Did God really create the world out of nothing?

[greylorn]

No, He did not.

There is a great Bible available which answers the question of creation, which, unlike the Torah, the Testaments, etc. is certain to have been written by God himself. It contains all answers to all questions, but the answers are only available to worthy students.

The Bible is commonly known as the physical universe.

It contains a small trinity of physical rules called, The Laws of Thermodynamics, which bear upon the question of creation. The first of these laws is that all known things are made of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.

Energy is a mathematically defined physical substance which assumes many forms, only one of which is the stuff we recognize as matter. The four known forces in the universe are the consequence of interactions between various energy forms, such as heat, light, magnetic fields, electric fields, etc.

Since God’s own ultimate Bible declares that Energy cannot be created or destroyed (only changed in form), it is obvious that God created the universe from a primeval form of this amorphous stuff.

He did not create the stuff itself.

Now you know.
Greylorn

 

[jkiernan56]

No, He did not.

There is a great Bible available which answers the question of creation, which, unlike the Torah, the Testaments, etc. is certain to have been written by God himself. It contains all answers to all questions, but the answers are only available to worthy students.

The Bible is commonly known as the physical universe.

It contains a small trinity of physical rules called, The Laws of Thermodynamics, which bear upon the question of creation. The first of these laws is that all known things are made of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.

Energy is a mathematically defined physical substance which assumes many forms, only one of which is the stuff we recognize as matter. The four known forces in the universe are the consequence of interactions between various energy forms, such as heat, light, magnetic fields, electric fields, etc.

Since God’s own ultimate Bible declares that Energy cannot be created or destroyed (only changed in form), it is obvious that God created the universe from a primeval form of this amorphous stuff.

He did not create the stuff itself.

Now you know.
Greylorn

Your God and Bible is science and the laws of the physical universe - lets be clear.

As far as the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed, I stand with science (as far as the SYSTEM you and I live in).

But as far as God created the universe from a primeval form of this amorphous stuff and that this stuff was not created by God - I am in total disagreement.

As I have stated in many previous posts, I think there is a better theological way to express the basic teaching that God created out of nothing. If you are a serious student of theology, you will learn what the terms “acutality and potentiality” mean.

My God is not science. My God brought science (all reality) into being out of His own potentiality. This potentiality is possessed by God’s actuality.

 

[crowonsnow]

But as far as God created the universe from a primeval form of this amorphous stuff and that this stuff was not created by God - I am in total disagreement.

Why?

Did god create itself? No.

Is god nothing? No

Therefore this god must certainly know that the something that is itself it did not create. Bingo!

Aside from the fact that this god would be curious about its own origins, why would it care if it found other stuff around that wasn’t a god but that was around just like itself. Seems to me this god wouldn’t care.

Therefore ex nihilo is just silliness.

 

[greylorn]

Your God and Bible is science and the laws of the physical universe - lets be clear.

Reply:

I cherish clarity, so let us have more of it. My God is not science, and is not the laws of the universe. Analogously, your God is not the words of the Bible, the rules of the Church, or the writings of Thomas Aquinas.

Put another way, the observations we make about the universe are equivalent to the words we read in the bible. The observations are technology, not science. The words are language, not theology.

Science is what we invent from our observations. Theology is what we invent from the words in the bible.

The physical universe is guaranteed to be the absolutely true and correct writing of its Creator. No human being needs to declare this to be so. If there is a God who created this universe, any statements made to that effect are self-evident.

The words of the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc. are guaranteed to be the writings of men. They are claimed to be the works of God, but who makes the claim? Men!

You can step outside in midsummer and (if you live in the country) gaze at the Milky Way, because you are looking into the galaxy which hosts our solar system. If there is a Creator, that the smear of light which represents a billion stars is His creation is a self-evident truth.

Or you can wander into a library looking for books about the creation and purpose of the universe. You might find an Old Testament, New Testament, in King James version, or Catholic version. You could get serious and read the original Greek. A university library would have the writings of early Gnostics, including the sophisticated philosophies of Mary Magdalene. Or you could find the Kuran, the Q’tab’i’quan, the Book of Mormon. Each of these have different ideas about the nature of God and the purpose of creation. Which is right? Ask any believer.

There is an objective reality inherent in the physical universe which does not exist in religious writing. But please do not confuse the observations made by scientists with truth. The history of science discloses a parade of now-obsolete beliefs. Just like different religionists can interpret the same words differently, different scientists can invent various theories around the same data. Most of these theories are wrong.

Humans have been observing our world and its surrounds for milennia and have invented diverse sciences to explain it, not all of which have worked very well. Likewise, humans have been writing words about how the universe and themselves came into being for the same amount of time. There are as many different religions invented by man as sciences, all different, all declared by believers of the time to be true.

There is a good chance (and this is my personal opinion) that none of our ideas about the origin of the universe and man, whether scientific or religious, are correct. Why would this be a surprise to anyone with even a History channel level of prior ideas and beliefs?

The point I tried to make earlier is quite simple. If there is a God who created the universe and ourselves, then each and every component of his creation, every proton, electron, cell, planet, star, and galaxy represents an absolute truth which tells something about the nature and purpose of creation.

Modern atheistic scientists have misinterpreted those observations as indicative of no God, but I believe that they are dead wrong. I am not alone. (Check out Michael Behe.) They have gotten away with their nonsense because millions of regular people just don’t think that science is important, except for making HD TV and faster cars. Like yourself, and like the Church, they pretend that the observations we can make about the nature of the universe do not apply to fundamental religious beliefs.

Yet, for reasons I will never understand, people think that words invented by people who don’t know a proton from a beer can do apply, simply because someone said so.

We elect our politicians based upon what they say and what they promise, ignoring what they’ve done, and what they’ve neglected to do. We, as human beings, seem predisposed to believe words rather than reality.

It is often difficult to separate the two. The average person, the non-scientist and non-technocrat can only know what scientists tell him in watered-down presentations about science. These ever-changing beliefs are always presented as fact (to the public) although scientists sometimes know better.

Big Bang is a theory (which does not hold up without some mathematical baling wire and string). Darwinism is a theory, which many engineers have shown to be absurd and non-scientific to boot. But people are conned into believing that this nonsense is “scientific” truth. It simply represents the beliefs of scientists.

You don’t need to be fooled.

------- end reply. Communication continued in separate post.-------

 

[greylorn]

Your God and Bible is science and the laws of the physical universe - lets be clear.

As far as the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed, I stand with science (as far as the SYSTEM you and I live in).

But as far as God created the universe from a primeval form of this amorphous stuff and that this stuff was not created by God - I am in total disagreement.

As I have stated in many previous posts, I think there is a better theological way to express the basic teaching that God created out of nothing. If you are a serious student of theology, you will learn what the terms “acutality and potentiality” mean.

My God is not science. My God brought science (all reality) into being out of His own potentiality. This potentiality is possessed by God’s actuality.

As far as the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed, I stand with science (as far as the SYSTEM you and I live in).

But as far as God created the universe from a primeval form of this amorphous stuff and that this stuff was not created by God - I am in total disagreement.

-------- Reply:
Of course. This is an unfamiliar concept. Perhaps if you understood it, you’d feel better about it.

Especially if you understood the full implications of your current beliefs. This is a non-trivial project, but sources of explanation are available if you are interested.

------- end reply ------

As I have stated in many previous posts, I think there is a better theological way to express the basic teaching that God created out of nothing. If you are a serious student of theology, you will learn what the terms “acutality and potentiality” mean.

------ REPLY:

I am a serious student of theology, but have no respect for the invented information which various belief systems have wrapped around fundamental beliefs. My interest is in theology, per se. I want to learn about the nature of God, and do not care to be told that this information is unavailable.

I want to know why an entity brilliant enough to have created a single biological cell would have assembled billions of them into human beings who watch soap operas and beer commercials.

I want to know the purpose of your existence and mine, so that I can determine if there is even a good reason to communicate with you or continue to exist.

And while I admire speculation about answers to these questions, I have no interest in listening to anyone who insists that the set of speculations which he, she, or it has chosen to believe is absolute truth simply because some human beings said so.

----- end reply, or rant —

My God is not science. My God brought science (all reality) into being out of His own potentiality. This potentiality is possessed by God’s actuality.

----- REPLY:

First off, a small but important correction. You seem to believe that science and “all reality” are the same. This is not true. Science is just a set of ideas (not all which are agreed upon by scientists) which try to model, or explain, reality.

The history of science shows that “science” is always changing as it adjusts to new data. But reality does not change, at least not in its fundamental aspects.

In my context of looking at things as best I can, physical reality represents Absolute Truth. Science (although I love it) is just our way of interpreting that Truth. See the difference?

— On the subject of terminoligy —

I am a formal student of physics, where jargon is necessary because physics includes some concepts not understood outside the field, so they must invent terms to represent the concepts. Examples: mass, energy, entropy, phase-shift, wavelength, etc.

Physics usually invents its own jargon and does not reinterpret words from everyday language. I distrust all fields of inquiry which do so, because this is a way to trick people, a psychological slight-of-hand known formally as neurolinguistic programming.

So, I know that actuality means, “what is so.” and potentiality means, “what might be so.” Given these interpretations of theological pseudo-jargon, I interpret your paragraph above as saying:

God is a real entity. He had, and has, the potential to do things. (just like you and I are actual beings with the potential to communicate in English. We write some stuff, thus realizing our potential.) This seems to me an obvious statement about the way intelligent entities operate. Not a big deal. Are we in agreement?

I also believe that one of the things he did was to create the universe in which we live and the bodies which support our learning processes. Can we also agree on that?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

how bout dis here

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

 

[greylorn]

how bout dis here

it has come to my attention in various conversations that the accepted big bang theory proves the existence of an infinity prior to the expansion.

here is why.

the mathematical regression from the observable universe back to the big bang posits a ‘moment’ (for lack of a better word) when no physical laws and no time existed. it also posits a singularity from which the universe expanded.

that singularity is an assumption that explains from ‘what’ the universe expanded, it is not actually mathematically possible to show that the singularity existed, the math does not extend past the ‘moment’ in which no time or physical laws existed

with no singularity the theory reduces to a mathematical proof of an infinity prior to and outside of the observable universe

further that infinity in which no time or space exists is, by the nature of an infinity, self existent, as bacon said, should one infinity exist it would preclude all others.

proof, i believe, of an existent First Cause that is infinite in its nature.

just as we have always claimed G-d to be.

Petey,

Curiosity into these things is a wonderful thing, and I admire yours . May I set you straight on one thing, a con perpetrated by the quasi-scientists who make big bucks by yelping for the History or Discovery channels, which are becoming wonderful sources for scientific misinformation.

Singularity.

Exotic concept, new word. Sounds impressive to say that the Big Bang is the result of a “singularity.”

The trouble is that a singularity doesn’t mean anything and does not define anything. any 5th grader can define a mathematical singularity. Just divide any number by zero. The result is a singularity. High school students capable of more advanced math can tell you that the tangent of 90 degrees is a singularity.

It is not a big deal. It is simply an equation which cannot be solved or a mathematical expression which reduces to a non-finite result. Words to impress rubes; don’t be one.

As applied to the Big Bang, the singularity is just Big Science, or Big Singularity, or B.S. which in this case is not a college degree.

 

[greylorn]

Why?

Did god create itself? No.

Is god nothing? No

Therefore this god must certainly know that the something that is itself it did not create. Bingo!

Aside from the fact that this god would be curious about its own origins, why would it care if it found other stuff around that wasn’t a god but that was around just like itself. Seems to me this god wouldn’t care.

Therefore ex nihilo is just silliness.

Crow,

Take your ideas a step further. Suppose that God found that He existed and was surrounded by stuff. Might He not build something from it? If the stuff was energy, might He not construct protons, electrons, and other components of matter therefrom?

Then, perhaps atoms of different sorts, stars, planets, critters, and maybe even us. But why?

 

[RobinSebas]

I can’t understand ‘nothing’. I keep getting something when I am trying to get nothing.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Crow,

Take your ideas a step further. Suppose that God found that He existed and was surrounded by stuff. Might He not build something from it? If the stuff was energy, might He not construct protons, electrons, and other components of matter therefrom?

Then, perhaps atoms of different sorts, stars, planets, critters, and maybe even us. But why?

I see that you followed Platos lead.

First of all Space time and energy began to exist.
In other words; before there was any time or space, there was nothing; at least there was nothing that can be called a Universe. God created all possible Universes by his Eternal will alone. Gods being is identified with Gods eternal act, and so it doesn’t make any sense to say that God moves from potentail to actuality, neither has there ever been a time when the universe had not been caused by Gods being.

 

[crowonsnow]

I can’t understand ‘nothing’. I keep getting something when I am trying to get nothing.

That’s because “nothing” is philosophical semantics. The universe is everywhere all the time. Somethingness is the rule. Nothingness is just an imagined pretend exception to the rule that cannot be observed, quantified or defended.

For some reason, and despite all observations to the contrary, creationists believe there shouldn’t be a universe. They’re just poor observers I guess.

 

[crowonsnow]

Crow,

Take your ideas a step further. Suppose that God found that He existed and was surrounded by stuff. Might He not build something from it? If the stuff was energy, might He not construct protons, electrons, and other components of matter therefrom?

Then, perhaps atoms of different sorts, stars, planets, critters, and maybe even us. But why?

That’s the same as asking “why” the universe or a god even exists. A perfectly legitimate answer would be so that my kids can have cherry lollipops.

I can imagine very advanced organisms routinely creating universes in their labs. Are they “gods?”

 

[jkiernan56]

Why?

Did god create itself? No.

Is god nothing? No

Therefore this god must certainly know that the something that is itself it did not create. Bingo!

Aside from the fact that this god would be curious about its own origins, why would it care if it found other stuff around that wasn’t a god but that was around just like itself. Seems to me this god wouldn’t care.

Therefore ex nihilo is just silliness.

God is Spirit and KNOWS Himself (ie - read St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity). If anything came into being, it was by God’s sheer will and thought. So whether any substance came from pre-existing substance, it doesn’t matter. Whatever substance exists in the first place, it was brought into being by God.

In fact, scripture also clearly shows that if God should stop thinking and willing His creation, it would cease to exist. Ex Nihilo is not silliness. I acknowledge Ex Nihilo is a fundamental truth taught by the Catholic faith.

The point of this thread though was to show that there is a man behind the curtain with regards to Ex Nihilo that would express the theological understanding of creation better.

 

[buffalo]

Why?

Did god create itself? No.

Is god nothing? No

Therefore this god must certainly know that the something that is itself it did not create. Bingo!

Aside from the fact that this god would be curious about its own origins, why would it care if it found other stuff around that wasn’t a god but that was around just like itself. Seems to me this god wouldn’t care.

Therefore ex nihilo is just silliness.

God thought the universe into existence from nothing.

 

[crowonsnow]

God is Spirit and KNOWS Himself (ie - read St. Augustine on the Holy Trinity). If anything came into being, it was by God’s sheer will and thought. So whether any substance came from pre-existing substance, it doesn’t matter. Whatever substance exists in the first place, it was brought into being by God.

Why do you think the universe should not exist? This is nihilism.

You state that god took a zero and using some kind of godmagic turned it into a one. What exactly is your reason for believing that 1=0?

 

[buffalo]

Why do you think the universe should not exist? This is nihilism.

You state that god took a zero and using some kind of godmagic turned it into a one. What exactly is your reason for believing that 1=0?

You are trying to define it in human terms. Here is how the Church views it.

Creation

 

[jkiernan56]

Why do you think the universe should not exist? This is nihilism.

You state that god took a zero and using some kind of godmagic turned it into a one. What exactly is your reason for believing that 1=0?

Yes, I totally agree that the universe NEED NOT exist and that it only exists for one reason: because God willed it to be. How do I know this? Not from studying theology or reading books or talking to people. I know this firsthand from experience. Here is a little bit of my story for those who are interested:

In 1976 at a prayer service I met a Carmelite Priest who later became my spiritual director. At the time, he was a teacher of theology at Catholic University. Once I attended him on a trip to Louisville, Kentucky to visit his parents; and whenever this Priest visited home, he always helped out the local parish on the weekends by saying Mass. So before we got to his parents house, I was left alone in the car while he went into a Church to arrange his Mass schedule for the weekend. It was while I was sitting in the car by myself I had another one of God’s 2x4 moments; but this time God used a sledge hammer. It was similar to the scene in the Wizard of Oz movie when the curtain lifted to reveal the Wizard behind the curtain; all of a sudden I had a profound sense of God’s presence. God spoke His name to me; not with audible words I could hear but with an acute awareness of who God is – “I AM”. I became profoundly aware God had always existed and could have continued in BEING for all eternity without creating anything or anyone. It was like I had been in a dark room and all of a sudden the light was turned on which allowed me to see what was in the room. In this case, God allowed me to “see” creation through His eyes. God had no need of anything or anyone. The very fact of the universe and my own existence were sheer gifts of love. I cried out to God – “WHY, WHY, WHY did you bother to create the world? Why did you bother to create me?” I was completely overwhelmed because I knew the only reason I existed was because God wanted and willed me. Grace was no longer just as a concept for me but an actual experience; my life was a gift of God’s love – given freely without being deserved. Only God has to exist. This experience I believe was God’s answer to my earlier prayer “God, IF you exist, please help me to know it.” God had just lifted the curtain and smiled on me.

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I totally agree that the universe NEED NOT exist and that it only exists for one reason: because God willed it to be. How do I know this? Not from studying theology or reading books or talking to people. I know this firsthand from experience. Here is a little bit of my story for those who are interested:

In 1976 at a prayer service I met a Carmelite Priest who later became my spiritual director. At the time, he was a teacher of theology at Catholic University. Once I attended him on a trip to Louisville, Kentucky to visit his parents; and whenever this Priest visited home, he always helped out the local parish on the weekends by saying Mass. So before we got to his parents house, I was left alone in the car while he went into a Church to arrange his Mass schedule for the weekend. It was while I was sitting in the car by myself I had another one of God’s 2x4 moments; but this time God used a sledge hammer. It was similar to the scene in the Wizard of Oz movie when the curtain lifted to reveal the Wizard behind the curtain; all of a sudden I had a profound sense of God’s presence. God spoke His name to me; not with audible words I could hear but with an acute awareness of who God is – “I AM”. I became profoundly aware God had always existed and could have continued in BEING for all eternity without creating anything or anyone. It was like I had been in a dark room and all of a sudden the light was turned on which allowed me to see what was in the room. In this case, God allowed me to “see” creation through His eyes. God had no need of anything or anyone. The very fact of the universe and my own existence were sheer gifts of love. I cried out to God – “WHY, WHY, WHY did you bother to create the world? Why did you bother to create me?” I was completely overwhelmed because I knew the only reason I existed was because God wanted and willed me. Grace was no longer just as a concept for me but an actual experience; my life was a gift of God’s love – given freely without being deserved. Only God has to exist. This experience I believe was God’s answer to my earlier prayer “God, IF you exist, please help me to know it.” God had just lifted the curtain and smiled on me.

Of course, his claim will be you were hallucinating. Usually because doubters do not have these experiences they do not believe anyone else can.

 

[jkiernan56]

Of course, his claim will be you were hallucinating. Usually because doubters do not have these experiences they do not believe anyone else can.

I know. The saying applies: “For those who have faith, no explanation is necessary. For those without faith, no explanation is possible.”

But my experience does not give me the right to stand in judgement as to the reason for their position. I can only say “there I go but by the grace of God.”

My experience of Grace humbles me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey,

Curiosity into these things is a wonderful thing, and I admire yours . May I set you straight on one thing, a con perpetrated by the quasi-scientists who make big bucks by yelping for the History or Discovery channels, which are becoming wonderful sources for scientific misinformation.

Singularity.

Exotic concept, new word. Sounds impressive to say that the Big Bang is the result of a “singularity.”

The trouble is that a singularity doesn’t mean anything and does not define anything. any 5th grader can define a mathematical singularity. Just divide any number by zero. The result is a singularity. High school students capable of more advanced math can tell you that the tangent of 90 degrees is a singularity.

It is not a big deal. It is simply an equation which cannot be solved or a mathematical expression which reduces to a non-finite result. Words to impress rubes; don’t be one.

As applied to the Big Bang, the singularity is just Big Science, or Big Singularity, or B.S. which in this case is not a college degree.

unfortunately they refer to a physical, not a mathematical singularity in the standard cosmological model, which does not exist. as admitted by competent physicists here on the forums.

i prefer the more applicable word ‘monobloc’ for that reason, but that is mostly a word used by europeans. and most americans have no clue what you mean when you say it