MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Aug 06, 2026 2:51 pm
Maybe, to discuss this seriously, we should carefully adopt the term "nothingness" for the state of no thing being present. Yes of course, "nothing" comes from "no thing" but there is in fact an issue.
Outside our universe NO THING IS OBSERVABLE.
That is quite true, Mike: just as there is no way for us to observe the origins of the universe. But that only speaks to a natural limitation of human knowing, not to the truth or falsity of any proposition -- far less, to the idea that just anything could possibly be true. So we must not wander into the error of nihilistic relativism, if we had any inclination to do so. I don't suppose you do.
We don't know if outside our universe, before our universe, is "nothingness".
Right. But we do know a few things, which we can observe presently. One is that our universe is involved in a causal chain. There is always a cause for every effect. There is no thing that is caused by "nothing."
We might add that science, while unable to prove that that is the case, absolutely
presupposes this: if causal chains in our physical universe were not operating, then we could not detect what, in an experiment or observation, is the cause or effect of anything. Hence, we could never conclude...never know, scientifically, anything at all. And that's clearly not the case -- judging by the general efficacy of science in physical matters -- so I think we can accept science's presupposition, don't you?
Because outside our universe is unobservable and (as understood) a "god" would be unobservable, some of want to argue "therefore what is outside our universe is God". And since we might argue "the universe must have had a cause, that cause must be God". Do you not see that this is bad logic?
Yes, it's bad logic. But the flaw is in your premise, actually. That is, if by "outside" you mean
totally outside, or
never engaged with, and not
immanent in, as well. But God is both greater than the universe, and "outside" or "beyond" it in that sense -- for which we use the term "transcendent" -- and present with, involved in His universe.
It's not just monotheists who think this. Panentheists would say the same, though they'd understand it a little differently. Likewise, Deists would say that God "was" involved immanently in the creation moment, but thereafter absent. So there are a range of claims to look at, but they share the common feature of denying that God is absolutely only "transcendent," and not "immanent" as well.
But you're moving us on to the next problem, once we've established the necessity of a First Cause: that is, how are we to know anything about this First Cause, since it must be transcendent? And the answer is simple: the First Cause is
immanent, as well. It is not only that we might postulate that God is not an absentee landlord, but rather an involved participant; it's that even if we supposed, as Deists might, that the First Cause is now remote, the effects of His choices and design would still be present with us, and thus observable to our science. (On the other hand, we are not insisting that God is so completely entangled in the universe that He must personally make rain fall and lightning happen. He's quite capable of assigning some things to laws and regularities, without that implying He can never suspend or intervene in any way, should he choose to part the Red Sea or raise a Man from the dead. There's no contradiction there, obviously.)
In any case, the important point is that we might still make reasonable deductions, from present phenomena, about the design features, and even the nature and purposes of the Creator. (Romans 1 insists this is the case, as we have seen.)
Even IF (notice, Mike, IF) one ("one," not you, Mike) were a strict Materialist, one would be obliged to believe that the present features of the physical universe can enable us to make reasoned deductions about origins. For that is exactly the procedure that has been used in order to posit things like the Big Bang, which we also never observed. Rather, we deduced it from things like the expansion of the universe itself, which we can observe now, and analogies with other cosmic phenomena (such as the red shift effect) that we can still observe.
Isn't the observer within the black hole wrong to conclude "there is nothingness outside the universe, and substance is continuously being created at the edge of the (observable) universe. The cause of this creation must be a god."
Well, we don't know if he's wrong or not. What we would know is that the phenomenon he's using doesn't give him the conclusion he wants. But it also doesn't give him the opposite conclusion: namely, that randomness, or chance, can from
nothing create
something. So it leaves him without a conclusion.
However, I'm not him. And my argument is not made from black holes, but from things we can know, like mathematics and empirical testing, and the design features of the observable universe. So whereas his approach would be unwarranted and speculative (since, even if he were right in his conclusion, it would be only accidental, since his premises would not provide adequate reason for him to believe it), mine would be deductive, logical, mathematical, empirical and scientific.
What you leave us with, then, is this: if there's a First Cause (and, of course, there has to have been), we can know things about it from deductions based on present phenomena. Even secularly, or purely scientifically, these will always be deductions, and, as humans are fallible, will have a margin of possible error. But that is not to say that there can be no answer (as there is obviously
something that is true, ultimately) or that all such deductions will be equally supported by the evidence (because they're clearly not), or that we must throw up our hands, and say, "We can know nothing about the origins of the universe."
Yes, we can. But we must accept a possible margin of error. In other words, it's going to take a little faith on our part, to bridge whatever gap always remains between even the best human science and fallible human knowing. And that's just fine, since it's how we all have to live our lives, every day. When you and I wake up, we do not know -- beyond any margin of error -- that a truck will not run us over and kill us. But still, we deduce it's unlikely, and we carry on our business with a little faith in the future. And in doing so, we're actually being perfectly reasonable.
So that's just life. That's just human knowing. It comes with a measure of risk...small, hopefully, but still always there.
Now, next question: if we can know something from the design features of the present universe, and make reasonable deductions about the past (albeit with an error margin), is there any source from which we could make our knowledge more secure?
And it turns out there is.
That's not an argument. It's not even anything I said. But what's most amusing is your idea that logic "creates things." It doesn't. It is a formal cognitive structure that enables us to detect when correct (or incorrect) premises issue (or fail to issue) in a particular conclusion. That makes it very useful for detecting truth; but it has no implication whatsoever that it "pops" things "into existence."
(P.S. You'll find that quotation marks can designate a debatable or unclear turn of phrase, rather than merely a word or words somebody else said. They're sometimes called "scare quotes," signifying irony or insufficiency of the literal words used.)