Does God still actively create

[belorg]

The universe started existing 13.7 billion years ago. When it did, all the laws (cosmological constants) that determine its nature also came into being within the first instant of the Big Bang. Those laws are not necessary or fixed as far as we can tell. If matter, time, space and energy came to be in that instant, ostensibly “from nothing,” then the laws that govern how these behave also came to be “instantly.” That would mean the laws could also be revoked instantly so that matter, time, space and energy might simply cease to be as instantly as they came to be given that the governing laws would no longer have affect.

This doesn’t follow. If the universe is analogically like “thoughts” in the mind of God, then it is not “part” of God, but a creative act of God.

If the universe is ‘thoughts’ in the mind of God, that entails panentheism, Peter. Pan-en-theism means everything-(is)in-God. Thoughts in the mind of God are in God and are part of God.

The laws of nature are description of how nature functions. And the current scientific consensus is that those laws do not make it possible for the universe to go (back) to a state of nothingness. That is because of the nature of material reality. So, if God created the universe as such, then it cannot ‘vanish’.

BTW, Thomism necessarily entails that God cannot stop sustaining the universe, since stopping to do something is a change.

 

[belorg]

Well done. He is confusing physical continuity with ontological necessity. He has no justification to think that the laws of physics exist necessarily; he certainly has no scientific justification.

I have never claimed that the laws of physics exist necessarily. But there is scientific justification for the fact that the universe cannot ‘vanish’.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I have never claimed that the laws of physics exist necessarily. But there is scientific justification for the fact that the universe cannot ‘vanish’.

This is a false statement. The science does not know how to explain force carriers. Till that is done there is no way your statement can be true.

 

[belorg]

This is a false statement. The science does not know how to explain force carriers. Till that is done there is no way your statement can be true.

Force carriers have nothing to do with this.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Force carriers have nothing to do with this.

If you insist on this statement then it seems you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no matter without force carriers and no force carriers without matter.
It’s all about them!!!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have never claimed that the laws of physics exist necessarily. But there is scientific justification for the fact that the universe cannot ‘vanish’.

There is no scientific justification for why the universe ‘appeared’ in the first place. How can there be a scientific justification for why it couldn’t vanish?

Are you claiming scientists have reverse engineered the Big Bang and now understand why the Big Bang itself took place? That is, they now know what the forces outside of time, space, matter and energy were that caused the universe itself to come into existence? Short of that, scientists could not know what sustains it “in existence.” They might know and be able to predict the manner in which the universe continues to be the way it is, but they certainly cannot explain why it exists - or continues to - at all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If the universe is ‘thoughts’ in the mind of God, that entails panentheism, Peter. Pan-en-theism means everything-(is)in-God. Thoughts in the mind of God are in God and are part of God.

The laws of nature are description of how nature functions. And the current scientific consensus is that those laws do not make it possible for the universe to go (back) to a state of nothingness. That is because of the nature of material reality. So, if God created the universe as such, then it cannot ‘vanish’.

BTW, Thomism necessarily entails that God cannot stop sustaining the universe, since stopping to do something is a change.

If that were true, then Thomism would have the same problem with God creating the universe in the first place, since that, too, would be a change. It seems that your understanding of Thomism is lacking.

 

[Linux]

I have never claimed that the laws of physics exist necessarily. But there is scientific justification for the fact that the universe cannot ‘vanish’.

This is false; but not because of anything science has said. You have a flawed understanding of the epistemological value of scientific statements. You seem be under the mistaken impression that you can make absolute metaphysical statements on the basis of empirical inferences. Science does not measure metaphysical absolutes. Scientists are not saying that it is logically impossible for the universe to cease in its existence. Rather, if and when science says that the nature of the universe itself cannot vanish, it is making that statement strictly in the context of physics and in reference only to physical events alone and nothing else that might possibly exist outside its epistemology. Science cannot measure the causal influence that some being outside of the context of physics has on the universes existence and therefore cannot determine in an absolute sense or by its method that it is logically impossible or even improbable for the universe to cease existing - metaphysically speaking that is. All science can tell us is that so long as the “laws of physics” persist as they are, the universe will not cease; but that does not mean that the laws of physics cannot cease or will not. The statement is necessarily conditional and is a far cry from saying that the universe cannot possibly fail to exist. In fact it has no relevance whatsoever with whether or not God actualizes and sustains the universe in being.

Not to mention that it is easy to determine the fact that the universe cannot be actual without a cause that transcends its nature; which i have done. You seem to remain silent on the matter.

Science has only so much authority and you are distorting the epistemological authority of the scientific method.

What you are talking about is not science, it is scientism.

 

[Linux]

This is false; but not because of anything science has said. You have a flawed understanding of the epistemological value of scientific statements. You seem be under the mistaken impression that you can make absolute metaphysical statements on the basis of empirical inferences. Science does not measure metaphysical absolutes. Scientists are not saying that it is logically impossible for the universe to cease in its existence. Rather, if and when science says that the nature of the universe itself cannot vanish, it is making that statement strictly in the context of physics and in reference only to physical events alone and nothing else that might possibly exist outside its epistemology. Science cannot measure the causal influence that some being outside of the context of physics has on the universes existence and therefore cannot determine in an absolute sense or by its method that it is logically impossible or even improbable for the universe to cease existing - metaphysically speaking that is. All science can tell us is that so long as the “laws of physics” persist as they are, the universe will not cease; but that does not mean that the laws of physics cannot cease or will not. The statement is necessarily conditional and is a far cry from saying that the universe cannot possibly fail to exist. In fact it has no relevance whatsoever with whether or not God actualizes and sustains the universe in being.

Not to mention that it is relatively easy to determine the fact that the universe cannot be actual without a cause that transcends its nature; which i have done. You seem to remain silent on the matter.

Science has only so much authority and you are distorting the epistemological authority of the scientific method.

What you are talking about is not science, it is scientism.

 

[belorg]

If that were true, then Thomism would have the same problem with God creating the universe in the first place, since that, too, would be a change. It seems that your understanding of Thomism is lacking.

Guess what, Thomism has the same problem with God creating the universe in the first place. And that’s the fundamental flaw of Thomism.

 

[belorg]

This is false; but not because of anything science has said. You have a flawed understanding of the epistemological value of scientific statements. You seem be under the mistaken impression that you can make absolute metaphysical statements on the basis of empirical inferences. Science does not measure metaphysical absolutes. Scientists are not saying that it is logically impossible for the universe to cease in its existence. Rather, if and when science says that the nature of the universe itself cannot vanish, it is making that statement strictly in the context of physics and in reference only to physical events alone and nothing else that might possibly exist outside its epistemology. Science cannot measure the causal influence that some being outside of the context of physics has on the universes existence and therefore cannot determine in an absolute sense or by its method that it is logically impossible or even improbable for the universe to cease existing - metaphysically speaking that is. All science can tell us is that so long as the “laws of physics” persist as they are, the universe will not cease; but that does not mean that the laws of physics cannot cease or will not. The statement is necessarily conditional and is a far cry from saying that the universe cannot possibly fail to exist. In fact it has no relevance whatsoever with whether or not God actualizes and sustains the universe in being.

Science cannot say whether something is logically impossible. **I **am arguing for this, based on the fact that something completely vanishing is just as impossible as something popping into existence from nothing. The complete disapperance of something leads to logical contradictions because of the sipmple fact that something is not nothing. Just as nothing cannot become something, something cannot become nothing.

Not to mention that it is easy to determine the fact that the universe cannot be actual without a cause that transcends its nature; which i have done. You seem to remain silent on the matter.

If that’s easy, you are welcome to demonstrate it. The reason I remain silent on that matter is because it is irrelevant. I am not disputing that the universe might have some transcendent originating cause, I am disputing that it needs a sustaining cause.

Science has only so much authority and you are distorting the epistemological authority of the scientific method.

What you are talking about is not science, it is scientism.

I am not talking about scientism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Exactly. To say that God put everything together and stepped away to watch is Deism at its finest. Creation is a continual act, as God’s will continues to unfold throughout history. Since his will is immutable, if he once willed to create, then he is always willing to create, and is thus always creating.

-ACEGC

I don’t think we have any reason to say that God is still creating, except for the human soul. Is this your opinion or have you seen an argument favoring a " continued creation. "
Genesis would seem to disagree.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Welcome to CAF, JFJK:

Remember: God is timeless. Therefore, Creation is a singular event to God’s mind, while it appears to roll out to our minds (and senses). Think of God existing within the framework of a Now - then think of it as an Eternal Now. So, yes, God continues to roll out creation to us. Each and every new soul, and each and every new motion, or change, is “creational.”

God bless,
jd

I think we need to restrict the use of the word " create " to bring into being ex nihilo. Movement/change is not creation. God does create each new soul. there is no justification that he is still creating the material universe.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Richca:

No disrespect intended, but since you brought up, I’d like to say that it is my fervent prayer that all Christians - especially Catholics - stop uttering those words. They make it appear that there was some pre-existing matrix, or stuff, around (e.g., out there in space) “out of which” God could mold, or cause, to fashion into a universe.

The Catholic position is subtly different: God creates where there was absolutely nothing. This alters the meaning of the expression such that it represents “Creation,” rather than everyday “causation.” Although Creation is a kind of causation, it is a causation that does not require any kind of pre-existing matrix or stuff.

God bless,
jd

Well said. Still it is clear that some can’t seem to grasp that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

JD – I cheerfully propose that you’re kind of splitting hairs. The poster simply wrote that God created out of nothing, but not in the way that you imply. The intent was not that God took this “stuff” called nothing and built it up. Rather, the very definition of nothing is exactly that: nothing. God didn’t need any building blocks; if He did, then it wouldn’t be called nothing.
So you’re both saying the same thing.

An analogy: if I say, “That sound came out of nowhere” everyone understands that it didn’t really “come” from anywhere. It’s just an expression.

Precisely.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hello JDaniel,
Yes, God creates where there was absolutely nothing. However, that could possibly be construed to mean that there was a time when God didn’t exist, a time of absolute nothingness. Though, I don’t think this is what you mean. I don’t see the difference in saying “God creates out of nothing” or “God creates from absolutely nothing.” Nothing is nothing, I don’t believe you have to say “absolutely nothing.”

Peace, Rich

I don’t think you can come to that conclusion from creation ex nihilo. There is a logical fallacy there which I can’t identify. Never was good at technical logic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would argue that God does still actively create. I would argue that miracles are evidence of this.

I can’t think of any miracle that would support that conclusion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Surritter:

I don’t have a problem with your interpretation, but, I disagree. The problem is, too many Catholics don’t understand it as you’ve just proposed it. So, whenever a person says, “God created out of nothing,” people like Lawrence Krauss intimate that it is fundamental particles that do that, as “nothing” is really a “soup” (of particles), and so God is not needed (and, therefore, does not exist). I wonder how many young minds have been taken in by that logic? I think, quite a few from the looks of our losses!

God bless,
jd

Ah well, I see the problem. Some scientists have absconded the definition. It is a problem and I do think it confuses the younger set who have not studied Scholastic Philosophy or whose Catechesis was poor.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well that I guess you are thinking on a higher plane of philosophy or existential physics than the average person. It’s really doubtful that “too many Catholics” think about “fundamental particles”!
When someone says that it came from nothing, the average person would actually think that it came from nothing.
But your point is taken

They wouldn’t have to think about it. It wouldn’t be a problem if they bothered to think. That is the problem, too many don’t bother to think. They live by what they see and hear and read in the secular media and what they get from their teachers and clueless professors. This nonesense is everywhere. So they soak it up by osmosis.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

well, God is preserving creation. The universe is not like a watch that works by itself (that the universe is like a machine is an assumption dating from the 16th Century), if God stopped sustaining the universe it would vanish
PS Sustaining the universe is the same as re-creating it continuously.

No! Be precise in what you are saying. Sustaining is not creating.