Does God still actively create

[JDaniel]

Now it was the opinion of Thomas, at least philosophically, that the universe would exist forever. I’m pretty sure about that. If I’m wrong someone will surely correct me. But I don’t know at the moment just what his reasoning was.

Linus:

I’ll be your Huckleberry: Aquinas did not believe that the universe existed forever, but, in the absence of being able to prove it, was willing to postulate that it was.

As far as the universe ceasing to exist without God’s sustaining power. That is absolutely true. The beings of the universe do exercise causality, no doubt about that. But they do not cause their act of existence. They cause change as secondary causes. It is only God who can make the change exist. No being whose existence is limited can exist without the sustaining power of God.

Exactly, and the laws of thermodynamics don’t deny the going out of existence of animate bodies, regardless of the contention that there is just alteration into something else. It is the temporal end of a composite.

God bless,
jd

As far as the laws of nature are concerned. I see no contradiction between their validity and God’s sustaining power. It is obviously his will that these laws exist. I see no problem.

 

[JDaniel]

My suspicion is that belorg may be referring to the problem of cause involving change (and by implication, time) so that if the universe came into being as an effect then there must have been a “time” in which God was “in” prior to the moment when he brought about the universe. In that case then, God is not outside of time but still in time of some sort and constrained by it. Just a guess. This is why I have “cause” in scare quotes. This might, also, be behind JDaniel’s use of the word create instead of cause.

The difficulty arises because of the way we, as beings constrained within time, are necessarily limited in understanding the manner that actualizing a thing may occur from eternity outside of time.

One way of grasping this is to think of a book (a story that exists in book form complete with characters, setting, plot, etc.,). This story has a beginning, duration and ending. If you had a place within the book you would be in the timeline of the book a certain distance from the beginning. That would be your time reference. Outside the book, from the author’s perspective, the author could at his/her leisure jump into and out of the story at any place in the time scheme of the story. Now assume the book just “always existed.” There would still be a beginning of the story (let’s call it The BIg Bang), to which the characters inside the story would have reference, but there would not be a beginning to the existence of the book itself. The book simply exists. However, the story narrative could have any ending as determined by the author. It could “just abruptly come to an end” if the author determined it had that kind of ending or had decided not to finish the book.

This may be belorg’s problem. Since, if the author decided not to finish the book, how could the book have simply existed without having been started.

The difficulty is how to conceive of a “book” or any other “created” entity existing eternally without some “necessary” connection to God. It may be that some form of “time,” though not necessarily our time sequence must be a necessary aspect of anything in a “created” relationship to God. Time of some form may be a constraint on the creative effects of God, i.e., on the creative activity of God, but not on the being of God himself. That is, when God creates, some form of time is a necessary feature of the creation, although God himself is not “in time” of any form, just everything else is relative to him. Time, any way it is looked at, is quite an incomprehensible facet of existence.

Peter:

I think one can fully resolve this issue by fully understanding, and embracing, the notion that without motion, there is no such thing as time. Time is the before and after of motion.

Interestingly, the Church regards angels as having a duration factor of their own - a sort of "time-analog.

BTW, your post is a very succinct analogy of time to God.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

Although the jury is still out for me, on this, it could be that God Re-iterates, i.e., re-creates the universe moment by moment by the continual reconfiguration of S-points. I think He is the cause of everything that occurs, with the exception of “sin.” If He is, as I and others expect, then He is continually and continuously reconfiguring S-points into movement, change and creation.

God bless,
jd

See the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Questions 104-105, and possibly Essence and Existence and De Potentiae but esp. ques 104-105. Thomas does use the term the " continued act by which he created. " Or something similar. Anyway we know from the Faith that he does indeed bring all his causal power, even his sustaining power to bear " innermostly " in all things.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We can extrapolate because we have to look at motion in a fundamental way. Without any force whatsoever, an object in motion stays in motion.

An object in motion has to have been set in motion by some efficient cause and ultimately by an Uncaused Cause, whom we call God. If the object stays in motion, that is true only in the laboratory. In the real world all moving objects are being acted upon by various forces such as gravity and electro magnatism. But as I said,the object was in potential to motion. When motion is achieved the object has achieved the Act to which in was in potency. It was reduced from Potency to Act by a force/efficient cause which itself was reduced from potenct to act, here and now, and that by another until we arrive at the Uncaused Cause.

Now while the force of impetus is here and now, the resulting motion is a state, the Act is a state of motion. Having been placed in motion it requires no more, here and now, causality for the motion other than that God keep the law of science in place ( i.e. in existence). I really don’t see a problem, except an ideological repugnance to the conclusion.

I was talking about a sustaining cause, not about an originating cause, Linus. There are no instances of motion requiring a sustaining cause.

Just as beings which exist cannot cause their own existence but receive their " act of existence " from God. So do they require the sustaning act of God’s power to keep their " act of existence. " ( See the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Questions 104 - 105 and Essence and Existence and De Potentia for explanation). In the same way the " laws of nature and science, " being created at once with the act of creation are maintained in existence by the power of God ( this is my reasoning only but I think justified by much of what Thomas says about the governing of the " heavenly spheres. " ). While our celestial mechanics is not what Thomas understood, it is still clear that the heavenly bodies function in an orderly fashion. Likewise the other laws of nature and science.

And not that it will mean anything to you but it is the Defined teaching of the Catholic Church that God does indeed continue his efficient, formal, and final causality and his sustaining power throughout all of creation. And that if this power were removed all of creation would cease to exist.

An object in steady motion is not in motion by the here and now act of some force. If there was ‘some force’ acting upon it here and now, the motion would accelerate. That’s actually a very good illustrtion of the basis flaw in Aritotelean physics. Aristotle thought that heave objects fall faster due to some ‘here and now force’ acting upon then more than upon lighter objects. He was, of course, wrong.

Reread what I said and above also. Of course no other force other than the force of impetus is required - in a laboratory setting. But even there I don’t see how you could overcome the force of gravity ! Even in outer space gravity is at work.

I know that Aristotelean celestrial mechanics was quite a bit different than what we know today. But from a philosophical point of view he made a lot of sense, but I’m digging deep in the old memory banks now. Philosophically he isn’t so easy to dismiss.

Speaking of " memory banks " that is why I am thankful for the Doctrinal teaching of the Church. It is impossible to keep all those Philosophical arguments right up front, even from week to week let alone from decade to decade. With the Church, all I have to do is open the Catechism.

Well, you about wore me out.

 

[JDaniel]

We can extrapolate because we have to look at motion in a fundamental way. Without any force whatsoever, an object in motion stays in motion.

Belorg:

Then, the best that we have is a mere abstraction. Even Newton knew this and thus he saddled his axiom, or (first) Law of Motion, with:
Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.

I was talking about a sustaining cause, not about an originating cause, Linus. There are no instances of motion requiring a sustaining cause.

This is true. Why? Precisely because it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon. We are dealing with finites and their motions.

An object in steady motion is not in motion by the here and now act of some force. If there was ‘some force’ acting upon it here and now, the motion would accelerate.

More than likely, it would decelerate.

That’s actually a very good illustrtion of the basis flaw in Aritotelean physics. Aristotle thought that heave objects fall faster due to some ‘here and now force’ acting upon then more than upon lighter objects. He was, of course, wrong.

Not exactly. Do you think that a falling feather would fall as fast as a falling anvil? Perhaps: in a universe that is imaginary.

God bless,
jd

 

[Poseidon]

I certainly hope God isn’t causing microbes to evolve. That would mean that he’s actively causing a new flu strain every year, actively making AIDS so difficult to come up with a vaccination for, and actively killing people and animals. That certainly wouldn’t be a loving god in my opinion.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

No, Aristtole and Aquinas did not mean by’Motion: what we mean, nor by “cause,” an imputus, or pull or pull. For one thing, Aristotle was first of all a biologist, and his “physics” had more than a little in common with the “vitalism” of the esarly part of the 20th century. Did you “cause” your mother to lose her temper?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

I mostly agree. That motion and change are not creation is true. Each creational instance is a one-time event. However, had God brought the Universe, and ALL of its creatures into existence in a “human instant” (which He could have done), no living things could have survived. The forces would have been too great. Think of it, on a much smaller scale, as a match striking a flint. First there’s an explosive event, then a gradual tapering off, until finally a regular, non-exceptional flame. Interesting. Sort of reminds one of Big Bang cosmology, doesn’t it?

That Creation is rolling out means that to us it appears as a slow “roll-out.” To God, it occurs in the instant of His Eternal Now, which He fully comprehends.

Even Genesis indicates a six-day creation, whatever “six-days” may have meant - which I’m sure were not precisely our current 24 hour days.

Think of the big bang as an initial compilation of dimensionless point particles. A trillion trillion of them, for example, could be stacked up, so to speak, and not result in the slightest distension into any space or place. At the Big Bang, those point particles began to move away from one another whence they formed a lattice of particles equidistant from one another - 3-dimensionally. Until the first instant of the expansion there was nothing except God. Afterwords, these un-configured lattices were formed, by God, into exceptionally high-definition hologramic configurations, that when seen at the level we call “explicate,” are interpreted by our minds as objects having mass.

That’s sort of the way I view it.

God bless,
jd

Did you see my thread on " Rationes Seminales ? " Assuming there was a Big Bang ( and it seems to be true), then Augustines rationnes seminales makes a lot of sense. As best as I undersood it, these are " principles of living beings " or forms which God threw into the mix at the creative moment. These forms then began to appear according to Gods plan as the universe began to organize.

 

[JDaniel]

The dimensionless point particles are what makes it impossible for the universe to return to nothingness. They may be dimensionless, but they are not nothing.

Belorg:

But, they did not exist until Created by God.

Reconfiguartion of lattices does not result in nothingness.

But, such reconfigurations are performed by God.

God cannot both will to start sustaining and to stop sustaining. ‘Willing to stop sustaining’ is a change from willing to start sustaining.

Only in a broad, human definition of mental activity, especially as it is understood precisely of humans.

And I do not think Thomas ever said that. Why would he admit his own flaws.

It’s not a flaw to admit that one (a human, at that) doesn’t have God’s knowledge.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

I’ll be your Huckleberry: Aquinas did not believe that the universe existed forever, but, in the absence of being able to prove it, was willing to postulate that it was.

Exactly, and the laws of thermodynamics don’t deny the going out of existence of animate bodies, regardless of the contention that there is just alteration into something else. It is the temporal end of a composite.

God bless,
jd

As far as the laws of nature are concerned. I see no contradiction between their validity and God’s sustaining power. It is obviously his will that these laws exist. I see no problem.

My memory may be at fault but I seem to have read that some where. Oh, I know, it was in S.T. , Part 1, Ques 104, art. 4

 

[JDaniel]

Sure that what they say. But that’s pecisly what I am arguing against. If it is possibel for something to become nothing spontaneously, then there is nothing logicaly preventing anything frop’popping’ into existence. There is no fundamental diffrence between completely vanishing (or turning into nothing) and ‘turning into something’.

Belorg:

I agree but only to this extent: the annihilation of beings that are by nature immortal, i.e., human beings, means a reversal of God’s own plan; a sort of stultification of His own work unworthy of the wisdom of God. But, this does not imply any limitation of the power of God.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Of course you do believe that. You believe that, left on its own, the universe wil become nothing. That is, if nobody interferes, the universe will become nothing. Just as Aristotle and Aquinas believed that an object in motion requires a constant force to ‘push’ it. Otherwise it would stop.

Belorg:

We believe that the universe cannot be left to its own, so we know it won’t become ‘nothing’. As for the balance of your statement, because you have a gross misunderstanding of physics, it becomes meaningless. Without an accelerator of some sort, anything that is in motion will eventually stop by virtue of the external forces acting upon it. Even a photon that reaches the edge of the universe, will stop just as it does against a relatively thick dollop of mud.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I certainly hope God isn’t causing microbes to evolve. That would mean that he’s actively causing a new flu strain every year, actively making AIDS so difficult to come up with a vaccination for, and actively killing people and animals. That certainly wouldn’t be a loving god in my opinion.

Poseidon:

And . . .you have a right to your opinion.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Did you see my thread on " Rationes Seminales ? " Assuming there was a Big Bang ( and it seems to be true), then Augustines rationnes seminales makes a lot of sense. As best as I undersood it, these are " principles of living beings " or forms which God threw into the mix at the creative moment. These forms then began to appear according to Gods plan as the universe began to organize.

Linus:

I didn’t see it. Refer me to it, if you don’t mind, when you get a chance.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

We believe that the universe cannot be left to its own, so we know it won’t become ‘nothing’. As for the balance of your statement, because you have a gross misunderstanding of physics, it becomes meaningless. Without an accelerator of some sort, anything that is in motion will eventually stop by virtue of the external forces acting upon it. Even a photon that reaches the edge of the universe, will stop just as it does against a relatively thick dollop of mud.

God bless,
jd

I’ll discuss this as soon as you have evolved beyong Aristotelean physics, JD. We are currently in 2012.

 

[belorg]

Not exactly. Do you think that a falling feather would fall as fast as a falling anvil? Perhaps: in a universe that is imaginary.

God bless,
jd

Yes, a falling feather would fall as fast as a falling anvil.
You are still stuck in Ancient Physics.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes, a falling feather would fall as fast as a falling anvil.
You are still stuck in Ancient Physics.

The problem comes in not applying modern physics correctly.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, a falling feather would fall as fast as a falling anvil.
You are still stuck in Ancient Physics.

Belorg:

Why? Please explain.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

I didn’t see it. Refer me to it, if you don’t mind, when you get a chance.

God bless,
jd

While reading Philosophical Psychological by Anable I came across the term " rationes seminales " used by Augustine and others to explain the rise of living things from material creation. As best as I can figure it out the term means " principles or seeds of living forms present in pre-existing matter which caused living things to emerge from matter at an appropriate time determined by God through his causality.

This lead to the discovery of a fascinating book by Christopher J. O’Toole called the " Philosophy of Creation in the Writings of St Augustine (2006, Kissinger Publications).

Those acquainted with the writings of St. Augustine know how forbidding and complicated he can be.So this book is a real practical aid for studying Augustine’s thought on creation. The book is still available. Google has its typical preview form on line which gives a good taste of its value.

I thought some here might be interested. I think there is much there which could be material for some Phd candidate.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Why? Please explain.

God bless,
jd

A book on high school level physics will explain that to you, JD.