H
henrikhank
Guest
Any theologians/philosophers who spoke about creatio originas (instead of creatio continua)?
Does the Church even accept creatio originas?
Does the Church even accept creatio originas?
- Status
C
chefmomster2
Guest
I googled “creatio originas” and I could not even find a definition, although there was a long list of results for “creatio continua”. Could you explain it please?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The Church teachs had has defined Dogmatically that God created all orders of beings, the material and the spiritual, in time, out of nothing. In other words the Church teaches that the world had an absolute beginning in time and when the world did not exist, only God existed.
But most Catholic philosphers have, since the time of Thomas Aquinas, held that as far as the evidence offered from nature or science and through philosophy, God could have been continually creating the world. A situation which would be required in an Aristotelian or Platonic universe. See, The Eternity of the World by Thomas Aquinas ( dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm ).
Linus2nd
A
Anselm33
Guest
Creation Orgina would be a deistic point of view–i.e. a Creator who started everything up and then just let it run. This point of view became fashionable during the Enlightment, with the notion that the universe was just a materialistic mechanism that ran according to physical law. Quantum mechanics has pretty much contravened that idea, since non-determinism is a basic aspect of quantum mechanics. I prefer to believe that God continually maintains the physical laws that keep the universe going.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Can you provide link? Would you mind parsing " Origina " ?
I was commenting on the assumption that the O.P. had his Latin all mixed up and just assumed he was asking the teaching of the Church on the notion of " creation in time out of nothing. "
Linus2nd
H
henrikhank
Guest
Creatio origina is the opposite of creatio continua, isn’t it?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Your Latin is incorrect, " Creatio " is a noun, , singular, nomnative, and there is no " oriigina," and if there was it would be a noun anyway. Ditto, " originas. " But in that case it would be a verb, 2nd person singular, active voice, indicative mood - and that would make no sense. So why don’t you give us what you want to say in English. At this point we don’t know what you are trying to say. So just tell us, in English, what your point is.
Linus2nd
A
Anselm33
Guest
My Latin goes back 70 years to high school, so I was using “origina” as “origin” (sp?)
in time. Anyhow, the link for my thoughts on the Enlightenment giving rise to deism vs. theism are concisely put in a wikipedia article: I believe that St. Thomas put forward the Creation at a point in time could not be proven, although he thought it to be true, but that in any case, even if the universe was eternal, it was still created ex nihilo. There are several web reference to this but a helpful one has been given by Max Andrews. There’s a good comment by Eric Rosenfield on St. Augustine’s view that God is outside of time, and trying to reconcile that notion with the universe being created at a point in time. The various points related to quantum mechanics and the deity might be pursued by following links given in posts in my blog, Reflections of a Catholic Scientist.
Hope this answers your question.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
This is exactly what I said in post 3 above. The deism position is definitely condemned in the eyes of the Chruch. Is that what you were wondering.
Also, post 7, " Your Latin is incorrect, " Creatio " is a noun, , singular, nomnative, and there is no " oriigina," and if there was it would be a noun anyway. Ditto, " originas. " But in that case it would be a verb, 2nd person singular, active voice, indicative mood - and that would make no sense. So why don’t you give us what you want to say in English. At this point we don’t know what you are trying to say. So just tell us, in English, what your point is. "
If you are blogging, it would be well to use correct Latin, if you use it at all.
Linus2nd
A
Anselm33
Guest
I don’t use Latin in my blogs except in quotes. For example:
“Non in dialectica placuit Deo salvum facere populum suum” (“It is not by ar*guing that God chose to save His people”). St. Ambrose
H
henrikhank
Guest
Then what is the opposite of creatio continua?
H
henrikhank
Guest
How can creatio continua be true if we have a God who rested on the 7th day?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It is not true. Some of the ancient philosophers thought the world was eternal. Thomas Aquinas, for the sake of argument, assumed an eternal world to which he addressed his Five Ways. He even has a treatise called On the Eternity of the World in which he argued that a continuous creation, assuming an eternal world, was not repugnant to reason.
However we must distinguish between the methods of philosophy and the Truth of Revelation. We accept an absolute creation of the universe in time from nothing as an Article of Faith, based on Divine Revelation. Thomas believed this also. He was a man of Faith, he never doubted this teaching.
Linus2nd
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
How could the universe be both eternal and created?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You will have to read On the Eternity World yourself and see what you can make of it. But I will say if it were impossible then you would be left with a universe that owed is sufficient reason for being to itself. And that would mean that something existed that did not owe its existence to God. Of course we are speaking of hypotheticals here, since we know that the Universe had an actual beginning which it owes to God.How could the universe be both eternal and created?
Linus2nd
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
In his Summa contra Gentiles Aquinas lists both the arguments for and the arguments against the eternity of the world. In both cases he shows that the arguments are logically inconclusive. In that respect he uses a technique Kant would later use when Kant listed the traditional arguments for God and the arguments against God and found both sets of arguments producing a stalemate. Pascal concurred with Kant in this regard. Kant broke the stalemate with his argument for the existence of conscience as a proof for God, and Pascal broke the stalemate with his wager argument (which does not prove the existence of God but that it is necessary to choose **the existence of God…
What can be said, since the time of Aquinas, is that the argument against the eternity of the universe has at the very least gotten a boost from the Big Bang theory. While scientifically it can be hypothesized (without proof) that a multiverse might have existed before the universe, it can with substantial proof be said that our particular world did have a beginning in time nearly 14 billion years ago.
What can be said, since the time of Aquinas, is that the argument against the eternity of the universe has at the very least gotten a boost from the Big Bang theory. While scientifically it can be hypothesized (without proof) that a multiverse might have existed before the universe, it can with substantial proof be said that our particular world did have a beginning in time nearly 14 billion years ago.
B
Bahman
Guest
The origin for creation is anomalous since we think of causality as absolute truth hence we need the concept of God to have something, namely creation, out of nothing. The existence of God however cannot be doubt in this picture since we assign all our ignorance about existence to it! What if the causal picture we have about the universe just apply on what we see on the surface and deep under beneath nothing is causal at all!? We already know that causality is not real since you cannot possibly put free will and causality in the same box! This means that either free will or causality is false, in first case we are not free, in the second case, our picture of causal universe. What if we try to accept a mixed picture that neither free will nor causality are true in different scheme? What God is in this picture, I will leave it to you but I am sure we cannot go very far if we stick to old traditional pictures.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Why not. God gave us a soul with an intellect and a free will. He is therefore, the cause of our free will. The free will is moved to act ( caused to act ) by the choices the intellect places before it. So there are three causes of all acts of the will: God, the creator, choices placed before the intellect, and the intellect itself.
Linus2nd
B
Bahman
Guest
Once you accept that free will is real and it is non-causal then you are having a little problem with causality and the picture that something so called God caused everything. Needless to say that the concept of God is necessary when we accept the causality as the main principle then argue about how creation came to existence. Once the main principle is gone then the argument based on that is wrong.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
My position was that of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, etc, the philosophical argument these and other Christian men and women have argued for over a thousand years. Of course it has been disputed nearly as long. However, it happens that it is also the teaching of the Catholic Church. Your own position leaves man in the condition of a mechanical robat. That is unreasonable and incoherent and contrary to life experiences.
Linus2nd
- Status