Ex-Nihilo: a meaningless concept

[Linusthe2nd]

Chainbreaker:

The principle that says " more cannot come from less " applies only to things of this world and is self evident and is also demonstrated by science. However, since the world obviously exists, one must assume either that it always existed without cause or that it was created. It is illogical to think that it always existed without cause. Since then it had to be created, it had to be created out of no prior existing matter. And since only the Being we identify as God could have done it, the existence of a God who has the power to create out of no prior existing matter is, if you will, a logical necessity. And he certainly did not create it out of his own substance, for that is also illogical. Further, if he had done that we would all be " gods " and we would certainly know that. And human experience testifies that none of us are " gods. " So God exists and he created the universe out of no prior existing matter.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

Chainbreaker:

The principle that says " more cannot come from less " applies only to things of this world and is self evident and is also demonstrated by science.

It is a metaphysical principle, and you have no rational basis to claim that it only applies to things of this world. Out of nothing comes nothing. God cannot do the metaphysically impossible, thus while one must accept that God created the universe without physical materials and did not create it out of parts of himself, God still cannot create the universe out of nothing because you cannot get more from less (You cannot get more reality from no reality; It’s clearly a metaphysical contradiction because existence is the antithesis of nothing).

What God can do however is something analogous to how humans create ideas. Of course God cannot get ideas from outside of himself like humans do, but i think something similar or analogous to it is happening; which makes sense if our intellects are analogous finite reflections of God’s intellect.

Ex-nihilo makes more rational sense if we consider first that God is pure actuality. Secondly God’s intellect is fully actual. And thirdly since there is no potency or parts in God’s intellect it follows that therefore God’s “idea’s” or “abstractions” (analogously speaking) are actual and distinct from God’s intellect in so far as we are an expression of God’s eternal knowledge of himself which is love. So what we have in this case is not that God creates more reality, but rather what would be merely abstractions in our minds in God’s case would have actuality in God’s intellect through the act of God’s existence which is his power. In other words God’s knowledge of himself is as such that abstractions cannot be potencies and are made actual merely by being present in God’s intellect and since God’s intellect is identical with his act of existence these abstractions are permeated by God’s act of existence which is the very thing that is making them real.

How God does this while at the same time allowing his creation to have potency may appear to be a bit of a paradox insofar as our understanding is concerned. But if abstractions are not identical to God’s intellect then perhaps this paradox goes away since one cannot create an infinite abstraction of God, and certainly not even God can do this. Thus all abstractions created by God are necessarily finite in nature.

However, whatever the case may be, since you cannot get more reality from no reality something like what i have explained above must be true.

However, since the world obviously exists, one must assume either that it always existed without cause or that it was created. It is illogical to think that it always existed without cause. Since then it had to be created, it had to be created out of no prior existing matter. And since only the Being we identify as God could have done it, the existence of a God who has the power to create out of no prior existing matter is, if you will, a logical necessity. And he certainly did not create it out of his own substance, for that is also illogical. Further, if he had done that we would all be " gods " and we would certainly know that. And human experience testifies that none of us are " gods. " So God exists and he created the universe out of no prior existing matter.

Linus2nd

Or metaphysical logic falls apart at the hinges if we are to think that God can contradict the principle that you cannot get more from less (You cannot get more reality from no reality; It’s clearly a metaphysical contradiction). In which case saying that the universe was created by God has no more objective value than the idea of our entire universe literally popping out of nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is a metaphysical principle, and you have no rational basis to claim that it only applies to things of this world. Out of nothing comes nothing. God cannot do the metaphysically impossible, thus while one must accept that God created the universe without physical materials and did not create it out of parts of himself, God still cannot create the universe out of nothing because you cannot get more from less (You cannot get more reality from no reality; It’s clearly a metaphysical contradiction because existence is the antithesis of nothing).

What God can do however is something analogous to how humans create ideas. Of course God cannot get ideas from outside of himself like humans do, but i think something similar or analogous to it is happening; which makes sense if our intellects are analogous finite reflections of God’s intellect.

Ex-nihilo makes more rational sense if we consider first that God is pure actuality. Secondly God’s intellect is fully actual. And thirdly since there is no potency or parts in God’s intellect it follows that therefore God’s “idea’s” or “abstractions” (analogously speaking) are actual and distinct from God’s intellect in so far as we are an expression of God’s eternal knowledge of himself which is love. So what we have in this case is not that God creates more reality, but rather what would be merely abstractions in our minds in God’s case would have actuality in God’s intellect through the act of God’s existence which is his power. In other words God’s knowledge of himself is as such that abstractions cannot be potencies and are made actual merely by being present in God’s intellect and since God’s intellect is identical with his act of existence these abstractions are permeated by God’s act of existence which is the very thing that is making them real.

How God does this while at the same time allowing his creation to have potency may appear to be a bit of a paradox insofar as our understanding is concerned. But if abstractions are not identical to God’s intellect then perhaps this paradox goes away since one cannot create an infinite abstraction of God, and certainly not even God can do this. Thus all abstractions created by God are necessarily finite in nature.

However, whatever the case may be, since you cannot get more reality from no reality something like what i have explained above must be true.

Or metaphysical logic falls apart at the hinges if we are to think that God can contradict the principle that you cannot get more from less (You cannot get more reality from no reality; It’s clearly a metaphysical contradiction). In which case saying that the universe was created by God has no more objective value than the idea of our entire universe literally popping out of nothing.

Thomas Aquinas and the whole history of Catholic philosophers/theologians since disagree with your assessment here. I would suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser and his blogspot edwardfeser.blogspot.com/ and Strange Notions bing.com/search?q=strange+notions&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

Thomas Aquinas and the whole history of Catholic philosophers/theologians since disagree with your assessment here. I would suggest reading Aquinas by Edward Feser and his blogspot edwardfeser.blogspot.com/ and Strange Notions bing.com/search?q=strange+notions&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

Linus2nd

I have read Aquinas by Edward Fesser. I see nothing in the Works of Aquinas that deals with the logical problem of exnihilo. What Aquinas does is exactly what you did; he basically says that God necessarily exist and the universe is contingent (which is true) and therefore as a creator he would have to create the universe from nothing through his infinite power. I accept this.

But neither you or Aquinas address exactly what it means for God to create ex-nihilo in relation to metaphysical principles such as out of nothing comes nothing; You cannot get more from less; You cannot get reality from no reality. And since neither of you address this issue it is 1. an open philosophical question and 2. it is very short sighted of you to claim that Thomas Aquinas and the whole history of Catholic philosophers/theologians disagree with my assessment here.

I see no intellectual integrity in asserting that i am wrong and then passing the buck. And what does it matter if they do think i am wrong? Surely a philosophical argument rises or falls in terms of its logical consistency and not accolades. There is nothing to gain for anyone in philosophy by shining trophies.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It doesn’t explain the issues i am raising. It merely speaks of God’s infinite power assuming that there is a logical correlation between that concept and creation out of nothing. I see no explanation in that fact other than the fact that God would have to be all powerful to be considered a first-cause/creator. This is merely an inductive statement. It has no explanatory value in terms of the question that i asked.

Obviously God creates the existing things of the universe out of no prior existing material, and certainly not out of himself. What other choice is there? There is none, unless you want to say the universe always existed without cause or that it created itself’, which makes no sense, since to create requires Infinite Power and Intellect - and that an’t the the universe or anything in it. So, whether it can be understood or not ( and no one can understand how ) God did create the universe out of nothing, in time.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

I have read Aquinas by Edward Fesser. I see nothing in the Works of Aquinas that deals with the logical problem of exnihilo. What Aquinas does is exactly what you did; he basically says that God necessarily exist and the universe is contingent (which is true) and therefore as a creator he would have to create the universe from nothing through his infinite power. I accept this.

But neither you or Aquinas address exactly what it means for God to create ex-nihilo in relation to metaphysical principles such as out of nothing comes nothing; You cannot get more from less; You cannot get reality from no reality. And since neither of you address this issue it is 1. an open philosophical question and 2. it is very short sighted of you to claim that Thomas Aquinas and the whole history of Catholic philosophers/theologians disagree with my assessment here.

I see no intellectual integrity in asserting that i am wrong and then passing the buck. And what does it matter if they do think i am wrong? Surely a philosophical argument rises or falls in terms of its logical consistency and not accolades. There is nothing to gain for anyone in philosophy by shining trophies.

I agree with you , except for this point: “But if abstractions are not identical to God’s intellect then perhaps this paradox goes away since one cannot create an infinite abstraction of God.”

If God is truly fully actual and ultimately simple, as Thomists claim, then abstraction are necessarily indentical to God’s intellect. If you take this view to its consequences, you will find yourself very much in agreement with Parmenides, who held that change is an illusion.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Obviously God creates the existing things of the universe out of no prior existing material, and certainly not out of himself. What other choice is there? There is none, unless you want to say the universe always existed, which is a contradiction in terms since to create requires Infinite Power and Intellect - and that an’t the the universe or anything in it. So, whether it can be understood or not ( and no one can understand how ) God did create the universe out of nothing, in time.

Linus2nd

There is another possibility that has to be true due to the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. We exist in the mind or intellect of God and it is God’s intellect that sustains us in his being.

 

[belorg]

Obviously God creates the existing things of the universe out of no prior existing material, and certainly not out of himself. What other choice is there? There is none, unless you want to say the universe always existed, which is a contradiction in terms since to create requires Infinite Power and Intellect - and that an’t the the universe or anything in it. So, whether it can be understood or not ( and no one can understand how ) God did create the universe out of nothing, in time.

Linus2nd

If the universe has always existed and was not created, then there is no contradiction.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I agree with you , except for this point: “But if abstractions are not identical to God’s intellect then perhaps this paradox goes away since one cannot create an infinite abstraction of God.”

If God is truly fully actual and ultimately simple, as Thomists claim, then abstraction are necessarily indentical to God’s intellect. If you take this view to its consequences, you will find yourself very much in agreement with Parmenides, who held that change is an illusion.

They cannot be identical to God. God cannot be the idea of the universe precisely because God is simple. Which means as soon as God thinks of an idea that idea is actual and distinct from what God essentially is; whereas in our case abstractions remain as potential realities.

 

[belorg]

They cannot be identical to God. God cannot be the idea of the universe precisely because God is simple. Which means as soon as God thinks of an idea that idea is actual and distinct from what God essentially is; whereas in our case abstractions remain as potential realities.

In which case you would have two distinct states of God. One in which God’s idea is part of God and one in which the idea is disntinct from God. But that means God changes/changed, which is contrary to God’s alleged immutabiluty.

 

[ChainBreaker]

In which case you would have two distinct states of God. One in which God’s idea is part of God and one in which the idea is disntinct from God. But that means God changes/changed, which is contrary to God’s alleged immutabiluty.

Why does that mean God changed? And why two distinct states of God. The idea that has been actualized is not God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is another possibility that has to be true due to the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. We exist in the mind or intellect of God and it is God’s intellect that sustains us in his being.

I don’t think that possibility is worth addressing. God has the idea of us in his mind, that is as far as it goes. We exist outside the mind of God.

Why don’t you read the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, ques 44-49, on creation, and De Potentia, Book ll, on creation, or the Summa Contra Gentiles, on creation.
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If the universe has always existed and was not created, then there is no contradiction.

There is no contradiction, correct. But there is a fallacy. Contingent beings composed of essence and existence cannot be the cause of that perfection which they all share - existence. It does no good just to say that it the universe is just a " bald fact. " It is a fact o.k. but a fact requiring explanation.

Linus2nd

 

[ynotzap]

ynotzap;12617013:

You are basically saying here that God can create out of nothing because he is all powerful but how does that make logical sense of the fact that God is creating more in the absence of something, thereby contradicting the principle that you cannot get more from that which is essentially less. You cannot get something from nothing because that would contradict the fact that it was absolutely nothing in the first place.

In my post #l9 I explained the best I could That existence proceeds from God as First Cause. When anything is said to be made from nothing, the preposition “from- ex” does not signify the material cause, but only “order” as "after one comes two, after two comes three.

You are wrongly confusing the negative concept of non-reality with the concept of material cause, and it isn’t and when you try you experience an error in judgement
You are making non-reality a material cause, and of course it isn’t because non-reality means it doesn’t exist, therefore it couldn’t be a material cause. this is in full compliance with the Principle of Contradiction. Non-reality means non-existing, material cause means means something existing, a thing can not be, and be at the same time

 

[ChainBreaker]

I don’t think that possibility is worth addressing. God has the idea of us in his mind, that is as far as it goes. We exist outside the mind of God.

It really is worth addressing for two very good and solid reasons.

1. It’s metaphysically impossible for anything to be outside of God because God’s being and therefore his intellect permeates everything. There is no thing, state, or actual time where God’s mind is not because God’s intellect is the very thing that sustains them in reality. The best one can do is say that creation is not identical to God’s intellect.
2. Out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get more reality from no reality. God cannot create the act of existence, but he can actualize and animate abstractions and sustain them in existence with his own act of existence which is his intellect.

 

[ChainBreaker]

ChainBreaker;12626443:

In my post #l9 I explained the best I could That existence proceeds from God as First Cause.

I did not disagree. My issue is not with God as first cause. My question is, how is one to understand creation ex nihilo within a logically consistent frame work.

When anything is said to be made from nothing, the preposition “from- ex” does not signify the material cause, but only “order” as "after one comes two, after two comes three.

You are wrongly confusing the negative concept of non-reality with the concept of material cause

I’m doing no such thing. I am not treating nothing as a material cause, in fact i reject that completely. I am saying you cannot actualize more reality from nothing if by that you mean God is creating an act of existence where there was none. That is the same thing as getting reality from no reality.

You cannot create the act of existence precisely because it is the antithesis of nothing. Existence is not something that can not exist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It really is worth addressing for two very good and solid reasons.

1. It’s metaphysically impossible for anything to be outside of God because God’s being and therefore his intellect permeates everything. There is no thing, state, or actual time where God’s mind is not because God’s intellect is the very thing that sustains them in reality. The best one can do is say that creation is not identical to God’s intellect.
2. Out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot get more reality from no reality. God cannot create the act of existence, but he can actualize and animate abstractions and sustain them in existence with his own act of existence which is his intellect.

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

Why does that mean God changed? And why two distinct states of God. The idea that has been actualized is not God.

Well, either the idea comes from nothing, which you reject, or it comes from God, which means there rae two distinct states: one in which the idea is with God and a second in which the same idea is not with God.

 

[ynotzap]

God

ynotzap;12630904:

I did not disagree. My issue is not with God as first cause. My question is, how is one to understand creation ex nihilo within a logically consistent frame work.

I’m doing no such thing. I am not treating nothing as a material cause, in fact i reject that completely. I am saying you cannot actualize more reality from nothing if by that you mean God is creating an act of existence where there was none. That is the same thing as getting reality from no reality.

You cannot create the act of existence precisely because it is the antithesis of nothing. Existence is not something that can not exist.

God does not draw something “from” nothing if you are treating "nothing " as a material cause LIKE something existing, it would be understood better if we say "God GIVES existence to nothing , nothing meaning no pre-existing being, reality. Sometimes I use the expression “We who are not, are, because of He Who Is” If God did not sustain us in His existence, and God is Existence, we would not be, non-being, nothing. Again I state that "we have our being in God, but are not part of God.

I will try to explain the logical structure the best I can using St. Thomas’s teachings and it all goes back to God, being the First Cause of things. God brought things into being from no pre-existing subject as from matter.

For if a thing is an effect produced by God either something exists before it, or not.
If not then our assertion stands that God produces some effect from nothing pre-existing.

If something existed before the effect, we must either go to infinity(which is what you will do regressing from effect to cause to get to the first cause, and in doing so you will necessarily arrive at the First cause, because if you deny the First Cause then the series of causes and effects will go on forever, that means we have no beginning and no end, which is impossible to our reality (natural causes) We will arrive at the First Cause which pre-supposes no other, and this Being can be no other than God. God is not the matter of anything, He is subsistent, self sustaining, nor can there be anything other than God which is not made to be by Him. I t follows that in the production of His effects God requires no antecedent matter to work from. So He create from no pre-existing subject, as in matter (in this sense is what is meant “God creates from nothing”

 

[ynotzap]

Refer to Son of Jonah post #ll, he explains how you are flawed in you concept of “nothing” as a positive thing, I express it as a “material cause” It is difficult to try to understand. You do not see nothing as a positive thing(as a concept), its in your use, and interpretation of what we mean .