Heres an initial response to the argument. Brian and Karen: Dont hesitate to reply. Questions and comments are welcome. Devastating objections will be considered on a case-by-case basis. =)
The main idea behind this argument seems to be that the Christian doctrine of creation conflicts with the claim that nothing comes from nothing. Theres something plausible about the argument, but I dont think that whats plausible about the argument ultimately conflicts with Christian teaching. To see this, note that we can generate an apparent conflict between Christian teaching and the claim that <Nothing comes from nothing> with an even shorter argument. (Brian: I think the following argument faithfully represents your original. I also think it might cut to the heart of the issue more quickly. Please forgive me if Im wrong about this.) Heres the argument:
1. If Christian teaching is true, then it is possible that something comes from nothing.
2. It is not possible that something comes from nothing.
C. So, Christian teaching is not true.
The form of the argument is valid, and the premises seem initially plausible. So, it can look like the Christian is in trouble. But the notion of creation out of nothing needs further explicationand this makes things interesting. Christian teaching on creation, as I understand it, implies that God created the physical universe without using any pre-existing material. That is, God caused the physical universe to exist, and did not use any pre-existing material in causing this. But this teaching does *not* imply that something can come from nothing without a cause. So, when Christian teaching is properly understood, it doesnt really imply that something can come from nothing in the same sense that Aristotle and others construed this claim. In other words, I think Christians will deny (1).
OOPS, I forgot to type option F for you both! Lol
I did not intend it to be an argument against Christianity per se. Regardless, we are both saying something comes from nothing. A cause is not really what is at issue here, something coming from nothing is. Either: something comes from nothing or nothing comes from nothing. A cause is not relevant for it does not change the argument that nothing comes from nothing. Basically the argument against the original points is: Something comes from nothing if God makes it so since God is. That would seem to imply that God is all and B is the explanation. Regardless of form fitting excuses or explanations, a denial that #1 is true would be implied if indeed a cause or God can make something from nothing, MEANING SOMETHING COMES FROM NOTHING! Therefore, option F is the truth
something can come from nothing.
Apologies if it seemed like I was changing the subject here. That wasnt my intention. I made the distinction between the following two claims because Christians are committed to one, but not committed to the other. Here are the claims:
(i) It is possible that something comes from nothing without a cause.
(ii) It is possible that something comes from nothing if that something has a cause.
In their doctrine of creation, Christians embrace (ii). But they arent committed to (i). As far as the main thread goes, Brian is right to note that theres a sense in which Christians agree that its possible for something to come from nothing. I think were all clear on that, and its a point worth making.
I have very little by way of additional comment. In fact, the only thing Ill add is that option Bthat God created out of himself, so all creation is God himself, is really two claims rolled into one. Christians might endorse the first claim, that God created out of himself. But theyll deny the second claimthat all creation is God himself. Even if God created out of himself in some sense, on the Christian view, what he created is wholly distinct from him. Whatever one thinks about this, it should be noted that the second claim doesnt follow from the first.
Thank you for addressing the subject at hand
as Yoda said, Do or do not, there is no try. Again I should restate that something can come from nothing or it cannot. I see you change the point again with (i) and (ii)
better to the form of the first post/question. I should restate that it matters not the HOW or WHY, just to point out the FACT that it does. I do find this whole conversation humorous given the atheist (Hawking) and theist (Christian here) debate! I do find it a circular argument and irrelevant! Yet, I do love the paradoxical arguments as they do make sense to me! Thus, I get your points. It seems you get mine as well. ALSO: if God is the cause and creates but not of himself then A still holds true in the first argument
.
Above I mentioned that the notion of creation out of nothing can make things interesting. Heres how. The Aristotelian claim regarding creation out of nothing seems to imply that it is not possible for something to come from nothing without a cause. That is, we should read (2) like this:
(2*) It is not possible that something comes from nothing without a cause.
As I mention above, Christians are free to embrace this claim. They think that God created the universe ex nihilo. But they dont embrace the idea of creation from nothing *without a cause*. Interestingly, atheists who agree with the standard Big Bang model are less free with respect to (2*). Heres why. The Big Bang model implies that the universe had a beginning. That is, the entire physical system of causes had a beginning in time, and arose literally out of nothing. But what caused this universe to begin to exist? The atheists answer cant be, some prior physical statefor according to the model, prior to the Big Bang, there were no such physical states. This appears to lead the atheist (at least if she thinks that all causation is physical causation) to the conclusion that the universe came into existence out of nothing *without a cause*. Many atheists will admit as much. As it turns out, certain atheists have to deny (2*). In short, by my lights, if theres a worldview in tension with the Aristotelian claim that nothing comes from nothing, its a certain kind of atheism.
Stephen Hawkins new book is supposed to address the atheism/Big Bang Theory. I have yet to read it. I can see how a Christian can reconcile the argument by changing the argument or saying that it is not possible unless God does it. Im sure that is a valid argument to any who believe in God and invalid for an atheist who does not. A cause is a secondary point for either nothing comes from nothing OR something can came from nothing. Conditions do not apply, it either is true or it is not true.
Your argument has changed it the statement to 1. Something comes from nothing but only if my God does it, otherwise nothing will comes from nothing. (again something comes from nothing or it does not)
Please reconcile this with the Christian belief, if indeed they/you hold 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to be true.
Again I would say that the above is not reconciled to the argument first stated
I see the point, but it falls with the argument and outcomes first stated
