The creation of time and space? What!

[Tassman]

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.

It’s contained in his theology of “creation ex nihilo” which refers to creation from nothing. He argues that the term "creation ex nihilo" refers to God creating everything from nothing. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Prior to that moment there was nothing. God didn’t make the universe from preexisting building blocks. He started from scratch.

You will find his reasoning here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causa...kalam-argument

[Cerebrum123]

It’s contained in his theology of “creation ex nihilo” which refers to creation from nothing. He argues that the term "creation ex nihilo" refers to God creating everything from nothing. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Prior to that moment there was nothing. God didn’t make the universe from preexisting building blocks. He started from scratch.

You will find his reasoning here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/causa...kalam-argument

What WLC is saying doesn't seem to be what you are saying he is saying at all. Creation ex nihilo still doesn't require space to already be in existence either, only God needed to be in existence "prior" to the universe we live in.

[Sparko]

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.

Nothing is what you see when you try to see out of your elbow.

[Chrawnus]

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.

That's because you think of nothingness as a thing, instead of the total absence of all things (including things such as "place" and empty space). And while conceiving of the "total absence of all things" might be hard, if not impossible, the concept itself is not nonsensical. It's simply the concept of absence (or non-existence) applied to all of reality. So no one in their right mind would speak of nothingness as something that can exist.

[JimL]

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.

Well Adrift, my first point was that if I am correct, that if there is no such thing as nothingness, then space, and perhaps, time, if it even exists, are eternal and infinite, and being thus can not be said to also have been created. In that case, even if there is such a thing as spirit or God, and even if it somehow doesn't take up space, then just like the spirit assumed to inhabit physical beings, it must needs exist within space. The only alternative would be to say that though spirit exists, it doesn't exist anywhere, which to me is ludicrous. Spirit can't be distinct or separated from that which is infinite and eternal. Also some theist in this very thread have claimed that an eternal and infinite existing space time would not preclude the existence of God.

[Chrawnus]

Well Adrift, my first point was that if I am correct, that if there is no such thing as nothingness, then space, and perhaps, time, if it even exists, are eternal and infinite, and being thus can not be said to also have been created. In that case, even if there is such a thing as spirit or God, and even if it somehow doesn't take up space, then just like the spirit assumed to inhabit physical beings, it must needs exist within space. The only alternative would be to say that though spirit exists, it doesn't exist anywhere, which to me is ludicrous. Spirit can't be distinct or separated from that which is infinite and eternal. Also some theist in this very thread have claimed that an eternal and infinite existing space time would not preclude the existence of God.

Even if you conclude that there is no such thing as nothingness, it doesn't mean that you have to posit space-time as that which has always existed. You can simply say that God is that something that has always existed.

And could you clarify what you mean by saying that there is no such thing as nothingness? Are you simply saying that there is no such thing as the total absence of all things, or are you saying that the total absence of all things is impossible, even in theory?

I do think however, even if I don't think nothingness is an impossibility, that there has always been something. Otherwise (considering that nothingness is causally impotent) we wouldn't be here talking about it. I just happen to believe that rather than some kind of physical reality, like a space-time continuum always existing, the one who is eternal is God.

[Sparko]

Well Adrift, my first point was that if I am correct, that if there is no such thing as nothingness, then space, and perhaps, time, if it even exists, are eternal and infinite, and being thus can not be said to also have been created. In that case, even if there is such a thing as spirit or God, and even if it somehow doesn't take up space, then just like the spirit assumed to inhabit physical beings, it must needs exist within space. The only alternative would be to say that though spirit exists, it doesn't exist anywhere, which to me is ludicrous. Spirit can't be distinct or separated from that which is infinite and eternal. Also some theist in this very thread have claimed that an eternal and infinite existing space time would not preclude the existence of God.

Just because you can't conceive of something doesn't make it untrue, Jim. I seriously doubt that your perceptions are the cause of reality.

[Tassman]

What WLC is saying doesn't seem to be what you are saying he is saying at all. Creation ex nihilo still doesn't require space to already be in existence either, only God needed to be in existence "prior" to the universe we live in.

The Latin meaning of “creation ex nihilo” is “created from nothing” (not from existing space) and this is what WLC is saying based on the biblical texts.

The Bible doesn’t actually say that God made everything from nothing, but this is what WLC is arguing and it is implied in Genesis and also in Hebrews 11 “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” This is generally understood to mean that the universe came into existence by divine fiat from nothing, i.e. not assembled from preexisting matter or energy.

[Tassman]

Even if you conclude that there is no such thing as nothingness, it doesn't mean that you have to posit space-time as that which has always existed. You can simply say that God is that something that has always existed.

Yes you can but why would you? Surely it makes more sense to argue that that the quantum vacuum is eternal, rather than a deity being eternal – it’s the more parsimonious argument.

And could you clarify what you mean by saying that there is no such thing as nothingness? Are you simply saying that there is no such thing as the total absence of all things, or are you saying that the total absence of all things is impossible, even in theory?

The evidence to date indicates that it's wrong to think of empty space as truly "empty". Instead it's a sea of energy and fluctuating virtual particles spontaneously appearing and disappearing due to the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. It seems that absolute “nothingness” is a state that cannot exist even theoretically. There is no scientific evidence to indicate otherwise.

I do think however, even if I don't think nothingness is an impossibility, that there has always been something. Otherwise (considering that nothingness is causally impotent) we wouldn't be here talking about it. I just happen to believe that rather than some kind of physical reality, like a space-time continuum always existing, the one who is eternal is God.

Well no – not when “nothing” is defined as the quantum vacuum, i.e. is seeming nothingness. Due to the uncertainty principle, particles known as virtual particles briefly, but continuously, appear spontaneously out of the vacuum before returning to it – after all, the conservation of energy still applies even with Quantum Mechanics.

You are entitled to prefer the notion of an eternal deity over that of the eternal quantum vacuum but only as an act of faith. The existing evidence does not support such a belief.

[Jedidiah]

but there is growing evidence supporting the impossibility of “absolute nothing”.

Share some of that evidence showing that it is impossible that there is absolutely nothing.

[Tassman]

Share some of that evidence showing that it is impossible that there is absolutely nothing.

I may equally ask you to provide some evidence that it is possible for “absolutely nothing” to exist.

ALL the evidence to date is that seemingly empty space is not truly "empty", but consists of a sea of energy and fluctuating virtual particles spontaneously appearing and disappearing as a consequence of QM’s ‘uncertainty principle’ and that this has eternally been the case.

It appears probable that absolute “nothingness” is a condition that cannot exist even theoretically. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that it can. And, there is growing evidence reinforcing the reality of quantum vacuum and vacuum fluctuations as the natural state of the universe(s) - as opposed to absolute nothingness.

[Chrawnus]

Yes you can but why would you? Surely it makes more sense to argue that that the quantum vacuum is eternal, rather than a deity being eternal – it’s the more parsimonious argument.

How so?

The evidence to date indicates that it's wrong to think of empty space as truly "empty". Instead it's a sea of energy and fluctuating virtual particles spontaneously appearing and disappearing due to the Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. It seems that absolute “nothingness” is a state that cannot exist even theoretically. There is no scientific evidence to indicate otherwise.

Nothingness does not mean "empty space". Nothingness is the total absence of everything, including space. And you're correct that absolute "nothingness" can't exist, because nothingness isn't a thing, it's just a word we use to signify the non-existence of anything.

Well no – not when “nothing” is defined as the quantum vacuum, i.e. is seeming nothingness. Due to the uncertainty principle, particles known as virtual particles briefly, but continuously, appear spontaneously out of the vacuum before returning to it – after all, the conservation of energy still applies even with Quantum Mechanics.

Except that nothing is not defined as the quantum vacuum. It's not even defined as truly empty space. Nothing is the total absence of everything, including space.

You are entitled to prefer the notion of an eternal deity over that of the eternal quantum vacuum but only as an act of faith. The existing evidence does not support such a belief.

The existing evidence does not support an eternal quantum vacuum either.

[Cerebrum123]

The Latin meaning of “creation ex nihilo” is “created from nothing” (not from existing space) and this is what WLC is saying based on the biblical texts.

The Bible doesn’t actually say that God made everything from nothing, but this is what WLC is arguing and it is implied in Genesis and also in Hebrews 11 “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” This is generally understood to mean that the universe came into existence by divine fiat from nothing, i.e. not assembled from preexisting matter or energy.

Sorry, but I don't see believing that "creation ex nihilo" means that the "natural state of things is nothingness". That's what I meant, when I said that he didn't seem to be saying what you were saying he was saying, you know what I'm saying().

[shunyadragon]

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

Creation having the attributes of God would be expected if God Created our physical existence including all possible universes. If eternal times and the infinite matrix are attributes of God, than likewise they would be attributes of Creation.

I used the analogy of the 'reflection in the mirror' with a purpose.' The reflection in the mirror represents the attributes of what is reflected and not the person nor the object involved.

[Jedidiah]

I may equally ask you to provide some evidence that it is possible for “absolutely nothing” to exist.

I do not pretend to have scientific evidence for the existence of true nothing. True nothing (assuming for this argument that it is a meaningful term) is not part of the universe so science is not applicable.

ALL the evidence to date is that seemingly empty space is not truly "empty", but consists of a sea of energy and fluctuating virtual particles spontaneously appearing and disappearing as a consequence of QM’s ‘uncertainty principle’ and that this has eternally been the case.

It appears probable that absolute “nothingness” is a condition that cannot exist even theoretically. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that it can. And, there is growing evidence reinforcing the reality of quantum vacuum and vacuum fluctuations as the natural state of the universe(s) - as opposed to absolute nothingness.

Oh, as I stated above and in a previous post, I do not believe "absolute nothing" occurs as a part of the universe. I readily agree that empty space is not nothing. Have I not made that clear? Science does not work on what is not a part of creation.