The creation of time and space? What!

[Chrawnus]

We are all (or most of us are) aware of the "zero-point-field. You have not given us anything new. I don't think anyone posits that empty space is nothing. Jim has, and you seem to be following him, basically said that since he can not conceive of true nothing it can not exist. I think there is logical fallacy involved here.

Yup. It's called the Fallacy of Incredulity, or the Argument from Lack of Imagination.

[robertb]

what was stated is an argument.

Removing the identity of God from the argument:

There is self-conditioned existence which conditioned existence such as space-time is conditioned on. Our known space-time seems to have an origin. Where as self-conditioned existence has no origin, nor can have one, it being the self-conditioned existence by which any conditioned existence depends on.

Are you sure that you removed the identity of God from this argument? Seems like you actually define God in your first premise, as below.

1. There is self-conditioned existence which conditioned existence such as space-time is conditioned on.

The uncaused cause which, I suppose, is otherwise referred to as God.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know shunya, you still seem to be suggesting the same thing. What do you mean to say by the analogy? How is the nature of our physical existence related to God. Reflection or an analogy of a related nature, still sounds pantheistic to me.

What would be analogistic of a reflection of God would be the attributes of God of eternal time and space, not the nature of our physical existence of our universe and all possible universes. Just like our reflection in a mirror would not be ourselves, but a reflection of our attributes. This would be eternal time and infinite matrix of God's Creation. All of the created physical existence including our universe, would in this eternal time and infinite matrix.


Pantheism would equate our physical existence or our universe and all possible universes with God. What I propose is not pantheism, but may be interpreted as something similar with Panentheism, but again I am not trying to be specific about defining God, nor the relationship to creation, but demonstrating that eternal time and an infinite matrix of space, which Creation is a part of is not a serious problem from theism, from my perspective..

I would never try to propose anything like absolute nothing.

[Jedidiah]

Yup. It's called the Fallacy of Incredulity, or the Argument from Lack of Imagination.

That is what I was not so subtly hinting at, personal incredulity.

[shunyadragon]

What would be analogistic of a reflection of God would be the attributes of God of eternal time and space, not the nature of our physical existence of our universe and all possible universes. Just like our reflection in a mirror would not be ourselves, but a reflection of our attributes. This would be eternal time and infinite matrix of God's Creation. All of the created physical existence including our universe, would in this eternal time and infinite matrix.


Pantheism would equate our physical existence or our universe and all possible universes with God. What I propose is not pantheism, but may be interpreted as something similar with Panentheism, but again I am not trying to be specific about defining God, nor the relationship to creation, but demonstrating that eternal time and an infinite matrix of space, which Creation is a part of is not a serious problem from theism, from my perspective..

I would never try to propose anything like absolute nothing.

I would like to emphasis that the physical existence that makes up our universe and all possible universes that is Creation itself is separate from God.

[JimL]

I think what physicists refer to as nothingness is not a literal “nothing” but what in Quantum Field Theory is referred to as Zero-Point energy - i.e. even if ALL the particles in the universe could be removed one is left with the Zero-Point Field, or Quantum Vacuum.

Thus it’s wrong to think of empty space as truly "empty", rather space consists of fluctuating energy which, due to the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics, particles known as virtual particles continually and spontaneously briefly appear before having to go back into it – thanks to the principle of Energy Conservation. These are what are referred to as fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. A quantum fluctuation is thought to have been the origin of the Big Bang.

Yes, I understand this in so far as a layman can understand it, but the point I was trying to make is that, if I am correct, i.e. that there is no such thing as nothing, then the eternal and infinite, however it is defined, it is not nothing, nor could it be bounded by what we usually mean by nothingness. In other words, that there could be no place where there is no space, or if you will, that there could be no place where there is no non-zero field of energy. In order for space and time to be created, the creator thereof, would need be distinct and separate from his creation, but if there is no such thing as nothingness, if space is eternal and infinite, if there is no place outside of space, then how, as some people are claiming, could it be created? In such a case it would have to be said to have been created from within itself which of course is ridiculous.

[JimL]

We are all (or most of us are) aware of the "zero-point-field. You have not given us anything new. I don't think anyone posits that empty space is nothing. Jim has, and you seem to be following him, basically said that since he can not conceive of true nothing it can not exist. I think there is logical fallacy involved here.

Isn't it odd that, not only can we not conceive of nothingness, but we can't even speak to it logically. Of course nothingness can not exist, if it existed, it would be something.

[JimL]

I would like to emphasis that the physical existence that makes up our universe and all possible universes that is Creation itself is separate from God.

In what sense do you see God and the universe as separate if they both have the same attributes, i.e. time and space?

[Adrift]

Yes, I understand this in so far as a layman can understand it, but the point I was trying to make is that, if I am correct, i.e. that there is no such thing as nothing, then the eternal and infinite, however it is defined, it is not nothing, nor could it be bounded by what we usually mean by nothingness. In other words, that there could be no place where there is no space, or if you will, that there could be no place where there is no non-zero field of energy. In order for space and time to be created, the creator thereof, would need be distinct and separate from his creation, but if there is no such thing as nothingness, if space is eternal and infinite, if there is no place outside of space, then how, as some people are claiming, could it be created? In such a case it would have to be said to have been created from within itself which of course is ridiculous.

I'm confused here. Are you assuming that God, a spirit, would need to take up space in order to create space? Also, I see you mentioning this point "that some people are claiming" that space is eternal and infinite. Which theist is making that claim in this thread exactly? Someone probably made the claim, but I might have missed it or something. As far as I know, most Christians tend to make the claim creatio ex nihilo.

[Tassman]

We are all (or most of us are) aware of the "zero-point-field. You have not given us anything new. I don't think anyone posits that empty space is nothing. Jim has, and you seem to be following him, basically said that since he can not conceive of true nothing it can not exist. I think there is logical fallacy involved here.

I was actually addressing JimL's point. But I doubt that “most of us” in TWeb are aware of the implications of Quantum Field theory. Are you including the YEC’s? If you listen to William Lane Craig you'll be told that a state of state of nothingness is the natural state of things, but what he neglects to tell you is, that once Quantum Field Theory is applied to this “empty space” his argument falls apart. Space is empty space, certainly, but with a positive cosmological constant (i.e. vacuum energy).

[Tassman]

So you admit our universe is not eternal?

I didn’t say it was – necessarily. I was commenting upon your bald assertion fallacy. The current state of our knowledge simply does not allow for such unsupported absolute claims - especially given that science is a “work in progress” and not a static belief-system like religion.

And since all we can know is our own universe, by definition, any speculation about other universes, multiverses, previous universes, etc, is just that, speculation.

Yet again an unsupported assertion and based on what – “Faith”? “Hope”? What? It’s certainly not based on physics which consists of aquiring evidence to support its hypotheses. The following quote is fairly representative of where science is currently at:

“There was once a time when ‘universe’ meant ‘all there is.’ Everything! The whole shebang! The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of ‘universe.’ The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes ‘universe’ still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection of universes”. The Hidden Reality - physicist Brian Greene.

[Jedidiah]

I was actually addressing JimL's point. But I doubt that “most of us” in TWeb are aware of the implications of Quantum Field theory. Are you including the YEC’s? If you listen to William Lane Craig you'll be told that a state of state of nothingness is the natural state of things, but what he neglects to tell you is, that once Quantum Field Theory is applied to this “empty space” his argument falls apart. Space is empty space, certainly, but with a positive cosmological constant (i.e. vacuum energy).

Still all you have done is proclaim that absolute nothing is impossible. Give me evidence. You can not imagine it. And then right back to applying Quantum Field Theory to empty space. How do you imagine this will demonstrate that absolute nothing is impossible?

[Tassman]

Still all you have done is proclaim that absolute nothing is impossible. Give me evidence. You can not imagine it. And then right back to applying Quantum Field Theory to empty space. How do you imagine this will demonstrate that absolute nothing is impossible?

How do I “imagine this will demonstrate that absolute nothing is impossible?” I haven’t said it does. Nevertheless, to date there is no evidence indicating the existence of “absolute nothingness” but there is growing evidence supporting the impossibility of “absolute nothing”.

The traditional understanding of the Big Bang does not do it because modern physicists have converged on inflationary cosmology, which avoids a singularity and suggests space beyond our universe which may or may not be infinite and eternal.

And once again the “I cannot imagine it” argument is not mine so please stop attributing it to me. Nor do I think it is JimL’s – he was expressing an opinion, about its counter-intuitive qualities, not presenting a hypothesis.

[Chrawnus]

I was actually addressing JimL's point. But I doubt that “most of us” in TWeb are aware of the implications of Quantum Field theory. Are you including the YEC’s? If you listen to William Lane Craig you'll be told that a state of state of nothingness is the natural state of things, but what he neglects to tell you is, that once Quantum Field Theory is applied to this “empty space” his argument falls apart. Space is empty space, certainly, but with a positive cosmological constant (i.e. vacuum energy).

1. I don't think WLC has ever said anything to the effect of nothingness being the natural state of things. From where have you gotten that idea?

2. Nothingness is not empty space, nothingness is the total absence of anything whatsoever, including space, so I don't think his argument falls on something like Quantum Field Theory since Quantum Field Theory is not applicable to nothingness.

[Chrawnus]

How do I “imagine this will demonstrate that absolute nothing is impossible?” I haven’t said it does. Nevertheless, to date there is no evidence indicating the existence of “absolute nothingness” but there is growing evidence supporting the impossibility of “absolute nothing”.

There is absolutely no evidence, nor will there ever be any, of the impossibility of "absolute nothing"*. There could possibly be evidence of the unlikelihood/improbability of "absolute nothing", but there is absolutely no kind of data that would render absolute nothingness an impossibility, or even suggest that it is.



*I'm speaking of a theoretical impossibility here, of course. The fact that there is something existing suggests that absolute nothingness has never been a reality, but that there has always been some kind of existence. Whether that existence is God or something else is another question.