Does God still actively create

[surritter]

If God stopped sustaining the universe, then it would become nothing? Think for a moment what you are claiming here. If a universe, without any aid, can suddenly (or gradually for that matter) vanish, that is, nothing at all would be left of it, theh why couldn’t the universe pop into existence from nothing without any aid?
The Thomistic idea of the universe needing a sustainer is based on a poor understanding by Aquinas (and by Aristotle) of basic physics. Aristotle and Aquinas thought that objects were constantly being ‘pushed’ or ‘attracted’. Nowadays it is understood that an object in motion will stay in motion forever, and that there can never again be a state of absolute nothingness.

But that’s just the point – the universe is “vibrating” based on the very existence of God.
You ask:
“If a universe, without any aid, can suddenly (or gradually for that matter) vanish, that is, nothing at all would be left of it, then why couldn’t the universe pop into existence from nothing without any aid?”
The flaw in that question is words #4-6, where you inject “without any aid.”

The universe can do both of those things – pop into existence and then vanish from existence – solely because of the external cause that we believers call God. There is no inconsistency there.

 

[Linux]

If God stopped sustaining the universe, then it would become nothing? Think for a moment what you are claiming here. If a universe, without any aid, can suddenly (or gradually for that matter) vanish, that is, nothing at all would be left of it, theh why couldn’t the universe pop into existence from nothing without any aid?
The Thomistic idea of the universe needing a sustainer is based on a poor understanding by Aquinas (and by Aristotle) of basic physics. Aristotle and Aquinas thought that objects were constantly being ‘pushed’ or ‘attracted’. Nowadays it is understood that an object in motion will stay in motion forever, and that there can never again be a state of absolute nothingness.

I kindly disagree berlog. If you don’t mind me saying, what i see here is a conflation of metaphysical neccesity with the idea of physical neccesity or physics in general. The fact that science describes the universe as evolving or expanding according to the particular natures and laws it encompasses has nothing to do with understanding the metaphysical logic of how potential things in general become actual or remain in a constant state of becomming. Physical reality itself is a long chain of potential beings or states becoming actual. While the sciences do decribe a relationship between physical objects which produces new kinds of nature, this is not the same thing as describing the ultimate cuase of a things potential to be; you cannot look to the physical sciences for a logical explanation for how the actuality of some potential object comes about in a system that is entirely made of the actualisation of potential. Physical reality itself is in need of a metaphysical explantion for the actualisation of its entire nature from potential, as opposed to what can be epistemologically known by merely measuring particuar physical events through the scientific method.

I think it is you who misunderstands.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If God stopped sustaining the universe, then it would become nothing? Think for a moment what you are claiming here. If a universe, without any aid, can suddenly (or gradually for that matter) vanish, that is, nothing at all would be left of it, theh why couldn’t the universe pop into existence from nothing without any aid?
The Thomistic idea of the universe needing a sustainer is based on a poor understanding by Aquinas (and by Aristotle) of basic physics. Aristotle and Aquinas thought that objects were constantly being ‘pushed’ or ‘attracted’. Nowadays it is understood that an object in motion will stay in motion forever, and that there can never again be a state of absolute nothingness.

The Thomistic idea is not based upon a poor understanding of physics because the laws of physics, the cosmological constants, are themselves part of creation. Aquinas and modern Thomists conceive of creation as not the kind of product that results from the designed efforts of a watchmaker or shoemaker, who use existing material (and its inherent limitations, i.e., laws of physics) to “craft” a product (the universe), but more as a musician “plays” or creates, i.e, “brings into being” a piece of music. If the musician stops playing, the music (creation) stops. The nature of the product completely arises from the act of the creator and not limited by the constraints of some existing material. The laws of physics are merely the constraints placed by composer/musician on the piece itself that determines or gives audible shape to the resulting piece. The musician could play a completely different piece with different notation (laws of physics) if he so chose.

 

[belorg]

But that’s just the point – the universe is “vibrating” based on the very existence of God.
You ask:
“If a universe, without any aid, can suddenly (or gradually for that matter) vanish, that is, nothing at all would be left of it, then why couldn’t the universe pop into existence from nothing without any aid?”
The flaw in that question is words #4-6, where you inject “without any aid.”

The universe can do both of those things – pop into existence and then vanish from existence – solely because of the external cause that we believers call God. There is no inconsistency there.

But now you are contradicting the very thing I was replying to. The claim was that without the aid of God, the universe would vanish. That’s not my claim. It’s even demonstrably false.
But my point is: someone who truly belives that the universe would completely vanish if God did not sustain it, IOW that the universe can spontaneously vanish, has no logical argument against a universe spontaneously popping into existence.

 

[belorg]

I kindly disagree berlog. If you don’t mind me saying, what i see here is a conflation of metaphysical neccesity with the idea of physical neccesity or physics in general. The fact that science describes the universe as evolving or expanding according to the particular natures and laws it encompasses has nothing to do with understanding the metaphysical logic of how potential things in general become actual or remain in a constant state of becomming. Physical reality itself is a long chain of potential beings or states becoming actual. While the sciences do decribe a relationship between physical objects which produces new kinds of nature, this is not the same thing as describing the ultimate cuase of a things potential to be; you cannot look to the physical sciences for a logical explanation for how the actuality of some potential object comes about in a system that is entirely made of the actualisation of potential. Physical reality itself is in need of a metaphysical explantion for the actualisation of its entire nature from potential, as opposed to what can be epistemologically known by merely measuring particuar physical events through the scientific method.

I think it is you who misunderstands.

No, I don’t, because I am not taling about the actualization of potential but of the sustaining of things that alreday have actuality.

 

[belorg]

The Thomistic idea is not based upon a poor understanding of physics because the laws of physics, the cosmological constants, are themselves part of creation. Aquinas and modern Thomists conceive of creation as not the kind of product that results from the designed efforts of a watchmaker or shoemaker, who use existing material (and its inherent limitations, i.e., laws of physics) to “craft” a product (the universe), but more as a musician “plays” or creates, i.e, “brings into being” a piece of music. If the musician stops playing, the music (creation) stops.

I know that’s what Thomists belive, and that is what science has since discovered is demonstrably false. There is no way the universe can stop now, except perhaps through an active effort by a supreme being.

The nature of the product completely arises from the act of the creator and not limited by the constraints of some existing material. The laws of physics are merely the constraints placed by composer/musician on the piece itself that determines or gives audible shape to the resulting piece. The musician could play a completely different piece with different notation (laws of physics) if he so chose.

And it has since then been discovered that the constraints on the universe are not such that it can disappear. So, perhaps the musician could have played a different piece, but if He wants to play a different piece now, He must start playing it (IOW actively intervene to ‘stop’ His current piece.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Is not to say that God actively creates to say that He is within time?

Yes, I know God is omnipresent so that He is within time if He wants to be, but I am trying to draw attention to the fact that He is outside of time as well. If that is the case, that He is outside of time, then He actively created the past, He actively creates the now, and He actively creates the future.

On another note, God has created vastly more combinatorical possibilities than this particular universe will ever sample. If that is the case, then in order that everything be sampled, it would imply that God created a multiverse, like the Everett many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, or perhaps like the Tegmark ultimate ensemble, or even beyond . . .

:twocents:

 

[surritter]

But now you are contradicting the very thing I was replying to. The claim was that without the aid of God, the universe would vanish. That’s not my claim. It’s even demonstrably false.

But my point is: someone who truly belives that the universe would completely vanish if God did not sustain it, IOW that the universe can spontaneously vanish, has no logical argument against a universe spontaneously popping into existence.

I think you misunderstand the original premise (that “without the aid of God” the universe would vanish). It doesn’t mean that the universe actively does something outside of the auspices of God. I’ll state it this way: in order for the universe to vanish, it would have to be because God actively removes Himself from the process. That’s an action in itself, not a statement of God’s nonexistence.

So to say “without the aid of God” doesn’t mean that God isn’t involved; it means that He would be choosing to withdraw His sustaining power, which is an action in itself, right? (Saying that God “chooses” something is fraught with other issues, but I hope you get the main point.)

So your second paragraph has no merit. Here’s why: If the universe disappears, it’s because the first cause removed Himself from the process. If the universe pops into existence, it’s because the first cause injected Himself in the process.

 

[belorg]

I think you misunderstand the original premise (that “without the aid of God” the universe would vanish). It doesn’t mean that the universe actively does something outside of the auspices of God. I’ll state it this way: in order for the universe to vanish, it would have to be because God actively removes Himself from the process. That’s an action in itself, not a statement of God’s nonexistence.

So to say “without the aid of God” doesn’t mean that God isn’t involved; it means that He would be choosing to withdraw His sustaining power, which is an action in itself, right? (Saying that God “chooses” something is fraught with other issues, but I hope you get the main point.)

So your second paragraph has no merit. Here’s why: If the universe disappears, it’s because the first cause removed Himself from the process. If the universe pops into existence, it’s because the first cause injected Himself in the process.

You do not seem to understand what I am saying. I am not claiming the universe does something actively, I am saying that the universe spontaneously jumps into a state of nothingness. IOW there is no cause for the universe’s leap into nothingness. If I said, e.g. that a ball would fall if I did not hold it, my stopping to hold it would not be the cause of its fall. The cause of its fall would in this case, be gravity. But if God’s stopping to sustain the universe means the universe vanishes, there is no cause of the universe’s disappearence. So, something happens without any cause. And if that is the case, why would it be impossible for the universe to pop into existence uncaused? I mean , there is no material cause why the universe vanishes, and there is no efficient cause either. If something can happen without material or efficient cause, then why would there have to be a ‘first’ cause for anything?

 

[surritter]

You do not seem to understand what I am saying. I am not claiming the universe does something actively, I am saying that the universe spontaneously jumps into a state of nothingness. IOW there is no cause for the universe’s leap into nothingness. If I said, e.g. that a ball would fall if I did not hold it, my stopping to hold it would not be the cause of its fall. The cause of its fall would in this case, be gravity. But if God’s stopping to sustain the universe means the universe vanishes, there is no cause of the universe’s disappearence. So, something happens without any cause. And if that is the case, why would it be impossible for the universe to pop into existence uncaused? I mean , there is no material cause why the universe vanishes, and there is no efficient cause either. If something can happen without material or efficient cause, then why would there have to be a ‘first’ cause for anything?

Your real issue is with the age-old philosophical point of “first cause.” You write above that “if God’s stopping to sustain the universe means the universe vanishes, there is no cause of the universe’s disappearance.” That’s illogical – God has caused the universe to disappear.

To use your analogy of the ball, it’s true that the removal of your hand would NOT be the ultimate cause of the fall. But that is because there is another force in effect: gravity would cause the fall. But you fail to pursue the ultimate end: What is the CAUSE of gravity?

Eventually, you will have to admit that everything in existence has an ultimate first cause, but if you refuse to admit that point of logic, then we really can’t get anywhere here.

And your last sentence is problematic for the same reason: **nothing **can happen without a cause. Check out the other numerous threads in the philosophy forum to engage this idea further.

 

[belorg]

Your real issue is with the age-old philosophical point of “first cause.” You write above that “if God’s stopping to sustain the universe means the universe vanishes, there is no cause of the universe’s disappearance.” That’s illogical – God has caused the universe to disappear.

To use your analogy of the ball, it’s true that the removal of your hand would NOT be the ultimate cause of the fall. But that is because there is another force in effect: gravity would cause the fall. But you fail to pursue the ultimate end: What is the CAUSE of gravity?

The point is: if there was no ‘other force’, would the removal of my hand cause the ball’s falling? The answer is: the ball would not fall.
So, there is no ‘pursuing the ultimate end’ here.

Eventually, you will have to admit that everything in existence has an ultimate first cause, but if you refuse to admit that point of logic, then we really can’t get anywhere here.

I do not have a problem admitting that there is a first cause. The problem is: if something completely vanishes when it is no longer sustained, that contradicts the notion of a first cause because the vanishing does not have a cause.

And your last sentence is problematic for the same reason: **nothing **can happen without a cause. Check out the other numerous threads in the philosophy forum to engage this idea further.

If nothing can happen without a cause, then the universe cannot disappear without a cause. Yet, that’s exactly what “the universe wil vanish if God stops sustaining it” entails.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If nothing can happen without a cause, then the universe cannot disappear without a cause. Yet, that’s exactly what “the universe wil vanish if God stops sustaining it” entails.

Not quite. Whatever it is that God does to sustain the universe in existence is the “cause” of it being maintained in existence. If that were to be taken away then the universe would no longer exist. That “cause” will not be the kind of causal mechanism found in the natural order, but in the nature of God. His omnipotent will would be the “cause” of the universe existing or not, but an explanation of that category of causation will not be found within the limited causal possibilities found inside the causal structure of the material universe, but in God himself.

 

[surritter]

If nothing can happen without a cause, then the universe cannot disappear without a cause. Yet, that’s exactly what “the universe will vanish if God stops sustaining it” entails.

I agree with your first sentence! Everything happens because of a cause. So to say that “God stops sustaining” the universe is to say that God CAUSES the universe to stop being. (There is no ball, there is no gravity – there is just the initial “Cause,” which either is or is not involved. Either way, it’s an action controlled by that Cause.)

I don’t know who said that to have God stop sustaining the universe equates with an action that has no cause, but it’s flat-out wrong.

Read Peter’s post (above) for another explanation of the same idea.

 

[Linux]

No, I don’t, because I am not taling about the actualization of potential but of the sustaining of things that alreday have actuality.

Things continue in existence through the actualization of potential.

 

[belorg]

Not quite. Whatever it is that God does to sustain the universe in existence is the “cause” of it being maintained in existence. If that were to be taken away then the universe would no longer exist. That “cause” will not be the kind of causal mechanism found in the natural order, but in the nature of God. His omnipotent will would be the “cause” of the universe existing or not, but an explanation of that category of causation will not be found within the limited causal possibilities found inside the causal structure of the material universe, but in God himself.

Even if God could stop sustaining the universe, which would be quite an achievement for a changeless being, the universe by virtue of what it is, cannot stop existing.
The only way this could happen is if the universe were part of God, but that would mean panentheism, which, if I am not mistaken, is seen as a heresy on another thread.

 

[belorg]

Things continue in existence through the actualization of potential.

No, Linux, things continue in existence because actualized potential cannot be de-actualized. The fundamental building blocks of the universe are purely actual and therefore cannot vanish.

 

[belorg]

I agree with your first sentence! Everything happens because of a cause. So to say that “God stops sustaining” the universe is to say that God CAUSES the universe to stop being. (There is no ball, there is no gravity – there is just the initial “Cause,” which either is or is not involved. Either way, it’s an action controlled by that Cause.)

That is not a cause under any definition of cause.

I don’t know who said that to have God stop sustaining the universe equates with an action that has no cause, but it’s flat-out wrong.

The ‘stopping’ of course has a cause, but stopping is not a cause and cannot be a cause.

Read Peter’s post (above) for another explanation of the same idea.

Peter is actually expressing a quite different idea.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Even if God could stop sustaining the universe, which would be quite an achievement for a changeless being, the universe by virtue of what it is, cannot stop existing.

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.

The only way this could happen is if the universe were part of God, but that would mean panentheism, which, if I am not mistaken, is seen as a heresy on another thread.

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.

 

[Linux]

No, I don’t, because I am not taking about the actualization of potential but of the sustaining of things that already have actuality.

You are talking about the continuity of physical forms, and you are confusing that idea with pure-actuality. However; Change, in any sense of the word, is by definition the actualization of potential states of being. Physical reality itself changes, expands, evolves, and new states of being are continuously produced that did not exist before regardless of whether or not there is change in any particular “nature” or form of physical things; and in order for these different kinds of changes to occur, or even to be possible, potentiality has to be actualized, potential states of being have to become real states of being, in-order for physical reality to persist in being. Since the universe itself is by definition a long chain of actualized potential, there has to be that which ultimately actualizes that potential. It cannot be physical reality, since physical reality is changing to begin-with and has to be in order to produce more of itself or actualize new states of physical interaction which is the actualization of potential. Therefore physical reality cannot be the cause of that potential to change/to actualize more of itself. It cannot be the cause of its intrinsic nature, and change is a part of its intrinsic nature. Therefore to speak of the cause of change is to speak of the cause of physical existence, since there has to be a potential for physical reality before there can be an actualization of physical reality. The cause has to be that which is pure actuality, an unchanging act of reality and therefore not itself a part of the space-time continuum.

There has to be a being that continuously gives reality to the universe since the universe itself is not the source of its own potential or reality.

I would have thought that to be very easy to understand. I guess not.

 

[Linux]

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.

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.