I have heard from several theist apologists that the origin of the universe is best explained, or can only be explained, by god creating it out of nothing- creatio ex nihilo. But I would like to argue that in fact this idea is very much not probable, even nonsensical. I'm sure some of you will be familiar with an argument like this.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
EDIT: Revised formulation (P1 has been split into two premises for clarity)
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
P2. A tangible process can only coherently consist of some tangible change (implication)
P3. Causing something to exist ex nihilo involves no tangible change connecting cause and effect (implication)
C1. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent
P4. If god caused the universe to exist, it was done ex nihilo (rhetorical assumption)
C2. The claim that god caused the universe to exist is incoherent
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
Or else, how did god create the universe?
Well the short answer would generally be that omnipotence is one of those things that trumps logic, and then probably the question of what existed prior to the big bang to expand into a universe in order for it to not be creatio ex nihilo or however I'm supposed to grammatize that phrase.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
Or else, how did god create the universe?
There's two problems.
1. It seems like you're arguing that God cannot create the universe because in order for him to create the universe, he would need to interact with the universe before there was one. That makes no sense.
2. This: "Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent." Why? Keep in mind that a number of quantum physicists, Stephen Hawking among them, propose that it is entirely possible that the universe spontaneously was created from nothing WITHOUT God's involvement.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
Or else, how did god create the universe?
There's two problems.
1. It seems like you're arguing that God cannot create the universe because in order for him to create the universe, he would need to interact with the universe before there was one. That makes no sense.
If god created the universe out of nothing, which is assumed for this argument as it is according to some apologists I've heard, e.g. William Lane Craig, it is the conclusion theists, particularly Christians are committed to, and fits the general descriptions of god creating things.
Going then from the premise that causality is about a prior interaction to the generation of an effect, god cannot have created the universe because there you cannot have an interaction with a pure nothing or a something that has yet to exist.
This is not to say that there is no thing a god could do to make somethig when there is nothing, but we could not describe it as causality in any sense we understand.
2. This: "Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent." Why? Keep in mind that a number of quantum physicists, Stephen Hawking among them, propose that it is entirely possible that the universe spontaneously was created from nothing WITHOUT God's involvement.
See above, causality is about an interaction producing an effect. Quantum physics does quite count because what Physicists refer to as nothing isn't exactly nothing. What I have heard usually, is that the there is an eternal quantum layer of existence from which quantum effects are generated. Perhaps the important thing is that nobody knows using any physics explanation how it happened, the ideas are all works in progress.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
Or else, how did god create the universe?
There's two problems.
1. It seems like you're arguing that God cannot create the universe because in order for him to create the universe, he would need to interact with the universe before there was one. That makes no sense.
If god created the universe out of nothing, which is assumed for this argument as it is according to some apologists I've heard, e.g. William Lane Craig, it is the conclusion theists, particularly Christians are committed to, and fits the general descriptions of god creating things.
Going then from the premise that causality is about a prior interaction to the generation of an effect, god cannot have created the universe because there you cannot have an interaction with a pure nothing or a something that has yet to exist.
This is not to say that there is no thing a god could do to make somethig when there is nothing, but we could not describe it as causality in any sense we understand.
2. This: "Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent." Why? Keep in mind that a number of quantum physicists, Stephen Hawking among them, propose that it is entirely possible that the universe spontaneously was created from nothing WITHOUT God's involvement.
See above, causality is about an interaction producing an effect. Quantum physics does quite count because what Physicists refer to as nothing isn't exactly nothing. What I have heard usually, is that the there is an eternal quantum layer of existence from which quantum effects are generated. Perhaps the important thing is that nobody knows using any physics explanation how it happened, the ideas are all works in progress.
You also cannot apply logic to quantum mechanics. The logical thing to think about an electron going from ground state to excited is it moves. Except it disappears and reappears simultaneously instead of moving. Woo, logic.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
Or else, how did god create the universe?
There's two problems.
1. It seems like you're arguing that God cannot create the universe because in order for him to create the universe, he would need to interact with the universe before there was one. That makes no sense.
If god created the universe out of nothing, which is assumed for this argument as it is according to some apologists I've heard, e.g. William Lane Craig, it is the conclusion theists, particularly Christians are committed to, and fits the general descriptions of god creating things.
Going then from the premise that causality is about a prior interaction to the generation of an effect, god cannot have created the universe because there you cannot have an interaction with a pure nothing or a something that has yet to exist.
This is not to say that there is no thing a god could do to make somethig when there is nothing, but we could not describe it as causality in any sense we understand.
2. This: "Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent." Why? Keep in mind that a number of quantum physicists, Stephen Hawking among them, propose that it is entirely possible that the universe spontaneously was created from nothing WITHOUT God's involvement.
See above, causality is about an interaction producing an effect. Quantum physics does quite count because what Physicists refer to as nothing isn't exactly nothing. What I have heard usually, is that the there is an eternal quantum layer of existence from which quantum effects are generated. Perhaps the important thing is that nobody knows using any physics explanation how it happened, the ideas are all works in progress.
You also cannot apply logic to quantum mechanics. The logical thing to think about an electron going from ground state to excited is it moves. Except it disappears and reappears simultaneously instead of moving. Woo, logic.
If we had any reason to think that it would teleport, it would be logical. But prior to us knowing that it does, it isn't. The quantum realm still holds countless mysteries we must observe because the mechanics are beyond our logic.
If we had any reason to think that it would teleport, it would be logical. But prior to us knowing that it does, it isn't. The quantum realm still holds countless mysteries we must observe because the mechanics are beyond our logic.
'We don't understand it' is also not illogical.
EDIT: Also important- contradicting specific logical ideas also does not make something illogical, it disproves our logic. Logic is after all based on abstract reasoning and experience. Something is only truly illogical if it is wrong, or defies logic in a fundamental, systemic sense.
For me, the part that's always got me about the idea that God created the universe from nothing is, well, where did God come from then?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Causality is a temporal relationship. If time does not exist without space (as appears to be the case), then no time exists before the universe exists, and causality can be thrown out of the window entirely for a discussion about where the universe came from.
If god created the universe out of nothing, which is assumed for this argument as it is according to some apologists I've heard, e.g. William Lane Craig, it is the conclusion theists, particularly Christians are committed to, and fits the general descriptions of god creating things.
Going then from the premise that causality is about a prior interaction to the generation of an effect, god cannot have created the universe because there you cannot have an interaction with a pure nothing or a something that has yet to exist.
And repeating it does not make it make any more sense.
Hell, by your logic, no human being can give birth, because that would be creating something that has yet to exist.
See above, causality is about an interaction producing an effect. Quantum physics does quite count because what Physicists refer to as nothing isn't exactly nothing. What I have heard usually, is that the there is an eternal quantum layer of existence from which quantum effects are generated.
If god created the universe out of nothing, which is assumed for this argument as it is according to some apologists I've heard, e.g. William Lane Craig, it is the conclusion theists, particularly Christians are committed to, and fits the general descriptions of god creating things.
Going then from the premise that causality is about a prior interaction to the generation of an effect, god cannot have created the universe because there you cannot have an interaction with a pure nothing or a something that has yet to exist.
And repeating it does not make it make any more sense.
Hell, by your logic, no human being can give birth, because that would be creating something that has yet to exist.
No, by my logic giving birth to create a human does make sense because there is a prior interaction, in fact many, many more than one, which is the whole point of the argument. A human does not merely create a baby from nothing, there is an influencing of something. It's not about creating something that has yet to exist, it's about having something which is being influenced, not merely an influencer.
I've given you a premise conclusion form, so tell me what premise you object or how exactly you think whatever one of the conclusions doesn't follow from the premises.
See above, causality is about an interaction producing an effect. Quantum physics does quite count because what Physicists refer to as nothing isn't exactly nothing. What I have heard usually, is that the there is an eternal quantum layer of existence from which quantum effects are generated.
... Why don't you cite a source for that?
This is not a discussion critiquing theories from quantum physics. If you want to read further, that's your prerogative.
No, by my logic giving birth to create a human does make sense because there is a prior interaction, in fact many, many more than one, which is the whole point of the argument.
Hardly, the baby does not exist yet. There cannot be an interaction with something that does not exist. Ergo, human beings cannot beget children.
I've given you a premise conclusion form, so tell me what premise you object or how exactly you think whatever one of the conclusions doesn't follow from the premises.
Simple:
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect.
Basically, your argument is that the universe cannot have been caused, because it had to exist prior to it being caused in order for it to be caused. This is absurd, and, as I said, makes it clear you don't understand the basic concept behind what "cause" means.
This is not a discussion critiquing theories from quantum physics.
Actually it is if quantum physics says it's perfectly acceptable for something to spontaneously emerge from nothing.
No, by my logic giving birth to create a human does make sense because there is a prior interaction, in fact many, many more than one, which is the whole point of the argument.
Hardly, the baby does not exist yet. There cannot be an interaction with something that does not exist. Ergo, human beings cannot beget children.
I don't understand how you don't get this but the interaction isn't with the thing that is produced from the interaction. In the case of a baby being born, there is interactions with sperm and eggs, dozens chemical reactions of building cells over time, particles in their billions interacting. In order to produce the baby there must an effect upon something, there must be an action.
I've given you a premise conclusion form, so tell me what premise you object or how exactly you think whatever one of the conclusions doesn't follow from the premises.
Simple:
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect.
That definition is invalid. "Causality refers to the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first." The idea that the end result of the second state must have existed prior to the cause is invalid, and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of what the word "cause" means.
An 'affected' is not in ANY sense the same thing as 'the affect', it cannot be, or else there is no change. Premise 1 is meant to establish that in order to have some process, some action, there needs to be something that is being influenced by something else. Your arguments reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what the hell I'm actually saying.
Basically, your argument is that the universe cannot have been caused,
No
My argument is the universe being caused to exist creatio ex nihilo by god is incoherent because causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo is incoherent.
Nothing else.
because it had to exist prior to it being caused in order for it to be caused
No
Because you can't cause nothing to do anything, or cause something that does not yet exist to do anything, and therefore there is no coherent way of applying causal influence in order to cause something to exist in creatio ex nihilo.
This is not a discussion critiquing theories from quantum physics.
Actually it is if quantum physics says it's perfectly acceptable for something to spontaneously emerge from nothing.
If you want to argue that observations from the study of quantum physics demonstrate causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo, then it is you who need to provide sources to justify that argument. I suspect that argument won't work out for you, mostly because all I need to do is show either that there is something, anything, being influenced, or that the event is not causal at all.
Hardly, the baby does not exist yet. There cannot be an interaction with something that does not exist. Ergo, human beings cannot beget children.
Human beings do not create children from nothing. Human being join an existing sperm and an existing egg, the combination of which is called a zygote. From there, biological processes add existing matter to and transform the zygote into a fetus and then into a baby over the course of approximately nine months. The baby then undergoes a number of biological processes to accumulate existing matter and transform into a child, and eventually into an adult. This is not creating something that does not exist, it is combining existing things and relabeling them as something else.
I assume you are being facetious and do not actually believe babies are created from nothing, but it's really annoying and nobody is claiming that they do.
This is not a discussion critiquing theories from quantum physics.
Actually it is if quantum physics says it's perfectly acceptable for something to spontaneously emerge from nothing.
In the preface to Krauss' A Universe from Nothing, he describes debates with philosophers about what "nothing" is, starting from "empty space" (still has quantum vacuum), to "absence of space and time" (laws of nature can still spontaneously produce space and time), to the system he actually describes in the book wherein the laws of nature themselves arose spontaneously, but even this is not a good enough "nothing" for some people he's spoken with on the subject, in a sort of infinite regress of baser and baser nothingness. Theologians he's spoken with kinda of just stopped the whole thing short by defining "nothing" as "that from which only God can create something".
Of course, if that's the definition of "nothing", and if god does not exist, then reality didn't come from "nothing" either, because obviously existence exists.
(Also, even if god does exist, it does not necessarily follow that he then created the universe from the "nothing" defined this way.)
I don't understand how you don't get this but the interaction isn't with the thing that is produced from the interaction.
So what is the problem?
An 'affected' is not in ANY sense the same thing as 'the affect', it cannot be, or else there is no change.
So no universe -> universe is no change? Try again.
My argument is the universe being caused to exist creatio ex nihilo by god is incoherent because causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo is incoherent.
Nothing else.
I know that's your argument. The point is your proof is invalid.
No
Because you can't cause nothing to do anything
Begging the question. Demonstrate this.
If you want to argue that observations from the study of quantum physics demonstrate causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo, then it is you who need to provide sources to justify that argument. I suspect that argument won't work out for you, mostly because all I need to do is show either that there is something, anything, being influenced, or that the event is not causal at all.
You can demonstrate there was something prior to the Big Bang? Then you go right ahead and you demonstrate that then. Be my guest.
In the preface to Krauss' A Universe from Nothing, he describes debates with philosophers about what "nothing" is, starting from "empty space" (still has quantum vacuum), to "absence of space and time" (laws of nature can still spontaneously produce space and time), to the system he actually describes in the book wherein the laws of nature themselves arose spontaneously, but even this is not a good enough "nothing" for some people he's spoken with on the subject, in a sort of infinite regress of baser and baser nothingness. Theologians he's spoken with kinda of just stopped the whole thing short by defining "nothing" as "that from which only God can create something".
But see, I'm not arguing that position. I'm saying regardless of whether or not DJK3654 is willing to accept God's existence, the point still remains that quantum physicists posit the universe came from nothing, something DJK is saying is impossible.
I don't understand how you don't get this but the interaction isn't with the thing that is produced from the interaction.
So what is the problem?
That comment was not about the problem
An 'affected' is not in ANY sense the same thing as 'the affect', it cannot be, or else there is no change.
Confused So no universe -> universe is no change? Try again.
Not what I argued.
The point I was making was that you can't affect the effect, it is the result of the effecting. This means then that we have eliminated one of the ways causing something to exist ex nihilo could be argued to occur- by influencing the thing into existence.
My argument is the universe being caused to exist creatio ex nihilo by god is incoherent because causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo is incoherent.
Nothing else.
I know that's your argument. The point is your proof is invalid.
I don't think you really do know my argument because you keep misrepresenting it, which I presume is unintentional.
No
Because you can't cause nothing to do anything
Begging the question. Demonstrate this.
It is self evidently true. Nothing is not capable of doing anything, because what is capable of doing things has defined positive properties and is therefore not nothing.
If you want to argue that observations from the study of quantum physics demonstrate causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo, then it is you who need to provide sources to justify that argument. I suspect that argument won't work out for you, mostly because all I need to do is show either that there is something, anything, being influenced, or that the event is not causal at all.
You can demonstrate there was something prior to the Big Bang? Then you go right ahead and you demonstrate that then. Be my guest.
I never claimed as much, and none of my premises are based on that, so I don't need to. This argument does say anything about what caused the universe or whether it was caused at all. I'm afraid that deflection won't work.
In the preface to Krauss' A Universe from Nothing, he describes debates with philosophers about what "nothing" is, starting from "empty space" (still has quantum vacuum), to "absence of space and time" (laws of nature can still spontaneously produce space and time), to the system he actually describes in the book wherein the laws of nature themselves arose spontaneously, but even this is not a good enough "nothing" for some people he's spoken with on the subject, in a sort of infinite regress of baser and baser nothingness. Theologians he's spoken with kinda of just stopped the whole thing short by defining "nothing" as "that from which only God can create something".
But see, I'm not arguing that position. I'm saying regardless of whether or not DJK3654 is willing to accept God's existence, the point still remains that quantum physicists posit the universe came from nothing, something DJK is saying is impossible.
Firstly, I'm only talking about causing something to exist ex nihilo, not acausal creatio ex nihilo. Not all scientific theories about origins are causal.
As far as I can tell, Lithl's point was that most of the theories concerning origins don't have a complete nothing from which things arise, but rather an extremely reduced something (quantum vacuum or somesuch), in Krauss's own words (as best as I can remember) "we have redefined nothing".
Regardless, it is your onus to prove that there was something coming from nothing causally, or else I need to give you any credence.
And while I am at it, I am not actually saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is impossible, I am saying it is logically incoherent. There's obviously a lot of overlap there, but they are not identical claims.
And while I am at it, I am not actually saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is impossible, I am saying it is logically incoherent. There's obviously a lot of overlap there, but they are not identical claims.
So this concept of the universe existing via Creatio Ex Nihilo is nonsensical and logically incoherent, but not impossible. I no longer understand what it is you are asking about. Your original question was what is wrong with your argument that says creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent, but you've just answered it yourself. There is no problem because if it isn't impossible then it doesn't matter that it's logically incoherent.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
This is only true if causality holds true, which once you say "God works in mysterious ways," you can remove... That's not a very satisfactory answer, though.
One theory for the Big Bang is that there was a previous universe that collapsed down into a small ball of condensed matter, then exploded out again. The expectation is that the same would happen to our universe. If one was to add a God into that theory (as some creationists do), then God essentially provides the instability in the previous universe and the entropy that causes the current one to exist. It's not as clean as "God worked for seven days to put everything together," but it's something.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
This is only true if causality holds true
I'm not sure what that even means, causality isn't a statement about reality.
One theory for the Big Bang is that there was a previous universe that collapsed down into a small ball of condensed matter, then exploded out again. The expectation is that the same would happen to our universe. If one was to add a God into that theory (as some creationists do), then God essentially provides the instability in the previous universe and the entropy that causes the current one to exist. It's not as clean as "God worked for seven days to put everything together," but it's something.
Sure, so that's an alternate account of how god 'made' the world. That's very much a valid response for any theist to take, the important thing is that it seems many hold to the idea of causing it to exist ex nihilo.
And while I am at it, I am not actually saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is impossible, I am saying it is logically incoherent. There's obviously a lot of overlap there, but they are not identical claims.
So this concept of the universe existing via Creatio Ex Nihilo is nonsensical and logically incoherent, but not impossible. I no longer understand what it is you are asking about. Your original question was what is wrong with your argument that says creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent, but you've just answered it yourself. There is no problem because if it isn't impossible then it doesn't matter that it's logically incoherent.
Only if you don't generally hold to the ideas of conventional logic. Logically incoherent should mean impossible if normal logic and reason are all absolutely true, but I don't commit to that idea. If one doesn't, does logical coherence not still carry importance? Is reason and logic not still important even if we may doubt whether we can be certain of it's reliability? That line I will draw in the sand.
Only if you don't generally hold to the ideas of conventional logic. Logically incoherent should mean impossible if normal logic and reason are all absolutely true, but I don't commit to that idea. If one doesn't, does logical coherence not still carry importance? Is reason and logic not still important even if we may doubt whether we can be certain of it's reliability? That line I will draw in the sand.
So the argument that logical incoherence matters only matters to those who hold true to conventional logic?
Only if you don't generally hold to the ideas of conventional logic. Logically incoherent should mean impossible if normal logic and reason are all absolutely true, but I don't commit to that idea. If one doesn't, does logical coherence not still carry importance? Is reason and logic not still important even if we may doubt whether we can be certain of it's reliability? That line I will draw in the sand.
So the argument that logical incoherence matters only matters to those who hold true to conventional logic?
It only matters to anyone who cares about it. That doesn't have to mean being utterly convinced of it's accuracy, but basically yes, if you don't value logic then you this argument is not important to, but that only applies to people who are genuinelly commited to that.
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect. In order for an effect to be produced, there must be a prior interaction involving something that is causally influenced.
P2. Creatio ex nihilo refers to creating something without an affected element, there is no prior interaction to the effect.
C1. Creatio ex nihilo (EDIT: I should specify that I mean creatio ex nihilo as a cause, and not in any other sense) is logically incoherent.
P3. If god created the universe, it was done ex nihilo (as I see argued)
C2. (From C1, P3) It is logically incoherent to claim god created the universe.
EDIT: Revised formulation (P1 has been split into two premises for clarity)
P1. Causing something to exist involves a tangible process that connects a cause and an effect (definition)
P2. A tangible process can only coherently consist of some tangible change (implication)
P3. Causing something to exist ex nihilo involves no tangible change connecting cause and effect (implication)
C1. Causing something to exist ex nihilo is incoherent
P4. If god caused the universe to exist, it was done ex nihilo (rhetorical assumption)
C2. The claim that god caused the universe to exist is incoherent
Now, the question is, is their a problem with this argument?
Or else, how did god create the universe?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
1. It seems like you're arguing that God cannot create the universe because in order for him to create the universe, he would need to interact with the universe before there was one. That makes no sense.
2. This: "Creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent." Why? Keep in mind that a number of quantum physicists, Stephen Hawking among them, propose that it is entirely possible that the universe spontaneously was created from nothing WITHOUT God's involvement.
If god created the universe out of nothing, which is assumed for this argument as it is according to some apologists I've heard, e.g. William Lane Craig, it is the conclusion theists, particularly Christians are committed to, and fits the general descriptions of god creating things.
Going then from the premise that causality is about a prior interaction to the generation of an effect, god cannot have created the universe because there you cannot have an interaction with a pure nothing or a something that has yet to exist.
This is not to say that there is no thing a god could do to make somethig when there is nothing, but we could not describe it as causality in any sense we understand.
See above, causality is about an interaction producing an effect. Quantum physics does quite count because what Physicists refer to as nothing isn't exactly nothing. What I have heard usually, is that the there is an eternal quantum layer of existence from which quantum effects are generated. Perhaps the important thing is that nobody knows using any physics explanation how it happened, the ideas are all works in progress.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You also cannot apply logic to quantum mechanics. The logical thing to think about an electron going from ground state to excited is it moves. Except it disappears and reappears simultaneously instead of moving. Woo, logic.
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
Counter intuitive is not illogical.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If we had any reason to think that it would teleport, it would be logical. But prior to us knowing that it does, it isn't. The quantum realm still holds countless mysteries we must observe because the mechanics are beyond our logic.
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
'We don't understand it' is also not illogical.
EDIT: Also important- contradicting specific logical ideas also does not make something illogical, it disproves our logic. Logic is after all based on abstract reasoning and experience. Something is only truly illogical if it is wrong, or defies logic in a fundamental, systemic sense.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Hell, by your logic, no human being can give birth, because that would be creating something that has yet to exist.
... Why don't you cite a source for that?
No, by my logic giving birth to create a human does make sense because there is a prior interaction, in fact many, many more than one, which is the whole point of the argument. A human does not merely create a baby from nothing, there is an influencing of something. It's not about creating something that has yet to exist, it's about having something which is being influenced, not merely an influencer.
I've given you a premise conclusion form, so tell me what premise you object or how exactly you think whatever one of the conclusions doesn't follow from the premises.
This is not a discussion critiquing theories from quantum physics. If you want to read further, that's your prerogative.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Simple:
P1. Causality refers to the interaction between an causal agent, an affected and an effect.
That definition is invalid. "Causality refers to the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first." The idea that the end result of the second state must have existed prior to the cause is invalid, and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of what the word "cause" means.
Basically, your argument is that the universe cannot have been caused, because it had to exist prior to it being caused in order for it to be caused. This is absurd, and, as I said, makes it clear you don't understand the basic concept behind what "cause" means.
Actually it is if quantum physics says it's perfectly acceptable for something to spontaneously emerge from nothing.
I don't understand how you don't get this but the interaction isn't with the thing that is produced from the interaction. In the case of a baby being born, there is interactions with sperm and eggs, dozens chemical reactions of building cells over time, particles in their billions interacting. In order to produce the baby there must an effect upon something, there must be an action.
An 'affected' is not in ANY sense the same thing as 'the affect', it cannot be, or else there is no change. Premise 1 is meant to establish that in order to have some process, some action, there needs to be something that is being influenced by something else. Your arguments reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of what the hell I'm actually saying.
No
My argument is the universe being caused to exist creatio ex nihilo by god is incoherent because causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo is incoherent.
Nothing else.
No
Because you can't cause nothing to do anything, or cause something that does not yet exist to do anything, and therefore there is no coherent way of applying causal influence in order to cause something to exist in creatio ex nihilo.
If you want to argue that observations from the study of quantum physics demonstrate causing something to exist creatio ex nihilo, then it is you who need to provide sources to justify that argument. I suspect that argument won't work out for you, mostly because all I need to do is show either that there is something, anything, being influenced, or that the event is not causal at all.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I assume you are being facetious and do not actually believe babies are created from nothing, but it's really annoying and nobody is claiming that they do.
In the preface to Krauss' A Universe from Nothing, he describes debates with philosophers about what "nothing" is, starting from "empty space" (still has quantum vacuum), to "absence of space and time" (laws of nature can still spontaneously produce space and time), to the system he actually describes in the book wherein the laws of nature themselves arose spontaneously, but even this is not a good enough "nothing" for some people he's spoken with on the subject, in a sort of infinite regress of baser and baser nothingness. Theologians he's spoken with kinda of just stopped the whole thing short by defining "nothing" as "that from which only God can create something".
Of course, if that's the definition of "nothing", and if god does not exist, then reality didn't come from "nothing" either, because obviously existence exists.
(Also, even if god does exist, it does not necessarily follow that he then created the universe from the "nothing" defined this way.)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
So no universe -> universe is no change? Try again.
I know that's your argument. The point is your proof is invalid.
Begging the question. Demonstrate this.
You can demonstrate there was something prior to the Big Bang? Then you go right ahead and you demonstrate that then. Be my guest.
But see, I'm not arguing that position. I'm saying regardless of whether or not DJK3654 is willing to accept God's existence, the point still remains that quantum physicists posit the universe came from nothing, something DJK is saying is impossible.
That comment was not about the problem
Not what I argued.
The point I was making was that you can't affect the effect, it is the result of the effecting. This means then that we have eliminated one of the ways causing something to exist ex nihilo could be argued to occur- by influencing the thing into existence.
I don't think you really do know my argument because you keep misrepresenting it, which I presume is unintentional.
It is self evidently true. Nothing is not capable of doing anything, because what is capable of doing things has defined positive properties and is therefore not nothing.
I never claimed as much, and none of my premises are based on that, so I don't need to. This argument does say anything about what caused the universe or whether it was caused at all. I'm afraid that deflection won't work.
Firstly, I'm only talking about causing something to exist ex nihilo, not acausal creatio ex nihilo. Not all scientific theories about origins are causal.
As far as I can tell, Lithl's point was that most of the theories concerning origins don't have a complete nothing from which things arise, but rather an extremely reduced something (quantum vacuum or somesuch), in Krauss's own words (as best as I can remember) "we have redefined nothing".
Regardless, it is your onus to prove that there was something coming from nothing causally, or else I need to give you any credence.
And while I am at it, I am not actually saying causing something to exist ex nihilo is impossible, I am saying it is logically incoherent. There's obviously a lot of overlap there, but they are not identical claims.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
So this concept of the universe existing via Creatio Ex Nihilo is nonsensical and logically incoherent, but not impossible. I no longer understand what it is you are asking about. Your original question was what is wrong with your argument that says creatio ex nihilo is logically incoherent, but you've just answered it yourself. There is no problem because if it isn't impossible then it doesn't matter that it's logically incoherent.
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
This is only true if causality holds true, which once you say "God works in mysterious ways," you can remove... That's not a very satisfactory answer, though.
One theory for the Big Bang is that there was a previous universe that collapsed down into a small ball of condensed matter, then exploded out again. The expectation is that the same would happen to our universe. If one was to add a God into that theory (as some creationists do), then God essentially provides the instability in the previous universe and the entropy that causes the current one to exist. It's not as clean as "God worked for seven days to put everything together," but it's something.
I'm not sure what that even means, causality isn't a statement about reality.
Sure, so that's an alternate account of how god 'made' the world. That's very much a valid response for any theist to take, the important thing is that it seems many hold to the idea of causing it to exist ex nihilo.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Only if you don't generally hold to the ideas of conventional logic. Logically incoherent should mean impossible if normal logic and reason are all absolutely true, but I don't commit to that idea. If one doesn't, does logical coherence not still carry importance? Is reason and logic not still important even if we may doubt whether we can be certain of it's reliability? That line I will draw in the sand.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
So the argument that logical incoherence matters only matters to those who hold true to conventional logic?
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
Never mind, I read that first post closer again...
Creatio ex nihilo is not logically incoherent, but creatio ex nihilo as a cause is tautologically incoherent.
I'm talking about it as a cause.
Is there a difference between tautologically and logically incoherent?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
It only matters to anyone who cares about it. That doesn't have to mean being utterly convinced of it's accuracy, but basically yes, if you don't value logic then you this argument is not important to, but that only applies to people who are genuinelly commited to that.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice