Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

[jkiernan56]

Of course God has the power to become.

What is God “becoming” as you say?
What is God becoming that He does not already possess?
It is you my friend that is not understanding classical philosophy/theology - which are brother and sister of each other - all summed up in the name God has revealed to us - “I AM WHO AM”. There is no “I AM BECOMING …”

In God, there is infinite activity with NO CHANGE.
NO CHANGE = NO BECOMING

 

[1holycatholic]

What is God “becoming” as you say?
What is God becoming that He does not already possess?
It is you my friend that is not understanding classical philosophy/theology - which are brother and sister of each other - all summed up in the name God has revealed to us - “I AM WHO AM”. There is no “I AM BECOMING …”

In God, there is infinite activity with NO CHANGE.
NO CHANGE = NO BECOMING

Exactly! NO CHANGE = NO BECOMING = NO POTENTIAL.

 

[jkiernan56]

Exactly! NO CHANGE = NO BECOMING = NO POTENTIAL.

Yes, in the proper CONTEXT, the statement you make is absolutely true. God is Pure Actuality. There is nothing to be gained or lost by God.

But in ANOTHER CONTEXT the word potentiality takes on a different meaning.
POTENTIALITY = POSSIBILITY. In this context (not the other one), God has the potentiality to act using ALL HIS ACTUALITY. What is possible (not yet determined or actualized) is potential to God. Potential here has a different meaning in this context than in does in the former.

 

[jkiernan56]

Of course God has the power to become. He is immanently becoming.

So that God is not a becoming, as in some pantheistic systems, nor a being whose infinite potentiality is gradually unfolded or evolved. But He possesses at once all perfections. He is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect. What we conceive as His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence includes essentially His existence. For all intelligences except His own, God is incomprehensible and indefinable. The nearest approach we can make to a definition is to call Him the Actus Purus. It is the name God gives to Himself: “I am who am”, i.e., I am the fullness of being and of perfection.

newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, in the proper CONTEXT, the statement you make is absolutely true. God is Pure Actuality. There is nothing to be gained or lost by God.

But in ANOTHER CONTEXT the word potentiality takes on a different meaning.
POTENTIALITY = POSSIBILITY. In this context (not the other one), God has the potentiality to act using ALL HIS ACTUALITY. What is possible (not yet determined or actualized) is potential to God. Potential here has a different meaning in this context than in does in the former.

In philosophy potency and act have specific meanings defined by the philosopher.

Actuality and Potentiality.

It’s not about context. You’re either being careless or deliberately misleading in your word choices.

 

[JDaniel]

So that God is not a becoming, as in some pantheistic systems, nor a being whose infinite potentiality is gradually unfolded or evolved. But He possesses at once all perfections. He is simultaneously all that He can be, infinitely real and infinitely perfect. What we conceive as His attributes or His operations, are really identical with His essence, and His essence includes essentially His existence. For all intelligences except His own, God is incomprehensible and indefinable. The nearest approach we can make to a definition is to call Him the Actus Purus. It is the name God gives to Himself: “I am who am”, i.e., I am the fullness of being and of perfection.

newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm

JK:

Absolutomundo!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

What is God “becoming” as you say?
What is God becoming that He does not already possess?
It is you my friend that is not understanding classical philosophy/theology - which are brother and sister of each other - all summed up in the name God has revealed to us - “I AM WHO AM”. There is no “I AM BECOMING …”

In God, there is infinite activity with NO CHANGE.
NO CHANGE = NO BECOMING

He is eternally producing his Son and the Holy Ghost in one continuous and infinite activity. Power in creatures, such as humans, passes from a state of potential capability to the actual performance of an act. But Omnipotence is the subsistent energy of eternal being, and is not transient but immanent and permanent in its eternal actuality. No change, nor beginning nor end, are aspects of his involvement in the universe. His involvement is perpetual and infinite. How else could true power be manifest in the absence of time?

Think of it this way: omnipotent power is the intrinsic energy of being realized in activity. And, although the Trinity is Perfect in itself and as it exists, it is also the Perfect realization of omnipotency. Thus, it is the continuous becoming, in that sense, where the full Power of God can be realized. The Persons of the Trinity were not simply made then set adrift in the sea of existing exigencies.

All of the above is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In philosophy potency and act have specific meanings defined by the philosopher.

Actuality and Potentiality.

It’s not about context. You’re either being careless or deliberately misleading in your word choices.

Sorry. He is not being careless or misleading.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

My friend,

It is absolutely necessary, when we mere mortals attempt to attach our feeble determinants to God, that we never forget that we are not God. We cannot know what is possible, or not possible, for God. However, believing that He is all powerful leaves us in a quagmire, if we don’t at least try to grasp how. That being said, I will further say that I believe God has NO limitations. NONE. He could be immanently doing whatever He wants. He could be immanently altering everything we believe to be true or logical. He promises, though, that He won’t. In fact, the very combination of all-perfect Love and all-perfect Power is our assurance that He did not do that.

We are in the process of moving forward in our processing of the discoveries we view, as one might view a movie. The action of the movie has really already taken place, since it’s already in the can, so to speak, but, since we are just now seeing it for the first time, it appears new to us and is progressing through the scenes of action in a timely fashion. It didn’t happen that way for God. He thought of it and made it so. This all occurred at one now.

I use the word now because it is not really a part of time. The now connects past and future, for us, but, remains that which is within the innermost beginnings and endings of time past and time future. He is infinitely powerful so He can do this. He can change the outcome of logic - for us. He can change the sublime smoothness of the progress of time. He can make our lives horribly miserable - remember the Flood. Thanks be to God for not doing that again.

Logic is a very powerful aspect of human thought. But, logic cannot imprison God. He creates logic. He can make 2 + 2 = 5, if He so wants. That He doesn’t is proof that we have not upset Him like the pre-flood inhabitants of this planet must have done. That He doesn’t do terribly mean stuff to us is proof that He still Loves us, although it’s beyond me why!

What you are saying here is essentially denying a neccesary fact of logic. You are denying logic inorder to justify a belief. God cannot make 2+2 =5 no more than God can both be and not be at the same time. And as for saying that logic is a powerful aspect…well, if you have succeeded in anything, it is by making logic abirtray and useless an thus meaningless in terms of dicerning neccesary truths.

I am disapointed.

 

[jkiernan56]

He is eternally producing his Son and the Holy Ghost in one continuous and infinite activity. Power in creatures, such as humans, passes from a state of potential capability to the actual performance of an act. But Omnipotence is the subsistent energy of eternal being, and is not transient but immanent and permanent in its eternal actuality. No change, nor beginning nor end, are aspects of his involvement in the universe. His involvement is perpetual and infinite. How else could true power be manifest in the absence of time?

Think of it this way: omnipotent power is the intrinsic energy of being realized in activity. And, although the Trinity is Perfect in itself and as it exists, it is also the Perfect realization of omnipotency. Thus, it is the continuous becoming, in that sense, where the full Power of God can be realized. The Persons of the Trinity were not simply made then set adrift in the sea of existing exigencies.

All of the above is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

God bless,
jd

The Father does NOT produce, but rather He BEGETS.
The Son is BEGOTTEN (not produced).
The Holy Spirit PROCEEDS FROM the Father AND the Son.

Never did one person exist prior to the others - they are coeternal and coexistant. In John Paul 2 Theology of the Body … the human family (Husband, Wife, Child) is the most perfect image of the Holy Trinity that we have - in a faint way, it is God’s self portrait. The Holy Spirit IS the LOVE between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit has ALWAYS existed, because the Father and Son have eternally existed in perfect love. The Son is not secondary to the Father … nor is He produced … that is a poor word to use for the Son.

 

[1holycatholic]

Sorry. He is not being careless or misleading.

How do you know it’s “he?”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How do you know it’s “he?”

Maybe its because i am jkiernan56…or maybe its because i am a square-triangle. Maybe i am you, and you are me! Or may be its because i like baking muffins on a hot winters morning. Or maybe its because i flew away because i was upset that i can’t fly. Or maybe when God said do good he really mean’t do evil since there is no logical difference. Or maybe God can make a super large stone infinitely small, while still remaining infinitely large. Or maybe i ate some spinich and turned in to poppye the salior man. Or maybe crack is healthy and we should sell it to children.

…orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe, i am just spitballing here, i assumed that jkiernan was a he.

Your right, i don’t know what i am talking about. Silly me.

 

[1holycatholic]

Maybe its because i am jkiernan56…or maybe its because i am a square-triangle. Maybe i am you, and you are me! Or may be its because i like baking muffins on a hot winters morning. Or maybe its because i flew away because i was upset that i can’t fly. Or maybe when God said do good he really mean’t do evil since there is no logical difference. Or maybe God can make a super large stone infinitely small, while still remaining infinitely large. Or maybe i ate some spinich and turned in to poppye the salior man. Or maybe crack is healthy and we should sell it to children.

…orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe, i am just spitballing here, i assumed that jkiernan was a he.

Your right, i don’t know what i am talking about. Silly me.

You being jkiernan56 would explain your ability to know jkiernan56’s intent. :hypno:

 

[jkiernan56]

How do you know it’s “he?”

j
Christ told us to call God our FATHER and by faith we know He is the Son (He who has seen me has seen the Father). The love relationship between Christ the Son and the Father far surpasses that of any love between a man and a woman. It cannot be put into words, but rather can be seen on the cross. That is an infinite act of love.

In terms of relationship (not sexuality) the Son receives ALL He has from the Father and the Son returns all that He has received back to the Father. That is an image of total self giving in marriage, but in the Trinity that total giving/receiving/returning far surpasses that. I would say the Holy Spirit is the Divine Child of the Father and Son infinitely and eternally loving one another - a Person who too has always existed. I like to think of the Holy Spirit in terns of a beautiful woman, but actually is BEAUTY. I know none of the Divine Persons are male or female. I will say that Christ is male and not a woman and one day we will behold him as a Man (if by God’s grace we make it).

 

[1holycatholic]

j
Christ told us to call God our FATHER and by faith we know He is the Son (He who has seen me has seen the Father). The love relationship between Christ the Son and the Father far surpasses that of any love between a man and a woman. It cannot be put into words, but rather can be seen on the cross. That is an infinite act of love.

In terms of relationship (not sexuality) the Son receives ALL He has from the Father and the Son returns all that He has received back to the Father. That is an image of total self giving in marriage, but in the Trinity that total giving/receiving/returning far surpasses that. I would say the Holy Spirit is the Divine Child of the Father and Son infinitely and eternally loving one another - a Person who too has always existed. I like to think of the Holy Spirit in terns of a beautiful woman, but actually is BEAUTY. I know none of the Divine Persons are male or female. I will say that Christ is male and not a woman and one day we will behold him as a Man (if by God’s grace we make it).

 

[jkiernan56]

oops … i thought you were asking me why is God a He? lol … my mistake … i guess it would help to read all preceding posts before replying.

 

[jkiernan56]

Maybe its because i am jkiernan56…or maybe its because i am a square-triangle. Maybe i am you, and you are me! Or may be its because i like baking muffins on a hot winters morning. Or maybe its because i flew away because i was upset that i can’t fly. Or maybe when God said do good he really mean’t do evil since there is no logical difference. Or maybe God can make a super large stone infinitely small, while still remaining infinitely large. Or maybe i ate some spinich and turned in to poppye the salior man. Or maybe crack is healthy and we should sell it to children.

…orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maybe, i am just spitballing here, i assumed that jkiernan was a he.

Your right, i don’t know what i am talking about. Silly me.

Thanks for the laughs MOM !!! Are you sure you even exist? How do you know this is not just a bad dream … and none of this is really happening? and how do you know that you know … that you know? do you know … huh? lol

 

[jkiernan56]

What if I told you I was a both a man and a woman (hermaphrodite)? lol … just kidding

 

[JDaniel]

The Father does NOT produce, but rather He BEGETS.
The Son is BEGOTTEN (not produced).
The Holy Spirit PROCEEDS FROM the Father AND the Son.

Never did one person exist prior to the others - they are coeternal and coexistant. In John Paul 2 Theology of the Body … the human family (Husband, Wife, Child) is the most perfect image of the Holy Trinity that we have - in a faint way, it is God’s self portrait. The Holy Spirit IS the LOVE between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit has ALWAYS existed, because the Father and Son have eternally existed in perfect love. The Son is not secondary to the Father … nor is He produced … that is a poor word to use for the Son.

A little quote from one of the volumes of the Teachings of the Catholic Church, which I posted about a year ago:

**"Power is the intrinsic energy of being realized in activity. The Blessed Trinity, infinite in the immanence of its life, is the perfect self-realization of Power. In one omnipotent and eternal experience all powers of being, both absolute and relative, are completely actualized without the possibility of increase or diminution. Omnipotence suffuses all the Divine attributes, and is identical with the Godhood of God. It represents for us the dynamic aspect of the triune life of the divine essence, wherein the fecundity of the one subsistent nature expresses, manifests, and comprehends its own meaning and value, and all things within that fullness.

Omnipotence involves every possible mode of origination and production, and is thus more than the power of causation whereby things other than itself are brought into existence. The eternal origination or procession of the Son and the Holy Ghost is omnipotent life; but it is not causal activity, inasmuch as the persons are identical with the one divine nature. They are not additions to its life, they are its life. The three persons are self-expressions and self-realizations of life, knowledge, love, and sanctity which constitute the very being of Deity. Thus subsistence is power, knowledge is power, will and eternity are power, all infinitely one. Omnipotence is distinctive of Deity, and creation is but a revelation of it in the order of finite being."**

See?

God bless,
jd

 

[greylorn]

no, my refutation of the copenhagen interpretation, is the other 10 mutually exclusive common interpretations of QM.

WSP:
I’d not realized that there were so many. Can you point me in a useful direction? I’d like to learn more. Thanks.

causality is as an immutable law, as conservation, or gravity, to our universal experience, do you have something that disproves it?

I wonder how solid this idea is, because I like it and want it to be absolute. Implied in Newton’s action/reaction law, but I found no similar implication in QM.

Your own belief in the Big Bang, which I do not share, implies a triggering force for a singularity, which has no place in a cause-effect universe anyhow. No such force has been proposed, and when I queried it on The Physics Forum, I was treated to mindless obfuscation. Hope you can do better.

im sorry, but the empirical evidence is on my side, we can show a beginning in the big bang.

I don’t think so. The evidence for the BB is entirely inferential. The only evidence I know of is the expansion of the universe, which is also inferential. Dark energy is sufficient to account for expansion.

do you have any evidence that the big bang doesnt represent a beginning? no, none exists.

Of course not, since the Big Bang is an hypothesis. However, astrophysicists who tried to work out the equations had to come up with a kludge (inflation) which requires a momentary change in the velocity of light in order to make things work.

In scientific history, the need for mathematical fudging has always been the first clue that a theory sucks. (E.g: Ptolemny’s astronomy, phlogiston theory, black box thermodynamics). For this and many reasons, I invite you to join me in seeking a better idea for the beginnings.

what is there for me to prove? science is on my side here.

Admittedly, you are in agreement with the consensus of scientists, who are atheists. Why not look for something different that might be aligned with your belief in God?