Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“To say “God creates from absolute nothingness” presupposes God; which contradicts the latter “absolute nothingness” claim.”

Seems to me, logic does not indicate contradiction (in the full meaning of contradiction) here.

Hint: The second statement only, uses the concept impossible.

A formal presentation of minor and major premises would not produce a conclusion of contradiction.

(Wow!..I’m no logician, but I think I might have made sense)
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
“To say “God creates from absolute nothingness” presupposes God; which contradicts the latter “absolute nothingness” claim.”

Seems to me, logic does not indicate contradiction (in the full meaning of contradiction) here.

Hint: The second statement only, uses the concept impossible.

A formal presentation of minor and major premises would not produce a conclusion of contradiction.

(Wow!..I’m no logician, but I think I might have made sense)
Click to expand...
The antecedent is really contrary to the genus of nothingness. To state that the genus of nothingness can inhabit universally (in leiu of predicate “absolute”) you violate the law of noncontradiction. Because the entity “God” is really contrary to the posterior genus. A contradiction is an inhabition of genera or species that are formally or really contrary within a closed set. Your statements violate this.

👍
 
oh!..I think I see the problem:
"God creates from absolute nothingness.

I am afraid it is meaningless.

To say “God creates from absolute nothingness” presupposes God; which contradicts the latter “absolute nothingness” claim.

So this is a meaningless claim."
RE: “presupposes God”…If God is NOT effected in any way, shape, form, or manner by His creating…since other then God there is nothing…the creation must have come from nothing!

(in other words I hold that the meaning of the statement DOES NOT “presuppose God”)

Sincerely,
JV
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
NOT intended to divert the discussion…but is the following somewhat meaningful and true?

God creates from absolute nothingness.

Only absolute nothingness is impossible to God!
Click to expand...
That’s only mildly incorrect. God creates where there was nothing before. Nothingness does not require it to be created. There is no “it”. (A very different statement.)

God bless,
jd
 
When an effect does not affect its cause in any manner whatsoever, aren’t we talking about a totally different kind of cause than what we are exposed to?

(and it explains why God could create for all eternity-an infinite number of creations)
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
When an effect does not affect its cause in any manner whatsoever, aren’t we talking about a totally different kind of cause than what we are exposed to.
Click to expand...
Yes; it is called a *really *distinct effect.
If God is NOT effected in any way, shape, form, or manner by His creating…since other then God there is nothing…the creation must have come from nothing!
Click to expand...
This is quite wrong.

If God exists then there is not “nothing” there is God alone. There is a clear difference between nothing; and God alone. Other than God there is nothing; so Creation must have come from God; this is because nothing can come from nothing alone
 
“God creates where there was nothing before. Nothingness does not require it to be created. There is no “it”. (A very different statement.)”

Is “Nothingness does not require it to be created”

the same as

Nothingness does not require itself (nothingness) to be created?

Sincerely,
JV
 
“Yes; it is called a really distinct effect.”

In my opinion, it is a hell of a lot more than a “really distinct effect”…It allows me to say “God creates from absolutely nothing!” (again, because of the nature of the cause)

AND as a result:

To humans “from nothing comes nothing!”

and

To God “from nothing comes all of creation!”
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
“God creates where there was nothing before. Nothingness does not require it to be created. There is no “it”. (A very different statement.)”

Is “Nothingness does not require it to be created”

the same as

Nothingness does not require itself (nothingness) to be created?

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
Are you trying to deify nothingness? Was this question for me?

God bless,
jd
 
absolutely no offense intended JD…I just didn’t completely understand your statement so it offered for your consideration a “restatement”.

Sincerely,
JV

(Gotta go to a chess club…won’t be back for a couple hours)
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
absolutely no offense intended JD…I just didn’t completely understand your statement so it offered for your consideration a “restatement”.

Sincerely,
JV

(Gotta go to a chess club…won’t be back for a couple hours)
Click to expand...
Jerry,

No offense taken! 🙂

God bless,
jd
 
“The antecedent is really contrary to the genus of nothingness. To state that the genus of nothingness can inhabit universally (in leiu of predicate “absolute”) you violate the law of noncontradiction. Because the entity “God” is really contrary to the posterior genus. A contradiction is an inhabition of genera or species that are formally or really contrary within a closed set. Your statements violate this.”

“genus” and “species” is limiting God…that is, they do not apply to God…they (genus, species concern definition.

We are unable to define God (at least in this life).

I sincerely believe you are hung up on the limitation of logic!

Sincerely,
JV
 
All existences are limited existences. (The older we get, the more certain we are of this)
God is unlimited existence. [Bingo!..logic is limited (with respect to God)…God can not be defined]

Sincerely,
JV

“The elementary will know the truth, and the learned will be sent away empty!”
 
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”
  • Gilbert K. Chesterton
I love it!

Also, Peter J. Kreeft in his book “Because God is Real” states:

“Atheists can not be certain that there is no God.” (underlining is mine)

Sincerely,
JV
 
(If one is getting “sick” of me, be assured I am “history”):

I believe the following has not been contradicted:

All of creation has been created by God from absolute nothing!

Only absolute nothing is impossible to God!

Sincerely,
JV
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
(If one is getting “sick” of me, be assured I am “history”):

I believe the following has not been contradicted:

All of creation has been created by God from absolute nothing!

Only absolute nothing is impossible to God!

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
No He didn’t. You’re making the mistake of saying that God is the whole-cloth out of which He creates. He does not take from Himself, or anything else, to create the universe. To think that He does is to be in error with the beliefs of the Church.

Straighten out, Jerry! 😃

God bless,
jd
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
(If one is getting “sick” of me, be assured I am “history”):

I believe the following has not been contradicted:

All of creation has been created by God from absolute nothing!

Only absolute nothing is impossible to God!

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
Jerry:

Furthermore, He does not take from an exigency called, Nothing, to create.

God bless,
jd
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
(If one is getting “sick” of me, be assured I am “history”):

I believe the following has not been contradicted:

All of creation has been created by God from absolute nothing!

Only absolute nothing is impossible to God!

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
I think “absolute PHYSICAL nothing” is possible for God. Although, I’m not sure that He doesn’t fill the gaps if one includes spiritual nothingness.

God bless,
jd
 
JD, I think you misunderstand my intention:

“God creates from absolute nothingless”

Doesn’t this mean absolutely nothing is “used” by God (meaning He is not changed in any way, shape, form, manner, etc.)?

Sincerely,
JV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top