Creation ex nihilo and the "Square Circle" question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pieman333272
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
How can a potential essence exist in the “mind” of God yet not exist actually? It sounds like you’re saying that potentially existing essences actually exist in the mind of God before they exist outside his mind. And what is the knowledge of God anyways? Is it separate from his eternal existence so that things can exist there but not actually?
 
How can a potential essence exist in the “mind” of God yet not exist actually? It sounds like you’re saying that potentially existing essences actually exist in the mind of God before they exist outside his mind. And what is the knowledge of God anyways? Is it separate from his eternal existence so that things can exist there but not actually?
Yes I can see why you might find this difficult to grasp without further distinctions. Assuming you pose the question because you genuinely want to know something as opposed to sneer, I will try my best to accommodate you.

God is existence. God is his will. If this is the case, which it is, then it would seem that everything in Gods knowledge has some form of reality, for everything in Gods knowledge is Gods will.

God knows all possible things. With that we can see only two possibilities; only one of which makes rational sense.
  1. God has a mind with abstractions out of which he timelessly wills the actualities of particular things that correspond with Gods nature which is love.
Or
  1. There are no abstractions, because God doesn’t have a mind. Therefore all possible potentialities are timelessly actual with God. Anything that is possible is timelessly actual because existence timelessly is actual. In fact why use the word God? Lets just say eternal existence. And what do you know; we an eternal justification for atheism.
I reject number 2.

Using the analogy of our own minds is evidently going to fall short of the real thing. I don’t know what Gods mind is like, but it is in some sense like how we generally understand a mind to be, since knowledge is a function of some kind of mind. Having an abstraction of something in ones mind evidently does not amount to reality like how we understand the universe to be a reality. Its an abstraction; its nature is abstract, which is a kind of reality, but it is not actual in the same sense or context like the actuality of the universe. But of course even an abstraction has an act of reality; just not an actual reality. For example there is evidently a big difference between an “actual apple” and an abstraction or idea of an apple. Both exist in some sense, but both are qualitatively different in nature.
 
God is existence. God is his will. If this is the case, which it is, then it would seem that everything in Gods knowledge has some form of reality, for everything in Gods knowledge is Gods will.

God knows all possible things. With that we can see only two possibilities; only one of which makes rational sense.
  1. God has a mind with abstractions out of which he timelessly wills the actualities of particular things that correspond with Gods nature which is love.
Or
  1. There are no abstractions, because God doesn’t have a mind. Therefore all possible potentialities are timelessly actual with God. Anything that is possible is timelessly actual because existence timelessly is actual. In fact why use the word God? Lets just say eternal existence. And what do you know; we an eternal justification for atheism.
That makes it sound like God has parts, and thus is not perfectly simple. He has a mind, from which he can think of abstract concepts. Then he also has a will, from which he grants actuality to those concepts.

Or does the simplicity and unity of God allow that?
 
Yes, but in the sense that He is His mind, His will, His “heart”, His is everything He is all at once. God is timeless - He well knows how we perceive time, etc., but to Him it’s essentially a single moment. Spark. And so on.
 
Yeah, and can God make a weight that he can’t lift? I would regard that as the kind of banal question that high school student asks his religious education teacher thinking that is going to utterly confound him/her and that they will dissolve into a heap of failure and embarrassment.

In fact the scripture specifically states that there is something that God cannot do.
Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

So God cannot lie. He cannot break his promise.
 
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.”
And CS Lewis echos this with the argument: Nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we add the words “can God” before it. (paraphrasing). So, no, God cannot make a married bachelor. 🤷
 
because nothing you, I or anyone else thinks, does, decides or whatever can change the block…
Because all of existence, which necessarily includes all change, is part the block.
 
I have some more questions based on this issue after a discussion with a friend. My main question is that I recall hearing that God didn’t create the universe from nothing in the sense certain pagan gods supposedly shaped the world out of something pre-existing - is this a correct understanding? And who are some theologians who support it?
 
I have some more questions based on this issue after a discussion with a friend. My main question is that I recall hearing that God **didn’t **create the universe from nothing in the sense certain pagan gods supposedly shaped the world out of something pre-existing - is this a correct understanding? And who are some theologians who support it?
No, I don’t believe you are correct in saying that God didn’t create the universe from nothing, as the pagans believe that the gods created with pre-existing material.

It is de fide that God created ex nihilo, proclaimed by the Magisterium.

In affirming the Church Fathers and the Tradition of the Church, the Magisterium has infallibly taught that God created all things, material and spiritual, out of nothing. Here is a very brief chronology of the Church’s teaching on the creation of the universe:

561 – Pope Pelagius I writes a letter to King Childebert I in which he states: “For I confess that…Adam and his wife, were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other from the rib of man.” The early Church always affirmed that man was formed from the earth, and not from an ape.

1215 – Lateran Council IV – “God created both orders out of nothing from the beginning of time, the spiritual and corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly.” The Lateran Council infallibly proclaims that God created the spiritual (angels) and corporeal (humans, animals, plants, heavenly bodies) “out of nothing” (ex nihilo).

1860 – Council of Cologne – “Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore, we declare that…those…who…assert…man emerged from spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.” The Church again affirms that man is not the product of an evolutionary process. Man was formed “immediately.”

1870 – Vatican Council I issues an infallible dogmatic statement with an accompanying anathema: “If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing, let him be anathema.” Once again, the Church infallibly proclaims that “the world and all things” in it are the product of an ex nihilo creation. In addition, the Church, for the first time, adds the phrase “as regards their whole substance.” This phrase essentially prevents anyone from advancing the theory of evolution (that is, arguing that God made some parts, but evolution contributed to the other parts). Moreover, the Church affirms Lateran Council IV that both the “spiritual and material” were made out of nothing. Spiritual refers to the creation of angels, and no one has argued that angels were created by an evolutionary process. There is never any distinction between how God created the angels (instantaneously, out of nothing) and how God created humans (instantaneously, out of nothing).

1880 – Pope Leo XIII writes his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae in which he states: “We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.” Pope Leo’s interpretation of Genesis suggests a literal six day creation. This is because he says Eve was “miraculously” created. Since miracles happen instantaneously, Pope Leo is saying Eve was created instantaneously, on the sixth day. It is thus logical to assume Pope Leo believed Adam was also created instantaneously, like Eve, on the sixth day. There is no methodological distinction between Adam and Eve, and nothing to suggest that their creation was from an evolutionary process that took millions of years. Pope Leo’s encyclical is in line with the infallible teachings of Lateran Council IV, Vatican Council I, and the early Church Fathers. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII issued this teaching only about 20 years after Darwin’s theory of evolution came on the scene.

1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church’s vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu” (no. 24). The pope also broached the theory of evolution with caution by stating that the Church “does not forbid research and discussions…with regard to evolution,” but warns that “divine revelation demands the greatest moderation and caution” when so discussing, and says we must ultimately “submit to the judgment of the Church” (no. 36). The pope further condemned “polygenism,” the heretical belief that the human race is not the product of a single set of parents (Adam and Eve), but multiple parents, as evolutionary theory maintains. source
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top