Doesn't the "First Cause argument" for "creatio ex nihilo" take us on the same undecidable path as a .....?

Question

.... "No Cause argument"?

PLEASE notice, I am NOT talking about matters of faith here. I respect everyone's faith and this is NOT a question about religion/faith (or even the existence, or not, of God).

I am merely asking if a "philosophical and/or Logical" First Cause argument for the "creation out of nothing" is really not, in fact, debunked by its very own premise (e.g. First Cause for a First Cause, and so on)? ... In other words, do we truly comprehend what “nothing”, “Nothing” or “Absolute Nothing” mean(s) in “creation out of nothing”?

Or are we saying, as Saint Thomas Aquinas, postulated: God (call it the First Cause for our philosophical purposes here) is so perfect that He (It) does NOT have to exist? ... But even then, isn’t that merely a circular philosophical construct/assertion to obscure an internal fallacy - as in saying, for instance: Nothing comes from Nothing, except for Nothing Itself?

Can Nothing (with capital N) be truly held in the mirror of Being (with capital B) - that is, apart from the fact that this very question can be asked in the first place?

Do we even understand what is truly meant by "Being" and "Nothing"? ... If not, how can we ever begin to reflect on matters such as "creatio ex nihilo"?

Is humanity forever doomed to an undecidable intellectual destiny?

Are we reduced to faith, our will to power, and existential actions as our only redeemable options/paths to Meaning?

Kesela - Your "stuff not made of stuff" is logically equivalent to Aquinas' "God is so perfect that he does not have to exist". Such mental constructs, though apparently bearing a resemblance to "meaningfulness", are in fact internally flawed and completely "meaningless", at least for the philosophical purposes of the present argument. Unless of course, you consider "avoiding the issue" or "bypassing the issue" - a mere trivial solution, mind you – a viable option. ... In other words, I am afraid, No Close and No Cigar either. Nonetheless, thanks for giving it a try - perhaps in the end that's the best any of us can do, albeit lingering in the same undecidable membrane.

The Padre - If you "demand" that "creatio ex nihilo" be examined solely against a backdrop of faith - then kindly and categorically scratch out all MY interest in the subject. … I said I respect your "faith", I did NOT say I feel obligated to subscribe to your "DOGMA". … Read the question more carefully next time, try to understand the spirit in which it was asked, and offer your fair-minded response, if you feel you have the mettle and the gift to match it. Be gracious enough to address MY question, as oppose to superciliously redefining/paraphrasing mine, only to answer your own. Kindly, do not superimpose the limiting framework of YOUR REALITY over the unrestricted lattice of my inquiry. You are in the PHILOSOPHY category now and NOT the RELIGION and SPIRITUALITY. Should you have nothing new to offer the dialogue, but the old broken angle of your rusty canon, then at least be considerate enough NOT to use my space as a mere outdoor to promote your tenets. MOVE ON.

The Padre - I do NOT mean to be rude at all, but the only assumption in your case IS your "faith". Although, you are quite correct in your assertion that once you are embroidered by your faith the rest of the ineffable magic would "simply" follow. ... And do you know why your First Cause argument follows so effortlessly from your axiom of faith? … Ironically enough even the answer to this question is simple: Simply because the assumption of faith not only evades the inherent incongruities of a First Cause argument, but in fact, and even more lamentably, "BEGS" it.

The Padre - As for the concept of "time" (linear or otherwise), kindly consider taking some rudimentary courses in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. ... A whole new world may yet present itself to you, my friend.

The Padre - Time itself had a beginning that can be traced to the Big Bang Singularity (at least scientifically speaking). So, what I am contemplating on here is closer to the fundamental Heideggerian Question of Metaphysics, namely: "Why are there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?" In other words, Being / The Big Bang Singularity / The First Cause, as the “already-thereness”, becomes the perspective for the determination of time, and not visa versa. Hence, our discussion of Being Vs. Nothingness as relates to the First Cause argument, is intrinsically a priori and cannot be considered against a background of time (any “time”). … Moreover, your resolution to base your First Cause assumption on the grounds of an axiomatic consideration (i.e. faith) immediately disqualifies the objective validity of any of your subsequent pseudo-logical contentions regarding an alleged differentiation between the conjectural “God Time” Vs. “Human Time”.

Answer 1

Any self-respecting anomalous universal traveler should (I shudder at even using the word, but you deserve it here) know that when all the veils of Existence are stripped away, what is left is Nothing and Being reflecting one another, each existent only in that eternal reflection, each more than dependent upon the other for its own expression, each an attribute of the other. If either Being or Non-being ceased to exist the resulting cataclysm would not only be unimaginable to us puny humans but would utterly devastate the remaining twin. That would in a sense be nihilo ex creatio. Fortunately such a cataclysm is impossible and we can go about our daily rounds pondering the imponderable as we have here.

Answer 2

Really, it all starts with the four postulate. A) Can something come from nothing.
B) Does God Exist
C)Does Man have Immortal soul?
D) Does man have free will.
Really, if you answer all these questions, you can base any philosophical argument off of them. Next, you move on to what we call 'stuff not made of stuff'. This is the stuff that is not made of anything we can see or touch. And, because this stuff is not made of stuff, it didn't have to come from stuff in the first place.

Therefore, if God consists of stuff not made of stuff, then he didn't have to be made of stuff in the first place, and did not need to be created. Does that answer the question? Alittle?

Answer 3

This I know I make a mean bloody marry

when you want one make sure to stop by my bar and grill and I will make you one..

YOU know the Padre is smart but he has been brain washed as most Catholics have...Gosh did I say that.....O well yes I did..And I can too...

Saint Thomas Aquinas nothing comes from nothing~ I have some great tomatoes, (end of the season) for my fresh drinks, like I said stop by and have one,,,

Just unappreciated ~ incomprehensible.......Sorry I tried like the best of them...love ya

Answer 4

I think that you question negates itself as soon as you say that this is not a question of religion/faith-- perhaps not a matter of particular religion, but almost by definition "creatio ex nihilo" IS a matter of faith, since the question itself requires accepting as a matter of faith that there was a "creatio", and that there was a "nihilo" for to be "ex" from.

I start by accepting (as a matter of faith) that the rest of the universe exists at all-- that I'm a sentient being within the universe, rather than believing the universe (and all that's within it) is simply a creation of of my own mind.

We know that authors can invent fictional worlds; we know that sometimes our dreams, however unrealistic and bizarre,they may seem to be when we awaken, seem completely real to us while we're dreaming them. How can I "prove" that the world I know-- that the question you asked and I'm responding to-- aren't something I'm going to awaken from and shake my head at?

I can't "prove" it-- I accept my existence, and the universe" (including your's!) as a matter of faith, and as a ground without which I cannot function. From that first, basic assumption of the world's reality, the step to the world's having a First Cause, and one external to myself, comes relatively easily.

The question of whether a First Cause itself requires a First Cause (ad absurdam), I think, may be more easily dealt with using a theological concept-- and this is, I think, related to what Aquinas said. In Western Christian theology (and this may be true for a variety or even the majority of other faiths-- I simply don't know enough to speak for them), there is the understanding of Chronos and Kairos. Chronos is our time. It's linear, running from past to present to future-- my great-great grandfather was born before me, while I was born before my grandchildren, etc.

Kairos, God's time, is another thing altogether. It is non-linear-- God can see it all at once, our births and our deaths. [As a bad example, imagine being handed an English history text. The section on the Reformation describes the life of Cromwell. From Cromwell's viewpoint, there in the book, time is linear-- he was born before he led the Roundheads, and did that before he died. But from your point of view, with the the book in your hand, you can open to page 397, and Cromwell's a young man, or you can open to page 400, and he's dying... or you can look earlier in the book and see the Norman Invasion or toward the end and see the Beatles-- they're all in the book at the same time. From Kairos, we're all in Chronos 'at the same time'.

We, within Chronos, cannot perceive or comprehend Kairos. It's still a useful philosophical construct. The question of whether a First Cause itself requires a First Cause is predicated upon time being always, and solely, linear. If that/He which created (your First Cause, my God) did so from outside time-- if time is itself an aspect of Creation-- then asking what came "before" the Creator is itself meaningless, since "before" is a part of "Creatio".

'Creatio ex nihilo' is only fallacious if we take as an initial premise (on faith!) that linear time is itself not a part of that "Creatio"-- it's only false if we believe that our human understanding of linear time is not merely correct (which the 'new physicists' would argue), but also that it is the only truth.




[My cheerful four-part question about our usual "understanding of our understanding" of time: First, how long does an atomic clock think "two seconds" is? Next, kiss your significant other for exactly two seconds (hardly any time at all!). Okay, now hold your finger in a candle flame for exactly two seconds (seems like forever!). And finally, convince me that you are wrong (twice!) about how long two seconds are, and the clock is "right".]

Answer 5

i am going to ignore your comments to others and their opinions. when you look at the base of things all you can really have is opinion......i believe the whole 'construct' to be circular BECAUSE the human mind is not capable of wrapping itself around the idea of nothing, being, all, forever, infinity, etc. we are not built to comprehend things that have no end...come to think of it, that would also explain the debate over the existence of soul.....hmmm

Answer 6

1. Nothing is lack of anything. Anything is anything.

2. God is not nothing. He is something.

Therefore, "Nothing comes from Nothing, except for Nothing Itself?" does not apply to God and 'Nothing'."

In my opinion, what makes God special is that, unlike anything He creates, He himself was not created.