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

[Vico]

Vico,
Could you tell me what you think panentheism means and why it is not Christianity?
Yppop

Panentheism is a modern term and has a diversity of definitions. The form called emanationism was specifically anathematized at Vatican I. What is specifically not Catholic is that panentheism which:

1. denies the distinction of the world from God (divinity is essentially distinct from creation), or
2. denies creation ex nihilo, or
3. holds that creation was necessary, therefore not freely created.

Vatican I canons:

I. On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

1. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

 

[IWantGod]

Panentheism is a modern term and has a diversity of definitions. The form called emanationism was specifically anathematized at Vatican I. What is specifically not Catholic is that panentheism which:

1. denies the distinction of the world from God (divinity is essentially distinct from creation), or
2. denies creation ex nihilo, or
3. holds that creation was necessary, therefore not freely created.

Vatican I canons:

I. On God the creator of all things

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

1. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

I don’t think any theist here has argued against these.

 

[IWantGod]

What is being argued is that no nature in creation can be said to have a natural act of existence. This is to say existing is not its nature, and it cannot exist by its own nature for if existing was its nature it would always be existing including all of its potency because all of its potency is identical to its nature which is to exist. Therefore it can never not exist. It would exist without change. However, we see a world with potency; potentiality.

And so the question is, in regards to the universe, how can it have an act in its nature that is not in its nature to have, whether it be a cow or an atom. We answer this by saying that a thing having an act of “existence” is not to simply to say “a cow nature exists” or that there is one cow nature. It is more than that. Rather, It is to say that “the cow nature” has been given existence. But you cannot give existence from absolutely nothing because you cannot get more from less. You cannot get the power of existence from nothing. Thus “Existence” has to be considered a nature on to itself, eternal - pure-actuality. Pure Actuality is sustaining the universe in existence because the universe has no existence in its own nature. This means that God is eternally giving himself (*not in parts, but rather the entirety of himself as the antithesis of nothing/I) to the idea or possibility of a universe.

This is what we call God. This is what makes creation possible.*

 

[Vico]

I don’t think any theist here has argued against these.

I would not expect that since Theism is opposed to Pantheism, and to Panentheism. Traditional Panentheism asserts that God is dependent on the world which every form of classical Christian Theism denies.

 

[IWantGod]

I would not expect that since Theism is opposed to Pantheism, and to Panentheism. Traditional Panentheism asserts that God is dependent on the world which every form of classical Christian Theism denies.

I have yet to see somebody argue that God is dependent on the world or that God’s nature is identical to the nature of created beings. I haven’t seen that on this thread.

 

[ynotzap]

How this helps in the explanation of the way how God is the first mover. How does He do it?
Is there a motion in God or not? Are there creations in God that can move in Him or not? How does it work?

Cause and effect is a physical and non -physical phenomena found to be a universal truth in our universe. By the use of this universal truth we can reason to the existence of God. If we have a series of events eg. standing dominoes. If we push one over it causes the other, in a series of standing dominoes to fall, which causes another to fall, and another. The first is the series falling caused the second to fall, the first caused the the second to fall, which is the effect of the first domino. The effect then in turn becomes the cause of the second domino to fall (the effect of the second domino,) and so on in the series. Now if we regress from the last domino, the effect through the series we come to the first domino which is the first cause of the series. Now the first domino was pushed by something not in the series, and it couldn’t push itself. Now apply this principle to the universe. When we do we come to the first cause in the series of events, and the first cause can not explain itself. An event can not be it’s own cause and effect at the same time, but must be caused by another. This other must be outside of the series of causes. Now if it is outside of the series, it can’t have another to cause it, it can not be an effect. It can not be in an infinite series of causes, because then there wouldn’t be a first cause. So logic dictates that the ultimate first cause must be an uncaused cause. The same truth is applied to motion, and the first ultimate cause of motion, is an unmoved mover. And this is God.

There is no motion in God, no change, He has no capacity to move, He is the fullness of Being, not Potency and Act like the us and the universe, but Pure Act, Pure Being. We move because we do not have the fullness of being, and existence is not our nature, we have existence as an attribute, and we are not our attributes. We have our creation in God, but were are not part of God. He is Pure Spirit, no parts, He is simple, He is the I Am Who Am, He is Existence. God wills what He does.

 

[Vico]

I have yet to see somebody argue that God is dependent on the world or that God’s nature is identical to the nature of created beings. I haven’t seen that on this thread.

I am answering a question about panentheism, so that is why these posts exist on it.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no motion in God, no change, He has no capacity to move.

I thought that God responds to the prayer of the Mass by effecting Transubstantiation.

 

[Nixbits]

IWantGod:

What is being argued is that no nature in creation can be said to have a natural act of existence. This is to say existing is not its nature, and it cannot exist by its own nature for if existing was its nature it would always be existing

I can see that this is being asserted, but I have yet to see any evidence put forward that demonstrates that our universe behaves in this way. How can it be demonstrated that, once created, a thing needs something external to itself in order to maintain its existence? Could it not be the case that the act of creating a thing gives that thing a ‘nature of existence’ allowing it to exist (until such time as it is acted upon by something else that stops or alters its existence)?

 

[ynotzap]

I thought that God responds to the prayer of the Mass by effecting Transubstantiation.

We respond to Him, after all it is the Holy Spirit who prays in us through the gift of Faith

 

[IWantGod]

How can it be demonstrated that, once created, a thing needs something external to itself in order to maintain its existence?

1. Out of nothing comes nothing
2. Therefore an eternal unchanging nature that is existence (pure-actuality) must exist necessarily, since there is no existence in nothing and there can be nothing without existence.
3. That which is potentially real or has potency is not naturally real, otherwise it would always be real without potentiality (eternal) because its nature would be to exist. Therefore it requires something external to itself in-order to become a being and remain a being because existence is not natural to its intrinsic nature. It has to be sustained in existence by a being that is by its very nature existence.

 

[ynotzap]

I can see that this is being asserted, but I have yet to see any evidence put forward that demonstrates that our universe behaves in this way. How can it be demonstrated that, once created, a thing needs something external to itself in order to maintain its existence? Could it not be the case that the act of creating a thing gives that thing a ‘nature of existence’ allowing it to exist (until such time as it is acted upon by something else that stops or alters its existence)?

Something is always acting upon us that is altering our existence, deterioration, and renewing. eg. the human body, a constant breaking down of cells, and renewing of cells. If existence was our nature, there wouldn’t be this activity or change. Are we responsible for this activity?
Existence is a constant struggle, a constant dependence on an outside force. If it was our nature this wouldn’.t be the case. We need air, the sun, food, water, rest, health and so on. We are totally dependent for our existence As a matter of fact, dependence is one of the proofs for the existence of God. At no time are we independent, this belongs to God alone who is the source of all we depend upon, ultimately our existence. Existence can never be our nature, but an attribute, something given, and sustained. The universe depends on order for it’s operations. The earth depends on it’s proper orbit to remain existing, if not maintained, sustained, the sun would destroy it, and that is very possible in the future, things deteriorate according to God’s plan. ( He will not destroy what He has created, but He will alter it’s existence)

 

[yppop]

Vico
Thank you for your response,

Panentheism is a modern term and has a diversity of definitions. The form called emanationism was specifically anathematized at Vatican I.

but I was looking for something more specifically anti or pro Catholic.
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia states that Emanationism is associated with pantheism, not panentheism.

What is specifically not Catholic is that panentheism which:

1. denies the distinction of the world from God (divinity is essentially distinct from creation), or
2. denies creation ex nihilo, or
3. holds that creation was necessary, therefore not freely created.

Where do you find in Catholic literature or documentation this interpretation of panentheism??

Here is the root definition that I believe is the only one I’ve ever run across:
:
Panentheism (meaning “all-in-God”, from the Ancient Greek πᾶν pân, “all”, ἐν en, “in” and Θεός Theós, “God”) is the belief that the divine interpenetrates every part of the universe and extends, timelessly (and, presumably, spacelessly) beyond it. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical, panentheism maintains a distinction between the divine and non-divine and the significance of both. (Wikipedia)

I find it hard to distinguish** THIS **definition from the idea of omnipresence. A word that barely exists in official Catholic documents and then not with much clarity. For example one has to go all the way back to the Council of Rome in 382 where one of the canons states: “If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit can do all things and knows all things and is everywhere just as the Son and the Father, he is a heretic.” This is intended I am sure is referring God’s omnipresence, but it may also apply to panentheism, in its root definition.

Vatican I canons:
I. On God the creator of all things

1. Against all errors about the existence of God the Creator] If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

1. Against materialism] If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.

1. Against pantheism] If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

1. Against special forms of pantheism] If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.

1. Against pantheists and materialists] If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

---

.​

I certainly am not arguing against any of the Vatican I canons, but notice that I added interpretative comments found in Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” preceding your submissions. Those canons certainly do not apply to panentheism as I understand it?
.
I am sure that there are Catholic sources condemning panenthiesm, but those you supplied don’t work for me.

If you don’t know, it is okay with me.
Yppop

 

[ynotzap]

I thought that God responds to the prayer of the Mass by effecting Transubstantiation.

Is. 26: 7-9 “For it is you who has accomplished all that we have done.”

 

[Nixbits]

1. Out of nothing comes nothing
2. Therefore an eternal unchanging nature that is existence (pure-actuality) must exist necessarily, since there is no existence in nothing and there can be nothing without existence.
3. That which is potentially real or has potency is not naturally real, otherwise it would always be real without potentiality (eternal) because its nature would be to exist. Therefore it requires something external to itself in-order to become a being and remain a being because existence is not natural to its intrinsic nature. It has to be sustained in existence by a being that is by its very nature existence.

I don’t know if premise 1 is valid or not. I think it is asserting that something (physical matter, energy or space-time) cannot come into existence in a situation in which nothing (no physical matter, energy or space-time) is existent.

If we grant premise 1 and also grant the unwritten premise that physical matter, energy and space-time exists now, then the conclusion should be that there cannot be a time when there is nothing.

However, I think that the conclusion in point 2 goes beyond this. It asserts that ‘existence (pure actuality)’, that is an unchanging nature, must necessarily exist. I don’t know what the adjective ‘pure’ is intended to indicate here and I don’t understand why existence must necessarily be unchanging.

The premise at the start of point 3 seems to be saying that if something has the nature of being real, then it will be real and therefore not potentially real. The next part of point 3 is a conclusion that seems to assert that something that is potentially real needs something else to make it real and keep it real because it’s not intrinsically real.

I don’t think this answers my question, just pushes it a bit farther along. It just leads to the next question, which is: How can it be demonstrated that the stuff in our universe is only potentially real and so needs to be sustained, and not intrinsically real? Could it not be that all of the physical matter, energy and space-time in our universe that exists now has the nature of being real and so does not need to be sustained? What is it that is ‘potentially real’?

 

[Nixbits]

ynotzap:

Something is always acting upon us that is altering our existence, deterioration, and renewing. eg. the human body, a constant breaking down of cells, and renewing of cells. If existence was our nature, there wouldn’t be this activity or change. Are we responsible for this activity?
Existence is a constant struggle, a constant dependence on an outside force. If it was our nature this wouldn’t be the case. We need air, the sun, food, water, rest, health and so on. We are totally dependent for our existence As a matter of fact, dependence is one of the proofs for the existence of God. At no time are we independent, this belongs to God alone who is the source of all we depend upon, ultimately our existence. Existence can never be our nature, but an attribute, something given, and sustained. The universe depends on order for it’s operations. The earth depends on it’s proper orbit to remain existing, if not maintained, sustained, the sun would destroy it, and that is very possible in the future, things deteriorate according to God’s plan. ( He will not destroy what He has created, but He will alter it’s existence)

I don’t think you’re answering my question.

Yes, we humans need air, warmth, water, food etc. But if these things are absent we do not instantaneously cease to exist. Our bodies will suffer, eventually brain death will occur and the various matter and energy constituents of our bodies will deteriorate and most likely get incorporated into some other form. But all of the matter/energy will still exist. Just as if the earth deviated from it’s proper orbit it wouldn’t immediately cease to exist. There would be cataclysmic changes, but all of the matter/energy would still exist.

Given that any particular hydrogen atom (or anything else) exists, how can it be demonstrated that something external to that atom is required to keep it from winking out of existence? I’m not talking about the atom changing location, or being incorporated into some other molecule or being ionised or even split into it’s constituent parts. How do you know that something external is needed to keep that ‘stuff’ existing.

 

[IWantGod]

I don’t know if premise 1 is valid or not. I think it is asserting that something (physical matter, energy or space-time) cannot come into existence in a situation in which nothing (no physical matter, energy or space-time) is existent.

It really doesn’t matter to me whether or not you think something can come from nothing, just so long as you accept that, if i am correct, the following 2 premises follow necessarily.

If we grant premise 1 and also grant the unwritten premise that physical matter, energy and space-time exists now, then the conclusion should be that there cannot be a time when there is nothing.

No, it just means that there cannot be nothing. And based on that fact, there must be a necessary being. This means that everything it necessarily is necessarily exists and does not potentially exist.

However, I think that the conclusion in point 2 goes beyond this. It asserts that ‘existence (pure actuality)’, that is an unchanging nature, must necessarily exist.

It is unchanging, because it is already everything that it necessarily is. Every aspect of its nature is** necessarily real** because it is the antithesis of nothing. If it is potentially real, we cannot say that it is necessary. If its nature moves from potentiality to act then its nature is not necessary or identical to existence because it has potentiality in it.

The premise at the start of point 3 seems to be saying that if something has the nature of being real, then it will be real and therefore not potentially real. The next part of point 3 is a conclusion that seems to assert that something that is potentially real needs something else to make it real and keep it real because it’s not intrinsically real.

Something that is potentially real cannot actualize itself because it is not itself actual, and existence is not intrinsic to its nature. Therefore it requires a being to actualize its potential and sustain it in existence because by itself it has no power or existence. Existence is not intrinsic to its identity.

I don’t think this answers my question, just pushes it a bit farther along. It just leads to the next question, which is: How can it be demonstrated that the stuff in our universe is only potentially real and so needs to be sustained, and not intrinsically real? Could it not be that all of the physical matter, energy and space-time in our universe that exists now has the nature of being real and so does not need to be sustained? What is it that is ‘potentially real’?

The universe is changing.

 

[ynotzap]

I don’t think you’re answering my question.

Yes, we humans need air, warmth, water, food etc. But if these things are absent we do not instantaneously cease to exist. Our bodies will suffer, eventually brain death will occur and the various matter and energy constituents of our bodies will deteriorate and most likely get incorporated into some other form. But all of the matter/energy will still exist. Just as if the earth deviated from it’s proper orbit it wouldn’t immediately cease to exist. There would be cataclysmic changes, but all of the matter/energy would still exist.

Given that any particular hydrogen atom (or anything else) exists, how can it be demonstrated that something external to that atom is required to keep it from winking out of existence? I’m not talking about the atom changing location, or being incorporated into some other molecule or being ionised or even split into it’s constituent parts. How do you know that something external is needed to keep that ‘stuff’ existing.

Demonstration can be made in two ways, one is through the cause, what is prior, and the other is the effect, what is after. When an effect is better known to us than it’s cause, from effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. For every effect the existence of it’s proper cause can be demonstrated, as long as it’s effects are better known to us, because every effect depends upon the cause, if the effect exists, the cause pre-exists. This is why the existence of God, not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us. I have already explained to Jaaanosik the argument from effect to cause. Existence is not our nature, our nature is dependent for it’s existence on God, who also is the source of motion, the universe is always undergoing change, it can not change itself, or cause it’s own existence, or possess total being, If it could it would never change, it would possess the totality of being, or existence.

The universe can not be all that it can be at one time, because it does not possess the totality of being at any time, only God, because He is Pure Being, and Existence. Potency is the capacity to become, and act is the act of becoming, no such thing in God, He is all that He can be at once. God sustains us in our existence, He can not give us His nature, but He does sustain us by continually causing us to exist, an eternal act. For this reason matter can not be destroyed, but changed in the way it exists. The demonstration is an intellectual one, not one of empirical science subject to experiment. The principles of cause and effect are found in empirical science, but remain on the material level, and not on non-physical or spiritual, which is strictly intellectual. The intellect is a spiritual faculty, dealing with spiritual realities, hard to understand in a materialistic thinking world.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

There is no motion in God, no change, He has no capacity to move, He is the fullness of Being, not Potency and Act like the us and the universe, but Pure Act, Pure Being. We move because we do not have the fullness of being, and existence is not our nature, we have existence as an attribute, and we are not our attributes. We have our creation in God, but were are not part of God. He is Pure Spirit, no parts, He is simple, He is the I Am Who Am, He is Existence. God wills what He does.

We are discussing God here. These are our models/hypothesis who God is; how we understand/see God. They can be true, false, partly true, …
I hope we agree on the Trinity.
When you say “There is no motion in God” who from the Trinity you have in mind?
Mark 16:19 “So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.”

Do you believe that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father?
Is there a separation between the Son and the Father in Heaven?
What is Heaven?

How the Trinity relates to God that has no capacity to move?
Nobody here knows how it is; only God knows.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I don’t think you’re answering my question.

Yes, we humans need air, warmth, water, food etc. But if these things are absent we do not instantaneously cease to exist. Our bodies will suffer, eventually brain death will occur and the various matter and energy constituents of our bodies will deteriorate and most likely get incorporated into some other form. But all of the matter/energy will still exist. Just as if the earth deviated from it’s proper orbit it wouldn’t immediately cease to exist. There would be cataclysmic changes, but all of the matter/energy would still exist.

Given that any particular hydrogen atom (or anything else) exists, how can it be demonstrated that something external to that atom is required to keep it from winking out of existence? I’m not talking about the atom changing location, or being incorporated into some other molecule or being ionised or even split into it’s constituent parts. How do you know that something external is needed to keep that ‘stuff’ existing.

I’ll give you my testimony how it appears to me.

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” bigger separation between them - these are fermions - mass particles.

If God stopped creating vacuum fluctuations then the matter would annihilate. There would not no more physical reality.