Eternal Universe

[GaryTaylor]

We experience all the time. How something which is not primary could have a single experience?

I don’t think it we do with these interconnected concepts of love, morality, consciousness and so forth. I suppose one could argue individual experience which dies at physical death. But the concepts in a real way are all universal.

 

[CrossofChrist]

We experience all the time. How something which is not primary could have a single experience?

What does this mean? We aren’t the principle of our existence; we came from others who lived before us, who raised us, taught us, integrated us into a community, etc. We don’t live as isolated individuals.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Because some Catholics, including Aquinas, “seem” to think that it is an article of faith that creation has a temporal beginning beside the fact of having an existential cause.

Has that not been apparent to you?

Cardinal Schonborn:

No, “in the beginning God created …” This beginning is always in God’s eternity. For us creatures it is a temporal beginning. Once I began to be 60 years ago. For God there is no temporal beginning. Once the universe began to be 14 billion years ago, but God’s creative act is not in time, he rather creates time. He is eternal. And his act of creating is not accomplished in this or that moment, but he calls the world into being and holds it in being. Creation takes place now, in the now of God.

zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-schonborn-on-god-and-creation

The above could be confusing since the doctrine is that God created “in time”. But I think that is emphasizing that the world is not eternal, that there was a creation that had a temporal start. A temporally eternal creation isn’t supported.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Cardinal Schonborn:

No, “in the beginning God created …” This beginning is always in God’s eternity. For us creatures it is a temporal beginning. Once I began to be 60 years ago. For God there is no temporal beginning. Once the universe began to be 14 billion years ago, but God’s creative act is not in time, he rather creates time. He is eternal. And his act of creating is not accomplished in this or that moment, but he calls the world into being and holds it in being. Creation takes place now, in the now of God.

zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-schonborn-on-god-and-creation

The above could be confusing since the doctrine is that God created “in time”. But I think that is emphasizing that the world is not eternal, that there was a creation that had a temporal start. A temporally eternal creation isn’t supported.

We and the universe began in time and were made out of nothing. And that would not exclued the quotation by Cardinal Schonborn. But the Church has no teaching about the truth of his comment. It is a matter of speculation. Although I would agree.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I don’t think it we do with these interconnected concepts of love, morality, consciousness and so forth. I suppose one could argue individual experience which dies at physical death. But the concepts in a real way are all universal.

That is very correct.

 

[Bahman]

What does this mean? We aren’t the principle of our existence; we came from others who lived before us, who raised us, taught us, integrated us into a community, etc. We don’t live as isolated individuals.

But your experience belongs to very you. It means that you have a essence which is primary and can experience things.

 

[JimG]

But your experience belongs to very you. It means that you have a essence which is primary and can experience things.

Yes, every human being has an essence which belongs to him, and a body and soul which is expressed as an individual person—a subject, an “I”

Perhaps there is some confusion about the idea of creation ex nihilo. We are not products of God’s imagination.

A human being, for example, might imagine something which has an essence but no existence. I might imagine an intelligent pink unicorn. I might endow the unicorn with a complete but imaginary physiology, anatomy, and social interactions which I can describe in detail. I can write a book about his world in great detail. Still, the unicorn and his world lacks existence, because I do not have the power to give it to him. He is a product of my imagination, an essence with no existence.

But God, to put it little strangely, has no imagination. He creates the universe and all that is in it from nothing, and gives it existence—something we could never do. He gives it a real and permanent existence, not an imaginary existence, an existence separate from his, for we are not made from God but from nothing. But it is a created existence, not an uncreated existence.

In any case, God has no parts from which he might construct us or the universe. And if he did, he would diminish himself in making us. No, he makes us entirely of nothing and entirely distinct from him, giving us a real existence, and the ability to know, to decide, to love. Nothing he makes is imaginary. It is all real. We have a real but created and contingent existence.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, every human being has an essence which belongs to him, and a body and soul which is expressed as an individual person—a subject, an “I”

Perhaps there is some confusion about the idea of creation ex nihilo. We are not products of God’s imagination.

A human being, for example, might imagine something which has an essence but no existence. I might imagine an intelligent pink unicorn. I might endow the unicorn with a complete but imaginary physiology, anatomy, and social interactions which I can describe in detail. I can write a book about his world in great detail. Still, the unicorn and his world lacks existence, because I do not have the power to give it to him. He is a product of my imagination, an essence with no existence.

But God, to put it little strangely, has no imagination. He creates the universe and all that is in it from nothing, and gives it existence—something we could never do. He gives it a real and permanent existence, not an imaginary existence, an existence separate from his, for we are not made from God but from nothing. But it is a created existence, not an uncreated existence.

In any case, God has no parts from which he might construct us or the universe. And if he did, he would diminish himself in making us. No, he makes us entirely of nothing and entirely distinct from him, giving us a real existence, and the ability to know, to decide, to love. Nothing he makes is imaginary. It is all real. We have a real but created and contingent existence.

Are our essences sustained by God or not finally?

 

[JimG]

Are our essences sustained by God or not finally?

I’m not really sure what you mean by the idea of ‘essence,’ but in Catholic philosophy, essence is a philosophical concept referring to what we are, or what anything is. Since God creates all that exists, then yes, everything that exists must be sustained by God. It can also be referred to as possessing one’s existence as contingent (while God possesses his existence as necessary.)

 

[Bahman]

I’m not really sure what you mean by the idea of ‘essence,’ but in Catholic philosophy, essence is a philosophical concept referring to what we are, or what anything is. Since God creates all that exists, then yes, everything that exists must be sustained by God. It can also be referred to as possessing one’s existence as contingent (while God possesses his existence as necessary.)

Then how could we have a single experience if our essences are sustained.

 

[JimG]

Then how could we have a single experience if our essences are sustained.

I really don’t know what you mean by this. We have experiences because we have senses by which we perceive the exterior world, we have a mind by which we produce ideas and concepts, we have a will by which we decide. We do all that because we exist as human beings. One can have experiences without being God.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Cardinal Schonborn:

No, “in the beginning God created …” This beginning is always in God’s eternity. For us creatures it is a temporal beginning. Once I began to be 60 years ago. For God there is no temporal beginning. Once the universe began to be 14 billion years ago, but God’s creative act is not in time, he rather creates time. He is eternal. And his act of creating is not accomplished in this or that moment, but he calls the world into being and holds it in being. Creation takes place now, in the now of God.

zenit.org/en/articles/cardinal-schonborn-on-god-and-creation

The above could be confusing since the doctrine is that God created “in time”. But I think that is emphasizing that the world is not eternal, that there was a creation that had a temporal start. A temporally eternal creation isn’t supported.

So you are saying that a infinite regress of temporal states is contrary to Catholic Dogma?

 

[rstrats]

CrossofChrist,

re: " A temporally eternal creation isn’t supported."

Nor is it possible by definition.

 

[GaryTaylor]

No such thing as temporally eternal. What we have is a temporary universe. It has a start point. Nothing indicates otherwise.

that a infinite regress of temporal states is contrary to Catholic Dogma?

A temporary state with a start point indicates a start of the universe. You can have other existing states with a start point which indicate another dimension.

I don’t see where thats against CC.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No such thing as temporally eternal. What we have is a temporary universe. It has a start point. Nothing indicates otherwise.

A temporary state with a start point indicates a start of the universe. You can have other existing states with a start point which indicate another dimension.

I don’t see where thats against CC.

I could be wrong but i think the OP is essentially asking if an infinite regress in time is against Catholic teaching.

I suppose one could imagine a universe that just exists in God’s mind and has never not existed.

But what does Catholic Dogma have to say on the matter.

 

[Bahman]

I really don’t know what you mean by this. We have experiences because we have senses by which we perceive the exterior world, we have a mind by which we produce ideas and concepts, we have a will by which we decide. We do all that because we exist as human beings. One can have experiences without being God.

What I am saying is very simple. You need to have a essence in order to claim that I have a experience otherwise you have to say that experience happened. Let assume that we call your essence in state of existence, what God sustains, as E and your essence that doesn’t need a sustainer, Consciousness, as E’, where consciousness has the ability to experience and create. That is the burden on you to prove that E can have the ability to experience.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I could be wrong but i think the OP is essentially asking if an infinite regress in time is against Catholic teaching.

I suppose one could imagine a universe that just exists in God’s mind and has never not existed.

But what does Catholic Dogma have to say on the matter.

OK, I think I see, what he is saying imho indicates as I suggested.

that a infinite regress of temporal states i

Temporal finite states indicate a start point of existing in a repetitive infinite eternity. Could be just a matter how we interpret it.

 

[thinkandmull]

Where has the Church explicitly taught the world had a beginning of time before which there wasn’t other worlds in other dimensions from where it came from during the Big Bang. I believe in the Kalam Cosmological argument, but I’m not sure its heresy to believe not only in the ontological possibility, but actually in, an eternal chain of motion

 

[JimG]

What I am saying is very simple. You need to have a essence in order to claim that I have a experience otherwise you have to say that experience happened. Let assume that we call your essence in state of existence, what God sustains, as E and your essence that doesn’t need a sustainer, Consciousness, as E’, where consciousness has the ability to experience and create. That is the burden on you to prove that E can have the ability to experience.

It seems to me that we are using the word essence in different ways. It seems to me that you are really asking how a being with a personal consciousness can have a personal experience. That is the nature of personal consciousness. We perceive the outside world through our senses, integrate it in our nervous system and have a consciousness of what is happening to us. As humans, we are a subject (an I) as well as an object.

None of that has any bearing on whether or not we are sustained in existence by a Creator. There is nothing in existence which is not sustained in existence by its creator. There is no such thing as a created being that is not sustained by its creator, conscious or not. Only God holds his existence as non-contingent and necessary. The alternative would be to say that any conscious being must be God, but that is not possible.

It is not that we have to think of God as creating us instant by instant. No, God’s creation IS instantaneous from his standpoint. It looks temporal from our standpoint because we exist in time.

As an analogy consider one of the old vinyl records. They are recorded in a studio, and the entire recording and playback may have a duration of 30 minutes. But when the record is “created” by stamping out vinyl copies, it is made in an instant, creating a product that took an instant to produce, but is experienced sequentially. You can look at the record and “see” the whole symphony, but when you play it back temporally it takes 30 minutes of sequential time.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well we’ve debate that on another thread. I don’t see why God could haven’t given the world the power to exist on its own after the first moment of creation.

Also, again, does anyone know where the Church has clearly taught the world had a beginning in time?