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

[Vico]

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.

Interjection from Collins Dictionary,
place (noun): 15. position, condition, or state ⇒ if I were in your place
state (noun): 3. any mode of existence

 

[ynotzap]

Interjection from Collins Dictionary,
place (noun): 15. position, condition, or state ⇒ if I were in your place
state (noun): 3. any mode of existence

Thank you Vico for the confirmation, I regard the spiritual dimension, not a place but a “state of existence” State is any mode of existence.

 

[IWantGod]

Metaphysically speaking, God is by definition the absolute antithesis of nothing.
Some have described him as the ground of all being.

Whatever you call God, he cannot be described as a being among other beings. Rather our actuality is sustained in God, and Existence is something intrinsic to God’s nature. Thus when God creates a being, it is not simply an act of creating something from nothing. Rather God must be considered as the very nature by which the very idea of a universe is actual. In him we are real. There is nothing real outside of God. God doesn’t create more existence, but rather God creates natures and this process involves a conjoining of potential with the act of existence. Our natures participate in the act of God which is no different to saying that we participate in the act of existence.

This leads me to think that there is only one true act of existence in which were are all participating. Thus when one says i have a being, this is not to say that my nature is existence, for i am only my nature. It is to say my nature is real only because i have God; and this is to say i am actual in God’s presence because God is existence itself.

I have existence = I have God

 

[ynotzap]

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?

As I said,these are theories, not facts, and upon examination I have reason to doubt some of the propositions. It is an interesting challenge, but it would take a lot of discussion, and a lot of speculation. You keep referring to thoughts on spiritual dimensions which seems to be your priority, so I will address that first. There are truths, and truths are of a spiritual nature, truths take the form of thought. As a matter of fact, it is the thought process that is the doorway to the existence of a spiritual soul in man. Even though reasoning or thought process is dependent on the brain, the power of thought does not reside in the brain. all knowledge to humans comes first through the senses, stimulated by the outside objective world. We are able to abstract ideas. Ideas are more than mental images which come through the imagination, case in point, whats your idea of knowledge, or truth are they images, they are words, symbols that have meaning, do we have physical representation of meaning? Meanings can only be UNDERSTOOD. A phenomenon of awareness, and being aware that we are aware is not a physical phenomenon, a bending back upon itself (as a matter of expression) No physical thing can do this, two material things can not occupy the same space, at the same time, part out side part, not part inside part. In our thought process we can do this, and as said often, the intellect is a spiritual faculty, not the brain. The brain is the medium through which these mental images are presented to the mind (intellect), the the intellect has the power of abstracting the idea ( a spiritual reality) from the objective world through the senses. There are different levels of abstraction, first the idea of things, second, the mathematical, or if you choose, the quantum level, the measurement of things, and thirdly, the metaphysical level, the ultimate causes and effects , found in the real world by third degree of abstraction. This level does not get the attention it should in our modern world of materialism. It is not recognized as it should be, therefore a lot of spinning ones wheels to get at a scientific answer is experienced. ( Continued next post )

 

[ynotzap]

CONTINUATION FROM LAST POST.
By understanding something about the nature of the human soul, through it powers of understanding, and volition (choice) which are not physical powers, even though the physical is united with the spiritual soul, by reason, we see two different realities, one physical, and the other non-physical we term, spiritual. Reason also leads us to conclude that in the union in man, that the soul is extrinsically dependent on the body ( physical) for it’s functions in this physical state of our existence. Since the soul is not physical, and it functions through its powers of intelligence, and volition, and doesn’t depend on matter in its nature for it’s existence, but the body depends on the soul for it’s existence, we say the soul is the form of the body, that makes the body a human body. In the philosophy of man, and metaphysics, the soul is the spiritual and immortal substantial form of an organized human body.

When speaking a spiritual soul, what do we mean. The soul is not a physical substance, it is not intrinsically dependent on matter, it doesn’t occupy space, or is limited in it’s function by natural physical laws except in it’ present state of existence united co-existentially with matter, which constitutes the nature of man, union of body and soul. It has powers or faculties of intelligence and volition (choice) The souls presence in the human body is by assignment, it is not mixed with the physical, man is one body, and one soul, not many bodies as sometimes believed. The knowledge of the rest of spiritual beings is supplied by Faith, even though there are witnesses to the realities of Angels In the degree of spiritual beings, we have man, a union of the physical with the spiritual, as co-principles existing together. Then we have angels, who a pure spirits, nothing physical, but with separate powers of intelligence and volition, like us who instead of reasoning, and gaining knowledge, intuit knowledge directly from God. They have their personalities, and share in the powers of God, who is at the top, and separate from the rest of spiritual beings.

Angels, meaning messengers, or minister of God Holy Scripture contains many references to Angels. As angels, they do not need a material place to exist, but may be present in a material place by way of action (St Thomas) According to the more probable opinion (St.Thomas), angels are not individuals of the same species, as man is, but every individual angel constitutes a species (because of the absence of matter which individualizes and multiplies forms numerically). Angel adhere unchangeably, once free choice is made for good or evil. Not like us who do change our choices.

In the material world, the things that are characteristics that make it up are: matter and form, essence and existence, and act and potency. In the spiritual state of existence, or beings we have essence and existence, and act and potency ( for they to are not the cause of their own motion or existence) You said that you are have knowledge of metaphysics, and if you have, then you will be able to understand these characteristics.

 

[Richca]

Metaphysically speaking, God is by definition the absolute antithesis of nothing.
Some have described him as the ground of all being.

Whatever you call God, he cannot be described as a being among other beings. Rather our actuality is sustained in God, and Existence is something intrinsic to God’s nature. Thus when God creates a being, it is not simply an act of creating something from nothing. Rather God must be considered as the very nature by which the very idea of a universe is actual. In him we are real. There is nothing real outside of God. God doesn’t create more existence, but rather God creates natures and this process involves a conjoining of potential with the act of existence. Our natures participate in the act of God which is no different to saying that we participate in the act of existence.

This leads me to think that there is only one true act of existence in which were are all participating. Thus when one says i have a being, this is not to say that my nature is existence, for i am only my nature. It is to say my nature is real only because i have God; and this is to say i am actual in God’s presence because God is existence itself.

I have existence = I have God

If I understand you correctly, you appear to have something of a univocal idea of being. This is not correct. St Thomas Aquinas taught the analogy of being which is what the Church teaches and divine revelation. The analogy of being means that the being or existence if you will of creatures is like, similar, a participation in God’s act of being (or existence) but not the same. There is an infinite difference between the creature’s act of being and God’s. God infinitely transcends his creation. The ultimate metaphysical structure of creatures in St Thomas’ metaphysics is the act of being and the essence or substance. The act of being stands in relation to the essence as act to potency.Both the act of being and the essence of creatures are created realities. The creatures’ act of being or act of existing if you will is created. We have been created out of nothing. Creatures are not God. If creatures had the same act of being as God they would be God and eternal. On the contrary, our faith teaches us that In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them out of nothing.

 

[IWantGod]

If I understand you correctly, you appear to have something of a univocal idea of being.

The way i am using the word “existence” doesn’t mean that our natures compared to God are some how identical or that we mean the word in the same way. I am saying that our being is analogous to God in that we do have a kind of act in the sense that there is a cow, a dog, a man, a universe. But we must also understand that what are natures are doing is all that we are, ontologically speaking.
The reason that this is important is because the very thing that is making us a real act cannot be considered intrinsic or identical to our nature because of the very fact that we begin to have an act as a dog, a human, or a universe, and there is also the fact that we move from potency to act. Thus existence is a nature on to itself. This nature is existence itself, the absolute antithesis of nothing. God. Our natures are not God, and this is to say that what they essentially are is a cow, a man, a universe, and are that alone.

 

[Aloysium]

God brings into existence cows, mankind, the entire universe. The existence of the cosmos requires His sustenance. Without God it cannot be. It is from truly nothing, no vacuum, no absence or emptiness, no want, no uncreated, eternal energy, that all this is brought forth through the Triune Godhead’s loving act of creation, bringing about the possibility that we can share in its beauty and wonder.

View attachment 23350

 

[Nixbits]

ynotzap:

Existence is not our nature, our nature is dependent for it’s existence on God

Despite several posts asking for some justification for this, all I’ve seen are more assertions.

ynotzap:

the universe is always undergoing change, it can not change itself

Are you asserting that our universe and things in our universe cannot change unless continually acted upon by an external influence? It seems to me that, given an initial condition that causes change, then the universe could continue to undergo change without the need for anything external to it.

The demonstration is an intellectual one, not one of empirical science subject to experiment.

Do you mean that this is an intellectual argument, internally logically consistent, and is a sufficient explanation but not subject to verification in the real world, and thus it cannot be shown to be necessary (i.e. true)?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Are you asserting that our universe and things in our universe cannot change unless continually acted upon by an external influence? It seems to me that, given an initial condition that causes change, then the universe could continue to undergo change without the need for anything external to it.

Do you mean that this is an intellectual argument, internally logically consistent, and is a sufficient explanation but not subject to verification in the real world, and thus it cannot be shown to be necessary (i.e. true)?

I don’t know what that poster would assert. I would say that our universe and the things that it is cannot be unless they are brought into existence. Their being involves continual change and interaction. This cannot happen if they do not exist. Their existence, like everything else that happens requires a cause, and that cause we call God. His nature is revealed in scripture, in creation and in our hearts.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium:

Their existence, like everything else that happens requires a cause

I must not be making myself clear. Forgetting the cause of the creation of the universe for a moment, and thinking only of how the universe continues to exist and continues to change. My question is this: Is it being asserted that the change in the universe (for example the Sun using up a bit more of its fuel in the time it took me to type this post) can only happen due to being acted upon by some influence that is external to our universe?

 

[ynotzap]

Despite several posts asking for some justification for this, all I’ve seen are more assertions.

/Apparently you are not following the Cosmological argument
Cause and effect is a universal objective truth and can be backed up by empirical science, it is not just an assertion. eg. In rocket propulsion, the oxidation of chemicals produces thrust and propels the rocket. The oxidation of the chemicals is the cause (a secondary one) and the propulsion is the effect, the effect becomes the cause for the motion forward. There are abundant examples I don’t understand your position:

Nixbits:

Are you asserting that our universe and things in our universe cannot change unless continually acted upon by an external influence? It seems to me that, given an initial condition that causes change, then the universe could continue to undergo change without the need for anything external to it.

Yes to the first sentence. I thought I explain this to you when I explained demonstrations from cause to effect, and effect to cause (apriori and aposteriori reasoning) I made it simple so that you could understand. Perhaps I didn’t simplify enough. All movement ultimately needs God to cause the motion, to move a cause to it’s effect I showed you the reason for that, you must also refer to other posts I made to get a more complete picture.

Nixbits:

Do you mean that this is an intellectual argument, internally logically consistent, and is a sufficient explanation but not subject to verification in the real world, and thus it cannot be shown to be necessary (i.e. true)?

If it was just an internal argument, then it would be subjective and not backed up by objective reality, but the logic is tied to objective reality which makes the logic true. This is the major trouble with empirical, materialistic science, they don’t go deep enough. They are always apply what they think is logic based on reality, when in fact, sometimes it’s not, it’s a jumble of theories and one has to discern fact from fiction, subjective thinking vs objective thinking. So we find weird expressions, and situations like something can travel in two different directions at the same time. If you think it is just assertions, then give your reasons for thinking otherwise.

 

[IWantGod]

God brings into existence cows, mankind, the entire universe.
View attachment 23350

Thats fine aslong as you don’t mean that God brings the nature of existence into existence.

 

[Aloysium]

Thats fine aslong as you don’t mean that God brings the nature of existence into existence.

God brings things that exist into being. They would not exist otherwise. They are created ex nihilo.
I’m not sure what the “nature of existence” is other than it is love, perfect relationality, to be found in the reality that is the Triune Godhead, who is the Source and connection to all creation.
Created in God’s image we have the capacity to join in His eternal communion. I don’t think that translates into “brings the nature of existence into existence”, but we as creatures do have this amazing capacity to love albeit not to bring things ex nihilo into being.

 

[Nixbits]

ynotzap:

Cause and effect is a universal objective truth and can be backed up by empirical science, it is not just an assertion.

Ynotzap, thank you for taking the time to try to explain this to me. If you’ve already provided your answer, then I apologise for not understanding it. If so, please feel free to drop it. But I don’t have any problem with accepting the objective truth of cause and effect. I think perhaps you misunderstand my request for clarification.

Take the example of pushing a toy boat across a pond. A cause is needed to give the toy boat movement. In this case a human hand imparts some forward motion to the toy boat. But thereafter no ‘external’ influence is required. The toy boat will continue to move forward for a time until its motion is damped by water resistance or it is acted upon by another force.

My suggested view of the universe is that, once that initial push (whatever it was) was given, the universe can continue to ‘move’ without an external influence. But others have asserted on this thread that God’s external influence is required, not just to keep the universe ‘moving’ (i.e. undergoing change), but to maintain the universe’s very existence. This is akin to the human hand being continuously needed to keep the toy-boat moving across the water.

I accept that the initial push (the ‘ultimate cause’) is required. But where is the justification for saying that the hand has to stay pushing the boat? If it is inherent in the nature of the material of the boat, the water and gravity for the boat to keep moving for a time, why is a continuous external influence required?

 

[Aloysium]

I must not be making myself clear. Forgetting the cause of the creation of the universe for a moment, and thinking only of how the universe continues to exist and continues to change. My question is this: Is it being asserted that the change in the universe (for example the Sun using up a bit more of its fuel in the time it took me to type this post) can only happen due to being acted upon by some influence that is external to our universe?

. . . If it is inherent in the nature of the material of the boat, the water and gravity for the boat to keep moving for a time, why is a continuous external influence required?

This may not satisfy as a proof. It is rather a description of how things are.

Let’s consider that everything is in movement.
A balance may be achieved in the space that exists between two objects, so that they appear stationary to one another, but with the myriad processes and forces in the universe, it will be fleeting.
In addition, there is some property that only temporarily causes them to be separate objects; they have no permanence as themselves and will fall apart or be transformed.
All that exists is motion; we isolate the dimension that describes this as time.

There is no such condition as standing still, except the reality of now, the moment in which events happen.
All things that exist are in movement, understood as the passage time, but their existence itself can also be understood as a movement, one that brings them into being.
What happens in the moment is caused by what was and is no longer. While this may explain why the moment has its current form, it is insufficient to explain why it is now.
This here and now is a like a vector, formed by a push forward in time and ontologically upwards from nothing,.

The existence of this moment is caused by what lies beyond and outside ourselves.
Events extend temporally and spatially beyond what is here and now, contained.
Like this very moment, what occurred in the past and will in future, it all exists whenever it happens.
Parts of one whole that contains all time and space, events are brought into existence by a common universal Cause outside themselves.

Each moment is isolated from the universal timeline, and defines our rational soul, which is on a journey towards its fulfillment, determined by its choices.

 

[ynotzap]

Nixbits;:

My suggested view of the universe is that, once that initial push (whatever it was) was given, the universe can continue to ‘move’ without an external influence. But others have asserted on this thread that God’s external influence is required, not just to keep the universe ‘moving’ (i.e. undergoing change), but to maintain the universe’s very existence. This is akin to the human hand being continuously needed to keep the toy-boat moving across the water.

I accept that the initial push (the ‘ultimate cause’) is required. But where is the justification for saying that the hand has to stay pushing the boat? If it is inherent in the nature of the material of the boat, the water and gravity for the boat to keep moving for a time, why is a continuous external influence required?

I appreciate your honesty and clarification of the problem, I only hope that I can do it justice.
Movement in not an inherent quality of the nature of the universe. What is an inherent quality of created things is the Capacity or Potential to be moved to an actuality, not to move itself, but to be moved. A potential has the possibility to become actual. Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, or something else. A thing in potency has to be moved to actuality; by something already actual, A thing in potency can not be in actuality;in the same respect, it can not be a potential and be in act respectively, A potential can not move itself, if it could it would not be a potential, it would be in act. So logically a potential has to be moved by another.

To be acted upon is not the same as to be in act, and things are always being acted upon, subjected to forces outside themselves, Since movement is not our inherent nature, even though we change, and move, things and us become secondary movers, not ultimate movers for we are moved by another. Since we do not move ourselves (even though we move) and change is always taking place, then logically the movement of things is sustained by another and not by us, or others except what is the Cause of all motion, something always in Act, this we call God, the Unmoved Mover.

As you stated the arm of a man moved the boat until the forces or laws of physics stop the toy boat from moving. But on closer examination there is change taking place eg. the material of the toy boat is being acted upon, water causing rot of the wood for example, vibration of the water being cause by something else. Upon even closer examination the molecules will show activity in all that is involved. Even the man himself by an act of will moved his arm. The will of man is a spiritual power, the power of choice) which involves spiritual movement, to move the boat or not to move the boat. And using the principle of cause and effect, the will did not move itself, and is not it"own power, but is moved by another We can not move another by willing it (except in paranormal situations, it can appear that way, telekinesis) We can’t even will one hair on our heads to grow, or to cause our hearts to beat causing motion in our bodies. These are facts, not assumptions or fiction.

God caused us to exist and it is an attribute, something caused by another and given to us ,God, and He is Pure Act causing our Potentials to become actualities because we can not cause or move ourselves, if we move we are secondary movers dependent on the Prime Mover to move us, and to sustain our existence, and motion Thing in this world, and in their nature are not eternal, but finite, limited. As I said before only God is eternal, and His act of creation is eternal, and He can keeps finite, limited things existing eternally once created, but we had a beginning, a cause for our existence

 

[Nixbits]

Hmm. I’m afraid I’m unmoved by your argument. I’m still puzzled.

ynotzap:

Movement in not an inherent quality of the nature of the universe.

Perhaps this assertion is the crux of my difficulty. I don’t see the justification for this statement. What this says to me is that, having initially created (for example) a star in a region of space/time, the thermonuclear fusion (& other processes) in that star will not continue without a continuous external influence. That doesn’t accord with my understanding of the way the universe works.

From what others have said I suspect that this is because metaphysics does not deal with what is demonstrable in the physical universe. If it’s not demonstrable, then how do we discern the difference between truth and a merely consistent & sufficient explanation that nevertheless may be completely wrong?

 

[IWantGod]

Hmm. I’m afraid I’m unmoved by your argument. I’m still puzzled.

Perhaps this assertion is the crux of my difficulty. I don’t see the justification for this statement. What this says to me is that, having initially created (for example) a star in a region of space/time, the thermonuclear fusion (& other processes) in that star will not continue without a continuous external influence. That doesn’t accord with my understanding of the way the universe works.

From what others have said I suspect that this is because metaphysics does not deal with what is demonstrable in the physical universe. If it’s not demonstrable, then how do we discern the difference between truth and a merely consistent & sufficient explanation that nevertheless may be completely wrong?

The way a thing moves is true of a things nature. However, movement in general is an actualization of potential, and potential cannot actualize itself.

 

[Nixbits]

IWantGod:

potential cannot actualize itself

Can the nature of something actualize that thing’s potential? And whether the answer is yes or no, can this be demonstrated?