Creation Ex Nihilo?

[Aloysium]

No. The birth and death of each being happens at on instance with the exception that nothing is lost, all your old experiences which leaded to knowledge becomes internal to you at the time of death and you open your eyes open to new reality with the aim to have constant progress namely finding the absolute truth. . . . That is outcome of complexity left in old world. In reality a set of two entities is never equal to simple sum of two entities the extra quality is called complexity. It is complex because the by product has an internal world. The extra self comes from sex meaning that we are at the bottom.

There was no first soul since there was no beginning.

What name are you going to give to your religion? Is it a religion? How does one progress towards the truth?
You may be providing an example as to why we need revealed truth, as in scripture.

 

[Bahman]

What name are you going to give to your religion?

Wherever it may go.

Is it a religion?

It is not a religion. It is a system of belief which constantly question the current state of turth in general.

How does one progress towards the truth?

To understand what is evil and good. The evil is confusion or darkness needed to question the current state of truth. Good is the clearance or light needed to find the new state of belief. The main columns that our understanding sit upon are doubt and belief, the first being spiritual delivering the suffering and the second being physical granting pleasure.

You may be providing an example as to why we need revealed truth, as in scripture.

Because we are trapped between two forces of suffering and pleasure, spiritual and physical, and we can become holy when we find the peace within, namely God.

 

[yppop]

Introducing the concept of infinity doesn’t really help to resolve the problem since God being infinite mind should have knowledge of any single thought and that should be exhaustive for two reason, 1) thoughts are not complete if mind is bigger than thoughts, 2) adding any single thought affect God’s knowledge hence God.

Consider a framework for describing a subject matter. The framework might have one or more anomalies meaning that it could explain a part of subject matter but not the whole namely anomalies. Anomalies are resolvable if the framework is well-defined and you at least need two anomalies to do so. The framework could be well defined if you have one anomaly meaning that you have to use the sole anomaly to have a well defined framework meaning that you need a infinite regression if and only if the new framework after using the anomaly has the similar feather as old one, otherwise the framework is ill-defined.

The infinite regression as it was explained has a deep root in completeness of a framework since a complete framework is anomaly free since it could completely explain the subject matter.

Because of all this gobbledegook that you are throwing at me, I have to assume that English is not your native tongue. For example, here are your last two definitions of an “infinite regress”,

from post # 46:
“Infinite regressing has a deep root in incompleteness of an assertion. It simply means that what you assume is not complete hence you face an anomaly soon or late hence you cannot get ride of infinite regression.” and then,
from post #55:
" The infinite regression as it was explained has a deep root in completeness of a framework since a complete framework is anomaly free since it could completely explain the subject."

I can’t figure out where its deep root is:" in incompleteness of an assertion" or "in completeness of a framework?

Wikipedia defines infinite regress as such:
"An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, … , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

If either on of your two definitions mean something different than Wikepedia’s very clear definition, let me know then I would have learned something and our discussion would not have been the waste of time it now seems to be. On the other hand, I hope you learned something about transfinite numbers and infinite regress, then I will not have to consider our discussion a complete waste of time.
Yppop

 

[Aloysium]

The Internet sometimes(?) comes across as the iTower of Babel.
People refusing to submit themselves to the revealed Truth of God.
Going on their own, with others, achieving nothing but confusion:
idiosyncartic ideas, vague meanings, and absent communication.

 

[Bahman]

Because of all this gobbledegook that you are throwing at me, I have to assume that English is not your native tongue.

That is correct and sorry for the misunderstanding.

For example, here are your last two definitions of an “infinite regress”,

from post # 46:
“Infinite regressing has a deep root in incompleteness of an assertion. It simply means that what you assume is not complete hence you face an anomaly soon or late hence you cannot get ride of infinite regression.” and then,
from post #55:
" The infinite regression as it was explained has a deep root in completeness of a framework since a complete framework is anomaly free since it could completely explain the subject."

I can’t figure out where its deep root is:" in incompleteness of an assertion" or "in completeness of a framework?

Lets stick to words for sake of clarity. Lets assume that you are thinking of a subject matter which requires a framework for explanation. For example the idea of God and creation. Let assume that you build your framework which consist of set of sentences that you could comprehend. The set is defined to be true if each sentence and the words within are well defined. So we have two main columns that a framework stands on namely, defineability and completeness.

We however sometimes cannot establish a framework which is true because of our perspectives is not correct, meaning that we cannot find a set of sentences which completely explain the subject matter meaning that there qualities in subject matter that cannot be explained by the framework so called anomaly. Anomaly by definition is an inexplicable observable is not definable within the framework, simply unsolvable problem.

The set could become complete if the anomalies within are resolvable by the process so called infinite regression.

Lets go back to our problem of God and creation to understand what we mean. We can simply experience external world so called universe so without doubt we can say that it exist. One question that comes to mind of some people is that where did our universe come from? The correctness of this question is subject to discussion but assume that it is correct which means that our universe had a beginning namely we have to cut the existence of all beings at beginning point. One of the idea that could comes to our mind is to assume that an agent so called God created our universe at the time of beginning. God in this picture is the anomaly because it is undefinable yet needed to complete the picture.

Now lets see how infinite regression can resolve the problem. We have two state of existence namely God and God+creation before and after creation. This seems to be correct but it is not since the the above mentioned state should exist prior to act creation to allow the act the creation possible. This means that another lets say, God’ should first create creation’=(God and God+creation) before hand in order to create creation at the point creation to resolve the problem of beginning. This however does not resolve the problem since we again are faced with two state of existence namely God’ and God’+creation’ which clearly leads to an infinite set of set of Gods so called infinite regression.

This problem can be resolved if one assumes that God=God’=God’’=… which means that anomalies are resolved. This however leave another problem open which is the problem of in and out namely, how God could be in an state of existence at the same time out?

If either on of your two definitions mean something different than Wikepedia’s very clear definition, let me know then I would have learned something and our discussion would not have been the waste of time it now seems to be. On the other hand, I hope you learned something about transfinite numbers and infinite regress, then I will not have to consider our discussion a complete waste of time.
Yppop

Yes, I will take sometimes to look at this problem and I highly hope that my explanation is clear now.

 

[Wyrd]

The Bohmian interpretation of QM supports panpsychism which is the basis process theology.

Yes, that seems akin to what I believe

 

[yppop]

Lets stick to words for sake of clarity. Lets assume that you are thinking of a subject matter which requires a framework for explanation. For example the idea of God and creation. Let assume that you build your framework which consist of set of sentences that you could comprehend. The set is defined to be true if each sentence and the words within are well defined. So we have two main columns that a framework stands on namely, defineability and completeness.

We however sometimes cannot establish a framework which is true because of our perspectives is not correct, meaning that we cannot find a set of sentences which completely explain the subject matter meaning that there qualities in subject matter that cannot be explained by the framework so called anomaly. Anomaly by definition is an inexplicable observable is not definable within the framework, simply unsolvable problem.

The set could become complete if the anomalies within are resolvable by the process so called infinite regression.

Lets go back to our problem of God and creation to understand what we mean. We can simply experience external world so called universe so without doubt we can say that it exist. One question that comes to mind of some people is that where did our universe come from? The correctness of this question is subject to discussion but assume that it is correct which means that our universe had a beginning namely we have to cut the existence of all beings at beginning point. One of the idea that could comes to our mind is to assume that an agent so called God created our universe at the time of beginning. God in this picture is the anomaly because it is undefinable yet needed to complete the picture.

Now lets see how infinite regression can resolve the problem. We have two state of existence namely God and God+creation before and after creation. This seems to be correct but it is not since the the above mentioned state should exist prior to act creation to allow the act the creation possible. This means that another lets say, God’ should first create creation’=(God and God+creation) before hand in order to create creation at the point creation to resolve the problem of beginning. This however does not resolve the problem since we again are faced with two state of existence namely God’ and God’+creation’ which clearly leads to an infinite set of set of Gods so called infinite regression.

This problem can be resolved if one assumes that God=God’=God’’=… which means that anomalies are resolved. This however leave another problem open which is the problem of in and out namely, how God could be in an state of existence at the same time out?

I can excuse you for the misuse of English words such as framework, anomaly, and infinite regression, but not your convoluted logic. If God exists before creation then there are two states of existence: God and God and creation. What is God’? Surely God’ comes immediately before God so God’ creates God in order for God to create creation??.
You could have saved me a lot of trouble trying to unravel your logic and just asked the oft asked atheist’s diversion: If God created the universe, what created God?

This is the old interpretation that has many attributions, the latest that I am aware of was given by Steven Hawking in his book “A Brief History of Time”. It goes like this:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s tortoises all the way down!”

Also you wrote these two sentences: One of the idea that could comes to our mind is to assume that an agent so called God created our universe at the time of beginning. God in this picture is the anomaly because it is undefinable yet needed to complete the picture.

The first sentence implies that God was created along with creation, apparently by God’ as part of creation’ or else we’d not have that God concatenation: God=God’=God’’=… The second sentence defines God as an anomaly that is undefinable (should be indefinable). Sorry, but just about everyone agrees that when we use the word God we mean a being that is eternal.

Yppop

 

[Bahman]

I can excuse you for the misuse of English words such as framework, anomaly, and infinite regression, but not your convoluted logic. If God exists before creation then there are two states of existence: God and God and creation. What is God’? Surely God’ comes immediately before God so God’ creates God in order for God to create creation??.

Thank you very much for your patience toward my language. Lets stick to word to see where how this discussion follow. I use a little bit of math to avoid the confusion and gain simplicity.

Lets define a set of existence, {null} which stands for nothingness, {creation} which stands for creation, {God} which stands for God, finally {null, creation} which stands for null plus creation, {null, God} which stands for null plus God, {creation, God} which stands for creation plus God and finally {null, creation, God} which stands for nothingness plus creation plus God. Lets define “>>” as a cause and “->” as a change in state of existence. For example {God}>>{null}->{creation} means that God could cause state of creation from state of nothingness. I hope we are clear up to here.

Now lets assume that your set consist of S={null},{God}, {null,God}] which means that nothing can be created in this set category. To allow creation one need to expand this set to another set which minimally allows creation S’={null},{creation}, {God},{null,God},{creation,God}] or S’’={null},{creation}, {God},{null,God}]. Both set allow {God}>>{null}->{creation} since the creation is allowed. In the second case we have no anomaly since God does not exist in final state together with creation hence {God}>>{null}->{creation} is possible. We have a problem in the first case though since we have to define our causative operator such that allows {creation, God}. This could be {God}>>{null}->{creation,God} which is anomalous and it is not logically possible unless there is a supreme God who created God which means that you have to define another God so called God’ to resolve the problem.

You could have saved me a lot of trouble trying to unravel your logic and just asked the oft asked atheist’s diversion: If God created the universe, what created God?

It is different from that. The right statement is to have God together with creation one need a supreme God.

 

[yppop]

Lets define a set of existence, {null} which stands for nothingness, {creation} which stands for creation, {God} which stands for God, finally {null, creation} which stands for null plus creation, {null, God} which stands for null plus God, {creation, God} which stands for creation plus God and finally {null, creation, God} which stands for nothingness plus creation plus God. Lets define “>>” as a cause and “->” as a change in state of existence. For example {God}>>{null}->{creation} means that God could cause state of creation from state of nothingness. I hope we are clear up to here.

Now lets assume that your set consist of S={null},{God}, {null,God}] which means that nothing can be created in this set category. To allow creation one need to expand this set to another set which minimally allows creation S’={null},{creation}, {God},{null,God},{creation,God}] or S’’={null},{creation}, {God},{null,God}]. Both set allow {God}>>{null}->{creation} since the creation is allowed. In the second case we have no anomaly since God does not exist in final state together with creation hence {God}>>{null}->{creation} is possible. We have a problem in the first case though since we have to define our causative operator such that allows {creation, God}. This could be {God}>>{null}->{creation,God} which is anomalous and it is not logically possible unless there is a supreme God who created God which means that you have to define another God so called God’ to resolve the problem.

It is different from that. The right statement is to have God together with creation one need a supreme God.

What is this? Why this set theory approach? Didn’t I understand your post #65 ? Is there some other conclusion than: God=God’=God’’=…, which begs the question: “If God created the universe, what created God?” Your answer obviously is a string of Gods marching off to infinity in an infinite regress. From which I infer: since infinite regresses are not allowed, that your conclusion is that God does not exist.

If that is correct, then with what would you replace “God” in your starting premise:
{God}>>{null}->{creation}

Please fill in: {?}>>{null}->{creation}

Yppop

 

[Bahman]

Please fill in: {God}>>{null}->{creation}

Yppop

I replace ? with God with the exception that {creation,God} does not exist meaning that God cannot exist with creation since otherwise you end up with a infinite regression.

 

[yppop]

I replace ? with God with the exception that {creation,God} does not exist meaning that God cannot exist with creation since otherwise you end up with a infinite regression.

I know that. Didn’t I write that your conclusion was: God does not exist. Meaning the God of creation. I am asking you to tell me what you think created the universe if there was no God.
Yppop

 

[Bahman]

I know that. Didn’t I write that your conclusion was: God does not exist. Meaning the God of creation. I am asking you to tell me what you think created the universe if there was no God.
Yppop

I am asking you whether God is with creation? If yes, this means {creation,God} exist hence {God}>>{null}->{God} is necessary meaning that {null}->{God} is permissible.

 

[yppop]

I am asking you whether God is with creation? If yes, this means {creation,God} exist hence {God}>>{null}->{God} is necessary meaning that {null}->{God} is permissible.

I don’t know if God “is with” creation. I suppose what you mean by that is God and creation are two elements of the same set. A set is a collection of things that have something in common. The only thing that those elements seem to have is common is an ambiguity you call a “state of existence”. Since existence means “state of being”, “state of existence” translates as “state of state of being”. God is not a “state of existence”; God, in the most acceptable definition of the word, is pure existence.

What I have been trying to extract from your convoluted logic is why you are manipulating a set of “states of states of being”. Why, when you introduce a set defined as {God and creation}, it must be created by a super God labelled God’? Does that mean that God’ can be described as “the state of the state of the state of being of being”?

When you use the word God in this forum, it is essential that you accept the commonly held definition held by Christians and that definition holds that God is eternal and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that God always existed and thus is the only cause of creation. Anything else is pretentious blather. You must see that your blather is not getting through to me and I am certain no one else is reading this, so you could have the last word.

I see you are trolling with the same bait on your thread called “Is God dead?” Since I have now identified you as a troll in my own mind, I will extract some simple satisfaction by referring to you as Blahman from now on.

Yppop

 

[Bahman]

I don’t know if God “is with” creation. I suppose what you mean by that is God and creation are two elements of the same set. A set is a collection of things that have something in common. The only thing that those elements seem to have is common is an ambiguity you call a “state of existence”. Since existence means “state of being”, “state of existence” translates as “state of state of being”. God is not a “state of existence”; God, in the most acceptable definition of the word, is pure existence.

What do you mean with pure existence? God exist as we are with the difference that nothing has created God.

What I have been trying to extract from your convoluted logic is why you are manipulating a set of “states of states of being”. Why, when you introduce a set defined as {God and creation}, it must be created by a super God labelled God’? Does that mean that God’ can be described as “the state of the state of the state of being of being”?

This has been discussed in more detail in another thread. It is basically the idea that comes to my mind from the discussion I have here which in my opinion needed another thread.

The short answer is yes and no. To have God with creation one can assume that

1. God’>>{null}->{creation,God} which means that God is lesser than God
2. God>>{null}->{creation}, God>>{God}->{null,creation} and {null,creation}->{creation,God} meaning that {null} has the potential to {null}->{God} when there is no God.

When you use the word God in this forum, it is essential that you accept the commonly held definition held by Christians and that definition holds that God is eternal and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that God always existed and thus is the only cause of creation. Anything else is pretentious blather. You must see that your blather is not getting through to me and I am certain no one else is reading this, so you could have the last word.

Yes and no depending on the subject. My goal is find a consistent framework with minimal assumption, so sometime I accept God sometimes I reject it.

I see you are trolling with the same bait on your thread called “Is God dead?” Since I have now identified you as a troll in my own mind, I will extract some simple satisfaction by referring to you as Blahman from now on.
Yppop

That thread is a complementary of what I am saying here so I would invite you to that thread if you are interested in idea of God and creation, and see how my focal point of thinking changes by time which is necessary fact in my opinion to find the truth.

 

[Pancras]

Something isn’t working properly in the system - I have to break out this quote.

see below.

quote:
I don’t know if God “is with” creation. I suppose what you mean by that is God and creation are two elements of the same set. A set is a collection of things that have something in common. The only thing that those elements seem to have is common is an ambiguity you call a “state of existence”. Since existence means “state of being”, “state of existence” translates as “state of state of being”. God is not a “state of existence”; God, in the most acceptable definition of the word, is pure existence.

What I have been trying to extract from your convoluted logic is why you are manipulating a set of “states of states of being”. Why, when you introduce a set defined as {God and creation}, it must be created by a super God labelled God’? Does that mean that God’ can be described as “the state of the state of the state of being of being”?

When you use the word God in this forum, it is essential that you accept the commonly held definition held by Christians and that definition holds that God is eternal and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that God always existed and thus is the only cause of creation. Anything else is pretentious blather. You must see that your blather is not getting through to me and I am certain no one else is reading this, so you could have the last word.

I see you are trolling with the same bait on your thread called “Is God dead?” Since I have now identified you as a troll in my own mind, I will extract some simple satisfaction by referring to you as Blahman from now on.

Yppop
Unquote.

It’s nice that you have shown patience to the troll, but still, this whole thread is a waste since it has been overrun with nonsense by the troll without any concern for the topic at hand, only for corruption of the topic at hand. This has been a good example of how the Church allows corruption by “inclusiveness” and false ecumenism. When the windows are flung open and the smoke of satan wafts in, you get what you get, “wherever it may go.” You could simply stop feeding the troll.

quote:
Originally Posted by yppop View Post
I see you are trolling with the same bait on your thread called “Is God dead?” Since I have now identified you as a troll in my own mind, I will extract some simple satisfaction by referring to you as Blahman from now on.
Yppop
That thread is a complementary of what I am saying here so I would invite you to that thread if you are interested in idea of God and creation, and see how my focal point of thinking changes by time which is necessary fact in my opinion to find the truth.
UNquote.

That thread is a waste of pixels. The forum would be a better place if that thread were recycled and its pixels could be used elsewhere, sort of “reborn” and “its old existence forgotten.” (=0)
.

 

[Bahman]

Something isn’t working properly in the system - I have to break out this quote.

quote:
I don’t know if God “is with” creation. I suppose what you mean by that is God and creation are two elements of the same set. A set is a collection of things that have something in common. The only thing that those elements seem to have is common is an ambiguity you call a “state of existence”. Since existence means “state of being”, “state of existence” translates as “state of state of being”. God is not a “state of existence”; God, in the most acceptable definition of the word, is pure existence.

What I have been trying to extract from your convoluted logic is why you are manipulating a set of “states of states of being”. Why, when you introduce a set defined as {God and creation}, it must be created by a super God labelled God’? Does that mean that God’ can be described as “the state of the state of the state of being of being”?

When you use the word God in this forum, it is essential that you accept the commonly held definition held by Christians and that definition holds that God is eternal and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that God always existed and thus is the only cause of creation. Anything else is pretentious blather. You must see that your blather is not getting through to me and I am certain no one else is reading this, so you could have the last word.

I see you are trolling with the same bait on your thread called “Is God dead?” Since I have now identified you as a troll in my own mind, I will extract some simple satisfaction by referring to you as Blahman from now on.

Yppop
Unquote.

It’s nice that you have shown patience to the troll, but still, this whole thread is a waste since it has been overrun with nonsense by the troll without any concern for the topic at hand, only for corruption of the topic at hand. This has been a good example of how the Church allows corruption by “inclusiveness” and false ecumenism. When the windows are flung open and the smoke of satan wafts in, you get what you get, “wherever it may go.” You could simply stop feeding the troll.

quote:
Originally Posted by yppop View Post
I see you are trolling with the same bait on your thread called “Is God dead?” Since I have now identified you as a troll in my own mind, I will extract some simple satisfaction by referring to you as Blahman from now on.
Yppop
That thread is a complementary of what I am saying here so I would invite you to that thread if you are interested in idea of God and creation, and see how my focal point of thinking changes by time which is necessary fact in my opinion to find the truth.
UNquote.

That thread is a waste of pixels. The forum would be a better place if that thread were recycled and its pixels could be used elsewhere, sort of “reborn” and “its old existence forgotten.” (=0)
.

Wherever it may go is a good definition a person who is open to any system of thought. To tell you the truth, I was a Muslim but my words toward others has never been as poisonous as you being a Christian. Needless to say that I practice Christianity for a period as well.

So either you don’t understand my post or you understand it which means that either you agree with it or you have an argument against it. I see non so I am confused why you are posting nonsense in philosophical forum.

 

[empther]

bahman,

So either you don’t understand my post or you understand it which means that either you agree with it or you have an argument against it. I see non so I am confused why you are posting nonsense in philosophical forum.

Your observations confuse us.

You still haven’t answered my question on your “Revelation” thread.

How can hate, ugly and evil substantially exist?

 

[Richca]

No, I didn’t assume so. I assume that God is complete hence it cannot change. It is eternal, so it has no beginning no end. Gods thoughts should be manifested as creation as creation concept itself is a thought which should exist in Gods thoughts. This means that creation is eternal, namely have no beginning no end as it is attached to no changing God unless you accept there could be changes in God which is contrary. But the creation per se is defined as something that has a beginning which is contrary with what we said in last sentence, meaning that you cannot sum up an unchanging God and creation together.

Read previous comment.

It was indeed in God’s knowledege from all eternity that he would create the universe of creatures but He did not will that this universe of creatures should exist from all eternity. Consequently, that the universe of creatures should have a beginning implies no change in God for he willed from eternity that it should have a beginning and not be eternal.

 

[Patty23]

I can’t find the exact quote from Einstein but it goes something like this.

“The thing I cannot understand the world is that it can’t be understood.”

Please help if you can find the exact words.

It suggests that it’s easier to accept a random world if there’s no God. The order in itself is really puzzling. So I really don’t understand the atheistic-scientific blabber. Sartre didn’t bother to support his atheism with any scientific theories. To him we can become caterpillars or anythign anytime and no rules are violated.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I didn’t assume so. I assume that God is complete hence it cannot change. It is eternal, so it has no beginning no end. Gods thoughts should be manifested as creation as creation concept itself is a thought which should exist in Gods thoughts.

Correct, absolutely correct.

This means that creation is eternal, namely have no beginning no end as it is attached to no changing God

Certainly creation could be eternal, but there is no reason by an Eternal God could not create a universe, in time, such that it have an absolute betinning. Surely, if he is Almighty he can create either an eternal universe or a finite one. Your logic does not follow.

unless you accept there could be changes in God which is contrary

If God chose to create a finite universe, it does not mean God changes. That doesn’t follow at all.

But the creation per se is defined as something that has a beginning

But that does not mean that creation could not have been eternal. It could be either eternal or finite. For example see Thomas Aquinas On the Eternity of the World.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm

which is contrary with what we said in last sentence, meaning that you cannot sum up an unchanging God and creation together.

I hope you can see that there is no contradiction.

Linus2nd