Something was NOT brought from Nothing.The problem as it was illustrated is that the creation by definition is a process of bringing something from nothing (ex nihilo). Therefore we are dealing with a change in state of existence (nothing to something) which means that we need time. …
We talk of infinity because there was no space-time at the beginning. It is assumed that everything took up no space at time zero. Even if the total mass of the universe were 1 kg, the density would be infinite. I would say that what was at the beginning is no more an anomaly than is a fertilized ovum. It’s all “regular” because it is what has happened. But, I understand what you are getting at. There is only Genesis that explains all this.I think we are dealing with an anomaly at the Big Bang. In one hand we know that there is no theory which can explain changes in infinity. In another hand we have a change from singularity to regularity which means a theory for corresponding change should exist.
I get the feeling I am in that episode of the Big Bang Theory. Shelton starts E-mailing Hawking. They play Chess or similar, swap a few theories. But then Hawking hangs up on Shelton, stops answering his E-mails, and, if I remember, takes out a protection order.I think we should have time at the singularity otherwise we could not have any motion or expansion. I am not sure about matter.
I don’t think that we have any theory for the singularity yet.
A point at which the laws of physics break down. The density is infinite at that point therefore to me you could not have any theory which deals with change in infinity.
How do you define the act of creation?Something was NOT brought from Nothing.
There should be “no thing” at the point of creation.There was no state at all prior to creation, no existence, no singularity, nothing to Bang “bigly”, no space, no process.
What creation ex nihilo means?There was absolutely nothing to process, nothing to change into creation, nothing to be brought out of nothing into something.
No. That is the act of creation which bring something from nothing.If something were brought out of this nothing, then this something would also be nothing.
Defined for you in post 134How do you define the act of creation?
No, there should NOT BE no thing - no being whatsoever. There is not a thing present, not being, not any state of being, not any space, not any matter, not any spirits (angels),There should be “no thing” at the point of creation.
It means “suddenly being”.What creation ex nihilo means?
You cannot bring something out of nothing; only nothing can be brought out of nothing.No. That is the act of creation which bring something from nothing.
You need time to get singularity from nothing.I get the feeling I am in that episode of the Big Bang Theory. Shelton starts E-mailing Hawking. They play Chess or similar, swap a few theories. But then Hawking hangs up on Shelton, stops answering his E-mails, and, if I remember, takes out a protection order.
STT, we aren’t dealing with a change in infinity, only God can do that.
You can have whatever you want at the Singularity, but that still doesn’t prove time is required at the instant that Creation is enacted, or beforehand.
What makes everything. String?Infact you are proving a starting point for the laws of physics. At the Singularity, what exactly is so dense and infinite,?
There is no laws of nature at Big Bang. We don’t know about energy conversation, etc.What laws start to become ordered? What clocks start ticking? What is the energy source?
String.Did you tell me what you believe to be the fabric of space?
Well, I could accept that picture if you could resolve the dilemma.Just sit for a minute, imagine God sitting there and the Word. It is decided now to create the Universe and Heaven and Earth. And creatures and flora. So God starts with an infinite amount of matter, adds a massive amount of energy and here we are today. Thanks be to God.
Very simple for God. And like a great big construction kit, keeping the brightest minds of His creatures busy, until He destroys Heaven and Earth.
“the actuality of material being” from what? The act of creation is meaningless if material beings are actual.Defined for you in post 134
“Suddenly being” doesn’t mean anything.No, there should NOT BE no thing - no being whatsoever. There is not a thing present, not being, not any state of being, not any space, not any matter, not any spirits (angels),
“No Thing” does not mean "something that is called ‘No’ "
It means “suddenly being”.
I cannot bring something from nothing but God presumably can.You cannot bring something out of nothing; only nothing can be brought out of nothing.
God did not at all “change nothing” so that it was now “something”.
There was no change of “nothing”
No, God cannot bring something from nothing; that is impossible for God. Only Nothing can come from Nothing.“the actuality of material being” from what? The act of creation is meaningless if material beings are actual.
“Suddenly being” doesn’t mean anything.
I cannot bring something from nothing but God presumably can.
Why bother with concept of God if the universe simply is?No, God cannot bring something from nothing; that is impossible for God. Only Nothing can come from Nothing.
Suddenly Being is creation. It does not come from anywhere, it just IS, it suddenly IS.
Creation as a Noun means the actuality of material being.
And it is suddenly present, which is the action of creating.
When God created, suddenly there was material being present. It did not come from anywhere and it did not come from nowhere.
The universe is not, neither simply nor complexly - instead, the universe appears so that it may unite to its final satisfaction, and that is it’s movement (which entails Time) - attaining perfection of Form to enter satisfaction of its being.Why bother with concept of God if the universe simply is?
Do you really believe on that or I am misreading you?The universe is not, neither simply nor complexly - instead, the universe appears so that it may unite to its final satisfaction, and that is it’s movement (which entails Time) - attaining perfection of Form to enter satisfaction of its being.
I don’t understand how what you said is related to our discussion.We actually bother about God because the Final End of all things is to go back into God’s knowing of union with his creature. This is destruction for anything material, to pour its whole being into God. And it is love, to give your whole being into another.
Yes, that is the way things really are - you are not misreading me.Do you really believe on that or I am misreading you?
I don’t understand how what you said is related to our discussion.
So God acts when there is nothing and then there is something?When people say God created “out of nothing” they just mean that God did not create from something. Things just ARE because God wills it. He did not find chaos or energy and then act upon it. He just wills that things other than Himself BE, and in so willing, they ARE. “Nothing” is not a thing to be acted upon.
Thanks for the articles. I will look at them shortly.STT (and all following this discussion), I was looking at Jimmy Akin’s blog and happened across a 3 part series of articles you might find interesting. Here are the links and the issues they discuss:
jimmyakin.com/2017/03/3-views-of-time-and-eternity.html
1.) 3 Views of Time and Eternity
jimmyakin.com/2017/04/does-only-the-present-exist.html
- If God is eternal and outside of time, does he create all of history all at once?
- Does the fact that what is true in time changes mean that God’s knowledge changes?
- How can God be eternal and yet incarnate as Jesus Christ at a specific moment in time?
2.) Does Only the Present Exist?
jimmyakin.com/2017/04/are-the-past-and-the-future-real.html
- Presentism holds that only the present is real (so the past and future are not)
- The growing block theory holds that the past and the present are real (but the future is not)
- Eternalism holds that the past, the present, and the future are all real
3.) Are the Past and the Future Real?
I figured you and others would enjoy reading through Jimmy’s take on how all this crazy time stuff might work.
- God’s changeless knowledge of what is real would seem to change if only the present is real and the current time changes from one moment to another. Thus, at one point God would know that 12:01 a.m. is the only real moment, but later he would know that 12:02 a.m. is the only real moment, and so on.
- God’s changeless knowledge of what is real also seems to change as the contents of the universe assume different configurations over time. Thus, at a point shortly after creation, God would know that stars and planets are not yet real, but later he would know that stars and planets are
- God’s creative/conserving action seems to change in that he must stop conserving one configuration of things in the universe to allow another to come to pass. Thus, he must first create/conserve the universe in one condition (such as before stars and planets exist) and then stop conserving it in this state so that a new condition (when stars and planets do exist) can come about.
- None of these would be problems if God were inside of time like we are and thus capable of changing in his actions and his knowledge of what is real.
- But the Church teaches that God is outside of time and changeless.
- These aren’t the only problems with the idea only that the present exists. Here are two more . . .
Ah Ye olde string theory plucks a lonesome flat on the road to a harmonic echo lost in the pit of antimatter.You need time to get singularity from nothing.
What makes everything. String?
There is no laws of nature at Big Bang. We don’t know about energy conversation, etc
String.
Well, I could accept that picture if you could resolve the dilemma.
There was never a “when there was nothing.” There was no before.So God acts when there is nothing and then there is something?
jimmyakin.com/2017/04/does-only-the-present-exist.html
But do we? Unfortunately, I think Akin has the argument wrong. He’s placing God in time such that God’s “eternal now” is somehow made up of successive moments.If we ask this question at the moment of creation then we will find the following:
The present changes, but God’s knowledge of each moment in time doesn’t. He knows the state of the universe ar 12:01. He knows the state of the universe at 12:02. He knows the state of the universe for all moments in time, past and future, even though the future does not exist from our perspective yet. God’s knowledge is directed to all points in once as He is their cause. Or, it could be said that knowledge of all points in time as they occur feed into God’s eternal now simultaneously. What we we experience as sequential events is known by God all in one moment. The future has not happened yet, but, assuming a future event will come to pass, God knows it is passing as its passing in the same moment as everything else He knows. It’s one instantaneous flowering of knowledge and act from His perspective, and a sequential flowering in time from ours.