Creation ex nihilo and the "Square Circle" question

[Pieman333272]

When atheists ask if God can create a square circle, theists usually reply that his omnipotence is within the laws of logic. When it is then questioned how God can break natural laws (i.e. Jesus walking on water), it is observed that they are not constant or equal to the laws of logic. This I agree with. But what about only nothing coming from nothing? Is that not a constant, logical law which God breaks? So then, doesn’t that either bring back the “square circle” problem or mean he can’t perform creation ex nihilo?

 

[Sair]

I am aware of a couple of arguments that seem, in my view, to defeat the philosophical idea of God’s omnipotence, if understood as the ability to do anything. The first is the more obvious argument that God cannot create anything logically impossible, even though God is supposed to have created the laws of logic; the second is that there must have been some natural regularities in place before God could even have embarked upon the act of creation - if whatever God wills comes about, this is a law of the universe. This is not a law that God himself could have decreed, since in order for it to obtain, it would have to have been in place before God decreed it.

 

[tonyrey]

I am aware of a couple of arguments that seem, in my view, to defeat the philosophical idea of God’s omnipotence, if understood as the ability to do anything. The first is the more obvious argument that God cannot create anything logically impossible, even though God is supposed to have created the laws of logic…

Not all the laws of logic are created by God. Some stem from His nature and existence. For example, it is impossible for Him (or anything or anyone for that matter) to exist and not to exist because it is a self-contradiction. Similarly God cannot destroy Himself, not because His power is limited but because Self-destruction is inconsistent with being “He Who Is”, i.e. the Ultimate Being. It was a remarkable insight for primitive Jews to discover the essential nature of God - and a very good reason to believe in divine inspiration.

…the second is that there must have been some natural regularities in place before God could even have embarked upon the act of creation - if whatever God wills comes about, this is a law of the universe. This is not a law that God himself could have decreed, since in order for it to obtain, it would have to have been in place before God decreed it.

As God was not obliged to create the universe there were no natural regularities in place! He could have created a totally different form of existence of which we have no inkling. Before God created anything the only facts that existed were spiritual facts like Love which emanate from Him …

 

[WoundedIcon]

Christ is the Logos, which means that Christ is Logic, He embodies the principal - the laws this universe operates upon are based in God’s nature itself. Anything that would break these laws (not bend them like miracles) would violate God’s nature itself. Since that violation is impossible so His omnipotence is bound, humanly speaking.

Something tells me that creation ex-nihilo only refers to pre-existent material in the physical realm. I don’t think it would be incorrect to say that God, as the Self-Existent One/Necessary Being, could logically create things out of His infinite store of power - things that are dependent on Him for their being.

Hebrews 1:3 “Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power…” etc.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Since nobody has answered your question to my satisfaction, i will try. I have in the past attempted to show how God creates out of nothing without contradiction. Continuously people have failed to comprehend. Perhaps this is knowledge that God allows to only a few people. I should point out that what is essentially meant by ex-nihilo is that God does not create out of actual physical materials that already exist. Also, peoples failure to understand creation ex-nihilo is rooted in today’s rejection of Aquinas’s metaphysics, or rather peoples failure to fully understand it.

Out of nothing comes nothing. This is an absolute fact which is impossible to overcome without throwing reason and the very idea of impossibility entirely out the window. Thus the theist cannot hide from the problem that ex nihilo raises; that is if they value a rational faith. In fact ex-nihilo does not involve creating a new “existence” out of nothing, as this would prove to be impossible, but rather it involves the actuality of potential essences, and this is achieved by coupling the nature that is “existence” (pure eternal actuality) with the abstract idea of some possible thing or essence in Gods knowledge. By God having perfect knowledge of himself, God is able to know all possible things (which, before becoming actual, exist as abstract objects), and through his eternal love God wills and shares his nature (existence) with his knowledge of those abstract things.

Of course, you would have to understand that existence is a “nature” (eternally actual) in which and through which possible or potential things have their actuality and are sustained.

Of course this would seem to the uninitiated like pantheism or panentheism. I cannot blame them for thinking so. But here we are not saying that all things are God, but rather we are saying that there is and only has ever been “one” existence through which all potential **essences **have their being. But there are many distinct essences in reality that are not intrinsic to Gods nature. If all things were God, they would have always existed in Gods intrinsic nature, never having a beginning and never changing, since they are by nature “existence”. However, Gods intrinsic nature cannot be identified as a potential or finite being and thus no potential essence is intrinsically God but is instead its own essence and not Gods essence. For example, while God is the being through which the essence of a mouse has actuality, Gods essential and intrinsic nature is not a mouse. The mouse, while actual, is a distinct finite contingent essence, rather than a necessary expression of reality. The two are infinitely distinct, essentially speaking; but they share the same act or esse.

God does not create new existences out of nothing. God creates essences ex-nihilo.

Does anybody understand this?

 

[WoundedIcon]

Since nobody has answered your question to my satisfaction, i will try. I have in the past attempted to show how God creates out of nothing without contradiction. Continuously people have failed to comprehend. Perhaps this is knowledge that God allows to only a few people. I should point out that what is essentially meant by ex-nihilo is that God does not create out of actual physical materials that already exist. Also, peoples failure to understand creation ex-nihilo is rooted in today’s rejection of Aquinas’s metaphysics, or rather peoples failure to fully understand it.

Out of nothing comes nothing. This is an absolute fact which is impossible to overcome without throwing reason and the very idea of impossibility entirely out the window. Thus the theist cannot hide from the problem that ex nihilo raises; that is if they value a rational faith. In fact ex-nihilo does not involve creating a new “existence” out of nothing, as this would prove to be impossible, but rather it involves the actuality of potential essences, and this is achieved by coupling the nature that is “existence” (pure eternal actuality) with the abstract idea of some possible thing or essence in Gods knowledge. By God having perfect knowledge of himself, God is able to know all possible things (which, before becoming actual, exist as abstract objects), and through his eternal love God wills and shares his nature (existence) with his knowledge of those abstract things.

Of course, you would have to understand that existence is a “nature” (eternally actual) in which and through which possible or potential things have their actuality and are sustained.

Of course this would seem to the uninitiated like pantheism or panentheism. I cannot blame them for thinking so. But here we are not saying that all things are God, but rather we are saying that there is and only has ever been “one” existence through which all potential **essences **have their being. But there are many distinct essences in reality that are not intrinsic to Gods nature. If all things were God, they would have always existed in Gods intrinsic nature, never having a beginning and never changing, since they are by nature “existence”. However, Gods intrinsic nature cannot be identified as a potential or finite being and thus no potential essence is intrinsically God but is instead its own essence and not Gods essence. For example, while God is the being through which the essence of a mouse has actuality, Gods essential and intrinsic nature is not a mouse. The mouse, while actual, is a distinct finite contingent essence, rather than a necessary expression of reality. The two are infinitely distinct, essentially speaking; but they share the same act or esse.

God does not create new existences out of nothing. God creates essences ex-nihilo.

Does anybody understand this?

So the “word” in “word of his power” is more-so in the sense of Logos? This is starting to scream quantum physics and “collapsing the wave”. So God designed the things in His mind, brought them into being by sharing His “existing” with them, and then providentially upholds them by the continuance of a form of this process? This kind of fits with modern science. I don’t know about you guys but I believe in theistic evolution and this would well explain how it would function.

I wonder just how much humans can grasp of the spiritual, given this discussion…

Puts a whole new spin on “the will of God”.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When atheists ask if God can create a square circle, theists usually reply that his omnipotence is within the laws of logic. When it is then questioned how God can break natural laws (i.e. Jesus walking on water), it is observed that they are not constant or equal to the laws of logic. This I agree with. But what about only nothing coming from nothing? Is that not a constant, logical law which God breaks? So then, doesn’t that either bring back the “square circle” problem or mean he can’t perform creation ex nihilo?

G-d is the act of existing therefore G-d precedes logic. No G-d. No logic. A squared circle is a contradiction, only because G-d makes it so.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…Does anybody understand this?

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.

 

[JDaniel]

Since nobody has answered your question to my satisfaction, i will try. I have in the past attempted to show how God creates out of nothing without contradiction. Continuously people have failed to comprehend. Perhaps this is knowledge that God allows to only a few people. I should point out that what is essentially meant by ex-nihilo is that God does not create out of actual physical materials that already exist. Also, peoples failure to understand creation ex-nihilo is rooted in today’s rejection of Aquinas’s metaphysics, or rather peoples failure to fully understand it.

Out of nothing comes nothing. This is an absolute fact which is impossible to overcome without throwing reason and the very idea of impossibility entirely out the window. Thus the theist cannot hide from the problem that ex nihilo raises; that is if they value a rational faith. In fact ex-nihilo does not involve creating a new “existence” out of nothing, as this would prove to be impossible, but rather it involves the actuality of potential essences, and this is achieved by coupling the nature that is “existence” (pure eternal actuality) with the abstract idea of some possible thing or essence in Gods knowledge. By God having perfect knowledge of himself, God is able to know all possible things (which, before becoming actual, exist as abstract objects), and through his eternal love God wills and shares his nature (existence) with his knowledge of those abstract things.

Of course, you would have to understand that existence is a “nature” (eternally actual) in which and through which possible or potential things have their actuality and are sustained.

Of course this would seem to the uninitiated like pantheism or panentheism. I cannot blame them for thinking so. But here we are not saying that all things are God, but rather we are saying that there is and only has ever been “one” existence through which all potential **essences **have their being. But there are many distinct essences in reality that are not intrinsic to Gods nature. If all things were God, they would have always existed in Gods intrinsic nature, never having a beginning and never changing, since they are by nature “existence”. However, Gods intrinsic nature cannot be identified as a potential or finite being and thus no potential essence is intrinsically God but is instead its own essence and not Gods essence. For example, while God is the being through which the essence of a mouse has actuality, Gods essential and intrinsic nature is not a mouse. The mouse, while actual, is a distinct finite contingent essence, rather than a necessary expression of reality. The two are infinitely distinct, essentially speaking; but they share the same act or esse.

God does not create new existences out of nothing. God creates essences ex-nihilo.

Does anybody understand this?

Happy Easter, MoM:

You’ve been lifting weights again, I see.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Since nobody has answered your question to my satisfaction, i will try. I have in the past attempted to show how God creates out of nothing without contradiction. Continuously people have failed to comprehend. Perhaps this is knowledge that God allows to only a few people. I should point out that what is essentially meant by ex-nihilo is that God does not create out of actual physical materials that already exist. Also, peoples failure to understand creation ex-nihilo is rooted in today’s rejection of Aquinas’s metaphysics, or rather peoples failure to fully understand it.

Out of nothing comes nothing. This is an absolute fact which is impossible to overcome without throwing reason and the very idea of impossibility entirely out the window. Thus the theist cannot hide from the problem that ex nihilo raises; that is if they value a rational faith. In fact ex-nihilo does not involve creating a new “existence” out of nothing, as this would prove to be impossible, but rather it involves the actuality of potential essences, and this is achieved by coupling the nature that is “existence” (pure eternal actuality) with the abstract idea of some possible thing or essence in Gods knowledge. By God having perfect knowledge of himself, God is able to know all possible things (which, before becoming actual, exist as abstract objects), and through his eternal love God wills and shares his nature (existence) with his knowledge of those abstract things.

Of course, you would have to understand that existence is a “nature” (eternally actual) in which and through which possible or potential things have their actuality and are sustained.

Of course this would seem to the uninitiated like pantheism or panentheism. I cannot blame them for thinking so. But here we are not saying that all things are God, but rather we are saying that there is and only has ever been “one” existence through which all potential **essences **have their being. But there are many distinct essences in reality that are not intrinsic to Gods nature. If all things were God, they would have always existed in Gods intrinsic nature, never having a beginning and never changing, since they are by nature “existence”. However, Gods intrinsic nature cannot be identified as a potential or finite being and thus no potential essence is intrinsically God but is instead its own essence and not Gods essence. For example, while God is the being through which the essence of a mouse has actuality, Gods essential and intrinsic nature is not a mouse. The mouse, while actual, is a distinct finite contingent essence, rather than a necessary expression of reality. The two are infinitely distinct, essentially speaking; but they share the same act or esse.

God does not create new existences out of nothing. God creates essences ex-nihilo.

Does anybody understand this?

I understand this, but it createsa new problem.
Aquinas’ God is thought to be eternal, unchanging and immutable. Yet you claim that God ‘coupled’ his nature with an abstract idea. But coupling ones nature is a change, from a separte nature to a nature couipled with the abstact idea of e.g. a mouse.
Since God is supposed to be changeless, this is impossible.

 

[inocente]

But what about only nothing coming from nothing? Is that not a constant, logical law which God breaks?

Technically “you shall have no other gods before me” implies God bows to nothing including logic.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I understand this, but it createsa new problem.
Aquinas’ God is thought to be eternal, unchanging and immutable. Yet you claim that God ‘coupled’ his nature with an abstract idea. But coupling ones nature is a change, from a separte nature to a nature couipled with the abstact idea of e.g. a mouse.
Since God is supposed to be changeless, this is impossible.

This is a very difficult subject to understand, but it is not due to some kind of ontological impossibility; but it is rather due to the fact that some things are either very difficult to comprehend or are impossible to comprehend due to the finiteness and thus imperfection of the human mind. Now I understand that a timeless creation is certainly counter intuitive, but it is not impossible so long as the nature that causes the existence of the universe has the “sufficient” attributes required to allow such a thing to follow rationally.

In general, I my self at least can comprehend that creation ex nihilo does not require an existential change so long as the cause has a perfect eternal will and mind. My argument was discussing what was involved in the actuality of a new essence, and thus it required me to break it up in to stages, thus giving the illusion of existential progression. However; Gods creativity is a timeless simultaneous act. The existence of God and the creation of the universe is a simultaneous fact that did not take place in time. God has always and timelessly created the universe. The universe, has always existed as a contingent extension of Gods eternal will and creative love. There was not a progression of time in Gods creative act, since time itself is a creation of Gods timeless will to “share” his existence and perfection, for God is eternal love. A perfect mind and will knows perfectly what it will do and what it has done simultaneously. Only an imperfect mind with imperfect knowledge requires change in order to understand what it will do. Time is not something that God experiences because God is perfect and thus exists outside of time. There has never been a time when the universe has not existed or has not been created, and even though from our relative perspective we experience change, the universe from Gods ontological and relative perspective is eternal and complete; that is to say there is no time where God is not timelessly and ontologically present, for God is existence.

Conclusion: The “Block Universe”, as representing all of space and time, is consistent with the idea of a timeless Creator that does not change. This seems even more obvious when taking into account a physical reality with many dimensions. It seems science is certainly on my side regardless of how counter intuitive it may seem.

Obviously this raises more problems such as how to reconcile the obvious fact of change with the idea of a block universe. I think the theory of relativity gives some understanding of that but not a complete one. Again, problems arise around the fact of freewill in a block universe. I see no reason to think that there is an insurmountable logical problem here; just a problem of “human comprehension”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Technically “you shall have no other gods before me” implies God bows to nothing including logic.

Then your God is irrational and meaningless.

 

[danserr]

When atheists ask if God can create a square circle, theists usually reply that his omnipotence is within the laws of logic. When it is then questioned how God can break natural laws (i.e. Jesus walking on water), it is observed that they are not constant or equal to the laws of logic. This I agree with. But what about only nothing coming from nothing? Is that not a constant, logical law which God breaks? So then, doesn’t that either bring back the “square circle” problem or mean he can’t perform creation ex nihilo?

The best way to understand God’s omnipotence is in terms of God’s ability to actualize states of affairs. “square circle” does not describe a state of affairs, it is nonsense, just empty words.

God creating from nothing does not violate the principle of “nothing comes from nothing.” Because it is not coming from nothing, God is creating it. Now, I don’t think that there is any contradiction involved in saying that God creates matter from nothing. Something from nothing would violate a natural law; It is naturally impossible, but since there is no contradiction involved in saying “God creates matter out of nothing” I would say that this is supernaturally possible.

 

[inocente]

Then your God is irrational and meaningless.

But if God is dictated to by logic, He is no longer almighty. And if He’s love then …

 

[belorg]

This is a very difficult subject to understand, but it is not due to some kind of ontological impossibility; but it is rather due to the fact that some things are either very difficult to comprehend or are impossible to comprehend due to the finiteness and thus imperfection of the human mind. Now I understand that a timeless creation is certainly counter intuitive, but it is not impossible so long as the nature that causes the existence of the universe has the “sufficient” attributes required to allow such a thing to follow rationally.

In general, I my self at least can comprehend that creation ex nihilo does not require an existential change so long as the cause has a perfect eternal will and mind. My argument was discussing what was involved in the actuality of a new essence, and thus it required me to break it up in to stages, thus giving the illusion of existential progression. However; Gods creativity is a timeless simultaneous act. The existence of God and the creation of the universe is a simultaneous fact that did not take place in time. God has always and timelessly created the universe. The universe, has always existed as a contingent extension of Gods eternal will and creative love. There was not a progression of time in Gods creative act, since time itself is a creation of Gods timeless will to “share” his existence and perfection, for God is eternal love. A perfect mind and will knows perfectly what it will do and what it has done simultaneously. Only an imperfect mind with imperfect knowledge requires change in order to understand what it will do. Time is not something that God experiences because God is perfect and thus exists outside of time. There has never been a time when the universe has not existed or has not been created, and even though from our relative perspective we experience change, the universe from Gods ontological and relative perspective is eternal and complete; that is to say there is no time where God is not timelessly and ontologically present, for God is existence.

Conclusion: The “Block Universe”, as representing all of space and time, is consistent with the idea of a timeless Creator that does not change. This seems even more obvious when taking into account a physical reality with many dimensions. It seems science is certainly on my side regardless of how counter intuitive it may seem.

Obviously this raises more problems such as how to reconcile the obvious fact of change with the idea of a block universe. I think the theory of relativity gives some understanding of that but not a complete one. Again, problems arise around the fact of freewill in a block universe. I see no reason to think that there is an insurmountable logical problem here; just a problem of “human comprehension”.

If a creator somehow created and/or sustained a block universe, then, like it or not, you are stuck with a a panentheist view of God.

And if you really want to argue for free will, it is obvious that in such universe libertarian free will is impossible. To me, that is an unsurmountable logical problem. because nothing you, I or anyone else thinks, does, decides or whatever can change the block. Moreover, what I think, decide, do… is part of the unchanging block.
The only way to reconcile this with most brands of Christian theism is by repeating the worn-out mantra of ‘God works in mysterious ways’.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If a creator somehow created and/or sustained a block universe, then, like it or not, you are stuck with a a panentheist view of God.

I already refuted this, like it or not. You obviously did not really comprehend the argument since, in your weak assertion above which you invalidly perceive to be some kind of rebuttal, you failed to refer to the primary distinctions by which I refuted panenthesim and pantheism. Thus you cannot possibly know whether or not my argument is right or wrong.

And if you really want to argue for free will, it is obvious that in such universe libertarian free will is impossible.

Its not obvious at all, since many things that seem impossible are really incomprehensible, for example it is self evident that there is change and potentiality in a block universe. It is also self evident that there is freewill. In fact you have already agreed that there is freewill by assuming that you have the freedom to dictate what is rational and not rational to me. Quantum physics has thrown up some apparently irrational things that are certainly counter intuitive.

Unless you want to throw logic out of the window entirely, it would be reasonable of you to recant your claim, or at least express agnosticism.

To me, that is an insurmountable logical problem.

Only if you want it to be. You obviously do, since you have no epistemological authority to state that it is. Once a thing “exists”, and has meaning in that respect, it would be dishonest for us to assume that it will do all that which is comprehensible to us. That which is incomprehensible in some way can sometimes seem illogical. This is evident.

God works in mysterious ways’.

I’m sorry you feel that way. In my honest opinion, If we admit that we have a finite ability to comprehend reality, and that God is by definition absolutely wiser and intelligent than us; then it would be a humble and valid claim to say that it is at least conceivable that God will sometimes do works that are necessarily mysterious to us, and may even appear irrational or impossible given our lack of knowledge.

Only a dishonest or arrogant person would claim otherwise.

 

[belorg]

I already refuted this, like it or not.

If God and the block universe are changeless, then it follows that, either God has nothing at all to do with the block universe or that He really created it out of himself, and so panentheism logically follows.

Its not obvious at all, since many things that seem impossible are really incomprehensible, for example it is self evident that there is change and potentiality in a block universe.

 

[nicragland]

When atheists ask if God can create a square circle, theists usually reply that his omnipotence is within the laws of logic. When it is then questioned how God can break natural laws (i.e. Jesus walking on water), it is observed that they are not constant or equal to the laws of logic. This I agree with. But what about only nothing coming from nothing? Is that not a constant, logical law which God breaks? So then, doesn’t that either bring back the “square circle” problem or mean he can’t perform creation ex nihilo?

Hi there,

This is an excerpt from Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed which relates to your topic:

“Can God make a weight so heavy that he cannot lift it? asks the unbeliever. He feels he has us cornered. If we say “yes,” then God cannot lift it; if we say “no,” then God cannot make it. (The reader might do well to pause here and think out how he would answer this.) Our reply is that God can indeed do all things, but self-contradiction is not a thing. God cannot make a four-sided triangle, because the terms contradict each other and cancel out. A four-sided triangle is meaningless; it is not a thing at all, it is nothing. A weight that an almighty Being cannot lift is as much a contradiction in terms of a four-sided triangle. It too is nothing. And (to give an old text a new emphasis) nothing is impossible to God.”

A great book

God bless,

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Hi there,

This is an excerpt from Theology for Beginners by Frank Sheed which relates to your topic:
“Can God make a weight so heavy that he cannot lift it? asks the unbeliever. He feels he has us cornered. If we say “yes,” then God cannot lift it; if we say “no,” then God cannot make it. (The reader might do well to pause here and think out how he would answer this.) Our reply is that God can indeed do all things, but self-contradiction is not a thing. God cannot make a four-sided triangle, because the terms contradict each other and cancel out. A four-sided triangle is meaningless; it is not a thing at all, it is nothing. A weight that an almighty Being cannot lift is as much a contradiction in terms of a four-sided triangle. It too is nothing. And (to give an old text a new emphasis) nothing is impossible to God.”
A great book

God bless,

Frank Sheed has addressed this particular issue in the same manner in the book titled Theology and Sanity.