Debate: How God Can Create Something From Nothing - (A Response To GreyLorn)

[MindOverMatter]

This is an issue that i feel has been insufficiently dealt with on this forum, and so i felt it deserved its own thread.

I disagree. The traditional religious notion (the sheepherder explanation) that the universe was created from nothing is logically absurd. !

Not if you understand that “existence” is a “being” in its own right, in which contingent realities and forms “participate” and are generated. Its is difficult to describe as much as it is difficult to imagine. Words provide only analogous and perhaps imperfect representations, but they still allow us, to a degree, to give some description to what ultimate reality is and how it is possible to create something from nothing.

“Existence” is an actual thing; it is the “real”, and it is that which eternally gives the “reality”. Ultimate" Reality", is that which allows for there to be such a thing as contingent truths. That which is ultimately “Real” is ultimate truth, since it is the ultimate reason and giver of potential truths. Ultimate and absolute truth, in respect of “being”, is synonymous to ultimate reality, since all logical truths emanate from reality itself in so far as it is a “nature” and stands eternally in opposition to absolute nothingness. God is the intrinsic difference between something and nothing/ real and non-real, and therefore is the truth, because God is absolute reality. God is existence, God is the “ultimate being”, God is that which things come “into”, and thus all that God imagines and wills is given actuality and sustained by the reality of his existence; without which nothing can possibly exist. It is important to note that God doesn’t just “cause” things in to reality; but rather, God gives or shares his own “actuality” with that which he imagines and wills in the same instant of his perfect being. God extends his actuality to that which God imagines. We share in Gods existence. We share in the “real”. We are given reality since we do not and cannot generate our own existence or reality from nothing.

There is a tendency in many philosophies about God to fall into pantheism, since to say that we share in Gods nature (and this is a necessary truth), does sound similar to the various versions of pantheism on sale today; and in fact a perfect understanding of Gods nature would reveal a resemblance. It is understandable that people make this error, but this resemblance is superficial, and is based upon a confusion between the idea of being a “part” of something physical as opposed to being a manifestation of “reality”. Permeation is different to pantheism. Once you understand what reality is as a “nature”, assuming that it is comprehensible, you should see that there is no contradiction in saying that creation is fundamentally not God and yet shares in Gods reality or being and is dependent on Gods nature in terms of its existential continuity. I say the word participation only as an analogy in order to express creations existential dependence on God, but not to imply that we are intrinsic parts of what God is. I will not go in to this right now for the sake of my present argument. If you do have difficulty understanding this, just assume for now that i am right, and we will go in to this at a later date.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

…Ultimate Existence is a perfect and simple entity, it is not made up of complex contingent parts and neither is it a sum total of anything. All possible truths result from Gods perfect existence. In fact, possible and logical truths are as such because they are intrinsic to perfection; they exist because that which is perfect is eternally present and is eternally expressing its reality to a perfect degree. We can see this if we admit the following fact about nothingness. Absolute nothingness cannot exist because it is not a reality. Therefore there is necessarily an absolute being which is being by nature, that cannot fail to exist, and in so far as being absolute, all logical truth exists because of it, since logic does not cannot exist in nothing. Such a being hierarchically exists simultaneously to, and is the cause of, all that which is dynamic by cause and nature, which includes time, and therefore energy. Metaphysically speaking, for lack of a better word, God exists before all potential change.

We have just learned that Gods being and nature is fundamentally and actually logical. This is because God is by nature absolute truth and reality, and therefore all logical and possible truths are present to Gods mind because they are expressive of his perfect nature. In this way, God is the cause of all logic and therefore is the cause of all theoretically possible abstractions from logic. Because God knows himself perfectly, he thus knows all theoretically possible abstractions, and these abstractions are eternally manifested as ideas in what you might call Gods mind. All mathematical structures are present in Gods eternal mind or imagination.

Because God is by nature reality, God expresses all of his reality to a perfect degree, and thus gives creative actuality to the mathematical possibilities contained within in Gods mind, since it is more reflective of Gods nature to be actually real, than just an abstraction; and everything that God creates is created, in part, to symbolize or give metaphorical resemblance to God and his ideas. Thus the term “created in God’s image”.

Because God is actual reality by nature, God has the power to share his nature, and therefore everything that God has imagined is actualized in the same instant of God being real, because God is actuality - pure actuality; and also an intelligent will. Nothing in God can fail to be actual unless its actuality was contradictory in some way to Gods nature. In fact it would be a logical contradiction for Gods imagination to not become actual in some way, and this is because Gods fundamental nature is actuality; to such an extent that both the abstract and that which is actual exists in God’s presence in the same instant. Everything contained within Gods imagination is “actual” to varying degrees in a way that is best reflective of, and non-contradictory to, Gods nature. Everything is caused in to being in the same instant of God being real, and is sustained in existence by that which is existence.

No time passes between Gods existential act and the existence of the multi-verse. This means that everything in a sense is eternally real, but only from the perspective of a Gods eye-view. From our perspective there is time, and because the universe is a metaphysically possible reality there has to be change. But isn’t God a metaphysically possible reality? No. God is an “intrinsic reality”, because God is the reason for possibilities; he is that which makes possibilities possible. Thus it doesn’t make sense to speak of God as a metaphysical possibility, since we can’t begin to speak about possible beings unless we admit of that which is absolutely and perfectly real. This is one way of proving God’s necessary and absolute existence as transcending all change and metaphysically possible beings.

However, creative possibilities only become actual in respect of Gods other attributes such as love. Just because something is logically possible, does not mean that something is actually possible. Love is a determining factor insofar as that which is allowed into actual reality; you could say that love is the natural selector of actual possibilities; but in this case it is an intelligent selector and is by nature a will. God is love. Absolute Existence is love because it eternally shares its reality by nature of its being and will.

To sum up, God creates “ex nihilo” by sharing Gods nature or by extending Gods actuality to that which is contained within the divine imagination. Also, I believe that the natural evolution of physical reality would be more compatible with Gods creative and eternal act, since I believe that God, according to his fundamental nature, shares his creative expression. He might do this be setting up an actual “seed” containing all actual possibilities, which unravels or becomes manifest through a substrate of energy on the quantum level, which moves according to fundamental principles (the laws of quantum physics), rather than by classical causality. This is certainly what appears to be the picture currently being painted by science today.

To be continued…

 

[MindOverMatter]

It has forced many thoughtful religious philosophers into intellectual prostitution, trying to explain or justify, logically, that something can be created from nothing.

It depends on what they mean when they say that God creates from nothing. In my philosophical judgment, a competent Catholic philosopher would not suggest that God creates out of that which has no reality, since the logic of being demands that out of nothing comes nothing. This much is absolutely true. Instead it is more accurate to say that God creates according to his fundamental nature which is perfect reality.

If the energy conservation law was adopted by religion, this logical problem would be solved. Energy provides the stuff of creation which logic has been seeking for millennia!

It is true that energy is the fundamental substrate of physical reality; but it is not reality by nature. Energy is by nature fundamentally dynamic; as in to say, it is energy because it is changing. Change is something intrinsic to it, and it doesn’t make logical sense to speak of energy outside of change. It becomes a meaningless term for which we have absolutely no evidence of. This means that anything which is not changing in some way cannot be described of in terms of energy. If energy is the fundamental nature of physics, then that which precedes or transcends change, is not energy and thus is not physical. Therefore energy cannot be the absolute being, since the absolute being, by the fact of it being absolute, transcends all potentiality and time/change, and therefore absolute reality is the existential ground that supports the existence of that which changes. Reality is therefore the cause of energy; not the other way round. A being that has the power to create natures is not subject to the principles of physical reality, since the principles of physical reality are not absolute beings; they are the stuff of creative potentiality.

 

[coolduude]

ahem sorry to be the bearer of bad news

But… There is a ban on stuff like this for the time being:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=410885

 

[James_S_Saint]

This is not an evolution nor an atheist specific topic.

Reality is therefore the cause of energy; not the other way round.

This was about the only statement in all of that with which I could both understand and agree although I think the word “reality” in that statement should have been “God” (or perhaps “Logic”) as “reality” includes the physical universe also, not just God/Logic.

 

[twinc]

ahem sorry to be the bearer of bad news

But… There is a ban on stuff like this for the time being:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=410885

not if we substitute MIND for GOD,so we have MIND over matter which just does not exist for its existence is a bluff and an illusion[maya]- Matter has long since been dematerialised.So MIND is not a something or a nothing but it is no thing - more later - meanwhile any comments thus far - twinc

 

[James_S_Saint]

If the energy conservation law was adopted by religion, this logical problem would be solved. Energy provides the stuff of creation which logic has been seeking for millennia!

The problem with that statement is in the question, “where did the energy come from?”

It is logically impossible to have a state of absolute nothingness. But Who made it impossible? If you say, “Logic”, then “Who made logic before man ever arrived on the scene?” If he says, “Logic just IS”, well guess what, that’s what they say of God, “God just is” “I am that I am”.

 

[Fran65]

I find it somewhat amusing that some people judge everything by what they can understand and dismiss anything that they don’t understand as absurd. Some draw up their definitions, establish their boundaries and believe everything in the universe should conform to *their *understanding.

God? What could He possibly know or be capable of that we don’t and aren’t? After all, *we *are educated and logical…I bet God doesn’t even have a High School Diploma!

 

[James_S_Saint]

After all, *we *are educated and logical…I bet God doesn’t even have a High School Diploma!

Well hey, if you don’t really have to have a birth certificate to become US President, why should you have to really have a diploma to become God? :yukonjoe:

 

[yppop]

Is there anyone in this forum that understands what MOM is trying to say in the OP? He uses the same words over and over until their meaning blend together in a flatulent fog.

For example. in the first half of the lead sentence in his second paragraph; he states: “Existence” is an actual thing; it is the “real”,and it is that which eternally gives the “reality”. … Now consider the transposition of the three key words:

“Actuality” is a real thing; it is “existence”, and it is that which eternally gives the “existence”.

“Reality” is an existing thing; it is actual, and it is that which gives the “actuality”…

Syntactically, exist-existence-being-real-reality-actual-actuality keep bumping into each other to create a monumental example of redundancy and tautology. But surely there must be some meaning in there somewhere.

Word play, that’s what I fear this is, but if anyone can discern some or any meaning let me know.

Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

That is why posed a thread here on the “Rational Definition of Existence”, so as to give meaning to those words rather than merely substituting each for the other. But people enjoy the obfuscation of word games. Why understand something when you can argue about it much longer. :slapfight:

 

[MindOverMatter]

Is there anyone in this forum that understands what MOM is trying to say in the OP? He uses the same words over and over until their meaning blend together in a flatulent fog.

Anybody who understands the “Thomistic Metaphysics of Being” will understand what i am saying. What i percieve in this forum is a redundency in education and thus understanding.

For example. in the first half of the lead sentence in his second paragraph; he states: “Existence” is an actual thing; it is the “real”,and it is that which eternally gives the “reality”. … Now consider the transposition of the three key words:

“Actuality” is a real thing; it is “existence”, and it is that which eternally gives the “existence”.

“Reality” is an existing thing; it is actual, and it is that which gives the “actuality”…

Syntactically, exist-existence-being-real-reality-actual-actuality keep bumping into each other to create a monumental example of redundancy and tautology.

Prove it. Dont just suggest it.

Word play, that’s what I fear this is, but if anyone can discern some or any meaning let me know.

Yppop

Well…if you don’t understand what i am saying to begin with, then your negative opinion is irrelivant and cannot possibly be a product of understanding.

 

[MindOverMatter]

This is not an evolution nor an atheist specific topic.

This was about the only statement in all of that with which I could both understand and agree although I think the word “reality” in that statement should have been “God” (or perhaps “Logic”) as “reality” includes the physical universe also, not just God/Logic.

If you read the thread properly, you will see that i explain the metaphysics of being. I made it clear that i was talking about God, and i also made it clear that there is a difference between that which is potentially real, that which is real by participation, and that which is real by “nature”. The physical universe is a participatory nature. This means simply that it doesn’t exist by virtue of its nature; it is not “reality” by nature, but merely particpates in a reality that already exists and is eternal. Physical beings are generated and sustained in being by reality/existence and not the other way round. Physical beings cannot be the ultimate cuase of existence If the physical universe was existence by nature, it would simply exist in its entirity from all eternity. It would not have any potentiality in it, since its being would be intrinsic to reality and thus logically neccesary. Also, the physical universe proceeds into reality; not into an existential nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing; thus there has to be a fundemental nature that is existence in which physical beings proceed into. This nature is called the “real”, or reality. We also know this nature by the term existence. That which is “existence” by nature, exists because its nature is fundemetally “existence”, like a circle is a circle by virtue of its nature which is in fact a circle. God does not participate in existence; but rather God’s nature is “existence”. God is reality.

This is different from merely saying that a particular physical thing is real or potentially real. When i say that God is real, i am not and cannot possibly mean it in the same sense that a physical thing is real, although the two have a similarity in the sense that both natures exist. The difference is, when i say that a physical thing is real, it is real because, in the first place, there is already such a thing as “reality” as a distinct and transcendent nature that exists wholly independent of physical things and potential beings in terms of why it exists and what it is fundementally; and it exists entirely because of itself and not becuase of any precedent or potential fact. Since the physical universe is not existence by nature, but rather is a series of potential states, finite or infinite, physics does not exist by logical neccesity of its nature like God, since potential states do not contain within them the neccesary nature that is “reality”. Rather, they partcipate in reality; they come into reality. They share in the nature of the real. God is the only being that is reality by nature.

I understand that this can be a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but it follows neccesarily from the fact of Gods nature as existence.

 

[grannymh]

This is an issue that i feel has been insufficiently dealt with on this forum, and so i felt it deserved its own thread.

Originally Posted by greylorn forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I disagree. The traditional religious notion (the sheepherder explanation) that the universe was created from nothing is logically absurd. !

I look at the night sky and know that it has to be created from nothing because all the somethings I know would not make it so amazingly beautiful.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

 

[yppop]

Anybody who understands the “Thomistic Metaphysics of Being” will understand what i am saying. What i percieve in this forum is a redundency in education and thus understanding.

Definition: Redundant (correct spelling). 1.more than enough; overabundant; excessive. 2. excess; superfluous

You are absolutely correct I am guilty of being redundant (i.e.,overabundant, see def.1) both in education and understanding, so thank you for the compliment. .

Prove it. Dont just suggest it.

Definition of exist: 1. to be; have reality or **actual **being.
Definition of actual: 1. existing in reality or in act; not merely possible, but real.
Definition of real: 1. existing or happening as or in fact; actual, true, objectively so, etc.

Notice how each of the definitions contain the other two words; that proves the redundancy (def.2) of your statement.

Definition: tautology 1. Needless repetition of an idea in a different word, phrase, or sentence; redundancy. pleoplasm

Need I say more. Q.E.D.

Well…if you don’t understand what i am saying to begin with, then your negative opinion is irrelivant and cannot possibly be a product of understanding.

Unless someone else makes the claim that they understand your OP, then my negative opinion is very relevant.

Yppop

 

[MindOverMatter]

Definition: Redundant (correct spelling). 1.more than enough; overabundant; excessive. 2. excess; superfluous

You are absolutely correct I am guilty of being redundant (i.e.,overabundant, see def.1) both in education and understanding, so thank you for the compliment.

It could also mean that you have been made redundant from your job, and thus you could ironically employ the term in a manner that is dismissive of a particular idea or attitude as being of no use.

Definition of exist: 1. to be; have reality or **actual **being.
Definition of actual: 1. existing in reality or in act; not merely possible, but real.
Definition of real: 1. existing or happening as or in fact; actual, true, objectively so, etc.

Firstly, what you have written here doesn’t actually contradict anything that i have said, and you would know this if you had bothered to humble yourself and read what i said properly, instead of being smart about spelling mistakes…A Dictionary is not a book of metaphysics, and so until they speak particularly about Aquinas’s metaphysics its unlikely that they will provide the meaningful distinction of being real by participation and real by nature, and thus you have not shown my distinction to be in error by merely providing a popular definition of reality or actuality. You have to show that my metaphysical definition is wrong according to logic. You haven’t provided this; in fact i have addressed this issue already in the first 3 of my posts on this thread.

In any case, if a person had the correct intentions in terms of understanding somebody elses view, they would have asked me to try and explain it in another way they would understand. You simply wanted to voice your irrelevant opinion by dismissing it, as if to say that if nobody else understands it, than it is not worth understanding. This to me is a poor attitude and is useless on a forum such as this. If my opinion is worthless then why did you make a post? What is the point?

Notice how each of the definitions contain the other two words; that proves the redundancy (def.2) of your statement.

Definition: tautology 1. Needless repetition of an idea in a different word, phrase, or sentence; redundancy. pleoplasm

Need I say more. Q.E.D.

Tautology can have a different meaning and expression than the one you have provided. In any case that you feel it to be needless is reflective of your needs and wants, and not necessarily expressive of objective fact or other peoples opinions. If you had understood what i had written, then perhaps you would seen the relevance of my using different words? Then again i should anticipate the confusion it would cause you in particular, and use only the word “reality”.

Unless someone else makes the claim that they understand your OP, then my negative opinion is very relevant.

Yppop

Unless you understand somebodies argument, you cannot claim it to be in error, or tautological as defined in a philosophical sense.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It could also mean that you have been made redundant from your job, and thus you could ironically employ the term in a manner that is dismissive of a particular idea or attitude as being of no use.

Firstly, what you have written here doesn’t actually contradict anything that i have said, and you would know this if you had bothered to humble yourself and read what i said properly, instead of being smart about spelling mistakes…A Dictionary is not a book of metaphysics, and so until they speak particularly about Aquinas’s metaphysics its unlikely that they will provide the meaningful distinction of being real by participation and real by nature, and thus you have not shown my distinction to be in error by merely providing a popular definition of reality or actuality. You have to show that my metaphysical definition is wrong according to logic. You haven’t provided this; in fact i have addressed this issue already in the first 3 of my posts on this thread.

In any case, i f a person had the correct intentions in terms of understanding somebody elses view, they would have asked me to try and explain it in another way they they would understand. You simply wanted to voice your irrelevant opinion by dismissing it, as if to say that if nobody else understands it, than it is not worth understanding. This to me is a poor attitude and is useless on a forum such as this. If my opinion is worthless then why did you make a post? What is the point.

Tautology can have a different meaning and expression than the one you have provided. In any case that you feel it to be needless is reflective of your needs and wants, and not necessarily expressive of objective fact or other peoples opinions. If you had understood what i had written, then perhaps you would seen the relevance of my using different words? Then again i should anticipate the confusion it would cause you in particular, and use only the world “reality”.

Unless you understand somebodies argument, you cannot claim it to be in error, or tautological as defined in a philosophical sense.

On the contrary, he was merely pointing out the difficulty in trying to understand what you meant to say. He was NOT protesting your intent, but only the language that you provided. I had the same response myself. We each expressed that we could not understand what you were attempting to communicate, NOT that it was in error.

He pointed out that to us, those words all mean pretty much the same thing. If you have a different understanding of them then it is crucial that you point that out and give us a chance to settle with your distinctions, else you accomplish nothing but confusion. Confusion is NOT what a debate is “supposed” to be about.

I STILL have no idea what you were trying to say in the OP. Help us first with your language, THEN explain what argument you have to make concerning the issue. We might all agree (as though that *EVER *happens).

 

[MindOverMatter]

Originally Posted by greylorn forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I disagree. The traditional religious notion (the sheepherder explanation) that the universe was created from nothing is logically absurd. !

I look at the night sky and know that it has to be created from nothing because all the somethings I know would not make it so amazingly beautiful.

Blessings,
granny

These two websites contain TV ads about Catholicism. The first is from one of the Dioceses which is using them. The second is general information.

Thank you granny for your positive (name removed by moderator)ut, but it doesn’t show us how it is logically possible for something to come out of absolutely nothing. In this case, Greylorns statement is very relevant, and needs to be addressed on logical terms.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you granny for your positive (name removed by moderator)ut, but it doesn’t show us how it is logically possible for something to come out of absolutely nothing. In this case, Greylorns statement is very relevant, and needs to be addressed on logical terms.

Logic is one of the many paths to find the Being Who can create something from nothing. Beauty happens to be another path. However, I am quite content to stick to logical terms.

 

[MindOverMatter]

On the contrary, he was merely pointing out the difficulty in trying to understand what you meant to say. He was NOT protesting your intent, but only the language that you provided. I had the same response myself. We each expressed that we could not understand what you were attempting to communicate, NOT that it was in error.

He pointed out that to us, those words all mean pretty much the same thing. If you have a different understanding of them then it is crucial that you point that out and give us a chance to settle with your distinctions, else you accomplish nothing but confusion. Confusion is NOT what a debate is “supposed” to be about.

I STILL have no idea what you were trying to say in the OP. Help us first with your language, THEN explain what argument you have to make concerning the issue. We might all agree (as though that *EVER *happens).

If you read the first 3 posts of this thread, you should see that what i am in fact doing is explaining the metaphysics of being. I do not make an argument for the existence of God, but rather i explain what is necessary in order for God to have the capacity to create out of nothing. I was attempting to make Gods actions intelligible. To that effect I made it clear that i was talking about God, and i also made it clear that there is a fundamental difference between that which is potentially real, that which is real by participation in the real, and that which is real by “nature”. That which is real by nature is reality, and necessarily so, just like a circle is a circle by virtue of it having the shape or the properties of a circle. That which is existence by nature, exists by its nature.

Firstly, any physical thing which exists, has two things relevant to its being. Firstly, it has reality and thus act; it has esse. Secondly it has an essence, which is by another word its nature, its “way” of being, its properties and any act peculiar to its nature. The physical universe is a participatory nature. This means simply that it doesn’t exist by virtue of its nature; it is not “reality” (esse) by nature, but merely participates in, and is actualized by, a reality that already exists and is eternal, and it is eternal because its nature is “esse”. Physical reality cannot create that which is logically and existentially necessary. This means that any being which potentially exists, exists not because they are real, but because of something else that is making it real. A potential being is given reality; it receives it. If a being exists necessarily, it is because its “essence” and its “esse”, are the same thing; and that is to say that it does not receive reality, because it is reality.

Again; Physics, potentially real beings, cannot be the ultimate cause of existence. They cannot come out of nothing, or be the ultimate cause of the potentiality that it requires in order to exist; every physical act is receiving potentiality and reality (esse), and thus none of them are the ultimate logical cause or efficient reason of potentiality or reality; and the same is true for energy. Out of nothing comes nothing. If the physical universe was existence by nature (esse), it would simply exist in its entirety from all eternity. It would not have any potentiality or change in it, since its being would be intrinsic to reality and thus physical beings would be logically necessary and timeless by virtue of that necessity. But logic and experience tells us otherwise. Also, the physical universe proceeds into reality; not into an existential nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing; thus there has to be a fundamental nature that is existence in which physical beings proceed into. This nature is called the “real”, or reality. We also know this nature by the term existence. That which is “existence” by nature, exists because its nature is fundamentally “existence”, like a circle is a circle by virtue of its nature which is in fact a circle. God does not participate in existence; but rather God’s nature is “existence”. God is reality.

When talking about reality it is necessary to make further distinctions, simply because there is such a thing as “potentiality”; potential beings. This is different from merely saying that a particular physical thing is real or potentially real. When i say that God is real, i am not and cannot possibly mean it in the same sense that a physical thing is real, although the two have a similarity in the sense that both natures exist. The difference is, when i say that a physical thing is real, it is real because, in the first place, there is already such a thing as “reality” as a distinct and transcendent nature that exists wholly independent of physical things and potential beings in terms of why it exists and what it is fundamentally; and it exists entirely because of itself and not because of any precedent or potential fact. Since the physical universe is not existence by nature, but rather is a series of potential states, finite or infinite, physics does not exist by logical necessity of its nature like God, since potential states do not contain within them the necessary nature that is “reality”. Rather, they participate in reality; they come into reality. They share in the nature of the real. God is the only being that is reality by nature.

I understand that this can be a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but it follows necessarily from the fact of Gods nature as existence, and it is also necessary in order to understand how God creates from nothing.