RE: Creatio Ex Nihilo - Forming Something out of Nothing?
February 22, 2015 at 3:24 pm
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 3:32 pm by Ignorant.)
Esquilax said:
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?
Wiploc said:
To your first point: You are correct that it would not be reasonable to conclude that "there was a beginning" from the premise "out of nothing nothing comes." In fact, the opposite conclusion is the only rational conclusion (as far as I can tell), i.e. that there must have always existed something (whatever that something may be). There must exist, by logical necessity, some thing that has never not-existed, i.e. a thing which cannot not-exist, a thing whose identity/definition/whatever you'd lie to call it is "existence itself". So the argument goes anyway.
To your second: I am saying that by rational argument and investigation alone, it is not demonstrable that the universe had a beginning. Rationally, it is certainly possible that the universe is eternal, but it is just as likely that it had a beginning (I think current cosmological investigation supports this, i.e. while the standard model includes a "beginning", there are several competing and strong theories that assume an eternal universe, I am happy to be corrected). The Christian faith claims, as a revealed truth, that everything that is not god had a beginning. As of now, that does not contradict the findings of reason, but it certainly does not follow as an undeniable conclusion from rational argument. It is important for both sides of the discussion to recognize what exactly is under discussion in the particular arguments.
To your third point: They only contradict each other if we refuse to seek to understand what is meant in either case. Here they are illustrated quickly and simply
1) Philosophical Argument
Premise 1) If no thing is existing (P), then no thing will be (Q).
Premise 2) Some things are (not Q).
There is only one conclusion. P must always be false. If it were EVER true, Q would be true, which contradicts everything there is about existence. Therefore, there must have always existed at least 1 thing which could not not exist. That is all the argument aims at demonstrating. Is it the universe itself? Energy? Matter? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Too little information to tell from the argument.
If, however, premise 1 is false, then the argument is not sound and should be rejected. The way I have put it, in my haste, might certainly have deficiencies, but I put it up only to illustrate that there are two issues at play that get conflated into one (see below). I have yet to encounter any satisfying argument that could demonstrate that this premise, in its best formulation, is indeed false.
2) Creation ex nihilo, on the other hand, is not an argument at all. It is a truth about God's relationship to all things that are not God. Ex nihilo, in this sense, means that God "created" everything else as a participation in his own existence, i.e. he did not need any starting material... God created his own stuff with which to form the universe. That is an article of faith. If anyone is trying to argue, from reason alone, that God created the universe out of nothing, that person is misguided (at least in my opinion). It devolves into a God-of-the-gaps argument, and actually distorts the philosophical concept of god.
AFTT47 said:
You are correct AFTT47, there must have always been something, and that is all that argument can tell us. The second possibility can only be reasonable if, like I said above, is shown to be false. True, invoking god, if this were the only argument offered, would indeed be irresponsible and irrational speculation. However, it would establish that there is at least one thing in the universe that has at least one of the qualities that the revealed monotheistic god (Jewish, Christian, or of Islam) claims for himself, viz. eternal being. Ya gotta start somewhere! =)
Thank you for your kind welcome. Even if I sound intelligent, I simply refer you to my name: Ignorant. Considering how much there is to know in this life, I know so precious little. Hopefully we can all grow in knowledge together. Thank you for responding to my thoughts. And just to be clear, my goal is to clear up what I see to be a confusion, not to be confused with actually proposing an argument. This thread began with a question seeking to clear up a confusion, and I hope I have helped.
As for introductions, I am just a simple man from Arkansas named Jeff seeking to become a better man. Let me know when I fail!
Quote:Which is kinda the end of the conversation, if you have to lean on faith to establish your conclusion.
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?
Wiploc said:
Quote:It entails infinite regress. It is not reasonable to start with "Out of nothing nothing comes," and conclude that there was a beginning....
It sounds like you're saying the universe is eternal, that it had no creator...
You can have "creation ex nihilo," or you can have "nothing comes from nothing." Since they contradict each other, you can't have both.
To your first point: You are correct that it would not be reasonable to conclude that "there was a beginning" from the premise "out of nothing nothing comes." In fact, the opposite conclusion is the only rational conclusion (as far as I can tell), i.e. that there must have always existed something (whatever that something may be). There must exist, by logical necessity, some thing that has never not-existed, i.e. a thing which cannot not-exist, a thing whose identity/definition/whatever you'd lie to call it is "existence itself". So the argument goes anyway.
To your second: I am saying that by rational argument and investigation alone, it is not demonstrable that the universe had a beginning. Rationally, it is certainly possible that the universe is eternal, but it is just as likely that it had a beginning (I think current cosmological investigation supports this, i.e. while the standard model includes a "beginning", there are several competing and strong theories that assume an eternal universe, I am happy to be corrected). The Christian faith claims, as a revealed truth, that everything that is not god had a beginning. As of now, that does not contradict the findings of reason, but it certainly does not follow as an undeniable conclusion from rational argument. It is important for both sides of the discussion to recognize what exactly is under discussion in the particular arguments.
To your third point: They only contradict each other if we refuse to seek to understand what is meant in either case. Here they are illustrated quickly and simply
1) Philosophical Argument
Premise 1) If no thing is existing (P), then no thing will be (Q).
Premise 2) Some things are (not Q).
There is only one conclusion. P must always be false. If it were EVER true, Q would be true, which contradicts everything there is about existence. Therefore, there must have always existed at least 1 thing which could not not exist. That is all the argument aims at demonstrating. Is it the universe itself? Energy? Matter? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Too little information to tell from the argument.
If, however, premise 1 is false, then the argument is not sound and should be rejected. The way I have put it, in my haste, might certainly have deficiencies, but I put it up only to illustrate that there are two issues at play that get conflated into one (see below). I have yet to encounter any satisfying argument that could demonstrate that this premise, in its best formulation, is indeed false.
2) Creation ex nihilo, on the other hand, is not an argument at all. It is a truth about God's relationship to all things that are not God. Ex nihilo, in this sense, means that God "created" everything else as a participation in his own existence, i.e. he did not need any starting material... God created his own stuff with which to form the universe. That is an article of faith. If anyone is trying to argue, from reason alone, that God created the universe out of nothing, that person is misguided (at least in my opinion). It devolves into a God-of-the-gaps argument, and actually distorts the philosophical concept of god.
AFTT47 said:
Quote:Then there was always something - the nature of which is unknown - OR something did indeed come from nothing by an unknown process. Invoking God is speculation at best. Invoking a specific God (such as the Christian God) is simply pulling an answer out of your ass. If a God, why not Allah, Vishnu or the Q from Star Trek-The Next Generation?
And welcome to the forum! You sound like you are intelligent and would be a valued member here. Introduce yourself.
You are correct AFTT47, there must have always been something, and that is all that argument can tell us. The second possibility can only be reasonable if, like I said above, is shown to be false. True, invoking god, if this were the only argument offered, would indeed be irresponsible and irrational speculation. However, it would establish that there is at least one thing in the universe that has at least one of the qualities that the revealed monotheistic god (Jewish, Christian, or of Islam) claims for himself, viz. eternal being. Ya gotta start somewhere! =)
Thank you for your kind welcome. Even if I sound intelligent, I simply refer you to my name: Ignorant. Considering how much there is to know in this life, I know so precious little. Hopefully we can all grow in knowledge together. Thank you for responding to my thoughts. And just to be clear, my goal is to clear up what I see to be a confusion, not to be confused with actually proposing an argument. This thread began with a question seeking to clear up a confusion, and I hope I have helped.
As for introductions, I am just a simple man from Arkansas named Jeff seeking to become a better man. Let me know when I fail!
