Nothing to something

[Gorgias]

Take this for example; there is nothing but air right beside my bed, yet there could be a bat, or a lama, or a zebra, or a table, or anything else, but there isn’t these things. None of them are existent in the state of the here and now. As such, we have nonbeing here because we can think of beings that could be here yet are not.

You’d have a “coming into being” change, and that wouldn’t be a change from “air” to “bat or llama or zebra or table.”

But for anything to be concieved of going from nonbeing to being A, whilst it could’ve gone to an infinite number of other beings, mean that there must be pure potency in the first state (nonbeing) to be able to go to all other states.

No, that doesn’t seem right. There is a change from non-being to being, perhaps, but it can be characterized in terms of what had been in existence in some form to what comes into being in another form (mama bat to baby bat, tall oak tree to table, etc).

creation is a change and you need time for change.

It’s a “coming into being change”. Take a look at what Aristotle says about that, and you’ll see that your “it can’t happen because you need time” assertion falls flat.

quaestio45:

nothing cannot actualize into something without some efficient cause outside of itself being the reason.

Why that is true?

Because nothing (that is, the lack of anything) cannot have the cause for its coming into being inside itself. If it did, then it wouldn’t be “nothing”.

So where is the original form?

“The soul is the form of the body.”

 

[STT]

It’s a “coming into being change”. Take a look at what Aristotle says about that, and you’ll see that your “it can’t happen because you need time” assertion falls flat.

You need time for any change.

Because nothing (that is, the lack of anything) cannot have the cause for its coming into being inside itself. If it did , then it wouldn’t be “nothing”.

This is classical understanding of reality. You don’t essentially need a mover for everything.

“The soul is the form of the body.”

I know. What happen for the form when the body is eaten by other beings and become a part of their body?

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Take a look at what Aristotle says about that, and you’ll see that your “it can’t happen because you need time” assertion falls flat.

You need time for any change.

OK. So, I take from that assertion that you aren’t gonna contemplate what Aristotle said, but are rejecting him out of hand without reflection.

Here’s why your assertion doesn’t work, and I’m going to try to paraphrase Aristotle:

• coming-to-be implies a not-being and a being.
• These are not simultaneous. They are, however, consecutive – something “is not” and then it “is”.
• However, time requires motion which requires things that are in motion. So, without things, there’s no motion, and therefore, no time.
• So, (and here’s where I diverge from Aristotle, who would have held to the uncreatedness of the universe, IIRC), there is “nothing” – and therefore, no time. At the beginning of the universe, things come-into-being, and as they come into being, so does motion and therefore, so does time.

In other words, you don’t need time in order to kick off a coming-into-being of the universe, but once it comes into being, you get time (as kind of a bonus side effect).

So, for a “coming-into-being” of all matter, you don’t need time.

This is classical understanding of reality. You don’t essentially need a mover for everything.

You do. If the cause of your being isn’t within yourself, you need a cause in order for you to come-into-being. You end up with an infinite regress until you find the being whose cause is within himself – that is, whose essence is his existence – in order to kick off that chain. We call that being ‘God’.

What happen for the form when the body is eaten by other beings and become a part of their body?

When a body dies, it is no longer a ‘body’. It is a ‘corpse’. The soul is not the form of a corpse. It exists (immortally!), but is without a body, until the eschaton.

 

[quaestio45]

You’d have a “coming into being” change, and that wouldn’t be a change from “air” to “bat or llama or zebra or table.”

Forgive my miswording; I didn’t mean to say a transformation from being A to being B (such as air to zebra) but instead the transformation from a certain being not having presence in existence to suddenly having presence there. In that case, I also wouldn’t call it a transformation from actualized material into a actualized being, but rather no material (or nonbeing) becoming a being.

So, I’m talking about creation ex nihlo being possible on the basis of the pure potentiality of nonbeing. We can also come to this not only because of my argument on the opposite of being/ act, but also because of the inherent transformation from a potential state of existence to an actual state of exist in any entity (such as a mother bat concieving a child bat). Such shows that potentiality precedes creation of a comtingent entity, and that from coming back within change of creation, we may come to a point where it was simply pure potency that was present with no material. Thus, nonbeing may be pure potency.

creation is a change and you need time for change.

Yes, I agree. As such, to say that creating may occur at all presupposes time. If you presuppose time (such as if we pondered its eternality or perhaps at least it current presence), we are not hindered in any capacity from saying that creation from there can occur from nonbeing, I would say.

 

[quaestio45]

However, time requires motion which requires things that are in motion. So, without things, there’s no motion, and therefore, no time.

I guess the question then is why should we believe that time is ontologically subsequent to motion rather than motion being ontologically subsequent to time?

 

[AlNg]

if we accept that time cannot be created

I am not sure what is meant by time, and whether time cannot exist. Could there be a time when there is no time? Sounds like a contradiction of some sort.
Yes, I have a watch. But why is my time different from the time of someone in an accelerating frame?

 

[Latin]

So, it’s God’s will that someone deny His existence? Nah… even on the face of it, this doesn’t work.

Every event happening in the world the way God designed, decreed, preordained it from all eternity.
.
Until our conversion, it is God’s will that we deny His existence, He has purposely created us this way.

1 Cor.2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Rom.8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. – God willed to purposely create us this way.

If He would willed, He could instantly converted the entire human race to be Christian, He is doing everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.

All things, EVERY EVENT happening in the universe according to His designed, decreed, preordained plan from all eternity.

.
THE WAY OF OUR CONVERSION

CCC 298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, ***give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them.***148 And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him..
.
COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8
. . . None of those things which precede justification - whether faith or works - merit the grace itself of justification.
.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.
This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.
.
CCC 1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
.
As we see above Gorgias, the timing of our conversion utterly depends on God’s decision.

Until our conversion we all deny God, God purposely created us this way.

.
GOD’S END DESIGN OF THE HUMAN RACE:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
Eph.1:10-11; To be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment-to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.
.
God bless

 

[Montrose]

Until our conversion, it is God’s will that we deny His existence, He has purposely created us this way.

I don’t believe this at all.

 

[Latin]

Latin:

Until our conversion, it is God’s will that we deny His existence, He has purposely created us this way.

I don’t believe this at all.

If you @Montrose don’t believe it, then you cannot believe: God is the author of all causes and effects and His omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen in the universe.

If you don’t believe the above statement, how can you believe Catholic Theology?

A good advise:
Please speak with your spiritual adviser or with your Priest, and ask the following question:

Is it true, God is the author of all causes and effects and His omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen or will happen in the universe?
.
God bless

 

[AlNg]

His omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen in the universe.

How does that work if extremist Muslims are chopping off the heads of Christians? Was God in complete control of chopping off their heads?

 

[Latin]

Catholic Encyclopedia : Evil
“But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.”

If God would willed, He could create us with the privilege of immunity from sin and in this world would be no one commit even a single act of sin.
.
CCC 310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection, 314 through the dramas of evil and sin. – God created the dramas of evil and sin for our benefit.

.
THE REASON GOD CREATED THE DRAMAS OF EVIL AND SIN.

Life without suffering would produce spoiled brats, not joyful saints.

Our struggle and tribulation while journeying towards our ultimate perfection through the dramas of evil and sin is the cost which in-prints the virtue/ nobility into our souls – the cost of our road to nobility and perfection.

In this world man has to learn by experience and contrast, and to develop by the overcoming of obstacles (Lactantius, “De ira Dei”, xiii, xv in “P.L., VII, 115-24. St. Augustine “De ordine”, I, vii, n. 18 in “P.L.”, XXXII, 986).
.
As we see above, we are all sinners because God willed to create us to be sinners for good reason, for the benefit of the entire human race.
.
CCC 312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil , caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”
.
CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf.); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit.,

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
Nothing is outside God’s creating, sustaining and governing will.
.
CCC 313; St.Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: “Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” 182
.
God bless

 

[Montrose]

If you @Montrose don’t believe it, then you cannot believe: God is the author of all causes and effects and His omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen in the universe.

If you don’t believe the above statement, how can you believe Catholic Theology?

A good advise:
Please speak with your spiritual adviser or with your Priest, and ask the following question:

Is it true, God is the author of all causes and effects and His omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen or will happen in the universe?
.
God bless

God did not create us to deny him. That is just plain stupid and there is nothing you have quoted from Scripture or elsewhere that supports such a ludicrous claim.
I should add that the Church does NOT teach that.

 

[Latin]

God created all of us condemned and atheists.
As long as we are atheists, we all deny and reject God.
At the point God converts us by virtue of our recreation, we all turn into God loving obedient children of God.

If you @Montrose referring to our recreation, then I believe you are correct.
.
As follows, the timing of our recreation is God’s.

COUNCIL OF TRENT Session 6 Chapter 8
. . . None of those things which precede justification - whether faith or works - merit the grace itself of justification.
.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.
This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.
.
CCC 1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: “It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good … . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act , providing most effective powers to the will.”
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

I guess the question then is why should we believe that time is ontologically subsequent to motion rather than motion being ontologically subsequent to time?

Aristotle would reply that time is a measure of change; if you don’t have the “stuff” that changes, then you don’t have a measure for change. Therefore, motion is prior.

God is the author of all causes and effects and His omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen in the universe.

You would make a good Calvinist.

Catholics believe in primary and secondary causation: although primary causation rests in God, He nevertheless grants us the free will that allows us secondary causation. So, when we do something freely, we are doing what God wills. However, He does not will the particular thing done, since that will and act comes from the human actor.

The problem with your assertion, @Latin, IMHO, is that rather than saying that God wills that all come to belief in Him, you take it a step further and attempt to spin it as “God wills that we deny Him.” Nothing is farther from the truth.

God created all of us condemned and atheists.

Umm… no – Augustine’s notion of humanity as a “massa damnata” was rejected by the Church!

 

[STT]

OK. So, I take from that assertion that you aren’t gonna contemplate what Aristotle said, but are rejecting him out of hand without reflection.

Here’s why your assertion doesn’t work, and I’m going to try to paraphrase Aristotle:

• coming-to-be implies a not-being and a being.
• These are not simultaneous. They are , however, consecutive – something “is not” and then it “is”.
• However, time requires motion which requires things that are in motion. So, without things, there’s no motion, and therefore, no time.

This is a part which is wrong. Time according to general relativity does not depend on things. I studied this long time ago and I am rusty now but flat space-time is a solution of general relativity equation even if mass is set to zero.

• So, (and here’s where I diverge from Aristotle, who would have held to the uncreatedness of the universe, IIRC), there is “nothing” – and therefore, no time. At the beginning of the universe, things come-into-being, and as they come into being, so does motion and therefore, so does time.

In other words, you don’t need time in order to kick off a coming-into-being of the universe, but once it comes into being, you get time (as kind of a bonus side effect).

So, for a “coming-into-being” of all matter, you don’t need time.

So your conclusion doesn’t follow since time can exist without any need for mass to exist.

You do. If the cause of your being isn’t within yourself, you need a cause in order for you to come-into-being. You end up with an infinite regress until you find the being whose cause is within himself – that is, whose essence is his existence – in order to kick off that chain. We call that being ‘God’.

Nothing can be an exception.

When a body dies, it is no longer a ‘body’. It is a ‘corpse’. The soul is not the form of a corpse. It exists (immortally!), but is without a body, until the eschaton.

I know all these things. What does happen for the form when the body is eaten by other beings and become a part of their body?

 

[Gorgias]

Time according to general relativity does not depend on things.

It most certainly does! It warps in the presence of certain objects and forces, does it not?

So your conclusion doesn’t follow since time can exist without any need for mass to exist.

No. You misunderstand.
Time exists only when there are objects (which can be measured). So, in the coming-into-being change, when the thing that’s coming-into-being does not exist, there is no measurement of it; once it completes the coming-into-being change, it can be measured. In the discussion of the coming-into-being of the universe, there is nothing prior to the change, and therefore, no measurement (and no time). When it comes into being, there can now be time.

What does happen for the form when the body is eaten by other beings and become a part of their body?

The soul is the form. “Other beings” cannot eat souls. Nor is the soul affected by the demise of the corpse.

 

[STT]

It most certainly does! It warps in the presence of certain objects and forces, does it not?

Yes, time curve when there is mass but its existence doesn’t depend on other things.

No. You misunderstand.
Time exists only when there are objects (which can be measured). So, in the coming-into-being change, when the thing that’s coming-into-being does not exist, there is no measurement of it; once it completes the coming-into-being change, it can be measured. In the discussion of the coming-into-being of the universe, there is nothing prior to the change, and therefore, no measurement (and no time). When it comes into being, there can now be time.

As I said flat time is the solution of general relativity equation when there is no mass. I have my own argument for time needed for any change too.

The soul is the form.

I know.

“Other beings” cannot eat souls.

I said they eat the body. There is no soul/form when there is no body.

Nor is the soul affected by the demise of the corpse.

So what is the difference between dead thing and alive being?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, time curve when there is mass but its existence doesn’t depend on other things.

You’re saying that the dimension of time can exist in the absence of any physical dimensions? C’mon…

I have my own argument for time needed for any change too.

I know. We’ve seen it. And dissected it. It’s kinda unconvincing.

There is no soul/form when there is no body.

This is not true. The soul is immortal.

So what is the difference between dead thing and alive being?

A dead thing is a corpse, and does not have a soul. An alive being has an animating principle, which we call the ‘soul.’ In a human, the soul survives the death of the body, and we believe that in the eschaton, a glorified body will be created and united with the soul for eternity.

 

[STT]

You’re saying that the dimension of time can exist in the absence of any physical dimensions? C’mon…

I am sure about it. Please read " Vacuum field equations" in Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

I know. We’ve seen it. And dissected it. It’s kinda unconvincing.

So, perhaps @quaestio45 can help you.

This is not true. The soul is immortal.

Isn’t soul form of body?

A dead thing is a corpse, and does not have a soul. An alive being has an animating principle, which we call the ‘soul.’ In a human, the soul survives the death of the body, and we believe that in the eschaton, a glorified body will be created and united with the soul for eternity.

But the corpse has a form. What is that form and what is soul?

 

[Gorgias]

I am sure about it. Please read " Vacuum field equations" in

Nope, nope, nope. A vacuum is still something in the created universe. It is not the “absence of the physical dimension”, but merely the absence of matter within the existing physical dimension.

Isn’t soul form of body?

Yes. That doesn’t mean that the soul disappears when the body dies.

But the corpse has a form.

It does not have an animating principle. And, it is in the process of decay, and become merely other things.