Nothing to something is either logically possible or it is logically impossible. There is no need for God in the first case since the process of nothing to something is possible. Introducing God in the second case cannot help to have something out of nothing since the process is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no need for God to have something out of nothing.
We know that something coming out of absolutely nothing by itself is impossible. We know that because absolutely nothing is the complete absence of reality and thus there is no reality for something to begin existing in. If a thing began to exist it would in effect exist in absolutely nothing which would be a contradiction. Out of nothing nothing comes
God creating something from nothing is different in the fact that he is existence and that he is giving existence, through the power of his nature, to something which did not exist. In this case it is not existence that is beginning to exist but rather existence is something that is being given. An analogy would be like us giving form to our ideas, accept in the case of God he would be giving actual existence to an idea.
We may not exactly know how God did that, but since we know that it is impossible for something to begin existing from nothing without a cause it follows that anything which begins to exist must have a cause.
**Clears throat intellectually…
Pish posh good sir. Your argument is utterly useless. Allow me to explain from a different angle.
Suppose nature is completely aimless without intent (intent would imply design you see).
Man is a product of said aimless nothing to something nature. Follow along now.
If man is a product of an aimless nature that came from nothing with no intent then it must follow that man stays within the boundaries of an aimless nature.
With that out of the way we can understand that all institutions of man (religion for example) are merely a product of an aimless nature produced by man who is truly at the mercy of an aimless nature insofar as he himself is a part of nature.
Thus it can be said that you only made this argument based on your own aimless nature and you argue against that which has no more intent nor moral responsibility than yourself.
It is true then that you are arguing against nature which you yourself are merely a product of. You can’t help yourself though as your actions are merely the consequence (if we can even call it that) of an aimless nature that comes from nothing.
I just thought you should know that I would consider all of that before I even begin to assess the idea of your argument. What is the foundation for our discourse. We’ll need to determine that before it can be said to be reasonable to engage in debate don’t you think?
LOL this is in jest hope you are well. Good luck out there.
Logically impossible/logically possible? What do you mean exactly? True or false?
Confused by the adjective logically in this context.
There is a gap in your argument here. You have to prove that nothing to something is logically impossible and even if you prove that then that is against you since something which is logically impossible cannot be created by God too, like square-circle. Therefore, we are left with the only option that nothing to something is possible. What happened.
This then doesn’t follow.
Could we please focus on my argument for the sake of discussion? I have another argument against God too. Nothing to something is possible or not? God didn’t create something from something. God created something out of nothing. I am asking whether what God did is logically possible or not. For that you just need to put God aside from equation to realize the process of creation, nothing then something.
Could we please we focus on my argument. Nothing to something, possible or impossible?
Do you know what is the meaning of creation ex-nihilo is? It is creation out of nothing. God didn’t create something out of something. That is not the meaning of creation. I am asking whether the process of nothing to something is logically possible or not? That is what God did.
Square-circle is logically impossible which means that it cannot exist.
It is certainly impossible. We have zero scientific evidence of nothing. For the atheist nothing should be at the same level as gods unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters orbiting Venus. You must first provide evidence of nothing then we can assess your argument.
If I assume the existence of nothing without evidence then we are already discussing the problem philosophically rather than scientifically. Philosophically something coming from nothing is impossible.
That’s my perspective. My previous post was the highlighting the consequence if we could philosophically agree that such a notion is actually possible. It was a joke of course but true enough as joking is concerned.
I can put an apple in my hand and say “look, there is an apple in my hand” then take the apple away and say “look, there is nothing in my hand.”
Ah that’s altogether different. What I would say is that it is impossible for nothing to generate something in and of itself. An outside force of something acting can produce anything where there was once nothing. Humans do this all the time in much less extravagant form.
Didn’t God created something out of nothing? Or He created something out of something else? To the best of my understanding the definition creation is the fist one. We are dealing with a process, nothing to something, which according to Theists is caused by God. I am asking whether this process is possible or impossible.
I responded to this just above I misunderstood your question at first go take a look.
No, you didn’t answer it. Can we focus on the process? Nothing to something, possible or impossible?
Another thing to understand from a reality grounded in God at its apex is that God is eternal. Therefore the theist does not believe that there ever was a time when there was nothing. Nothing in and of itself is impossible within the theist model.
Yes I did good sir. I told you that it is impossible if we are saying that nothing in and of itself can produce something. Whereas it is possible if something in and of itself produces something.
I am not talking from God perspective, eternal one. I am talking about temporal perceptive. There was a act of creation. Before that there was only God. This is temporal perspective.
If it is possible something can come from nothing, then either the first thing is non-living or living. If the first thing is non-living, then this would obviously mean God doesn’t exist. On the other hand, if the first thing is living, now we have a whole new conversation; a conversation that will lead us to the one true God!
If the process is impossible then it cannot be done by God too. If it is possible, then there is no need for God. You also need to prove that nothing to something is logically impossible.
Your question is how? So there are a couple ways of looking at this.
A.) God created something from nothing
B.) God created something from himself, his own existence.
I tend to think that B. is the more likely solution though I believe with God all things are possible. With B it may well have been God who merely set the course for energy from an omniscient point of view which results ultimately in what you and I are experiencing at this point in time.
The point here is that I do not need to prove anything as I could simply reject your assumption that God created the heavens and the earth from absolute nothing.