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

[Linux]

JD,
I don’t think that the other respondents in this thread or any number of other threads understand or grasp the amazing significances of what you are alluding to. I feel compelled to add to your thoughts with the following response (slightly altered)I made to another thread about a similar subject. I will only respond to anyone that has the least inkling of what we both understand as one of the more amazing characteristic of God, namely that we along with every particle of matter in the universe are immersed in the spiritual substance (that we refer to as infinite nothingness) that can only be described as the Mind of God, a mind that has thoughts, but thoughts of a different nature than ours.

Here is that response:
Creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing, is a fundamental doctrine of Catholicism. Furthermore, it is the position of Catholic theology that the Big Bang theory does not contradict the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo as long as the BB theory implies an absolute beginning.

The Big Bang theory states that not only did matter, time, and energy emerge from a singularity, but so too did the space that gives dimensionality to the universe.

How “space” emerged from whatever the singularity was immersed in can only be imagined by assuming two modalities of space. Our finite universe has a border (yeh, I know all about Einstein’s solution) that must be spatial.

This is not a problem because we can identify two modalities of space: the continuous and the discrete, both of which can be modeled mathematically. The Cantor-Dedekind axiom states that that the real numbers are order-isomorphic to the linear continuum of geometry. In other words the axiom states that there is a one to one correspondence between real numbers and points on a line. Cantor also showed that there are as many points on the real number line as there are in two or three-dimensional space. Hence all points in 3-dimensional space can be associated with the real numbers.

The real numbers, hence continuous space, are described by the second transfinite number, aleph-1. The rational numbers also lie on the real number line, are denumerable, and are described by the first transfinite number aleph-0. Rational numbers define discrete space.

The two modalities of space, discrete and continuous, allow us to explain the duality nature of reality. Objective reality, consisting of the physical elements space, time, matter, energy, is constructed from discrete space, while continuous space provides a spiritual aspect of reality.

Thus, the mathematical properties of the infinite allow us to describe a scenario in which discrete space is crunched into a singularity and is caused to emerge from continuous space.

Because [aleph(1) - aleph(0) = aleph(1)] an infinite amount of discrete space can be removed from an infinite amount of continuous space without changing continuous space one iota; God can create the universe (or an infinite number of universes) from His own substance without change. That is the nature of God, the Infinite.

Relative to God, aleph(0) is nihilo. Since discrete space characteristically has “gaps” between points, God can reduce the size of the gap so that an inordinate number of points fit into an infinitesimal volume, i.e., essentially “nothing”.

And even more so, God does not require an infinite number of “points” to create the universe, He does it with a very large but finite number of points of discrete space that we refer to as s-points.

To those skeptics that may bridle at the thought the matter is composed of some form of space, consider what string theory implies. Also consider that the typical atom whose material size is determined by the position of “point-particle” electrons, is 50,000 times the size of the nucleus and the nucleus is composed of “point-particle” quarks. In other words, matter is mostly empty space.

I contend that the empty space that provides the materiality is the continuous space that provides the spiritual aspect of reality. I call, the continuous space from which the universe emerged, infinite nothingness. It is the Mind of God. We are immersed in the Mind of God.

I contend that what I have presented may not be the truth; I offer it as a plausible “philosophical” explanation for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.

Yppop

I see what your getting at.

1. Space (including everything the universe is made of) has to exist in something.
2. It cannot exist in the negation of reality (space itself cannot be expanding into non-reality, as that would be incoherent).
3. Therefore it has to exist in Gods mind. (like you say we are immersed in Gods mind for which you use “infinite space” or “infinite nothingness” as an analogy?)

 

[Linux]

Also Yppop, why don’t scientist consider space itself as a Force that expands the universe as well as gravity? The more objects in space, the more it expands and causes neighbouring objects to move further away?

 

[empther]

Simple answer to the thread’s question:

We don’t know how God can create something where there was nothing.

Of course we can say that God’s essence is existence, he is existence, he is om(name removed by moderator)otent,
he is his own existence etc etc etc etc
OK, but how does he create something where there was nothing?
We don’t know. Only God knows that. Only God can know.

And that’s as far as we can go on that quesiton.

 

[Linux]

Only God can know.

I don’t know that that’s true. All I know is that there is a logical problem that I want to solve. Saying that God creates a new “esse” does not make any sense to me since God is esse.

 

[Aloysium]

Space is not nothing; it is space.
It exists as space.
God is the source of everything and is in everything.
He is the cause of time, space and everything that exist inside and outside of it.
I get confused when people talk about God’s mind when my own is such a mystery.

 

[Linux]

Space is not nothing; it is space.
It exists as space.
God is the source of everything and is in everything.
He is the cause of time, space and everything that exist inside and outside of it.
I get confused when people talk about God’s mind when my own is such a mystery.

Does God have an knowledge and a will? If so then he has a mind. Such a mind transcends our comprehension of a mind since we have only our minds as an analogous representation. But God can be said to have a mind nonetheless. The universe cannot exist in Nothing at all, and therefore it must exist in Gods mind since Gods esse is his mind, which is his will, which is his power etcetera etcetera.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Linux:

No i haven’t, since esse remains absolutely distinct from contingent essences even after being conjoined.

Its irrelevant. If in principle esse remains distinct from contingent essences, this does not change when we say that God is esse and can conjoin his esse to potential essences.

This may be so, but esse and essence are both equally and fully parts of the creature. It is not as though something’s esse is not a part of it. There is no getting around this. If God is the esse of contingent essences, then the beings thus created by this conjunction are thereby God. An essence does not really exist without an act of existence. God’s act of existence is God. It cannot not be God.

Of course, this says nothing as to whether or not you’re right, but you should at least concede that what you are arguing is not compatible with Catholicism. If not pantheism as traditionally conceived, it is something very close. Polypantheism, perhaps.

I would add to this that it seems to me impossible that two essences could share an act of existence. A thing cannot be both one thing and another.

 

[Linux]

This may be so, but esse and essence are both equally and fully parts of the creature.

False. A creature is only identical to its essence; it is not identical to esse. Thus esse is not a part of what it is essentially.

It is not as though something’s esse is not a part of it. There is no getting around this. If God is the esse of contingent essences, then the beings thus created by this conjunction are thereby God.

False. Esse does not become identical with an essence by being conjoined. Esse does not become apart of the whatness of a thing; it is absolutely distinct and remains distinct even after being conjoined.

Of course, this says nothing as to whether or not you’re right, but you should at least concede that what you are arguing is not compatible with Catholicism.

You haven’t given me a reason to.

If not pantheism as traditionally conceived, it is something very close. Polypantheism, perhaps.

It is neither of those things.

 

[Linux]

I would add to this that it seems to me impossible that two essences could share an act of existence. A thing cannot be both one thing and another.

Gods essence is “esse”. God is not an esse and an essence joined together. God is simply the act of existing. The act of existing is Gods essence. God is esse. So it is incorrect to speak of it as two essences sharing an esse as that would imply a distinction between Gods essence and Gods esse, which is false.

God is simply conjoining his nature (which is esse) with a potential essence.

 

[prodigalson2011]

False. A creature is only identical to its essence; it is not identical to esse. Thus esse is not a part of what it is essentially.

A clever bit of wordplay, but it doesn’t hold up:

“Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is, an equivalent of the to ti en einai of Aristotle (Metaph., VII, 7). The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu, ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is precisely what it is.”

A creature is a composite of essence (form) and existence (being). The esse is part of what it is, actually. A creature cannot be strictly identical to its essence because it has being, which its essence alone does not.

False. Esse does not become identical with an essence by being conjoined. Esse does not become apart of the whatness of a thing; it is absolutely distinct and remains distinct even after being conjoined.

I did not say that the esse and essence become identical by becoming conjoined. A bike frame and a tire are always distinct but they may be part of the same bike. But neither of them may be a part of two different bikes at once. Similarly, an essence and existence may be always distinct, but when both are participating in a creature, they are both fundamental parts of that creature. Take away the esse, and the creature is not there. An essence alone does not a creature make.

And so, it seems to me, as I went on to say in my addendum, a single esse cannot possess multiple essences. And though there is no distinction between essence and existence in God, both roles are nevertheless filled. It is his nature to be, and his being is his nature. His essence is his esse and his esse is his essence. In other words, his esse is not a blank slate. And even if it were, it poses quite a problem to suggest that multiple essences could be conjoined to it, as an esse assumes the form of its essence. A thing cannot be both black and white at the same time.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Gods essence is “esse”. God is not an esse and an essence joined together. God is simply the act of existing. The act of existing is Gods essence. God is esse. So it is incorrect to speak of it as two essences sharing an esse as that would imply a distinction between Gods essence and Gods esse, which is false.

God is simply conjoining his nature (which is esse) with a potential essence.

It does not imply any such thing. The fact of the matter is, even with no distinction between the two, God has both nature and existence. You cannot properly express his being without the use of both terms. And it follows that you cannot conjoin something to God’s act of existence without it taking on all the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) precisely because there is no distinction between esse and existence in God. To suggest otherwise is to say that God is a) divisible and b) mutable, inasmuch as a) his act of existence can be divided amongst innumerable natures and b) the totality of his act of existence (which includes the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) may be muted, by degrees, in the creatures it actualizes.

 

[prodigalson2011]

…precisely because there is no distinction between esse and existence in God…

This should read essence and existence, but you already knew that.

 

[Linux]

It does not imply any such thing. The fact of the matter is, even with no distinction between the two, God has both nature and existence.

God’s nature is the act of existing itself. That is why God is eternal because Gods nature is existence. God is not two things, one being an essence and the other being an esse.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Acts 17:28, where Paul states, “In him [God] we live and move and have our being.” And, Colossians 1:17, “in him [Jesus] all things hold together.”

If God stopped thinking about us we would cease to exist.

This is an interesting blog post linus.
2catholicmen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-tree-of-being.html

I read it but that has nothing to do with the topics you have raised in the course of three or four threads. The " Tree of Being " is an analogy. It does not mean that created being is part of the Being that is God, which is what you have postulated or that created being exists in the Mind of God, another of your postulations.

Linus2nd

 

[prodigalson2011]

God’s nature is the act of existing itself. That is why God is eternal because Gods nature is existence. God is not two things, one being an essence and the other being an esse.

No, he is not two things. Rather he is one simple thing which may be considered under many aspects, among which are nature and existence, along with the other transcendentals; all of which are simply different descriptions of being. You prove my case by demonstrating, again, that you cannot describe God’s being without reference to both existence and nature. Ergo, though they be one and the same, they are nevertheless in some sense both present within Him. You might say that His essence and existence are consubstantial.

And this is precisely my point: you are trying to isolate God’s act of existence as if it were not already fulfilling a nature. God’s existence is a self-fulfilling nature, and thus it is nevertheless fulfilled. It cannot take on the properties of another nature.

Again you have ignored the main thrust of my argument, choosing to isolate and decontextualize one part thereof. So I will repeat:

…you cannot conjoin something to God’s act of existence without it taking on all the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) precisely because there is no distinction between essence and existence in God. To suggest otherwise is to say that God is a) divisible and b) mutable, inasmuch as a) his act of existence can be divided amongst innumerable natures and b) the totality of his act of existence (which includes the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) may be muted, by degrees, in the creatures it actualizes.

 

[Aloysium]

Does God have an knowledge and a will? If so then he has a mind. Such a mind transcends our comprehension of a mind since we have only our minds as an analogous representation. But God can be said to have a mind nonetheless. The universe cannot exist in Nothing at all, and therefore it must exist in Gods mind since Gods esse is his mind, which is his will, which is his power etcetera etcetera.

My own mind is beyond my understanding.
What I do know is that it is relational.
I am relating to you, whomever you or I are. This experience is like a spark of human awareness between two ultimately unknowable poles
This is a rather broken (because of our fallen nature) image of the Trinity: where the Father, the Son and their mutual Love constitute God.
Maybe it is because I have a different idea of what my mind is like, that it is easier for me to conceptualize creation as not possessing the same being as God’s.
Thinking about this though, if it is all one being with different manifestations within that being, why are we talking about being at all? If everything has the same esse, isn’t esse a meaningless concept, especially if the concept of nothing is also meaningless. There would be no act of existing.
I seem to be confused again.

 

[Linux]

You prove my case by demonstrating, again, that you cannot describe God’s being without reference to both existence and nature.

This does not show a flaw in the ontological context of my argument, but rather its a limitation in language; yet still I know God is not two things, i.e an esse and an essence conjoined. Thus it follows necessarily. The Gods nature is the act of existing, as opposed to an act of existing plus his nature.

Ergo, though they be one and the same, they are nevertheless in some sense both present within Him.

Not in any sense that conflicts with my argument.

And this is precisely my point: you are trying to isolate God’s act of existence as if it were not already fulfilling a nature.

It is not fulfilling a nature, as if to say esse and essence are distinct in God. The act of existing is Gods nature, and so I see no contradiction.

God’s existence is a self-fulfilling nature, and thus it is nevertheless fulfilled. It cannot take on the properties of another nature.

It is not taking on the properties of another nature. Esse remains distinct from essence even after being conjoined.

Again you have ignored the main thrust of my argument, choosing to isolate and decontextualize one part thereof. So I will repeat:

The problem is I don’t see no thrust. Nature and esse is not two parts of God; God’s nature is the act of existing. God is esse.

…you cannot conjoin something to God’s act of existence without it taking on all the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.)

That is simply false since esse and essence do not become identical/synonmous when conjoined.

precisely because there is no distinction between essence and existence in God. To suggest otherwise is to say that God is a) divisible and b) mutable, inasmuch as a)

No it isn’t. That would only be that case if created essences were identical with God act of existing.

his act of existence can be divided amongst innumerable natures and

His being itself does not become ontologically divided, I don’t see why many essences being conjoined to God means that his ontological nature is divided up. The fullness of Gods being permeates the universe and yet his is not displaced by any quantity. God is not physical and therefore his being is not confined by rules pertaining to Quantity. Thus it is not contradictory to say that the fullness of Gods esse is conjoined to each individual essence without itself being divided, just like the fullness of Gods knowledge is present to all things without being divided. Potential natures come “into” the act of God’s reality. Esse is not being taking out of God to fulfil another being.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things ( proceedings from the Council of Trent on the Creator and the Creation )

Sorry. I meant Vatican Council 1.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

At some point philosophy and theology do have to touch down on reality.

I was speaking to a friend with serious medical problems including a lot of pain. I don’t feel any of that pain, no matter how much I emotionally share his suffering. In these sorts of situations, one human being tries to help another. The thing is that we are fundementally separated although we can somehow join with love.

The universe, if it ever was, will be, or ever could be one being, would be right now seriously fragmented to its depths. If there were a universal unity, other than in God’s omniscience and the fact that He creates all that is, it is totally shattered into at least the billions of pieces that comprise our individual consciousnesses. I do not exist as a bean in a minestrone of cosmic consciousness. God knows every inch of what is deepest in my heart, but as a separate conciousness, a separate reality. By the way, all around me is my nonexistence. I am created out of that nonexistence which defines who I am and what I am not. I have absolutely no idea what this discussion is about.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Chapter 1 On God the creator of all things ( proceedings from Vatican Council 1 on the Creator and Creation)

The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God,
creator and lord of heaven and earth,
almighty,
eternal,
immeasurable,
incomprehensible,
infinite in
will,
understanding and
every perfection.
Since he is
one,
singular,
completely simple and
unchangeable
spiritual
substance,
he must be declared to be in reality and in essence,
distinct from the world,
supremely happy in himself and from himself, and
inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.
This one true God,
by his goodness and almighty power,
not with the intention of increasing his happiness,
nor indeed of obtaining happiness,
but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what he creates,
by an absolutely free plan,
together from the beginning of time
brought into being from nothing
the twofold created order, that is
the spiritual and the bodily,
the angelic and the earthly,
and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body [10].
Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well [11] . All things are open and laid bare to his eyes [12] , even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.

The underlined phrase above indicates that creatures are distinct from God. And since they are distinct from God, God is also distinct from them. That is that creatures exist outside of their Creator. So there is no way creatures could exist in the Being of God, nor could the Being of God be in creatures in such a way as to mix with their natures. He can be said to be present in creatures in three ways. The only important way here is that whereby He is present in His creatures as a cause is present to its effect.

Linus2nd