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

[Linusthe2nd]

This comment adds to the suspicion that you are truly a materialist. “God is no part of His creatures” . Good grief, man, what happened to the spiritual part of me that forms my soul? Isn’t that part of ME and isn’t that part of the Holy Spirit. Or do you believe that the spiritual nature of the soul is some ethereal substance other than the same substance that is the Holy Spirit, and what could that possibly be? And, “they are no part of Him”. What happened to God’s omnipresence? And have I been misunderstanding the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ". And Linus, please no name calling; no shouting “Pantheist”!

You are confusing the ontological composition of created substancs, which would include the human soul and separtated substances ( angels ) with scantifying grace. Scantifying grace is not part of the ontological structure of created substances. The Catechism clearly states that God creates each soul. And while Thomas defines the soul as a substance, he says that it is not a complete substance because its proper function is as the substantial form of each human being. So I repeat, God is no part of His creatures. This is what St. Thomas taught, this is what the Church adheres to. Please read my post 17, that will clarify.

Middle grounds are pipe dreams. Really? Is this Defined Catholic Dogma, if it is someone better inform the Vatican

Of course not, there is no middle ground between truth and untrurth. I have read the encyclical and agree with it completely.

Perhaps, “Not shouting. Pontificationg!”
Yppop
P.S. I pretty much concur with the rest of your comments.

Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[JDaniel]

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. "

Linusthe:

I would remove the two words, time and mass, only. Time is no more than a correlative of motion. Pure and simple. Mass, if it is anything more than an infinitely high resolution hologram (IOW, a specific configuration of point particles), is merely aggregates of mobile beings.

Again, Catholics and Christains cannot accept this. But you are just asserting it, you cannot prove that such is the case.

I am sure that you are not an integral part of the Magisterium, but, be that as it may.

Thirdly, where is God in all this ? And how do you define Him?

I define Him as Infinite Nothingness, aka, entirely His Mind.

I don’t see any argument attempting to demonstrate His existence.

Actually all of this demonstrates his existence.

And none demonstrating His causality.

Remember, to us Catholics, causality and Creation are two very different actions - the only things they have in common is that their results did not exist in their ultimate forms prior to or before each act, except possibly as possibilities, in the Will of God.

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.

Yes. And we can show that God creates from his Will, and His Will contains possibilities, although not prior-in-time. (I wonder how God considers everything precisely simultaneously, yet knows them separately! - My own muse. )

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

Two compelling reasons:

1.) Upon the attainment of our afterlife, hopefully angelic, the Church says that we will be infused with all knowledge. (I presume that means all knowledge of a physical nature, not all of God’s knowledge.)

2.) We insist on answers precisely because God gave us minds and thought. Did he give these faculties and abilities to us just so that we wouldn’t use them?

His definition, or, re-definition, if you prefer, needs some tweaking, but, we need not throw the whole baby out, too.

God bless,
jd

I agree with every thing you said, except I think his notion of the act of existence can only be " twiked " if it is brought completely in line whith what Thomas taught. And while I think Thomas is correct, it a defficult concept to understand and we are, in no way, required to accept it. Duns Scotus and others, even of the Dominican School, either discarded it or completely ignored it, or treated it in such a way that it could not be recognized ( here say only, but from impecable sources like Etienne Gilson.).

Linus2nd

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Linux:

The notion of God as “infinite Nothingness” resolves this problem. From his Will, God creates point particles, which he embeds into his Infinite Space, which are then expanded (from that singular point [singularity]) into an expanding lattice of point particles, enmeshed in continuous space, which can be configured in regions into singular configurations, segregating continuous space into discrete spaces, which we perceive as “things.”

(Not necessarily an easy thing to render into English.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Quote]
Originally Posted by 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. "

Linusthe:

I would remove the two words, time and mass, only. Time is no more than a correlative of motion. Pure and simple. Mass, if it is anything more than an infinitely high resolution hologram (IOW, a specific configuration of point particles), is merely aggregates of mobile beings.

The Church teaches De Fide that God created all creatures in time ex nihilo, That means from no prior existing anything, not even waves or empty space, from nothing, purely and simply. To clarify this point I think you would profit from looking to see what Fr. Robert Spitzer has to say here: magisreasonfaith.org/

Again, Catholics and Christains cannot accept this. But you are just asserting it, you cannot prove that such is the case.

I am sure that you are not an integral part of the Magisterium, but, be that as it may.

No, I am certainly not a part of the Magisterium. But, as Catholic, I have as much right to correct an error committed in public, if it touches Catholic Doctrine, as any other Catholic. That is part of what it means to Evangelize to the Truth.

Thirdly, where is God in all this ? And how do you define Him?

I define Him as Infinite Nothingness, aka, entirely His Mind.

The question was addressed to Solvent Green. His argument doesn’t mention Him.

I don’t see any argument attempting to demonstrate His existence.

Actually all of this demonstrates his existence.

I would be happy to be instructed because I don’t see any.

And none demonstrating His causality.

Remember, to us Catholics, causality and Creation are two very different actions - the only things they have in common is that their results did not exist in their ultimate forms prior to or before each act, except possibly as possibilities, in the Will of God.

But that is not what the Diagram suggests. Not at all. He has described a universe that , in his opinion, does not require God. His universe is nearly a mirror twin to that proposed by Stephen Hawking and others.

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.

Yes. And we can show that God creates from his Will, and His Will contains possibilities, although not prior-in-time. (I wonder how God considers everything precisely simultaneously, yet knows them separately! - My own muse. )

And…?

Linus2nd

 

[JDaniel]

I am stuck with the term Absolute, and prefer Hegel’s reasoning here. If there is a God, which I firmly believe there is, the Absolute is an appropriate way of defining God. This is similar to stating this Being has existence in and of itself; whereas all else that is not Absolute, does not have existence in and of itself. Only the Absolute is a Necessary, unconditional Being. All else is conditional and not necessary.

I also see the Absolute Being of God as Infinite since I view the terms Absolute and Infinite as synonymous.

To clarify my view here: If the whole of the created universe were done away with, the Absolute would still remain. It is not possible to do away with the Absolute; and if one were to argue that if all things were done away with we would have only nothing; I would argue that no we do not have nothing. What we have is the Absolute. There are no conditions or arbitrary limitations we could impose on the idea, for instance of an Absolute, even if we were to define this as an Absolute Void. There is still in this the Absolute, and the Absolute allows for all else to come into being. This is the same as to say that the Absolute, as a pure definition of God, cannot cease to exist.

With this I am avoiding the complexity and the pretense of attributing to God those characteristics that apologists take for granted–that is they have in mind characteristics of God that leave them open to the question of where these complex characteristics came from. How does one rationally defend the idea of such a complex Being? Where I leave only the Absolute I have no such further question in my own mind as to how the Absolute came to be. The Absolute is the beginning of all things. If God is the beginning of all things, I can defend my belief in such a God by thinking here of God as this Absolute, that is, as a necessarily existing Being with neither beginning nor end.

Is there some way this can be incorporated into your thinking as expressed above?

I think there was an ultimate beginning to all things; and this beginning can be defined in terms of this idea of the Absolute, which can then be rooted back to the Idea of God, and what we mean by such an original Being.

My thinking however is not altogether explained here. I also view God’s Being as emergent, in a somewhat similar sense to how all life has emerged from previous states; as well as an ultimate state of simplicity; though God’s Spirit and Being has preceded all else and made possible all else. I believe God’s understanding/knowledge/creative capacity has emerged, along with creation, from an ultimately simple state to the state of complexity that exists at present; that God’s complexity has increased through the sheer act of exercising His creative powers, and I believe this creation is being purposefully directed to an inevitable end that God has in mind for the whole of creation.

SG:

I think I agree with everything except this last paragraph. If God is “emergent” then God must proceed one after the other, as subway cars proceed through a subway system. That implies motion. But, God is Infinite and without potency, therefore, immobile. His thoughts cannot stream as though they are mobile, although he undoubtedly has some way of knowing that they are sequentialistic, though not sequential.

What response would you make to that?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

See my bolding above. Based on my understanding of Church teaching and some of the references to Thomas made by other posters, the statement that our soul is part of the Holy Spirit is completely in error. The soul was created by God. It cannot be any kind of re-forming of a portion of God as God has no parts.

David:

Re-read what Yppop said. He is not making a statement that “we are part of the Holy Spirit.” He is comparing the concept of Holy Spirit with the concept of the spirits of men. Think it through: if God is infinite then he must occupy precisely the same place as space!

God is said to be within us, and within all things, numerous times in Catholic dogma and the Bible. I believe that he is, but how? Now, that in no way extrapolates to mean that we are a part of him, does it?

I don’t mean to be argumentative with a fellow Christian. I just want to introduce a little clarity.

God bless,
jd

 

[davidv]

David:

Re-read what Yppop said. He is not making a statement that “we are part of the Holy Spirit.”

How else am I to interprete the plain meaning of his words?

yppop:

Good grief, man, what happened to the spiritual part of me that forms my soul? Isn’t that part of ME and isn’t that part of the Holy Spirit.

He is comparing the concept of Holy Spirit with the concept of the spirits of men. Think it through: if God is infinite then he must occupy precisely the same place as space!

God is said to be within us, and within all things, numerous times in Catholic dogma and the Bible. I believe that he is, but how? Now, that in no way extrapolates to mean that we are a part of him, does it?

I don’t mean to be argumentative with a fellow Christian. I just want to introduce a little clarity.

God bless,
jd

I don’t take it as argumentative. None of the above explains why my original interpretation is incorrect.

 

[JDaniel]

yppop;10957035:

This comment adds to the suspicion that you are truly a materialist. “God is no part of His creatures” . Good grief, man, what happened to the spiritual part of me that forms my soul? Isn’t that part of ME and isn’t that part of the Holy Spirit. Or do you believe that the spiritual nature of the soul is some ethereal substance other than the same substance that is the Holy Spirit, and what could that possibly be? And, “they are no part of Him”. What happened to God’s omnipresence? And have I been misunderstanding the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ". And Linus, please no name calling; no shouting “Pantheist”!

You are confusing the ontological composition of created substance, which would include the human soul and separated substances ( angels ) with sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is not part of the ontological structure of created substances. The Catechism clearly states that God creates each soul. And while Thomas defines the soul as a substance, he says that it is not a complete substance because its proper function is as the substantial form of each human being. So I repeat, God is no part of His creatures. This is what St. Thomas taught, this is what the Church adheres to. Please read my post 17, that will clarify.

Linus:

Did you pen this late last night, that is, very early this morning? LOL

Where does St. Thomas define the “soul as a substance?” St. Thomas sees the soul as the composite of Form and Matter, resulting in individuation, an “individual,” this man, or that man. That is the substantial form of each human being.

So, for you God is not within all things?

From John Paul II’s encyclical, “Fides et Ratio”.
14.* From the teaching of the two Vatican Councils there also emerges a genuinely novel consideration for philosophical learning. Revelation has set within history a point of reference which cannot be ignored if the mystery of human life is to be known. Yet this knowledge refers back constantly to the mystery of God which the human mind cannot exhaust but can only receive and embrace in faith. Between these two poles, reason has its own specific field in which it can inquire and understand, restricted only by its finiteness before the infinite mystery of God.*

What does the above statement mean to you?

God bless,
jd

 

[catholictiger]

i’m sure your looking for a more complex answer but I don’t think one is needed.

How does God created something out of nothing (exactly how he did it no-one knows)? He is God nothing is impossible for God.

 

[JDaniel]

The Church teaches De Fide that God created all creatures in time ex nihilo, That means from no prior existing anything, not even waves or empty space, from nothing, purely and simply. To clarify this point I think you would profit from looking to see what Fr. Robert Spitzer has to say here: magisreasonfaith.org/

Linus:

I have the good Father’s book and have read it several times. When the Church says, “that God created all creatures in time ex nihilo,” that does not mean that time preceded the creation. At the same instant that creation began to occur, motion, and therefore Time, began to occur. It is extraordinarily clear that prior to Creation (whatever that means) Time did not exist. Time is correlative with motion and the Creation (of mobile beings). Perhaps the foregoing clarifies it for you, if not, let me know.

No, I am certainly not a part of the Magisterium. But, as Catholic, I have as much right to correct an error committed in public, if it touches Catholic Doctrine, as any other Catholic.

Yes you do, providing that you, yourself, are not in error!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

How else am I to interprete the plain meaning of his words?

David:

“Good grief, man, what happened to the spiritual part of me that forms my soul? Isn’t that part of ME and isn’t that part of the Holy Spirit. Or do you believe that the spiritual nature of the soul is some ethereal substance other than the same substance that is the Holy Spirit, and what could that possibly be?”
Interpret it as: “the spirit: isn’t it part of ME, and isn’t that (the spirit) part of the Holy Spirit?” Or, does God make two different “spirits?” If that is the case, then are we to believe that we are inhabited by an alien? I interpret it as two separate concepts. In other words, Spirit = Spirit. I think the same word was chosen by the translators because there was a similarity, perhaps even more than a simple similarity from the original writing. It’s difficult to simplify what is very complex, with that I agree, but, think it through.

Yppop, correct me if I am wrong.

God bless, David
jd

 

[JDaniel]

i’m sure your looking for a more complex answer but I don’t think one is needed.

How does God created something out of nothing (exactly how he did it no-one knows)? He is God nothing is impossible for God.

CT:

True. But, The Teachings of the Catholic Church is clear on this: God does not create out of nothing, God creates where there is/was nothing.

Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the “not-being” which is “not-man,” so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the “not-being” which is “nothing.” - Summa Theologica, THE MODE OF EMANATION OF THINGS FROM THE FIRST PRINCIPLE (EIGHT ARTICLES)

Difficult, but not impossible to understand.

God bless Sir Tiger,
jd

 

[catholictiger]

CT:

True. But, The Teachings of the Catholic Church is clear on this: God does not create out of nothing, God creates where there is/was nothing.

Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the “not-being” which is “not-man,” so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the “not-being” which is “nothing.” - Summa Theologica, THE MODE OF EMANATION OF THINGS FROM THE FIRST PRINCIPLE (EIGHT ARTICLES)

Difficult, but not impossible to understand.

God bless Sir Tiger,
jd

I see what you are getting at. makes sense

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus:

I have the good Father’s book and have read it several times. When the Church says, “that God created all creatures in time ex nihilo,” that does not mean that time preceded the creation. At the same instant that creation began to occur, motion, and therefore Time, began to occur. It is extraordinarily clear that prior to Creation (whatever that means) Time did not exist. Time is correlative with motion and the Creation (of mobile beings). Perhaps the foregoing clarifies it for you, if not, let me know.

Of course, time began with the creation. Did I say something to make you think I thought otherwise? You understand, don’t you that the Church does not use the term " mobile beings, " nor does it use the word " motion. " These are philosophical terms used by Aristotle and other early Greeks and St. Thomas and the Scholastic School.

Yes you do, providing that you, yourself, are not in error!

I hope I haven’t made any errors.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

i’m sure your looking for a more complex answer but I don’t think one is needed.

How does God created something out of nothing (exactly how he did it no-one knows)? He is God nothing is impossible for God.

God cannot do the logically impossible.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

CT:

True. But, The Teachings of the Catholic Church is clear on this: God does not create out of nothing, God creates where there is/was nothing.

Hence if the emanation of the whole universal being from the first principle be considered, it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the “not-being” which is “not-man,” so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the “not-being” which is “nothing.” - Summa Theologica, THE MODE OF EMANATION OF THINGS FROM THE FIRST PRINCIPLE (EIGHT ARTICLES)

Difficult, but not impossible to understand.

God bless Sir Tiger,
jd

J.D. This is the teaching of St. Thomas and it is crystical clear. However, the Church simply says : " 327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body."187( De Fide, Lateran Council, DS 800, cf, DS 3002 and Paul Vl, CpG, 8)

The whole section of the CCC, paras 279-349, should be read and studied so that one know exactly what the Church teaches and doesn’t.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God cannot do the logically impossible.

And obviously, it isn’t logically impossible because God did it!! Please read paragraphs 279 - 349 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is why Faith in Divine Revelation is so important. It provides a barrier to the attacks of skeptics, atheists, and the enemies of reason and truth. Our Lord said, " I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth. " He is the ground of all Truth, to which all human knowledge must be measured.

Linus2nd

 

[catholictiger]

God cannot do the logically impossible.

yes this is true I think.

but God has done some very absurd almost logically impossible things, and I don’t think we should put it out of the relm of God to make things that are logically impossible. It is close to being logically impossible that God could become man. How can something be finite and at the same time infinite. That is a contradiction which is arguably a logical impossibility, but none the less God became man. The infinite and the finite was contained in the same person at the same time.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

See my bolding above. Based on my understanding of Church teaching and some of the references to Thomas made by other posters, the statement that our soul is part of the Holy Spirit is completely in error. The soul was created by God. It cannot be any kind of re-forming of a portion of God as God has no parts.

And you are absolutely correct. Don’t let J.D., Linux, Solvent Green or anyone else tell you anything different. You should read and study carefully paragraphs 325-367 of the Catechism here: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P1A.HTM

This is a perfect illustration of what I meant in another thread that " Philosophy and Theology can Endanger the Soul. " The Church’s teaching is the ultimate measure against which all human endeavors to discover truth must be measured. If man does not have the humility to be guided by the truth the Church offers, he always winds up in error.

But some people, lacking humility, insist that they have some " special " access to truth.

Linus2nd