Out of nothing comes nothing, So how is creation exnihilo possible?

[ynotzap]

Generally, motion is a change in position of an object with respect to time. Motion can be described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity, acceleration, time and speed.To observe the motion of a body you need to attach a frame of reference and measure the change in position of the body relative to that frame.
Classical mechanics is based on Newton’s 3 laws of motion which describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body and its motion. Relativity theory handles the case when an object is moving close to the speed of light.
Quantum mechanics has been successful in describing what happens at the subatomic level. However, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the location and velocity of a subatomic particle cannot be simultaneously determined.

Motion is the strictest sense is change of place; local motion and rearrangement. broadly, any passage from potentiality to act, any change, any reception of perfection or being. there is natural motion, one which brings to act the natural potencies of things, there is spontaneous motion, the non-voluntary movement of an organism responding to sensation to satisfy the desires of that appetite, Then there is non-physical motion, the acquiring of knowledge, and then there is spiritual motion effected by grace (the influence of the Holy Spirit) which many may reject or not be informed Does the quantum theories address these kinds of motion, or empirical scientists? Not in my book. You are on the natural plane, you need to transcend to the third degree of abstraction called the Metaphysical plane, the qualitative plane, not to stagnate in the mathematical, the second degree of abstraction. It is interesting the Einstein in his essays titled "In My later years was finally coming into the idea of the reality of the third degree of abstraction, the qualitative, beyond the quantitative

 

[ynotzap]

I am not sure that that is true in every sense of the phrase, although it will be true in a lot of cases. For example, suppose that I am not fluent in French, but I spend time teaching my neighbor the French language and he becomes fluent in it. So I was not fluent, but my student did become fluent by means of my teaching him the subject.
And of course, we have the theory of emergence, where each part of the system does not have a certain property, but when grouped together, a new property emerges.

You can be sure that the potential for new properties to emerge where there , they didn’t emerge from nothing, if they didn’t exist is some way, they couldn’t emerge. When applied to Religion, if this distinction is not made, one falls into Pantheism, that things are part of God, they emerge. Potency is a real condition, a capacity for additional being, or perfection, or act it’s part of the nature of the Universe, and everything ini it.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Then there is non-physical motion, the acquiring of knowledge, and then there is spiritual motion effected by grace

Perhaps you could clarify the idea of “spiritual motion effected by grace”. Even the acquiring of knowledge is a physical process. To learn french from a book for example, there must be a physical interaction with the book. This process involves both a change in the state of the book, and an accompanying change in the state of the person reading the book. It’s not a one way interaction. As far as we can tell, every change is in fact a twofold change, requiring a change in both of the parties involved.

How does a spiritual motion effect change in a physical entity if not by a physical process?

 

[Tomdstone]

Motion is … broadly, any passage from potentiality to act, …

Let us suppose you have two trains A and B running on two parallel tracks at 20MPH in the same direction. You are on train A and look outside the window at train B. From your perspective train B is stationary. Is there a passage from potentiality to act in train B? Being on train A you would say no, but your wife who is at the station terminal would say yes. Who is correct?

 

[Tomdstone]

Was there a time you didn’t exist?

I think so. I don’t think that I was around in 1492, when Columbus discovered America.

 

[Aloysium]

Perhaps you could clarify the idea of “spiritual motion effected by grace”. Even the acquiring of knowledge is a physical process. To learn french from a book for example, there must be a physical interaction with the book. This process involves both a change in the state of the book, and an accompanying change in the state of the person reading the book. It’s not a one way interaction. As far as we can tell, every change is in fact a twofold change, requiring a change in both of the parties involved.

How does a spiritual motion effect change in a physical entity if not by a physical process?

Spiritual change involves the capacity to love. That is our journey, and everything else is a distraction leading at the very best, nowhere. It involves growth in terms of our relational nature, our capacity to connect with and ultimately to give ourselves to what is other; to love, in other words. Fact is that we are a unity of spirit and body, forming a new being - the person. It is a person who perceives, thinks, feels and acts. If you want to examine a person through a lens that sees only matter, you will see only the workings of matter. If you want to view the person through the lens of feelings, emotions and desires, the image you will form is vastly different. There remains one person, mind and body; however, a totally different understanding arises depending on the particular perspective. There’s more that could be said about the spiritual, but as you see, it is a person who changes. Thus there will be changes in brain function that are associated with spiritual peace or disharmony. So, it isn’t the spirit affecting the physical as it is that the person, who is a material being, is changing. The whole changes and thereby affects its components.

 

[Anthony_V]

Okay, thanks folks, now I’m learning something. Time for another box of popcorn.

Anthony V, excellent job.

I know you’re still waiting on a reply concerning the first way. Please don’t hate me forever.
I’m in the process of reading these two books (here and here), which I think will give me a better grasp of the situation. After rummaging around in vain through dusty old manuals for days (actually, they were just PDF copies of dusty old manuals), I did find several times in Feser’s more recently published manual Scholastic Metaphysics where he says explicitly that per se efficient causality is not necessarily instantaneous, even if it is simultaneous. But after a while, that lead me to wonder what the heck is meant by “simultaneous” in the first place. So that explains the first book I provided a link to. And then predicating “cause” of God is an analogical predication, so I had to brush up on analogy – and also because I had a not so successful run-in with rossum over that. (He or she hasn’t posted in the philosophy forum since!)

 

[IWantGod]

Yet, does God really “give himself to the idea of a cow”, or does He simply create the cow and sustain it in its existence?.

If you can give the nature of “existence” or isness to something as a “distinct entity” separate from God, you do not need to sustain that nature “in” existence because it has the nature of existence in it. It becomes a meaningless point.

Based on what you’ve said now, it’s clear that you’re not talking about pantheism, but it sure sounds more and more like panentheism. Your clarification makes it sound like the cow is an emanation of God, which could be panentheism or one of the variants of gnosticism…

That is not what i am arguing at all. At no point have i said that the nature of existence is identical with the nature of a cow. They remain distinct even when the nature of a cow is in act, which only makes sense if existence is a nature on to itself. The only other option is to say that a cow is identical with existence or isness which would make it eternal (Aquinas, at least on this point, agrees). Creation is never identical with act, regardless of whether its actual or not; edward fesser eludes to this point also. Dualism is maintain once you understand that existence is not identical with the actual nature of created things and also that to say a thing begins to exist is not to say a thing begins to have the nature of existence. God’s nature is existence. My nature is not existence; my nature is human. As you elude to below, i agree with Parmenides idea of existence; i simply don’t agree with his conclusion. Parmenides conclusion is pantheism because he denies the distinction between existence and potential essences, which also leads him to deny “change”.

If you’re trying to separate an eternal ‘existence’ from God, raising to a different level, then I can’t agree…

Clearly i have not done so. What you have done in effect is argue that existence is a thing that can be created rather than given to a thing. I argue that God creates natures, not existence.

Not really. After all, you pointed out that Cow-Existence is distinct from God-Existence. Saying that God creates existence is the same thing as saying God-Existence creates Cow-Existence. That’s not a contradiction at all, and not metaphysically impossible…

If by a cows existence, you mean the nature of a cow being actualized by God, then i agree because you are using existence in an analogous respect as opposed to a “nature”. When we say God exists we are saying that Gods very nature is existence; we cannot say that about a cow. So, if you are saying that a metaphysical account of existence would allow for more reality to come from no reality, more from less, then you saying that God can do the metaphysically impossible. The only reason i see that you would disagree is because you think that some theological error would arise, not because my argument is in error.

Now I think I see where you’re coming from. You’re simply agreeing with the Parmenidean “is” and “not-is” – if it exists, it always existed; if it’s merely “coming into being”, it never existed.

To hold to this, then, you must conclude that creation is a mere extension of God – if not, then its “coming into being” implies that it’s part of the “not-is”. .

No, that is not true, since the nature of a cow is not the nature of God even though the cow has God (existence). God is sustaining the cow in God. Your existence is God, but your nature is not. And yes that is the only metaphysical possibility.

Let’s look at the cow you posited. When it dies, it is no longer in existence. But, you can’t have it both ways: how can the cow fail to exist, if it’s existence must be eternal?.

Because the cows nature is not existence.

You’re really arguing for limits on God: He cannot truly create – in your metaphysics – but merely give His (pre-existing) “is” in a transformed nature to other creatures.

You can no more pull existence out of no-existence than you can create a square triangle.

God does create. He creates finite natures. These finite natures exist in God’s mind; his intellect. We are actual ideas.

 

[ynotzap]

Perhaps you could clarify the idea of “spiritual motion effected by grace”. Even the acquiring of knowledge is a physical process. To learn french from a book for example, there must be a physical interaction with the book. This process involves both a change in the state of the book, and an accompanying change in the state of the person reading the book. It’s not a one way interaction. As far as we can tell, every change is in fact a twofold change, requiring a change in both of the parties involved.

How does a spiritual motion effect change in a physical entity if not by a physical process?

Man is a rational animal, a homo-sapien, meaning a knowing being, a rational being, in short body and soul. Knowledge of soul comes from what the abilities of man are: He can reason, think, choose,and involve all the other things applied to animals, the five senses, local motion etc. The powers of man indicate a source of that power. To think and reason is not a power associated with physical activity such as sensation or physical movement. To abstract the idea (not physical) or concept from sensed objects ( the objective external world) and to use reasoning to acquire new knowledge are not physical activities. What some people do not understand (which is not physical) is that the spiritual soul acts in unison with the physical body, and there is an extrinsic dependence on the body for the operation of the soul through its power of comprehension, and volition. Intelligence(knowing) is one of the operations of the soul, but it can not operate if the brain is damaged seriously because of this extrinsic dependence. The brain is not the intellect, the soul uses the brain to supply it with the sensations of the outer world, and from those impression draws abstraction or ideas about the nature of the outer world. We say soul is spiritual because it is not seen, exists, can not be sensed, but ONLY UNDERSTOOD THROUGH THE RATIONAL POWER OF THE SOUL AND CAN KNOW ITSELF WHICH IS NOT A PHYSICAL ACTION.

Also man demonstrates the ability to choose between two ideas, again, this is not physical, and this ability demonstrates the power of the will, a spiritual faculty belonging to the soul, it is called “volition” This is just a short synopsis of Rational Psychology, one of the studies of scholastic philosophy included in Metaphysics. Psychology literally means the study of the soul, and society translates into "the study of human behavior, it’s effects, the study of the mind, and they reach the mind through the brain, they do not make this distinction, the intellect of man is not the brain. They do not treat the soul,except by introducing into the mind some knowledge of irregular rational behavior such as too much anxiety, but they also affect operation of the mind through the brain eg. by the use of drugs. It does not reduce the inherent ability of the soul to rationalize, but because of the mutual dependence between soul and body it can impede the functions of the mind(intellect). To help you understand just remember, that human actions contain two elements, one spiritual, one physical, and they, in this life, act together, that is the nature of man, body and soul This is clearly demonstrated in the study of the human emotions.

The reading of a book is the ability of first seeing the book, through the senses. The book contains, letters, the combination of which , are assigned meanings, meanings (abstractions or ideas, or concepts of the objective world outside of the mind) and it’s the ability of the intellect, or the mind to understand the relationships of the meaning through the written word (the combination of letters) Again this power is not physical, but depends on the physical brain to supply it sense impression, and sense memory. Metaphysically it is said that the soul is the form of the body, that makes the body what it is, it is the moving power of the body causing all the natural activity of the body.

When it come to the action of divine grace, your are dealing with the moral actions involved in the moral life of man. Grace is the work of the Holy Spirit purifying the moral actions of man, and causing man to grow in moral virtue, eg. Theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love. These virtues raise man’s moral, and ethical actions to a supernatural level. They sanctify, make holy the person in his soul, a spiritual entity like God who is Pure Spirit Grace causes this change in the soul of man, and it is purely spiritual. I hope my explanation is sufficient to give you some understanding how even in the spiritual world, there is cause, and effect.

 

[ynotzap]

Let us suppose you have two trains A and B running on two parallel tracks at 20MPH in the same direction. You are on train A and look outside the window at train B. From your perspective train B is stationary. Is there a passage from potentiality to act in train B? Being on train A you would say no, but your wife who is at the station terminal would say yes. Who is correct?

In the first place train A and B wouldn’t be running if they didn’t have the potential to run, and from my perspective, I knew they were running, because I had a determined fix point to gage by, and that is the ground, you see relativity to make any sense has to have an unchangeable, determined point of reference, so you estimated the train was running 20 miles an hour in reference to the ground as your fixed point of reference. From my perspective, I knew that if train B looked like it was stationary, and I knew it was running parallel that I would reason A and B were running at the same speed. there was a potential to know about motion, and speed and relativity, and that potential was fulfilled which moved my reason to act (think) In my wifes perspective she had the potential to know that the train was moving by using her eyes to see the relationship of the train’s motion in relation to that same fix point of reference, the ground. She moved from the potential of not knowing to actually knowing (potency and act) I wouldn’t know, and neither would my wife know, if we didn’t have the potential to know. And the train wouldn’t move if it didn’t have the potential to be moved. And we wouldn’t have the potential to know the theory of relativity, if we didn’t have a fixed point of reference. We also know that the train couldn’t move if it didn’t have a secondary cause for motion, the feul undergoing a change, cause and effect, potency and act in operation. So what point are you making, the knowledge of the theory of relativity, and how it applies? I am making a point and that is if there wasn’t some unchanging point of reference, the theory would make no sense, because truth is not relative to subjective thought, but to objective reality. Only if subjective thought had any relationship to objective reality is it confirmed to be a fact, or true In this case my wife and I would both be right.

 

[Tomdstone]

In the first place train A and B wouldn’t be running if they didn’t have the potential to run, and from my perspective, I knew they were running, because I had a determined fix point to gage by, and that is the ground, you see relativity to make any sense has to have an unchangeable, determined point of reference, so you estimated the train was running 20 miles an hour in reference to the ground as your fixed point of reference. From my perspective, I knew that if train B looked like it was stationary, and I knew it was running parallel that I would reason A and B were running at the same speed. there was a potential to know about motion, and speed and relativity, and that potential was fulfilled which moved my reason to act (think) In my wifes perspective she had the potential to know that the train was moving by using her eyes to see the relationship of the train’s motion in relation to that same fix point of reference, the ground. She moved from the potential of not knowing to actually knowing (potency and act) I wouldn’t know, and neither would my wife know, if we didn’t have the potential to know. And the train wouldn’t move if it didn’t have the potential to be moved. And we wouldn’t have the potential to know the theory of relativity, if we didn’t have a fixed point of reference. We also know that the train couldn’t move if it didn’t have a secondary cause for motion, the feul undergoing a change, cause and effect, potency and act in operation. So what point are you making, the knowledge of the theory of relativity, and how it applies? I am making a point and that is if there wasn’t some unchanging point of reference, the theory would make no sense, because truth is not relative to subjective thought, but to objective reality. Only if subjective thought had any relationship to objective reality is it confirmed to be a fact, or true In this case my wife and I would both be right.

Well, let us change the situation to two rockets in space, moving in parallel at the same speed. You are on rocket A and you cannot see earth because of where you sit and the window lets you see B, but not much else, except for empty space. As you look out from A, you will see B and it will appear stationary to you. So you will conclude that there is no passage from potentiality to actuality in B. Now, however, your dear friend is on the earth, and she sees rocket A and B moving. So she says that there is a passage from potentiality to actuality. Now in the objective real world, is there a passage from potentiality to actuality or not?

 

[davidv]

Well, let us change the situation to two rockets in space, moving in parallel at the same speed. You are on rocket A and you cannot see earth because of where you sit and the window lets you see B, but not much else, except for empty space. As you look out from A, you will see B and it will appear stationary to you. So you will conclude that there is no passage from potentiality to actuality in B.

This is not a logical conclusion, because in order to do so, the person in A must assumed to not have any knowledge of their own circumstances, which is absurd.

Now, however, your dear friend is on the earth, and she sees rocket A and B moving. So she says that there is a passage from potentiality to actuality. Now in the objective real world, is there a passage from potentiality to actuality or not?

The is change, potentiality to actuality in the real world, independent of the irrational situation given.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is not a logical conclusion, because in order to do so, the person in A must assumed to not have any knowledge of their own circumstances, which is absurd.

The is change, potentiality to actuality in the real world, independent of the irrational situation given.

This is a hypothetical situation, which is used all the time in relativity theory.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . You can no more pull existence out of no-existence than you can create a square triangle. God does create. He creates finite natures. These finite natures exist in God’s mind; his intellect. We are actual ideas.

It’s hard to know how to speak about that which transcends us.
I find that your views, at least how they are expressed, don’t fit with how I see such things.

Here’s my :twocents:

Existence is is synonymous with love. It is a giving act that achieves union. That is what God is in Himself as three Divine persons who are One.

God, omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving, creates this temporal universe with all its moments and places, filled with wonders, reflecting His power, beauty and glory.
We are participants witnessing this grand mystery of creation, and something more; we are a vehicle by which it returns itself to God, thereby sharing in the love by which all is brought into being.

God as existence itself is not some sort of substrate that constitutes our own existence.
The Act that is God, that is Being, Truth and Life eternal is the Cause of the being of all creation.

Clearly we are more than simply ideas in the mind of God; a similar analogy that I find preferable is that we His creatures exist within the ocean of His infinite compassion, which fills all times and all places as the Ground of their being.

We are in fact eternal creatures who participate in our own creation. In time we bring ourselves fully into existence as we choose and act within the world we have been given. It is God’s will that we be Christ-like, to commune with Him in heaven.

There is no existence outside of God’s will. We are not His will, but its product, but a product with free choice to decide whom we wish to be. The statement that existence cannot be pulled out of nonexistence does not make sense to me since existence is not a thing but a Divine Act that is God, and is Love.

 

[Anthony_V]

Existence is is synonymous with love.

What are you saying? Love is a natural passion. It could also refer to supernatural charity. Neither of those are existence itself.

We can only predicate things analogically of God. And even though God is simple, those things we predicate are not synonymous. Love is really distinct from being. Actually, you might find all of question thirteen in the first part of the Summa very interesting. It’s pretty dense, so it takes a few days to get through – at least it took me a few days to get through.

 

[Aloysium]

1 John 4 - 7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:
The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.19

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1

221 But St. John goes even further when he affirms that “God is love”:44 God’s very being is love. By sending his only Son and the Spirit of Love in the fullness of time, God has revealed his innermost secret:45 God himself is an eternal exchange of love, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he has destined us to share in that exchange.

231 The God of our faith has revealed himself as HE WHO IS; and he has made himself known as “abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6). God’s very being is Truth and Love.

315 In the creation of the world and of man, God gave the first and universal witness to his almighty love and his wisdom, the first proclamation of the “plan of his loving goodness”, which finds its goal in the new creation in Christ.

733 "God is Love"124 and love is his first gift, containing all others. "God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us."125

850 The origin and purpose of mission. The Lord’s missionary mandate is ultimately grounded in the eternal love of the Most Holy Trinity: "The Church on earth is by her nature missionary since, according to the plan of the Father, she has as her origin the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit."341 The ultimate purpose of mission is none other than to make men share in the communion between the Father and the Son in their Spirit of love.342

826 Charity is the soul of the holiness to which all are called: it "governs, shapes, and perfects all the means of sanctification."297
If the Church was a body composed of different members, it couldn’t lack the noblest of all; it must have a Heart, and a Heart BURNING WITH LOVE. And I realized that this love alone was the true motive force which enabled the other members of the Church to act; if it ceased to function, the Apostles would forget to preach the gospel, the Martyrs would refuse to shed their blood. LOVE, IN FACT, IS THE VOCATION WHICH INCLUDES ALL OTHERS; IT’S A UNIVERSE OF ITS OWN, COMPRISING ALL TIME AND SPACE - IT’S ETERNAL! 298

953 Communion in charity. In the sanctorum communio, "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself."489 "If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it."490 "Charity does not insist on its own way."491 In this solidarity with all men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

 

[davidv]

This is a hypothetical situation, which is used all the time in relativity theory.

So, basic principles don’t apply to hypotheticals? Effectively, this makes your hypothetical a straw man. What use is it?

 

[ynotzap]

Well, let us change the situation to two rockets in space, moving in parallel at the same speed. You are on rocket A and you cannot see earth because of where you sit and the window lets you see B, but not much else, except for empty space. As you look out from A, you will see B and it will appear stationary to you. So you will conclude that there is no passage from potentiality to actuality in B. Now, however, your dear friend is on the earth, and she sees rocket A and B moving. So she says that there is a passage from potentiality to actuality. Now in the objective real world, is there a passage from potentiality to actuality or not?

IN my tiredness, knowing the forces and elements of the universe in general, no two things are exactly the same, (the principle of individuality) and this includes the speeds of two space craft. So using my capacity to know, if I exerted enough time and observation, and my observation was keen enough, I would notice a variable speed relationship between the two space crafts and reason that we were moving through space even if the difference of speeds was minute, as for friend, the observation would be much easier , they do it at NSA with telescopes and electronic equipment and yes there would be a passage from potency to act in both cases. Movement was detected.

 

[Aloysium]

What are you saying? Love is a natural passion. It could also refer to supernatural charity. Neither of those are existence itself.

We can only predicate things analogically of God. And even though God is simple, those things we predicate are not synonymous. Love is really distinct from being. Actually, you might find all of question thirteen in the first part of the Summa very interesting. It’s pretty dense, so it takes a few days to get through – at least it took me a few days to get through.

The way I see it, God is Existence itself and as such is the Source of all being.
Existence is an eternal act of the will, a union through the giving of Self to Other - the Triune Godhead.
The Trinity is Existence and Love itself, perfect, all good and infinitely beautiful.
All creation exists in relation to its Source. That relationship constitutes an eternal ocean of compassion, wherein all is known and loved.

Situations arise where one must decide on a moral course of action. The choice rests on whether or not to give of oneself to what is other. Through that choice, one participates in the creation of oneself. Through the emptying of oneself to what is other, totally to God, one attains the humility and demonstrates the love that is God. One thereby becomes one’s true self, Christ-like, communing with the love that brings us and all into existence. Through God’s grace, granted to us by the Holy Spirit and consequent to the incarnation, self-sacrifice and resurrection of the Son, we have the capacity to surrender ourselves to that which brings us forth eternally.

 

[IWantGod]

The way I see it, God is Existence itself and as such is the Source of all being.
Existence is an eternal act of the will, a union through the giving of Self to Other - the Triune Godhead.
The Trinity is Existence and Love itself, perfect, all good and infinitely beautiful.
All creation exists in relation to its Source. That relationship constitutes an eternal ocean of compassion, wherein all is known and loved.

Situations arise where one must decide on a moral course of action. The choice rests on whether or not to give of oneself to what is other. Through that choice, one participates in the creation of oneself. Through the emptying of oneself to what is other, totally to God, one attains the humility and demonstrates the love that is God. One thereby becomes one’s true self, Christ-like, communing with the love that brings us and all into existence. Through God’s grace, granted to us by the Holy Spirit and consequent to the incarnation, self-sacrifice and resurrection of the Son, we have the capacity to surrender ourselves to that which brings us forth eternally.

So…you agree that I’m an amazing creation of God.

Courts adjourned