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

[JDaniel]

Yes it does, albeit a bit different than one might expect. Recall: “God is in everything.” Recall also that God is “infinite.” This means that no part of Him is displacable. He need only supply our senses with configurations of particles, lattices if you will, embed them in continuous space, essentially segregate such configurations from continuous space by our minds, thereby rendering them discrete, then adjusting our senses to sense them as individual things. Essentially: holograms, with infinitely more resolution than humans can muster.

Sounds like fantisy to me. " Essentially: holograms…" Didn’t intend to " insult " anyone. Fantisy is fantisy. And, try to prove that paragraph, it should be fun to see you do it.

Don’t take things so personally.

Linus2nd

Linus:

I am taking nothing “personally.” But, it did (you must admit) sound very much like insult-hurling.

In an earlier post, Inocente pointed how matter consists. An easier way of considering it is that an atom’s electron shell is 50,000 time larger than its nucleus. 50,000 times larger. And, the electron(s) in it are point particles that are dimensionless. Yet they are gases, liquids and solids to us. So, how are they really real?

Did God give us minds? Did God make us capable of thought? Do you really know what it means for something to have a resolution so precise that our minds may be able to perceive things as solids, liquids and gases?

My question to you is: of what does the interior of an atom’s electron shell consist, not to mention the space between the neutrons and protons? Do you know? If everything inside an atom is dimensionless, electrical charges are not enough to make diamond a 10 on the MOHS scale.

Now, if you continue to insist that solids are solid and liquid is liquid, and that the human material body is actually solid and liquid matter, then you may spend the balance of your life mired in questions for which the answers are not ascertainable. But, God did gives us minds, and, it seems, did intend for us to use them - while staying clear of pantheism.

It’s amazing how real the characters and things in a movie seem to us. It’s amazing how real things we watch on a high-res television appear to us. Nowhere in any of this have I suggested that we are being duped. Our senses cooperate with and are correlative (at the same level) with the things around us. Can’t God set our senses to a degree that corresponds with the resolutions He creates?

When, at the end times, we are reunited with our corporeal bodies, do our corporeal bodies push aside the “infinite substance” of God, and take up our own spaces?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Linus
Just what jibberish are you referring to? Could you explain your reason for thinking it such, because I just might be the author of the jibberish JD is referring to and I don’t want to lose my standing in the Catholic Church. I gather from the tone of your pontification that you have the authority of the Holy See to denounce anyone that strays from your very narrow interpretation of God’s word.

I take it that in rejecting JD’s brief description about the possible nature of reality that you, wholeheartedly, buy into the scientific view of reality, you know the one that is dripping with the implication that there is no God?

Theology is losing big time to science in the battle for the minds of men. To win the battle we must undercut the current materialistic scientific view that excludes God by supplementing the materialists’ view with a metaphysical view that offers a more comprehensive and plausible view of HOW God created and sustains reality at a deeper level than the one science refuses to depart from. It can, with the aid of the Holy Spirit" , in accordance with *Fides et ratio, *, and without ignoring modern science, be done.

JD welcome back.
Yppop

Thank you, Yppop. I was hoping you were still out there amidst the solids, liquids and gases! I had to spend a bunch of months doing income tax work, so, my apologies for my absences.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linux]

I haven’t added the word eternal to any mix. Rather, I was trying to assist you in refining your argument by pointing out to you that your argument unequivocally contains a faulty parallel. One could not, for example, draw a comparison between the number one and a cucumber, as they are of different ontological orders. Whether or not you add the qualification eternal to either of these terms has no bearing on the fact that one could not substitute one term for the other in a valid argument. Certainly you could try to argue that an uncaused, necessary being is illogical and you will find many people willing to engage you on that score. But you cannot swap it for a contingent term, such as a magician, as this results in a faulty parallel.

If the point of my argument was to compare a magician to the ontological nature of God than your faulty parallel argument would have its place. But that is a straw-man of the OP and is thus not a rebuttal.

I am talking about the act of existing in general and the absolute distinction between the act of existing and nothing. Until you can show me that given the nature of God it is logically possible to create an act of existing despite the absolute negation of that act then i have no more reason to think that it is possible than i have reason to think that a magician literally pulled a rabbit out of a hat from nothing. Its irrelevant that God is not a contingent being, since saying that God is not a contingent being does not make the possibility more logical (at least you have not shown why i should think it to be more logical).

 

[Aloysium]

Why not, at least for a moment, accept that He can create “the act of existing” out of nothing; take it as a given and see where that takes you in terms of what is “the act of existing”, what is creation, Who is God, what is the nature of His relationship with us, etc.

 

[hicetnunc]

If the point of my argument was to compare a magician to the ontological nature of God than your faulty parallel argument would have its place. But that is a straw-man of the OP and is thus not a rebuttal.

As I said, I was merely trying to help you clarify your argument. But I’m glad we’ve cleared that up, and I will accept that you did not intend it to be a basis on which to build an argument and that it was simply a throw-away comment. In which case, let me focus on the first claim of your OP, which was that you think that the creation of the “act of existing” out of nothing is metaphysically impossible.

In which case, I would maintain that in fact the onus is on you to show that this is the case, and not the other way round. For in order to declare that something is “metaphysically impossible” you would have to show that it entails a logical contradiction. As it stands, it seems to me that your thesis (that creation ex nihilo somehow “violates” an absolute distinction between something and nothing) is a bare assertion. I would hold that there is no logical contradiction involved in holding that a Being infinite in power could bring something into existence from nothing. If this does entail a logical contradiction, then I think you need to show how that is the case. And if something cannot come from nothing, I presume you hold therefore that matter has always existed. In which case there is a further onus on you to reconcile the well-known logical difficulties with holding to an infinite sequence of contingent being.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDaniel
U:

Yes it does, albeit a bit different than one might expect. Recall: “God is in everything.” Recall also that God is “infinite.” This means that no part of Him is displacable. He need only supply our senses with configurations of particles, lattices if you will, embed them in continuous space, essentially segregate such configurations from continuous space by our minds, thereby rendering them discrete, then adjusting our senses to sense them as individual things. Essentially: holograms, with infinitely more resolution than humans can muster.

-]That is contrary to Catholic Doctrine. No Catholic, no one who believes in a Divine Revelation can hold that. It is also contrary to the truth of our natures, it means that God has lied to us. Is there anything in Scripture or in Catholic Doctrine that says God created a fantasy world? I’m very disappointed that you should take such jibberish seriously.

Every day I am more and more convinced that ordinary people should leave philosophy alone and stick simply to Divine Revelation./-]

I retract all the crossed out sentences and apologize for the comments. I misread your prior statement to read that you said or intimated that God was actually a part of his creation, which was the source of my contention with the O.P. On reviewing your statement, I can see that what you said is totally in line with Catholic teaching. God is indeed in all things, but is not a part of their being.

I do think that to say, " He ( God ) need only supply our senses with configurations of particles, lattices if you will, embed them in continuous space, essentially segregate such configurations from continuous space by our minds, thereby rendering them discrete, then adjusting our senses to sense them as individual things. Essentially: holograms, with infinitely more resolution than humans can muster. ", is not correct and sounds a lot like Plato’s Forms or some of the Idealism following Descartes and Kant.

I apologize for calling it " jibberish, " because, though it may be incorrect, to demean it doesn’t win any arguments. I think Thomas has the correct idea. The object of the intellect is a concept of the form as it exists in real things. The senses receive the data supplied by extra mental reality, and the intellect associates this data and turns it into an image or idea or concept which reflects reality.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus
Just what jibberish are you referring to? …

I hope the enclosed post to J.D. will answer your questions. And no, I am not in the " scientism " or " materialist " or the " naturalist " crowd.

Note to J.D.
Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDaniel
U:

Yes it does, albeit a bit different than one might expect. Recall: “God is in everything.” Recall also that God is “infinite.” This means that no part of Him is displacable. He need only supply our senses with configurations of particles, lattices if you will, embed them in continuous space, essentially segregate such configurations from continuous space by our minds, thereby rendering them discrete, then adjusting our senses to sense them as individual things. Essentially: holograms, with infinitely more resolution than humans can muster.

That is contrary to Catholic Doctrine. No Catholic, no one who believes in a Divine Revelation can hold that. It is also contrary to the truth of our natures, it means that God has lied to us. Is there anything in Scripture or in Catholic Doctrine that says God created a fantasy world? I’m very disappointed that you should take such jibberish seriously.

Every day I am more and more convinced that ordinary people should leave philosophy alone and stick simply to Divine Revelation.

I retract all the crossed out sentences and apologize for the comments. I misread your prior statement to read that you said or intimated that God was actually a part of his creation, which was the source of my contention with the O.P. On reviewing your statement, I can see that what you said is totally in line with Catholic teaching. God is indeed in all things, but is not a part of their being.

I do think that to say, " He ( God ) need only supply our senses with configurations of particles, lattices if you will, embed them in continuous space, essentially segregate such configurations from continuous space by our minds, thereby rendering them discrete, then adjusting our senses to sense them as individual things. Essentially: holograms, with infinitely more resolution than humans can muster. ", is not correct and sounds a lot like Plato’s Forms or some of the Idealism following Descartes and Kant.

I apologize for calling it " jibberish, " because, though it may be incorrect, to demean it doesn’t win any arguments. I think Thomas has the correct idea. The object of the intellect is a concept of the form as it exists in real things. The senses receive the data supplied by extra mental reality, and the intellect associates this data and turns it into an image or idea or concept which reflects reality.

Linus2nd

I hope that clears up any questions.

 

[shoe]

It seems to me a more reasonable thing to believe that an incorporeal and all-powerful God created the world ex nihilo than it is to believe that nothing had formed the universe ex nihilo. Creation ex nihilo is not the same thing as pulling a rabbit out of the hat, planting vegetable seeds in a garden, or changing one material object into another one. Rather, ex nihilo is the creative act that marked the beginning of the universe: and logically it’s a creative work that only an omnipotent and eternal God necessarily outside time and space has the power to do. “With God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26) because the Omnipotent God is the God of possibilities.

I imagine, though, that if the universe were incorporeal and had existed beyond time and space and, therefore, had no beginning, the universe probably then would be without the need of a cause for its beginning - just like God.

But the first law of thermodynamics teaches that the universe had a beginning, and that it could neither have created itself nor possibly give an account of its own existence. But since God who is Spirit by nature, and therefore not subject to the limitations of time, space, and mass (and transcends them) does not require a beginning, and consequently does not require a cause.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Linux:

I began a thread with my causal argument for the existence of a supreme being. It addresses the question you raised to begin with, but in a lengthy manner to cumbersome for some forum members. I appreciate there are time constraints to everyone’s lives and they can only spend so much time wandering about on this forum.

I think the distinction between the terms something and nothing points to a persistent problem of language. These words are human constructs but they are human constructs intended to convey a meaning or understanding of something. Butt how do we transfer that meaning that we apply to these words ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ to reality?

I think it is a mistake to transfer the common sensed definition of nothing over in to a definition of reality. The glass is empty, there is nothing in it. Or my bank account has nothing in it. These are realities, yes, but these realities pertain to our practical experience. The problem of how God created all things out of nothing, if that’s what we are to call it, reaches beyond the world of our practical experience. And I think we make the mistake of transferring the word nothing over in to this cosmological problem.

The question however is important. I prefer to throw out the common sensed idea of nothing, and reason rather, that creation emerged not from nothing, but from an ultimately first, most original first state that only approximated most closely, a total absence of complexity. This most original first state must have had within it the potential for all more complex states to emerge, or be created. It was not simply nothing.

There is the further problem in this regard that apologists have never been able to overcome, or resolve: If God created all things from some ultimately original, first state, who created God? How do we explain the existence of a pre-existent Eternal Being? If we posit such a Being all we do is replace one question with another question.

Atheists will not be satisfied with this evasion.

The only way around the problem posed by the idea of nothing, is to propose that there is no such thing as a state that we can call an Absolute nothing.

And if we need to posit God as the beginning of all things, all we can allow as an attribute of such a Being, is the attribute of the Absolute. This was Hegel’s approach. He did not go any further than to define God as the Absolute. Was God then an Absolute, most simple Being, in relation to an Absolutely most simple beginning? And how then did all things emerge from this ultimate simplicity to the complexity we experience now?

These reflections are the only way I think we can begin to make sense of the problem you raised with this thread.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linux:

I began a thread with my causal argument for the existence of a supreme being. It addresses the question you raised to begin with, but in a lengthy manner to cumbersome for some forum members. I appreciate there are time constraints to everyone’s lives and they can only spend so much time wandering about on this forum.

I think the distinction between the terms something and nothing points to a persistent problem of language. These words are human constructs but they are human constructs intended to convey a meaning or understanding of something. Butt how do we transfer that meaning that we apply to these words ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ to reality?

I think it is a mistake to transfer the common sensed definition of nothing over in to a definition of reality. The glass is empty, there is nothing in it. Or my bank account has nothing in it. These are realities, yes, but these realities pertain to our practical experience. The problem of how God created all things out of nothing, if that’s what we are to call it, reaches beyond the world of our practical experience. And I think we make the mistake of transferring the word nothing over in to this cosmological problem.

The question however is important. I prefer to throw out the common sensed idea of nothing, and reason rather, that creation emerged not from nothing, but from an ultimately first, most original first state that only approximated most closely, a total absence of complexity. This most original first state must have had within it the potential for all more complex states to emerge, or be created. It was not simply nothing.

There is the further problem in this regard that apologists have never been able to overcome, or resolve: If God created all things from some ultimately original, first state, who created God? How do we explain the existence of a pre-existent Eternal Being? If we posit such a Being all we do is replace one question with another question.

Atheists will not be satisfied with this evasion.

The only way around the problem posed by the idea of nothing, is to propose that there is no such thing as a state that we can call an Absolute nothing.

And if we need to posit God as the beginning of all things, all we can allow as an attribute of such a Being, is the attribute of the Absolute. This was Hegel’s approach. He did not go any further than to define God as the Absolute. Was God then an Absolute, most simple Being, in relation to an Absolutely most simple beginning? And how then did all things emerge from this ultimate simplicity to the complexity we experience now?

These reflections are the only way I think we can begin to make sense of the problem you raised with this thread.

It is only a problem for folks like the O.P. It is no problem for good Thomists. Only God can answer that question and He is not likely to do so, now or in eternity. Why must we insist on an answer?

Your reasoning for disregarding the " common sense " notion of " nothing " has no compelling merit.

Catholics of course cannot accept you redefinition of " nothing " as a premordial state of " near nothing." The Catholic Church means by " ex nihilo " a state of non-being, purely and simply. And this is a good argument for suggesting that all Christians should become Catholic. Because only the Catholic Church offers De Fide teaching on such things. Scripture alone is too often misinterpreted.

Why should we feel compelled to offer to Aheists arguments which they will accept, if that means we must abandon our Faith?

Might I suggest you read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. He explains Thomas just about as good as any one I know outside of Etienne Gilson. It is short and reasonably priced and is available in most county or big city libraries.

Or you could go to Thomas himself. Most of his works are available, in English, online. You spent a lot of time trying to understand Kant and Hegal, why not give Thomas equal time?

Linus2nd

 

[SoylentGreen]

Your reasoning for disregarding the " common sense " notion of " nothing " has no compelling merit …

Why should we feel compelled to offer to Aheists arguments which they will accept, if that means we must abandon our Faith?

Or you could go to Thomas himself. Most of his works are available, in English, online. You spent a lot of time trying to understand Kant and Hegal, why not give Thomas equal time? Linus2nd

I’ll find some texts online, or pick up a book and read up on him.

I’m in agreement with Kant, who stated with respect to metaphysics, that “the magic wand of so-called common sense” is as out of place here as it is in mathematics, or geometry. Metaphysics deals with cosmological questions that reach beyond the practical world of experience where the idea of nothing has a practical purpose and a meaning. In metaphysics this practical notion of nothing leads to such obstacles as the first antinomy, which happens to be grounded on the common sensed notion of nothing. So here, I find disagreement with Kant; though Kant also asked his critical reader to devote to this antinomy of pure reason his ‘chief attention.’ This meant Kant perhaps saw that there was a way to overcome this obstacle, that is, through the use of reason.

I don’t understand your point with regard to a need for abandoning your faith. On what grounds would this be even remotely necessary?

Wouldn’t we need to trace the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew terms interpreted as ‘nothing’ in order to come to a more accurate interpretation of scripture?

Dogmatic interpretations of various terms in scripture can lead to conflicts in reason. But I do not think scripture in any way conflicts with reason. I think reason is fully compatible with scripture. The conflicts arise through our fallible interpretations, as with the meaning we attribute to such words as nothing. There is no basis here for any Catholic abandoning their faith. There are only grounds here to reflect further.

The reason I think Hegel is relevant here is because for him also, there was not simply a nothing from which all else arose. Rather, he equates this not-being with being–and he synthesized the two opposites. I believe Hegel was on the right track toward resolving the problem and this is because his thinking avoids the dogmatic conflicts that arise from either/or reasoning. Example: Either there is nothing, or there is something. And there is no way the two sides can ever meet. For reason to prevail these terms are in need of further qualification and analysis. So I retain the position that ‘nothing’ is in further need of analysis, and reflection, in order for reason to prevail, and in order for the conflict to be overcome. The conflict here is: Only nothing can arise from nothing. I also think there is a way here for reason to defend our belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, which is exactly what I have done in formulating my own argument for the existence of a Supreme Being. It provides a defense of theism and faith. It in no manner can be viewed as a threat to theism, faith, or anything held to be true by the Catholic faith.

I’ll read up on Thomas and I’m betting I can find something that puts him more in agreement with Hegel and perhaps even Kant, as opposed to in conflict with these philosophers; as well as my own argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ll find some texts online, or pick up a book and read up on him.

I’m in agreement with Kant, who stated with respect to metaphysics, that “the magic wand of so-called common sense” is as out of place here as it is in mathematics, or geometry. Metaphysics deals with cosmological questions that reach beyond the practical world of experience where the idea of nothing has a practical purpose and a meaning. In metaphysics this practical notion of nothing leads to such obstacles as the first antinomy, which happens to be grounded on the common sensed notion of nothing. So here, I find disagreement with Kant; though Kant also asked his critical reader to devote to this antinomy of pure reason his ‘chief attention.’ This meant Kant perhaps saw that there was a way to overcome this obstacle, that is, through the use of reason.

I think Edward Feser will change your mind. And if you actually do read Thomas, himself, I think you may think differently. And I disagree with your analysis. I don’t believe Kant ever read Thomas but rather depended on his many " Enlightment " detractors who never bothered to read him either. This is something Feser points out, as well as others.

I don’t understand your point with regard to a need for abandoning your faith. On what grounds would this be even remotely necessary?

One cannot be a Catholic in good standing and reject the teachings of the Church. Your argument makes the assumption that the world had no absolute beginning in time at the hand of God. That is contrary to Defined Catholic Dogma. No Catholic in good standing can agree with that.

Wouldn’t we need to trace the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew terms interpreted as ‘nothing’ in order to come to a more accurate interpretation of scripture?

Are you suggesting that neither ST. Thomas, nor the early Scholastics understood their Greek, Hebrew, or their Latin? That is certainly an unwarranted slight, to express it polite terms.

Dogmatic interpretations of various terms in scripture can lead to conflicts in reason. But I do not think scripture in any way conflicts with reason. I think reason is fully compatible with scripture. The conflicts arise through our fallible interpretations, as with the meaning we attribute to such words as nothing. There is no basis here for any Catholic abandoning their faith. There are only grounds here to reflect further.

What you are suggestion is mere rationalization. The Church has caused no conflict with reason. Certain men, historically, have chosen to take issue with Church teaching. To justify their positions they have fabricated plausable rationalizations. Naturally you would say just what you did because you also disagree with the Church, you cannot reconcile your position with Church teaching, so you rationalize, you fabricate a plausable excuse.

The reason I think Hegel is relevant here is because for him also, there was not simply a nothing from which all else arose. Rather, he equates this not-being with being–and he synthesized the two opposites. I believe Hegel was on the right track toward resolving the problem and this is because his thinking avoids the dogmatic conflicts that arise from either/or reasoning. Example: Either there is nothing, or there is something. And there is no way the two sides can ever meet. For reason to prevail these terms are in need of further qualification and analysis. So I retain the position that ‘nothing’ is in further need of analysis, and reflection, in order for reason to prevail, and in order for the conflict to be overcome. The conflict here is: Only nothing can arise from nothing. I also think there is a way here for reason to defend our belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, which is exactly what I have done in formulating my own argument for the existence of a Supreme Being. It provides a defense of theism and faith. It in no manner can be viewed as a threat to theism, faith, or anything held to be true by the Catholic faith.

Again, I reject your position and repeat that no good Catholic can hold it. Your argument provides no defense for theism and Christian Faith.

I’ll read up on Thomas and I’m betting I can find something that puts him more in agreement with Hegel and perhaps even Kant, as opposed to in conflict with these philosophers; as well as my own argument.

You might also read up some on the Catholic Faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church will help you understand Catholics better.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Linus2nd

Read the following post.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Solvent Green

O.K., I looked at your diagram. You begin with a huge assumption that cannot be proven and never will be proven. That is , your " causal principal, " your simplest of all states, which you identify as the " singularity " of space-time-mass-mind, unified and undifferentiated. Forgive me if I regard this as nothing but the product of a very active imagination. It does seem to be inspired by the theories surrounding the so called " Big Bang."

First, I must point out that your " simplest of all states " is contrary to Defined Catholic Dogma. And for other Christians, it may successfully be argued , it is also against the teaching of Scripture. Catholics at least cannot accept such an explanation of the " beginning " of the created universe of the full range of created substances, the material and the spiritual.

Secondly, you identify the beginning state of affairs as the unified but undifferentiated " singularity " of space-time-mass-mind. " Mind cannot be identified with space-time-mass, no matter how you define " mind. " Again, Catholics and Christains cannot accept this. But you are just asserting it, you cannot prove that such is the case.

Thirdly, where is God in all this ? And how do you define Him? I don’t see any argument attempting to demonstrate His existence. And none demonstrating His causality. So again, why would any Christian, Jew, or Muslim be interested in what you have so laboriously crafted?

Again, as I said in another post, you have redefined " nothing. " It is no longer the " ex nihilo " of the Bible or of Catholic Dogma, nor is it anything Thomas Aquinas would recognize. It is no longer " nothing, " it is a unified but undifferentiated " something. "

Finally, you try to pass this off as an a priori argument. But even a priori arguements must begin with undisputed facts, not speculations.

 

[Linux]

In which case, I would maintain that in fact the onus is on you to show that this is the case, and not the other way round. For in order to declare that something is “metaphysically impossible” you would have to show that it entails a logical contradiction. As it stands, it seems to me that your thesis (that creation ex nihilo somehow “violates” an absolute distinction between something and nothing) is a bare assertion. I would hold that there is no logical contradiction involved in holding that a Being infinite in power could bring something into existence from nothing. If this does entail a logical contradiction, then I think you need to show how that is the case. And if something cannot come from nothing, I presume you hold therefore that matter has always existed. In which case there is a further onus on you to reconcile the well-known logical difficulties with holding to an infinite sequence of contingent being.

The onus is not on me but in fact it is on you, because there is nothing self-evident about the concept of infinite power that should suggest to me that it is possible for God to turn a negation of a particular being into an objective ontological act of existing (without the use of any existing material) any-more than it is possible for a wizard to pull a rabbit out of a hat from nothing at all.

You haven’t show the link between Gods infinite power and the possibility of creating out of nothing, you just assume there is a rational link; and that there is the bare assertion.

The problem is self evident and is simply being ignored or evaded with fallacies.

If there is no materials from which to create, then there is nothing from which to create an act of existing, and out of nothing comes nothing.

God would have to literally turn nothing (an absolute negation of particular beings) into something (particular acts of reality); which violates the absolute distinction between existence and non-existence. Or in other-words it contradicts the principle that **out of nothing comes nothing.
**

If it is not out of God or energy that creation is born, then from where does it come from? Nowhere?

There is obviously a logical problem involved in that concept. And there is no point pretending that there isn’t.

I count among those who are strong enough to accept the fact that there is a logical problem and instead of evading the issue I am happy to count myself among those who actually attempt to provide a solution instead of asserting that I have no responsibility to provide one.

 

[utunumsint]

Wouldn’t the necessity of a pre-existing material introduce a potentiality in God? So God would **need ** matter in order to actualize his will? Thus what you would get is a limited God? This would seem to contract the Christian notion of God.

Perhaps you can get around this problem by asserting that God eternally keeps matter in existence, but that still makes God the source of matter. You just push the problem outside the bounds of linear time. What does God use to “make matter?”

God bless,
Ut

 

[hicetnunc]

I count among those who are strong enough to accept the fact that there is a logical problem and instead of evading the issue I am happy to count myself among those who actually attempt to provide a solution instead of asserting that I have no responsibility to provide one.

I’m glad to hear that Linux: in which case, I invite you to put action to your words. Allow me to explain why I believe you do indeed have such a responsibility.

Imagine in an argument, someone makes a proposition, P1. By way of rebuttal argument, the interlocutor makes a counter argument, P2. Now either P2 is sufficient to refute P1, or only seems to. In which case, the first disputant in the argument puts forward P3, to clarify the point, respond to the criticisms, and so to move the argument on. Then perhaps we move to P4, and then P5, and so on. This is how dialogue in philosophy works, and how we might move collectively to an understanding of the truth.

One often finds on this forum and elsewhere people proposing arguments, such as your OP, calling into question some element of theology or philosophy such as whether or not God could create something from nothing. And these criticisms are posted as though they are somehow novel insights, as though no philosopher has ever thought about them before, or never made or attempted any refutation or reply. They keep returning to P1 as though that represents the current state of the argument, whereas we may in fact be at P5, 6 or 7. A case in point is the old chestnut, “If everything needs a cause, then what caused God?” Atheists often inject this into arguments as though somehow no one has ever thought of this before or made a reply to this. In fact, it betrays a total lack of understanding for the causal argument and an appreciation for its development. I believe that there is indeed an onus on people who wish to enter into a discussion on these things to show at least some awareness of the arguments involved, and to provide a reply to the current state of the argument without incessantly wanting to start all over again at P1 as though this could be the only possible starting point for any argument.

Your argument that God could not create something from nothing is not a new one. In fact, it was a rather robust and healthy debate in the 13th and 14th centuries. St Thomas Aquinas for example has already considered your objection to creation ex nihilo, and made a substantive reply to it. You can find his reply to your argument in the Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei, question III, a.1 and following. There, in one of the objections he addresses, he specifically handles the question whether or not there is an absolute distinction between nothing and being. You can find it here:

dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdePotentia.htm#3:1

I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask you to make some kind of reply to the argument as it has developed and to respond to the reply to your objection without treating the question as though it has never been addressed before. I would be very happy to discuss with you any objections you have to the arguments put forward in the Potentia Dei.

What do you think?

 

[Linux]

Wouldn’t the necessity of a pre-existing material introduce a potentiality in God? So God would **need ** matter in order to actualize his will? Thus what you would get is a limited God? This would seem to contract the Christian notion of God.

Perhaps you can get around this problem by asserting that God eternally keeps matter in existence, but that still makes God the source of matter. You just push the problem outside the bounds of linear time. What does God use to “make matter?”

God bless,
Ut

If it is in fact true that pre-existing materials is in fact required, it would seem to imply a potentiality in God.

But as you said it could be the case that the existence of an eternal pre-existing material is both necessary (in terms of creating the universe) and at the same time contingent upon Gods existence for its existential sustenance (in respect of its existence). This would not preclude God as a timeless creator. But I am not sure that this idea works since this material would still involve change and therefore would involve the actualisation of potentiality. Potentiality in and of its self is in fact nothing at all; it is merely the distinction of what could be in relation to what actually is.

In any case I am not in fact saying that creatio ex nihilo is impossible. I am saying that the creation of a new act of existing is impossible. I of course believe in the real and absolute distinction between esse and contingent essences and do not merely hold it to be a purely abstract distinction between the nature of a thing and the existence of a thing.

I believe creation exnihilo is only possible if God is the very act of existing itself, and by being so he can conjoin his act with the abstract “idea” of a potential essence. Thus while God is the act of our “existing”, we are still truly distinct where it really matters in respect of the fact that we have our own essence(for example God is not himself a dog or a parrot even though he is identical to our act of existing). Thus the thing that passes from potentiality to actuality is not the act of existence, but rather it is the act of our essence that moves from abstraction to actuality by being conjoined to God’s actuality.

 

[utunumsint]

In any case I am not in fact saying that creatio ex nihilo is impossible. I am saying that the creation of a new act of existing is impossible. I of course believe in the real and absolute distinction between esse and contingent essences and do not merely hold it to be a purely abstract distinction between the nature of a thing and the existence of a thing.

I believe creation exnihilo is only possible if God is the very act of existing itself, and by being so he can conjoin his act with the abstract “idea” of a potential essence. Thus while God is the act of our “existing”, we are still truly distinct where it really matters in respect of the fact that we have our own essence(for example God is not himself a dog or a parrot even though he is identical to our act of existing). Thus the thing that passes from potentiality to actuality is not the act of existence, but rather it is the act of our essence that moves from abstraction to actuality by being conjoined to God’s actuality.

But can’t we say something similar with reference to God’s power alone? We are, only because God wills us to be. So there is a link there in terms of will. “In the beginning, God said, let there be light… etc…” I would say that act of willing creates in us… in his creation, an image of the one who wills. God. But certainly, not an exhaustive image. And certainly an image that can be distorted by our own free will beyond all recognition.

Perhaps we are saying the same thing though. You say “the very act of existing itself”. God’s power is nothing other than Himself since he is pure actuality. But no individual, and I suspect, creation itself does not exhaust the infinite being of God. That exchange only occurs in the Trinity.

My two cents anyway.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linux]

I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask you to make some kind of reply to the argument as it has developed and to respond to the reply to your objection without treating the question as though it has never been addressed before. I would be very happy to discuss with you any objections you have to the arguments put forward in the Potentia Dei.

What do you think?

You can of course get involved in this debate or not at all. You are merely passing the buck and asserting that Aquinas has already given a viable solution to the problem I presented…

You are making an argument from authority, with the assumption that the source of your authority presents a valid rebuttal to the OP.

You asked for my reasoning for why I think it to be impossible to create a new distinct act of existing. I gave you my reasoning on the matter, reasons which are in fact self evident in themselves to any rational person, and you have brushed them of with this so so story about my ignorance about past debates on the subject.

Why don’t you directly address the points that I have made instead of asserting an air of superiority on the subject.

The onus is not on me but in fact it is on you, because there is nothing self-evident about the concept of infinite power that should suggest to me that it is possible for God to turn a negation of a particular being into an objective ontological act of existing (without the use of any existing material) any-more than it is possible for a wizard to pull a rabbit out of a hat from nothing at all.

You haven’t show the link between Gods infinite power and the possibility of creating out of nothing, you just assume there is a rational link; and that there is the bare assertion.

The problem is self evident and is simply being ignored or evaded with fallacies.

If there is no materials from which to create, then there is nothing from which to create an act of existing, and out of nothing comes nothing.

God would have to literally turn nothing (an absolute negation of particular beings) into something (particular acts of reality); which violates the absolute distinction between existence and non-existence. Or in other-words it contradicts the principle that **out of nothing comes nothing.
**

If it is not out of God or energy that creation is born, then from where does it come from? Nowhere?

There is obviously a logical problem involved in that concept. And there is no point pretending that there isn’t.

I count among those who are strong enough to accept the fact that there is a logical problem and instead of evading the issue I am happy to count myself among those who actually attempt to provide a solution instead of asserting that I have no responsibility to provide one.

 

[hicetnunc]

Why don’t you directly address the points that I have made instead of asserting an air of superiority on the subject.

Sorry you feel that way Linux. No offense meant.

All the best.