Ex-Nihilo: a meaningless concept

[ynotzap]

I don’t expect to convince you, but you are attributing a human mental ability to God who transcends, is above human abilities, and is the cause of human abilities, and has no need for them. Concepts have there basis in reality, and not reality having their basis in concepts, this is the danger of idealists not being realists. You are entitled to your opinion as we all are, but I personally would be concerned if my opinion had a basis in reality, and not in imagination. or in my own self-righteousness, where I think I.m right just because I think I’m right. Good hunting!

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t expect to convince you, but you are attributing a human mental ability to God who transcends, is above human abilities, and is the cause of human abilities, and has no need for them. Concepts have there basis in reality, and not reality having their basis in concepts, this is the danger of idealists not being realists. You are entitled to your opinion as we all are, but I personally would be concerned if my opinion had a basis in reality, and not in imagination. or in my own self-righteousness, where I think I.m right just because I think I’m right. Good hunting!

Sorry that my intellectual curiosity counts as “self-righteousness” always a good reminder.

Yes, God is above our human abilities. Does that mean we should stop trying to make sense of Him through analogy the way Christ and our tradition have taught? It feels like the faith community is sometimes like a passive aggressive roommate who asserts all kinds of stuff about God, but the minute they run into trouble, they’re like, “Oh, it’s all a mystery, so we can’t know.” Which is it? Can we reason and assert stuff - even recognizing that our analogous reasoning is limited - or must we just sit in awed silence at the mystery of it all?

Peace to you, too.

 

[ynotzap]

Intellectual curiosity never counts as :self-righteousness, only when it excludes the testimony of others, in favor of one’s own, regarding it as only the right way. It is a spiritual condition we all have due to the consequences of original sin, it’s pride hidden somewhere in the recesses of our psyche. St. Paul had a bad case of it, when he persecuted Christians thinking he was doing the right thing until Jesus enlightened the deep recesses of his soul and confirmed that He was God, then Paul made a dramatic change. We can reason and assert stuff and recognize our analogous reasoning is limited, but we can also recognize the rich knowledge of others who have been recognized for their God-given talents. When it comes to my own ideas, and the teaching of the Church, if there is a choice to be made, I humbly submit to the Church because Christ is it’s guarantee, and I value very much the gifted teachers of the Church, and their contributions. I can understand why St. Paul stated " That I walk in fear and trepidation,less by preaching to others I become a castaway"

 

[Tom_Baum]

Ooooooo! Shame on you

An omnipotent being has the power to blink anything he has created out of existence. Otherwise he is not omnipotent.

As far as, “An omnipotent being has the power to blink anything he has created out of existence. Otherwise he is not omnipotent.”

Unless you are speaking about our deaths, it doesn’t seem as if God is very interested in doing this, does it?

 

[Neoplatonist]

Intellectual curiosity never counts as :self-righteousness, only when it excludes the testimony of others, in favor of one’s own, regarding it as only the right way. It is a spiritual condition we all have due to the consequences of original sin, it’s pride hidden somewhere in the recesses of our psyche. St. Paul had a bad case of it, when he persecuted Christians thinking he was doing the right thing until Jesus enlightened the deep recesses of his soul and confirmed that He was God, then Paul made a dramatic change. We can reason and assert stuff and recognize our analogous reasoning is limited, but we can also recognize the rich knowledge of others who have been recognized for their God-given talents. When it comes to my own ideas, and the teaching of the Church, if there is a choice to be made, I humbly submit to the Church because Christ is it’s guarantee, and I value very much the gifted teachers of the Church, and their contributions. I can understand why St. Paul stated " That I walk in fear and trepidation,less by preaching to others I become a castaway"

I don’t see how this is relevant or ties in to any of my actual claims. Two posts ago you had my claim completely backward, so I’m still not sure how you’re actually answering the analogy I have actually put forward for consideration. Did I say somewhere that the Church’s position is wrong? IS there someplace where the Church’s position tells us that our status in relation to the divine intellect of God cannot or should not be understood by analogous consideration of the relation between our intellect and its products or ideas?

 

[ynotzap]

So basically it sounds like we’re talking about pure magic, right? God thought of something that was imaginary (since not real before he thought of it) and it suddenly popped into existence - like if I imagined a winged, purple tortoise and suddenly there was one flying around in front of me in the next instant.

answer: Wrong, we are talking about metaphysics, the science dealing with ultimate causes and effects, the science of ontology (being) God wills things into being or existence by His Omnipotence, imagination has nothing to do with it. There is no before or after with God, He is Omnipresent.

(Even then we can only talk about the example coherently because there are already things like space and animals and colors around.)

Answer: You can use fiction because it comes from non-fiction, reality, as long as you know that it is your creative imagination is the source, and not reality. You can talk about reality coherently but in fiction you can be incoherent, have no real answers but just create them, that’s fiction, making up of imaginary happenings, feigning

Now if this all happened inside my mind, well and good. In which case we and space-time and everything in it from quarks to quasars are still inside God’s mind. If, however, we are going to talk about it as if it were outside God’s mind, real like a turtle flying around my study, rather than a turtle that plays a recurring role in my imagination or dreams, we run into trouble:

Answer: We have our existence, being in God, there is no outside of God, we are still no part of God (I explained this already) You are right we would run into trouble in our thinking if we talk about things that are not real

How could there be an “outside world” into which the turtle appears, and so on, unless I also “popped that into being”? But then, we have merely begun a kind of regress, for how could I pop the outside world into being as “outside” of me, rather than that, too, being merely a (more complex) part of my imagination as well?

Answer: By outside world we are talking about the real world we sense and have knowledge of, not the world of our imagination. You can not pop truth, or things into existence, they already exist, that’s where you got the concept of “turtle” the real world exists apart from our thinking, it is objective. It is not part of our imagination before it existed only after it existed then we can imagine about it.

What would it mean for something to be “real” to God, rather than just “in His imagination.” Once we can navigate this terrain without resorting to “it’s all a mystery that’s beyond us” - which is always an effective full thermo-nuclear end to any meaningful discussion or intellectual progress - then we might ?] be able to talk about what “existing” and “nothingness” mean by introducing some subscripts to the terms.

Answer: Anything God creates is real to God because He give it being, existence, but that which He creates is not subsistent (meaning in can’t exist, be real, by itself) The world in constantly being sustained in existence, reality by God, otherwise it would cease to exist. I tried to help you navigate these thought terrains without resorting to "it’s all a mystery. I have introduced terms to help explain what existing and nothingness mean- these are metaphysical concepts.

Your quote: I don’t see this is relevant or ties in to any of my claims…

I stated that I didn’t think that I would convince you and it seems I was right, and it’s not something I’m proud of, I would have rather that you might see the truth of my statements and that you could come to understand them.

I never judged that you were saying something against the Church, or violated some rule. How else are we to know the truth if we don’t dialogue, rationalize, use our intelligence and experience. But in our thinking we are all fallible, and when we do seek the truth we do involve the Faith, especially when we seek the truth. The Church is gifted with infallibility to guide the faithful and I make references to her teachings, and teachers, as I mentioned before I treasure their truth and wisdom, and I try to pass it on. Isn’t that what this forum is all about?

 

[Neoplatonist]

Answer: Anything God creates is real to God because He give it being, existence, but that which He creates is not subsistent (meaning in can’t exist, be real, by itself) The world in constantly being sustained in existence, reality by God, otherwise it would cease to exist. I tried to help you navigate these thought terrains without resorting to "it’s all a mystery. I have introduced terms to help explain what existing and nothingness mean- these are metaphysical concepts.

Your quote: I don’t see this is relevant or ties in to any of my claims…

I stated that I didn’t think that I would convince you and it seems I was right, and it’s not something I’m proud of, I would have rather that you might see the truth of my statements and that you could come to understand them.

I never judged that you were saying something against the Church, or violated some rule. How else are we to know the truth if we don’t dialogue, rationalize, use our intelligence and experience. But in our thinking we are all fallible, and when we do seek the truth we do involve the Faith, especially when we seek the truth. The Church is gifted with infallibility to guide the faithful and I make references to her teachings, and teachers, as I mentioned before I treasure their truth and wisdom, and I try to pass it on. Isn’t that what this forum is all about?

I’ll just let the last item drop. I don’t get the accusation of self-righteousness you leveled at me, but I don’t want that to distract from the more interesting points.

As long as I’m thinking of something inside, does it have existence even though it does not have subsistence? It has some status, right, to distinguish from the period when there was not such an idea or image in my mind.

 

[ynotzap]

I don’t know why you insist or think that I accused you of self-righteousness, I tried to explain the possibilities that could occur in judgement in all humans, not just you and me, but everyone. Be assured there was no accusation, so please understand that.

To answer your question: Yes your ideas have existence like all exterior reality, even though its in your mind. It exists as a concept which is a mental abstraction that is done by the intelligent power of your spiritual soul. the concept is spiritual, you do not sense it, you understand it, understanding is a spiritual power. Your concept has spiritual reality. All creation is not self-sustaining this includes concepts, but it is held in reality, or existence by God. If your concepts, like all creation were subsistent , then your concept, and creation would have always existed. And if that were the case, the concept would have always been in your mind. You said that it wasn’t there at first, then it came into your mind, your human experience verified this truth. Human experience is the criterion of all our knowledge, the result of being in contact with reality of the outside world, outside of our minds, the outside world did not originate in our minds. Concepts can be subjective and not objective, IOW subjective meaning that our concepts are subjected to our minds, and not to the outside world, which could involve our imaginings, our erroneous logic. Even logic to be accurate and true must find it’s association and contact with the real world outside our minds. When we have an idea that wasn’t in our mind before, but is now we are being informed with information, be it true or false, if the idea finds it’s basis in the objective world out side of our minds, it is true, and objective, we are in contact with reality. If it doesn’t. as you said, we’re in trouble. (extreme case is schizophrenia)

 

[Neoplatonist]

I don’t know why you insist or think that I accused you of self-righteousness, I tried to explain the possibilities that could occur in judgement in all humans, not just you and me, but everyone. Be assured there was no accusation, so please understand that.

To answer your question: Yes your ideas have existence like all exterior reality, even though its in your mind. It exists as a concept which is a mental abstraction that is done by the intelligent power of your spiritual soul. the concept is spiritual, you do not sense it, you understand it, understanding is a spiritual power. Your concept has spiritual reality. All creation is not self-sustaining this includes concepts, but it is held in reality, or existence by God. If your concepts, like all creation were subsistent , then your concept, and creation would have always existed. And if that were the case, the concept would have always been in your mind. You said that it wasn’t there at first, then it came into your mind, your human experience verified this truth. Human experience is the criterion of all our knowledge, the result of being in contact with reality of the outside world, outside of our minds, the outside world did not originate in our minds. Concepts can be subjective and not objective, IOW subjective meaning that our concepts are subjected to our minds, and not to the outside world, which could involve our imaginings, our erroneous logic. Even logic to be accurate and true must find it’s association and contact with the real world outside our minds. When we have an idea that wasn’t in our mind before, but is now we are being informed with information, be it true or false, if the idea finds it’s basis in the objective world out side of our minds, it is true, and objective, we are in contact with reality. If it doesn’t. as you said, we’re in trouble. (extreme case is schizophrenia)

OK, great. Now ideas in God’s mind. They would be existent but not subsistent, else creation would have always existed, on your model. God’s ideas are existent but not subsistent. We are existent but not subsistent. In what way can we discern that we are not characters in God’s dream? I mean this as “effectively the same”, not “identical” since his thinking or “dream” would work differently than ours.

 

[ynotzap]

The human mind (or intelligence) is a property (power of the soul) of the person. The person exists with all his properties. The concept, (idea) is the product of his rational abilities to abstract the idea, or concept from things in the real material world. .

God has no dreams, or ideas- he creates them. His mind is not like ours, it is not His property, it is His Essence, IOW, He is Intelligence, He IS His attributes. We are not our attributes, we were GIVEN intelligence as one of our properties. This spiritual rational intelligence make us different from the animals, it is a property(power) of the spiritual soul, the animating principle of the body (form) God is the direct Creator of the soul made to His image and LIKENESS.

We are not God’s ideas- ideas are created concepts, God gave them existence Ideas are mental concepts abstracted from the material world, they are mental representations of the material world. Instead of having a material tree in our mind, which is an impossibility, we have the spiritual concept or idea that represents the material tree, pretty efficient isn’t it, God is great.

God is uncreated intelligence, and His intelligence is not a separate power as it is in us, His Intelligence is His Essence, as is Existence, as is Goodness, as is Truth, as is Will. In us all these things are separate properties, created. So in a limited sense, effectively our intelligence is like God’s, and not identical. (We are made to the image and likeness of God) and we are spiritual in our souls like Him who is Pure Spirit. We have to discern what is created and what is not created, and this takes some metaphysical thinking to distinguish the difference.

To help in making this distinction it is a fact that things created are always changing, they have the characteristic of Potency and Act, they are subject to time (change), Their essence is not existence, and they are dependent, they do not move themselves but are moved by another. They are not their own cause, but caused by another. They have a beginning in time. By these truths one can determine whether they were created, or always existed, and if they always existed they were not created, and are subsistent Ony God is subsistent because existence is His Essence, (I Am Who Am) We can say, "We who are not, are, because of He Who Is)(We who were made from nothing, are something because of He who gave us existence)

 

[Neoplatonist]

The human mind (or intelligence) is a property (power of the soul) of the person. The person exists with all his properties. The concept, (idea) is the product of his rational abilities to abstract the idea, or concept from things in the real material world. .

God has no dreams, or ideas- he creates them. His mind is not like ours, it is not His property, it is His Essence, IOW, He is Intelligence, He IS His attributes. We are not our attributes, we were GIVEN intelligence as one of our properties. This spiritual rational intelligence make us different from the animals, it is a property(power) of the spiritual soul, the animating principle of the body (form) God is the direct Creator of the soul made to His image and LIKENESS.

We are not God’s ideas- ideas are created concepts, God gave them existence Ideas are mental concepts abstracted from the material world, they are mental representations of the material world. Instead of having a material tree in our mind, which is an impossibility, we have the spiritual concept or idea that represents the material tree, pretty efficient isn’t it, God is great.

God is uncreated intelligence, and His intelligence is not a separate power as it is in us, His Intelligence is His Essence, as is Existence, as is Goodness, as is Truth, as is Will. In us all these things are separate properties, created. So in a limited sense, effectively our intelligence is like God’s, and not identical. (We are made to the image and likeness of God) and we are spiritual in our souls like Him who is Pure Spirit. We have to discern what is created and what is not created, and this takes some metaphysical thinking to distinguish the difference.

To help in making this distinction it is a fact that things created are always changing, they have the characteristic of Potency and Act, they are subject to time (change), Their essence is not existence, and they are dependent, they do not move themselves but are moved by another. They are not their own cause, but caused by another. They have a beginning in time. By these truths one can determine whether they were created, or always existed, and if they always existed they were not created, and are subsistent Ony God is subsistent because existence is His Essence, (I Am Who Am) We can say, "We who are not, are, because of He Who Is)(We who were made from nothing, are something because of He who gave us existence)

Most of this is Medieval stuff I never bought into, but that’s ok because I get that God’s mind is different than ours, and allow, then, that we can bracket it by just agreeing that we should call ourselves something slightly different than ideas, maybe objects of intellect.

Question remains, is there a more accurate analogy for our understanding than figments of God’s imagination?

Sure, his imagination is different than ours (not a function of abstracting from outside world, for instance). Is it closer to a different faculty of ours, though? etc.

 

[ynotzap]

I’m sorry but I come from this Medieval stuff that you never bought into. You keep applying imagination to God, and I keep stating that God has no need for imagination which is strictly a human mental function to take from reality concepts and then construe them to represent something that is ficticious, fiction. When God creates it is real, not imaginary He gives His creation existence, that makes it real. You don’t consider my statements as having any real accuracy, so you put me at a loss. I can’t offer you a more accurate explanation-maybe someone else can, but I think the answer will be a product of someone’s imagination, and if that’s the case, you will be no closer to the truth, because the truth does not lie in the imagination but in the objective world As I said before Good Hunting!

 

[Neoplatonist]

I’m sorry but I come from this Medieval stuff that you never bought into. You keep applying imagination to God, and I keep stating that God has no need for imagination which is strictly a human mental function to take from reality concepts and then construe them to represent something that is ficticious, fiction. When God creates it is real, not imaginary He gives His creation existence, that makes it real. You don’t consider my statements as having any real accuracy, so you put me at a loss. I can’t offer you a more accurate explanation-maybe someone else can, but I think the answer will be a product of someone’s imagination, and if that’s the case, you will be no closer to the truth, because the truth does not lie in the imagination but in the objective world As I said before Good Hunting!

God gives his creation existence but not subsistence. We give our imaginary creatures existence but not subsistence. We established that. I have conceded that the analogy is limited and we must not forget that it is only analogous at best—a point you keep arguing. My challenge is for your to offer a better analogy, not argue technical terms. I don’t understand the reluctance on this point. ?]

Does it sound heretical somehow to you to say we are in God’s intellect? If God is Intellect itself, and Being itself, how could we be outside God’s intellect?

 

[ynotzap]

A synonym for the word analogy is “likeness” I made an analogy when I stated that “We are made to the image and likeness of God”. I explained how we are in my Post 5l. I drew a comparison between humans and God and showed the likeness.(analogy) I explained how we have our being in God, and that we at the same time are not part of God. , I explained that there is no outside of God, all things exist in God. I can not draw a more accurate analogy. I am not arguing technical terms, but I have to use them to explain the difference between humans and God, and the likeness we have with Him. This analogy is a real analogy, not a fictitious one, or an imaginary one. It is heretical if I say “:We have our being in God, and we are part of God.” the heresy is called “Pantheism” I mentioned that too in another post.

 

[Neoplatonist]

A synonym for the word analogy is “likeness” I made an analogy when I stated that “We are made to the image and likeness of God”. I explained how we are in my Post 5l. I drew a comparison between humans and God and showed the likeness.(analogy) I explained how we have our being in God, and that we at the same time are not part of God. , I explained that there is no outside of God, all things exist in God. I can not draw a more accurate analogy. I am not arguing technical terms, but I have to use them to explain the difference between humans and God, and the likeness we have with Him. This analogy is a real analogy, not a fictitious one, or an imaginary one. It is heretical if I say “:We have our being in God, and we are part of God.” the heresy is called “Pantheism” I mentioned that too in another post.

Interesting. I’m using it in the sense by which the tradition allows us to reason through a comparison of two relationships (also seen in places like the Miller Analogies Test for some graduate school programs), such as “man is to God as a child is to its father”, but in which the relationships are only partially similar. So we have such things as "woman:man :: fish:bicycle. (Woman is to man as a fish is to a bicycle.)

Can you offer a parallel comparison that completes the following:
Object in the Intellect of God:man :: man : _________.

 

[ynotzap]

Interesting. I’m using it in the sense by which the tradition allows us to reason through a comparison of two relationships (also seen in places like the Miller Analogies Test for some graduate school programs), such as “man is to God as a child is to its father”, but in which the relationships are only partially similar. So we have such things as "woman:man :: fish:bicycle. (Woman is to man as a fish is to a bicycle.)

Can you offer a parallel comparison that completes the following:
Object in the Intellect of God:man :: man : _________.

A s man is to the Grinch The object in the intellect of God, is real, and it exists APART from God, but depends on Him to continue existing, and is not part of God

the object of man’s creative imagination is part of man (existing as an idea,) but is has no objective reality, and does NOT EXIST apart from man

The similarities are God is Creator of man , man is the creator of the Grinch, one is real, the other unreal, Man and the Grinch aMan is similar to God, but completely different in nature. One is subsistent, the other is completely dependent, one is infinite, the other finite, and limited. Correction an idea has objective reality when is represents reality outside of the mind of man. Otherwise it has only subjective reality, depending on the imagination, not real, fiction

 

[ynotzap]

Lest I be misunderstood: When I state that man exists apart from God I mean that man is a separate entity from God, he is not God who is supernatural, he is human who is natural. But man is not subsistent, he needs God to sustain his existence.

In man’s creative imagination, the imagined idea, or situation does not exist separately, as a separate entity from man, but man has a likeness to God as a creator, but is completely different.

It is important to note that man can produce, or can invent things (that in some way already exist in reality) if his ideas have objective content found in the real world. We can’t imagine without making reference to reality, that’s why it is said “we can’t have fiction, without non-fiction” Jules Vern, captured this truth in his fiction stories eg. Twenty Thousand leagues Under the Sea. etc. Again this shows man is like God (analogy) but completely different. He had to depend on objective reality to make up his stories if they were to have any truth in them.

 

[ynotzap]

St. Padre Pio on the Nativity: Mother Mary, lead me to the grotto of Bethlehem, so that I may contemplate the great and sublime event that took place in the silence of the most beautiful night the world has ever seen. A holy and happy Christmas everyone!!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is strange how Japanese Kappa always disappears as soon as the objections to his ’ syllogisms ’ get serious.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

Most of this is Medieval stuff I never bought into, but that’s ok because I get that God’s mind is different than ours, and allow, then, that we can bracket it by just agreeing that we should call ourselves something slightly different than ideas, maybe objects of intellect.

Question remains, is there a more accurate analogy for our understanding than figments of God’s imagination?

Sure, his imagination is different than ours (not a function of abstracting from outside world, for instance). Is it closer to a different faculty of ours, though? etc.

I think the difference between us and God is that God’s ideas are actual, not abstract, because God is pure actuality and thus God’s mind (if you can call it that) is fully actual. (i could be wrong on this). Also, while we get our ideas by abstracting from our experiences, God actualizes creation by analogously abstracting from his own self knowledge.

But yes, while we are not identical with God, it is logically impossible that we do not exist in God’s intellect for there is no outside God’s intellect. In fact we are held firmly in existence in God’s knowledge.