I
IWantGod
Guest
Not quite sure that you are correct about the randomness part, but yeah, change is an obvious fact of our experiences and a prerequisite for scientific knowledge itself.
Out of nothing comes nothing, So how is creation exnihilo possible?
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
I have found this to be true. No matter how certain an argument for God is, in the end faith is the only way of opening the door. At some point arguments give way to faith.
P
PRmerger
Guest
In the end, it’s an act of the will.
One must decide, based on evidence as well as a decision to follow the light, to believe.
A
Aloysium
Guest
A pair of dice and a set of cards provide random results but the process is hardly random. In regards to the impact of the observer on the results, more than just the obvious fact of experience is that the reality which appears depends on the method used, in all cases but most surprisingly when dealing with very, very, very small things. Check out this video. I like it because it is clear and simple, not only because the guy is a skinny version of myself. I can’t say I agree with the presenter on many issues.
youtube.com/watch?v=LW6Mq352f0E&ebc=ANyPxKqgF2nNvBOD-13bZ4KYMk6QAxHwoa9L7Fv1005P81F8V9430wdqAUiZj9LmgD8AJEper_CIdsilWsVr6TrYqYvTV0H1HA
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, your responses to me seem to gloss over the definition of ‘nature’. You seem to want to equate it with ‘existence’ at times. Perhaps you can help me understand where you’re coming from: how do you define the ‘nature’ of a [class of] created beings? How do you define the ‘existence’ of a created being?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
If God gives creation its own existence then it somewhat implies there would be a separation between God and His creation, the creation could exist without God.
It sounds like you’re saying something that tends toward the notion that the universe is necessary, not contingent. If that’s where you’re going, then it makes sense that no one would have gone there. Personally, I don’t see the strength of your argument that creation from nothing is (even potentially) metaphysically impossible. You seem to be tilting at a windmill that others don’t see.
Incidentally, if we say that God’s essence is his existence, we’re still talking about God’s existence. He gives existence to the universe, but He does not give the universe His existence. (If he did, then Christianity would espouse pantheism or panentheism. It does not.) So, your #8 is in error – **God does not give His existence to creation; rather, He gives creation its own existence. ** (Which, btw, means that your #7 is sketchy, too: there is existence and reality outside of God – the universe really is real.)
St. Paul would be wrong: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being;”
St. Paul is not wrong therefore our existence is in Him. It is not our own existence!
The same applies to the Universe. The Universe existence is in Him. If there would not be God then there would not be any universe of its own.
A
Aloysium
Guest
:twocents: Creation cannot exist without God because He is its Source right here and now. God is Existence and as such He brings us into being as separate individuals. As persons we are made in His triune image of Self-Other-joined-in-love. Separate we are capable of giving of ourselves to what is other. As we choose to do so, we grow in being whose ultimate nature is love.
T
Tannhauser_1509
Guest
See, that’s not even the relevant question. There’s a difference between accidental causal series and essential causal series. We cannot establish, on solely philosophical grounds, whether the universe had a temporal beginning. We can and must establish, however, that it has a cause at this present moment. The relevant question, therefore, is, what is causing the universe here and now? and, therefore, what has always been causing the universe here and now?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
God “spoke”.
When He speaks He creates the vacuum fluctuations. Changes/vibrations in the distance between the vacuum fluctuations are bosons - force carriers.
When He spins the vacuum fluctuations and they come apart and create “bubbles” - these are fermions - mass particles.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
I’m stupefied!
You were doing good on post 225, what happened! Is a vacuum something or nothing? If it’s nothing how can it fluctuate, if it is something, what is it, He needs to spin whatever it is to produce particles? He just couldn’t will it? We are humanizing God, He is not Potency and Act (when He spins- moving, changing), God does not move to act, He is Pure Act, the Unmoved Mover, He wills, and it comes to be. A good idea for science fiction, Star Trek
:
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
“For in him we live, and move, and have our being;”I’m stupefied!
We are in Him, we move therefore there is motion in God.
There is God outside of the space-time.
There is God that creates the space-time.
There is God inside of the space-time.
The Trinity.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
God not only causes creation to exist, but He also sustains it And there is a definite separation between God and His creation. And yes we have our existence in God, but we are not a part of God. We HAVE existence, God is Existence He is the Cause of all motion and He works through secondary causes of motion. Creation is finite and totally dependent on the infinite and independent, self-subsistent God
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Refer to my posts with Tombstone. God is the Unmoved Mover, you must look at it metaphysically. God causes motion, but does not move Himself. If He moves, then some other force moved Him and He is not God, the Uncaused cause. Move involves change, God does not change.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
The Trinity is a mystery.
God does not change but He moves.
To say that God does not move is not biblical.
“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and** the Spirit of God was moving **over the surface of the waters.”
I’ll leave it with you. “Let it bake.”
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Why does an atom need to be continually held in existence by God? Can God create something physical that that continues to exist without sustenance?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
the Bible does say so, but the argument is that these passages are metaphorical. But even the creed says that God came down from heaven and became man.
I
IWantGod
Guest
A
Aloysium
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean “continually held in existence”. If you pause and observe, you will note that everything is now. It always has and always will be. How could anything be but now. It can’t exist and not be when it is. At the opposite extreme of your position, that things can be completely other, having nothing to do with God, are those who believe that there exists nothing but God. Truth is, I say arrogantly, that it is all founded on Love. Love has to do with self and other. That is the nature of God who is One. And, it is fundamental to our nature; the farther we stray from love, the more miserable we will be. Everything is relational, and everything is ultimately related to its Creator, here and now.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Y
ynotzap
Guest
If God withdrew the existence He caused, the atom would cease to be. Atom of it’s nature is a physical thing, subject to movement and change, which in turn can not change itself, but is moved by another. If it caused itself, then it would be subsistent, always existing, no movement or change. To be subsistent, with no cause is to be God. Atoms are subject to outside forces and do change. God created atoms, and because what God creates, He does not un-create, because His acts are eternal. So atoms will exist eternally, just as all creation will, but all creation is finite, not infinite, dependent, not independent, changeable, not unchangeable. God sustains His creation. We are not Deists, God creates and then leaves creation to sustain itself. No, God can not create something physical that continues to exist without sustenance.
- Status