R
rossum
Guest
Given that God is a living God and that He is eternal, then for any Jew, Christian or Muslim then the answer is yes.
How could the universe and life come into existence without God? How could life evolve without God?
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
There were no chemicals at the time of the Big Bang, only photons and sub-atomic particles. Chemicals, initially mostly hydrogen, only appeared once the universe had cooled enough to allow atoms to form.
From that point on the other elements formed by stellar nucleosynthesis and in supernovae.
Material life on earth, and possibly other planets, formed from non-living chemicals using processes which are still being studied. You need to beware of slipping into vitalism, which has long been shown to be false.
N
Noose001
Guest
When did you become their spokesman?
O
o_mlly
Guest
N
Noose001
Guest
The words ‘Life’ and ‘Non-life’ do not agree with your explanation. You can only move from ‘life’ to ‘non-life’ and not the other way round. The word ‘life’ is the one that holds the meaning, withdraw the meaning and what you are left with is lifeless or non-life.
It is much easier to talk about resurrection than talk about non-living material finding reason to live.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
I didn’t have an issue with your question. It is actually a good and to-the-point question. A natural one that follows what I wrote. It’s just been an issue of time and prioritizing. You did see an important point, the question is whether there was some principle (potency, or “prime matter” as St. Thomas saw it) that exists eternally alongside God which is uncreated. And the answer is no, there is not. The principle of potency cannot exist on own it’s own, only as a principle in something actual (I can expand on this). The principle of pure potency (Prime Matter) is created ex nihilo by God, and it’s what makes him as a cause unique (and to extend the tangent why some theologians question whether it’s appropriate to use the same word “cause” for creatures and God when describing their acts, even though I’d say there is a base similarity between them that makes them analogical).lelinator:
@Wesrock I didn’t mean to belittle any of your previous answers by seeming to ignore them, it’s just that I’ve encountered people before who insisted that God’s creative act didn’t involve the actualization of potency. There’s any number of reasons why they might believe that this is true. Perhaps they simply believe that “ex nihilo” literally means from nothing, and that even potency constitutes something. Or perhaps they were under the impression that only created things possess potency, and since neither God, nor “nothing” can possess potency, there couldn’t have been any potency before there were created things.
But whatever the reason, my objective was simply to clarify that you do indeed believe that God’s creative act involved the actualization of potency.
If this is indeed the case, then perhaps we can continue.
As an aside, this is also why I couldn’t answer EndTimes when he asked what I meant by ‘actualization of potency?’ Because it seems that like a great many things, each of us decides for ourselves what that phrase means.
It’s sufficient for this discussion that I simply know that you believe that God’s creative act involved the actualization of potency.
As of right now, I don’t need to know what you think that phrase means.
Does this mean the First Way isn’t about act and potency at all then? No, because we start with the posterior things (creatures) to learn about things prior (such as God), and we can come to know there must be such a Prime Mover because creatures aren’t essentially actual, that they must be actualized by something else. The argument is still based on act and potency in creatures, specifically in regards to their nature/essence. The Prime Mover both creates the fundamental principle of potency and actualizes it in created things.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
It was a statement, not an argument. So no assumptions required. There was no life. And then there was. We are still working out how God did it.
Ah, sorry. My bad. On the assumption that one doesn’t take Genesis literally, then we are still working out how it was done.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
There’s a chapter right at the front of the bible that tells us that God created life from non life. You should read it. We’re still working out how He did it.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
That’s exactly what you get when you don’t understand. “God gave His breath and man became a living soul…” This is what that part of the bible says and another part still says “…when you withdraw your spirit they expire/die…”
F
Freddy
Guest
So that contradicts what you said. We went from non life to life. Everyone knows that. I’m not sure why you denied it.Freddy:
That’s exactly what you get when you don’t understand. “God gave His breath and man became a living soul…” This is what that part of the bible says and another part still says “…when you withdraw your spirit they expire/die…”
R
rossum
Guest
When did you decide that the Christian God isn’t alive?
R
rossum
Guest
False. I drink some non-living water which is incorporated into my living cells. That water has moved from non-life to life.
N
Noose001
Guest
It only contradicts if you think we are chemicals that became alive. Chemicals are chemicals, there are no chemicals that are living and those that are dead. Chemicals are chemicals in non living things, they are still chemicals in living things, and they remain chemicals in dead organisms.
So in this regard, i highly recommend you separate chemicals from life; we were not non living then became alive at any moment, life is part of God (God’s spirit) which is given us.
N
Noose001
Guest
There’s no living water and certainly no dead water. The water in your cells is still water whether you live or die. We don’t have living chemicals or dead chemicals, chemicals are chemicals. We only have chemicals of life which are also not alive and can’t die.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Not to directly endorse a lot has been said, but life needn’t be applied univocally. In fact, ancient Greek had three words for it. The person you’re responding to obviously means biological life.Noose001:
When did you decide that the Christian God isn’t alive?
N
Noose001
Guest
I didn’t, God is living. We all draw our lives (breathe) from Him.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
And the Lord God formed Man from the dust of the ground.Freddy:
It only contradicts if you think we are chemicals that became alive. Chemicals are chemicals, there are no chemicals that are living and those that are dead. Chemicals are chemicals in non living things, they are still chemicals in living things, and they remain chemicals in dead organisms.
So in this regard, i highly recommend you separate chemicals from life; we were not non living then became alive at any moment, life is part of God (God’s spirit) which is given us.
Wasn’t the dust made from lifeless chemicals? Wasn’t life created from them? We’re just working out the process He used.
Oh, sorry. On the assumption that one doesn’t take Genesis literally, we’re still trying to work it out.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
Exactly my point, the dust is lifeless, when life leaves, dust remains and is buried.
Life was not created from dust, that part of the bible clearly says God breathed in that dust and then man became a living soul. So life and dust are two different things.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
Take a material living organism. Remove all the non-living hydrogen. Hydrogen is not living, so we have not removed life from the organism. Remove all the other non-living chemical elements in turn: helium, lithium, beryllium etc. All those chemical elements are non-living, so in all cases life was not removed from the organism. What is left after all the chemical elements have been removed is the life of the organism.
That is just one of the reasons why vitalism is incorrect. Life is an emergent property, it is not something separate from the components that make up the material organism.
F
Freddy
Guest
Am I missing something here? Life was created by God from dust. Isn’t that right? And dust is lifeless chemicals and Adam was alive. God breathed life into lifeless chemicals. Where am I going wrong here, Noose?Freddy:
Exactly my point, the dust is lifeless, when life leaves, dust remains and is buried.
Life was not created from dust, that part of the bible clearly says God breathed in that dust and then man became a living soul. So life and dust are two different things.
- Status