Creation Ex Nihilo?

[Bahman]

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.

Creation cannot have any beginning since beginning and end are concepts attached to the time yet there was no time when there was no creation hence there is no beginning for creation meaning that creation has to be eternal otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction which is discussed here.

 

[Bahman]

Correct, absolutely correct.

We are becoming bro!

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.

This is subject of discussion whether this is logically possible or not . I have already this in “there was no beginning” thread.

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

We know that concept of space-time continuum is attached to the mass from general relativity which means there could be no time without a mass. This means that generally there could be no time if there is no existence as time is subject reality. In another hand beginning requires time which could not exist if there is no existence namely mass in the language of general relativity. Hence, at least within current paradigm creation cannot have any 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

I will look at it shortly.

I hope you can see that there is no contradiction.

I hope to see you for further discussion.

Love,
Bahman.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We are becoming bro!

This is subject of discussion whether this is logically possible or not . I have already this in “there was no beginning” thread.

We know that concept of space-time continuum is attached to the mass from general relativity which means there could be no time without a mass. This means that generally there could be no time if there is no existence as time is subject reality. In another hand beginning requires time which could not exist if there is no existence namely mass in the language of general relativity. Hence, at least within current paradigm creation cannot have any beginning.

I confess ignorance about Einsteins theories of Relativity. However, Thomas Aquinas teaches that at the creation event, God created whole substances, in time, from nothing. That means their whole nature, matter, mass, genus, species, and difference, and their act of existence by an act of his will.

This is not a contradiction in Thomas. He held to this conviction as a matter of Faith. However, he acknowledged that there was no irrefutable evidence in nature or from the history of the world that this was so. And he acknowledged, that based on reason alone, a continuous, eternal creation was at least possible. But in matter of fact, this did not happan, as God and the Catholic Church teach. God’s logic is not our logic.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I confess ignorance about Einsteins theories of Relativity. However, Thomas Aquinas teaches that at the creation event, God created whole substances, in time, from nothing. That means their whole nature, matter, mass, genus, species, and difference, and their act of existence by an act of his will.

That is no hard to understand. In reality the only thing that an intellect can observe are events. Lets say that we observe a set of event so called changes, E={E1,E2,E3…} which E1 happens earlier than E2 etc. By earlier we mean that the intellect is aware that E1 happened in advance compared to E2, etc. How does intellect could be aware of such a thing is subject of contemplation. The intellect however can experience the rate at which changes happen as well which. The later quality is relative.

Now lets go to idea of time. As you see we could completely avoid the concept of time when it came to changes. Yet we can still talk about the concept of beginning in which changes start. As you see the role of intellect or observer (what ever it is, whether is a single particle or a human being) is crucial since no changes can be observed without an intellect meaning that changes is a relative concept which means at least two entities are needed by which one is subjective and another one objective. In reality what is subjective to X belongs to outside X because it is experienced by X and what is experienced lets call Y is objective to X. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is experienced by Y is subjective to Y because it is experienced which is objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the picture. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vise versa but Y could not experience anything but X hence it could not deduce its existence as well which means that the event beginning expressing the existence of subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality.

This is not a contradiction in Thomas. He held to this conviction as a matter of Faith. However, he acknowledged that there was no irrefutable evidence in nature or from the history of the world that this was so. And he acknowledged, that based on reason alone, a continuous, eternal creation was at least possible. But in matter of fact, this did not happan, as God and the Catholic Church teach. God’s logic is not our logic.
Linus2nd

What is explained in the previous comment is clearly opposite to what Tomas assume which states a subjective reality so called time could exist prior to existence of an objective reality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That is no hard to understand. In reality the only thing that an intellect can observe are events. Lets say that we observe a set of event so called changes, E={E1,E2,E3…} which E1 happens earlier than E2 etc. By earlier we mean that the intellect is aware that E1 happened in advance compared to E2, etc. How does intellect could be aware of such a thing is subject of contemplation. The intellect however can experience the rate at which changes happen as well which. The later quality is relative.

Now lets go to idea of time. As you see we could completely avoid the concept of time when it came to changes. Yet we can still talk about the concept of beginning in which changes start. As you see the role of intellect or observer (what ever it is, whether is a single particle or a human being) is crucial since no changes can be observed without an intellect meaning that changes is a relative concept which means at least two entities are needed by which one is subjective and another one objective. In reality what is subjective to X belongs to outside X because it is experienced by X and what is experienced lets call Y is objective to X. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is experienced by Y is subjective to Y because it is experienced which is objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the picture. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vise versa but Y could not experience anything but X hence it could not deduce its existence as well which means that the event beginning expressing the existence of subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality.

What is explained in the previous comment is clearly opposite to what Tomas assume which states a subjective reality so called time could exist prior to existence of an objective reality.

You seem to be basing your argument on Relativity theories. That has nothing to do with the exsistence of things ( substances ) or of the universe. The universe exists. That is a fact. The question is, did it have an actual beginning, such that there was no " before. " Theoretically or philosophically, there is no way to prove either case. It is only by the Revelation of God that we know that the universe had an actual beginning, such that there was no " before. " Do you understand what I have just written? You may disagree but I want to know if you understood what I have written.

O.K. What I said has nothing to do with Relativity or with any scientific theory. The great beauty about Divine Revelation is that it keeps us from making errors, even in science in some cases. Because Divine Revelation is Truth and since the same God is the author of the universe and of science, there can be no fundamental conflict between Faith and Science. But Faith or Divine Revelation trumps. Or you could say, to use the terminology of Relativity, God is the one " objective observer. " And he has Revealed his objectivity to us.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

You seem to be basing your argument on Relativity theories. That has nothing to do with the exsistence of things ( substances ) or of the universe. The universe exists. That is a fact. The question is, did it have an actual beginning, such that there was no " before. " Theoretically or philosophically, there is no way to prove either case. It is only by the Revelation of God that we know that the universe had an actual beginning, such that there was no " before. " Do you understand what I have just written? You may disagree but I want to know if you understood what I have written.

O.K. What I said has nothing to do with Relativity or with any scientific theory. The great beauty about Divine Revelation is that it keeps us from making errors, even in science in some cases. Because Divine Revelation is Truth and since the same God is the author of the universe and of science, there can be no fundamental conflict between Faith and Science. But Faith or Divine Revelation trumps. Or you could say, to use the terminology of Relativity, God is the one " objective observer. " And he has Revealed his objectivity to us.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

No. What I am trying to say is very simple namely, the existence of a subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. Could we agree on this?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No. What I am trying to say is very simple namely, the existence of a subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. Could we agree on this?

I can neither agree or disagree if I don’t understand what you are saying. What is the " subjective reality " you speak of and what is the " objective reality? "

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I can neither agree or disagree if I don’t understand what you are saying. What is the " subjective reality " you speak of and what is the " objective reality? "

Linus2nd

The subjective reality is what an intellect experiences which is the result of existence of something else so called objective reality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The subjective reality is what an intellect experiences which is the result of existence of something else so called objective reality.

I can agree to that as long as " subjective " in your usage does not mean " not true or not reflective of " objective " reality.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I can agree to that as long as " subjective " in your usage does not mean " not true or not reflective of " objective " reality.

Linus2nd

Could you please elaborate so we could continue our discussion from there.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Could you please elaborate so we could continue our discussion from there.

It means that my knowledge of extra mental reality is subjective only in the sense that it is occurring in me, the subject which is having the thoughts. But these thoughts accurately reflect what actually exists outside the mind. My " subjective " knowledge is true because it accurately reflects the external reality.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

The subjective reality is what an intellect experiences which is the result of existence of something else so called objective reality.

:twocents:

I’m not sure the division of subjective-objective serves much purpose and it seems to lead to intellectual dead ends. I reframe these concepts in terms of relationship, which I like to think of as fundamental basis of everything - the perfect relationship being love. We know something as we relate to it and this includes ourselves.

For example: looking at the tree outside, the greenness of its leaves tells me something about it.
I could pursue my relationship with its reality by contemplating it through the lens of biology: chlorophyl and such.
At the same time, I could understand myself better as a human being in whose nature it is to see colour. It is I who sees the green, and that greenness then is also part of me.
As the object of my attention - both I and the tree are part of objective reality.

The problem is: who is this “I” that sees, feels, thinks?
There exists a mystery as to who we are that one can not, imho, be understood by intellectually chasing one’s own tail.
That mystery is revealed in our relationship with God.
As my parents, teachers and society have reflected back to me who I am in this world, God’s love reveals to me my true nature.

Something like that.

 

[Bahman]

It means that my knowledge of extra mental reality is subjective only in the sense that it is occurring in me, the subject which is having the thoughts. But these thoughts accurately reflect what actually exists outside the mind. My " subjective " knowledge is true because it accurately reflects the external reality.

Linus2nd

That I agree with. Your thoughts are in fact are subjective once they are conceived by your intellect but they become objective when we reflect or in another word experience them.

Now lets go back to my argument: In reality what is subjective to X is the result of experience of outside reality, lets call it objective reality Y. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is subjective to Y is the result of experience of outside reality, lets call objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the picture. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its own existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vice versa, otherwise Y or X could not experience anything hence it could not deduce its own existence as well which means that the event beginning expressing the existence of a subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. This means that time cannot exist as a subjective reality unless a objective reality exist.

 

[Bahman]

As the object of my attention - both I and the tree are part of objective reality.

Your body and the three are part of objective reality, not your “I”.

The problem is: who is this “I” that sees, feels, thinks?

That is intellect.

There exists a mystery as to who we are that one can not, imho, be understood by intellectually chasing one’s own tail.

That is a very correct expression since intellect can only become aware of itself through the effect it leaves in objective reality.

 

[Aloysium]

Sometimes, engaging in human interaction, one finds the image of oneself reflected back as if in a funhouse mirror.

I am left wondering about the degree to which the expression of my thoughts is idiosyncratic and understandable. I do not expect a reply.

The following are some quotes from Pope Benedict’s “Caritas in Veritate”.

As a spiritual being, the human creature is defined through interpersonal relations. The more authentically he or she lives these relations, the more his or her own personal identity matures. It is not by isolation that man establishes his worth, but by placing himself in relation with others and with God. Hence these relations take on fundamental importance. The same holds true for peoples as well. A metaphysical understanding of the relations between persons is therefore of great benefit for their development. In this regard, reason finds inspiration and direction in Christian revelation, according to which the human community does not absorb the individual, annihilating his autonomy, as happens in the various forms of totalitarianism, but rather values him all the more because the relation between individual and community is a relation between one totality and another. Just as a family does not submerge the identities of its individual members, just as the Church rejoices in each “new creation” incorporated by Baptism into her living Body, so too the unity of the human family does not submerge the identities of individuals, peoples and cultures, but makes them more transparent to each other and links them more closely in their legitimate diversity.

The Trinity is absolute unity insofar as the three divine Persons are pure relationality. The reciprocal transparency among the divine Persons is total and the bond between each of them complete, since they constitute a unique and absolute unity. God desires to incorporate us into this reality of communion as well: “that they may be one even as we are one” . The Church is a sign and instrument of this unity. Relationships between human beings throughout history cannot but be enriched by reference to this divine model. In particular, in the light of the revealed mystery of the Trinity, we understand that true openness does not mean loss of individual identity but profound interpenetration. This also emerges from the common human experiences of love and truth. Just as the sacramental love of spouses unites them spiritually in “one flesh” and makes out of the two a real and relational unity, so in an analogous way truth unites spirits and causes them to think in unison, attracting them as a unity to itself.

 

[Aloysium]

There is God and His creation.
He is Relationality Itself: Love.
We exist because we are maintained in/by/through God’s love and compassion.
We relate to Him, with each other and the world of which we are a part.

The mystery of who we are in the world is revealed to our minds and hearts through the Church, which leads us to each other and to God, in love.
No true understanding is possible without love - the light that is self-giving union with that which is other.

That creation arises ex nihilo is a matter of faith, revealed by scripture and the Church’s teachings, confirmed through the grace of the Holy Spirit, within our relationship with God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That I agree with. Your thoughts are in fact are subjective once they are conceived by your intellect but they become objective when we reflect or in another word experience them.

Now lets go back to my argument: In reality what is subjective to X is the result of experience of outside reality, lets call it objective reality Y. This however apply to Y as well, namely what is subjective to Y is the result of experience of outside reality, lets call objective reality X. This means that we at least need two beings X and Y to complete the picture. Without X, Y cannot experience anything hence it cannot be aware of its own existence as well and vice versa. So the beginning by definition is where X could experience Y and vice versa, otherwise Y or X could not experience anything hence it could not deduce its own existence as well which means that the event beginning expressing the existence of a subjective reality is subjected to existence of an objective reality. This means that time cannot exist as a subjective reality unless a objective reality exist.

You are assuming that both x and y are sentient beins. But according to current evolutionar theory the first beings were non-sentient, they were simply rudimentary forms of matter. And since they were all changing, there was time. I don’t think it can be proven that there was ever a time in which there was no change or movement. So time remains a measure motion or change or of duration in existenc of the beings undergoing change or motion.

Besides, as far as man is concerned, he can certainly sense his own aches, pains, and illnessess even if he senses nothing else.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

You are assuming that both x and y are sentient beins. But according to current evolutionar theory the first beings were non-sentient, they were simply rudimentary forms of matter. And since they were all changing, there was time. I don’t think it can be proven that there was ever a time in which there was no change or movement. So time remains a measure motion or change or of duration in existenc of the beings undergoing change or motion.

Besides, as far as man is concerned, he can certainly sense his own aches, pains, and illnessess even if he senses nothing else.

Linus2nd

I don’t think if anything could be completely non-sentient. How otherwise they could experience each other existence and affect each other?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think if anything could be completely non-sentient. How otherwise they could experience each other existence and affect each other?

You think that a gas and a rock or sentient? How do you arrive at that?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

You think that a gas and a rock or sentient? How do you arrive at that?
Linus2nd

How do could interact then? What we call force is in fact show that they are sentient. They are not as sentient as we are but they are aware of their surrounding otherwise they could not interact.