Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Carter Blunt]

I should have written it this way: If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing but God then it follows that God must necessarily be the creator.

For all we know, there could be a point in history, or other areas in reality, where "nothing to something" was/is logically possible. We aren't clear on the origins of logic itself. Maybe it always existed, maybe it spontaneously arose bit by bit. Maybe it's universal, or maybe it's local. So your argument is still dependent on several unproven premises. We have yet to prove that such a thing as "nothing" physically exists, or that a creator-god can exist without an origin to his existence. You haven't even ruled out the possibility that a god both existed and was eternal, yet the universe created itself. So, your entire conclusion, and every premise, are still unfounded.

[Sculptor1]

Finally, it is not logically impossible for something to spontaneously appear from nothing. Note that a spontaneous appearance is not the same as a "creation." The latter implies a creator; the former does not. The former may be theoretically impossible and counterintuitive, but it violates no logical rule.

It is neither logically possible or impossible for spontaneous generation either through a conscious act of will or not.
Logic does not enter into it.

Inductively we an suggest that spontaneous generation is highly improbable, but was can say little more.

Historically cases of spontaneous generation have bee demonstrated to have had causes.

[Bahman]

I should have written it this way: If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing but God then it follows that God must necessarily be the creator.

For all we know, there could be a point in history, or other areas in reality, where "nothing to something" was/is logically possible. We aren't clear on the origins of logic itself. Maybe it always existed, maybe it spontaneously arose bit by bit. Maybe it's universal, or maybe it's local. So your argument is still dependent on several unproven premises. We have yet to prove that such a thing as "nothing" physically exists, or that a creator-god can exist without an origin to his existence. You haven't even ruled out the possibility that a god both existed and was eternal, yet the universe created itself. So, your entire conclusion, and every premise, are still unfounded.

I said if it is shown... I didn't say that it is shown!

[Ranvier]

Could you please define what you mean by energy?

Yes. Anything that "exists" is a creation of "energy". Energy itself can't be created nor destroyed but only change forms from one state to another. When in your mind God is a "being" that creates, logically it should follow that God(being) is energy.

I don't understand what those verses mean. Do you? Could we please stick to philosophy rather than theology?

I was under a false impression that you may be more comfortable in using the language of Theology.

[Ranvier]

For all we know, there could be a point in history, or other areas in reality, where "nothing to something" was/is logically possible. We aren't clear on the origins of logic itself. Maybe it always existed, maybe it spontaneously arose bit by bit. Maybe it's universal, or maybe it's local. So your argument is still dependent on several unproven premises. We have yet to prove that such a thing as "nothing" physically exists, or that a creator-god can exist without an origin to his existence. You haven't even ruled out the possibility that a god both existed and was eternal, yet the universe created itself. So, your entire conclusion, and every premise, are still unfounded.

There is always a possibility that my logic is flawed. However, if words should have any meaning at all, the concept itself labeled as "nothing" can't produce or "exist" alongside of "something", because that "nothing" would be "something" that's different from that "something". "Nothing" would therefore be "something" that logically can't be "nothing", in presence of "something" that's different from something else called "nothing". Since [we] are here typing on a keyboard as the "something", therefore, "nothing" is logically impossible. False or not a true premise.

[GE Morton]

If it is shown that the act of creation is possible and nothing to something is logically impossible and there was a point that there was nothing then it follows that God must necessarily exist.

If "the act of creation is possible" then it follows that there must be an actor, or creator.

No. If the act of creation is possible then it follows that there could be a creator.

Nope. There could be no "act of creation" without an actor/creator. I.e., an actor/creator must already exist in order for an act of creation to be possible.

Well, that depends on how you define God. To me, God by definition is a being with the ability to create.

A creator need not be a being: "Between June 1st and November 30th and peaking between late August and mid-September, the Atlantic Ocean becomes a meteorological mixing bowl, with all of the ingredients necessary to create the recipe for hurricanes."

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/envir ... ECIPE.html

It does not, however, follow that "if nothing to something is impossible and there was a point where there was nothing" then "God must necessarily exist." That claim is self-contradictory: if God exists, then there was not "nothing."

Correct. I should have written it this way: "if nothing to something is impossible and there was a point where there was nothing but God then it follows that God is the creator".

That's true; it is a tautology. It would be true for any X "if there was nothing but X."

[Sy Borg]

The existence of a creator that exists within nothingness that then creates a universe out of that nothingness would seem to be especially logically impossible.

[Ranvier]

The existence of a creator that exists within nothingness that then creates a universe out of that nothingness would seem to be especially logically impossible.

Indeed. Logically, there could only be "something" without anything else within [Infinity], until there was something else within that [Infinity]. Contemplating from a position of "something" (consciousness) within "something" else (reality, universe, God, energy, or any concept one finds particularly endearing), I have no difficulty at all to imagine infinity but I can't fathom "nothingness". There is no need or any logical reason to invoke an impossible to even imagine concept of "nothing", since I do in fact "exist" to contemplate the "existence" of that concept "nothingness" or "nothing". How can this not be obvious?

[Ranvier]

I can come form [Infinity] but I can't originate, be within, be next to, coexist with "nothing". The concept of "nothing" itself, means there can't be anything, not a thing can exist. I would not be able to exist to contemplate the concept of "nothing".

[Sy Borg]

The existence of a creator that exists within nothingness that then creates a universe out of that nothingness would seem to be especially logically impossible.

Indeed. Logically, there could only be "something" without anything else within [Infinity], until there was something else within that [Infinity]. Contemplating from a position of "something" (consciousness) within "something" else (reality, universe, God, energy, or any concept one finds particularly endearing), I have no difficulty at all to imagine infinity but I can't fathom "nothingness". There is no need or any logical reason to invoke an impossible to even imagine concept of "nothing", since I do in fact "exist" to contemplate the "existence" of that concept "nothingness" or "nothing". How can this not be obvious?

As far as I'm concerned, "nothing" is a relative term. As far we know there has always been something.

[Carter Blunt]

I have no difficulty at all to imagine infinity but I can't fathom "nothingness".

Imagine only empty space, going on infinitely. Now imagine no space at all. That emptiness when space closes up, is nothing. That's what I assume we started with. Actual nothing. But somehow within nothing, is the theoretical potential for everything. Maybe because there is nothing to hold the nothing in place.

[Ranvier]

As far as I'm concerned, "nothing" is a relative term. As far we know there has always been something.

It's more than mere semantics of words. [Infinity] has potential, some properties, if only to hold my consciousness. It's something. "Nothing" is a deceptive illogical concept that affects how people think and "reason" (verb).

[Ranvier]

I have no difficulty at all to imagine infinity but I can't fathom "nothingness".

Imagine only empty space, going on infinitely. Now imagine no space at all. That emptiness when space closes up, is nothing. That's what I assume we started with. Actual nothing. But somehow within nothing, is the theoretical potential for everything. Maybe because there is nothing to hold the nothing in place.

I can't imagine that. The space (space is something) is infinitely closing, never "closes up" into "nothing".

[Carter Blunt]

I have no difficulty at all to imagine infinity but I can't fathom "nothingness".

Imagine only empty space, going on infinitely. Now imagine no space at all. That emptiness when space closes up, is nothing. That's what I assume we started with. Actual nothing. But somehow within nothing, is the theoretical potential for everything. Maybe because there is nothing to hold the nothing in place.

I can't imagine that. The space (space is something) is infinitely closing, never "closes up" into "nothing".

I can't actually conceive of space as infinite. Interesting.

[Ranvier]

I can't actually conceive of space as infinite. Interesting.

Indeed, interesting. This is quite important. Notice how many pages of text are used on something obvious, just because someone asked "How can there be something from nothing"?

Concepts and logic are important to how we think and our reasoning. "How can there be something from infinity"? The question is at least logical and makes sense.