Replies

Thank you so much for the ping, dear brother in Christ, and for sharing your insights!

I will tackle that last assertion, i.e. spatial v temporal dimensionality wrt the beginning ex nihilo.

First, all attempts to obviate a beginning - to construe a physically infinite past - fail when we closely examine the math and physics.

Creation ex nihilo goes to the heart of physical cosmologists. It is seen as a failure to Steinhardt and his cyclic model and to Hawking and his imaginary time model that the physical cosmologist cannot explain the origin of real time.

Infinity past is a necessary "belief" of all atheists but it does not hold up to scrutiny by math or science.

Real time and real space are required for physical causation which is the fundamental necessary element for all physical cosmologies whether multi-verse, ekpyrotic, multi-world or whatever.

Mathematically, the dimension of a space is the minimum number of coordinates (axes) necessary to identify a point within the space.

A space of zero dimensions is a point; one dimension, a line, two dimensions, a plane; three, a cube, etc.

That is the geometry of it. In zero dimensions, the mathematical point is indivisible.

It is not nothing. It is a spatial point. A singularity is not nothing.

In ex nihilo Creation, the dimensions are not merely zero, they are null, dimensions do not exist at all. There is no space and no time. Period.

There is no mathematical point, no volume, no content, no scalar quantities. Ex nihilo doesn’t exist in relationship to anything else; there is no thing.

In an existing physical space, each point (e.g. particle) can be parameterized by a quantity such as mass. The parameter (e.g. a specific quantity within the range of possible quantities) is in effect another descriptor or quasi-dimension that uniquely identifies the point within the space.

Moreover, if the quantity of the parameter changes for a point, then a time dimension is invoked. For example, at one moment the point value is “0” and the next it is “1”.

Wave propagation cannot occur in null dimensions nor can it occur in zero spatial dimensions, a mathematical point; a dimension of time is required for any fluctuation in a parameter value at a point.

Moreover, wave propagation must also have a spatial/temporal relation from cause point to effect point, i.e. physical causation.

For instance “0” at point n^t causes “1” at point n+1^t+1 which causes "0" at point n+1^t+2 etc..

Obviously, physical wave propagation (e.g. big bang/inflationary model) cannot precede space/time and physical causality.

In the absence of space, things cannot exist.

In the absence of time, events cannot occur.

Both space and time are required for physical causation.

All physical cosmologies require space and time for physical causality. Period.

There is no ex nihilo explanation for the beginning of real space and real time and therefore physical causality.

And because, since the 1960’s forward, measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation consistently agree that the universe is expanding – that there was a beginning of real space and real time – we know that there was creation ex nihilo. Moving the goalpost back to prior universes does not make that issue go away.

Only God can be the uncaused cause, the first cause, The Creator.

Space, time and physical causation are not properties of God the Creator. They are properties of the Creation. Only God is uncaused.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:20

God's Name is I AM and Alpha and Omega.

Very nice.

You might enjoy Feser's The Last Superstition which is a philosophical work but, for the most part, a lot of fun. More specifically, while he uses Dawkins, et al, as punching bags, he does a good exposition of Aristotelian realism, which touches on your argument.

Specifically, to say a thing can change is to say it has a potentiality. For the potentiality to be made actual (for the possible change to happen) it must be caused by something outside itself.

For, if the potential can be actualized through strictly internal causes, why hasn't it happened already?

A rubber ball can change into an nasty-smelling pile of goo. For that to happen, heat must be applied.

This is not a temporal argument. A 'prior" cause is not necessarily prior in time. A baseball may shatter a window, but that does not mean that FIRST the ball hits the window and THEN it shatters.

It just means that if the window's potential to turn into shards is actualized by something completely intrinsic to the window, how can we find a window that is not already "ensharded?"

Now if there is an infinite regress of causes, no baseball would ever hit the window, because first the kid would have to hit it with a bat, and the kid's muscles would have to work, and the kid would have to ingest breakfast, .... so on forever. In that case, we would never find a shattered window.

(I do wonder if this needs to be recast in light of thinking about infinitesimals, but failing that ...)

So there must be something that actualizes potentials in other things, but which does not change ... that is, which has no potential but is utterly actual. ..the unchanged changer, or, to use the old lingo, the Unmoved Mover. [UM]

This thing, being changeless in every respect implies timelessness. We cannot say "the UM WILL change such and such tomorrow," because that would be a change in the UM's actualizing function. We cannot say "the UM will behold the effect of its actualizing tomorrow and saw other effects yesterday," because such perceptions are also changes. It 'simply' (word of unspeakable power!) beholds and does everything and always.

"My Father is working still."

Creation ex nihilo goes to the heart of physical cosmologists. It is seen as a failure to Steinhardt and his cyclic model and to Hawking and his imaginary time model that the physical cosmologist cannot explain the origin of real time.

Well they — Steinhardt, Hawking, and a raft of others — can't explain the origin of anything — not time, not space, not physical causation — absent an ex nihilo beginning. But they do not want a beginning, especially an ex nihilo one. For such a beginning would be inconceivable to a person of physicalist/materialist persuasion. They will stand on their heads; they will turn themselves inside-out. They will do anything to deny the existence of God. WHY this is so important to them, I do not know.

Whatever the case, theoretical physicists of such high order and reputation as Hawking and Steinhardt are mathematical physicists. And as any "math geek" knows, when one's equations are generating a situation known as infinite regression, the alarm bells should be going off all over the place. This is the classical sign that there's something wrong with your formulation. Time to go back and check, to find the error....

Mad Dawg's most excellent Post #1247 is definitely on-point here.

Thank you oh so very much for your totally outstanding essay/post, dearest sister in Christ!