|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Ex nihilo? Much ado about nothing?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
As this is not specifically about creation or ID vs evolution, I thought I would put this thread here, but I understand it may move to DH.
The issue is this:
Christian apologists - such as William Lane Craig - criticise atheists who propose the "universe from nothing" theory of cosmology (such as Lawrence Krauss). Who can dispute the argument that "being cannot come from non-being" (which is the same as the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit)? I agree that such a view of the origin of the universe is bizarre, to say the least.
However, recently it struck me that this objection presents us with a problem. If "being cannot come from non-being" is true, then it is also true even if we factor in an agent, such as God. If we argue that God created the universe ex nihilo, then are we not simply falling back on a kind of "God as the mysterious doer of the impossible" type argument, which is really a variant of "God of the gaps"? Of course, we can resort to the idea that we cannot understand how God works, because it is beyond our human comprehension, but the atheist could actually resort to exactly the same type of argument (as Peter Millican does, actually) with regard to the problems of cosmology: "it's counter-intuitive, but our naturally evolved minds are limited..."
It seems to me to be dishonest to uphold the objective validity and all sufficiency of logic when criticising the Krauss position, but then resorting to the divine mystery argument when proposing our own theory. If "being cannot come from non-being" then how can the involvement of an agent make any difference to that? If this agent - God - has no pre-existing material to work with, then no amount of power can undo the logic of Craig's argument. Nothing is nothing, and how is it anything other than 'nothing' even in the hands of an all-powerful being?
Power acts on something to change it into something else. Power - as far as all logic tells us - does not turn absolutely nothing into something. So, as far as I can see, Craig's objection to Krauss's argument is also an objection to divine creation ex nihilo. And this has an obvious implication: that the universe must have been created from some eternally pre-existing material (creatio ex materia) to which God had access. Which, of course, implies that God created the universe from Himself, in some way (creatio ex deo), given that only God is eternal and, being God, has no eternal rival. But then are we not falling back onto pantheism or panentheism?
So is divine creation ex nihilo a rather hypocritical argument?
Perhaps better minds than mine can solve this conundrum?
[ 13. October 2013, 13:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I think there are a couple of points that might be relevant.
The first is that modern cosmology does provide a description of the formation of all that exists from nothing. Though, it should also be noted that all that is comprises various forms of positive and negative energy ... and though the sums may not be complete (we haven't catalogued the entire contents of the universe afterall), there is a good case to be made for the sum of all the energy in the universe to come up with zero. ie: The universe appeared from nothing, and still is nothing ... just a rather interesting arrangement of nothing.
My second point is that Christian theism postulates creation ex nihilo, that there was no pre-existing material substance. But that's not quite the same as being coming from non-being ... because we still believe in God who is eternal, existing outside the bounds of space time. He isn't any form of material substance, but still is. Creation comes from God, just without God giving anything material of himself into the act of creation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Can't we have a thread title in English please?
Then if it's about something I'm interested in, I may read the OP.
[ 12. October 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Ex nihilo is originally Latin, but it's part of the English language now.[/URL]
I'm gonna call unnecessary roughness. It is part of the specialized language of theonerds. It's not part of everyday English conversations. The question was valid, your response unnecessarily snarky (not that I'm not prone to both snarkiness and theonerd-dom myself from time to time).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Sorry, cliffdweller, you'll have to define unnecessary roughness for all the soccer fans. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
My second point is that Christian theism postulates creation ex nihilo, that there was no pre-existing material substance. But that's not quite the same as being coming from non-being ... because we still believe in God who is eternal, existing outside the bounds of space time. He isn't any form of material substance, but still is. Creation comes from God, just without God giving anything material of himself into the act of creation.
I realise this, but my point was that it is just as illogical (or counter-intuitive) to say that "being comes from non-being" even with the presence of an agent - even an all-powerful one - as it is to say the same thing in the absence of such an agent. If a magician was asked to cause a rabbit to appear from literally nothing, he would (I assume!) say it's impossible. If that magician was endowed with a billion times more power, the task would still be impossible.
One of the arguments against the omnipotence of God is the heavy stone objection: "Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?" If yes, then he is not omnipotent, because he cannot lift it, and if no, then he is not omnipotent, because he cannot create it. The answer to this is simply that such a hypothesis is inherently irrational, because it posits an effect greater than its cause. Therefore, being inherently irrational, it is inherently impossible, in the same sense that a square circle is impossible, or the idea that God can pop himself out of existence and then into existence again. God's power enables him to do what is logically possible. The idea of "being cannot come from non-being" falls into the same category of inherent impossibility.
But if we argue that my objection is presumptuous, because I don't understand the power of God, which is beyond our understanding, I could say "OK, but if God's activity is counter-intuitive and therefore a mystery, then we have no grounds for objecting to the atheistic idea proposed by people like Lawrence Krauss, who could also appeal to the counter-intuitive nature of reality". Therefore Christian apologists would have to concede that cosmology could not be appealed to as a method of arguing for the existence of God.
As for your mention of positive and negative energy adding up to zero... I am not a physicist, so I can't really comment intelligently on this, but for a layman reading this argument (an idea I have seen before), it looks like the sum effect of equilibrium (perfect equilibrium is always zero, of course) being equated with the concept of "nothingness". I can't see the equivalence, other than the presence of the number 'zero'. But I am sure I must be misunderstanding it!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think it's inaccurate to say that God created the universe (or multiverse if that's what it turns out to be) ex nihilo. Before the creation, there was not nothing. There was God. If you like, God created from nothing but God. But not from nothing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Who can dispute the argument that "being cannot come from non-being" (which is the same as the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit)? I agree that such a view of the origin of the universe is bizarre, to say the least.
I think your problem is that you're taking two different uses of 'ex nihilo' and conflating them.
Let's take the Christian doctrine that the world is created ex nihilo. This means that creation isn't made out of anything uncreated. The point here isn't that creation is made out of nothing. It's that 'made out of' language doesn't apply.
Now the being cannot come from non-being argument isn't about the same issue. Alan Cresswell says that the universe turns out to be a very complicated sort of nothing. The question is then, why should nothing be this complicated form of nothing and not a far simpler form of nothing? It's not raising the question of what being is or isn't made of.
Let's focus this by saying that this is all irrelevant to any given empirical or scientific answer to the origins of the universe. The Christian doctrine of creation is logically compatible with any empirical history of the world. There is no logical reason that forced God to bring about a world in accordance with any particular theory. Deciding what is the true explanation of life, etc
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sorry, cliffdweller, you'll have to define unnecessary roughness for all the soccer fans.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I thought there was a rule that site had to be in English. I was hoping a host would correct the OP's failing in this respect.
I dislike unhelpful or misleading thread titles anyway but this one goes a stage further.
I'll take it to the Styx.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... But then are we not falling back onto pantheism or panentheism?
So is divine creation ex nihilo a rather hypocritical argument?
Perhaps better minds than mine can solve this conundrum?
Is panentheism something that needs to be avoided?
Swedenborg was a pretty smart guy and he proposed an alternative argument about how God created the universe. I'm only familiar with the outlines of his argument, but basically it boils down to God creating the universe out of a "prime substance" which he formed not out of himself, but out of that which is Divine proceeding from him (e.g. love and wisdom). Thus creation is from God but not "out of" God and the Divine which proceeds from him is what is referred to in the beginning of the Gospel of John as the Word from which everything was made and which was made flesh in Jesus Christ.
By analogy, a composer creates music not "out of" parts of herself but "out of" thoughts and feelings that proceed from her, which she then forms into sounds and rhythms.
If you think about what we know about the structure of the universe, from galaxies down to rocks and atoms, it is all based on arrangements and patterns of subatomic particles which have no more individual identity than a middle C does in a piece of music. These particles only exist as independent entities with definite speed and position when they interact with other particles - there is no concrete "stuff" or substance that exists on its own and from which everything else is formed. It's as though God is moving dimensionless points of energy in vast patterns like pixels forming an "image" which is the universe as we know it.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it's inaccurate to say that God created the universe (or multiverse if that's what it turns out to be) ex nihilo. Before the creation, there was not nothing. There was God. If you like, God created from nothing but God. But not from nothing.
Wow. I wish I had read this earlier today... right now my brain is mush. But, thanks for posting it. I have to scribble it down on a dirty envelope and re-read it later. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Super OP - I like it!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Please take any further arguments about the thread title to the Styx, as Clint has said he would. You might use the thread on clearer thread titles, or start another on the foreign language issue.
[I was tempted to change the title to 'Ex nihilo - or "Much ado about nothing"' but thought that might be considered a bit of Hostly snarkiness, so I'm leaving you free to Styx it first]
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
[ 13. October 2013, 07:19: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
If you want to change the thread title, that's fine by me.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Incidentally, one of the problems with the Krauss-type nothing, is that it seems to be full of stuff, e.g. the laws of physics, or a quantum vacuum, and so on. How is this nothing? Sheer equivocation. And that's not nothing.
This is a sledgehammer review of Krauss:
http://tinyurl.com/l46qrfy
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Incidentally, one of the problems with the Krauss-type nothing, is that it seems to be full of stuff, e.g. the laws of physics, or a quantum vacuum, and so on. How is this nothing? Sheer equivocation. And that's not nothing.
I agree, and I certainly do not accept the "universe from nothing" or the eternally existing universe requiring a temporal infinite regress. But I don't think that divine creation ex nihilo is the solution. Divine creation yes (of course! Sorry SusanDoris...), but I cannot see how the introduction of an agent makes the creation of absolute novelty possible. What conceivable mechanism can an agent use to turn absolute nothingness into something? I cannot conceive of it, and if that tells us something about the limitation of my mind, then fine. But then if this counter-intuitive theory is possible, then so is any other. This is why I think that Christian apologists who appeal to creation ex nihilo are being somewhat unfair and inconsistent, and I think Peter Millican's appeal to "that which is beyond human comprehension" is nothing more than playing us Christians at our own game. If apologetics debates were football matches, then I would love to see atheists being thrashed 20 - 0, but only if the game was played fairly by the rules!!
My solution is something along the lines already expressed on this thread by W Hyatt:
quote:
By analogy, a composer creates music not "out of" parts of herself but "out of" thoughts and feelings that proceed from her, which she then forms into sounds and rhythms.
I suspect that we are actually living in "God's matrix". In other words, information could be the basis of matter, or matter could actually be information. This is a view that the physicist Anton Zeilinger appears to propose:
quote:
...it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Then the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word".
Information, in the form of thoughts, exists eternally in the mind of God, and then comes forth to be realised as the universe. That is rather different from the idea of information and power acting on a newly created substance, that has been magicked into existence. Who knows, but maybe if matter is reduced far enough, all that will be found are sets of instructions? Pure speculation, of course, but it makes sense theologically and philosophically (to my mind, at least).
[ 13. October 2013, 10:35: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you want to change the thread title, that's fine by me.
So done, and thanks.
B62, Purg Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
I think you're conflating two different ideas. Krauss proposes that the universe could come from nothing without a cause, which many people find ridiculous.
Christians believe that the universe was created from nothing by God; it's from nothing materially, but it isn't created without a cause. The objection to Krauss's view is that the idea of a causeless beginning doesn't make sense.
(God himself doesn't need to have a cause because he is eternal and doesn't have a beginning. An eternal universe would also make logical sense, but doesn't seem to match empirically the universe we live in).
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also that Krauss's nothing is not like the normal view of nothing, that is, not containing anything at all. Krauss's nothing might contain the laws of physics, or a quantum vacuum, and so on. Well, OK, if we are allowed to redefine words like this, then I am nothing.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I agree, and I certainly do not accept the "universe from nothing" or the eternally existing universe requiring a temporal infinite regress...
This post of yours has kept me thinking most of the day, but I'm afraid I haven't managed to write even a half good answer! I think that human knowledge and ingenuity will have managed to take our distant descendants to a new home before Earth's 5 billion years are up, and I wonder if there will still then be some searching for God/god/s.
.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If "being cannot come from non-being" is true, then it is also true even if we factor in an agent, such as God. If we argue that God created the universe ex nihilo, then are we not simply falling back on a kind of "God as the mysterious doer of the impossible" type argument, which is really a variant of "God of the gaps"? Of course, we can resort to the idea that we cannot understand how God works, because it is beyond our human comprehension, but the atheist could actually resort to exactly the same type of argument (as Peter Millican does, actually) with regard to the problems of cosmology: "it's counter-intuitive, but our naturally evolved minds are limited..."
But you completely miss the point of the argument (of the cosmological God-proof), and hence get your knickers in a twist over something irrelevant. Of course it is true that we do not have the slightest idea how creation could work. Of course it cannot be anything like changes agents impose on matter in nature. Of course the atheist can try to claim this "mystery power" for some part of his own constructs. The point is that if the atheist tries to claim this "mystery power", then the philosophical trap snaps shut. For we know that what wields this "mystery power" cannot be a natural entity, since it must be a necessary existent, so as to not require that same "mystery power" to bring itself about. And, as Aquinas says, this necessary existent we call "God". If however the atheist wisely does not touch the "mystery power", then his cosmology necessarily has a fundamental gap.
The point is not that creation from nothing gets explained by God as a kind of mechanism. Rather the point is that to get some natural thing from no natural thing we have no choice but to postulate a non-natural agent, which we traditionally have called God.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The first is that modern cosmology does provide a description of the formation of all that exists from nothing. Though, it should also be noted that all that is comprises various forms of positive and negative energy ... and though the sums may not be complete (we haven't catalogued the entire contents of the universe afterall), there is a good case to be made for the sum of all the energy in the universe to come up with zero. ie: The universe appeared from nothing, and still is nothing ... just a rather interesting arrangement of nothing.
It is important to point out that this is false, because it is a common error that is increasingly being voiced by atheists. Whatever may be the true nature of the "quantum vacuum", and whatever the "total sum" over all particles and antiparticles in the universe may yield, zero or anything else, this simply is not nothing. It rather obviously is not nothing now, but it certainly was not nothing either even if there ever was a time when the first "quantum fluctuation" was about to happen but all was still empty. Nothing really means nothing, and that excludes any and all "quantum laws" and "quantum states". If there is nothing, then there is no means for any fluctuation, quantum or otherwise. The nothing in these theological and philosophical arguments is a strict nothing, it is decidedly not an "empty quantum world". It really is misleading to claim that physics has in any way or form come near a description of "something from nothing" in a philosophical sense.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: Whatever may be the true nature of the "quantum vacuum", and whatever the "total sum" over all particles and antiparticles in the universe may yield, zero or anything else, this simply is not nothing.
Exactly.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
But, quantum laws and states are part of the material universe. They must be some form of emergent property, or something, of the universe itself coming into existance with the universe. They aren't eternal somethings which pre-exist the initial singularity.
Though, if you believe in some form of multiverse where what we can observe is dependent upon other universes then in our case those laws may pre-exist our bit of the whole of material existance - but still then begs the question of the origin of the multi-verse. But, with no evidence of the requirement for a multiverse then that's an interesting conjecture, and nothing more.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I may be simplistic but I thought scientific thought was that the universe was created FROM a infinitesimally small dot of infinite energy. There is no scientific explanation of where that dot came from but its expansion into the universe we know and all aspects of energy, matter and anti-matter did not, per Hawking, "require God",
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
...and hence get your knickers in a twist over something irrelevant.
The first blemish on an otherwise mature and snide-free thread.
Pity. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
This post of yours has kept me thinking most of the day, but I'm afraid I haven't managed to write even a half good answer! I think that human knowledge and ingenuity will have managed to take our distant descendants to a new home before Earth's 5 billion years are up, and I wonder if there will still then be some searching for God/god/s.
There will still be some searching, and there will still be many who have found Him.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
.....and yet others, found by Him.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
It is important to point out that this is false, because it is a common error that is increasingly being voiced by atheists. Whatever may be the true nature of the "quantum vacuum", and whatever the "total sum" over all particles and antiparticles in the universe may yield, zero or anything else, this simply is not nothing... It really is misleading to claim that physics has in any way or form come near a description of "something from nothing" in a philosophical sense.
And as EE says, nothing plus added eternal God is also not nothing. Theology, likewise, has not come near to a something from nothing explanation.
quote:
But you completely miss the point of the argument (of the cosmological God-proof)The point is that if the atheist tries to claim this "mystery power", then the philosophical trap snaps shut. For we know that what wields this "mystery power" cannot be a natural entity.
And this doesn't touch EE's point, either. We can come up with - as AC says - the concept of an eternal, infinite multiverse which has the property of eternally spitting out universes (replete with their own laws) where non existed before, in opposition to the concept of a Necessary being with all the trappings Aquinas decided he must have. Neither would be natural to this universe we find ourselves in and the atheist has wriggled out of your philosophy trap for the simple reason that it's teeth is comprised solely of definitions. You might find the multiverse concept ridiculous, but I find the idea that the creator of the Universe is interested in who I sleep with every bit as bonkers, so we're even.
And we end up exactly where EE started, with something coming from not nothing. What we don't have is any clue whether either concept is anything near to what is actually out there.
And, as an aside, we don't have any idea if the philosophical concept of nothing pertains to a state that actually exists. The something from nothing question might be in the same category as the colour of dragon wings for all we know.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But you completely miss the point of the argument (of the cosmological God-proof), and hence get your knickers in a twist over something irrelevant. Of course it is true that we do not have the slightest idea how creation could work. Of course it cannot be anything like changes agents impose on matter in nature. Of course the atheist can try to claim this "mystery power" for some part of his own constructs. The point is that if the atheist tries to claim this "mystery power", then the philosophical trap snaps shut.
I'd like to note that the use of philosophical arguments to determine the properties of the physical universe has a very spotty track record.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
.....and yet others, found by Him.
I was thinking of a mutual finding kinda thing. But yeah.
[ 14. October 2013, 03:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And as EE says, nothing plus added eternal God is also not nothing. Theology, likewise, has not come near to a something from nothing explanation.
That is nonsense, and the explanation is entirely straightforward. First, the reason that there is some-natural-thing rather than no-natural-thing is that an existing supernatural entity created the natural universe. Second, the reason why this supernatural entity requires no further causal explanation itself is that it is necessarily existent. That's all. You may be tempted to think that that is a cop-out, but it is not. On one hand, one can compellingly argue that no other causal explanation is possible. On the other hand, "necessarily existent" has many logical consequences, for example that this entity has to be eternal (for if it must be, then there cannot be an instant where it is not).
It is of course true that this is not a mechanistic explanation. We do not know how God (to give the necessary existent a traditional name) created the world. But we do know that God created the world. This is somewhat similar to the many mathematical proofs that a solution to some problem exists, without in fact providing that solution. Such a result may infuriate the applied people (physicists, engineers, ...), but it is a real mathematical result nonetheless. And again in a similar way to such mathematical "existence proofs", that we do not know the solution does not mean that we know nothing about the solution. For example, we can reject Christian "process theology" that postulates a changing God as just as absurd as the Greek tales about Jupiter or Norse mythology about Odin. The necessary entity that explains the existence of something rather than nothing cannot be changeable, for then it would require further causal explanation, as all change is caused.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And this doesn't touch EE's point, either. We can come up with - as AC says - the concept of an eternal, infinite multiverse which has the property of eternally spitting out universes (replete with their own laws) where non existed before, in opposition to the concept of a Necessary being with all the trappings Aquinas decided he must have.
Aquinas did not "decide" to include this or that feature of the necessary being. He argued tightly from the premise that the necessary being is the ultimate cause to a considerable number of conclusions about what it must be like to fulfil that role. It is of course possible that Aquinas was mistaken in some point. But simply asserting that does not furnish proof. For example, Aquinas demonstrates that the necessay being must be immutable. The multiverse is not immutable. Therefore it cannot be the necessary being. The only way out of this for you is to show that Aquinas was wrong in his demonstration. I think you will find it rather difficult to show that though.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Neither would be natural to this universe we find ourselves in and the atheist has wriggled out of your philosophy trap for the simple reason that it's teeth is comprised solely of definitions. You might find the multiverse concept ridiculous, but I find the idea that the creator of the Universe is interested in who I sleep with every bit as bonkers, so we're even.
No, we are not at all even there. The Christian God who tells you what to do with your genitals is not being demonstrated by these cosmological arguments anyhow. For better or worse, that is a different discussion. All this philosophy can tell us is that the Christian God is compatible with being the ultimate cause of the world, it does not tell us that the Christian God is the ultimate cause of the world.
Further, while there is a definition - or better a labeling - involved in calling what philosophy discovers "God", this does not at all mean that this is merely a game of asserting axioms. These are metaphysical arguments, that is to say, we argue philosophically from how we understand nature. It is an application of reason to observation that brings us to declare the existence of a necessary existent. Specifically, it is our observation that the world has causal structure which pushed to the limit requires the introduction of an ultimate cause. In this way the cosmological proof is very close to the concerns of natural scientists. Indeed, it also shares the same fundamental optimism about the human mind. The step of labeling the result of the philosophy "God" is of course not a philosophical one. That is what you can reasonably reject. Though only in the sense that you reject the superset of "God" features (like that He cares what you do with your genitals), not in the sense that what philosophy has shown cannot be "God" (for these features can be a subset of classical Christian claims about God).
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And we end up exactly where EE started, with something coming from not nothing. What we don't have is any clue whether either concept is anything near to what is actually out there.
This is plain false, since as mentioned EE simply misunderstood what the cosmological proof is about. It is not a mechanistic explanation. Nobody is claiming that "God created the world" provides any insight into how God did that, and EE's point that such an act is not like us manipulating matter from one state to another was well known and explicitly discussed by Aquinas (see for example here, Replies to Objections 2 and 3) and probably way back to the Fathers, though I've not bothered tracking that through history. Indeed, this is occasion for the label "omnipotent", that only belongs to God. Perhaps you have wondered what this could mean, other than a kind of collection of all things any natural entity could do. Well, one power beyond all natural entities that God must have is precisely the power to bring some-natural-thing from no-natural-thing, an "infinite" power in the sense that no finite power can do that.
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
And, as an aside, we don't have any idea if the philosophical concept of nothing pertains to a state that actually exists. The something from nothing question might be in the same category as the colour of dragon wings for all we know.
This is like saying that knowing the integers and subtraction we do not know that zero exists, and that such knowledge of zero might be in the same category as the colour of dragon wings for all we know. "Nothing" is not simply some fantasy state, it is the consequence of mentally subtracting entities from reality until there are zero left. To doubt that we can do that comes rather close to insanity, I would say.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd like to note that the use of philosophical arguments to determine the properties of the physical universe has a very spotty track record.
And the relevance of this note, given that we are not at all doing that, is what precisely?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, the reason that there is some-natural-thing rather than no-natural-thing is that an existing supernatural entity created the natural universe.
Strictly of course God is the only entity that can never be supernatural. The naturalistic definition of 'natural' is incoherent, and the naturalistic definition of 'supernatural' more so.
(Not that this is relevant to the substance of your post. But someone like EE might find it useful.)
[ 14. October 2013, 11:28: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: And, as an aside, we don't have any idea if the philosophical concept of nothing pertains to a state that actually exists. The something from nothing question might be in the same category as the colour of dragon wings for all we know.
Why do planets follow circular/elliptical orbits around their stars insted of square ones? We don't have any idea if the philosophical concept of a square orbit pertains to a state that actually exists. The circular/elliptic vs square orbits question might be in the same category as the colour of dragon wings for all we know.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
But you completely miss the point of the argument (of the cosmological God-proof), and hence get your knickers in a twist over something irrelevant. Of course it is true that we do not have the slightest idea how creation could work. Of course it cannot be anything like changes agents impose on matter in nature. Of course the atheist can try to claim this "mystery power" for some part of his own constructs. The point is that if the atheist tries to claim this "mystery power", then the philosophical trap snaps shut. For we know that what wields this "mystery power" cannot be a natural entity, since it must be a necessary existent, so as to not require that same "mystery power" to bring itself about. And, as Aquinas says, this necessary existent we call "God". If however the atheist wisely does not touch the "mystery power", then his cosmology necessarily has a fundamental gap.
Ignoring the unnecessarily sneering and supercilious language, I can see your point. However, I referred to Peter Millican - and in a later post on this thread I linked to his attempt to rebut the Kalam Cosmological Argument - and, although he is ostensibly flying the flag for atheism, it is clear from the content of his response to Craig that he is actually proposing an agnostic position, while firmly placing human knowledge within the bounds of a merely pragmatic empiricist epistemology (I am aware that 'atheism' has now largely been redefined to include agnosticism). This position logically cannot rule out the agency of a non-natural "mystery power" (whatever 'non-natural' is supposed to mean). He is saying: "We just do not know. Our minds are incapable of fathoming this aspect of reality." He argues this on the basis that we are mere products of natural evolution, who can only understand that which pertains to our realm of operation (which Dawkins refers to as "Middle World"). Of course, I profoundly disagree with his world view (and I regard his view of human reason as self-refuting, in that we cannot really make any metaphysical statements with any confidence if our minds have evolved for purely utilitarian reasons), but I sympathise with his response to Craig's rather simplistic cosmological argument.
Millican has the decency and grace to acknowledge that any theory of the ultimate origin of the universe is counter-intuitive. Now for Christian apologists to say: "Oh no it is not, because we can posit a non-natural first (therefore uncaused) cause, who stands outside or above time, who is immutable, and who created the universe ex nihilo" is sheer intellectual dishonesty. That statement is replete with concepts which are counter-intuitive:
1. We have no idea how an agent - no matter how powerful - can create anything ex nihilo, because our entire understanding of reality leads us to conclude that power acts on existing materials. I can accept the idea that "God can do it, but we just don't have the capacity to understand it", but that is no answer to Peter Millican's objection. It simply confirms it.
2. We have absolutely no idea how an immutable being, not subject to time, can act, since actions involve change, which suggests sequentiality. We can argue for a 'weak immutability' in which only God's character is immutable, but that simply sidesteps the problem. Logic tells us that there must be an eternal realm not subject to time, but within which time can operate in some way, because the alternative is the wholly counter-intuitive infinite regress. Clearly the uncaused first cause must reside and act within this eternal realm, but how this is possible is beyond me - and if it is not beyond other people who may read this, then do speak up and explain it and put us all out of our misery! So again Christian apologists are indulging in counter-intuitive assertions, and therefore not answering the objections of someone like Peter Millican.
3. Even the appeal to God's omniscience as a method of affirming that which is counter-intuitive, is highly suspect. I have already mentioned that there are logical arguments that are posed to question the idea of divine omnipotence: "Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?" and "Can God pop himself in and out of existence?" I argued that we can indeed answer these objections, but only if we hold to a high view of human reason, in which we acknowledge that God's omnipotence implies that he cannot do that which even we can understand is inherently irrational. If that is the case, then we also need to apply the same rational method to the concept of creation ex nihilo. If we accept that ex nihilo nihil fit - or "only non-being comes from non-being" - is logically axiomatic, then creation ex nihilo lies outside the range of God's omnipotence. This is not being presumptuous, but rather logically consistent. If we are not allowed to be logically consistent in the light of God's infinite supremacy over us, then Christian apologetics is dead. We have nothing to say to atheists and agnostics, but a stream of counter-intuitive dogmas - or a constant appeal to "God of the gaps". Perhaps that is what some Christians want?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Mistake in my last post:
Even the appeal to God's omniscience as a method of affirming that which is counter-intuitive, is highly suspect.
'omniscience' should, of course, read 'omnipotence'
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Ingo
In no particular order:
quote:
"Nothing" ... is the consequence of mentally subtracting entities from reality until there are zero left.
Shorn of the rhetorical flourish, sort of. The consequence of mentally subtracting entities from reality. And dragons wings are the consequence of mentally constructing mythical beings. If anyone wishes me to take the idea of dragons wings being something that may exist in reality seriously, they would need to offer me some details of where they may have been observed, perhaps show me fossilized remains, or a give some other credible account, since the simple act of manipulating abstractions does not ensure that those abstractions have counterparts in the world. The map is not the territory. Although I know you don't agree with that, which in my eyes is just as insane as my doubting the existence of nothing is in yours.
But you yourself actually deny nothing:
quote:
First, the reason that there is some-natural-thing rather than no-natural-thing is that an existing supernatural entity created the natural universe. Second, the reason why this supernatural entity requires no further causal explanation itself is that it is necessarily existent. That's all. You may be tempted to think that that is a cop-out, but it is not. On one hand, one can compellingly argue that no other causal explanation is possible. On the other hand, "necessarily existent" has many logical consequences, for example that this entity has to be eternal (for if it must be, then there cannot be an instant where it is not)
So this is the theological explanation of something from nothing, which turns out to be something from nothing + God. Apparently I can't mentally subtract the entity of God from reality because of some logical wibbling which looks like a severe case of special pleading, so where does that leave philosophical nothing?
quote:
For example, Aquinas demonstrates that the necessay being must be immutable. The multiverse is not immutable.
And you know this how? I think my multiverse is at least as immutable as your God. It just sits there for all eternity spitting out every conceivable universe. You could argue that with each new universe it creates it must change a bit, but the same could be said of your God and this universe. Oh, sorry, that's getting into the mechanism, which apparently We Must Not Do. But if the classical idea of God is to be compatible with the Biblical one, the definition of immutable has got to include a fair bit of wiggle room to accommodate the Old Testament smiter and the gentler New Testament creature who Incarnated. Ah, you might say, immutable in theology does not mean unchanging in that naive sense, it means unchanging in his character, will, and covenant promises, blah, blah, blah. And my reply would be, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and we could carry on forever. In fact, I'll stop now because I'm pretty sure I've said this exact same thing before.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Grokesx: The consequence of mentally subtracting entities from reality. And dragons wings are the consequence of mentally constructing mythical beings.
Yes, both dragon wings and nothing are mental constrcuts.
But the question "why aren't there dragons with wings?" is one that Science has an answer to. Why would it be unreasonable to ask it to come up with an answer to "why isn't there nothing"?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@LeRoc
My point was that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" might be equivalent to the question, "What colour are dragons' wings?" In other words in could turn out to be a question about the properties of an imaginary entity. I'm not saying that it is actually the case, but in the light of some reactions to Krauss's book I thought it was worth putting out there.
Edited for clarity but probably didn't help.
[ 16. October 2013, 03:34: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
My point was that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" might be equivalent to the question, "What colour are dragons' wings?" In other words in could turn out to be a question about the properties of an imaginary entity.
I'd have thought that an important difference was that nothing has a mathematical representation, zero or the empty set. The vast majority of our current physics is based upon a mathematics that I believe relies upon those as axiomatic concepts. I suppose quantum mechanics or string theory may use some non-classical mathematical group, but I'd be surprised if it's not defined in terms of the classical mathematical concepts.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
I'd have thought that an important difference was that nothing has a mathematical representation, zero or the empty set. The vast majority of our current physics is based upon a mathematics that I believe relies upon those as axiomatic concepts. I suppose quantum mechanics or string theory may use some non-classical mathematical group, but I'd be surprised if it's not defined in terms of the classical mathematical concepts.
As a matter of interest, what is the answer to the following operation:
1/0 = ?
Is it 1 or infinity?
If the answer is 1, then 1/0 = 1/1, which implies that 0=1.
If infinity, then 0 must be an infinitesimal, which is something. If an infinitesimal is not something then space and time do not exist, because everything with extension (space and time) can be divided into infinitesimals, and therefore is made up of same.
So the concept of 'zero' is fraught with difficulties (ISTM).
But I am not a mathematician, so someone can sort me out on this one. At school I picked up the idea that 1/0 = infinity, but I find it hard to believe that I was actually formally taught that.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As a matter of interest, what is the answer to the following operation:
1/0 = ?
Is it 1 or infinity?
If the answer is 1, then 1/0 = 1/1, which implies that 0=1.
If infinity, then 0 must be an infinitesimal, which is something.
0 is only infitesimal if you equate infinity with "a really, really big number". Infinity isn't a really big number. It isn't a number at all (some programming languages will even, quite correctly, return a "NAN" value when you divide by zero - "NAN" meaning Not A Number).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But I am not a mathematician, so someone can sort me out on this one. At school I picked up the idea that 1/0 = infinity, but I find it hard to believe that I was actually formally taught that.
Classical mathematics handles it as follows:
Divide 1/n where n is some small number. The answer is 1/n. Make n smaller, or closer to 0. 1/n gets larger. As n gets closer to 0 you can make 1/n as large as you please. Any operation that you can make as large as you please by approximating closely to it is said to go to infinity. It is not however a number itself and you can't use it as one.
Dividing anything by 0 gives infinity is fine as an informal summary, so long as you don't try it in any calculations.
I gather there are various attempts at setting up axiomatic systems in which infinity is treated as a number while avoiding getting silly results.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
AC, Dafyd,
Well I think that this just underlines the fact that 'zero' is just a passive state with, by definition, no function. And when it does appear to have a more active role, it produces tautologies. So 3 - 0 = 3 is just another way of saying '3'. Likewise 3 + 0 = 3. And multiplying zeros is just stating 'zero'. Dividing by zero is nonsense.
Therefore 'zero' is just a concept, as is infinity. The question then arises: do these notions have any correspondence to reality? I suppose one could say that 'zero' obviously has, but does it require a context? For example, I have three books sitting on a table, and then I remove these books from the table, and then state that there are zero books on the table. But we still have a table and an observer. How far can we take this? Can we conceive of absolute zero? Can we conceive of absolute nothingness? How could we, because our act of conceiving it implies the existence of the observer? And we define this absolute nothingness in terms of the absence of realities which already have to exist in order to be subtracted, just like the zero books on the table implies the existence of books.
I suspect that 'nothing' only 'exists' (if one can use that verb to describe 'nothing') in a relative sense of change. I find it hard to believe that God in His fullness suffered some kind of deprivation before the universe was created. IMO, the sum total of reality did not increase with the appearance of the universe. If that were the case, then what does that say about the nature of God? But that is what creation ex nihilo implies.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well I think that this just underlines the fact that 'zero' is just a passive state with, by definition, no function. And when it does appear to have a more active role, it produces tautologies. So 3 - 0 = 3 is just another way of saying '3'. Likewise 3 + 0 = 3. And multiplying zeros is just stating 'zero'. Dividing by zero is nonsense.
Really, all numbers are just functions. 1 is to multiplication exactly what 0 is to addition.
None of these functions really correspond to anything in reality, where reality is defined as what is empirically observable. But reality does behave in ways that these functions model, so that the functions can predict it.
quote:
I find it hard to believe that God in His fullness suffered some kind of deprivation before the universe was created. IMO, the sum total of reality did not increase with the appearance of the universe. If that were the case, then what does that say about the nature of God? But that is what creation ex nihilo implies.
This is all true, apart from the last sentence. That implies to me that you're missing the point of the doctrine. The doctrine means that there's no kind of stuff that God made creation out of. It doesn't mean that God made creation out of a special kind of stuff called 'nothing'. Because, as you say, that would be nonsensical. Likewise, as you say, the sum total of reality doesn't increase when God creates. But that doesn't mean that God is diminished by whatever amount creation adds up to.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
If we take the natural numbers as possible answers to the question "how many", then zero is a perfectly good answer, like one, two etc.
FWIW, I believe that all mathematical objects are answers to increasingly subtle questions, and that we invent the questions and discover the answers. But perhaps my views on the philosophy of mathematics are not immediately related to the question about creation ex nihilo.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
If we take the natural numbers as possible answers to the question "how many", then zero is a perfectly good answer, like one, two etc.
<math geek pedant>
Zero is not a natural number. The natural numbers start at one.
</math geek pedant>
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
<math geek pedant>
Zero is not a natural number. The natural numbers start at one.
</math geek pedant>
Well yes, but it is precisely because zero is no different from the traditional "natural numbers" as an answer to "how many", that I like the convention of starting from 0.
And it is also a good way to avoid ascribing unnecessary, mysterious, and arcane, properties to arithmetic zero.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
