Hi all, I'm a new guy on the block.
I wrote this a while back in an effort to lay a foundation for further study on this topic. Does anyone agree or disagree with this?
Definition:
Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.
Hypothesis:
No real and actual thing can come from Absolute Nothingness for it has no existence, no energy, no matter, no space, or anything else known or unknown from which to create it. No real and actual thing can really and actually “spontaneously generate” or create itself from Absolute Nothingness.
To do this it would have to either pre-exist itself or be created by something else. If it pre-exists itself then “it” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If something else created it then that “something else” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If a first cause of any kind exists then that “first cause” actually exists and again we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If there are fluctuations of space or energy, or the pre-existence of particles, or the pre-existence of anything of any kind whatsoever then it is not Absolute Nothingness.
Now, if Absolute Nothingness ever existed, then there would be Absolute Nothingness right now. For Something cannot come from Absolute Nothingness. However, Something does exist. In fact You exist. Actually, many things exist. Therefore, the very fact that you exist is proof that Absolute Nothingness never existed. Now, if Absolute Nothingness never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.
Best Wishes
Grommit
Something is eternal.
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Hi Grommit, welcome.
I'd agree with what you've said. Infact there is a Latin word for thing that has always existed out of ontological necessity—Aseity.
Kurieuo.
I'd agree with what you've said. Infact there is a Latin word for thing that has always existed out of ontological necessity—Aseity.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Thank you for your welcome and link Kurieuo! I will look into that site further when I have time.
Here is another parallel or expanded version that I developed by combining several different sources to reach the same conclusion. Does anyone see any flaws in this version of the argument?
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Have you ever thought about the beginning? I mean, what was really here first, at the beginning of time? There are two simple possibilities. The first theory is that in the beginning there was Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. The second theory says that in the beginning there was Something. You and I know that only one of these theories can be correct, but which one is it? Which one is true?
The first theory says that in the beginning there was Nothing. Well, let's take a look and see if this is possible, see if this is reasonable. An illustration may help us out here. Let's say you have a very large closed box. This box is locked, permanently, and has no openings or holes of any kind in its walls. Inside the box there is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed box that's pitch black inside. OK, let's say your goal is to get Something--anything at all--into the box. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the box to do that. So what do you do?
Well, what if you try to create a spark inside the box? Then the box would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as Something wouldn't it? Yes, but you are outside the box. So that is not allowed.
But, what if you could teleport Something into the box, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowed, because you'd be using things from outside the box. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get Something inside the box using only what's in the box. And, in this case, what's in the box is Nothing.
Well, maybe a tiny particle of Something will just show up inside the box if given enough time and chance. Maybe it will just “spontaneously generate.” There are four very real problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed box with absolutely Nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?
The Second problem is chance. Is there really any possibility that chance could make something appear in our box? Well, if we are thinking of chance as a supposed agent or cause of change, then absolutely not. Chance has no power to do anything or change anything in any way because it simply is not anything. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. Chance has no power because it has no being. It has no existence. It has no more chance of doing something than nothing has of doing something.
The Third problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty box without a cause? Remember, there is no cause of any kind inside our box. There is Nothing inside the box at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There is Nothing inside the box to cause Something to "show up." But wait a minute, couldn't Something just create itself? Absolutely not! Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For Something to actually create itself it would have to be before it is. That is scientifically impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for any form of energy, light, or heat. It is impossible for any form of life, simple or complex. Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself.
But, what about a tiny particle of Something, say an atom? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in our empty box than Something gigantic like the earth? That brings up the Fourth problem: Size. We need to remember here that size is relative. Something is only “tiny” or “gigantic” in relation to something else. An atom is indeed tiny compared to the earth, but the earth is also tiny when compared to the entire universe. Does that really make it any easier for the earth to materialize out of nothing? Even an atom would appear to be gigantic when compared to one of its own subatomic particles? And wouldn't any subatomic particle, no matter how small, be gigantic when compared to Nothing which has no size at all? Now if you don't think that the earth could just pop into existence from nothing then you must conclude the very same thing for a single atom. For size really is not the issue. The question is not whether something large or small in relation to something else could “show up”, but whether or not any thing of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty box. The real likelihood of any tiny particle materializing without a cause is no different than the earth itself materializing out of nothing without a cause! For neither is possible.
Now let's stretch our analogy a little further, literally. Let's take our box of Nothing and remove its imaginary walls. And let's extend the box so it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now an infinity of Nothing is all there is, period. This infinity has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It is absolute Nothingness. This Nothingness has no nature, no causal powers, no time, no space, no change of any kind, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever. In fact, we can truly call it Absolutely Nothing.
So here's the big question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing right now? For Something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. However, something does exist. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, the very fact that you exist is proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.
Thanks,
Grommit
Here is another parallel or expanded version that I developed by combining several different sources to reach the same conclusion. Does anyone see any flaws in this version of the argument?
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Have you ever thought about the beginning? I mean, what was really here first, at the beginning of time? There are two simple possibilities. The first theory is that in the beginning there was Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. The second theory says that in the beginning there was Something. You and I know that only one of these theories can be correct, but which one is it? Which one is true?
The first theory says that in the beginning there was Nothing. Well, let's take a look and see if this is possible, see if this is reasonable. An illustration may help us out here. Let's say you have a very large closed box. This box is locked, permanently, and has no openings or holes of any kind in its walls. Inside the box there is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed box that's pitch black inside. OK, let's say your goal is to get Something--anything at all--into the box. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the box to do that. So what do you do?
Well, what if you try to create a spark inside the box? Then the box would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as Something wouldn't it? Yes, but you are outside the box. So that is not allowed.
But, what if you could teleport Something into the box, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowed, because you'd be using things from outside the box. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get Something inside the box using only what's in the box. And, in this case, what's in the box is Nothing.
Well, maybe a tiny particle of Something will just show up inside the box if given enough time and chance. Maybe it will just “spontaneously generate.” There are four very real problems with this theory. First, time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed box with absolutely Nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?
The Second problem is chance. Is there really any possibility that chance could make something appear in our box? Well, if we are thinking of chance as a supposed agent or cause of change, then absolutely not. Chance has no power to do anything or change anything in any way because it simply is not anything. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. Chance has no power because it has no being. It has no existence. It has no more chance of doing something than nothing has of doing something.
The Third problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty box without a cause? Remember, there is no cause of any kind inside our box. There is Nothing inside the box at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There is Nothing inside the box to cause Something to "show up." But wait a minute, couldn't Something just create itself? Absolutely not! Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For Something to actually create itself it would have to be before it is. That is scientifically impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for any form of energy, light, or heat. It is impossible for any form of life, simple or complex. Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself.
But, what about a tiny particle of Something, say an atom? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in our empty box than Something gigantic like the earth? That brings up the Fourth problem: Size. We need to remember here that size is relative. Something is only “tiny” or “gigantic” in relation to something else. An atom is indeed tiny compared to the earth, but the earth is also tiny when compared to the entire universe. Does that really make it any easier for the earth to materialize out of nothing? Even an atom would appear to be gigantic when compared to one of its own subatomic particles? And wouldn't any subatomic particle, no matter how small, be gigantic when compared to Nothing which has no size at all? Now if you don't think that the earth could just pop into existence from nothing then you must conclude the very same thing for a single atom. For size really is not the issue. The question is not whether something large or small in relation to something else could “show up”, but whether or not any thing of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty box. The real likelihood of any tiny particle materializing without a cause is no different than the earth itself materializing out of nothing without a cause! For neither is possible.
Now let's stretch our analogy a little further, literally. Let's take our box of Nothing and remove its imaginary walls. And let's extend the box so it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now an infinity of Nothing is all there is, period. This infinity has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It is absolute Nothingness. This Nothingness has no nature, no causal powers, no time, no space, no change of any kind, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever. In fact, we can truly call it Absolutely Nothing.
So here's the big question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing right now? For Something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. However, something does exist. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, the very fact that you exist is proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.
Thanks,
Grommit
-
AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
If there is nothing...is there time?First, time by itself doesn't do anything.
If you have nothing, you don't have time, matter, or space correct?Interesting statements.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
-
Mastermind
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1410
- Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:22 pm
I am currently looking at ways to build the best argument for an intelligent "something". I do believe that this eternal something is indeed God. I have looked at several approaches to this argument but I am looking for the best one possible. I would be very interested in any thing you or anyone else may have on the subject. The next step at least for me currently is to simply prove that an eternal "something" is uncaused. This is self evident to me since "something" eternal would have no beginning and so would have no need for a cause of a non-existent beginning. Some people seem to have difficulty understanding this simple idea.Kurieuo wrote:The next step is working out whether the necessary eternal "something" is intelligent or non-intelligent. I'm assuming that you might already be aware of the argument for this next part??
Kurieuo.
Thank You!
Grommit
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Seriously, if someone accepts that something has always existed out of ontological necessary yet still tries to hold that such a thing requires a cause, then it is their logic that is contradictory. Here is a more succinct argument that may help you further, and lays the foundation for sussing out what the eternal ontological necessity is:Grommit wrote:The next step at least for me currently is to simply prove that an eternal "something" is uncaused. This is self evident to me since "something" eternal would have no beginning and so would have no need for a cause of a non-existent beginning. Some people seem to have difficulty understanding this simple idea.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... ackie.html
Now given that our universe began including with time, space, matter and energy (as many now accept), our universe can be ruled out as the ontological necessary entity. Yet, how do we come to an intelligent being as the ontological necessary entity? Try to bear with me, and feel free to ask questions for clarification as I don't expect to get this across the first time.Grommit wrote:I am currently looking at ways to build the best argument for an intelligent "something". I do believe that this eternal something is indeed God. I have looked at several approaches to this argument but I am looking for the best one possible. I would be very interested in any thing you or anyone else may have on the subject.
Imagine a world that has existed from eternity. Such a world must be eternally the same and timeless to avoid the problem of an infinite regress and arguments 2.1 and 2.2 presented above. Now an unintelligent entity (such as a material world) wouldn't be able to all of a sudden change itself to produce an effect. So if a material world was eternal, any effect within such a world would have to be just as eternal as its cause. As our universe came into existence ~13.7 billion years ago, the cause of our universe must also be finite if unintelligent.
To use an example from William Craig, "Let's say the cause of water's freezing is sub-zero temperatures. Whenever the temperature falls below zero degrees Centigrade, the water freezes. Once the cause is given, the effect must follow, and if the cause exists from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity. If the temperature were to remain below zero degrees from eternity; then any water around would be frozen from eternity. But this seems to imply that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally. And this we know to be false." (Reasonable Faith, p.117). He concludes it (the universe existing eternally) is false, because we know the "effect" (i.e. "big bang" - our world) is finite. If the unverse as a whole were infinite, then our world would have to be as eternal as the world that caused it. However we know it is not.
So why doesn't this logic also apply to God? Because "God" in His nature would have been free to bring about conditions which weren't previously present. Unlike an eternal universe which couldn't "will" a change to cause something, a person such as God can because such a being would be free to will. Therefore I believe the property of the ontological necessary thing must possess a will and have the power to carry such a will out. Such qualities require intelligence.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Frank2005
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:33 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Los Angeles
From the above discussions, I believe everyone agrees that there must be something which is eternal. The question now is: what is the necessary eternal "something"?
Grommit believes that this eternal something is indeed God. However, if God is the intelligent life living in the higher dimensional world (the bulk universe) - as I have postulated - then He is NOT this eternal something. Although God existed well before our three dimensional world (a braneworld), something must have existed before Him - the bulk universe. In the beginning, the bulk universe has only vacuum governed by physical laws. According to quantum mechanics, vacuum is not nothingness. The Uncertainty Principle allows virtual particles to be created from vacuum spontaneously - a process known as quantum fluctuation. The intelligent life (God) in the bulk universe may evolve from the virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation.
In my view, the eternal something is the physical laws. I was trying to explain the origin of the physical laws. But I have realized that it is outside the scope of science. Science is to explain natural phenomena in terms of physical laws, not to explain the origin of physical laws. I simply accept the physical laws as aseity. There is no need to explain the cause for its existence.
________________________
Related Link:
The string theory and the origin of God
Grommit believes that this eternal something is indeed God. However, if God is the intelligent life living in the higher dimensional world (the bulk universe) - as I have postulated - then He is NOT this eternal something. Although God existed well before our three dimensional world (a braneworld), something must have existed before Him - the bulk universe. In the beginning, the bulk universe has only vacuum governed by physical laws. According to quantum mechanics, vacuum is not nothingness. The Uncertainty Principle allows virtual particles to be created from vacuum spontaneously - a process known as quantum fluctuation. The intelligent life (God) in the bulk universe may evolve from the virtual particles created by quantum fluctuation.
In my view, the eternal something is the physical laws. I was trying to explain the origin of the physical laws. But I have realized that it is outside the scope of science. Science is to explain natural phenomena in terms of physical laws, not to explain the origin of physical laws. I simply accept the physical laws as aseity. There is no need to explain the cause for its existence.
________________________
Related Link:
The string theory and the origin of God
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Actually, that is what my last post provided an answer to.Frank2005 wrote:From the above discussions, I believe everyone agrees that there must be something which is eternal. The question now is: what is the necessary eternal "something"?
Not that it really matters, but it suprises me that you refer to our world as three dimensional, mainly because you provide a related link to string theory wherein 11 dimensions are usually believed in. Yet, our universe possesses at least four dimensions anyway (three space and one time), which according to the space-time theorem must have all had a beginning. Now if time had a beginning, then what you refer to as "the bulk universe" must have existed before our world. Therefore by your same reasoning with which you rule God out as the eternal something, I believe your "bulk universe" existing before our universe can be ruled out as the necessary eternal something.Frank2005 wrote:God is the intelligent life living in the higher dimensional world (the bulk universe) - as I have postulated - then He is NOT this eternal something. Although God existed well before our three dimensional world (a braneworld), something must have existed before Him - the bulk universe.
Rather it is more plausible to advocate that God was timeless prior to the creation of our universe. Now just because God chose to create, thereby signally His entering into time, such does not now literally mean His timelessness existed at a time before time—an absurd and illogical conclusion. To reason such a thing is to postulate a backward causation—the first event causes time to exist not only with the event but also before it. Now on a tensed theory of time, such retro-causation is metaphysically impossible for it amounts to something being caused by nothing, since at the time of the effect the retro-cause in no sense exists. Apart from backward causation there is nothing that appears to produce a time prior to times creation. Given that time began to exist, it is nothing but an illusion to picture a time before time. Rather it is more appropriate to picture a state of timelessness without creation and temporality subsequent to creation.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Frank2005
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:33 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Los Angeles
The "bulk universe" I am referring to is the 11 dimensional universe. Our braneworld has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The time dimension was not included in my previous post. According to the string theory. our braneworld is embedded in the bulk universe. It is impossible for us to see anything outside our braneworld because photons are confined in our braneworld (more info). My hypothesis is that, outside our braneworld, the bulk universe could contain matter that constitutes the kingdom of God.Kurieuo wrote:it suprises me that you refer to our world as three dimensional, mainly because you provide a related link to string theory wherein 11 dimensions are usually believed in. Yet, our universe possesses at least four dimensions anyway
-
bizzt
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary
I find this Funny! Really most people will try to do anything to make God less then what he is. Why not admit God is God and he is ruler over all. It is just like admiting there is BULK Universe.Frank2005 wrote:The "bulk universe" I am referring to is the 11 dimensional universe. Our braneworld has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The time dimension was not included in my previous post. According to the string theory. our braneworld is embedded in the bulk universe. It is impossible for us to see anything outside our braneworld because photons are confined in our braneworld (more info). My hypothesis is that, outside our braneworld, the bulk universe could contain matter that constitutes the kingdom of God.Kurieuo wrote:it suprises me that you refer to our world as three dimensional, mainly because you provide a related link to string theory wherein 11 dimensions are usually believed in. Yet, our universe possesses at least four dimensions anyway
-
Frank2005
- Familiar Member
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:33 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Los Angeles
When scientists discovered that rainbow is nothing but light refraction from air, they did not make rainbow less beautiful.bizzt wrote:most people will try to do anything to make God less then what he is. Why not admit God is God and he is ruler over all. It is just like admiting there is BULK Universe.
This forum is about God and SCIENCE. The goal of science is to explain everything (including God, if He really exists) in terms of physical laws. If you assume that everything is ruled by the free will of the almighty God, it will not be accepted by atheists.
By assuming God lives in the bulk universe, we can understand why God is far more powful than us. See The string theory and miracles.
-
bizzt
- Prestigious Senior Member
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:11 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Calgary
I am not looking for Acceptance from Atheists. THIS forum is About GOD and then science. The Goal of Science is not to Explain Everything. How can you Explain God? No one can explain God Scientifically! Can you show me PROOF SCIENTIFICALLY of the BULK Universe? Why do you call it a String "Theory" when it is only a Hypothesis that cannot be tested...Frank2005 wrote:When scientists discovered that rainbow is nothing but light refraction from air, they did not make rainbow less beautiful.bizzt wrote:most people will try to do anything to make God less then what he is. Why not admit God is God and he is ruler over all. It is just like admiting there is BULK Universe.
This forum is about God and SCIENCE. The goal of science is to explain everything (including God, if He really exists) in terms of physical laws. If you assume that everything is ruled by the free will of the almighty God, it will not be accepted by atheists.
By assuming God lives in the bulk universe, we can understand why God is far more powful than us. See The string theory and miracles.
Hey August!!!