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

[Linux]

Thomas Aquinas has shown that this is what God has done and the reasons for it. But you reject it.

This is not a thread about Aquinas. And if you think he has demonstrated logically how God can create existence or power out of the negation of existence and power without contradicting the absolute distinction between existence and nothing, then feel free to demonstrate it logically. However, merely stating that God has infinite power does nothing in the way of demonstrating rationally that having such power means that God can create the act of existence out of nothing or that God can give creatures their own act of existence or power from nothing.

The Catholic Church teaches that God is transcendent to his creation. He does not share his existence with them, that would be a heresy similar to Pantheism.

That’s an assertion on your part, an assertion you have not proven to be true.

Your statement here is nearly incoherent. As a matter of fact, you do reject creation ex-nihilo as defined by the Catholic Church and as taught by Thomas Aquinas.

Nope, i reject your particular idea of creation exnihilo as the belief that God creates the act of existence out of nothing as distinct from essence. You have not demonstrated that when the church argues as a matter of dogma that God creates out of nothing that it means that God creates “the act of existence” out of nothing. You yourself explained that metaphysical terms are not necessarily reflective of what the church means theologically speaking.

You have perverted the term " participate " in this context.

According to you. But i think i am just contradicting what you desire the term to mean.

Creatures participate in existence by having their own existence which is similar to God’s own and which has been given to them by God.

How is that the same as participating “in” God’s existence? Existence is not a genus and so it is meaningless to speak of kinds of existence or similar ones accept in a purely analogical sense.

Creation ex-nihilo as defined by the Catholic Church and Thomas Aquinas is not " more from less, " it is something from nothing.

You can’t get more power or existence from less power or existence because more power and existence does not exist in less power or existence. Its a contradiction. Even more incoherent is the idea that you can get existence from nothing at all.

God can create, creatures cannot. You are intentionally confusing the issues to save your pet ideas, which I will repeat.

That’s your pet theory, which you are using to save face

Indeed, God is supreme power. And he gives creatures the power to act on their own as secondary causes.

Creatures are mediums to Gods power. But they do not have there own distinct power accept in a purely analogous sense; and that is to say that when their potential is actualized by God they move according to their own nature. They do not however move by there own power. That is irrational and contradicts the supreme ontological sovereignty of God.

Creatures are absolutely contingent, that is agreed. But they have been given their own power and existence by God, as Thomas points out endlessly…

I disagree. When Aquinas speaks of the existence of creatures he speaks of existence as it relates to them in a purely analogous respect. Thus it stands to reason that when he speaks of the esse of creatures he is speaking of essences as they are actual and not literally saying that they are their own finite distinct act of existence. But i really don’t care if Aquinas thinks otherwise, as you cannot get more from less ontologically, and you certainly cannot get existence from nothing which is obvious once you acknowledge the distinction between existence and nothing.

I had hoped this thread was dead. I hope you get a big kick out of needlessly dragging it own.

Linus2nd

I get a big kick out of rational beliefs and i hope they dominate this forum.

 

[johnweeder]

I would like to observe that even now, at the quantum level, “stuff” is being created out of nothing in front of your very eyes. A lay man’s way to think of it is that I can create -1 and +1 out of 0 (nothing). Until the +1 and -1 meet again and cancel out, I essentially have something out of nothing. Think matter and anti-matter for example. If you are the Federal Reserve, this is how money is, in essence, “created” (the fed doesn’t strictly create money… it creates a credit and a debit and allows the multiplier effect to fan it out and grow the amount of money in circulation).

One implication of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is that all all times and in all places stuff is continuously created from nothing and returning to nothing (otherwise I could state something about the where/when with absolute certainty and the universe apparently does not allow this). The universe allows a pink elephant to appear out of nothingness in front of you. And, in fact, given enough time it will happen.

I don’t necessarily know 100% how this happens but our universe is much stranger than you believe. And, certainly, the definition of God would imply that he would have control of this fundamental power of nature (to the extent it is possible) and there is probably much more to it than we fathom now.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is not a thread about Aquinas. And if you think he has demonstrated logically how God can create existence or power out of the negation of existence and power without contradicting the absolute distinction between existence and nothing, then feel free to demonstrate it logically. However, merely stating that God has infinite power does nothing in the way of demonstrating rationally that having such power means that God can create the act of existence out of nothing or that God can give creatures their own act of existence or power from nothing.

That’s an assertion on your part, an assertion you have not proven to be true.

Nope, i reject your particular idea of creation exnihilo as the belief that God creates the act of existence out of nothing as distinct from essence. You have not demonstrated that when the church argues as a matter of dogma that God creates out of nothing that it means that God creates “the act of existence” out of nothing. You yourself explained that metaphysical terms are not necessarily reflective of what the church means theologically speaking.

According to you. But i think i am just contradicting what you desire the term to mean.

How is that the same as participating “in” God’s existence? Existence is not a genus and so it is meaningless to speak of kinds of existence or similar ones accept in a purely analogical sense.

You can’t get more power or existence from less power or existence because more power and existence does not exist in less power or existence. Its a contradiction. Even more incoherent is the idea that you can get existence from nothing at all.

That’s your pet theory, which you are using to save face

Creatures are mediums to Gods power. But they do not have there own distinct power accept in a purely analogous sense; and that is to say that when their potential is actualized by God they move according to their own nature. They do not however move by there own power. That is irrational and contradicts the supreme ontological sovereignty of God.

I disagree. When Aquinas speaks of the existence of creatures he speaks of existence as it relates to them in a purely analogous respect. Thus it stands to reason that when he speaks of the esse of creatures he is speaking of essences as they are actual and not literally saying that they are their own finite distinct act of existence. But i really don’t care if Aquinas thinks otherwise, as you cannot get more from less ontologically, and you certainly cannot get existence from nothing which is obvious once you acknowledge the distinction between existence and nothing.

I get a big kick out of rational beliefs and i hope they dominate this forum.

I think the Catholics, Jews, and Muslims who come to this thread will be able to judge who is speaking the truth here. I never hoped to convince you because it is obvious you have a particular ideology you are trying to protect. I will leave it in God’s hands now.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would like to observe that even now, at the quantum level, “stuff” is being created out of nothing in front of your very eyes. A lay man’s way to think of it is that I can create -1 and +1 out of 0 (nothing). Until the +1 and -1 meet again and cancel out, I essentially have something out of nothing. Think matter and anti-matter for example. If you are the Federal Reserve, this is how money is, in essence, “created” (the fed doesn’t strictly create money… it creates a credit and a debit and allows the multiplier effect to fan it out and grow the amount of money in circulation).

One implication of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is that all all times and in all places stuff is continuously created from nothing and returning to nothing (otherwise I could state something about the where/when with absolute certainty and the universe apparently does not allow this). The universe allows a pink elephant to appear out of nothingness in front of you. And, in fact, given enough time it will happen.

I don’t necessarily know 100% how this happens but our universe is much stranger than you believe. And, certainly, the definition of God would imply that he would have control of this fundamental power of nature (to the extent it is possible) and there is probably much more to it than we fathom now.

No, " stuff " is not being created now. That is not the meaning of the Heisenberg principle. Catholic dogma is that God created all things out of nothing in time. So Heisenberg is wrong.

Linus2nd

 

[johnweeder]

No, " stuff " is not being created now. That is not the meaning of the Heisenberg principle. Catholic dogma is that God created all things out of nothing in time. So Heisenberg is wrong.

Linus2nd

I did not say it was the “meaning” of the heisenberg principle. I said it was an “implication” of it. In layman’s term’s, if a space was “empty”, I would know the position and momentum of the particles within that space. Hence, virtual particles come from “nothing” so that I, as an observer, can never know with 100% certainty.

There are multiple instances of the effect of “creation of something nothing” in the scientific world including the work of Dirac (matter/antimatter), the Casimir Effect (which has been experimentally verified) or the “evaporation” of black holes (which CERN’s LHC may possibly verify experimentally).

Linus II… you are making the scientific equivalent here of asserting that the earth is flat.

Further, I would argue that if nature can create something from nothing (and it obviously does) then it seems pretty likely that God, if he exists, also can.

 

[Linux]

I think the Catholics, Jews, and Muslims who come to this thread will be able to judge who is speaking the truth here. I never hoped to convince you because it is obvious you have a particular ideology you are trying to protect. I will leave it in God’s hands now.

Linus2nd

So you have resorted to your usual evasion tactics and slight-of-hand assertions of Divine favor.

Okey Dokey.

 

[JohnMichaels]

It doesn’t happen naturally. But lack of demonstration is not synonymous to logically contradictory. I asked why do you consider it a contradiction.

nuh uh. I said it was “logically impossible”

I don’t know how I’d consider it a contradiction. to what?

 

[thenobes]

I did not say it was the “meaning” of the heisenberg principle. I said it was an “implication” of it. In layman’s term’s, if a space was “empty”, I would know the position and momentum of the particles within that space. Hence, virtual particles come from “nothing” so that I, as an observer, can never know with 100% certainty.

There are multiple instances of the effect of “creation of something nothing” in the scientific world including the work of Dirac (matter/antimatter), the Casimir Effect (which has been experimentally verified) or the “evaporation” of black holes (which CERN’s LHC may possibly verify experimentally).

Linus II… you are making the scientific equivalent here of asserting that the earth is flat.

Further, I would argue that if nature can create something from nothing (and it obviously does) then it seems pretty likely that God, if he exists, also can.

Not to mention the individual creation of the soul at conception.

peace
steve

 

[johnweeder]

I believe the universe participates in existence, but it is not existence itself, and cannot be since it has a beginning;

But to me, someone dying and then being alive is quite logically impossible. so, just my opinion

John, from a purely scientific viewpoint, I feel you make many unwarranted assumptions.

For example, it has not been conclusively shown that this universe has a beginning. The big bang may have simply been a rebound from previous crunch.

You also assume a temporal aspect to our universe. This temporal aspect may exist or it may simply be our interpretation of the nature of a holographic universe. Our universe may not even have 3 dimensions. We know, for example, that the event horizon of a black hole is capable of encoding 3 dimensional data in 2 dimensions.

You have also made assumption about simultaneity. “someone dying and then being alive” is subject to relativity the same as dimensions are. Another observer in another frame of reference may see “alive and dying at the same time” while maybe another sees “alive and dying”. Or perhaps, as Schroedinger’s Cat, we should be considered as a wave function that encompasses being both alive and dead at the same time.

It seems you may have also disregarded other even more extreme topics. For example, the potential impact of actually existing in some kind of a multiverse.

My point is that is seems a lot of people here try to justify their position by making what appear to be common sense observations about our physical environment. The truth is that the world immediately around you is so much stranger than you may know. And, so, you must be careful when just asserting something based on your perception of the universe.

 

[JohnMichaels]

You have also made assumption about simultaneity. “someone dying and then being alive” is subject to relativity the same as dimensions are. Another observer in another frame of reference may see “alive and dying at the same time” while maybe another sees “alive and dying”. Or perhaps, as Schroedinger’s Cat, we should be considered as a wave function that encompasses being both alive and dead at the same time.

It seems you may have also disregarded other even more extreme topics. For example, the potential impact of actually existing in some kind of a multiverse.

My point is that is seems a lot of people here try to justify their position by making what appear to be common sense observations about our physical environment. The truth is that the world immediately around you is so much stranger than you may know. And, so, you must be careful when just asserting something based on your perception of the universe.

The first line wasn’t my point, only the 2nd line.

So I’ll only say I was referring specifically to Resurrection. You seen one? I haven’t.
You can say it happened, fine, but it doesn’t happen now. So by the standards of today…people do not die, then days later live again. It is logically impossible

LOGIC
a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration
IMPOSSIBLE
a : incapable of being or of occurring

 

[johnweeder]

It is logically impossible… people do not die, then days later live again

John, I wasn’t saying you were wrong. I was saying that you are making arguments based on (implied) assumptions that that are not necessarily correct.

For example, without resorting to religion at all… just pure science. Let’s hypothesize a that we exist in a multiverse (something I consider very likely) and that travel between multiverses is possible (maybe a wormhole… this is unlikely). But, let’s just say hypothetically this is the case. Also, let’s disregard any relativistic effects with regard to simultaneity.

So, I pull the trigger on my quantum suicide gun (read about it on wiki…) and in this universe I die but in another I don’t. Some time later, the the live me switches universes with the dead me. And, so, I was alive and then dead and then alive from the perspective of someone in the original universe.

My point is not to say this is the case or that it is likely. However, I would assert that the scenario above is within the potential boundaries of mainstream science and so is possible. Ultimately, showing that your assertion “It is logically impossible” is false.

I think you could say that “Given we are not in a multiverse and that we can’t traverse time, etcetera und so weiter, then it is logically impossible”. But you can’t just state “It is logically impossible” when I can contrive numerous potential (if unlikely) scenarios where it could happen. I would even be comfortable with you saying “It is not likely”. But “logically impossible” has a universal quantifier and I merely need to find one single example of it failing and your statement as a whole is logically false.

 

[JohnMichaels]

John, I wasn’t saying you were wrong. I was saying that you are making arguments based on (implied) assumptions that that are not necessarily correct.

For example, without resorting to religion at all… just pure science. Let’s hypothesize a that we exist in a multiverse (something I consider very likely) and that travel between multiverses is possible (maybe a wormhole… this is unlikely). But, let’s just say hypothetically this is the case. Also, let’s disregard any relativistic effects with regard to simultaneity.

So, I pull the trigger on my quantum suicide gun (read about it on wiki…) and in this universe I die but in another I don’t. Some time later, the the live me switches universes with the dead me. And, so, I was alive and then dead and then alive from the perspective of someone in the original universe.

My point is not to say this is the case or that it is likely. However, I would assert that the scenario above is within the potential boundaries of mainstream science and so is possible. Ultimately, showing that your assertion “It is logically impossible” is false.

I think you could say that “Given we are not in a multiverse and that we can’t traverse time, etcetera und so weiter, then it is logically impossible”. But you can’t just state “It is logically impossible” when I can contrive numerous potential (if unlikely) scenarios where it could happen. I would even be comfortable with you saying “It is not likely”. But “logically impossible” has a universal quantifier and I merely need to find one single example of it failing and your statement as a whole is logically false.

demonstratively impossible. Multiverse is a cool idea. always liked it myself. Your idea is plausible, but only as science-fiction in the here & now

You should watch that old show Sliders

 

[johnweeder]

JohnMichaels,

I would like to request you expand the range of potentialities of the universe we exist in.

Consider the quantum bomb detector (one was actually made), en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester, which also us to know sometime without ever observing it (quite god-like I think… god with a little ‘g’).

Or, the quantum eraser (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser) which allows us to change the result of something AFTER it has happened.

Or, the delayed choice experiment (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment) where something happens right now but it is dependent on what will be done in the future.

These are real experiments in our universe. I use them to show that you can’t just assume that what you think you know about the universe is true. If I were to claim “I can know something without ever having seen/observed/be told about it in any way” or “I can change the past” or “What you do right now is dependent on my choices in the future”, then would you say that I am god or that maybe you just don’t understand the universe as clearly as you think you did?

 

[johnweeder]

Your idea is plausible, but only as science-fiction in the here & now

John,

If my idea is “plausible”, then your statement is logically false. And the fact it isn’t possible in the “here & now” is irrelevant. Merely the fact it is possible at all renders your assertion logically false.

I chose an example which is unlikely but more easily understood. I can privately email you journal references to scenario which are logically equivalent but more difficult to understand.

Certainly, as an example, the field of closed time-like curves presents many avenues to potentially disprove your assertion.

But keep in mind I am not trying to make the point “you are wrong”, I am trying to make the point that I don’t believe you have considered all things that are possible in the natural world (without even resorting to the super natural).

 

[JohnMichaels]

JohnMichaels,

I would like to request you expand the range of potentialities of the universe we exist in.

These are real experiments in our universe. I use them to show that you can’t just assume that what you think you know about the universe is true.

Did I say any of that? Or did I comment on Multiverse?
Those were come cool links I’ll have to check out, I thank you.

Not sure where you got this idea I had a closed mind. I love to learn new things. I like the Multiverse theory too. But currently it is purely speculative, is it not?

 

[johnweeder]

demonstratively impossible.

Please “demonstrate” that it is impossible?

I’ve argued a lot of things over my years, but I’ve generally been unsuccessful in proving something/anything impossible (with the exception of some trivial self referential tautologies).

 

[johnweeder]

Did I say any of that? Or did I comment on Multiverse?
Those were come cool links I’ll have to check out, I thank you.

Not sure where you got this idea I had a closed mind. I love to learn new things. I like the Multiverse theory too. But currently it is purely speculative, is it not?

I did not say you were closed minded. What I said was your statement relied on unproven assumptions. I attempted to prove this by by presenting a real world possibility.

I merely like to debate. But I only like to debate with people who are “reasonable” (this appears to exclude many people on this rather interesting thread).

To the extent my statement was taken as pejorative, I sincerely apologize. It was not intended as such. In fact, I was debating with you because you held what I thought was one of the more reasoned positions.

Is multiverse speculative? Yes. But, I would argue that every single thing we think we know about the universe is speculative. Even basic things like time or 3 physical dimensions are undermined by holography. Simple things like my belief that event A happened before event B are subject to relativistic simultaneity.

And, finally, the primary focus of this thread “creating out of nothingness”, seems to me to happen in numerous places in our physical universe (without even resorting to God). We, as humans, have even created extensive experiments to test this (the Casimir effect… granted there are many perspectives on how to explain the effect). But, even something intrinsic like gravity appears to rely on virtual particles created from nothingness and returning to nothingness and these particle mediate the force.

 

[JohnMichaels]

I did not say you were closed minded. What I said was your statement relied on unproven assumptions. I attempted to prove this by by presenting a real world possibility.

I merely like to debate. But I only like to debate with people who are “reasonable” (this appears to exclude many people on this rather interesting thread).

To the extent my statement was taken as pejorative, I sincerely apologize. It was not intended as such. In fact, I was debating with you because you held what I thought was one of the more reasoned positions.

Is multiverse speculative? Yes. But, I would argue that every single thing we think we know about the universe is speculative. Even basic things like time or 3 physical dimensions are undermined by holography. Simple things like my belief that event A happened before event B are subject to relativistic simultaneity.
.

Ah, Now I understand what you meant. Multiverse even being speculative is logical, without being demonstrable. therefor your explanation using it to counter my point resurrection is logically impossible, or in any way impossible, wins the debate.

Good show!

 

[johnweeder]

So I’ll only say I was referring specifically to Resurrection. You seen one? I haven’t.

My response is that it poor debating technique to assert something is impossible merely because one has not observed it.

I could, for example, invent some far fetched, yet, plausible physical means of “resurrecting you”. Maybe I could create a body using quantum entanglement and, after destroying the original you, could “resurrect” the entangled copy and present it as the new “live” you (although with opposite quantum states like spin… although this is practically irrelevant).

Or maybe there are an infinite number of you in an infinite set of multiverses… in which case, is it really correct to think of you as alive or dead? In some potentiality, your quantum wave functions collapsed into an immortal being…

I grant you that these are far fetched… but there merely needs to be one possible case in order to make your universally qualified statement logically false.

I would further say that it is difficult to argue against Faith. Unless you can show something to be impossible (which is nearly impossible itself) or logically contradictory, then you will merely always find yourself presented with the argument “but it is possible and I believe it to be true”. And, you will find yourself no more successful than me passionately explaining to my friends that it is pure foolishness to buy a lottery ticket.

 

[JohnMichaels]

My response is that it poor debating technique to assert something is impossible merely because one has not observed it.

I could, for example, invent some far fetched, yet, plausible physical means of “resurrecting you”. Maybe I could create a body using quantum entanglement and, after destroying the original you, could “resurrect” the entangled copy and present it as the new “live” you (although with opposite quantum states like spin… although this is practically irrelevant).

Or maybe there are an infinite number of you in an infinite set of multiverses… in which case, is it really correct to think of you as alive or dead? In some potentiality, your quantum wave functions collapsed into an immortal being…

I grant you that these are far fetched… but there merely needs to be one possible case in order to make your universally qualified statement logically false.

I would further say that it is difficult to argue against Faith. Unless you can show something to be impossible (which is nearly impossible itself) or logically contradictory, then you will merely always find yourself presented with the argument “but it is possible and I believe it to be true”. And, you will find yourself no more successful than me passionately explaining to my friends that it is pure foolishness to buy a lottery ticket.

Oh that old quote? pfft! lol
I’ve been busy replying to small books of text in another thread, so I was quickly explaining resurrection as something we can’t demonstrate in our reality, therefor it is just speculative. I did not mean to imply I dismiss speculation on a whole

In fact, my mind wouldn’t allow it if I wanted to. It’s always taking one idea or piece of information and racing it off in several directions for other possibilities. Overactive, I’d say.

Anyway, good show again. You’re good at this I admire your skill

PS - Don’t get me started on the lottery!