This hub is a continuation of the topic of Creation and why it is impossible. My previous hubs on the Cosmological Argument, Infinite Regress Argument, and First Cause Argument have explained the exact reasons why those arguments are fallacious and intentionally conceived to mislead and brainwash people into thinking that Creation is a fact. The Creation of space and matter is NOT a fact. It is an irrational claim that is full of contradictions. No person can ever hope to provide ONE reason explaining why this claim could even be a remote possibility. These hubs explain in laborious detail why it is impossible for an entity, like a God or a Singularity, to create space and matter.
In this hub, we will approach the “claim” of Creation from the perspective of MOTION. We will explain the intricate and unavoidable relationship between space, matter, and motion. We will answer the question that everybody asks: “What came first, space, matter, or motion?”
We will explore Aristotle’s eternal Universe with an Unmoved Mover, which was claimed to be the ultimate source or cause of motion in the Universe. A detailed analysis of this model will explain the reason why Aristotle needed a “robot god” to make the Universe work, and why Religionists initially accepted this model, but later chose to resort to Creation from Nothing.
We will explain exactly why ANY claim of a “Creation” event (which absolutely necessitates motion), is self-refuting and thus impossible. This includes Biblical Creation and Creation from Nothing (non-Biblical). Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover will also be shown to be impossible.
Most people are under the impression that it is a “claim” that the Universe is ETERNAL. This hub explains why this is not the case. You will understand why Creation is a CLAIM, a supposed consummated event, which belongs to the THEORY stage of the Scientific Method so that it can be rationally explained. But DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH…...
WHICH CAME FIRST: SPACE, MATTER, MOTION OR GOD?
This is another variant of the “chicken or the egg” problem, but as you will see, it’s MUCH easier to solve.
The answer to “which came first” is: NONE!
But before we get into the details, we must first understand what ‘motion’ means. If there was only one object in the Universe, can it have motion? How could this lonely object move? What is it moving against? It obviously can’t move with respect to the nothingness of space. How could this object even be said to be in motion? It can only move with respect to another object.
What reference can this object use to establish its motion, if there is no other object by which to gauge its relative change in ‘location’ with respect to that object? Motion is a dynamic concept. Concepts always require two or more objects in a relationship. The speedometer in your car can detect your car’s motion by translating the change in location of the spinning tires from the surface of the road, to the change in location of points on a spinning shaft which are detected by a sensor. The two objects are the sensor and the spinning points.
Obviously, the concept of motion is dependent upon an object’s change in ‘location’ with respect to some reference. But what is ‘location’?
Location: The set of distances from the test object, to all the other objects in the Universe.
Location is the only concept that can unambiguously be used to define motion. It absolutely takes into account all the remaining objects in the Universe. All it takes is a single object in the Universe to move, in order for all the other objects in the Universe to instantly change their location, and hence MOVE. Location is a static concept (a photograph), whereas motion is a dynamic concept (a movie).
A single lonely object in the Universe does not have any motion because it has no change in location. Sure, if this object is a person, he can move his arms and legs, but they only have motion with respect to his body. If God appeared out of nowhere and accelerated this person to the speed of light, then the person would have motion with respect to God. But if God suddenly vanished, then the person would have absolutely NO motion, NO speed, and nor would he feel any. And of course, he would be perfectly still because he is NOT moving; he is NOT changing his location. Motion is an illusion of sentient beings with memory. They are able to keep a log of their previous locations and call it motion. That’s why you only feel the effects of acceleration, because your body is being pulled against the gravitational pull of another body.
So motion is scientifically defined as follows:
Motion: Two or more locations of an object.
So now let’s continue to answer the big questions….
Q: Can matter exist without space?
Because matter needs the background of “nothingness” to give it shape/form and allow it to have internal structure. Otherwise, how can we possibly classify something as “matter” or “entity”? Matter needs to be spatially separated from the background of space; otherwise the motion of matter would be impossible. How will an object change its location with respect to another object if both objects are not spatially separated from the background?
Space is not a medium by any stretch of the imagination. Space is nothing, and thus can only be scientifically described with negative predicates. If matter did not have the background of space to contour it, then it is obvious that the Universe would be a single continuous solid block of matter; with no atoms, no gaps, and no possibility of motion. This is clearly not the case; otherwise life could not have risen from such a scenario. Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE to have motion without space. It is ontologically impossible for any entity, including a God or a Singularity, to exist or have any sort of presence without the background of space contouring it and giving it form.
So now that we have rationally explained why the existence of matter is necessarily dependent upon space, we have shown that space precedes matter and that space precedes motion. So the next question is:
Q: Can we have motion without matter (matterless motion)?
That matter precedes motion is not only rational, but it is an ontological contradiction to posit that motion precedes matter in any way. Exactly what is going to move, nothingness? Motion is a property restricted to real objects that have ‘location’ with respect to all other real objects. Since real objects have ‘shape’ and ‘location’ (i.e. they exist), they are necessarily composed of matter. Can you conceive of any entity, including a God, a spirit, an angel, a ghost, or a Singularity, invisible or otherwise, which does not have shape and structure, and which is not composed of matter? I bet you anything that you cannot. If you disagree then please describe such an entity in detail with positive predicates. Only space (nothing) can be described with negative predication.
Motion necessitates a “change in location”. This means that ‘location’ PRECEDES ‘motion’. But ‘location’ can only be realized when there are two or more objects in the Universe, that is, matter must be present. Therefore it is only matter which can ultimately have motion. Matterless motion is impossible!