A review of the Craig v. Malpass discussion

[JonathanL]

Describe it as you wish, but yes some theologians describe the philosophical absolute nothing as a "vacuum." This does not change the opposing concepts as described.

I mean, I have no doubt some theologians have described philosophical absolute nothing as a "vacuum", but that just means they're confused over what the concept of an absolute nothing entails.

[JimL]

Calling absolute nothingness a "vacuum" is still misleading, because absolute nothingness also implies a complete lack of any space where a "vacuum" could exist. Absolute nothingness is not a thing in itself, it's just the lack of existence all together.

That I think is understood, but we don't have a word to define that which exist outside of space other than nothing, or vacuum if you like, except for the conceptual notion of god, because we just don't know what exist outside of space, or even if there is an outside of space. In my a opinion, there must be something outside of our space, out of which our space arose. Space itself could be infinite for all we know with our space being just an expanding part within the infinite whole. It is speculative, but to me, there is no evidence for the idea of creation out of nothing, which is what the notion of god entails, You know, the god of the gaps argument. I don't believe that anything comes from nothing, that anything is just willed into existence like uttering the words let there be light and light just comes to be. So, I think there must be something substantive and infinite within the which the birth of our space is an inherent possibility.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That I think is understood, but we don't have a word to define that which exist outside of space other than nothing

That's because "outside of space" is not actually a cogent concept. When I say, "There is nothing outside of space," I mean it in the exact same sense that I mean, "There is nothing north of the North Pole." I'm not saying that there is some location to the north of the North Pole which contains some entity we call "nothing." Rather, I am saying that there is no such thing as "north of the North Pole." In exactly the same way, there is no such thing as "outside of space."

When theologians and philosophers say that God is "outside of space and time," they don't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean that he occupies some location which actually exists beyond the boundaries of space and time. Rather, they mean that God is not a spatial or temporal entity.

So, I think there must be something substantive and infinite within the which the birth of our space is an inherent possibility.

While I know that it can be incredibly difficult to conceptualize for those unfamiliar with the mathematics (and even for those who ARE familiar, sometimes!) it actually is possible to conceive of the universe in a way in which space is finite. But, yeah, topology be strange.

[JimL]

That's because "outside of space" is not actually a cogent concept. When I say, "There is nothing outside of space," I mean it in the exact same sense that I mean, "There is nothing north of the North Pole." I'm not saying that there is some location to the north of the North Pole which contains some entity we call "nothing." Rather, I am saying that there is no such thing as "north of the North Pole." In exactly the same way, there is no such thing as "outside of space."

I understand that that is what your're saying, but is it something that you know to be a fact, i.e that there is nothing outside of our space-time? But though we know that there is nothing north of the north pole, in the sense of being beyond the northern most part of the earth, do we know that there is nothing outside of our spacetime? I believe you said that you are an atheist, so if there is nothing, whatever that could mean, outside of our spacetime, and our spacetime had a beginning, then where do you suppose our space-time came from?

When theologians and philosophers say that God is "outside of space and time," they don't (or, at least, shouldn't) mean that he occupies some location which actually exists beyond the boundaries of space and time. Rather, they mean that God is not a spatial or temporal entity.

So, would it be logical then to say that god exists nowhere?

While I know that it can be incredibly difficult to conceptualize for those unfamiliar with the mathematics (and even for those who ARE familiar, sometimes!) it actually is possible to conceive of the universe in a way in which space is finite. But, yeah, topology be strange.

The problem is not so much in imagining a finite universe, the problem is in imagining nothingness which a finite universe would point to.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I understand that that is what your're saying, but is it something that you know to be a fact, i.e that there is nothing outside of our space-time? But though we know that there is nothing north of the north pole, in the sense of being beyond the northern most part of the earth, do we know that there is nothing outside of our spacetime?

We know that there is no "outside" space-time because "outside" is a word describing spatial relation. It doesn't even make sense to use a spatial relation to describe something which is not in space.

Now, I think I see where you are going with this. What if there are other things which exist but which are not a part of our space-time? That could mean things like Platonic universals or Aristotelian essences, perhaps, but these things are not spatiotemporal, so it certainly does not make sense to use a spatial relation to describe them. It could however mean something like a different space-time, perhaps one in a whole panoply making up a multiverse. Now this other space-time would, itself, be a total spatiotemporal system, but it still would not stand in spatial relation to our own. Someone might colloquially say that it is "outside" of our universe, but that'd be very imprecise and misleading. It wouldn't be "outside" our universe any more than it is "to the left of" or "below" our universe. These phrases just don't make any sense when removed from a spatial context.

I believe you said that you are an atheist, so if there is nothing, whatever that could mean, outside of our spacetime, and our spacetime had a beginning, then where do you suppose our space-time came from?

I don't believe the cosmos came into existence, even if it had a first moment of time in the finite past. Indeed, I think it is entirely incoherent to claim otherwise, as even if Time is finite there was literally never a time in which the cosmos did not exist.

I'll actually borrow an analogy from William Lane Craig, here. The universe does not come into existence at its first moment of time any more than a yardstick comes into existence at its first inch.

So, would it be logical then to say that god exists nowhere?

And at no time. Though theologians would likely object.

The problem is not so much in imagining a finite universe, the problem is in imagining nothingness which a finite universe would point to.

That's exactly why I mean it's difficult to imagine. We're not talking about a finite container floating in some larger void. We're talking about a completely enclosed, finite cosmos with nothing else in existence. There is no "outside," even if it is finite.

[JimL]

We know that there is no "outside" space-time because "outside" is a word describing spatial relation. It doesn't even make sense to use a spatial relation to describe something which is not in space.

Now, I think I see where you are going with this. What if there are other things which exist but which are not a part of our space-time? That could mean things like Platonic universals or Aristotelian essences, perhaps, but these things are not spatiotemporal, so it certainly does not make sense to use a spatial relation to describe them. It could however mean something like a different space-time, perhaps one in a whole panoply making up a multiverse. Now this other space-time would, itself, be a total spatiotemporal system, but it still would not stand in spatial relation to our own. Someone might colloquially say that it is "outside" of our universe, but that'd be very imprecise and misleading. It wouldn't be "outside" our universe any more than it is "to the left of" or "below" our universe. These phrases just don't make any sense when removed from a spatial context.

I don't believe the cosmos came into existence, even if it had a first moment of time in the finite past. Indeed, I think it is entirely incoherent to claim otherwise, as even if Time is finite there was literally never a time in which the cosmos did not exist.

I'll actually borrow an analogy from William Lane Craig, here. The universe does not come into existence at its first moment of time any more than a yardstick comes into existence at its first inch.

And at no time. Though theologians would likely object.

That's exactly why I mean it's difficult to imagine. We're not talking about a finite container floating in some larger void. We're talking about a completely enclosed, finite cosmos with nothing else in existence. There is no "outside," even if it is finite.

And how do we know that space itself is not infinite and that our spacetime is not just an expanding area within a greater infinite space. I mean, if you could travel to the edge of the universe what would you find there, an impenetrable wall of nothingness.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

And how do we know that space itself is not infinite

We actually don't, at the moment. It's an open question in physics as to whether space is infinite or bounded in some way.

...and that our spacetime is not just an expanding area within a greater infinite space.

This is possible, but in such a case we would need to ask what this "greater space" is and how it relates to space as we know it. If it is some entirely different structure, why call it "space?" And if it is no different than space as we know it, why not think that it is a part of our space-time?

I mean, if you could travel to the edge of the universe what would you find there, an impenetrable wall of nothingness.

That's where things get really peculiar. On the one hand, it's possible to discuss a space-time geometry which is finite but which nonetheless has no edges. It just sort of loops back on itself, like when Pac-Man goes off the right edge of the screen and just appears again on the left. On the other hand, we can think of a bounded universe which would have something akin to an edge or boundary, but physics as we know it kinda goes out the door when we try to apply it in that sort of a space, so we really have no idea what would happen at such an edge.

[JimL]

We actually don't, at the moment. It's an open question in physics as to whether space is infinite or bounded in some way.

This is possible, but in such a case we would need to ask what this "greater space" is and how it relates to space as we know it. If it is some entirely different structure, why call it "space?" And if it is no different than space as we know it, why not think that it is a part of our space-time?

That's where things get really peculiar. On the one hand, it's possible to discuss a space-time geometry which is finite but which nonetheless has no edges. It just sort of loops back on itself, like when Pac-Man goes off the right edge of the screen and just appears again on the left. On the other hand, we can think of a bounded universe which would have something akin to an edge or boundary, but physics as we know it kinda goes out the door when we try to apply it in that sort of a space, so we really have no idea what would happen at such an edge.

Hmm, thanks, it's been interesting. Though I think the infinite space or Cosmos still makes the most sense to me, because as I've been saying I just can't imagine the concept of "nothingness." It just doesn't compute. Guess I'll just go play Pac Man!