Creation Ex Nihilo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wyrd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Linusthe2nd said:
I don’t pay much attention to them except to try and help people on these forums. I know they are wrong for two reason. First and foremost, they are teaching things contrary to Divine Revelation and the Catholic Faith and I know God does not lie. And secondly, their speculations are groosly illogical. And I will add that Thomas Aquinas demonstrates that God does indeed exist.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
Linus, don’t use logic when explaining nature. Look up to the sky and tell me, is it the sun or the earth which moves?

God created nature. If we find something which apparently contradicts Divine Revelation, we need to go back to Scriptures and revisit our interpretations. That’s what St Augustine told us, 1600 years ago.
 
Hans_W said:
I didn’t say ‘open space’ but empty space. You could squeeze the earth into the size of a suitcase if you push the electrons into the nuclei and make a lump of neutrons. That’s what I meant.

By ‘small things’ I mean the subatomic world.

There are various physical hypotheses on the origin of the Big Bang. There could be an infinite number of universes. All speculation for the time being. Perhaps we’ll never find out. There is still so much to learn.
Click to expand...
Sorry about the misquote, but the same applies - it’s not empty space. It is filled or it would collapse.
Some subatomic particles are unaffected by the forces that give material objects their shape, (crashing only into those with whom it is in their nature it is to do so) that does not mean there is nothing there but space.

When everything gets pushed together presumably in a singularity, it is crushed. It is an extreme state of matter.
If a safe crashed on me, cartoon-style, I would be a flat circle of mush; that doesn’t mean there’s empty space in me.

Why does this get under my skin? Why do I care at all?
Fact is that there are people telling you that what you have come to reasonably believe through your interactions with the world, is true, is not.
Once you start to see in your minds eye, as in this example, that it is empty space, well you are ready to believe anything. Nothing is as it seems, but they will show you what’s right:
“The Bible? Wonderful poetry, great symbolism; that’s subjective you know. Psst, you want objective truth, I’ve got a special on Hawking - bright guy, he knows everything. This is reality.”

There is much to know. What is worth knowing comes to us through the grace of the Holy Spirit.
 
Hans_W said:
Linus, don’t use logic when explaining nature. Look up to the sky and tell me, is it the sun or the earth which moves?

God created nature. If we find something which apparently contradicts Divine Revelation, we need to go back to Scriptures and revisit our interpretations. That’s what St Augustine told us, 1600 years ago.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church teaches De Fide that God created the universe, in time, out of nothing. Some modern Cosmologists are broadcasting opinions directly contrary to this teaching, therefore these Cosmologists are teaching things no Catholic can accept and remain practicing Catholics.

I guess one has to decide whether one is going to remain Catholic or not.

Whether the sun moves or the earth moves has nothing to do with anything I have said.🙂

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Hey Dr. if God didn’t create the universe, then it wouldn’t exist. Seems rather wild speculation that the universe created itself or that its is responsible for its own existence.
Click to expand...
The ‘universe’ in the sense of “everything that exists” has to be responsible for its own existence, as there is nothing else. The set of all causes cannot have a cause outside of itself!

You are just carving off one bit and applying special pleading to assert that that one bit can be responsible for its own exitence, but the rest cannot.
 
DrTaffy said:
The ‘universe’ in the sense of “everything that exists” has to be responsible for its own existence, as there is nothing else. The set of all causes cannot have a cause outside of itself!

You are just carving off one bit and applying special pleading to assert that that one bit can be responsible for its own exitence, but the rest cannot.
Click to expand...
Except that God is not part of the universe. He is not “something that exists”. He is Existence itself. He is the Cause and the Causer.
 
A paragraph from the link in the OP
At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically **due to
****fluctuations :bigyikes: :rotfl: :extrahappy: ******
in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum.
Click to expand...
So! There was already something in existence, hunh? 😃

That guy writing that article is trying to say the universe popped out of nothing,
but he can’t get around the fact that quantum mechanics, or quantum physics, has to have something already in existence to work on.
 
davidv said:
No that is not agree upon, nor is it a reasonable conclusion to draw for the post your responded to.
Click to expand...
Saying that God is not something that exists does indeed mean that God does not exist. 🤷
 
empther said:
A paragraph from the link in the OP

So! There was already something in existence, hunh? 😃

That guy writing that article is trying to say the universe popped out of nothing,
but he can’t get around the fact that quantum mechanics, or quantum physics, has to have something already in existence to work on.
Click to expand...
No, laws of nature does not need anything in existence to work on. Laws of nature in their framework explain the behavior of vacuum.
 
Lets assume otherwise and think that God perform creation. This means that there should be two state of existence namely one solely God and another God plus creation. I think we could agree upon this. But we need embed causation in the problem which means that the state of existence of God should come before God plus creation, which requires a directionality or pseudo-time which God existence per se should be subject to ,which is contradictory since this requires the existence of this pseudo-time in advance. Hence to sum it up there was no beginning.
 
No, laws of nature does not need anything in existence to work on. Laws of nature in their framework explain the behavior of vacuum.
:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Where there is nothing, there is no behavior. There is nothing to behave/act.

Quantum mechanics and other laws of nature are the ways things behave. Laws of nature don’t create anything from nothing. Laws of nature have no existence.
 
Lets assume otherwise and think that God perform creation. This means that there should be two state of existence namely one solely God and another God plus creation. I think we could agree upon this. But we need embed causation in the problem which means that the state of existence of God should come before God plus creation, which requires a directionality or pseudo-time which God existence per se should be subject to ,which is contradictory since this requires the existence of this pseudo-time in advance. Hence to sum it up there was no beginning.
Click to expand...
Time does not exist,
nor is it needed when God is alone.
Time is nothing but a measure of change. Before Creation, God was unchanging ( still is ) and there was no time because time and change are necessarily related.
 
Bahman said:
Lets assume otherwise and think that God perform creation. This means that there should be two state of existence namely one solely God and another God plus creation. I think we could agree upon this. But we need embed causation in the problem which means that the state of existence of God should come before God plus creation, which requires a directionality or pseudo-time which God existence per se should be subject to ,which is contradictory since this requires the existence of this pseudo-time in advance. Hence to sum it up there was no beginning.
Click to expand...
Of course there was no beginning to what you call “pseudo-time”, the time “which God’s existence is subjected to”. God is eternal. God has a mind, God thinks. Thinking is a form of change. God’s thoughts are manifested as a form of time. I prefer to call God’s time, “ontological time”. It is not pseudo, it is real.

The time that began with the big bang is a measure of the cyclical changes observed (and measured) in the created Universe we live in, a kind of cosmological time. Hence, there are two modalities of time: infinite (eternal) ontological time; and finite cosmological time.

Because it is eternal, there was no cause associated with ontological time. Because cosmological time had a beginning, the cause, in the form of creation, happened in ontological time. Since only God existed in ontological time, God created the universe.
Yppop
 
empther said:
Where there is nothing, there is no behavior. There is nothing to behave/act.

Quantum mechanics and other laws of nature are the ways things behave. Laws of nature don’t create anything from nothing. Laws of nature have no existence.
Click to expand...
So you think they are dumb!?
 
empther said:
Time does not exist,
nor is it needed when God is alone.
Time is nothing but a measure of change. Before Creation, God was unchanging ( still is ) and there was no time because time and change are necessarily related.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was trying to explain. In order to have two state of beings one need a pseudo-time which means another creator is needed to create pseudo-time on the first place and if you follow up you end up with a endless chain of Gods each has to create a pseudo-time in order to allow existence of two separate beings.
 
yppop said:
Of course there was no beginning to what you call “pseudo-time”, the time “which God’s existence is subjected to”. God is eternal. God has a mind, God thinks. Thinking is a form of change. God’s thoughts are manifested as a form of time. I prefer to call God’s time, “ontological time”. It is not pseudo, it is real.
Click to expand...
Of course God does not think since thinking requires changes and God is unchangeable.
yppop said:
The time that began with the big bang is a measure of the cyclical changes observed (and measured) in the created Universe we live in, a kind of cosmological time. Hence, there are two modalities of time: infinite (eternal) ontological time; and finite cosmological time.
Click to expand...
That was what I was trying to show that is impossible. If you assume a begging for creation then you end up with two separate state of beings once have to come after another to ensure the causality meaning that there a need for pseudo-time at which that should exist at the time of creation, in order to allow creation. This is however contrary since you need another creator to create the pseudo-time then creation of two existence. This however leads to infinite regression.
 
Bahman said:
Of course God does not think since thinking requires changes and God is unchangeable.

That was what I was trying to show that is impossible. If you assume a begging for creation then you end up with two separate state of beings once have to come after another to ensure the causality meaning that there a need for pseudo-time at which that should exist at the time of creation, in order to allow creation. This is however contrary since you need another creator to create the pseudo-time then creation of two existence. This however leads to infinite regression.
Click to expand...
My thesis is based on the premise: God exists. My God is omniscient, He knows, and that implies thought, God’s thinking is a FORM of change. At any rate we agree that there are two modalities of time. We both agree on cosmological time. Your second modality is called pseudo-time a time that is apparently finite in duration since it has to be created. My second modality, the one that precedes cosmological time, is infinite (eternal) and doesn’t need to be created. God is both infinite and eternal.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God, I assume that. I am trying to point out the error in your reasoning that there are two modalities of FINITE time that requires more than one creator. That argument is surely to be an infinite regress, a hopeless position that is avoided when one believes in one eternal God.

Ypopp
 
yppop said:
My thesis is based on the premise: God exists. My God is omniscient, He knows, and that implies thought, God’s thinking is a FORM of change. At any rate we agree that there are two modalities of time. We both agree on cosmological time. Your second modality is called pseudo-time a time that is apparently finite in duration since it has to be created. My second modality, the one that precedes cosmological time, is infinite (eternal) and doesn’t need to be created. God is both infinite and eternal.

I am not trying to prove the existence of God, I assume that. I am trying to point out the error in your reasoning that there are two modalities of FINITE time that requires more than one creator. That argument is surely to be an infinite regress, a hopeless position that is avoided when one believes in one eternal God.

Ypopp
Click to expand...
God cannot be complete and have thought at the same time since a single thought requires a change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top