The physics of nothing and the philosophy of nothing - or - scientific nothing and philosophical nothing: two different things.

philosophy of nothing — tim wood

Thank you for input, very useful!
I found some definition of philosophical nothing as follows:

It’s a state in which everything is not self-identical. If for all x, x is unequal to x; that sentence in logic describes a state of nothingness. It doesn’t help the imagination, but it doesn’t give rise to any contradictions. It can only be true if nothing exists, because if anything exists, it equals itself.

Therefore philosophical nothing is not limited by absence of material things but anything that can be described, while scientific nothing deals strictly with material things.

If so, can we say absence of God is valid for philosophical nothing but not for scientific nothing? (Since God is not material thing, but it could be)

"If first there is nothing", notice that this is not saying anything. It's saying what is not (already coming from our knowledge of something). Don't use a mental image in place of the concept of nothing, because nothing as an idea has validity only when there is something as well. Is there is nothing at all, then this is outside of something and is worthless unless it does something to something.

My 2 cents

The physicists' references are to the 'vacuum', whose zero-point rest energy is not zero. This Permanent thing is the source of all; 'god' is not required.

Is there is nothing at all, then this is outside of something and is worthless unless it does something to something. — Gregory

Well said, so nothing is not something and as such can't do anything to produce something.

The physicists' references are to the 'vacuum', whose zero-point rest energy is not zero. This Permanent thing — PoeticUniverse

I can understand vacuum to be "nothing" because that's absence of matter, but why would zero-point energy be considered "nothing"?

I suppose that energy is necessary for creation, in any case it sounds more realistic than "infinitely dense mass"

... 'god' is not required. — PoeticUniverse

:up:

Think of it as an unscientific motive :wink:

Because why would scientist be bothered by God? as if the ultimate goal is to disprove God rather than discover creation - unscientific.

We know God can be described and has properties, since nothing also excludes things such virtual particles and the laws physics which are not physical things therefore I guess nothing also means absence of God. — SpaceDweller

That's the problem with Krauss' theory of a "Universe From Nothing". His so-called "nothing" paradigm omits the metaphysical Bible-God, but retains such metaphysical "non-things" as Space-Time & Natural Laws & Quantum Fields. Those are all imaginary human ideas about the world, not empirical things in the world. So, he is attributing miraculous creative properties to those immaterial concepts, even as he dismisses the god-theory as a discredited ancient paradigm. However, I suspect that -- as a scientist -- he doesn't believe in philosophical Metaphysics. So, no problem. :joke:


PS___Ironically, Krauss is aware of an anomaly in the Cosmic Microwave Background, that seems to contradict the Copernican principle that there's nothing special about Earth relative to the whole cosmos. That recent discovery was labelled "The Axis of Evil" because the "plane" of the CMB, seems to align, for no apparent reason, with the "ecliptic" of our solar system. That astronomical fact does not fit into the conventional atheistic belief system of most cosmologists. Hence -- Evil. :sad:

Copernican Mediocrity :
“The "Axis of Evil" is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance – a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle. . . . "   

"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun – the plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”
___Lawrence Krauss     Cosmologist

The physicists' references are to the 'vacuum', whose zero-point rest energy is not zero. This Permanent thing is the source of all; 'god' is not required. — PoeticUniverse

The all-encompassing Vacuum, with un-bounded creative energy, that is capable of creating a world from "nothing", sounds like a modern version of an ancient non-anthro-morphic monotheistic God-Theory, such as the Hindu Brahman. That's also the god-model of Western Deism. :smile:

Brahman : the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". . . . . the cause of all changes
Note -- Energy is assumed to be the cause of all physical changes in matter, yet is not a material substance itself.

Assume the lack of God and assume that's the scientific presumption. Assume, assume, assume: Science.

That's the problem with Krauss' theory of a "Universe From Nothing". His so-called "nothing" paradigm omits the metaphysical Bible-God, but retains such metaphysical "non-things" as Space-Time & Natural Laws & Quantum Fields. Those are all imaginary human ideas about the world, not empirical things in the world. So, he is attributing miraculous creative properties to those immaterial concepts, even as he dismisses the god-theory as a discredited ancient paradigm. — Gnomon

Indeed, I find it simply put biased, it begs infinity which by it's nature can't lead to finite conclusions no matter how far you go.

Assume, assume, assume — theRiddler

Assume nobody assumes. :smile:

Why bother to challenge god? We do not directly experience god, so science can not define god. It is what is written about God that demands our scrutiny. I believe there are physical laws that are true for the whole universe and beyond. But no holy book gives us a good explanation of them. Holy books give us mythology and these mythologies are questionable.

What's interesting in this video is "we can't prove something out of nothing but it's plausible". I would find something out of nothing more "plausible" if he just dint say that but OK.

I'm correlating "something out of nothing" to big bang.
Big bang is good theory about creation but not God, for example Big bang doesn't exclude probability of God because it doesn't say anything about what was there before big bang.
Something out of nothing however is much more aggressive in that definition of nothing also means absence of God, that is before something there was nothing, not even God.

On the other side proving or disproving something out of nothing is equally difficult as proving or disproving God.

Your opinions? — SpaceDweller

I don't think the theory of nothing really says much about whether "God" exists or not other than it may help explain the universe without using religion or "God" which may help undermine religion (or at least Abrahamic religions) in some way.

I could be wrong but I believe somewhere there is some kind of process theory or something like it that goes along the lines of this, that everything that exist is the result of some previous "process" which itself was created or the result of some other process and so on and so forth to some point to some indefinite past that we have no idea of. How this is even possible is basically left unexplained partly because it is more or less a given that we can only try our universe back to a certain time and the time beyond that the state of the world or universe is beyond our understanding. This concept of how things are basically states that it is virtually impossible for things to "pop" into existence without some pre-existing thing/process to create it and it is just as impossible for something to "pop" out of existence. However, this does not mean that things that we observe can't APPEAR to pop in and out of existence due to processes that we are not aware of.

If your having problems understanding a "process" you can think of it as any size body of matter/energy or whatever that exists in a state of flux. Take for example a match stick, it is in one state before it is lit and after you strike it, it, the effort to strike it, the air around, changes it to another state. The change of a unlit match to a lit one is a "process". When you look at things not as just matter but processes you have to pay a little more attention to the state of changes of matter more then just as what they appear before you at any given moment.

Where this gets a little tricky (or at least for those that believe in gods, "God", or anything along those lines) is if this is true of all matter then is this true about "God" or other supernatural beings? The answer is simply yes, because process theory (or whatever it is called) says that both "supernatural" and natural things (or natural things that we believe to be supernatural) are all still regulated by simple process theory. Or a simpler way to put it, we have NO knowledge or experience with ANY supernatural matter or beings that can violate this rule; and because we don't know of any it is a given that we can say that they simply do not exist until it is proven otherwise. Of course it is also a given that it is IMPOSSILE to prove that there is any "supernatural" thing because anything that we observe that seems to "pop" in and/or out of existence (even sub-atomic particles) may either be created or transformed by processes we can not observe.

I also believe this more or less in line in what is defined in the laws of thermodynamics where matter/energy can only move or pass through one or more systems and can not just "magically" appear somehow. On the Wikipedia page about the first law of thermodynamics it states:

First law of thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics :

"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body's state, called internal energy.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed".


If you ever hear of the unmoved mover theory (ie the idea that "God" created everything from nothing) the process theory, first law of thermodynamics, and more or less the Münchhausen trilemma as well state that the unmoved mover is IMPOSSILE from what we know about the world around us and in all likely hood based on pure fiction and not fact.

Münchhausen trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

I don''t know if this answers your question but I hope it helps. :D

To me, describing "very little" as nothing is an attempt to jump the theistic gun, hoping there's no room for God in "very little," but of course there is as we have no idea how long it could have endured to have time to come from anywhere, or...even what time is.

So it seems disingenuous to imply anything can really be nothing. It's impossible to conceive of nothing without never having existed at all, and even then.

I think to blame is how superstitious religion has been over the years. Some scientists have the unfortunate propensity to conflate that with the notion of a higher power or higher order of existence, if not totally "God" itself.

I don't see why we ought to close our minds to the possibility that this universe works, at least, in tandem with higher levels of intelligent awareness.

If you ever hear of the unmoved mover theory (ie the idea that "God" created everything from nothing) the process theory, first law of thermodynamics, and more or less the Münchhausen trilemma as well state that the unmoved mover is IMPOSSILE from what we know about the world around us and in all likely hood based on pure fiction and not fact. — dclements

I was able to grasp all 3, but unmoved mover makes me go crazy because I can't see anything that would contradict God, mainly because Aristotel seems to be focused on material kind of "cause" as if the "mover" has to be both material and stationary.

For example:

"nothing comes from nothing". The cosmological argument, later attributed to Aristotle, thereby draws the conclusion that God exists. However, if the cosmos had a beginning, Aristotle argued, it would require an efficient first cause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
Implies that for God in order to create something out of nothing needs matter to do so. :confused:

Similarly the process theory and first law of thermodynamics both require such condition.
This requirement(s) contradicts God, but the key why is because as you said:

IMPOSSILE from what we know about the world around us

I don''t know if this answers your question but I hope it helps. :D — dclements

Indeed interesting, thanks!

To me, describing "very little" as nothing is an attempt to jump the theistic gun, hoping there's no room for God in "very little — theRiddler

No on contrary! God doesn't need something to create something because it would depend on something, which is then no longer God.

Implies that for God in order to create something out of nothing needs matter to do so. — SpaceDweller

That would be true if the First Cause or Prime Mover created something new from pre-existing raw material as human creators do. Humans are able to create imaginary Utopias without getting their hands dirty with material stuff. But they don't know how to create worlds from scratch, even in theory. So, in order to explain the sudden appearance of our space-time world, from behind a veil of ignorance, we must assume that the Cause was super-human in some meaningful sense.

So the best something-from-nothing theory I'm aware of postulates an immaterial Cause, who can conjure-up Actual enformed matter from raw Information (Potential). Einstein showed mathematically (E=MC^2) that it could be done, in theory. And scientists have transformed matter into energy (atomic bomb), but the reverse, making matter from energy, seems possible, yet remains elusive. Moreover, it cannot, even in theory, be done from scratch (no prexisting material), Therefore, the First Cause must be assumed to have creative powers beyond current human abilities.

That's why, to this day, the Big Bang Theory sounds more like Magic than Thermodynamic Science. So, maybe our explanation for creation should at least consider the possibility of an invisible Magician of some kind. Perhaps the ancient notion of a super-human god might still make sense, in view of our inability to imagine something-from-nothing, without cheating to define "nothing" in terms of something physical. :confused:

Can we manufacture matter? :
So yes, humans can manufacture matter. We can turn light into subatomic particles, but even the best scientists can't create something out of nothing.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/can-we-manufacture-matter.htm

The Prime Mover argument says that whether we extend the past to infinity by days, or by fractions in the way Zeno would divide his segment, the infinity needs a completion, unless it is a "spurious infinity" (one that cannot resolve itself, find it's center, and stay coherent). It would be like saying 4+5=blank, with no completion. If we say that the world is a mystical reality, the place where Forms really do exist, the infinities of reality can resolve themselves. It's not just an argument for God, but can be an argument for mysticism without God. There is something that makes us go "huh?" if we say the series of motions are just eternal, or if we say time and motion start at the Big Bang by an emergence of all the forces in a prior eternal state. If it wasn't for a pesty reality of a "beginning" materialism would seem perfectly consistent.

making matter from energy, seems possible, yet remains elusive. — Gnomon

I think they can make energy from matter with nuclear power, but yes this is not something from absolutely nothing

It is the height of arrogance to think that our ability to imagine nothing somehow transmogrifies it into something. Like a quantum bit being where it is because we saw it there. It does, of course, but it also does not. Both.

Either way, that does not render an inconsistency with God. It is God. And not. Which is God. Likewise with an unstable nothing.

Side bar: I think that at ultimate heat death (the opposite of ultimate density, or singularity) each particle and fraction thereof, being so far from any other, as to have no heat nor gravitational effect, will result in the popping in and out of a single virtual particle. Each pop is it's own thing, coming and going.

But it's all All.

The common view on the theory of a universe emerging from nothing is based on the notion of a space in which nothing is present.

There is no such thing and an infinite empty space is just a chimeara.

Now the standard view is like. I might add a bit of personal spice, alas. There was a singularity on which time fluctuated and only a virtual potential was present.

To put it in one short sentence:This virtual potential of kinetic particle fields, surrounding the initial singularity,,
(On which timee fluctuated) creating virtual fields of potential gauge fields, six of which stayed virtual in order to create combinations of two basic,, non-point-like massless particles (the particles being Planck-sized three dimensional spheres, which can be viewed as structures appearing when three dimension of a seven dimensional space are curled up in a seven dimensional one, to give rise to a six dimensional space, in which the extended part forms extended physical space we see in the cosmos and daily life, while the curled-up part represents tiny particles, wrongly assumed to be point- or string-like particles, giving rise to problems like renormalization, although string-theory seems to successfully have solved this problem in the context of quantum gravity, but the problems there wouldn't have arisen in the first place if the view of particles I gave would have been adopted in the first place, giving a coherent picture of the connection between curved spacetime and gravitons, laying at the base of the problems) giving rise to massive quarks and leptons, which furnished the the so needed massive matter to stop the inflation, giving a firm positive touch to the negative curvature which pulled (pushed would be a better word, since negative curvature of space give rise to anti-gravity, making matter accelerate away from each other,; a negative curvature being present on the singularity, corresponding to dark energy and inflation, the bang of the big bang) was pushed into real existence by the dark-energy-like negative curvature of the singularity, being a seven dimensional negatively curved structure, after which inflation stopped due to the reality of the particles pushed into existence.

At the same time,in this cute tale, a mirror universe emerged on the other side of the singularity, explaining the absence of anti-matter on "our side" (though both contain equal amounts of real matter and anti-matter basi kinetic matter fields, which only when combined give tha quarks and leptons on our side and the anit-counterparts on the mirrored side).

The rest is history. Primordial black holes formed the so needed dark matter to structuring galaxies, and planetary systems around the whole universe to let life evolve on rotating planets. Which eventually led to me writing this story.

People like Richard Dawkins tell us the story that all living creatures are vessels operating in a way to prolongation their selfish genes. In the case of th human vessel he speaks of memes. Now that may be a metaphore, giving rise to the "Central Dogma in Biology" (it's seriously called like that! Evidence for it, I.e. organisms themselves not being able to influence their genes, is non-existing though), but genes could just as well be called altruistic, giving organisms a way to live. Calling them egoistic conveys a certain attitude, somehow. Giving rise to pictures (litterally) of people as puppets on the strings of genes floating above them... What a depressing picture I see a lion, surrounded by a moody pack of hyenas. They viciously bite the lion where they can, over and over again. The lion gets desperate. Then a fellow lion arrives, to come to the rescue. The hyenas flee tail-withdrawnly. The lion that has regained freedom joyfully runs and plays with the lion that gave freedom. I'm sure this can be fit in the frame of the "selfish gene", but can't we just as well say that it was empathy or maybe even love, to use a rather grandiose word?

What will the future bring? Probably (though I am sure) a big rip, in which all kinetic matter field fields are stretched out, or at least the potential real photon fields, after all black holes have radiated all their kinetic matter (and their information) away in the form of Hawking radiation.

I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing.

We do not directly experience god, so science can not define god. It is what is written about God that demands our scrutiny. — Athena

I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. — Jack Cummins

To find fallacy in scriptures is as impossible as "disproving" God, one of the reasons why for example are contradictions that are subject to interpretation and then you're are subject to opinion of others.
Also I don't think anyone can rely on it's own interpretation only, because then there is no guarantee to be free of fallacy.
Since ancient times understanding of scriptures was always accompanied by someone who understands them.
So where is the proof?
Even if you somehow manage to find it who is going to believe you anyway? (Your sect right?)

I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe — Jack Cummins

Agree, I think if it's not absence of a thing that exists in reality then it's fake, as @Gnomon said:

We can turn light into subatomic particles, but even the best scientists can't create something out of nothing.

It is the height of arrogance to think that our ability to imagine nothing somehow transmogrifies it into something — James Riley

lol yes, it's not even possible to imagine :up:

I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing. — Jack Cummins

That appears to be the reasoning of some Cosmologists, who propose that Something (matter-energy) emerged from No-thing (which was nothing-but formless Aristotelian Potential). Thus, they can assume that some-Thing has always existed, which simply recycles its stuff from one world to another in the tower-of-turtles we call "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds". Since those other invisible & intangible worlds are separated from our material world by an abyss-of-ignorance (space-time boundary), we can't "observe" them, so can only imagine them. That same something-from-nothing reasoning allows hard-nosed scientists to rationalize an invisible intangible Field, from which particular somethings (e.g. elementary particles) emerge at random, for no particular reason.

However, the same Hyperbolic Logic is also used for arguments in favor of various super-natural (or hyper-natural) world-makers. Some imagine humanoid deities, or aliens, as living in parallel universes. But even those imaginary godlets don't have to create new worlds from scratch, since the Potential for un-realized worlds has always existed. Hence, we are forced to conclude that something must have always existed, even if its not a thing in our local Reality. In that manner, we can always extend the tower-of-turtles one step further back closer to infinity. Yet, such asymptotic "what-if" reasoning gets us no closer to complete final understanding. So, that may be why Aristotle avoided speculating on a Real Creator, and merely postulated an Ideal First Cause, or Prime Mover. In that case, philosophers can still argue hypotheticals, as-if those ideals were real, without violating common sense.

That's also why my "G*D" conjecture is not portrayed as Real in any real-world sense. He/she/it only exists in eternal Potential -- like an infinite field of possibilities. And the only function of such a postulate is to extend our reasoning one step beyond the inexplicable Big Bang magical moment. :chin:

Platonic Form :
Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms

I was able to grasp all 3, but unmoved mover makes me go crazy because I can't see anything that would contradict God, mainly because Aristotel seems to be focused on material kind of "cause" as if the "mover" has to be both material and stationary.

For example:

"nothing comes from nothing". The cosmological argument, later attributed to Aristotle, thereby draws the conclusion that God exists. However, if the cosmos had a beginning, Aristotle argued, it would require an efficient first cause — SpaceDweller

Either you are misreading something or I am and I'm fairly certain that I'm not. As far as I can tell the page your refencing says that ONLY nothing can come from nothing which more or less states that the same thing as something can ONLY be created from something which is no different then what I have been saying.

According to everything that has been written about GOD, he is a thing that was never made by anything (ie he was either created by nothing or all that which has been written about him is a lie) and he is a thing/force/process/whatever that doesn't need anything to allow for him to exist. In essence a GOD or unmoved mover requires something that can only be on the order of "supernatural" because it violates your "nothing from nothing" idea, process theory, Laws of Thermodynamics, and may other things as well.

If you believe GOD in the way that Abrahamic religions preach that he exists then you simply accept that the he (as well as the possibility of some of his angels or whatever he has serving him) are SUPERNATURAL, and just go about your merry way. If you believe that there are no supernatural beings or things then you simply can not agree with the way that Abahamic religions describe how he exists. If there is another way to perceive or argue this thing I'm unaware of it, nor can I imagine it ..but then again I have problems with migraines and my head is killing me right so I'm not too surprised that my powers of imagination can not conjure up one or more ways to approach this issue at the moment. I think I'm gonna go find me an aspirin or something.

OFF TOPIC :
My internet connection is slow & erratic today. Anybody else notice the slow responses? A Google search didn't find any experts blaming it on the current Solar Storm. But, since Something doesn't come from Nothing, that will be my assumption until I find some other deity to pin it on. :joke:

Dark matter is an example of science assuming some thing instead of nothing

Hence, we are forced to conclude that something must have always existed, even if its not a thing in our local Reality. In that manner, we can always extend the tower-of-turtles one step further back closer to infinity. — Gnomon

1. This Permanent Thing would be local everywhere, as it is before and after our universe and during. Further, as it's the only thing, its rearrangements are it too; even we are it.

2. The elementaries formed of its initial arrangements are all identical within their types, which again indicates formation, plus it doesn't matter all that much if and when they form and which one gets used to make a composite since any one of them can get used and some will always be around.

The elementaries can be long lasting events and are near-things since they are identical to themselves over a long time, but presumably they are temporary.

From here on up to simple atoms to stars to more atoms to molecules, etc., all seems to become more and more temporary.

3. The elementaries are tiny lightweights, which shows that what formed them is also lightweight.

4. Thus, the Permanent is simple.

5.?

Either you are misreading something or I am and I'm fairly certain that I'm not. As far as I can tell the page your refencing says that ONLY nothing can come from nothing which more or less states that the same thing as something can ONLY be created from something which is no different then what I have been saying. — dclements

Fabulous, while it's conceptual truth that only nothing can come out of nothing, the opposite such that only something can come out of something is however false because nothing can come out of something as well as something.

In essence a GOD or unmoved mover requires something that can only be on the order of "supernatural" — dclements

Which is the only reasonable explanation of "natural something" out of "natural nothing".
Because, the opposite such that natural something come out of natural nothing (in absence of supernatural) is false because it would violate the "unmoved mover" theory.

In any case I'm not sure whether "natural" and "supernatural" are appropriate words to differentiate.

That's the problem with Krauss' theory of a "Universe From Nothing". His so-called "nothing" paradigm omits the metaphysical Bible-God, but retains such metaphysical "non-things" as Space-Time & Natural Laws & Quantum Fields. — Gnomon

For science, the nonphysical = nonexistence.
— TheMadFool

This premise is false. Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist. Your statement would pertain truly to the "life sciences", though, but only if taken in isolation (meaning, I'm sure that Biologists and Chemists believe that force and energy exist, even though considerations thereof do not generally pertain to their work). — Michael Zwingli

Fabulous, while it's conceptual truth that only nothing can come out of nothing, the opposite such that only something can come out of something is however false because nothing can come out of something as well as something. — SpaceDweller

No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing.

One can say it is possible for a "supernatural process"( a process that breaks one or more of the physical laws that have applied to every natural process that human have observed throughout history)
to create something from nothing but you CAN NOT state with any authority that something CAN come from nothing from either a "supernatural process" or otherwise because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something can come from nothing.

Trying to prove something can come from nothing would be even more difficult than trying to prove there is a "God" because you would have not only have to show that no visible process created the thing that seemed to be created out of nothing but you would also have to prove that there is no invisible/ unknowable processes responsible for creating it either so you are completely SOL if you want to try to go down that path and say that know that no invisible/ unknowable processes created the thing that you claim that was created from nothing because anyone hearing would know that you are either a fool who doesn't know what he was talking about and/or a crackpot.

So in a nutshell one can say it is "possible" for a supernatural process to create something from nothing, but one CAN NOT say that it is a given that something can be created from nothing through a supernatural process or otherwise with any authority behind that statement because anyone hearing that would know that statement is false.

In any case I'm not sure whether "natural" and "supernatural" are appropriate words to differentiate. — SpaceDweller

They are VERY important words to differentiate for a skeptic/rational/scientific/philosopher type person. More or less it is a given that "supernatural" processes do not exist and as I explained above it is also a given that one can not even prove that "supernatural processes" exist no matter how hard they try.

If you go to a library there are sections labeled "FICTION" and "NON-FICTION". In fictional books one is allowed to talk about "supernatural" like processes like kids flying on broomsticks or a teenage farmboy fighting intergalactic evil with only the force because the books are merely fantasy and not reality. However in the non-fiction side, one is not allowed to write about books about "supernatural" processes as lightly because they are not supposed to mere flights of fancy but more about aligned with the truth.

And at the crux of this divide in western society is where the teachings of Abrahamic religions should be placed. For centuries they have been considered the truth beyond all truth, yet they often don't have to face the scrutiny that other writing have had to in order for them to be labeled NON-FICTION instead of FICTION. Understanding how and why there is this difference, why other religions and folk-lore are labeled as fiction but Abrahamic religions are not, and what this means for atheists/agnostics, followers of Abrahamic religions, and everyone else is fairly important.

In a nutshell the natural/"supernatural" process and fiction/non-fiction divide is one of the wedges used by atheist/agnostic/skeptics to undermine and/or challenge the notion that there is a "God" since it is many ways it is crazy talk to just assume there "supernatural" being named "God" when it is a given to assume that kids can fly on brooms using magic or farm boys can defeat an entire army if they are able to use the force.

There is a reality we know about that consists of natural processes called reality and there may be a reality that consists of "supernatural" processes that we know nothing about. However because we know nothing about it, it is a given that no one (not even church leaders) can claim they have knowledge of it without being a crackpot and/or fool to those that really know what they are talking about.

I believe this problem has been expressed in C.S Lewis's "Lewis's trilemma" as he explains that one is a "mad man" if one claims to know that there is a "God" and for that God not to exist.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity

The problem with this admission of this issue is not only does it not help prove that there is a "God" in any way is that C.S. Lewis is admitting the great problems for any society to put their faith and trust in a "God" that doesn't exist...or in C/S Lewis's own words we live in a society filled with people who are on the level of lunacy where they are really no different than those who are the on the level as a man who tries to claim that he is a poached egg

Hopefully this help's explain some of the importance of why one needs to differentiate between what we natural consider to be natural processes and what might be "supernatural" process, that is if even supernatural processes even exist.

Lewis's trilemma
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lewis_Trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma