Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[Kelp(p)]

That something can't come from nothing is not an oxymoron, it simple follows from nothing is and something is. And true nothingness is also not an oxymoron, its a perfectly intelligible concept, however we can only talk about it abstractly.

I said it's an oxymoron that you can get something from nothing and this applies even to God.

So, what? Did God start by taking a big ol' blob of nothing and rolling it flat? Then He sprinkled it heartily with some powdered nothing and baked it in the nothing oven on 450 degrees of nothingness until golden nothing brown?

How can we be made of something other than nothing if nothing is what we come from? What is the theoretical point at which you cross the border from a lot of nothing to a little bit of something?

[Leonhard]

So, what? Did God start by taking a big ol' blob of nothing and rolling it flat? Then He sprinkled it heartily with some powdered nothing and baked it in the nothing oven on 450 degrees of nothingness until golden nothing brown?

Giggled at that picture.

No its definitely not the case that nothingness is a substance that can be formed. All that's mean when we say that God made the universe 'ex nihilo' is that He's the ultimate cause of the existence of that substance, also that the substance of the universe wasn't formed out of God's substance. God simple made the substance of the universe come into being directly.

How can we be made of something other than nothing if nothing is what we come from? What is the theoretical point at which you cross the border from a lot of nothing to a little bit of something?

I think there's an ambiguity fallacy at play here when you say 'come from'. Do you mean what the causal account for our being ultimately is? That's God; do you mean what substance we're made from, that would be whatever prime matter God created when He created the universe; etc...

[Adrift]

I said it's an oxymoron that you can get something from nothing and this applies even to God.

So, what? Did God start by taking a big ol' blob of nothing and rolling it flat? Then He sprinkled it heartily with some powdered nothing and baked it in the nothing oven on 450 degrees of nothingness until golden nothing brown?

How can we be made of something other than nothing if nothing is what we come from? What is the theoretical point at which you cross the border from a lot of nothing to a little bit of something?

This is from one of William Craig's older podcasts, but I don't think his views have changed much:

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/creation-out-of-nothing

Kevin Harris:Dr. Craig:Kevin Harris:Dr. Craig:Kevin Harris: Then how did God do that? [laughter]

Dr. Craig:

© Copyright Original Source

[Kelp(p)]

Giggled at that picture.

No its definitely not the case that nothingness is a substance that can be formed. All that's mean when we say that God made the universe 'ex nihilo' is that He's the ultimate cause of the existence of that substance, also that the substance of the universe wasn't formed out of God's substance. God simple made the substance of the universe come into being directly.



I think there's an ambiguity fallacy at play here when you say 'come from'. Do you mean what the causal account for our being ultimately is? That's God; do you mean what substance we're made from, that would be whatever prime matter God created when He created the universe; etc...

Ok, I see your point (and thanks for the link, Adrift). But how does God bring this primal matter into existence? It isn't really an explanation to say that "he just did." I might as well say we were all sneezed out by the Great Congested Warthog (infinite points if you know that reference).

In terms of simplicity and explanatory power, some kind of eternally existing universe or a Big Bang from an eternally existing singularity makes a lot more sense.

[Kelp(p)]

It's not incoherent at all. Logic can be used to determinate a number of things about "Universe Zero", as I have done.



I'm not saying our spacetime manifold is timeless, I'm saying it was produced by one that is timeless.

I'm not trying to ignore you, Darth. I'm just not sure how to answer your points here.

[Jedidiah]

Ok, I see your point (and thanks for the link, Adrift). But how does God bring this primal matter into existence? It isn't really an explanation to say that "he just did." I might as well say we were all sneezed out by the Great Congested Warthog (infinite points if you know that reference).

Forgive me but that is a pretty dumb question. Why on earth (or anywhere else) would you expect to be able to comprehend an omniscient being.

In terms of simplicity and explanatory power, some kind of eternally existing universe or a Big Bang from an eternally existing singularity makes a lot more sense.

Not to me it does not.

[Tassman]

Forgive me but that is a pretty dumb question. Why on earth (or anywhere else) would you expect to be able to comprehend an omniscient being.

Not to me it does not.

[Leonhard]

What is “pretty dumb” is not the inability to “comprehend” an omniscient being, but the assumption that such an “omniscient being” exists at all.

That's not an assumption, its a conclusion.

I think we can know that God exists, and many of His properties, with all the certainty that's needed. You may think the conclusion is faulty, but it would disengenous to say that arguments aren't being advanced for it. At most you can say that those arguments don't work, but you can't pretend none exists.

[Leonhard]

Ok, I see your point (and thanks for the link, Adrift). But how does God bring this primal matter into existence? It isn't really an explanation to say that "he just did." I might as well say we were all sneezed out by the Great Congested Warthog (infinite points if you know that reference).

Theists when they argue that God is the ultimate cause of the universe, will first establish that the universe needs such a cause. There are various arguments that do this, some of them have been hinted at in this thread. These arguments establish that such a cause must exist, whatever its nature. Then we can further discuss what the property of that cause must be, and theists defend that it must have properties that make it synonymous with what we call God.

How can God do it? What specifically did God do in the moment of creation. I know very little of it, its enough for (here in this discussion) to establish that He did so, not the full account of what was done.

Its all that's needed in order to answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

In terms of simplicity and explanatory power, some kind of eternally existing universe or a Big Bang from an eternally existing singularity makes a lot more sense.

That view has philosophical problems with motion and change i wonder how you'd deal about. And in fact the arguments I prefer for God's existing don't depend on whether the universe is infinitely old or not, they just depend on ultra-mundane observations we usually take for granted.

[Kelp(p)]

Forgive me but that is a pretty dumb question. Why on earth (or anywhere else) would you expect to be able to comprehend an omniscient being.

No offense taken. I guess I'll have to concede the point on this one.

[Kelp(p)]

That view has philosophical problems with motion and change i wonder how you'd deal about. And in fact the arguments I prefer for God's existing don't depend on whether the universe is infinitely old or not, they just depend on ultra-mundane observations we usually take for granted.

I guess you have the disadvantage over me, then. I was only aware of the old Thomistic "Five Ways" arguments in regard to motion and change, and I thought those assumed a finite universe with a first cause/prime mover.

[Leonhard]

I guess you have the disadvantage over me, then. I was only aware of the old Thomistic "Five Ways" arguments in regard to motion and change, and I thought those assumed a finite universe with a first cause/prime mover.

Actually they don't, they're quite compatible (and meant to be that way) with an infinitely old universe as well. In fact while Sct Thomas Aquinas gives philosophical reasons against infinities actually existing, he didn't consider it possible to prove one way or the other from natural reason whether such things could actually be.

I've considered writing a thread about it, because I see several Christians here getting his arguments wrong as well. Though ApologiaPhoenix has written a bit about them properly on his blog.

Most people misunderstand his arguments and think that when he talks about a First Mover he's talking about something like the finger flicking the first domino in a line of dominos. However, such chains of causality he considers accidentally ordered chains. He's talking about essentially ordered chains which is somewhat different.

If you can stand his snide against atheists and agnostics who get the arguments wrong I highly recommend reading Ed Feser's online articles on the cosmological argument to get your feet wet. If you want to get ankle deep read his The Last Superstition, Aquinas and Scholastic Metaphysics in that order. If you want to get really deep into the ocean I've got an arms length of reading material, however I suggest you avoid Summa Theologica by Sct Thomas Aquinas (if you're going to be reading him directly).

If you plan to read Sct Aquinas at all I suggest Summa Contra Gentiles (but only if you can find a good commentary). Fr Garrigou-Lagrange is the great neo-scholastic commentator on Sct Aquinas, but its hard to find his works in hardcover or paperback cheaply (you might get lucky on ebay and amazon).

[Kelp(p)]

Actually they don't, they're quite compatible (and meant to be that way) with an infinitely old universe as well. In fact while Sct Thomas Aquinas gives philosophical reasons against infinities actually existing, he didn't consider it possible to prove one way or the other from natural reason whether such things could actually be.

I've considered writing a thread about it, because I see several Christians here getting his arguments wrong as well. Though ApologiaPhoenix has written a bit about them properly on his blog.

Most people misunderstand his arguments and think that when he talks about a First Mover he's talking about something like the finger flicking the first domino in a line of dominos. However, such chains of causality he considers accidentally ordered chains. He's talking about essentially ordered chains which is somewhat different.

If you can stand his snide against atheists and agnostics who get the arguments wrong I highly recommend reading Ed Feser's online articles on the cosmological argument to get your feet wet. If you want to get ankle deep read his The Last Superstition, Aquinas and Scholastic Metaphysics in that order. If you want to get really deep into the ocean I've got an arms length of reading material, however I suggest you avoid Summa Theologica by Sct Thomas Aquinas (if you're going to be reading him directly).

If you plan to read Sct Aquinas at all I suggest Summa Contra Gentiles (but only if you can find a good commentary). Fr Garrigou-Lagrange is the great neo-scholastic commentator on Sct Aquinas, but its hard to find his works in hardcover or paperback cheaply (you might get lucky on ebay and amazon).

Ok. Thanks.

[Jedidiah]

That's not an assumption, its a conclusion.

Pity you never learned to read.

[Adrift]

Pity you never learned to read.

?