Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
" 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."

The above is too “complicated” for me!..sorry…do I have to?

Sincerely,
JV
 
“Furthermore, He does not take from an exigency called, Nothing, to create.”

Again, “from absolute nothingness” is what I thought was the simplest form possible to indicate that God is not "changed, altered, etc. in any way, shape, form, manner, etc. in creating.
 
Instead of saying God is not changed in any way when he creates, I’m opening myself up to someone saying “well, He may not be changed, but what about altered, or maybe He isn’t “changed” but He generates…etc. etc. etc.”

I wanted to say in creating, God is absolutely unaffected. To say “from absolute nothingless” is the simplest, shortest way that eliminates absolutely everything from affecting God. I’m convinced about this…straightened up or laid out (joke).

No way, no how, no where…do I desire to deviate an iota from Church teaching!

Sincerely,
JV
 
I think I’m using some kind of “reverse negative”…yikes, what the hell is that…but I’m hoping you’ll know what I mean. The second statement is kind of like this also, namely:

“Only absolutely nothing is impossible to God.”

Doesn’t this elicit the following thoughts from the reader:

…what is he saying is impossible?..absolutely nothing…this means no matter what exists, if it is not absolute nothing, and since the statement says only absolute nothing is impossible to God, everything that is not absolute nothing must be possible to God!

Sincerely,
JV
 
comment on previous:

I think this is what St. T. A. meant when he stated: “Our knowledge of God is not self-evident”…some kind of reasoning, even the simplest must take place.
 
Petey:

This continues to be the ultimate question on this Forum. That is precisely why it has persisted. It handles the objections of physics, as well as the objections of ept and inept logicians. It teaches people how to think when pondering such things as “virtual” particles, efficient causation, creation, and omnipotence.

Nothingness is absolute nothingness. There exists not one scintilla of anything that could be called something. It has no defined “space.” It is not even space. There are no “quantum fluctuations” in nothingness - there’s nothing to fluctuate. It is NOT a vacuum. It is not something that exists by itself, or in and of itself. (What would God be if he existed in nothingness for all of infinity?)

Hence, the Question: If there’s no physical reason for existence why is there a universe? But, beyond all potentiality of belief, there is a universe. For no purposes or reasons, without force or consequence, without mistake or error, there exists a universe of physical things and existence itself. None of this should be here. WHY is it here?

God bless,
jd
👍
 
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
👍

Be careful … this is a slippery slope to Pantheism … but i agree with you … God alone existed before creation … God did not “use” Himself to create … God did not “use” nothingness either to create … for me the answer lies somewhere in the middle … it needs to be stated very clearly … God is NOT His creation … God is totally OTHER than His creation … God did exist and can exist totally and completely without creation … creation does not have to be … only God has to be … so if God did not “use” Himself and did not make something out of nothing … it silences me … to state what others have stated … only God existed prior to creation and God (pure actuality) is not nothingness … before creation there was neither nothingness nor was there a vacuum.

What we do know is that God holds all of creation in being by His sheer thought and will. It only exists because He wills it to be and because He wills it to be, He is also thinking of what He wills to be. God is thinking of you and me this very moment. Now that is an awesome thought.
 
👍

Be careful … this is a slippery slope to Pantheism .
I agree, that all forms of pantheism are false. However, because we exist through the esse of God (given that it is impossible for anything contingent to have its own intrinsic “existence”), a correct view of the world would appear to be Pantheistic or Panentheistic. This is only to say that the** illusion** of pantheism plagues the appearance of creation.That’s why people easily make the mistake of falling down that path because it really does look like pantheism. However, the opposite is proven once we observe that while we participate in the esse of God, we do no have the essence of God and neither is Gods “esse” intrinsic to our natures. We are finite, we have dimensions, we have accidents and potentialities. None of these things can be logically attributed to Gods intrinsic nature, and thus, in so far as our essences our concerned, we are not identical to God, and thus we are not God. In so far as we participate in Gods esse, perhaps we could say that we are Gods by participation, but this would also be wrong, because we are not intrinsically “esse” either. We are nothing with out God, but at the same time we are distinct from God in our potential essence.

I admit, that for those first coming to the subject, it can be very difficult to see the difference between pantheism/panentheism and theism. The difference between God and creation can be very subtle (and thus missed in our analysis), or even absent if we do not think clearly enough with the proper concepts.

But how does God create a contingent being?

These are speculative waters which can easily turn in to nonsense. Perhaps the best thing to do is to say “I don’t know”. But in so far as understanding how God creates, my understanding so far reveals to me that the principle of “abstraction” and “ideas”, is the key to how God creates. I do not know exactly how God does it, but I know what it essentially involves.

God has creative ideas which God manifests through a perfect knowledge of Gods being (There is no other inspiration other than Gods being and nature at this point). God shares, through Gods eternal expression of love, his “esse” with his creative ideas. This in turn gives actuality to those creative ideas, which become actual essences; a combination of Esse and Essence. A more detailed demonstration of this will be in my book. This is basically how God timelessly created the universe. I am not sure if this is exactly correct, but logically speaking, creation involves something along those lines.

I know that John Damien is going to disagree with the esse/essense distinction. So before you do, i just want to say that i know your position on the matter. However thanks for your support so far. It has been helpful.

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

“God creates from absolute nothingness”

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

Sincerely,
JV
Sorry. When it is said that, “something is created from something,” that SEEMS to mean that some of the substance of Nothing was used to make something else. :o

jd
 
My problem:

To express, in simple, short phrase or sentence (“sound bites” and “one liners”) The world is FULL of the alternatives…(paragraphs, phamphet size dissertations, books, etc)
  1. The God is THE creator, of absolutely everything…
  2. And He creates without any “cost” to Him…because of no “cost” to Him, He can create eternally (implying, amoung other things and infinite number of creations).
note(s)

“express”…that the most ignorant to the most learned…can understand.
(I feel this is possible, based on revelation…namely…One who denys God existence (deep within his heart) is a fool. The use of “fool” implys that he has intilled in him knowledge of God, since the knowledge had to be present in order for him to deny it!

“simple”…common words.
Considered possible because experience (the natural light of reason) enables even the most ignorant to “abstract to the 3rd degree”…(even tho he cannot verbalize that he is capable of the third and highest act of the mind…metaphysics! (God and Wisdom in particular).

Method of solution:
I’ll think about it. lol!

Comment:

I said “I haven’t seen a contradiction of my statements”…lol!, ugg!..lack of contradiction is the very least to be hoped for!
 
Please disregard me identifying the 3rd degree of abstraction with the 3rd act of the mind! sorry!
 
“Furthermore, He does not take from an exigency called, Nothing, to create.”

Again, “from absolute nothingness” is what I thought was the simplest form possible to indicate that God is not "changed, altered, etc. in any way, shape, form, manner, etc. in creating.
He isn’t changed. He uses His Diivine Will and His Omnipotence to make it so.

jd
 
Please disregard me identifying the 3rd degree of abstraction with the 3rd act of the mind! sorry!
Jerry:

You’ll find that when you begin an intensive study of Abstraction, there are three. But, they are not called “degrees.” The first Order of abstraction is the Physical Order of abstraction, next, the Mathematical Order, and finally, the Metaphysical Order of abstraction.

God bless,
jd
 
Absolute nothingless = no space, no time, no matter, no potential, absolutely nothing!

oya? what about the mind that is necessary to imagine this absolute nothingless…doesn’t its existence “make” absolute nothingless impossible? Unless absolute nothingless is doing the imagining! lol!

Sincerely,
JV
 
Absolute nothingless = no space, no time, no matter, no potential, absolutely nothing!

oya? what about the mind that is necessary to imagine this absolute nothingless…doesn’t its existence “make” absolute nothingless impossible? Unless absolute nothingless is doing the imagining! lol!

Sincerely,
JV
Well, now you’re referring to immaterial being! I didn’t say absolute nothingness = no material AND no immaterial beings.

jd
 
Wow! JD, I didn’t even realize it myself, untill just now! Thanks!

Sincerely,
JV
 
For me at least it seems there is a contradiction in terms to speak of the existence of absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness by definition cannot exist. If “it” existed, then “it” would not be “absolute nothingness”. For me at least, it seems to fall innately on its own face. I’m just throwing this out there … if absolute nothingness “existed”, isn’t that much like saying 1=2?

Can absolute nothingness exist in reality? Is that where you and I existed before we came to be? Or did you and I exist potentially - a potentiality wholly possessed by pure actuality?

That seems to suggest for me that absolute nothingness never existed and that the very opposite of absolute nothingness is what exists in actuality - pure actuality.

Absolute nothingness is the very opposite of pure Actuality. You and I existed in that Pure Actuality as potentiality.

Yes Greylorn, I accept the reality that there is a Spirit who is Pure Actuality - that has both REASON and WILL … and that you and I are made in that image and likeness … we are not just physical matter.
 
JK

Excellent point!

God bless,
jd
Hi JD - you got a hold of one of my earlier postings. After I post, I tend to reread and then edit … over and over … and over … until i have run out of time allowed … .lol … and even then I think there is so much more I could have said, should have said, or how I could have said it better … is that OCD? lol
 
I guess what I have been trying to say all along is that you and I and all of creation NEVER existed in absolute nothingness at least from the view of Pure Actuality. You and I and all of creation existed in Potentiality - a potentiality possessed by that Pure Actuality. From the viewpoint of ourselves we did not exist and even now SHOULD NOT and DO NOT HAVE TO EXIST. But from the perspective of Pure Actuality - yes, you and I did exist in the potentiality of Pure Actuality. It depends on which side of the fence you are looking at this reality from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top