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

[ynotzap]

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.

Do you know the nature of motion? What is your explanation? When I say there is no motion in God, I am attributing it to the Trinity. There is motion in the human nature of Jesus, but not in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Human nature is not the same as Person, which is derived from the spirit, not from the flesh. God causes motion in creatures because they are His creation, and for Him. Creatures or creations need to move to gain something, it is called being. We eat to grow, we breath to gain oxygen, we walk to gain distance and location, we study to gain knowledge. All these things are something we call beings, or some good. If we had all these things to start with, we wouldn’t need to move, if we could be all that we could be,and possess all good, why move, or change. The fact is that we are not all that we could be, or possess all things, or good. God needs nothing, He is Self-subsistent, He is all that He could be, and is the source of all things, so why does He have to move. Also God is the Supreme Good, and all movement is towards Him, for all things were created for Him, and glorify Him. God is the Supreme Good, and Pure Being

Everything is in Him, but not part of Him. Why attribute to God, human attributes, like movement? Yes we speak of Him in human terms, but they are human and limited, not divine and unlimited. What makes you believe that Heaven is up, for example. Many understand it to be a special state of existence, not a physical location. Do spirits occupy space. And even when our bodies are again united with our glorified spirits, they are spiritualized. Was Jesus hindered by a closed door, or a location, when He appeared to the Apostles? Didn’t He say He was human, flesh and blood and asked Thomas to touch His wounds. There is so much you do not know, listen to the Church and be careful of your own interpretations.

When you say “nobody knows,” speak for yourself. I don’t know many things that others do, so I can’t say “nobody knows” That is putting my judgement above others, and that can be viewed negatively.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Do you know the nature of motion? What is your explanation? When I say there is no motion in God, I am attributing it to the Trinity. There is motion in the human nature of Jesus, but not in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Human nature is not the same as Person, which is derived from the spirit, not from the flesh. God causes motion in creatures because they are His creation, and for Him. Creatures or creations need to move to gain something, it is called being. We eat to grow, we breath to gain oxygen, we walk to gain distance and location, we study to gain knowledge. All these things are something we call beings, or some good. If we had all these things to start with, we wouldn’t need to move, if we could be all that we could be,and possess all good, why move, or change. The fact is that we are not all that we could be, or possess all things, or good. God needs nothing, He is Self-subsistent, He is all that He could be, and is the source of all things, so why does He have to move. Also God is the Supreme Good, and all movement is towards Him, for all things were created for Him, and glorify Him. God is the Supreme Good, and Pure Being

Everything is in Him, but not part of Him. Why attribute to God, human attributes, like movement? Yes we speak of Him in human terms, but they are human and limited, not divine and unlimited. What makes you believe that Heaven is up, for example. Many understand it to be a special state of existence, not a physical location. Do spirits occupy space. And even when our bodies are again united with our glorified spirits, they are spiritualized. Was Jesus hindered by a closed door, or a location, when He appeared to the Apostles? Didn’t He say He was human, flesh and blood and asked Thomas to touch His wounds. There is so much you do not know, listen to the Church and be careful of your own interpretations.

When you say “nobody knows,” speak for yourself. I don’t know many things that others do, so I can’t say “nobody knows” That is putting my judgement above others, and that can be viewed negatively.

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?

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Do spirits occupy space. And even when our bodies are again united with our glorified spirits, they are spiritualized.
…

Spirits must occupy a space. They are creations and they have to be separated from God. That’s how it appears.
Our space time dimensions are different from spiritual dimensions.

There is interaction between the cause and effect.
If God causes the motion (the effect) of His creations then what is that interaction?

 

[ynotzap]

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?

Humanly speaking and figuratively speaking, yes. Now let me ask, is Jesus the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and is He Divine Pure Spirit, does a Divine Pure Spirit and God need to sit, and do They actually sit. Is the Body of Jesus not spiritualized, and if so, does He need to sit, does He actually sit. Do we humanize the Trinity in order to relate in our limited understanding? Does the Father have a right hand? Is He human? The Father is not the Son, they are separate Divine Persons, but They with the Holy Spirit are,One God. Explain what the Church teaches. Does the literal translation always express things the way they really are? Can we make compensation for our limitations in understanding and still represent the essential truths? Answer these question for me. If you can not, why go on.

 

[Tomdstone]

Humanly speaking and figuratively speaking, yes. Now let me ask, is Jesus the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and is He Divine Pure Spirit, does a Divine Pure Spirit and God need to sit, and do They actually sit. Is the Body of Jesus not spiritualized, and if so, does He need to sit, does He actually sit. Do we humanize the Trinity in order to relate in our limited understanding? Does the Father have a right hand? Is He human? The Father is not the Son, they are separate Divine Persons, but They with the Holy Spirit are,One God? Explain what the Church teaches. Does the literal translation always express things the way they really are? Can we make compensation for our limitations in understanding and still represent the essential truths? Answer these question for me. If you can not, why go on.

Apparently, some Roman Catholics do not take some of the Nicene creed literally, but in a figurative or metaphorical sense. Is this an official way of looking at the creed or is this a personal interpretation? The Nicene creed specifically states that God came down from heaven and became man, and that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Protestants take a lot of things metaphorically or at least not literally. For example, the Eucharist is symbolic to them.

 

[ynotzap]

Spirits must occupy a space. They are creations and they have to be separated from God. That’s how it appears.
Our space time dimensions are different from spiritual dimensions.

There is interaction between the cause and effect.
If God causes the motion (the effect) of His creations then what is that interaction?

Why do spirits occupy space, they have no physical dimensions. Is God Pure Spirit? Is the soul spirit, if it is where is it,what space will it be found in the human body? Can you localize a spirit? Appearances are not necessarily true. What is spiritual dimension? How is it applied? Where in space is Heaven?

The cause is that which moves, and the effect is that which is produced by the movement in secondary causes, The uncaused cause is that which moves, without moving itself and producing the first moved cause in secondary causes God wills His creation into existence, and He is the Uncaused Cause

 

[Tomdstone]

Can you localize a spirit?

It seems yes that you can. For example, the Eucharist is God and is worshiped and adored. The Eucharist is placed and localized in the monstrance, or ostensorium.

 

[ynotzap]

It seems yes that you can. For example, the Eucharist is God and is worshiped and adored. The Eucharist is placed and localized in the monstrance, or ostensorium.

It is believed that Jesus in present in body, soul, and divinity, not just in spirit, if He were present in just the spirit, you would not see Him in the physical presence of the Eucharist. This is the mystery of the Transubstantiation. There have been many miracles concerning the Eucharist, eg. real flesh, even associated with the flesh present in the heart. Jesus is really present, it’s something I have been privileged to witness in a different way. I can say no more according to the forum rules.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Humanly speaking and figuratively speaking, yes. Now let me ask, is Jesus the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and is He Divine Pure Spirit, does a Divine Pure Spirit and God need to sit, and do They actually sit. Is the Body of Jesus not spiritualized, and if so, does He need to sit, does He actually sit. Do we humanize the Trinity in order to relate in our limited understanding? Does the Father have a right hand? Is He human? The Father is not the Son, they are separate Divine Persons, but They with the Holy Spirit are,One God. Explain what the Church teaches. Does the literal translation always express things the way they really are? Can we make compensation for our limitations in understanding and still represent the essential truths? Answer these question for me. If you can not, why go on.

Why do spirits occupy space, they have no physical dimensions. Is God Pure Spirit? Is the soul spirit, if it is where is it,what space will it be found in the human body? Can you localize a spirit? Appearances are not necessarily true. What is spiritual dimension? How is it applied? Where in space is Heaven?

The cause is that which moves, and the effect is that which is produced by the movement in secondary causes, The uncaused cause is that which moves, without moving itself and producing the first moved cause in secondary causes God wills His creation into existence, and He is the Uncaused Cause

There is God outside of the space time, three Divine Persons, One God.
Then there are creations within the space time. The dimensions x, y, z and t.
There is a clear separation between the creations within the space time. The creations are not God.
It follows that there must be spiritual dimensions in order for the soul spirit to have its being because the soul spirit is not God and there are separations between different soul spirits. The spiritual dimensions are not equal with the space time dimensions.
One God in three Divine Persons is outside those spiritual dimensions as well because if that would not be the case then soul spirits would be one with God.
Heaven should have the same spiritual dimensions.

I agree that He is the Uncaused Cause.
What I am after is this: “The uncaused cause is that which moves, without moving itself and producing the first moved cause in secondary causes.”
What is the mechanism of this? How does it work?

"Does the literal translation always express things the way they really are? "
No, it does not.

"Can we make compensation for our limitations in understanding and still represent the essential truths? "
No we can not. We need a gift of faith that our assumptions about unknown and our understandings are true.

I’ll repeat, if somebody would claim that he knows all about the subject of this thread then that person would have to explain the mechanism of this: “The uncaused cause is that which moves, without moving itself and producing the first moved cause in secondary causes.”
It’s all about how the reality is being created. This is the edge where the physics ends and there is a big unknown beyond the physics.

 

[ynotzap]

Apparently, some Roman Catholics do not take some of the Nicene creed literally, but in a figurative or metaphorical sense. Is this an official way of looking at the creed or is this a personal interpretation? The Nicene creed specifically states that God came down from heaven and became man, and that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Protestants take a lot of things metaphorically or at least not literally. For example, the Eucharist is symbolic to them.

Did you ever consider that there are times when something is taken literally and times they shouldn’t be taken literally. Some things are explained, or believed by ANALOGY Can Heaven be up, if so, how far up, and if it is, it is still in the material universe, not a spiritual one. If God came down, from where, some place in the physical universe? If Jesus sits at the right hand of God, does God have a right hand, or any hand, except in Jesus’ human nature, is God Pure Spirit or isn’t He? And who is to determine the true translation of the truths of the Bible? Who has been given this authority. How would one explain to the common people spiritual truths that are difficult to understand except through analogy, and some can’t be understood because they are divine mysteries. People use common language, do they all understand the root meaning of the words? Or really understand the full meanings of the word? There are many ways of expressing truths. Jesus used parables, stories to convey truth. Heaven is like… etc, etc. there seems to be no flexibility in understanding. You ask questions, but don’t directly answer some questions proposed to you.

It is stated in the Nicene Creed, " Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from Heaven…" If we translate this literally, Heaven is a place in the created universe above our world, it is a distance upward in the universe that needs to be tranversed downward to reach earth. Heaven is a spiritual world, were God, the Beatific Vision reigns in His glory, and those with him are spirits, and disembodied spirits united with Him , until the dis-embodied spirit (us) will again be united to our body ( the glory of our glorified souls will flow into the body and spiritualize it, as Jesus was at His Resurrection’ at the final judgement. God is Omnipresent, why would He have to come down from anywhere? But how else but by analogy could we express this truth? So to use these human expression is justified if understood in this light. So where is the problem?

 

[ynotzap]

There is God outside of the space time, three Divine Persons, One God.
Then there are creations within the space time. The dimensions x, y, z and t.
There is a clear separation between the creations within the space time. The creations are not God.
It follows that there must be spiritual dimensions in order for the soul spirit to have its being because the soul spirit is not God and there are separations between different soul spirits. The spiritual dimensions are not equal with the space time dimensions.
One God in three Divine Persons is outside those spiritual dimensions as well because if that would not be the case then soul spirits would be one with God.
Heaven should have the same spiritual dimensions.

I agree that He is the Uncaused Cause.
What I am after is this: “The uncaused cause is that which moves, without moving itself and producing the first moved cause in secondary causes.”
What is the mechanism of this? How does it work?

"Does the literal translation always express things the way they really are? "
No, it does not.

"Can we make compensation for our limitations in understanding and still represent the essential truths? "
No we can not. We need a gift of faith that our assumptions about unknown and our understandings are true.

I’ll repeat, if somebody would claim that he knows all about the subject of this thread then that person would have to explain the mechanism of this: “The uncaused cause is that which moves, without moving itself and producing the first moved cause in secondary causes.”
It’s all about how the reality is being created. This is the edge where the physics ends and there is a big unknown beyond the physics.

Metaphysics is beyond physics, for many people this is a big unknown, but known to some, and it will explain things that physics and empirical sciences can not explain, it’s not their field of expertise, they are earth bound, grounded in materialism. I have already explained to you why God is called the Uncaused Cause as a logical conclusion drawn from the Cosmological argument. I am sorry that I failed in helping you understand the argument, perhaps someone else can.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Metaphysics is beyond physics, for many people this is a big unknown, but known to some, and it will explain things that physics and empirical sciences can not explain, it’s not their field of expertise, they are earth bound, grounded in materialism. I have already explained to you why God is called the Uncaused Cause as a logical conclusion drawn from the Cosmological argument. I am sorry that I failed in helping you understand the argument, perhaps someone else can.

Did you read my post?
I said I agree that He is the Uncaused Cause.
I think I understand the Cosmological argument quite well.

It appears you are lost on the edge of the physics and the metaphysics.
You called my post on the topic a Star Trek science fiction. Do you understand what I said?

I am looking for a feedback. Please, point any glaring mistakes about the spiritual dimensions reasoning. That’s not physics. No big deal if you say I don’t know.

 

[Vico]

Vico
Thank you for your response,
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.

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.

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

Well I did not say that the Catholic Church referred to Panentheism, I noted that there are various definitions of Panentheism; it is a modern term. From New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality, pp. 89-92.:

This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God’s body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God’s body, but God’s awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God–as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God’s purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

At least one school of Panentheism opposes teachings from Vatican I (and II). So it is not an interpretation of Panentheism. There is opposition to Catholic dogma when the ideology of Panentheism holds that the absolutely infinite ontological separation between Creator and creatures is not, of the universe is viewed as an emanation from His nature rather than created ex nihilo,

 

[Vico]

Well I did not say that the Catholic Church referred to Panentheism, I noted that there are various definitions of Panentheism; it is a modern term. From New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality, pp. 89-92.:

This universal arrangement is not pantheism (all is God), but panentheism, a term devised by Karl C. F. Krause (1781-1832) to describe his thought. It is best known for its use by Charles Hartshorne and recently by Matthew Fox. Panentheism says that all is in God, somewhat as if God were the ocean and we were fish. If one considers what is in God’s body to be part of God, then we can say that God is all there is and then some. The universe is God’s body, but God’s awareness or personality is greater than the sum of all the parts of the universe. All the parts have some degree of freedom in co-creating with God. At the start of its momentary career as a subject, an experience is God–as the divine initial aim. As the experience carries on its choosing process, it is a freely aiming reality that is not strictly God, since it departs from God’s purpose to some degree. Yet everything is within God.

At least one school of Panentheism opposes teachings from Vatican I (and II). So it is not an interpretation of Panentheism. There is opposition to Catholic dogma when the ideology of Panentheism holds that the absolutely infinite ontological separation between Creator and creatures is not, of the universe is viewed as an emanation from His nature rather than created ex nihilo,

The phrase “of the universe” should be: “or the universe”.

 

[ynotzap]

Did you read my post?
I said I agree that He is the Uncaused Cause.
I think I understand the Cosmological argument quite well.

It appears you are lost on the edge of the physics and the metaphysics.
You called my post on the topic a Star Trek science fiction. Do you understand what I said?

I am looking for a feedback. Please, point any glaring mistakes about the spiritual dimensions reasoning. That’s not physics. No big deal if you say I don’t know.

Physics; Original meaning: natural philosophy (2) the science dealing with the properties, changes, interactions, etc of matter and energies, including eletricity, heat, optics, mechanics, etc, including such branches as atomic, nuclear and solid-state physics.

Metaphysics: That branch of philosophy that deals with first principles and seeks to explain the nature of being or reality (ontology, the science of being as being, the ultimate causes and effects), cosmology, the origin of the universe, epistemology, the study of the nature of knowledge, any subtle difficult reasoning (popular meaning)

When viewing the material world are you aware that there are several characteristics present that constitute the material world, do you know what they are? When dealing with spiritual realities, do you know what characteristics are present or constitute this reality? If you say you don’t know, no big deal. I asked some question in your post that were never answered, especially about vacuum, To my knowledge, the definition has never been made clear with proof, so when I see you state the things you did, about fluctuating vacuums etc, it sounded like you bought some scientist’s theory hook, line, and sinker. It seems to be just theory, with no substantial proof, clarify. Is there actually space, with nothing in it, a pure vacuum? Does nothing exist in the material world? And if did, how would you detect it.?

 

[Richca]

Apparently, some Roman Catholics do not take some of the Nicene creed literally, but in a figurative or metaphorical sense. Is this an official way of looking at the creed or is this a personal interpretation? The Nicene creed specifically states that God came down from heaven and became man, and that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. Protestants take a lot of things metaphorically or at least not literally. For example, the Eucharist is symbolic to them.

The council fathers knew fully well as told to us in the Holy Scriptures that God is everywhere, everywhere whole and entire. Jesus Christ in his divine nature or the other persons of the Trinity do not go up or down or sideways. The use of the words in the creed ‘For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven’ are probably taken from the very words of Jesus himself in John 3:13 “No one has ascended into heaven but he who has descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.” Being that God is everywhere, the words of the creed ‘he came down from heaven’ and the words of Jesus are expressing the mystery of the incarnation in a metaphorical sense adapted to a human mode of understanding. The Holy Scriptures present God as enthroned above the heavens or in the heavens as he is the creator, Lord, and King of the universe. The words of the Lord’s prayer that Jesus taught us begin with ‘Our father who are in heaven.’ The angels and saints dwell with God in a special place we call heaven. This does not mean that God is only present in heaven for he is everywhere, but that he is present in an especial manner in heaven through grace to the angels and blessed which is the special abode of the angels and blessed.

 

[Tomdstone]

I asked some question in your post that were never answered, especially about vacuum, To my knowledge, the definition has never been made clear with proof, so when I see you state the things you did, about fluctuating vacuums etc, it sounded like you bought some scientist’s theory hook, line, and sinker. It seems to be just theory, with no substantial proof, clarify. Is there actually space, with nothing in it, a pure vacuum?

People mean different things when they talk about a vacuum. The meaning will depend on the context. At one time, the vacuum was thought to be a region of space filled with a medium called the aether. Today, the vacuum state is usually considered to be the ground state of matter.
In classical field theory the vacuum occurs where the stress energy tensor is zero.
The QED vacuum is the lowest energy state of the quantized electromagnetic field. It is *a sea of continuously appearing and disappearing pairs of virtual particles, which is sometimes said to be a consequence of the Heisenberg energy time uncertainty relation. Theoretically, if you let the Planck’s constant approach zero, you would get the same situation as in the classical field case.
The vacuum expectation value of a quantized field can be non-zero as is seen from the Casimir effect.

 

[Richca]

Spirits must occupy a space. They are creations and they have to be separated from God. That’s how it appears.
Our space time dimensions are different from spiritual dimensions.

There is interaction between the cause and effect.
If God causes the motion (the effect) of His creations then what is that interaction?

Philosophically speaking, I don’t believe space and place are the same thing although in modern thinking space and place seem to be confused with each other and synonymous. Philosophically speaking, spirits do not occupy space, only material bodies do. Spirits such as the angels can be in a place. However, spirits such as the angels and material substances are not in a place in the same manner. Bodies are in a place as being contained by the place while spirits are in a place not as being contained by the place but by somehow containing the place through their power. For example, our bodies do not contain our spiritual souls but our souls contain the body.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Physics; Original meaning: natural philosophy (2) the science dealing with the properties, changes, interactions, etc of matter and energies, including eletricity, heat, optics, mechanics, etc, including such branches as atomic, nuclear and solid-state physics.

Metaphysics: That branch of philosophy that deals with first principles and seeks to explain the nature of being or reality (ontology, the science of being as being, the ultimate causes and effects), cosmology, the origin of the universe, epistemology, the study of the nature of knowledge, any subtle difficult reasoning (popular meaning)

When viewing the material world are you aware that there are several characteristics present that constitute the material world, do you know what they are? When dealing with spiritual realities, do you know what characteristics are present or constitute this reality? If you say you don’t know, no big deal. I asked some question in your post that were never answered, especially about vacuum, To my knowledge, the definition has never been made clear with proof, so when I see you state the things you did, about fluctuating vacuums etc, it sounded like you bought some scientist’s theory hook, line, and sinker. It seems to be just theory, with no substantial proof, clarify. Is there actually space, with nothing in it, a pure vacuum? Does nothing exist in the material world? And if did, how would you detect it.?

The vacuum is something where the fluctuations happen. The vacuum is a medium for electromagnetic waves. The question is if the vacuum is EM medium because there are fluctuations or it could be the medium without them.
The vacuum state is considered the ground state of matter.
These are basic attributes that physicists use when they work with vacuum in their models. The Lamb shift (measured real thing) is considered as an effect of the vacuum fluctuations.
As of now the vacuum fluctuations are considered real by physicists unless we find something else to explain spontaneous emissions and the Lamb shift.

When you ask “Is there actually space, with nothing in it, a pure vacuum?” it appears your nothing is absence of mass particles, fermions. In that case yes. There is pure vacuum. But the pure vacuum is not empty there are still force carriers ‘flying’ through it and there are vacuum fluctuations. So pure vacuum is not empty.

Maybe you already heard that if a proton of the hydrogen atom was a size of a marble ball then electron of the atom would be 3km away. What is in between them? ‘Pure vacuum’ full of force carriers.

The spiritual realities is a big unknown. How come they are real in a sense we experience them?
As I said it appears there are spiritual dimension in order for a spiritual reality to have its being because they appear to be outside of the space time. Unless we go to an extreme and say there are no spiritual dimensions and spiritual realities are a product of electrical discharges in our brains.
What are your thoughts on the spiritual dimensions?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Philosophically speaking, I don’t believe space and place are the same thing although in modern thinking space and place seem to be confused with each other and synonymous. Philosophically speaking, spirits do not occupy space, only material bodies do. Spirits such as the angels can be in a place. However, spirits such as the angels and material substances are not in a place in the same manner. Bodies are in a place as being contained by the place while spirits are in a place not as being contained by the place but by somehow containing the place through their power. For example, our bodies do not contain our spiritual souls but our souls contain the body.

So are you saying that ‘place’ is something within the spiritual dimensions and ‘space’ is within our space time?
It appears we can not avoid a ‘spiritual dimensions universe’ where spirits - God’s creations have their being.