The creation of time and space? What!

[JimL]

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.

Why would you say that shunya? Why would the attributes of God need be reflected in that which he creates? God isn't physical, the universe is.

[JimL]

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.

If we conclude that there is no such thing as nothingness, and put in the place of eternal and infinite empty space, an eternal and infinite spirit or God, then all that exists would need then to exist within the eternal and infinite and not separate from it, such as would be a distinct creation. The things that exist in the universe are not distinct from it, they all come from, and are all part of, one and the same source.

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?

What I said was that nothingness is inconceivable, and for that reason I don't believe that there is any such state.

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.

And if nothingness is impossible, then the eternal and infinite, which you identify as God, would need include all things. But that would just be giving the eternal and infinite cosmos out of which all things arise, a title.

[Tassman]

How so?

We have evidence of the existing natural universe(s) as well as the probability of it/them being infinite and eternal. Hence, it is redundant to add an eternal Creator deity into the mix. Thus the former is more parsimonious argument.

As Carl Sagan remarked re Hawking's ‘no boundary quantum cosmology’, “it would erase an absolute beginning point for the universe”, leaving us with "a universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end it time, and nothing for a Creator to do"

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.



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.



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

The only argument is whether the ‘quantum vacuum’ is infinite and eternal and to date there is no evidence to suggest that it isn’t. An attempt to argue it is can only be based on an unsupported assumption.

[Tassman]

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().

Yes, I know what you are saying.

But how would you define Creation ex Nihilo and how do you think WLC defines it. I take it to mean that the universe came into existence by divine fiat from, by implication, “nothingness”. It’s not my argument, but it seems to be what the likes of WLC believe. Do you disagree?

[Tassman]

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.



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.

And haven’t I made it clear that the argument hinges upon whether the ‘quantum vacuum’ is infinite and eternal. Our existing state of knowledge suggests that it is. Thus to refer to “a part of the universe” or “Science does not work on what is not a part of creation” are meaningless comments. The natural universe is everything that is, has been and will be. If there is more then we can’t know it except as an article of faith based upon the belief in a divine revelation.

[Racer X]

Time has physical properties which allows gravity to have an influence upon it. It's woven into the fabric of space, it's a created property of the universe, which is why it had a beginning, "In the beginning God created...No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began...This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time..."

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

[Tassman]

Time has physical properties which allows gravity to have an influence upon it. It's woven into the fabric of space, it's a created property of the universe, which is why it had a beginning, "In the beginning God created...No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began...This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time..."

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

You have cherry-picked your conclusion and misunderstood the overall concept Hawking has of the universe. He is specifically referring to our universe. He addresses the hypotheses of multiple universes as a separate issue. But he acknowledges their likelihood. I suggest you check and see for yourself. I won’t C&P extracts because of the strict copyright provisions Hawking has invoked:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin...-universe.html

But, as a very loose paraphrase Hawking is arguing that one can’t refer to the beginning of our space/time universe any more than one can refer to the edge of our planet. Thus, to query what may have existed before the start of our universe is the equivalent of asking what is north of the North Pole. It’s a nonsensical question.

As for your faith-based beliefs: “In the beginning God created……” and “……..No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began...This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time…….” Are you claiming that this grace given in Christ Jesus applies to the multiverse or just our lil’ ole universe?

[shunyadragon]

Why would you say that shunya? Why would the attributes of God need be reflected in that which he creates? God isn't physical, the universe is.

Why would I say what???

Of course God is spiritual and the Creation is physical. There is no issue of 'need' here from the perspective of this thread. As i said before the question of 'need' is a separate issue, and would be similar to philosophical question of 'Why?' possibly addressed in another thread. Unfortunately any discussion of the nature of 'need' would come from a human anthropic perspective, which does not get very far in an argument.

[Cerebrum123]

Yes, I know what you are saying.

But how would you define Creation ex Nihilo and how do you think WLC defines it. I take it to mean that the universe came into existence by divine fiat from, by implication, “nothingness”. It’s not my argument, but it seems to be what the likes of WLC believe. Do you disagree?

I would say that creation ex nihilo means that before the universe existed, the only thing that existed was God. There was no matter, no energy, no space, no time, and no quantum field. Since God was indeed in existence, then there still would have been no "nothingness", just nothing that we currently see in this universe was around.

[Jedidiah]

It always comes down to choosing either an eternal uncreated creator, or an eternal uncreated universe (or whatever one chooses to call it.)

[Tassman]

It always comes down to choosing either an eternal uncreated creator, or an eternal uncreated universe (or whatever one chooses to call it.)

Certainly!

One has the choice of believing in an unverifiable creation myth (one of thousands), which features a Supreme Being who triggers a chain of events to create the universe OR in scientific methodology whereby hypotheses based on observations of the natural universe have been verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Both are attempts to explain our origins but the former is faith-based and the latter is fact-based.

[Sparko]

Certainly!

One has the choice of believing in an unverifiable creation myth (one of thousands), which features a Supreme Being who triggers a chain of events to create the universe OR in scientific methodology whereby hypotheses based on observations of the natural universe have been verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

Really? How many other universes have been observed existing or starting?

It boils down to believing in an eternal God, or believing in an eternal universe without any scientific evidence to back it up. Pure hypothesis. No observable evidence. All observable evidence points to this being the only universe and being a finite universe that started 15 Billion years ago, and there is no evidence of a larger "containment universe" that is eternal and spawned this one or others.

[Jedidiah]

Really? How many other universes have been observed existing or starting?

Translation: One has the choice of trusting in God, or trusting that this universe is all there is, and we can one day figure it all out.

This is sometimes called the "No-God of the gaps."

[JimL]

Why would I say what???

Of course God is spiritual and the Creation is physical. There is no issue of 'need' here from the perspective of this thread. As i said before the question of 'need' is a separate issue, and would be similar to philosophical question of 'Why?' possibly addressed in another thread. Unfortunately any discussion of the nature of 'need' would come from a human anthropic perspective, which does not get very far in an argument.

Well, you are the one who suggested "need" not I. You said that if the attributes of God are thus, then likewise they would be the attributes of his creation as well. That suggests a necessity to me.

[Tassman]

Really? How many other universes have been observed existing or starting?

And how many supernatural deities have been shown to exist?

It boils down to believing in an eternal God, or believing in an eternal universe without any scientific evidence to back it up. Pure hypothesis. No observable evidence. All observable evidence points to this being the only universe and being a finite universe that started 15 Billion years ago, and there is no evidence of a larger "containment universe" that is eternal and spawned this one or others.

No, it "boils down to believing in an eternal God" without any credible evidence to back it up, or testing the increasing evidence supporting an eternal multiverse. Scientific methodology is not limited to observation alone and this is your mistake. It is primarily based on induction and what you are hand-waving away as “pure hypothesis” is grounded in existing verified facts. This is how science works. It cannot arrive at absolute certainties but scientific induction leads to conclusions that have been multiply verified to the point of being accepted as beyond reasonable doubt. As a methodology it is highly successful and, in this instance has produced growing, although as yet inconclusive evidence of an eternal multiverse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...ultiverse.html

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-scienti...universes.html

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin...-universe.html