Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

[1holycatholic]

You haven’t gone of track. You are just able to think in a highly abstract manner that allows you to realize a legitimate context in which one can apply the word potential to God without contradicting Gods nature. Your opponent has failed to view God in the abstract manner that you are capable of. But i perfectly understand what you mean. I wouldn’t worry, and there is no use getting frustrated. Some people are just not capable of understanding. No disrespect intended.

In post # 157 jkiernan56 stated that he disagrees with the explicit teaching of the Church as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’m not his opponent, but* I’m not going to confirm someone in their rejection of the Church*. I’m explaining what the Church teaches. Apparently** jkiernan56’s **understanding of what the Church teaches is faulty.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains it clearly here:
newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article1

 

[JDaniel]

Thank you. That is why I think the doctrine of “exnihilo” does not from a philosophical point of view give a the best or most complete answer. Yes I agree God did not use any “stuff” to create the universe out of nothing. But then again, before anything was created God in His Absolute Perfection of BEING had the possibility (ie - potential) to create the world. Thus in another sense or context, God did not just create out of nothingness, but rather His Potentiality which is completely possessed by His Pure Actuality. As I have mentioned before, one of the greatest misunderstandings of scripture is that “for God all things are possible”. In one context that is true, but in another is not true. Only that which is possible (in the realm of possibility) is possible for God. Therefore God created the Universe (including you and me) out of His Potentiality. That to me is a more fuller understanding philosophically speaking of the doctrine of creation. God’s potentiality (what is possible to God) is not NOTHINGNESS - hence referring back to the topic of this thread.

Remember: there are two words, each having its own meaning. There’s causation and then there’s creation. Causation means that the stuff used to cause already exists. Creation means that the stuff used to create does not already exist. The two are somewhat subtle, meangswise, but sufficiently different so that we can understand the distinctions.

From Nothing only Nothing comes, is an excellent philosophical premise. It means, that which we call Nothing (or, Nothingness) is such a thing where no material being can educe from it. It is only in this sense that God creates: from Nothing comes Something. However, he is also the First Cause. As such, He takes Something (already Created) and causes Something.

God bless,
jd

 

[jkiernan56]

In post # 157 jkiernan56 stated that he disagrees with the explicit teaching of the Church as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’m not his opponent, but* I’m not going to confirm someone in their rejection of the Church*. I’m explaining what the Church teaches. Apparently** jkiernan56’s **understanding of what the Church teaches is faulty.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains it clearly here:
newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article1

Ahh, the best defense is a good offense eh?
I do agree with Church teaching - but I do also think is lacking in how it expresses the mystery. I do not think God’s ability to create the universe (ie - potentiality) is creating out of NOTHING. Potentiality is not nothingness.

Remember 1HolyCatholic that Gallileo also had thoughts outside of what the Church taught regarding the universe and the earth being the center.

 

[JDaniel]

Ahh, the best defense is a good offense eh?
I do agree with Church teaching - but I do also think is lacking in how it expresses the mystery. I do not think God’s ability to create the universe (ie - potentiality) is creating out of NOTHING. Potentiality is not nothingness.

Remember 1HolyCatholic that Gallileo also had thoughts outside of what the Church taught regarding the universe and the earth being the center.

Once again, you are confusing potentiality-power with potentiality-privation. Potentiality-power means that God HAS the POWER to do anything - including CREATE.

Potentiality-privation means that God is lacking in something. God cannot LACK in anything. As such, He CAN CREATE a universe out of nothing. If you don’t get this, you are espousing pantheism.

The use of the word Potential, in both of these cases, is quite distinct. You cannot find these distinctions in modern, urine-poor dictionaries. You have to look in an OED.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In post # 157 jkiernan56 stated that he disagrees with the explicit teaching of the Church as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’m not his opponent, but* I’m not going to confirm someone in their rejection of the Church*. I’m explaining what the Church teaches. Apparently** jkiernan56’s **understanding of what the Church teaches is faulty.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains it clearly here:
newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm#article1

I spoke to him about this, and he made it clear enough to me that he was attacking an interpretation; not creation exnihilo.

Is it the teaching of the church that God can do the metaphysically impossible? Isn’t this fact falsified by the very nature of God along with the fact that the Church expresses quite seriously that Gods existence can be reasoned to logically. Thomas Aquinas, along with many other respected theists, seems to think so without being corrected, and this appears evident to me in that Aquinas uses logic as a means to proving Gods necessary existence. Many including Anselm himself seems quite adamant in saying that God cannot contradict his own nature. Certainly, surely any reasonable person must see that if metaphysical logic reveals necessary truths about reality then metaphysical logic applies equally to that which is the foundation of all contingent beings. If it applies to one being but not to all, then the so called logical proofs is a farce and a fallacy since why can’t the world be fundamentally irrational. One cannot appeal to reason, since one has destroyed that as soon as one says that God can do that which is metaphysically impossible.

I’m sorry, but your interpretation of creation exnihilo cannot be correct, if by that you mean that God can get something from absolutely nothing. Better to say that its a mystery than to say that God can do absurd things.

 

[jkiernan56]

From Nothing only Nothing comes, is an excellent philosophical premise. It means, that which we call Nothing (or, Nothingness) is such a thing where no material being can educe from it. It is only in this sense that God creates: from Nothing comes Something. However, he is also the First Cause. As such, He takes Something (already Created) and causes Something.

God bless,
jd

JD - Can you explain what you mean a little more when you said “He takes something (already created) and causes something.” ? Anything that exists (excluding God) did not use to exist nor does it have to exist. It was only in the realm of possibility of God to be determined and brought into existence. I call this what is potential for God to do - and God’s potential (what He is able to do) is not nothingness. God is the Primary Mover and is Himself not moved - so He starts the whole chain of cause-effect while at the same sustaining all contingent existence in being.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Once again, you are confusing potentiality-power with potentiality-privation. Potentiality-power means that God HAS the POWER to do anything - including CREATE.

I explained this much in post 177. I don’t think that he is misunderstanding. I think that what he said is in conformity with exactly what you are saying here.

 

[jkiernan56]

I spoke to him about this, and he made it clear enough to me that he was attacking an interpretation; not creation exnihilo.

Is it the teaching of the church that God can do the metaphysically impossible? Isn’t this fact falsified by the very nature of God along with the fact that the Church expresses quite seriously that Gods existence can be reasoned to logically. Thomas Aquinas, along with many other respected theists, seems to think so without being corrected, and this appears evident to me in that Aquinas uses logic as a means to proving Gods necessary existence. Many including Anselm himself seems quite adamant in saying that God cannot contradict his own nature. Certainly, surely any reasonable person must see that if metaphysical logic reveals necessary truths about reality then metaphysical logic applies equally to that which is the foundation of all contingent beings. If it applies to one being but not to all, then the so called logical proofs is a farce and a fallacy since why can’t the world be fundamentally irrational. One cannot appeal to reason, since one has destroyed that as soon as one says that God can do that which is metaphysically impossible.

I’m sorry, but your interpretation of creation exnihilo cannot be correct, if by that you mean that God can get something from absolutely nothing. Better to say that its a mystery than to say that God can do absurd things.

Thank you MindOverMatter. You are right I was not attacking the doctrine of ex-nihilo, but rather trying to say that the doctrine does not express the mystery very well. What is possible for God (potential) is NOT in my estimation the same as creating out of pure absolute nothingness. I do know that only God has to exist and nothing else.

 

[JDaniel]

JD - Can you explain what you mean a little more when you said “He takes something (already created) and causes something.” ? Anything that exists (excluding God) did not use to exist nor does it have to exist. It was only in the realm of possibility of God to be determined and brought into existence. I call this what is potential for God to do - and God’s potential (what He is able to do) is not nothingness. God is the Primary Mover and is Himself not moved - so He starts the whole chain of cause-effect while at the same sustaining all contingent existence in being.

JK:

Cause is an exigency of three (possibly, four) principles: Matter, Form, and Privation. Matter exists in previousness to its admixing with Form. However, in its Previousness, it does not possess the Form it is ultimately to possess. (Primary) Matter, therefore, is in Privation of what it requires to ultimately become what it is to become.

You are calling a thing that does not exist a Thing. You say, “It was only in the realm of possibility of God to be determined and brought into existence.” You can’t call that which does not exist an “it,” except figuratively. There is no “it.” There is no thing. Neither actually nor potentially. It has no ontological Beingness.

What I think you are thinking is that God has a “concept” of everything that could ever be. And, thus it exists, if no where else than God’s mind. But, if He has it in his mind, it exists. No Potentiality about it - it simply exists. This is not two actions for God. When He thinks something, it takes on being.

This is a very hard concept to grapple with… But, to think of it in any other way is to anthropomorphize it - to place human properties on the ultimate spiritual entity. It seems as though God should at least hold within himself all “unused” Primary Matter. To tell you the truth, I don’t know how Primary Matter is held by God. Since He did all of this in one instant, it is hard to fathom some of these mysteries. In fact, I think we’re not supposed to.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I explained this much in post 177. I don’t think that he is misunderstanding. I think that what he said is in conformity with exactly what you are saying here.

I think you’re right. It is a very hard concept - one word - two very different meanings, or usages. And then, we see, “To God all things are possible.” Which even confounds it more.

I always have to remember that the Universe, and everything in it, was created in one instant, as far as God is concerned. Essentially, what there is what there is. Although, for us, the discovery process is still going on. :banghead:

God bless, MoM,
jd

 

[jkiernan56]

I think you’re right. It is a very hard concept - one word - two very different meanings, or usages. And then, we see, “To God all things are possible.” Which even confounds it more.

I always have to remember that the Universe, and everything in it, was created in one instant, as far as God is concerned. Essentially, what there is what there is. Although, for us, the discovery process is still going on. :banghead:

God bless, MoM,
jd

Do you think the impossible is possible for God? For instance, do you think it is possible for God to cease His own existence? I’m just curious to see where you stand on this.

 

[1holycatholic]

Do you think the impossible is possible for God? For instance, do you think it is possible for God to cease His own existence? I’m just curious to see where you stand on this.

This is also answered in the ST link under article three.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m sorry, but your interpretation of creation exnihilo cannot be correct, if by that you mean that God can get something from absolutely nothing. Better to say that its a mystery than to say that God can do absurd things.

What interpretation?

From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:54. How did God create the universe?
295-301
317-320
God created the universe freely with wisdom and love. The world is not the result of any necessity, nor of blind fate, nor of chance. God created “out of nothing” (ex nihilo)(2 Maccabees 7:28) a world which is ordered and good and which he infinitely transcends. God preserves his creation in being and sustains it, giving it the capacityto act and leading it toward its fulfillment through his Son and the Holy Spirit.
The universe was created by God ex-nihilo and is radically contingent. This is what the Church teaches.

I do not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to its teaching on “ex nihilo” - that God created out of “nothing” - at least from a philosophical understanding.

If you do not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church then you are in error.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The universe was created by God ex-nihilo and is radically contingent. This is what the Church teaches.

This is precisely the point I have been making. Your interpretation of what is being written is necessarily in error; just as necessarily as Gods necessary existence.

If you do not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church then you are in error.

I agree with the catechism of the Catholic church. I don’t agree with you.

 

[jkiernan56]

What interpretation?

From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:54. How did God create the universe?
295-301
317-320
God created the universe freely with wisdom and love. The world is not the result of any necessity, nor of blind fate, nor of chance. God created “out of nothing” (ex nihilo)(2 Maccabees 7:28) a world which is ordered and good and which he infinitely transcends. God preserves his creation in being and sustains it, giving it the capacityto act and leading it toward its fulfillment through his Son and the Holy Spirit.
The universe was created by God ex-nihilo and is radically contingent. This is what the Church teaches.

If you do not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church then you are in error.

LOL … yes i stand by my statement … you are such a good Catholic … LOL … I honestly couldn’t care less if there is anything that you would take to heart from me or not. That is the Holy Spirit’s job to teach you whatever it is you need to know for whatever purpose or role you have in His Church.

I appreciate and thank you for not taking me out of context … please notice the words in my statement “at least from a philosophical understanding”. God is pure Spirit … without limits, measure, or boundaries, without beginning or end … absolute perfection of being of 3 distinct Persons sharing and possessing the same ONE nature. I don’t think the Catechism adequately expresses the mystery of creation and could do a better job.

 

[1holycatholic]

This is precisely the point I have been making. Your interpretation of what is being written is necessarily in error; just as necessarily as Gods necessary existence.

I agree with the catechism of the Catholic church. I don’t agree with you.

I’ve never posted anything contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[1holycatholic]

LOL … yes i stand by my statement

Which one? You have two contradictory statements.

1. 
   *]I do not agree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church
   *]I do agree with Church teaching
   
   

 

[1holycatholic]

Once again, you are confusing potentiality-power with potentiality-privation. Potentiality-power means that God HAS the POWER to do anything - including CREATE.

Potentiality-privation means that God is lacking in something. God cannot LACK in anything. As such, He CAN CREATE a universe out of nothing. If you don’t get this, you are espousing pantheism.

Exactly. God created the universe ex nihilo, yet God transcends His creation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’ve never posted anything contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I know that is what you think, but you are interpreting something out of context to everything else that is true about God. If you look at one passage of a document and do not consider it in light of everything else that is said, it is easy to fall in to the trap of thinking that something is being said that really isn’t. You can often miss the contextual significance of a specific phrase or sentence. You are obviously not willing to accept that possibility. I have given you arguments as to why I cannot accept your argument, you have done nothing but assert that God literally does the logically impossible. I have stated that a more meaningful truth can be understood by the exnihilo doctrine and that is the fact that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials that exists apart from God. That to me makes more sense and is logically compatible. In other words, exnihilo is not making a positive statement about how God created the universe, but rather the doctrine is stating what God didn’t do as opposed to the belief that God created the universe out of pre-existing physical materials which exist separatly from God.

 

[1holycatholic]

I know that is what you think, but you are interpreting something out of context to everything else that is true about God. If you look at one passage of a document and do not consider it in light of everything else that is said, it is easy to fall in to the trap of thinking that something is being said that really isn’t. You can often miss the contextual significance of a specific phrase or sentence. You are obviously not willing to accept that possibility. I have given you arguments as to why I cannot accept your argument, you have done nothing but assert that God literally does the logically impossible. I have stated that a more meaningful truth can be understood by the exnihilo doctrine and that is the fact that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials that exists apart from God. That to me makes more sense and is logically compatible.

What exactly do you think my argument is?