- Thank you received: 0
Creation Ex Nihilo
20 years 10 months ago #7618
by heusdens
Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob
Besides that the total content of the material universe, can not be so simply solved and quantified, the main problem in the idea of <i>creation ex nihilo</i> is just that it supposes that the world and everything in it, did have a begin in time, that the world which is in ever change, did have this first change.
This isn't equal to the statement that time had a beginning, since time is not simply equal to change. Since time can be measured by change, this means time and change must be something different.
What the whole idea of the beginning of the world therefore defaults to is the idea that some unknown cause, immaterial in nature, started the world, while this cause itself, does not need any such causation.
This position is however beyond further inquiry. About immaterial causes by definition nothing can be known. Neither can be said anything about this 'first change' that came into the world, and caused the world to develop since then.
A more profound analysis that is based on the material unity of the world which can resolve the issue, is simply stating that anything that exists, needs a material cause for its existence. Since there is nothing that can cuase itself, this idea leads then to the position that the chain of cause and effect does not have a begin. Since the world then did not begin, there is no first cause, and neither do we need to explain something out of the ordinary.
This position is valid, even despite the fact that all material things do have some sort of begin. Unlike the "begin of time" or "creation ex nihilo" argument, it is expeted in here that this relative begin was based on previous causes.
For all practical applications and purposes, the two positions don't make any difference. The empirical knowable world, can not be proved to have existed always (even though there are a number of arguments that upports that position), neither can one proof the opposite.
The position though that confines the world to be a material unity, without a begin, encourages though the search for material explenations of the origin of the known universe. So far with good results, and which raises the expectation that this issue somewhere in the future can be dealt with.
This isn't equal to the statement that time had a beginning, since time is not simply equal to change. Since time can be measured by change, this means time and change must be something different.
What the whole idea of the beginning of the world therefore defaults to is the idea that some unknown cause, immaterial in nature, started the world, while this cause itself, does not need any such causation.
This position is however beyond further inquiry. About immaterial causes by definition nothing can be known. Neither can be said anything about this 'first change' that came into the world, and caused the world to develop since then.
A more profound analysis that is based on the material unity of the world which can resolve the issue, is simply stating that anything that exists, needs a material cause for its existence. Since there is nothing that can cuase itself, this idea leads then to the position that the chain of cause and effect does not have a begin. Since the world then did not begin, there is no first cause, and neither do we need to explain something out of the ordinary.
This position is valid, even despite the fact that all material things do have some sort of begin. Unlike the "begin of time" or "creation ex nihilo" argument, it is expeted in here that this relative begin was based on previous causes.
For all practical applications and purposes, the two positions don't make any difference. The empirical knowable world, can not be proved to have existed always (even though there are a number of arguments that upports that position), neither can one proof the opposite.
The position though that confines the world to be a material unity, without a begin, encourages though the search for material explenations of the origin of the known universe. So far with good results, and which raises the expectation that this issue somewhere in the future can be dealt with.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7619
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
north,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>infinity is NOT based on observation or math,it is to me based on SUBSTANCE and the INABILITY of "nothing" to produce SUBSTANCE.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
ANS: I agree but that is pure suposition and a lack of knowledge not observation, data or actual knowledge.
So it is a view based on negatives.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>infinity is NOT based on observation or math,it is to me based on SUBSTANCE and the INABILITY of "nothing" to produce SUBSTANCE.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
ANS: I agree but that is pure suposition and a lack of knowledge not observation, data or actual knowledge.
So it is a view based on negatives.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7779
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
heusdens,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Further, there can not be a physical theory of the "begin of time" pur sang (even the Hawking thesis is not a definite begin of time pur sang, cause in his thesis, time is divided into two components, one with and the other without a begin). Physicsists can not make physical law from nothing.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Actually on this issue I don't rely on what anybodyelse has said. Hawkins or your guy.
My decision is not subject to mere debate, it is only subject to change on subsative information not opinion.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Further, there can not be a physical theory of the "begin of time" pur sang (even the Hawking thesis is not a definite begin of time pur sang, cause in his thesis, time is divided into two components, one with and the other without a begin). Physicsists can not make physical law from nothing.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Actually on this issue I don't rely on what anybodyelse has said. Hawkins or your guy.
My decision is not subject to mere debate, it is only subject to change on subsative information not opinion.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7780
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Jan,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Would it be fair to say that the observed universe may well be highly inadequate for any sort of prediction on contents of matter and energy? For example, has it been proved beyond any doubt that the universe does not look the same on the remotest planet we observe?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't know if it would be fair or not but certainly it could be said and it may be so.
However, the information sands valid as writtent. "Based on the observable universe the calculation shows our existance is comprised of a net "Zero" of energy".
Anything beyond that is to suggest pigs may fly.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Would it be fair to say that the observed universe may well be highly inadequate for any sort of prediction on contents of matter and energy? For example, has it been proved beyond any doubt that the universe does not look the same on the remotest planet we observe?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I don't know if it would be fair or not but certainly it could be said and it may be so.
However, the information sands valid as writtent. "Based on the observable universe the calculation shows our existance is comprised of a net "Zero" of energy".
Anything beyond that is to suggest pigs may fly.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7620
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
heusdens,
Thanks for the continuing invitation to debate this issue but I chose to not debate it in that it has been debated so much already.
The only issue against with Creation ex nihilo is one of the lack of knowledge. The issue against eternal time are logic impossibilities. I understand you ttry to mitigate those impossibilities by making even further logic flaws claiming different rules apply to time.
Simply put I don't buy it and have no interest in pursueing the issue. Perhaps others here will oblige you with a debate. I suspect not since most here accept your premis.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Thanks for the continuing invitation to debate this issue but I chose to not debate it in that it has been debated so much already.
The only issue against with Creation ex nihilo is one of the lack of knowledge. The issue against eternal time are logic impossibilities. I understand you ttry to mitigate those impossibilities by making even further logic flaws claiming different rules apply to time.
Simply put I don't buy it and have no interest in pursueing the issue. Perhaps others here will oblige you with a debate. I suspect not since most here accept your premis.
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #4091
by heusdens
Replied by heusdens on topic Reply from rob
Mac,
What are the logical impossibilities against the infinity of time?
The argument I supplied tackled a very common counter argument (the contradiction of the counted infinite series) and which therefore is not a logic impossibility.
What other arguments are there to exclude the possibility of a universe without a begin of time?
For me the most logical position is to have a universe that did not start out or from nothing, and which requires no special points in time. A begin of time place a unique point to the time line, a point in which there was no past time. That is undefendable. How can physical law ever explain such a unique point in time?
What are the logical impossibilities against the infinity of time?
The argument I supplied tackled a very common counter argument (the contradiction of the counted infinite series) and which therefore is not a logic impossibility.
What other arguments are there to exclude the possibility of a universe without a begin of time?
For me the most logical position is to have a universe that did not start out or from nothing, and which requires no special points in time. A begin of time place a unique point to the time line, a point in which there was no past time. That is undefendable. How can physical law ever explain such a unique point in time?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.252 seconds