Eternal Creation Ex Nihilo vs Modern Cosmology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Linusthe2nd

Guest
An eternal creation out of nothing is not a contradiction in terms. Nor does modern cosmology dispose of such a eternal creation by God, who exists outside the bounds or reality of the universe, or of an infinite number of universes. Whatever the form of universe or universes modern cosmology dreams up, it or they are still material universes unable to explain their own existence, always being dependent on some prior matter. Whereas an etenal creation by God provides the cause of those things which are limited by their own materiality. Thus is the burden of a presentation by Dr. William E. Carroll *. Follow his presentation on this video.

afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/william-carroll-on-creation-and-the-big-bang/

And here is a more purely philosophical presentation.

www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm
  • William E. Carroll is the Thomas Aquinas Fellow in Theology and Science at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford and member of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Oxford. He is the author of Creation and Science; Galileo: Science and Faith; La Creación y las Ciencias Naturales: Actualidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino; and co-author with Steven Baldner of Aquinas on Creation. A longer version of this essay will be published in the April 2012 issue of Science & Christian Belief, and Carroll’s recent lecture on the topic for the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion may be viewed here. biologos.org/blog/author/carroll-william-e
Linus2nd
 
Once again I am amazed. Where are our philosophers? Doesn’t anyone see the importance of the O.P.!!!

Linus2nd
 
Well, I for one agree with most of what Dr. Carroll writes, so you won’t get any argument from me. All material being has a cause of its existence, and not all causes are temporal. I see nothing in principle that prevents a past eternal universe under the philosophy of St. Thomas. The only part from Dr. Carroll I don’t completely accept is his apparent dismissal of Big Bang cosmology as evidence of the temporal beginning of the universe.
 
tdgesq said:
Well, I for one agree with most of what Dr. Carroll writes, so you won’t get any argument from me. All material being has a cause of its existence, and not all causes are temporal. I see nothing in principle that prevents a past eternal universe under the philosophy of St. Thomas. The only part from Dr. Carroll I don’t completely accept is his apparent dismissal of Big Bang cosmology as evidence of the temporal beginning of the universe.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Whether or not the BB indicates a real beginning is problematic, there doesn’t seem to be any way to prove it.

Linus2nd
 
I would like to quote one sentence by Thomas Aquinas from De Potentia, Question 3, Artical V, from the footnote #42 in Carroll’s presentation ( see link in the O.P. ), which is just astounding.

" Thus reason proves and faith holds that all things are created by God…" of course you must keep the distinction between the two concepts of creation. Only creation in time out of nothing is De Fide. Creation by origin is open to reason.

Philosophers who have often struggled to explain why the First Way of Thomas is relevant will immediately recognize the importance of being able to say the Unmoved Mover moves the universe by an eternal creation ( of origin, not in time ) of the matter and form of substances along with their inner act of existence. ( see Carrolls paper above and De Potentia, Question 3, Article V ).

Linus2nd.
 
What you and Carroll are saying makes sense. The difficulty is getting people to realize that causation does not depend essentially on temporality. I know this was discussed on one of those time threads in this forum recently, but I forget which one 🤷. People seem to make the erroneous assumption that God’s causation is the same as any other object’s causation, so when you say that God is eternally creating the universe they place Him at the front of the temporal sequence and then assume that this would entail that the universe has an infinite past since God’s causation would be eternally removed in the past. But that’s the wrong way to think about God’s causation. He’s not at the front of the natural sequence, but rather outside of it eternally sustaining every aspect of the causal order from eternity, so there’s no conflict between eternal creation and a past-finite universe.

The difference is:

God → A → B → C → …

which is the wrong way to think about it, versus this:

------God------->
|…|…|
v…v…v
A → B → C → …

which is more appropriate.
 
With the support of Thomas’ explanation in De Potentia establishing the possibility of an eternal creation ex nihilo, Carroll ciies the Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 2 ( On Creation ), chapers 6-38 in support of his thesis. And if you read Chapter 6 you will see what I mean. Just substitute Unmoved Mover for God wherever it occurrs in the body of the chapter. Thus:

" 1] Presupposing the things already demonstrated in Book I, let us now show that it belongs to God to be the principle and cause of being to other things.

[2] For in Book I of this work it was shown, by means of Aristotle’s demonstration, that there is a first efficient cause, which we call God. But an efficient cause brings its effects into being. Therefore, God is the cause of being to other things.

[3] Also, it was shown in Book I, by the argument of the same author, that there is a first immovable mover, which we call God. But the first mover in any order of movements is the cause of all the movements in that order. Since, then, many things are brought into existence by the movements of the heaven, and since God has been shown to be the first mover in the order of those movements, it follows necessarily that God is the cause of being to many things.

[4] Furthermore, that which belongs to a thing through itself must be in it universally; as for man to be rational and fire to tend, upwards. But to enact an actuality is, through itself, proper to a being in act; for every agent acts according as it is in act. Therefore, every being in act is by its nature apt to enact something existing in act. But God is a being in act, as was shown in Book I. Therefore, it is proper to Him to enact some being in act, to which He is the cause of being.

[5] It is, moreover, a sign of perfection in things of the lower order of reality that they are able to produce their like, as Aristotle points out in his Meteorology [IV, 3]. But, as was shown in Book I, God is supremely perfect. Therefore, it belongs to Him to produce something actual, like Himself, so as to be the cause of its existence.

[6] Then, too, it was shown in Book I that God wills to communicate His being to other things by way of likeness. But it belongs to the will’s perfection to be the principle of action and of movement, as is said in De anima III [10]. Therefore, since God’s will is perfect, He does not lack the power of communicating His being to a thing by way of likeness. And thus He will be the cause of its being.

[7] Moreover, the more perfect is the principle of a thing’s action, to so many more and more remote things can it extend its action: thus, fire, if weak, heats only things nearby; if strong, it heats even distant things. But pure act, which God is, is more perfect than act mingled with potentiality, as it is in us. But act is the principle of action. Since, then, by the act which is in us we can proceed not only to actions abiding in us, such as understanding and willing, but also to actions which terminate in things outside of us, and through which certain things are made by us, much more can God, because He is in act, not only understand and will, but also produce an effect. And thus He can be the cause of being to other things.

[8] Hence, it is said: “Who does great things and unsearchable things without number” (Job 5:9). "
  • Notice that in Chapter 6, Thomas does not talk about Creation with the disclaimer ( as in the S.T., ) that, " This we hold by Faith. " So we can assume he is talking about Creation in the sense of origin rather as Creation in time.
As the saying goes, " It fits like a glove. "
Linus2nd
 
balto said:
What you and Carroll are saying makes sense. The difficulty is getting people to realize that causation does not depend essentially on temporality. I know this was discussed on one of those time threads in this forum recently, but I forget which one 🤷. People seem to make the erroneous assumption that God’s causation is the same as any other object’s causation, so when you say that God is eternally creating the universe they place Him at the front of the temporal sequence and then assume that this would entail that the universe has an infinite past since God’s causation would be eternally removed in the past. But that’s the wrong way to think about God’s causation. He’s not at the front of the natural sequence, but rather outside of it eternally sustaining every aspect of the causal order from eternity, so there’s no conflict between eternal creation and a past-finite universe.

The difference is:

God → A → B → C → …

which is the wrong way to think about it, versus this:

------God------->
|…|…|
v…v…v
A → B → C → …

which is more appropriate.
Click to expand...
If you read Carrolls paper or watch the video, draws a distinction between an eternally existing universe for which God is the origin of an eternal creation, but where God is absolutely other than the universe and not a part of it. This does not allow for a finite beginning of the universe, which is an article of Faith, though individual substances in an eternally existing universe would exist in time.

Carroll is an interesting fellow, worth following. He must be getting pretty old by now.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
An eternal creation out of nothing is not a contradiction in terms. Nor does modern cosmology dispose of such a eternal creation by God, who exists outside the bounds or reality of the universe, or of an infinite number of universes. Whatever the form of universe or universes modern cosmology dreams up, it or they are still material universes unable to explain their own existence, always being dependent on some prior matter. Whereas an etenal creation by God provides the cause of those things which are limited by their own materiality. Thus is the burden of a presentation by Dr. William E. Carroll *. Follow his presentation on this video.

afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/william-carroll-on-creation-and-the-big-bang/

And here is a more purely philosophical presentation.

www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm
  • William E. Carroll is the Thomas Aquinas Fellow in Theology and Science at Blackfriars Hall, Oxford and member of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Oxford. He is the author of Creation and Science; Galileo: Science and Faith; La Creación y las Ciencias Naturales: Actualidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino; and co-author with Steven Baldner of Aquinas on Creation. A longer version of this essay will be published in the April 2012 issue of Science & Christian Belief, and Carroll’s recent lecture on the topic for the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion may be viewed here. biologos.org/blog/author/carroll-william-e
Linus2nd
Click to expand...
What is it about the nature of god that does not require him to have a cause. I understand that god is eternal, but why is God eternal? Is this a mystery?
 
ChainBreaker said:
What is it about the nature of god that does not require him to have a cause. I understand that god is eternal, but why is God eternal? Is this a mystery?
Click to expand...
I answer that, The idea of eternity follows immutability, as the idea of time follows movement, as appears from the preceding article. Hence, as God is supremely immutable, it supremely belongs to Him to be eternal. Nor is He eternal only; but He is His own eternity; whereas, no other being is its own duration, as no other is its own being. Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity.

newadvent.org/summa/1010.htm#article2

On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).

I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.

First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.

Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved.

Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable. He has no potency to none existence, therefore he is immutable and eternal.

newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm#article1

All this flows from the fact that the Unmoved Mover is pure act or a pure actuality. A pure actuality has no potency because it is has no matter which can corrupt or become something else. And since it is pure actuality, it could never have been something else, it could not have been a potency which became an act. As a pure actuality it is absolutely other than the universe of beings composed of matter and form, etc.

Linus2nd
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Thank you. Whether or not the BB indicates a real beginning is problematic, there doesn’t seem to be any way to prove it.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
It can at least be said that BB is consistent with a temporal beginning of the universe. It is also accurate to say that there is no earlier point in space-time under the model. Interestingly enough, many non-theist BB proponents don’t dispute assertions like “nothing existed prior to the singularity.” Thus, the crazy theory that there is no ultimate cause of the existence of the universe.
 
tdgesq said:
It can at least be said that BB is consistent with a temporal beginning of the universe.
Click to expand...
There are many who dispute this.
It is also accurate to say that there is no earlier point in space-time under the model.
Click to expand...
Again, this is disputed by many.
Interestingly enough, many non-theist BB proponents don’t dispute assertions like “nothing existed prior to the singularity.”
Click to expand...
Because there " nothing " is actually a " something. " They have rejected the definition of " nothing " which the Church means, which is " nothing " pure and simple.
Thus, the crazy theory that there is no ultimate cause of the existence of the universe.
Click to expand...
But that has been disproven by Aquinas’ five ways.

Linus2nd
 
Big Bang cosmology, including Inflationary Cosmology is ultimately compatible with there being an absolute beginning in a finite-past time. Whether or not time can in principle infinitely regress is a controversial question; and one for the Ontology of Time to answer. There are numerous Thomists that fall either side of the fence. I prefer to not assume that the Universal only has a existence through a finite past-time for the sake of argument, as it is a premise that requires demonstrative justification.

I’ll be back in this thread at some point either this evening or tomorrow after Mass. I just need to formulate my thoughts properly
 
Linusthe2nd said:
There are many who dispute this.
Click to expand...
Many who dispute that Big Bang is consistent with a temporal beginning of the universe? Who? I mean, you can always find somebody who will argue with anything, but the model itself predicts the singularity at a finite time past such that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.
 
tdgesq said:
Many who dispute that Big Bang is consistent with a temporal beginning of the universe? Who? I mean, you can always find somebody who will argue with anything, but the model itself predicts the singularity at a finite time past such that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old.
Click to expand...
I don’t spend time researching the question but offhand I can mention Fr. Lamaitre’, the founder of the BB theory. Another would be Dr. William E. Carroll, Theologian/Philosopher at Oxford, another would be Edward Feser, Philospher…

Linus2nd
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Sean Carroll gives a good explanation of the cosmologist viewpoint:

Begins discussing prime-mover-like arguments:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=6m

Deals with William Carroll’s point:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=12m40s
Click to expand...
A Priori Metaphysics? No; the arguments of Aquinas et al are a posteriori arguments. They do not rely on A Priori reasoning, and are not founded upon rationalism. In fact as a Thomist I take the axiom “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses”, which leads me to quite an empiricist epistemology not rationalism.
 
Skeptic92 said:
A Priori Metaphysics? No; the arguments of Aquinas et al are a posteriori arguments. They do not rely on A Priori reasoning, and are not founded upon rationalism. In fact as a Thomist I take the axiom “there is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses”, which leads me to quite an empiricist epistemology not rationalism.
Click to expand...
Discusses empirical arguments for God:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=26m25s
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Discusses empirical arguments for God:
youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI#t=26m25s
Click to expand...
Still completely misses the mark; Metaphysical Demonstration (or Deductive Demonstration) is a form of Deductive Reasoning, not Inductive Reasoning as found in the Natural Sciences. Sean Carroll is absolutely atrocious for actually offering an Argument against Classical Theism; he assumes all Theists are Deists and works from there. The best critical writer I know of currently on the Five Ways is Anthony Kenny; he has, however, been criticised for presenting a Strawman of the Five Ways. Which makes his critique ultimately invalid.

Also; he seems to be constantly conflating imagination with conceiving of something, I’m guessing his background Metaphysics are Humean from those comments. Which would imply he is an Occasionalist in regards to causality, which is a Theological thesis not so much a Philosophical one.
 
Skeptic92 said:
Still completely misses the mark; Metaphysical Demonstration (or Deductive Demonstration) is a form of Deductive Reasoning, not Inductive Reasoning as found in the Natural Sciences. Sean Carroll is absolutely atrocious for actually offering an Argument against Classical Theism; he assumes all Theists are Deists and works from there. The best critical writer I know of currently on the Five Ways is Anthony Kenny; he has, however, been criticised for presenting a Strawman of the Five Ways. Which makes his critique ultimately invalid.
Click to expand...
If you watch the start of this video, he describes 3 conceptions of God:

Passive (prime-mover-like) which would correspond to a Deist perspective. He discusses this first, from about 6mins to 20mins.

Active (e.g. morality generator, miracle worker, person sorter) which would be non-Deistic. He transitions to this around 42mins.

“Emergent” (god as just a rhetorical device) which is more new-agey. He does not discuss this one.

He says that the fact that people so frequently object to reasoning about God on the grounds that “you don’t really understand God, God is completely different than that” is another reason that it is not a good theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top