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

[yppop]

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?

Linux,
In the big bang theory it is space that expands taking galaxies with it. Galaxies are not moving through space. Cosmologists don’t really know what causes space to expand, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. So we hear about the cosmological constant, dark energy, inertia from the inflation period, etc., etc. What you are suggesting is an abstract “force” that causes space to expand. However, like the force of gravity, that which causes attraction between masses, “force” is merely an abstraction for that which causes matter to attract matter or space to expand. If you think about that philosophically, we don’t really know the “cause” and can only describe the nature of the attraction in one case and the expansion in the other. Science only works when the “cause” of phenomena is coherent and repeatable enough, just as it is for attraction of matter and the expansion of space, to allow us the describe it with a model, preferably a mathematical equation.

On the other hand, I believe that it is possible to describe a metaphysical (or as I prefer a ‘metascientific’) explanation of how God creates and sustains the universe at the ground of reality (an implicate view) in a way that it is possible to describe the elements that science deals with (matter, energy, and time) as manifestations at an explicate level. The implicate view would depend on a foundation of discrete space, information based dynamics, and algorithmic models instead of the explicate view that is based on continuous space, energy based dynamics, and mathematical models.
The resulting model would result in a mechanism that is both coherent and comprehensive and could be used to explain all of the natural phenomena that now is describe by a number of unrelated theories including those that purport to explain life, mind, and soul… Amen
Yppop

 

[prodigalson2011]

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.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

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.

As I said, it is self-fulfilling. Which means that it is not fulfilled by something outside of itself. Nevertheless it is fulfilled.

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

You keep repeating this, but it does not change the fact that an esse must necessarily take on the properties described by the essence to which it is conjoined in order to actualize it. And God’s esse cannot be changed.

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

No, they do not become synonymous, but to stress my last point, the esse manifests the properties that were previously only abstractions in the essence. If the esse did not manifest these properties, the being would not be actualized.

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

Yes it is. An esse is altered by its essence. Otherwise everything that exists would be identically indistinct and formless. The esse takes on the form described by the essence.

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.

If God’s esse is not altered by the extra essence He is hypothetically conjoining to Himself, then that essence is not actualized. The esse is the means by which a thing comes to be. An essence is manifested through the esse. The esse is like a canvas and the essence is a description of what is to be painted upon it. But if the canvas doesn’t get painted, there’s no painting. There is simply a description of a painting and a blank canvas. On the other hand, if the canvas does get painted, then the canvas (esse) has been changed.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Linux,
In the big bang theory it is space that expands taking galaxies with it. Galaxies are not moving through space. Cosmologists don’t really know what causes space to expand, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. So we hear about the cosmological constant, dark energy, inertia from the inflation period, etc., etc. What you are suggesting is an abstract “force” that causes space to expand. However, like the force of gravity, that which causes attraction between masses, “force” is merely an abstraction for that which causes matter to attract matter or space to expand. If you think about that philosophically, we don’t really know the “cause” and can only describe the nature of the attraction in one case and the expansion in the other. Science only works when the “cause” of phenomena is coherent and repeatable enough, just as it is for attraction of matter and the expansion of space, to allow us the describe it with a model, preferably a mathematical equation.

On the other hand, I believe that it is possible to describe a metaphysical (or as I prefer a ‘metascientific’) explanation of how God creates and sustains the universe at the ground of reality (an implicate view) in a way that it is possible to describe the elements that science deals with (matter, energy, and time) as manifestations at an explicate level. The implicate view would depend on a foundation of discrete space, information based dynamics, and algorithmic models instead of the explicate view that is based on continuous space, energy based dynamics, and mathematical models.
The resulting model would result in a mechanism that is both coherent and comprehensive and could be used to explain all of the natural phenomena that now is describe by a number of unrelated theories including those that purport to explain life, mind, and soul… Amen
Yppop

What an interesting way to say absolutely nothing.
Where is YOUR model (ID?) that is both coherent, comprehensive or explains anything?

Anything can be considered comprehensive even if it is tons of garbage.
As long as it explains in detail what it is.
So comprehensive is not what will make your case.

 

[yppop]

What an interesting way to say absolutely nothing.
Where is YOUR model (ID?) that is both coherent, comprehensive or explains anything?

Anything can be considered comprehensive even if it is tons of garbage.
As long as it explains in detail what it is.
So comprehensive is not what will make your case.

Straw
You have confirmed one of my suspicious, namely, that philosophical thought (deep inquisitiveness) is in scant supply on this so called philosophy forum. What we normally have are shouting matches between respondents bleating their own opinions or, as you have done, upon reading my post, dismiss it out of hand without a scintilla of curiosity.

Normally, when dealing with open-minded people, one would expect, when presenting a claim with such far reaching consequences, to elicit at least one meaningful question. Instead, I get one simplistic conclusion that I have written is “nothing”.

To answer your question, where is your model? Anyone with the least curiosity, could easily have found a synopsis in this forum. On the other hand, I could just as easily present it in synopsis form, but by assessing your intellectual wherewithal from your response, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Thanks for the response as meaningless as it is.

Yppop

 

[Linux]

Straw
You have confirmed one of my suspicious, namely, that philosophical thought (deep inquisitiveness) is in scant supply on this so called philosophy forum. What we normally have are shouting matches between respondents bleating their own opinions or, as you have done, upon reading my post, dismiss it out of hand without a scintilla of curiosity.

Normally, when dealing with open-minded people, one would expect, when presenting a claim with such far reaching consequences, to elicit at least one meaningful question. Instead, I get one simplistic conclusion that I have written is “nothing”.

To answer your question, where is your model? Anyone with the least curiosity, could easily have found a synopsis in this forum. On the other hand, I could just as easily present it in synopsis form, but by assessing your intellectual wherewithal from your response, I wouldn’t waste my time.

Thanks for the response as meaningless as it is.

Yppop

Don’t let it get to you, I get it all time.

What does the universe expand into? What is space that it expands? It sounds like space itself is made of something, more like a material rather than merely an absence of some object.

 

[Linux]

Linux,
In the big bang theory it is space that expands taking galaxies with it. Galaxies are not moving through space. Cosmologists don’t really know what causes space to expand, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. So we hear about the cosmological constant, dark energy, inertia from the inflation period, etc., etc. What you are suggesting is an abstract “force” that causes space to expand. However, like the force of gravity, that which causes attraction between masses, “force” is merely an abstraction for that which causes matter to attract matter or space to expand. If you think about that philosophically, we don’t really know the “cause” and can only describe the nature of the attraction in one case and the expansion in the other. Science only works when the “cause” of phenomena is coherent and repeatable enough, just as it is for attraction of matter and the expansion of space, to allow us the describe it with a model, preferably a mathematical equation.

Yppop

Interestingly enough Your right. We don’t actually know what a force is in and of itself (for all we know a force could simply be God willing that things move away from each-other, as opposed to being something in and of itself.). In fact it seems to me that Science is mostly a matter of labelling and categorising effects; and that is to say that science doesn’t actually tell us what things actually are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linux,
In the big bang theory it is space that expands taking galaxies with it. Galaxies are not moving through space. Cosmologists don’t really know what causes space to expand, but that doesn’t stop them from speculating. So we hear about the cosmological constant, dark energy, inertia from the inflation period, etc., etc. What you are suggesting is an abstract “force” that causes space to expand. However, like the force of gravity, that which causes attraction between masses, “force” is merely an abstraction for that which causes matter to attract matter or space to expand. If you think about that philosophically, we don’t really know the “cause” and can only describe the nature of the attraction in one case and the expansion in the other. Science only works when the “cause” of phenomena is coherent and repeatable enough, just as it is for attraction of matter and the expansion of space, to allow us the describe it with a model, preferably a mathematical equation.

On the other hand, I believe that it is possible to describe a metaphysical (or as I prefer a ‘metascientific’) explanation of how God creates and sustains the universe at the ground of reality (an implicate view) in a way that it is possible to describe the elements that science deals with (matter, energy, and time) as manifestations at an explicate level. The implicate view would depend on a foundation of discrete space, information based dynamics, and algorithmic models instead of the explicate view that is based on continuous space, energy based dynamics, and mathematical models.
The resulting model would result in a mechanism that is both coherent and comprehensive and could be used to explain all of the natural phenomena that now is describe by a number of unrelated theories including those that purport to explain life, mind, and soul… Amen
Yppop

What you are really saying is a little confusing. If you are saying God did not create the universe out of nothing along with space, time, and matter, if you are saying that human life, mind, and soul are susceptible of material or natural explanations, such that the soul is not a spiritual substance and the form of the human person and the source of mans ability to think and will, that would absolutely be contrary to Catholic teaching and Dogma.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

This is contrary to Catholic Dogma and cannot be held by any Catholic.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since I have not said that God is a “Part” of any-things “essence”, I see no conflict between me and Aquinas on this Point at least. Also a conflict between me an Aquinas does not necessarily mean that my argument is wrong or in conflict with the faith.

There is a big difference. Reread my posts 17 and 125, God gives creatures their own act of existence, which He creates along with their substances. And this created esse is the inner principle which makes a being a being.

If God were that principle, God would be a part, an essential part, ot the being of creatures. This is contrary to Catholic Dogma.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

You do not have to think or believe that creatures have an act of existenc. It is not a part of Catholic teaching. Many very intelligent Catholic Philosophers/Theologians have rejected it. I think Thomas is right, but it is not something we are required to accept.

So don’t worry. If these discussions cause you trouble, perhaps you should avoid them. Just stick to the Catechism and the Spiritual life. As I pointed out in another thread, philosophy/theology are dangerous subjects for those not suited to their study. The Holy Spirit gives different gifts to each one. Perhaps you have a different gift.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

That is absolutely contrary to Cathyolic Dogma. No Catholic may believe that.

Linus2nd

Linus

 

[mexolic]

We cannot see things as God does. God doesn’t have a brain like ours. He’s beyond all that. How everything came into existence, is a mystery to us. Our mind, our ability to understand is a gift from God. We are not equal to God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

God is outside the physical and outside of time, nothing is impossible for God, I’m dirt, which is nothing, God can do wonders with nothing !

Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We cannot see things as God does. God doesn’t have a brain like ours. He’s beyond all that. How everything came into existence, is a mystery to us. Our mind, our ability to understand is a gift from God. We are not equal to God.

Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

As I said, it is self-fulfilling. Which means that it is not fulfilled by something outside of itself. Nevertheless it is fulfilled.

You keep repeating this, but it does not change the fact that an esse must necessarily take on the properties described by the essence to which it is conjoined in order to actualize it. And God’s esse cannot be changed.

No, they do not become synonymous, but to stress my last point, the esse manifests the properties that were previously only abstractions in the essence. If the esse did not manifest these properties, the being would not be actualized.

Yes it is. An esse is altered by its essence. Otherwise everything that exists would be identically indistinct and formless. The esse takes on the form described by the essence.

If God’s esse is not altered by the extra essence He is hypothetically conjoining to Himself, then that essence is not actualized. The esse is the means by which a thing comes to be. An essence is manifested through the esse. The esse is like a canvas and the essence is a description of what is to be painted upon it. But if the canvas doesn’t get painted, there’s no painting. There is simply a description of a painting and a blank canvas. On the other hand, if the canvas does get painted, then the canvas (esse) has been changed.

Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[Ismael]

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

I believe that such an act would violate the absolute distinction between something and nothing, and therefore I would say that it is metaphysically impossible; no more rational than saying the universe popped out of nothing.

That being said I agree with creatio ex nihilo if by that it is meant that God does not create from pre-existing physical materials. But I reject what I would call “the rabbit out of the hat interpretation” of creation. I would not think it logical for a magician to literally create a rabbit from nothing, and I don’t think that by replacing the word magician with the word God, makes it any-more rational to think it possible.

I’d say he doesn’t, not in the sense most people think.

God is in himself pure act and supreme existence.

It’s not that ‘there was nothing and then puff there was something’

Rather: there was God and God created something else (the universe, multiverse or whatever).

Since God is ‘maximu and pure actuality’ he can ‘actualize anything’.

The DIFFERENCE between us and God is that we are not pure act and we are not maximum beings.

We can only actualize potentialities in ourselves or other beings that are, like ourselves, mixtures of actuality and potentiality.

HOW EXACTLY God creates… well that’s a bit hard to say. We have no actual experience with creation, only with ‘potentialities of some actual being that are actualized’ or if you prefer another term with ‘transformation’ rather than creation.

BUT REMEMBER: we do not even understand the fundamentals of physics! I mean we do know quantum mechanics and how particles can behave… but no one truly ‘understands’ in the fullest sense of the word quantum mechanics.

As Griffith in his book ‘Introduction to QM’ states: no one understands QM… we do QM, i.e. we solve the equations calculate observables that can be expected etc…

But what is an electron? We do not know. We can describe his ‘quantum numbers’ (charge, spin, angular momentum if bound to an atom, etc.) and make calculations… but we have no real understanding of what ontologically it is.

So it’s obvious we find it hard to understand Creatio ex nihilo. We can ‘understand its logic’ through philosophy, but not understand it fully.

At least that’s what I think.

 

[Aloysium]

You do not have to think or believe that creatures have an act of existenc. It is not a part of Catholic teaching. Many very intelligent Catholic Philosophers/Theologians have rejected it. I think Thomas is right, but it is not something we are required to accept.

So don’t worry. If these discussions cause you trouble, perhaps you should avoid them. Just stick to the Catechism and the Spiritual life. As I pointed out in another thread, philosophy/theology are dangerous subjects for those not suited to their study. The Holy Spirit gives different gifts to each one. Perhaps you have a different gift.

Linus2nd

:twocents:

Just because something causes trouble, as I’m sure you would agree, it may be unwise to avoid it.
Philosophy/theology may be more dangerous to those suited to their study.
My mom always held that I was special, so maybe you are right.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with what I’m saying.

As I said, it is self-fulfilling. Which means that it is not fulfilled by something outside of itself. Nevertheless it is fulfilled.

You keep repeating this, but it does not change the fact that an esse must necessarily take on the properties described by the essence to which it is conjoined in order to actualize it. And God’s esse cannot be changed.

No, they do not become synonymous, but to stress my last point, the esse manifests the properties that were previously only abstractions in the essence. If the esse did not manifest these properties, the being would not be actualized.

Yes it is. An esse is altered by its essence. Otherwise everything that exists would be identically indistinct and formless. The esse takes on the form described by the essence.

If God’s esse is not altered by the extra essence He is hypothetically conjoining to Himself, then that essence is not actualized. The esse is the means by which a thing comes to be. An essence is manifested through the esse. The esse is like a canvas and the essence is a description of what is to be painted upon it. But if the canvas doesn’t get painted, there’s no painting. There is simply a description of a painting and a blank canvas. On the other hand, if the canvas does get painted, then the canvas (esse) has been changed.

Well said.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The errors of the O.P. here and in other threads seems to have been inspired by a previous thread on Jan 1, 2013 as follows; [Deeppak chopra: We Exist In God’s Mind

---

I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, however he has some interesting points on what is and what is not objective physical reality. And I would like to discuss the implications of his thought.

A fruitful discussion will require you to watch the video. Thanks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak…_b_604476.html

So this explains how a series of errors have arisen.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

The errors of the O.P. here and in other threads seems to have been inspired by a previous thread on Jan 1, 2013 as follows; [Deeppak chopra: We Exist In God’s Mind

---

I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, however he has some interesting points on what is and what is not objective physical reality. And I would like to discuss the implications of his thought.

A fruitful discussion will require you to watch the video. Thanks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak…_b_604476.html

So this explains how a series of errors have arisen.

Linus2nd

This is a Red Herring.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

“As an informal fallacy, the red herring falls into a broad class of relevance fallacies. Unlike the strawman, which is premised on a distortion of the other party’s position,[2] the red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant diversionary tactic.”