Nothingness

[JimL]

This merely demonstrates that your logic here is bound to a temporal framework, thus it is not sufficient to make determinations about an idea such as eternal creation.

Sorry Robrecht, but what I said makes sense, and no offense, but to just hand wave it away with nonsense such that eternal creation can't be understood logically is ridiculous. If existence is eternal and infinite, then it can not have been created. That statement has nothing to do with being logically bound to a temporal framework. The notion itself is no different than the idea of god being eternal and infinite. Is it illogical to say that there was no existing thing "prior" to god?

That point only applies to creation in time. It would not apply to either creation of time or eternal creation.

You're not making sense Robrecht. If a thing has always existed, not always in time, just always period, then it wasn't created. I'm not adding time into the equation, you are.

Yes, I do admit this.

Well if you admit that both nothingness and creation are incomprehesible, why would you believe in a nothingness into which something was created?

It is meaningful for some and silly for others.

It may be meaningful to some, but it isn't logical. Its actually pantheism, or a belief that the natural world itself is god.

[JimL]

The point that there was never nothingness is that there was always existence. Uncaused existence.

To make the assertion that universe is that uncaused existence introduces caused things as uncaused which is false. Uncaused existence has no cause and needs no God. That the uncaused existence is the uncaused part of the universe, universe being defined as all that exists. The universe as a whole is not that uncaused existence.

How do you figure? If the universe, that is if the cosmos, is uncaused, then it is uncaused. And if god is a part of the uncaused universe, then he is not god. If you are suggesting that god created the universe out of himself, that the universe is an extension of himself, then there is no distinction to be made between the two.

[37818]

How do you figure? If the universe, that is if the cosmos, is uncaused, then it is uncaused. And if god is a part of the uncaused universe, then he is not god. If you are suggesting that god created the universe out of himself, that the universe is an extension of himself, then there is no distinction to be made between the two.

The universe includes caused things. That the universe in its origin being uncaused would not make all the caused things in it uncaused too. Caused things are not uncaused. It is just that simple.

[robrecht]

Sorry Robrecht, but what I said makes sense, and no offense, but to just hand wave it away with nonsense such that eternal creation can't be understood logically is ridiculous.

But I never said that. I said that your use of temporal words seems to indicate that you are using a logic that is bound by temporal presuppositions. I do not think it is illogical to question such temporal assumptions when considering such profound questions that touch upon the entirety of an infinite and eternal universe. I also said that I freely admit that the idea of nothingness, creation, and God are incomprehensible, in the sense that these realities cannot at present be fully understood or comprehended by our finite minds. To my mind, that humble admission of the present limits of my/our understanding of these issues is not the same as saying that these ideas are necessarily illogical. I think it would be more illogical to presume that we can make definitive or absolute judgments about these issues that still elude some of the most brilliant scientific minds of our generation.

If existence is eternal and infinite, then it can not have been created. That statement has nothing to do with being logically bound to a temporal framework.

I think it certainly does--notice your use of the past tense: it can not have been created. I agree with your statement in the past tense.

The notion itself is no different than the idea of god being eternal and infinite. Is it illogical to say that there was no existing thing "prior" to god?

If you are positing the idea of God as eternal, yes it is illogical to speak of there being no existence prior to the existence of God because then you are only speaking of God's existence as temporally conceived and not as eternal.

You're not making sense Robrecht. If a thing has always existed, not always in time, just always period, then it wasn't created. I'm not adding time into the equation, you are.

I'm trying to not introduce time into the expression of these ideas. I'm not sure that is really possible for our finite human minds to consider eternal realities outside of our own temporal frame of reference, but that is what I am trying to do insofar as we can do this in the abstract. Up to this point, I do not think that you have succeeded in expressing your view without reference to a temporal framework.

Well if you admit that both nothingness and creation are incomprehesible, why would you believe in a nothingness into which something was created?

Who says that I do?

It may be meaningful to some, but it isn't logical.

I agree that it is not logical in terms of our temporally bound logic, but I am not sure that such temporal logic is adequate to make pronouncements about eternal and infinite realities.

Its actually pantheism, or a belief that the natural world itself is god.

I agree that my views include what is commonly referred to as pantheism, but I would not want to limit the whole of infinite and eternal reality to what can be commonly defined as pantheism. I also think that our attempts to categorize such realities as natural or supernatural as woefully inadequate.

[37818]

There is no objective evidence that would determine that the physical existence is the uncaused cause of everything.

Yes, the evidence is the physical things in our universe are caused. What is caused is not uncaused. How hard is that to understand?

This, again, is a theological assumption on your part

What is?

. . . and is apparently a premise in your argument for the existence of God.

And what is that argument I make?

This premise is not accepted.

What is this premise that you do not accept?

This reminds of old cosmological arguments that our universe must have a beginning, therefore our physical existence must have a source outside our physical existence. Classic 'Begging the Question' grounded in an agenda assuming God exists a priori.

I'm not making the cosmological argument here. You are pushing that argument, I am not making it here. I will tell you again, if I have not said it here, uncaused cause is something else. I am arguing that there is an uncaused existence which needs no God. And you want to make it the universe. The universe as being all existence would include the uncaused existence, and in so far as that, the universe would have no origin. But the caused things in the universe do. That has to do with a cosmological argument, which again is not my argument here. An uncaused existence which needs no God is what I am arguing thus far.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the evidence is the physical things in our universe are caused. What is caused is not uncaused. How hard is that to understand?

Understanding is your problem. No there is no known cause for the Quantum World of Quantum zero-point. The Quantum world of Quantum zero-point is uncaused based on all the known evidence. There is no known possible first event in the Quantum world.

What is? And what is that argument I make?What is this premise that you do not accept?

I do not accept that there is necessarily an 'uncaused existence' beyond the Quantum world of our physical existence.

I'm not making the cosmological argument here. You are pushing that argument, I am not making it here. I will tell you again, if I have not said it here, uncaused cause is something else. I am arguing that there is an uncaused existence which needs no God. And you want to make it the universe. The universe as being all existence would include the uncaused existence, and in so far as that, the universe would have no origin. But the caused things in the universe do. That has to do with a cosmological argument, which again is not my argument here. An uncaused existence which needs no God is what I am arguing thus far.

You are arguing for the necessity of an uncaused existence beyond our physical existence.

I did not say you were making the argument. I said you were establishing a premise for the argument.

[JimL]

The universe includes caused things. That the universe in its origin being uncaused would not make all the caused things in it uncaused too. Caused things are not uncaused. It is just that simple.

No, it isn't necessarily that simple. For one thing we don't know for certain what the answer is. But in my opinion the cosmos including all that is in it, is one thing, one substance, and so the cause and the effects are one and the same thing. The quantum nature of that substance is one of change, and so the effects that emerge therein are nothing more than the natural changes in form that naturally take place within totality of the one existence. Nothing new is created. So what then is the cause of the effects? Nature! Some call that nature God which is pantheism, but call it what you will, call it the devil if you wish, but the natural world is just the natural world no matter the title you give to it. There is no evidence for a distinct creator, and no evidence that anything can be created out of nothing. In my not so humble opinion, it is just that simple!

[robertb]

If the total energy of the universe is in fact zero, then nothingness and somethingness, at the level of the universe, may simply be two words describing the same state of affairs.

[JimL]

If the total energy of the universe is in fact zero, then nothingness and somethingness, at the level of the universe, may simply be two words describing the same state of affairs.

I'm not sure that I understand this notion completely, but I don't think that it means that the total energy is itself zero. The total positive energy, at least of our particular universe, is cancelled out by gravity and if there is gravity, there is something.

[shunyadragon]

If the total energy of the universe is in fact zero, then nothingness and somethingness, at the level of the universe, may simply be two words describing the same state of affairs.

The Quantum-zero point is not nothing.

[robertb]

I'm not sure that I understand this notion completely, but I don't think that it means that the total energy is itself zero. The total positive energy, at least of our particular universe, is cancelled out by gravity and if there is gravity, there is something.

Total energy of the universe being zero is actually a very real possibility, based on our best current understanding. You are correct in that I am referring to the sum total of the positive and negative energy.

It seems to me that there are some very non-intuitive implications from taking Special and General Relativity seriously.

[shunyadragon]

Total energy of the universe being zero is actually a very real possibility, based on our best current understanding. You are correct in that I am referring to the sum total of the positive and negative energy.

Total energy of the universe being zero is not equivalent to anything being nothing.

[robertb]

Total energy of the universe being zero is not equivalent to anything being nothing.

Support the assertion.

[shunyadragon]

Support the assertion.

The observed nature of the total energy being zero is the foundation state of our universe is Quantum zero-point emergy, which is not equivalent to any form of nothingness. It is indeed the state of potential energy.

[robrecht]

Observed?