Creatio Ex Nihilo - Forming Something out of Nothing?

[Alex K]

well, do you see any seven-headed sea dragons around any more? It obviously was a very popular sport.

[Ignorant]

You seem to think that the Bible makes a declarative statement about the monotheistic deity of later tradition that philosophical arguments, as you say, can be stated so as to be made compatible with.

That sentence is poorly written, so I am doing my best to interpret it in a light which is favorable to you. What I said was this:

"However,[the argument that utilizes the premise "out of nothing, nothing comes"] 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."

What I meant to say that the conclusion of that purely philosophical argument converges with the religious claim of the monotheistic traditions that God is eternal. In other words, at least ONE claim of the image of God as claimed to be revealed by the monotheistic traditions does not contradict the conclusions of reason. Does that mean that such a god exists? Certainly not. It was merely a passing comment that apparently you felt needed clarification. Fair enough.

That's probably the lens through which you read the texts. However, the ancient Hebrews didn't dispute that there were other gods for other nations, they just didn't believe that these gods were comparable to their own---Yahweh---who had chosen them. Monotheism was later adapted, the arguments for such being molded by the philosophers, and utilized by the myth-makers whose deity began to appear less anthropomorphic and more of the detached metaphysical monster that the "intellectual theologians" advocate today.

Wow. So much learning going on here. =) Suffice it to say that the process was a great deal more complex than this caricature you have illustrated here. Is there some truth to what you said about the early Hebrew's monotheistic beliefs, or lack thereof? Certainly. Is it as simple as you describe? Certainly not. But wouldn't that be more appropriate a discussion on a Christian or Jewish topic thread? Or is it always appropriate to critique revealed religious beliefs on a philosophical thread? I mean, all I did was mention the philosophical distinction between a rational, self-evident premise and a (supposedly) revealed proposition, as well as their logical compatibility (i.e. they are not mutually exclusive propositions), and now we are talking about the different revealed understandings of the monotheistic god's inner life. What happened?

When I said "ancient" I'm pretty much referring to everything prior to the Dark Ages, or about the sixth century. Your Christian monotheism (which the Muslims rightly say isn't really) looks very different from your Jewish monotheism, and your Jewish monotheism looks very different when the Bible is first starting to be written in the 8th century B.C.E. Western philosophy began with Thales in the 6th century and I presume Eastern philosophy slightly predates that (can anyone confirm or deny?).

I am not sure what has brought on this history lesson? I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of comparative religion, but what has that to do with whether or not the concept of creation contradicts "out of nothing nothing comes"?

But no doubt the authors of the Bible were iron age goat-herders who borrowed from other cultures; and they certainly weren't all that philosophical, which is why people have to bend over backwards to explain all the ridiculous tales while feigning respectability for their "arguments"---what they usually only want to discuss.

Ha! If only every socio-religious phenomenon were so easy to describe!

[LastPoet]

Ha! If only every socio-religious phenomenon were so easy to describe!

Yet, you deem yours, 'special'. This is a topic I like to watch, the different conceptions of this god, a poorly defined thing that requires belief without proof. You may try to make apologetics for this, but that is faith, believing without any reason to. Your hero Jesus says that in your book, read it, front to back, several times until you see the idiocy of it all.

Hey, no problems with your faith, just keep it to yourself, please.

[Esquilax]

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?

I don't know: you do seem to be making a lot of references to "revealed faith," and like Robvalue, I'd like to know what that is too. I have suspicions, but I'd rather not put words in your mouth when you seem perfectly capable of expressing yourself eloquently. Whether it's relevant to the thread or not, it's a piece of terminology you've used repeatedly, I think asking what it is is a fair question.

Can you please help me see the contradiction which YOU see in the following two propositions?

1) If there ever was a moment in which no thing whatsoever existed, then no thing whatsoever will ever exist.

2) Some existing thing caused the existence of all other existing things.

Here's the thing: regarding premise one, at a certain point you're trying to apply our normal understanding of how reality works to something that... isn't that. The universe as we understand it came into being at the point of the big bang, the beginning of our current expansion models of reality. Before that, it's a rare physicist willing to make any kind of declarative statement about what came before, because beyond that point, we're talking about a form of reality, whatever it happens to be, that's completely unlike anything we've been able to measure before. It's a state of being that we can't even adequately discuss, because our language is a product of beings that exist in linear time, in a universe of cause and effect, etc. What we need is an entirely different vocabulary to deal with a pre-expansion universe, one we can't even begin to formulate without knowing more.

So when you say something can't come from nothing, as though that's a binding statement for the universe, I have to say no, that's not necessarily true. Linear time is a function of spacetime, which only came into existence in the big bang; before that, our understanding of cause and effect no longer really applies. "Things only come from things" is not a truism at that point, and hence constructing a syllogism around it isn't necessarily accurate. It's better just to say we don't know, which is a true thing.

[robvalue]

I agree. You can't reduce the huge complexity of physics, and quantum mechanics which has torn apart our understanding of the microscopic, to bitesize philosophical statements.

I guess I am left to imagine what revealed faith is.

[Mudhammam]

That sentence is poorly written, so I am doing my best to interpret it in a light which is favorable to you. What I said was this:

"However,[the argument that utilizes the premise "out of nothing, nothing comes"] 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."

What I meant to say that the conclusion of that purely philosophical argument converges with the religious claim of the monotheistic traditions that God is eternal. In other words, at least ONE claim of the image of God as claimed to be revealed by the monotheistic traditions does not contradict the conclusions of reason. Does that mean that such a god exists? Certainly not. It was merely a passing comment that apparently you felt needed clarification. Fair enough.

You're original comment seemed bizarrely pleased, or surprised, that religions have created a god that is defensible by weak induction, on top of the fact that your clumsy wording suggested as though revelation has any legitimate basis. I'm glad to know you didn't actually mean that though.

Wow. So much learning going on here. =) Suffice it to say that the process was a great deal more complex than this caricature you have illustrated here. Is there some truth to what you said about the early Hebrew's monotheistic beliefs, or lack thereof? Certainly. Is it as simple as you describe? Certainly not. But wouldn't that be more appropriate a discussion on a Christian or Jewish topic thread? Or is it always appropriate to critique revealed religious beliefs on a philosophical thread? I mean, all I did was mention the philosophical distinction between a rational, self-evident premise and a (supposedly) revealed proposition, as well as their logical compatibility (i.e. they are not mutually exclusive propositions), and now we are talking about the different revealed understandings of the monotheistic god's inner life. What happened?

Well, I'm pretty sure what happened is that you claimed to be confused and I attempted to clarify. Of course I'm oversimplifying. That's sort of necessary when you're typing from a phone. I seriously hope you didn't come here expecting to receive an exhaustive education on topics that people have been writing on for over 2,300 years.

I am not sure what has brought on this history lesson? I appreciate your concern for my knowledge of comparative religion, but what has that to do with whether or not the concept of creation contradicts "out of nothing nothing comes"?

Do you have a difficult time understanding how discussions work? You comment, I respond, you reply, I comment, and so forth. It's not complicated. Your question is pretty silly when all you must do is go back a page and see how utterly confused you claimed to be.

[Ignorant]

I don't know: you do seem to be making a lot of references to "revealed faith," and like Robvalue, I'd like to know what that is too.

Let me recall your attention to the original post of this thread in which irrational said this:

"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"."

In order to resolve the confusion, a person must first correctly distinguish between the philosophical claim and the religious claim (i.e. the claim that derives from some source of revelation or a "revealed faith"). Then, having properly distinguished the two, a person must understand what is meant by the two propositions. Because most of our language is NOT univocal, some words are ambiguous (i.e. they may be used with slightly different meanings in different contexts), and any rational investigation ought to account for all of the nuanced and varied use of words and the meanings they signify. When such words are used within the same syllogism according to two different meanings there is the fallacy of equivocation. While there is not an actual syllogism taking place, the confusion between the two propositions above results from an equivocation which does not adequately account for this nuance of meaning. In the philosophical proposition, nothing = no thing whatsoever. In the religious claim, nothing = no other thing (because the proposition itself includes the thing called god as the subject).

"Revealed faith" is a very clumsy, admittedly, way of describing propositions and ideas which are accepted as true through faith in the authority of the thing who "reveals" them. A very poor and imperfect analogy is when we accept as true the shared findings of trained and intelligent scientists by a sort of trust in their educational and professional authority (even though we did not carry out the scientific investigations ourselves, or even even we don't understand them). We believe the doctor when he interprets our tests results by a sort of trust in his education and scientific competency. The analogy is poor because, in principle, it is possible that a) you, as a rational agent are capable of carrying out the same investigations and education in order to arrive at the truths for yourself, b) even scientists may err, and c) the truths of revealed faith cannot, in principle, be discovered through rational investigation. Despite this deficiency in the analogy, hopefully it serves to illustrate, in a simple way, what revealed faith might be.

Having illustrated that, I hope it will be a little clearer why the two propositions are very different in their meaning and in their use of similar language. One says that if no thing whatsoever existed, no thing whatsoever would ever exist. The other says that, the one thing that has always existed caused the existence of every other thing. The former, even if you wish to challenge is truth, cannot be said to contradict the latter, even if you wish to reject its truth. Treated simply as propositions understood according to their context, they cannot be said to rationally contradict. Next time, when a theist uses both of them in the same argument, a more effective manner of discourse is to ask him to clear up the possible ambiguity in the language before accusing them of contradicting themselves.

Whether it's relevant to the thread or not, it's a piece of terminology you've used repeatedly, I think asking what it is is a fair question.

It is a fair question, and if you recall, I even said it was an "excellent question." I asked if he thought it was relevant to a discussion about whether or not two propositions contradict. I had described that proposition as an article of revealed faith to aid everyone in understanding the way in which that proposition derives from and asserts an idea radically different in both aim and meaning to the philosophical one. That the second proposition is an article of revealed faith is irrelevant to a logical analysis of the subject and predicate compared to those of another proposition.

Here's the thing: regarding premise one, at a certain point you're trying to apply our normal understanding of how reality works to something that... isn't that. The universe as we understand it came into being at the point of the big bang, the beginning of our current expansion models of reality. Before that, it's a rare physicist willing to make any kind of declarative statement about what came before, because beyond that point, we're talking about a form of reality, whatever it happens to be, that's completely unlike anything we've been able to measure before. It's a state of being that we can't even adequately discuss, because our language is a product of beings that exist in linear time, in a universe of cause and effect, etc. What we need is an entirely different vocabulary to deal with a pre-expansion universe, one we can't even begin to formulate without knowing more.

Interesting. You use phrases like "normal understanding of how reality works" and "state of being" and "beings that exist in linear time" and "a universe of cause and effect" and with your next breath you long for a language to describe this "pre-expansion universe". The language you are looking for is metaphysics which the enlightenment abandoned centuries ago only to rediscovery its utility now. It is interesting because all of those phrases employ metaphysical language which in its classical definition, means the "study of being as being". I am not saying you need Scholastic Metaphysics, but it is clear that you have expressed the need for something like it.

At any rate, your fundamental assumption that the phrase, " If there ever was a moment in which no thing whatsoever existed, then no thing whatsoever will ever exist." is directly considering a chain of efficient causality (which would demand a regress of efficient causes stretching back, ultimately, to the Big Bang). The phrase, however, does not do that. It is much simpler than that, and your own comments show it:

"Before that, it's a rare physicist willing to make any kind of declarative statement about what came before, because beyond that point, we're talking about a form of reality, whatever it happens to be, that's completely unlike anything we've been able to measure before.

"A form of reality" is an existing thing, whatever it is and in whatever manner it happens to be existing, it doesn't mean that it is not (which would be nothing).

"It's a state of being that we can't even adequately discuss"

Well I agree with that. However, it seems as though we can say at least TWO things about it, viz. that it is a "state of being" (and therefore, it is something existing) and that it can't be adequately discussed. And if we can say those things, then it is not nothing. So even while trying to show the inadequacies of the proposition, you are continually showing its truth.

So when you say something can't come from nothing, as though that's a binding statement for the universe, I have to say no, that's not necessarily true. Linear time is a function of spacetime, which only came into existence in the big bang; before that, our understanding of cause and effect no longer really applies.

Well, there is no "before that" because before is a temporal word, and you just finished saying that time didn't even begin to exist until the Big Bang, so our temporal language already begins to break down (and both physicists and philosophers even acknowledge this (even that ancient idiot Augustine)). I readily admit that our modern understanding of cause and effect don't adequately describe the causal aspects of the big bang. The proposition, however, doesn't really deal with cause an effect, and your words below here illustrate your confusion.

Even so, whether or not the proposition is true has little bearing on whether or not it is logically contradictory to another proposition (which is the original intent of the thread). If I say "all ducks are ham sandwiches" I don't have to know anything about its being true or not in order to know that it logically contradicts the statement "No duck is a ham sandwich".

"Things only come from things" is not a truism at that point, and hence constructing a syllogism around it isn't necessarily accurate. It's better just to say we don't know, which is a true thing.

Saying, "out of nothing, nothing comes" and saying "Things only come from things" are two very different logical propositions. If you can't see that, then there is little wonder that there is a logical confusion taking place. As I said earlier, "out of nothing, nothing comes" is actually a poor formulation of the actual principle in its best formulation (which I alluded to earlier). If we are done trying to distinguish between those two propositions, feel free to start a thread investigating the actual proposition which comes from the argument from contingency.

---

Well, I'm pretty sure what happened is that you claimed to be confused and I attempted to clarify. Of course I'm oversimplifying. That's sort of necessary when you're typing from a phone. I seriously hope you didn't come here expecting to receive an exhaustive education on topics that people have been writing on for over 2,300 years.

That is certainly not why I came here, and now I am certain that my original attempts at tongue-in-cheek went right over your head. I wasn't actually confused. I was poking fun at your description of the biblical authors which is a jaded one.

Do you have a difficult time understanding how discussions work? You comment, I respond, you reply, I comment, and so forth. It's not complicated. Your question is pretty silly when all you must do is go back a page and see how utterly confused you claimed to be.

I have many difficulties, but understanding how discussions work is not one of them. Do you have a difficult time interpreting online comments in any way other than the most intellectually condescending interpretation of your interlocutor? I used a textualized smiley face after calling your description a "promotion" for crying out loud . Don't worry. In the future I will make it very obvious for you if I choose to use any rhetorical device that requires human interpretation. Please, no more history lessons, they are killing me. (<= not literally killing me, I only mean to express through hyperbole that there is no need to give any more history lessons about biblical authors, ancient Israel's theology, and Muslim theological critiques of the trinity).

[Mudhammam]

That is certainly not why I came here, and now I am certain that my original attempts at tongue-in-cheek went right over your head. I wasn't actually confused. I was poking fun at your description of the biblical authors which is a jaded one.

I have many difficulties, but understanding how discussions work is not one of them. Do you have a difficult time interpreting online comments in any way other than the most intellectually condescending interpretation of your interlocutor? I used a textualized smiley face after calling your description a "promotion" for crying out loud . Don't worry. In the future I will make it very obvious for you if I choose to use any rhetorical device that requires human interpretation. Please, no more history lessons, they are killing me. (<= not literally killing me, I only mean to express through hyperbole that there is no need to give any more history lessons about biblical authors, ancient Israel's theology, and Muslim theological critiques of the trinity).

See, it's not actually at all clear that you're not confused when everything in your proceeding comments suggests that you are. But please, do educate me on my "jaded description" of the biblical authors! Perhaps certain facts have been "revealed" to you?

[Ignorant]

See, it's not actually at all clear that you're not confused when everything in your proceeding comments suggests that you are. But please, do educate me on my "jaded description" of the biblical authors! Perhaps certain facts have been "revealed" to you?

Well, I assure you it is a jaded and simplistic trope. I first heard that idea, nearly word for word, from my classmate in my 6th grade P.E. class... which was 20 years ago. I have heard and read it many times since, mostly from people who have never read an actual sentence of critical scholarly literature about the literary, traditional, textual, and redacted origins of the biblical texts in their current form. Maybe you have, but you certainly didn't learn that trope from that literature.

Does its lack of originality mean that it is actually false? No. Does its overly simplistic and polemical nature tell us anything meaningful? Nope. Consider St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It is supposedly the most elaborate tomb some ignorant fisherman from 1st century Galilee who was executed by Nero ever had. Do you think we would care if the origin of a biblical story came from the imagination of some iron-age shepherd? You don't have to believe it, but your intended condescension doesn't quite land.

[Mudhammam]

Well, I assure you it is a jaded and simplistic trope.

As opposed to this...

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! =)

....To which I'm sure you expected a pat on the back while everyone simultaneously replied, "Wow, we haven't heard that one before."

Like I said, of course I was oversimplifying. My opinion is only jaded by the facts that have come to light in the past 150 years thanks to new archaeological finds in the Middle East, though I'm sure you already heard all about those in 6th grade P.E. too.

Maybe you have, but you certainly didn't learn that trope from that literature.

Are you kidding? Every scholar knows that the biblical authors were myth-makers who lived in the deserts of Palestine in the iron age and herded animals. I would assume, if you have read anything on the subject, that you would know that too.

Does its lack of originality mean that it is actually false? No. Does its overly simplistic and polemical nature tell us anything meaningful? Nope. Consider St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. It is supposedly the most elaborate tomb some ignorant fisherman from 1st century Galilee who was executed by Nero ever had. Do you think we would care if the origin of a biblical story came from the imagination of some iron-age shepherd? You don't have to believe it, but your intended condescension doesn't quite land.

That's great. Who cares if religion is fiction that simply deceives people into believing that their sacred myths are historical facts, I mean, look at that art it has produced! Wow. That's hilarious. Thanks man.