here:

If no thing exists, then no thing will ever exist. Where is the talk of causality? Effects? Precursor causes? You say we are the result of an infinite regress. Your proposition assumes that some thing MUST exist, namely, an infinite regress. You AGREE with the argument in your attempt to refute it. Don't over-think it. It is not trying to demonstrate god. It is stating something so utterly basic it seems silly that it even needs an argument (so silly that someone thinks its circular!). It starts with two ideas; if at one time, no thing was existing, then no thing would ever exist, and some things are currently existing. Therefore, there could never have been a time when no thing existed. In other words, at every moment, at least one thing has existed. You say it is an infinite regress. Fine, but you agree that some thing has always existed. I say it is one thing, viz. existence. You say that it is many things successively without any interruption of existence. Fine. That is a topic for a different thread I think.

If you want to count different things existing at different times as one thing existing always, then, fine, I'll accept that for the sake of argument. I think calling the thing-that-has-always-existed "existence" is problematic. But, somewhere, you offer to call it "the universe," and I can go with that.

And, anticipating here, if you want to say that when you say this thing cannot not-exist, all you mean is that it so far hasn't happened to not-exist, then I'm okay with that rephrasing:

If we stipulate that nothing comes from nothing, then it follows that the universe is eternal; it has never not-existed.

Well, that argument just makes stuff up. There is no way to get from "nothing comes from nothing" to something cannot not-exist.

Well, I'd hope you'd give more benefit of the doubt before accusing me of "making stuff up".

There's no way to get from something "nothing comes from nothing" to "there is something that cannot not-exist."

Your conclusion above about an infinite regress does the same thing.

How do you figure?

If there never was a moment in which no thing was existing, then every moment ever has always included the existence of some thing(s). You say that thing or things vary (i.e. go in and out of existence) over the different moments.

What I said is that it could be that way. That's one of the possibilities. You jumped to the conclusion that some one thing has always existed---and cannot not-exist---without any steps to get there.

I say that some thing is the always same, i.e. it is existence itself (which would be common to every particular and individual thing in an infinite regress). Existence is the one, eternal, and necessary thing which cannot not exist.

Why can't there be two things? Why would something have to be necessary? You don't want me to say you're making things up, but these claims are unsupported. They look like they came out of thin air.

If there never was "existence" or "being", then nothing could have "existence" or "being".

If we stipulate the premise that nothing comes from nothing, then yes.

However, things have existence now, and things in an infinite regress have "existence". Therefore, existence itself, the principle act of being, must have always just "been".

I can grant that, if it's true that nothing comes from nothing, then it follows that the universe is an eternal infinite regress that happens to have always existed.

Granted, in order to speak about existence in this way, I am in fact drawing upon other logical principles and syllogism, but I am certainly not "making stuff up". Even ff we are the result of an infinite regress, there is one single aspect of that regress of cause and effect that is common throughout its infinitely eternal span, i.e. "being" or "existence" It is the most basic thing about things. All existing things have it. =)

I'm told that there are serious philosophers who disagree as to whether existence is an attribute. (Something like that, anyway.) I'm not in a position to take a stand one way or another.

Usually, Christians claim that nothing comes from nothing, which would entail an infinite regression, and then they reverse themselves by claiming that infinite regression is impossible. The first cause argument is typically based on premises that contradict each other.

I'm happy to know what Christians usually claim, but is that what I have claimed? I claimed that "nothing comes from nothing" can only have one conclusion. Something must have always existed.

Infinite regress, then.

Some thing(s) cannot not exist.

There's no reason to claim that (based on what evidence you have so far adduced) unless, when you say "cannot" you mean something like, "so far hasn't happened to."

There are only two possibilities: an eternal infinite regress of things, or a finite regress terminating in an eternal thing.

That's not two possibilities. If we're counting the universe (everything that exists) as one single thing, and if we're saying that a god exists, then the infinite regress of the universe happens in both of your suggested scenarios.

I think the former is impossible and irrational, you think the latter one is.

You're putting words in my mouth. The words even happen to be false.

There has always been some thing. What is that thing? Is it an infinite regress? Is it an eternal singular cause?

How would an infinite regress differ from an eternal singular cause?

Is it the universe itself?

Obviously everything-that-exists is going to qualify as something that exists. And just as obviously it will have existed for just as long as anything existed.

... If you think the actual argument that informed theists propose is that there must exist an infinite regress, but an infinite regress is impossible, therefore, God created the world... then you have been fighting either a straw man or well-intentioned but ultimately unprepared Christians.

As near as I can tell, they are all unprepared. If they knew of a good argument, they would field it.

Again, that's just made up. There's no way to get from "There have always been things," to, "There has always been one particular thing which cannot possibly not exist."

Sure there is such a way. If it is true that there have always been things, then it is also true that there has always been at least one thing common to all of them, viz. existence. If some things have always existed, then there has always been existence (singular). There was never a moment that lacked existence. Existence is eternal.

Once again you've skipped a step. There's no way to get from something always existed to something always had to exist. Unless, as previously granted, you're going to do it by redefining words again. If by "cannot" all you mean is "happens not to be the case so far," then I can grant your claim.

But it cannot demonstrate it. It's a non-sequitur.

It would be if it were presented as the Christians you are accustomed to interacting with were presenting it according to their and your understanding. My whole purpose in posting on this thread was to try and show that such an understanding is actually incorrect and a confusion of two very different arguments and propositions as a single one.

You have my attention.

The argument from nothing does "nothing more" than show that reality is eternal. There could never have existed a moment in which no thing whatsoever existed. Rather, at every moment, at least one thing has existed, which means that existence has been eternal.

Granted; if we stipulate the premise, then we can reach these conclusions.

If the universe was created or began (which is rationally debatable), that must mean that it came from SOME other existing cause.

No, it means the opposite. If "universe" means "everything that exists," then there can't be something else to cause it.

If, on the other hand, when you say "universe," you mean only something like, "some stuff that exists, but not all of it," then the question of where the universe came from becomes trivial and uninteresting. You wouldn't be talking about ultimate origins. Any cause would suffice as an answer. "This sandwich came from Burger King," would be as good an answer as any.

...

If it's not false, then the universe has always existed, and we have no use for a creator.

Like I've admitted many times already, that is correctly a possibility. However, it would be just as premature to conclude this from what we have stated in premise 1 and 2 as it would be premature to say that all things exist through the creative act of an intelligent God. If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to go step by step to get to an eternal universe that exists as an infinite regress of cause and effect.

If you're against skipping steps, how do get from "It happens that something has always existed" to "there's something that cannot not exist"?

In other words, it rejects the claim that nothing comes from nothing. People who care about logic and consistency shouldn't claim both that nothing comes from nothing and that god made something come from nothing . . . The claims cannot both be true.

The creation ex nihilo does NOT reject the claim that nothing comes from nothing (that is what I have tried and failed to point out to you).

So ex nihilo doesn't really mean "from nothing"?

Rather, creation ex nihilo RESTS on the claim that nothing comes from nothing (i.e. existence cannot come from absolute non-existence). God, so the claim goes, is the something (as opposed to no thing) from which all things come.

You're saying that he made the rest of the universe from himself? That's not really ex nihilo.

Every other thing is only a thing insofar as it "participates" (the neo-platonic term) in the "being" of God. In other words, all things that are not god receive their existence from God's own existence. Why must they find their origin in God? Because there is no other thing which has existence to give (so the article of revelation says). It is not an argument, but it also does not contradict the philosophical argument, no matter how poorly other Christians have presented it to you in the past. Ignore that past history. Read my words and try to understand the distinction I am poorly illustrating. I need your help! =)

You're saying that god could be the early part of an infinite regress, that god could be true and that "nothing comes from nothing" could also be true?

If that's all you're saying, there's no contradiction there. But there's also nothing proven, or even undertaken to be proven.

Allowing an infinite regress does not disprove gods.

[GrandizerII]

Just had a good think about this idea thanks to another thread. And what confuses me is that a lot of theists will argue that "out of nothing, nothing comes" but then go on to say that God created stuff from this "nothing".

I guess what my issue with this is how is this logical if "nothing" (in the philosophical sense that most theists stick to) is not meant to have any sort material from which to form anything. Nothing supposedly means no stuff, no properties, no material, etc.

I know I've posted this thought experiment before but here goes for those who missed it.

Imagine a cube of 'nothing' 200 miles in each direction, and now imagine yourself in the middle of this cube. What you observe is 'nothing'.

If you decide you want to go travelling so you set off in a direction, any direction it doesn't matter, what you see is still nothing. Although you have moved in space you have not observed any change in the properties of 'nothing', so you have demonstrated that 'nothing' is invariant or has symmetry of translations in space.

Now you find your way back to the centre of the cube, this time you want to see what happens if you wait, so you wait 20 years. After 20 years you observe no change in the 'nothing', you have just demonstrated that 'nothing' is invariant or has symmetry of translations in time.

Meanwhile back in reality your lab assistant is about to conduct an experiment in London while you are conducting the exact same experiment in New York. You make a note of your observations and you discover that your experiment in London yields the exact same result as your experiment in New York, so you determine that the results as you observe them are invariant or have symmetry in translations in space.

You then wait a month and conduct the exact same experiment in the Bahamas because London is wet and New York too busy. The experiment yields the exact same result, you can now conclude that the results as you observe them are invariant or have symmetry in translations in time. So what, you might think, that's just a thought experiment and up to this point you'd be right, but here's where it gets interesting.

If we take the symmetry of translations in space, together with the principle of least action and apply a very special theorem called Noether's Theorem (first discovered by Emmy Noether) what we arrive at is the law of conservation of momentum. This 'interesting' observation of symmetry leads to a fundamental law of physics.

This is the also the case for other symmetries. Translational symmetry in space, together with the principle of least action when applied to Noether's Theorem gives us the conservation of momentum. We also know that the laws of physics are the same in any orientation, this symmeter of rotation in space together with the principle of least action when applied to Noethr's Theorem gives us the conservation of angular momentum.

Symmetry is clearly important on a fundamental level, in fact it is deeply powerful. We know that in Quantum Mechanics that a quantum wave is symmetric with respect to rotations in complex space (global phase change), this is called gauge symmetry. This symmetry happens to lead to the conservation of electric charge. But, the Schrödinger equation tells us that Quantum waves are not symmetrical under 'local' rotations in complex space (local phase change). However if we apply a field of force, like the electromagnetic field we can restore symmetry. This remarkably means that through the use of symmetry we have a powerful way of finding new laws of physics, e.g. another field used to restore symmetry is the nuclear 'strong' field that glues together quarks.

If we go back to the beginning of our thought experiment we remember that 'nothing' has exactly the same symmetries that are fundamental to the laws of physics in our Universe, which means either you do not need to change the laws of physics to get from 'nothing' to a Universe full of matter or that there is no difference between 'nothing' and our Universe full of matter.

We may simply be patterns in a void.

MM

For those of you who find this interesting here's a Google Tech Talk on Emmy Noether and the Fabric of Reality.

We seem to differ on how each of us conceives of "nothing". You seem to be saying that "void" is a "nothing", and that's a fair statement to make, but when I read about being in a cube of "nothing" and observing "nothing", I'm unable to see how this is actually a "nothing".

I'll agree that the closest to "nothing" in reality would be something like what you're referring to.