Creation ex nihilo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
I wonder why have Catholic theologians been so much in favour (since Tertuallian, I believe) of creation ex nihilo, rather than creation of of something formless? The Wisdom of Solomon (11:17) says, "“the hand that from formless matter created with world.” Genesis also says (or may easily be read) as that prior to creation “the earth was a formless void.” (Gen 1:2)

This is idea is actually suggested by something suggested by Greylorn in another thread, in which he (she) suggest, if I understand correctly, that God is a principle bringing order to matter, violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
 
The first principle is that God is, He is the only thing that exists in and of itself. He calls Himself “I AM” to illustrate this, He is the “ground of all being”, meaning that everything else has existence – God alone is existence. Even a formless matter has to come from somewhere, it has to be given existence by someone, namely God. Therefore, it must not be eternal, but have been created by God.

St. Thomas Aquinas said:
[2]
For whatever does not belong to a thing as such appertains to it through some cause, as white to man; that which has no cause is primary and immediate, so that it must needs be through itself and as such. But no single entity can as such belong to two things and to both of them; for what is said of a thing as such is limited to that very thing; the possession of dam [three] angles equal to two right angles is proper to the triangle exclusively. So, if something belongs to two things, it will not belong to both as such. Therefore, no single thing can possibly be predicated of two things so as to be said of neither of them by reason of a cause. On the contrary, either the one must be the cause of the other—as fire is the cause of heat in a mixed body, and yet each is called hot—or some third thing must be the cause of both, as fire is the cause of two candles giving light. But being is predicated of everything that is. Hence, there cannot possibly be two things neither of which has a cause of its being, but either both of them must exist through a cause, or the one must be the cause of the other’s being. Everything which is in any way at all must then derive its being from that whose being has no cause. But we have already shown that God is this being whose existence has no cause. Everything which is in any mode whatever, therefore, is from Him. Now, to say that being is not a univocal predicate argues nothing against this conclusion. For being is not predicated of beings equivocally, but analogically, and thus a reduction to one must be made.

[3] Furthermore, whatever a thing possesses by its own nature, and not from some other cause, cannot be diminished and deficient in it. For, if something essential be subtracted from or added to a nature, another nature will at once arise, as in the case of numbers, where the addition or the subtraction of the unit changes the species of the number. If, however, the nature or quiddity of a thing remains integral, and yet something in it is found to be diminished, it is at once clear that this diminution does not derive simply from that nature, but from something else, by whose removal the nature is diminished. Therefore, whatever belongs to one thing less than to others belongs to it not by virtue of its own nature alone, but through some other cause. Thus, that thing of which a genus is chiefly predicated will be the cause of everything in that genus. So we see that what is most hot is the cause of heat in all hot things; and what is most light, the cause of all illuminated things. But as we proved in Book I, God is being in the highest mode. Therefore, He is the cause of all things of which being is predicated.

[4] Then, too, the order of causes necessarily corresponds to the order of effects, since effects are commensurate with their causes. Hence, just as effects are referred to their appropriate causes, so that which is common in such effects must be reduced to a common cause. Thus, transcending the particular causes of the generation of this or that thing is the universal cause of generation-the sun; and above the particular governors of the kingdom, as, indeed, of each city in it, stands the king, the universal cause of government in his whole realm. Now, being is common to everything that is. Above all causes, then, there must be a cause whose proper action is to give being. But we have already shown in Book I that God is the first cause. Everything that is must, therefore, be from God.

[5] Moreover, the cause of everything said to be such and such by way of participation is that which is said to be so by virtue of its essence. Thus, fire is the cause of all hot things as such. But God is being by His own essence, because He is the very act of being. Every other being, however, is a being by participation. For that being which is its own act of being can be one only, as was shown in Book I. God, therefore, is the cause of being to all other things.

[6] Again, everything that can be and not-be has a cause; for considered in itself it is indifferent to either, so that something else must exist which determines it to one. Since, then, it is impossible to go on to infinity, there must exist a necessary being which is the cause of all things that can he and not-be. Now, there is a certain kind of necessary being whose necessity is caused. But in this order of things, also, progression to infinity is impossible; so that we must conclude to the existence of something which is of itself necessary being. There can be but one such being, as we proved in Book I. And this being is God. Everything other than God, therefore, must be referred to Him as the cause of its being.

[7] Moreover, as we proved above, God is the maker of things inasmuch as He is in act. But by virtue of His actuality and perfection God embraces all the perfections of things, as was shown in Book I; and thus He is virtually all things. He is, therefore, the maker of all things. But this would not be the case if something besides God were capable of being otherwise than from Him; for nothing is of such a nature as to be from another and not from another, since if a thing is of a nature not to be from another, then it is through itself a necessary being, and thus can never be from another. Therefore, nothing can be except from God.
 
I wonder why have Catholic theologians been so much in favour (since Tertuallian, I believe) of creation ex nihilo, rather than creation of of something formless? The Wisdom of Solomon (11:17) says, "“the hand that from formless matter created with world.” Genesis also says (or may easily be read) as that prior to creation “the earth was a formless void.” (Gen 1:2)

This is idea is actually suggested by something suggested by Greylorn in another thread, in which he (she) suggest, if I understand correctly, that God is a principle bringing order to matter, violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system things tend to reach equilibrium over time, and is perhaps the most fundamental principle in the whole of creation. I don’t understand why God would create such a strong principle only to break it. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington said of those who would fool around with it:

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. … if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. 😃

And while it’s not for me to tell Catholics what to think, you might want to have a look at the First Vatican Council, chapter 1 and cannon 1:

5. If anyone … does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God … let him be anathema. :eek:
 
The first principle is that God is, He is the only thing that exists in and of itself. He calls Himself “I AM” to illustrate this, He is the “ground of all being”, meaning that everything else has existence – God alone is existence. Even a formless matter has to come from somewhere, it has to be given existence by someone, namely God. Therefore, it must not be eternal, but have been created by God.
I do not understand how God can *be *existence. As far as I can see, existence is really only is-ness, and ''is" is only a linguistic indicator (like ‘the’ or ‘and’), in this case, linking subject to predicate, e.g. This IS a sentence.

Perhaps someone can explain more clearly what “existence” actually is (if it is anything at all).
 
God simply “is”. Another poster pointed out that God called Himself “Yaweh” or “I AM WHO AM”. God is not existence, though God exists. God the Father begot God the Son, and through the Son, all things were made (Nicene Creed).

Thermodynamics is not relevant here, because God is omnipotent. He created everything at least once, and could create everything a million times over, and not be depleted. The second law of thermodynamics simply reflects what scripture tell us, that the world will end. Entropy will increase - Exergy will decrease. Its a built in time bomb in Creation.

God created the world knowing when it would end - yet he himself also promises eternal life in Heaven. He is limitless, even if the world he created has a limit.
 
I wonder why have Catholic theologians been so much in favour (since Tertuallian, I believe) of creation ex nihilo, rather than creation of of something formless? The Wisdom of Solomon (11:17) says, "“the hand that from formless matter created with world.” Genesis also says (or may easily be read) as that prior to creation “the earth was a formless void.” (Gen 1:2)

This is idea is actually suggested by something suggested by Greylorn in another thread, in which he (she) suggest, if I understand correctly, that God is a principle bringing order to matter, violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
If you’re going to reference me, best do so with the accuracy you seem to apply to other ideas. A quick PM would have clarified things for you.


  1. *]God is not a “principle.” Principles do not create anything— conscious, intelligent entities do. I regard the Creator as a group of entities, but use “God” because it simplifies things and does not produce idiotic accusations.

    *]God does not bring order to matter. He created matter and other physical geometries such as electromagnetic fields, from energy, which He did not create.

    *]Yes, God violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Not the 1st or 3rd.)

    I like that verse from Solomon. Thanks! Perhaps the author knew about dark matter back then? One wonders how that might have happened.

    To answer your first question, the Church is following the teachings (false IMO) of Hermes Trismegistus from perhaps 5000 years ago, that all things came from one. For the Church, there’s only room for one “One.” You know how religious dogmas are.

    The Church passed up its great opportunity to either rethink theology and metaphysics or get out of those businesses altogether at Galileo’s time. Instead, it dug in its heels, which now appear to be embedded in concrete.

    You might as well also ask why the science of cosmology has perpetuated the Church’s and Hermes’ error? After all, the cosmic micropea that blew up at the Big Bang is functionally equivalent to the Omnipotent, Omniscient God concept.

    FYI, Greylorn was male the last time anyone bothered to check.
 
I wonder why have Catholic theologians been so much in favour (since Tertuallian, I believe) of creation ex nihilo, rather than creation of of something formless? The Wisdom of Solomon (11:17) says, "“the hand that from formless matter created with world.” Genesis also says (or may easily be read) as that prior to creation “the earth was a formless void.” (Gen 1:2)

This is idea is actually suggested by something suggested by Greylorn in another thread, in which he (she) suggest, if I understand correctly, that God is a principle bringing order to matter, violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
God does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because those are natural laws; they only apply once he creates the universe.

I have two problems with your suggestion. They are not theological problems, but seem important to me.
1). I don’t know what is meant by matter without form. How can matter exist without form? I almost wonder if that is an incoherent idea.
2) Current Big Bang cosmology suggests that there is strong scientific evidence that the universe, all time, space, and matter, did come into existence at the Big Bang. I find that God is the most plausible explanation of this.
 
If you’re going to reference me, best do so with the accuracy you seem to apply to other ideas. A quick PM would have clarified things for you.


  1. *]God is not a “principle.” Principles do not create anything— conscious, intelligent entities do. I regard the Creator as a group of entities, but use “God” because it simplifies things and does not produce idiotic accusations.

    *]God does not bring order to matter. He created matter and other physical geometries such as electromagnetic fields, from energy, which He did not create.

    *]Yes, God violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (Not the 1st or 3rd.)

  1. Where did the energy come from, if not created by “God”?
    I like that verse from Solomon. Thanks! Perhaps the author knew about dark matter back then? One wonders how that might have happened.
    To answer your first question, the Church is following the teachings (false IMO) of Hermes Trismegistus from perhaps 5000 years ago, that all things came from one. For the Church, there’s only room for one “One.” You know how religious dogmas are.
    Who is Hermes Trismegistus? This guy - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus?
    The Church passed up its great opportunity to either rethink theology and metaphysics or get out of those businesses altogether at Galileo’s time. Instead, it dug in its heels, which now appear to be embedded in concrete.
    You might as well also ask why the science of cosmology has perpetuated the Church’s and Hermes’ error? After all, the cosmic micropea that blew up at the Big Bang is functionally equivalent to the Omnipotent, Omniscient God concept.
    What error? :confused:
 
Where did the energy come from, if not created by “God”?
Following its own inherent principles of being and acting, as per the 1st Law, it always existed.
Who is Hermes Trismegistus? This guy - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus?
Sort of, except IMO the Wiki piece is focused on H.T. as a god, which is incorrect. He was actually a person, whose personal biography was lost with time— perhaps erased as early appreciators who wove his ideas into their religions transmogrified him into a God. Other great thinkers have suffered similar biographical fates.
What error? :confused:
Please reread my post with a little more care. It’s in there.
 
God does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics because those are natural laws; they only apply once he creates the universe.

I have two problems with your suggestion. They are not theological problems, but seem important to me.
1). I don’t know what is meant by matter without form. How can matter exist without form? I almost wonder if that is an incoherent idea.
They are indeed theological problems, except for those who imagine that the nature of the universe has nothing to do with the properties of its creator.

You’ll want to study up on “dark matter.” Discover and Scientific American have accessible articles on it, and the documentary channels have done a number of pieces about it.
  1. Current Big Bang cosmology suggests that there is strong scientific evidence that the universe, all time, space, and matter, did come into existence at the Big Bang. I find that God is the most plausible explanation of this.
I submit, with all due respect, that your understanding of even rudimentary pop science is too limited to make such a judgment. A recent issue of Discover, June if my memory is on, has an excellent article on why Big Bang theory sucks. You’ll need to get up to speed with some personal research before making any sense of it.

There is no good evidence for Big Bang theory, and plenty against it. It represents sloppy inferential thinking at its worst.

Making God the “plausible explanation” for the big bang is saying that God gathered up all the loose matter and energy in the universe into a tiny ball, then stood back and let it go poof, expecting that it would self-arrange into all the perfectly balanced laws of physics in about 3 picoseconds. The idea is, IMO, absurd. (Don’t take that personally— it was not your idea.)

Look carefully at the properties of the God you believe in, and then the properties of the micropea that blew up at the big bang. You will find that they are functionally identical. Given that, it makes no sense that God would create the micropea.

If these problems are as important to you as you say, why are you simply picking and choosing from the existing set of faulty ideas about them? Why not do some honest research (Wiki is very useful too) and come up with your own thinking? As a start, why not pursue alternative ideas that others have devised? Objecting to them will fire up some slovenly neurons and maybe get you started.
 
I do not understand how God can *be *existence. As far as I can see, existence is really only is-ness, and ''is" is only a linguistic indicator (like ‘the’ or ‘and’), in this case, linking subject to predicate, e.g. This IS a sentence.

Perhaps someone can explain more clearly what “existence” actually is (if it is anything at all).
Would you settle for existence as the property of not being nothing?
 
The second law of thermodynamics says that in a closed system things tend to reach equilibrium over time, and is perhaps the most fundamental principle in the whole of creation. I don’t understand why God would create such a strong principle only to break it. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington said of those who would fool around with it:

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. … if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation. 😃

And while it’s not for me to tell Catholics what to think, you might want to have a look at the First Vatican Council, chapter 1 and cannon 1:

5. If anyone … does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God … let him be anathema. :eek:
According to the principles by which energy operates— The Three Laws of Thermodynamics— energy cannot have been created. Therefore your point about why would God create the Second Law is moot.

I know that you prefer the words of men as authorities on the subject of physics, but IMO the real physical universe represents a “bible” which is necessarily superior to any human scripture or council, because the universe is certain to have been the word of God, as are its laws and principles.
 
I know that you prefer the words of men as authorities on the subject of physics, but IMO the real physical universe represents a “bible” which is necessarily superior to any human scripture or council, because the universe is certain to have been the word of God, as are its laws and principles.
Hang on, I’m saying God doesn’t violate the bible of nature and you’re saying He does (by breaking the second law of thermodynamics) - which one of us prefers the word of God and which the words of a man? :confused:
 
Since we are assured the universe is a “sum-zero energy” universe ie. it adds up to nothing (Link below), then “Ex Nihilo” is the only way to go. Likewise it will revert to Ex Nihilo at the Second Coming, and disappear as the Scripture makes clear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Which gives added impetus to the idea that it is a temporary stage prop set up for the human drama, with God making an appearance from the wings part way through the story.
 
I wonder why have Catholic theologians been so much in favour (since Tertuallian, I believe) of creation ex nihilo, rather than creation of of something formless? The Wisdom of Solomon (11:17) says, "“the hand that from formless matter created with world.” Genesis also says (or may easily be read) as that prior to creation “the earth was a formless void.” (Gen 1:2)

This is idea is actually suggested by something suggested by Greylorn in another thread, in which he (she) suggest, if I understand correctly, that God is a principle bringing order to matter, violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
Hi All,
I would like to jump into this discussion because I do not believe that the question of ex nihilo creation has been addressed. The discussion has seemed to stray into a discussion of the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang. It seems to me that we are dealing with secondary issues and have left the primary question unanswered. So, here is my 1 1/4 cents worth.
First let’s define terms. Ex Nihilo simply means “out of nothing”. Now for the harder definition; God. The best that I can come up with is that of Anselm, “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived.” I like this definition because it allows us to begin at a point that does not depend on prior assumptions or an appeal to experience.
Taking this definition as our starting point was can say something about God:
  1. God must exist; this is necessitated because something which exists is greater than something that does not.
  2. God must be eternal; this is necessitated because the eternal is greater than the temporal.
    Let’s stop here for now and turn to the empirical universe and try to tie some things together. What do we know about the universe? Let’s not get into Big Bang or any other theory, let’s stick to the facts.
  3. We know that the universe is made up of matter.
  4. We know that the primary characteristic of matter is that it changes in space and time.
  5. We know that these changes are subject to the law of cause and effect.
    Now let’s take our universe, what do we know about it? First we know that it is expanding, this is an empirical fact. Because of the law of cause and effect we know that something caused this expansion and that there had to be a time when the universe had not yet begun its expansion, therefore no universe and no matter. Because time and space are a function of the motion/change of the universe it follows that before the universe there was no time or space.
    So who or what was the first cause of the universe? This is a question that science cannot answer. It is cosmology’s black box. But there are certain necessary conclusions that we can draw:
  6. Whatever or whoever this first cause was/is it must exist.
  7. Whatever or whoever this first cause was/is it must be eternal because its existence is outside of space/time.
    These two conclusions match those that are derived from our definition of God. Therefore:
  8. God must exist.
  9. God must be the uncaused cause.
  10. God must have “created” ex nihilo.
    We can go on from here to further demonstrate the God of Christianity, but this is a good starting point and an answer to the ex nihilo question.
PAX CHRISTI
Bill
 
I submit, with all due respect, that your understanding of even rudimentary pop science is too limited to make such a judgment. A recent issue of Discover, June if my memory is on, has an excellent article on why Big Bang theory sucks. You’ll need to get up to speed with some personal research before making any sense of it.

There is no good evidence for Big Bang theory, and plenty against it. It represents sloppy inferential thinking at its worst.

Making God the “plausible explanation” for the big bang is saying that God gathered up all the loose matter and energy in the universe into a tiny ball, then stood back and let it go poof, expecting that it would self-arrange into all the perfectly balanced laws of physics in about 3 picoseconds. The idea is, IMO, absurd. (Don’t take that personally— it was not your idea.)

Look carefully at the properties of the God you believe in, and then the properties of the micropea that blew up at the big bang. You will find that they are functionally identical. Given that, it makes no sense that God would create the micropea.

If these problems are as important to you as you say, why are you simply picking and choosing from the existing set of faulty ideas about them? Why not do some honest research (Wiki is very useful too) and come up with your own thinking? As a start, why not pursue alternative ideas that others have devised? Objecting to them will fire up some slovenly neurons and maybe get you started.
Greylorn, your answer is a little overly patronizing for my tastes, and the more unseemly since I am indeed on the side of the majority of cosmologists on the issue. What part of my thinking do you consider dishonest? That’s a rather strong statement to make.

As far as evidence for the Big Bang:
1). In 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the light from distant galaxies is systematically shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This redshift is taken to be a dopplar effect indicating that light sources were receding in the line of sight. This is evidence for the expansion of the universe.
2). Evidence for primordial nucleosynthesis of the light elements. Stellar nucleo-synthesis could not manufacture the abundant light elements like helium and deutrium. These could only be created in the extreme conditions present in the first moment of the Big Bang.
3). In 1965 a discovery revealed the existence of cosmic background radiation. This consisted of photons emitted during a very hot and dense phase of the universe.
4). In 1998, a meeting of teams from Princeton, Berkely national Laboratory, Yale, and the Harvard Smithsonian astrophysics institute reported that their tests all showed that the universe would expand forever.
5). Red-shift data shows that the rate of expansion of the universe is actually increasing.
6). The Borde, Gunth, and Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe that on average has been globally expanding at a positive rate must have a past boundary. This does not apply to all other models than the Big Bang, but it would apply to a great many of them.
Making God the “plausible explanation” for the big bang is saying that God gathered up all the loose matter and energy in the universe into a tiny ball, then stood back and let it go poof, expecting that it would self-arrange into all the perfectly balanced laws of physics in about 3 picoseconds. The idea is, IMO, absurd.
I agree, this is absurd. But it is not what I or others mean when they say that God is responsible for the Big Bang, and that fact that you think we mean this makes me wonder if your understanding of the Big Bang is faulty. You suggested a resource (mostly pop sources), now I will suggest a scholarly source. The article on the Kalam cosmological argument by William Lane Craig and Sinclair in the recent Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

The Big Bang does not describe a dense ball of matter that “blew up,” as you seem to think. Nor does it mean that God gathered together pre-existing matter. It literally describes the “expansion” of matter out of nothing. Rather like a balloon blowing up, if you like.

I see no reason to think that God can’t do this. I agree that he cannot do contradictions, but there is no contradiction entailed in saying that a Greatest Conceivable Being created the universe from nothing.

Finally, since you scorn the Big Bang, what alternative do you propose?
 
Hang on, I’m saying God doesn’t violate the bible of nature and you’re saying He does (by breaking the second law of thermodynamics) - which one of us prefers the word of God and which the words of a man? :confused:
You’ve made a decent point, so let me expand a bit on my hypothesis.

To begin with, some background. Briefly expressed, here are the thee laws:


  1. *]Energy is exchanged or revectored in physical events but cannot be created or destroyed.

    *]Energy tends to reach a level of undifferentiation at which it can no longer participate in physical events. (Energy is a couch potato.)

    *]There is a temperature below which energy cannot go, and which cannot be reached.

    Notice that of the three laws, only number 2 represents a force, an actual tendency of energy forms to reach an equilibrium,.

    Humans have been mucking around with these laws since their discovery and have found Laws 1 and 3 to be inviolate. However, #2 is one which humans interfere with every day. Every time you have a thought, for example. Whenever dirt is carved from the earth and smelted into iron and other elements, then formed by man into another car, the second law is violated. Whenever information is created which did not previously exist, or order is formed from chaos, the second law is violated.

    Not really, of course, because these violations occur within finite systems, on relatively small scales. On the scale of the entire universe, we might presume that our small scale reorganizations of bits of matter and energy will eventually contribute to the heat death of the universe—

    Unless there exists a natural counterforce to the 2nd Law.

    Now I shall trust that you can see a clear distinction between the first and third laws, which physicists have done their best to violate without success on every possible level and scale, and the second, which men violate with impunity.

    Next, for a moment, please suspend your belief that God created energy, if only on the physical grounds that by the first law, energy cannot be created. If God did not create energy, He did not create any principles of its innate behavior, such as the three laws we’ve discovered.

    Then suppose that God is a natural counterforce to the second law of thermodynamics. This is his superpower, one which humans share.

    Imagine that just as humans manifest their power over the 2nd law so naturally that they do not think of doing so, likewise God. Whereas we have power over piles of dirt, however, God can treat the entire universe as His pile of dirt (energy, actually) to shape as He pleases, into matter, galaxies, planets, and critters.

    The Second Law applies throughout, nonetheless. God violates it briefly. With time and circumstances, the most finely organized energy forms destabilize and become less ordered. Visit an old auto junkyard. Every wrecked vehicle waiting its cannibalization and meltdown was once a new car, fresh off the assembly line, a testament to man’s BRIEF power over the 2nd law.

    It is in this respect, the ability to temporarily operate as a counterforce to the 2nd law, that man exists in God’s likeness.

    I understand that from the perspective of your beliefs, the ideas I’ve proposed above are unacceptable. There is no room for them in your particular inn.

    However, you can learn a great deal by stepping outside your programmed doctrines for a few moments and taking the trouble to at least understand an alternative perspective.
 
In light of your belief that Hermes was a real guy instead of a mythological figure, I can grasp “what error” now; his particular teachings as to who is God.
Wrong. Sharpen your reading comprehension skills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top