Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

  • Thread starter Thread starter warpspeedpetey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rvilbig said:
Active power is synonymous with active potency. Read it in Latin: “Relinquitur ergo quod in Deo maxime sit potentia activa” (Quaestio 25, Articululus 1)- which they translate as: “It remains, therefore, that in God there is active power in the highest degree.”, This is the same word used in your highlighted quote: “nam unumquodque patitur secundum quod est in potentia” - which they render “for a thing is passive according as it is potential.” The word “potentia” is translated as both power and potency, and is used interchangeably in this translation of Aquinas. God has active potency, I’m sure.
Click to expand...
rvilbig:

I’m not sure that is what was meant. The word, “potency,” has several meanings, but, at least two. On the one hand, it means the “extent,” or, “measure,” of power. On the other, it means “not power.” On the latter, it means purely “possibility,” or, “privation,” but not necessarily the raw power to obtain a certain result. For example, one might pass a judgment on another by saying, “he has the potential to be a world renown singer.” (But, perhaps, the judges conspired against him, when he didn’t make it.)

When it is said that something potential exists in God, I understand the latter. Thus, potentiality cannot exist in God. Potency=power can exist in Him. Potency=absence cannot.

jd
 
JDaniel said:
I must disagree with you, JK. Remember, THERE IS NO TIME where God is concerned. For God, there was no former, or latter, no before or after, God didn’t sit on His throne and ponder the questions of whether or not you or I should have the Gift of Life.

We were never potentials for God. Creation is the highest form of causation. It gives being to things that were not in privation - not in potency. How He did his, we may get a chance to find out! But, in the mean time, it is - and will remain - a mystery.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Gods timeless act of love (love is identical to Gods being), is the potentiality for us to exist. In fact, although we have certainly been created, from a Gods eye view of reality we have always existed in Gods love.
 
“Originally Posted by jkiernan56
It is an inherent contradiction in terms to speak of the existence of absolute nothingness. Absolute nothingness by definition cannot exist. See the contradiction?”

But what is the mind doing when its realizing the contradiction?..Its implying there must be a God!
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Gods timeless act of love (love is identical to Gods being), is the potentiality for us to exist. In fact, although we have certainly been created, from a Gods eye view of reality we have always existed in Gods love.
Click to expand...
MoM:

OK. I’ll accept that, but, in a kind of allegorical sense. God certainly doesn’t think about it for any lengthy period of time. So, you mean it the way I mean it: in God, there exists NO absence(s), NO privations, NOTHING missing, and NO imperfections, of any kind whatsoever. But, at the precise moment of creation, you and I were “Love-programed” to come to be. In OUR time.

God bless,
jd
 
:thumbsup:An understanding of:

Only absolute nothing is impossible to God.

“Forces” the mind to posit God,…that the only impossibility stated is also impossible!

Thus all being is possible to God! (And subsequently that all being requires God!)

Sincerely,
JV
 
If one says from “nothing comes something” is a contradiction, then isn’t one saying that the opposite of the contradiction must be true? Namely that there has to be God in order for there to be something!

Of the statement, “Our knowledge of God is not self-evident”

as in self-evident is not a premise but rather a conclusion!

Sincerely,
JV
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
:thumbsup:An understanding of:

Only absolute nothing is impossible to God.

“Forces” the mind to posit God,…that the only impossibility stated is also impossible!

Thus all being is possible to God! (And subsequently that all being requires God!)

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
I wonder if saying that “absolute Nothing is impossible for God,” is a correct wording, or, concept. I view Nothing as an emptiness that is permitted by God, rather than created by Him. So, it could be said that God reverse creates Nothingness by not allowing anything to be where He chooses Nothing to be. Your thoughts?

jd
 
The “thing” (statement) has so many “double negatives” and “nothings” that it leaves me at a loss!

I think I dreamed it up (when I was unconscious) to put me at peace!?! (haha).

I do believe you gave it some “respectability” with “emptiness that is permitted”…I agree with you on that.

I believe my following reply considers “nothing” in a more reasonable, simpler way to accomplish the same result.

Sincerely,
JV
 
Again,

“From nothing comes nothing”

If one agrees with this and he has experienced that, if nothing else, he exists (is a something), then to be consistent with one’s first statement he has to conclude that from something comes something…and futher concludes (might require another middle term here) that a first something has to have its own “causuality” to be “something from something”. Perhaps yes?
 
" I view Nothing as an emptiness that is permitted by God, rather than created by Him. So, it could be said that God reverse creates Nothingness by not allowing anything to be where He chooses Nothing to be. Your thoughts?"

Perhaps if there was no creation (or creating), nothing wouldn’t “exist”! Nothing is a consequence of limited existence. There wouldn’t be nothing to say nothing of! lol!
(I think only God can fully comprehend this.)

Sincerely,
JV
 
Maybe if I “reword” it as follows:

Not even absolute nothingness is impossible to God!

Sincerely,
JV
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
" I view Nothing as an emptiness

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
For the word emptiness to have any intelligible meaning, it would require the existence of space or something real. For example the room is empty, or the glass is empty. Space is not nothing. Emptiness is not nothing or a thing in itself or by itself, since you are necessarily talking about the emptiness of “something”. You are predicating emptiness to something real, the subject. You talking about a negation or a privation of something.
 
“For the word emptiness to have any intelligible meaning, it would require the existence of space or something real. For example the room is empty, or the glass is empty. Space is not nothing. Emptiness is not nothing or a thing in itself or by itself, since you are necessarily talking about the emptiness of “something”. You are predicating emptiness to something real, the subject. You talking about a negation or a privation of something.”

I agree with above…perhaps proof of the “realness” of “place”?

However, aren’t we talking of “physical world”?

What of nothingless re: the metaphysical?

Sincerely,
JV
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
What of nothingless re: the metaphysical?

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
In order for absolutely nothing to exist, it would also have to be objectively “true” that absolutely nothing exists. But there is no objective/metaphysical/ontological truth or reality in that which is absolutely nothing or unreal. Truth and possibility is an expression of “real”/reality. Thus, ontologically speaking, we are able to speak meaningfully of falsehood only in light of that which is true about reality - (truth, being that which conforms to reality, and falsehood being that which does not).Therefore there can never be a real possibility for it to be objectively true that absolutely nothing exists. Thus, by necessity of metaphysical logic, in so far as we fully understand the word “real” as opposed to non-real, there has to be an absolute/perfectly real being transcending all potentiality; and in transcending all potentiality, this being would be timeless.

This will be spoken about at greater length in my book. When its finished i will be sure to send you a free copy.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
there has to be an absolute/perfectly real being transcending all potentiality; and in transcending all potentiality, this being would be timeless.
Click to expand...
When i say here, “transcending all potentiality”, i mean to say that, a perfect reality is a necessary foundation of all potential beings, because a potential being cannot actualize itself or bring itself into reality from nothing. Out of nothing comes nothing.
 
“(truth, being that which conforms to reality, and falsehood being that which does not).”

The way I heard it is "Truth is an intellect conforming to reality.

(you use the word “that”, and I used the word “intellect”)

also, I understand evil to be a lack of a due good.

and truth and falsehood to be of the intellect.

whereas good and evil to be of acts.

in both of the above cases we speak also of “nothing”, thus I not even sure what the concept of nothing is metaphysically…if it is even metaphysical!

I have a complaint, namely the more “profound” and “of wisdom” the subject is, the more lengthly the explanation! I really feel something is wrong (misunderstood)!!!

(re: the poor in spirit will know the truth and the learned will be sent away empty)

Sincerely,
JV
 
P.S. I really feel I’m on to something when I said (a couple replys back) that it is only because of the limitation of material beings that nothing can mean something (in the material world)!

In this sense the creator of the material world, in effect, created?! (made possible?!) nothing! lol!

Sincerely,
JV
 
Jerry_Vilt said:
“(truth, being that which conforms to reality, and falsehood being that which does not).”

The way I heard it is "Truth is an intellect conforming to reality.
Click to expand...
Ontologically speaking, truth is simply that which is real, regardless of human knowledge. That which does not conform to reality, is simply that which does not exist; is not real.

You seem to perceive truth as something that has no necessary relation to being, but is instead merely a construct of the human mind; as if to say that all truth is theoretical. But the mere existence of theoretical truth presupposes the existence of objective truth. Scientific truth judges the particularities of being (the possible natures of contingent reality), rather than the “act of being” in general. Scientists create theoretical models of particular realities, and then, depending on the outcome of an experiment, they are said to be the best explanation of particular physical phenomena. These models are developed in respect of logical facts, but they are not metaphysical in nature. In other-words, science deals in probable truth. This kind of knowledge can change at any time, since there isn’t always a necessary connection between a scientific model and the objective reality of things; regardless of how well it explains the phenomena.

But we are not talking about scientific truth. We are talking about metaphysical/ontological truth. These are things which are necessarily true, regardless of our theories or knowledge.

We can have certain knowledge of these truths through metaphysical logic. Human beings encounter metaphysical truth, (such as, i think therefore i am). Its not simply something we make up (like a scientific model) in order to explain something. Metaphysical knowledge represents necessary truths about the objective act of reality; this truth is legitimately known independently of scientific principles and its models of reality.
Jerry_Vilt said:
(you use the word “that”, and I used the word “intellect”)

also, I understand evil to be a lack of a due good.

and truth and falsehood to be of the intellect.
Click to expand...
Ontological reality is not dependent upon our knowledge in order to be true.
Jerry_Vilt said:
in both of the above cases we speak also of “nothing”, thus I not even sure what the concept of nothing is metaphysically…if it is even metaphysical!
Click to expand...
Nothing is not an ontological reality. Its merely a word that we use to describe the ontological difference between to comparative situations. For example, there is no bike in this room in comparison to a room that has i bike in it. There is nothing in this room in comparison to other rooms which have things in them. To say there is nothing in a room is not to say that nothing is metaphysically present in this room. It is merely to say that according to my expectations of seeing a bike in that room, i have instead found an empty room; which is only empty in reference to what i subjectively expected to be in that room. In reality, the room is just a room; there is neither nothing or emptiness in it. It is a limited space, and by that fact there is no necessary reason why there should be a bike in that space. Thus when we speak of nothing we are not saying that nothing is real, but rather we are saying merely that this room is different to my expectations. Or is different according to other rooms which do have bikes in them. Thus we are never talking about the absence of a necessary reality, but rather we are speaking about the absence of some possible reality which does not have to exist.
Jerry_Vilt said:
I have a complaint, namely the more “profound” and “of wisdom” the subject is, the more lengthly the explanation! I really feel something is wrong (misunderstood)!!!

(re: the poor in spirit will know the truth and the learned will be sent away empty)

Sincerely,
JV
Click to expand...
I am really not sure what you are talking about. It always seems like you are talking in riddles. You are not being clear as to what your intentions are. You seem to be rejecting what i said because of some preconceived principle about length. But this is not always true. I suggest that you judge my argument according to its content rather than its length
 
(in the interest of mutually understood starting points):

The transcendentals (properties of being) are-
The One
The True
The Good
(and in this same section of the book it ends with “concerning evil” and "concerning ‘The beautiful’ ")

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