How does God create "the act of existing" out of nothing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnweeder said:
It’s seriously hard to look JohnMichaels right in the keyboard and say “Hey, you should come back to the church.” I think he should. I think he would fall over laughing if I told him so. Besides, I’m not certain I’m a better man than either him or Gunga Din.
Click to expand...
You may not be a better man that him or Gunga Din, but what does that have to do with being a member of the one true Church of Christ, wherein alone is found the fullness of truth? To think that anyone can do better on his own than in being a member of Christ’s Church is incomprehensible to me. No man is better off without the Holy Eucharist, than they are with it. No man is better off without the truthfully interpreted teachings of Christ than they are with them. No man is better off without the other sacraments than they are with them. But I don’t deny the fact that Gunga Din may be a better man than you or I.
 
JamesCaruso said:
By your putting it the way you do, you are confining God to the physical, finite world where everything is finitely provable.
Click to expand...
James,
I would like to offer 2 observations, on a purely scientific basic concerning our world.

First, one way to think of creating things is that I can write (+1) + (-1) = 0. In essence, I have “created” (in some sense) a plus one and a minus one which can exist temporally for some period but the sum of all is still zero. This is a common phenomenon in the physical world. It happens continually at every point of time and space. In fact, a common view of our universe (simplifying greatly) is that if you summed everything, it would total zero. It is an interesting point to ponder… has anything actually been created, if the sum of everything is zero? It seems to me that the only thing we create as we pass though this world is more entropy.

Second, you say “everything in the world is finitely provable” when, in fact, the exact opposite is apparently true with respect to physical systems. Granted, we can possess (perhaps you could say “create”) knowledge (however, even this increases the net entropy). For example, 1 + 1 = 2. However, you can not predict the outcome of a single quantum event. You can state that something is likely but never with absolute certainty say anything else about the universe with (there are certain cases where observing one quantum event reveals details of another). To me this is a mind blowing concept… as you look about you, you cannot make even 1 single prediction about the physical world with 100% certainty.

Further, James, even God cannot “predict” the outcome of a quantum event because doing so is impossible (and God cannot do what is impossible or is against his nature). God can “know” the outcome… in a sense, he has observed it from a dimension without temporal constraints. However, he cannot predict it any more that he could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it (one could like it to free will in this respect).
 
JamesCaruso said:
What does that have to do with anything?
Click to expand...
James,

You spent a whole post ripping apart blatant sarcasm. Seriously, you thought telling us about your HDL/LDL somehow justifies my church turning meatless Friday’s into an all-you-can-eat and all-the-beer-you-can-drink orgy? Sarcasm.

Why have a a rule which most people do not understand nor follow? It is not helping people attain salvation. The church has failed and should reform its practices to stay in touch with the people and the time. I wish for the CHURCH to adapt and become relevant again in the new millenia. You seem to think the PEOPLE should change.

Similarly with regard “**oringly repetitive monotonous droning”, I will merely observe that throughout the world, the church is bleeding people to other faiths who’s services are not boring, repetitive, monotonous, etc. You may like them. You may also soon find yourself sitting alone in an empty church.

You say you obey church authority for authority’s sake… so, if the priest demands, you send the little boys over?

Your comments with regards indulgences test the boundaries of bounds of credulity. You can go to the vatican libraries and research any of the various “Bull of the Crusade” papal documents. A long succession of popes grants indulgences for “giving alms” (i.e. selling them). St Peter’s Basillica was funded (in significant part) by selling indulgences. You don’t have to take my word for it though… take Pope Leo X’s word.

And, yes, I know the church’s “official” teaching on the matter. I will summarize it as follows: “Yes, everyone from the Pope to the lowliest Friar sold indulgences but this wasn’t really official church doctrine”. Yea, right, and I have some good swamp land in LA to sell you. It ranks right up there with “No, the church didn’t persecute Galileo for saying the earth is not the center of the universe”. Better for the church to just say “We are human and we screwed up”… but, even today they still shield the pedophiles.**
 
JamesCaruso said:
You may not be a better man that him or Gunga Din, but what does that have to do with being a member of the one true Church of Christ
Click to expand...
Allow me to enlarge your tiny closed world a bit…

Gunga Din, by Rudyard Kipling, has a theme of comparing the protagonist with Gunga Din from the perspective that the protagonist is a white, Christian while Din is a poor, dark skinned, heathen.

In the penultimate verse, the protagonist says “By the livin’ Gawd that made you” implicitly recognizing the glory of God even in this black heathen.

The final verse, “You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!” is a recognization by the protagonist that even though Din is poor, dark skinned and heathen, he is still, in the protagonist’s opinion, a better man than himself.

Earlier, the poem read “Givin’ drink to pore damned souls, An’ I’ll get a swig in Hell from Gunga Din!”. The implication here is that Din is a good man but who, as a heathen, is damned to hell. And yet, even in Hell, he still perseveres in his good nature.

In this sense, my statement is equivalent to me saying that I am not claiming I am necessarily superior to either an atheist or to a heathen.

You, on the other hard, give the impression to me that you feel you are superior in God’s eyes because of your unquestioning submission to rules of men.

Again, I quote from Matthew 15:
This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me.
Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments.
 
JamesCaruso said:
And if you can find a way to apply finite reasoning.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean? I know God cannot transform himself into a square triangle; its metaphysically impossible. God does not transcend logic. Clearly my being finite has no relevance with whether or not God can do the logically impossible or my knowledge of what is ontologically possible or not in reference to Gods actions.
What you are asking for, is a logical demonstration of how God creates something from nothingc.
Click to expand...
Not really. I am asking how something that is absolutely impossible can be done by God.

What rational relationship does infinity have to do with the possibility of creating the act of existence out of nothing? There is no logical connection; you are merely asserting that there is and that i cannot possibly know whether God can or can’t do something.
 
Linux said:
Not really. I am asking how something that is absolutely impossible can be done by God.
Click to expand...
Linux,

Concerning “possibility of creating the act of existence out of nothing”… the “it” I discuss below.

I would like to question your underlying assumption that it is impossible. I would like to offer that not only is it possible, but that we humans have actually created scientific experiments to observe it happening.

Now, I accept you may question whether or now it is “God” doing the creating. However, I don’t believe you can flat out say it is impossible when it is happening, quite literally, continuously at all points and at all times.
 
Linux said:
What does that even mean?
Click to expand...
Linux,

Caruso likes to blindly quote things he apparently does not really understand. He is mixing several concepts.

The theological concept of infinity is not the same as the mathematical. When speaking of an “Infinite God” one is not speaking of an inenumerable set. One is speaking perhaps more correctly of perfection or maximal-ness. I prefer to translate this into the word “perfect”. God is infinite in the sense he cannot be more or better.

This is an important distinction. It is not truly correct to say “God can do anything which is possible.” God’s infinite (perfect) love, for example, means he will never stop loving you even though it would theoretically be possible.

The mathematical concept of infinity is different. Here we speak of something not enumerable. This is a quantitative and not a qualitative distinction. God cannot count to infinity (that is impossible) nor can he multiply a number by infinity (that is undefined) nor can he create an infinite amount of something.

This distinction causes me, personally, great quandaries about the nature of god (eternalness is a mathematical infinity for example). But that is another story.
 
So close to the 1000 post limit… I hang around to get the last word but it seems cheating to just make more posts for the sake of more posts. :rolleyes:
 
johnweeder said:
James,
I would like to offer 2 observations, on a purely scientific basic concerning our world.

First, one way to think of creating things is that I can write (+1) + (-1) = 0. In essence, I have “created” (in some sense) a plus one and a minus one which can exist temporally for some period but the sum of all is still zero. This is a common phenomenon in the physical world. It happens continually at every point of time and space. In fact, a common view of our universe (simplifying greatly) is that if you summed everything, it would total zero. It is an interesting point to ponder… has anything actually been created, if the sum of everything is zero? It seems to me that the only thing we create as we pass though this world is more entropy.

Second, you say “everything in the world is finitely provable” when, in fact, the exact opposite is apparently true with respect to physical systems. Granted, we can possess (perhaps you could say “create”) knowledge (however, even this increases the net entropy). For example, 1 + 1 = 2. However, you can not predict the outcome of a single quantum event. You can state that something is likely but never with absolute certainty say anything else about the universe with (there are certain cases where observing one quantum event reveals details of another). To me this is a mind blowing concept… as you look about you, you cannot make even 1 single prediction about the physical world with 100% certainty.

Further, James, even God cannot “predict” the outcome of a quantum event because doing so is impossible (and God cannot do what is impossible or is against his nature). God can “know” the outcome… in a sense, he has observed it from a dimension without temporal constraints. However, he cannot predict it any more that he could make a rock so heavy that he could not lift it (one could like it to free will in this respect).
Click to expand...
Two things-- I said everything is provable, not predictable.

Second, since God is outside temporal constraints, as you say, he not only can predict all outcomes, he already knows all outcomes.

You’re playing with words to imagine God under the same constraints as human beings, that is, IF HE WERE in the temporal mode even he could not make such predictions. The fact is, he is not in the temporal mode, we are, and the rules do not apply to him. Your answer is like saying, “If God were limited by our temporal world, then he would be limited by our temporal world, or if God were a midget, then he could not see over the fence. Duh.” We can’t put limits on God and then say, “See, even God can’t do it!”

Then again, there are certain things he really cannot do, for example, contradict himself. He cannot sin, he cannot diminish himself to existing solely in the temporal universe, he cannot make right wrong, he cannot make black white, and he cannot make you change your mind about him, since he has given you a free will and he will always allow you to exercise it. You can take that to the bank. 😉

But he will continue to try to get you to change your mind all the days of your life, because he loves you to the point of madness. I don’t understand it. What’s in it for him? Maybe that’s what they mean by love is its own reward. 🙂
 
JamesCaruso said:
Two things-- I said everything is provable, not predictable.
Second, since God is outside temporal constraints, as you say, he not only can predict all outcomes, he already knows all outcomes.
Click to expand...
Please give me an example of something you think is “provable”

You are precisely correct that I am playing with words. The words are important even though you apparently do not understand why. The distinction between God “predicting” (or perhaps more correctly “counterfactual definiteness”) and God “observing” is significant in the quantum world because observing necessitates a change in that which is observed where as prediction does not. Even God is constrained by the possible and impossible.

However, if I accept catholic definitions of God, I do believe it is incompatible with some universes. For example, I don’t think that the catholic definition of God is compatible with a universe with no end that contains a single randomly blinking light (or that alternately God can’t know the sequence of the blinking). I will leave it to you to consider why basic math ordains this result.

(And, yes, I am aware that “change” seems to imply a dt. Maybe God’s observations are at the boundaries where a singularity may prevent us from understanding. I don’t know.)
 
johnweeder said:
(or that alternately God can’t know the sequence of the blinking). I will leave it to you to consider why basic math ordains this result.
Click to expand...
because the possibilities are endless?

This math way at looking at things is fun, I’ve never thought about a lot of the things you’ve said in your posts recently.
Which…is both good and bad in a way. So much to read up on :coffeeread:
 
My take on “How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?”

Its interesting if you look at certain catholic theologians, like Meister Eckhart,they stressed the complete transcendence of God Himself in His Absoluteness. God is so exalted that He transcends even the categories of existence and non-existence and is above and beyond anything that we can conceptualize since he transcends all descriptions. Importantly, when you say something exists, you open up the possibility of that it might not exist, and since God is beyond being threatened by any opposition, he must of necessity transcend that polarity.Being free from and prior to the dichotomy between subject and object, existence and non-existence, He is also therefore outside the frame of human discourse.

How is this possible?

According to Eckhart, “God is a Word, an Unspoken Word. Where God is, He utters His Word. Where He is not, He does not speak. God is spoken and unspoken. The Father is a speaking work, and the Son is the speech at work.” God “unspoken” refers to the Godhead or Divine Essence where “He does not speak” and where “He is not.”

Eckhart states it another way: “If I also say, God is a Being, it is not true; He is transcendent Being and superessential Nothingness.”

And again, “GOD is nameless, for no man can either say or understand aught about Him. If I say, God is good, it is not true; nay more; I am good, God is not good. I may even say, I am better than God; for whatever is good, may become better, and whatever may become better, may become best. Now God is not good, for He cannot become better. And if He cannot become better, He cannot become best, for these three things, good, better, and best, are far from God, since He is above all. If I also say, God is wise, it is not true; I am wiser than He.”

But how did God create being out of non-being?

It first begins with the unfolding of the Godhead as the one divine essence into the Trinity:

“The Godhead in itself is motionless unity and balanced stillness and is the source of all emanations. Hence I assume a passive welling-up. We call this first utterance Being, for the most intrinsic utterance, the first formal assumption in the Godhead is Being. Being as essential Word, God is being, but being is not God. Now the origin of the Father is necessarily involved in this assumption of a passive welling-up. In other words, the Deity being in Itself intelligence, therefore, the divine nature steps forth into relation of otherness: other, but not another, for this distinction is rational, not real”

As to the actual creation of the Cosmos as we know it, this work of creation occurs because of the eternal activities among the Persons of the Trinity. Without these eternal relationships there would be no movement that could bring creation into existence. Thus, Eckhart stresses that the Father cannot perform the work of creating creatures without both the Son and the Holy Spirit.

“But the work of flowing into creatures, that the Father cannot do without the Son nor the Holy Ghost without them both, since the works of the Trinity are impartible”

Although Eckhart speaks specifically about the Son as the creator and architect of all things, the Son accomplishes this creation through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Eckhart says that the Holy Spirit is “author” of the realm of creation and becoming.

“The Holy Ghost is the tie between the Father and the Son, and is one with them in the not-becoming. He is the author and agent of becoming in eternity and in time.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top