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

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ynotzap said:
Synergy: meaning: the interaction of two or more agents or force so that their combined effects is greater than the individual effects. This makes sense if we add effect to effect, it is greater by number, quantity But not necessarily by quality.

I can not speak for Aristotle, but if the combined forces, or effects is lesser in greatness, then one individual effect, or force that is very great, then synergy does not hold true, that the combined effects is greater than an individual effect or force. Numbers do not make for greatness in effects, just greatness in quantity, numbers. Greatness is a quality, not a quantity, and quality is a subject proper to metaphysics, not quantitative measure. There is a lot of mixture of these ideas thats producing a lot of misunderstandings Emergence from a simple effect to a greater one is impossible, and erroneous.

What effect, giving existence to something that didn’t exist could be greater?
Click to expand...
There are many examples. For one thing:
Chemicals are individually safe - but in combination, they are poisonous or pose a health risk.
 
Tomdstone said:
There are many examples. For one thing:
Chemicals are individually safe - but in combination, they are poisonous or pose a health risk.
Click to expand...
Yes they do more than their individual effect in some cases , but they do other things as well, eg. sodium bicarbonate can neutralized acid (reduce the effect of acid) which can be harmful. How would this combination be greater in combination if one cancels the other. This is why I said "not necessarily in quality simply because of a greater number of effects It depends on the nature of the effect as to its greatness I agree that the effect of one canceling the other when considering health is greater, when we consider health greater than the chemical. We are talking about the OPs original statement aren’t we? Isn’t giving existence to something greater than any combinations of lesser effects?Can they even compare? Can health be greater than existence?
 
PRmerger said:
This ^^ is just an arbitrary definition and distinction.

In the context we’re using, there’s no difference between a maker and a creator.
Click to expand...
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Genesis 1,1

It says “created” and not “made”.

There is a difference. The difference is that God is the one and only cause for the heavens and the earth. God just willed them into existence.

“Made” means made from something. It means rearanging parts or putting parts together. God did not rearange parts or put anything together … he willed it to be, and he did not will it to be from nothing. If he willed something to be out of nothing then he made it. Creation means willed it. “From nothing” is an oxymoron. “From” assumes existence of something, and “nothing” assumes non existence.

So there is a very great difference between made and created and if there weren’t there wouldn’t be the need for two words.

No human being can just will something to be. They must have something before they can “make” something. And that is why Genesis says “created” and not “made”. God, so to speak, said, “let it be”. Notice Genesis dosen’t say God created it from nothing. But rather simply put is as “He created heaven and earth”, or let heaven and earth exist.

When discussing atheism, the question becomes … who/what willed anything into existence? If the existence of “nothing” is not possible, then we cannot logically talk about “nothing” because it then becomes something to talk about which it is not. How we must put the question … is what/who willed it into existence? Because logically that is the only way something could exist … by it’s being willed into existence. Which means that there had to be a being willing it.

When You said, “Seek My face”, my heart said to You, “Your face, LORD, I will seek.” Psalm 26
 
belorg said:
Lots of theistic philosophers disagree with Hawking and Krauss. They say that their ‘nothing’ isn’t really nothing.
We are talking about creation from absolutely nothing here.
Click to expand...
Many alternate models are very religious to, I see many atheists use the buddistic and veda model.
 
belorg said:
Lots of theistic philosophers disagree with Hawking and Krauss. They say that their ‘nothing’ isn’t really nothing.
We are talking about creation from absolutely nothing here.
Click to expand...
It is true that a quantum fluctuation is something and it is not nothing, but it is extremely small. It borders on the incredible to say that the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation. It would be more credible for an atheist to discuss the possibility of a cyclical model of the universe.
 
The big bang emerging from a quantum fluctuation is fine, but as has been stated it’s not nothing and that fluctuation, let alone whatever “fabric” it occurred in, does not have sufficient reason to explain itself.
 
Forgive my intrusion here but something about exnihilo bothers me. If someone might explain I would be eternally grateful.
It seems to me to be a case of wishing to eat our cake but still have it. If God is an eternal being then by definition there was never a point in time where there was nothing. According to Ephesians 4:6 “one God is…over all and through all and in all.” which seems to indicate that anything that does exist, does not nor can exist apart from God. Since by definition God is omnipresent but also omniscient this would include any conception of a non existant (physically or spiritually?) created thing. Platonic ideals or what have you included. Now since by definition as well God necessarily has no potential - a potential of zero. This means nothing can be added or removed from God. Yet apparently nothing can exist apart from God either. It would seem that anything that was or is or can exist must necessarily be in some way existant eternal with God in order to avoid our definition of God from collapsing. Of course one could say our definition of God is somehow incomplete or impossible to understand with the human mind but then we have the problem of rendering our definition of God meaningless thus imparting no information about God to us and making our definition the equivalent of no definition at all. Which is bothersome since that would put many people in the precarious position of dictating their actions based on something which they don’t understand and even worse think they do. Now if there is no place where there is nothing, since there is no place God is not, then creation exnihilo as we seem to understand it concerning God must be impossible and we are arguing over ignorance. I do hope someone can put my heart at ease with greater wisdom than I possess.
 
setarcos said:
This means nothing can be added or removed from God.
Click to expand...
Although this may be the teaching of Catholic philosophers, I don;t understand it. For example, before 1 BC, God did not have human form. Then after that God assumed human form. So does that not imply that human form was added since it did not exist before 1 BC?
 
setarcos said:
Forgive my intrusion here but something about exnihilo bothers me. If someone might explain I would be eternally grateful.
It seems to me to be a case of wishing to eat our cake but still have it. If God is an eternal being then by definition there was never a point in time where there was nothing. According to Ephesians 4:6 “one God is…over all and through all and in all.” which seems to indicate that anything that does exist, does not nor can exist apart from God. Since by definition God is omnipresent but also omniscient this would include any conception of a non existant (physically or spiritually?) created thing. Platonic ideals or what have you included. Now since by definition as well God necessarily has no potential - a potential of zero. This means nothing can be added or removed from God. Yet apparently nothing can exist apart from God either. It would seem that anything that was or is or can exist must necessarily be in some way existant eternal with God in order to avoid our definition of God from collapsing. Of course one could say our definition of God is somehow incomplete or impossible to understand with the human mind but then we have the problem of rendering our definition of God meaningless thus imparting no information about God to us and making our definition the equivalent of no definition at all. Which is bothersome since that would put many people in the precarious position of dictating their actions based on something which they don’t understand and even worse think they do. Now if there is no place where there is nothing, since there is no place God is not, then creation exnihilo as we seem to understand it concerning God must be impossible and we are arguing over ignorance. I do hope someone can put my heart at ease with greater wisdom than I possess.
Click to expand...
God is not a created thing. All creatures depend upon God for their existence. Catholic Encyclopedia explains some facets of Immensity and ubiquity, or omnipresence, see below:

That God is not subject to spatial limitations follows from His infinite simplicity; and that He is truly present in every place or thing — that He is omnipresent or ubiquitous — follows from the fact that He is the cause and ground of all reality. According to our finite manner of thinking we conceive this presence of God in things spatial as being primarily a presence of power and operation — immediate Divine efficiency being required to sustain created beings in existence and to enable them to act; but, as every kind of Divine action ad extra is really identical with the Divine nature or essence, it follows that God is really present everywhere in creation not merely per virtuten et operationem, but per essentiam. In other words God Himself, or the Divine nature, is in immediate contact with, or immanent in, every creature — conserving it in being and enabling it to act. But while insisting on this truth we must, if we would avoid contradiction, reject every form of the pantheistic hypothesis. While emphasizing Divine immanence we must not overlook Divine transcendence.
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
 
setarcos said:
Forgive my intrusion here but something about exnihilo bothers me. If someone might explain I would be eternally grateful.
It seems to me to be a case of wishing to eat our cake but still have it. If God is an eternal being then by definition there was never a point in time where there was nothing.
Click to expand...
The first thing that is really hard to grasp is “eternal”. We don’t take eternal to mean endless linear time stretching both ways as far as the eye can’t see, but rather God is outside time.
God self identifies as “I AM WHO AM”. That connotes pure being that is not subject to time.
Since God is pure being there is no before and after in God. God simply “is”. Language is inadequate.
In relation to God, it is meaningless to say “if God… then God”, or to refer to points in time for God. Points in time, and if/then statements, only apply to human experience.

So out of his omnipresence and pure existence God pours forth “stuff” where there was none. This is God’s love. Existence pouring itself out in love to create something that did not exist.

Marriage is the best sign we have of this, even though the analogy will be inadequate for many.
Think about this: Two people exist, and when they pour themselves out in love a new being is created where there was none. Marriage is the primordial sign of God’s timeless Trinitarian love and his power to create something where there was nothing.
 
goout said:
The first thing that is really hard to grasp is “eternal”. We don’t take eternal to mean endless linear time stretching both ways as far as the eye can’t see, but rather God is outside time.
God self identifies as “I AM WHO AM”. That connotes pure being that is not subject to time.
Since God is pure being there is no before and after in God. God simply “is”. Language is inadequate.
In relation to God, it is meaningless to say “if God… then God”, or to refer to points in time for God. Points in time, and if/then statements, only apply to human experience.

So out of his omnipresence and pure existence God pours forth “stuff” where there was none. This is God’s love. Existence pouring itself out in love to create something that did not exist.

Marriage is the best sign we have of this, even though the analogy will be inadequate for many.
Think about this: Two people exist, and when they pour themselves out in love a new being is created where there was none. Marriage is the primordial sign of God’s timeless Trinitarian love and his power to create something where there was nothing.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kindness in replying.
A few thoughts on what you replied if you’ll bare with my ignorance.

If human language is inadequate for understanding any conceptions of God that we may have trouble with then it is meaningless to reference some conceptions of God as our reasoning might apply them to God. Is it not meaningless to say that God resides outside of time if we cannot comprehend it’s implications? Human language was used in the formulation of the concepts to begin with. Ineffable things are best not speculated about. Even further, such things cannot even be conceptialized with human language. How could they be? They are ineffable. However we have conceived of a God outside of time and in our conceiving such a thing we must have a conception of what this means in relation to time. If we did not we could not even say God was outside of time as this would be meaningless. We have the ability to speculate upon something that our own language has conceptualized. Should we go arround saying it’s an inconceivable mystery then predicate our actions based on that which we cannot comprehend we surely would find our souls in danger of troubled waters and unnecessary conflicts. Yet it seems that is where we seem to be.
Do you not wonder at the many difficult conceptions of time itself? Is it a river with a direction of flow as Newton concieved? A series of infinite points of snapshots of reality with no direction of flow? Is it an illusion of sorts created in the mind of man as our “souls” travel through probability fluctuations? Or God’s dream?
Actually eternal is a concept related to “time” by definition. I assume you, if I understand you , wouldn’t apply this term to God because of this fact. Then again that would imply we cannot say that God is eternal since what in comparison would he be said to be eternal?
How is it that you can understand the I AM… to connote pure being and timelessness? Then understand what pure being is and timelessness by applying it to the I AM THAT I AM and yet say that humans cannot comprehend it? How is it that you understand that this “stuff” wich pours out comes from God’s omnipresence and pure existence since by this statement you are declaring that you comprehend omnipresence and pure existence?
You have not answered the conundrum of having a God of no potential and yet in adding something where nothing was before a potential was needed.
Why do you believe this to be a process of love? What do you mean by this love as it applies to creation?
Why do we believe we understand the loving relationship within the trinity as it applies to God or creation when we cannot use human language to comprehend the inherent contradictions found in its defined conception? Do you not believe that perfect love lacks nothing and God has perfect love? Love requires a recipient it is true. Where nothing exists to love love cannot exist. Perfect love is the total and complete love of all that can be loved is it not? Is this not the conception you have of the Trinitarian love between the persons of the God head? Thus the necessity of their Co eternity?This love is so perfect that there is no potential for more. Thus no potentiality in God. It makes no meaningful difference should this love be between the members of the Godhead or between God and his creation. This brings us back to my original problem of creation’s Co eternity with God. God cannot have perfect love for something that does not exist since by definition to love something it must exist, even if only in concept. But to love a concept perfectly is not the same thing that is perfectly loved in existence. Yet if a thing can exist that is not yet loved because of its non existence then God hasn’t perfect love. Which then requires potential which is impossible for God to have.

Consider this, we can have no conception of the creation of time itself as having beginning nor end since it’s own creation sits squarely in a state of timelessness. Just like God. Imagine, can we say here was not time and existence and here is time and existence when there is no frame of reference to compare the two states? Should we say God is the frame of reference we still have the same problem once removed since God is himself in a timeless state, one might even say is the timelessness creation and time finds itself in. In timelessness it is the same to say we always were here and we never will be here. Can we say God was before creation? Simply by saying before we’ve applied concepts of time.
 
setarcos said:
Forgive my intrusion here but something about exnihilo bothers me. If someone might explain I would be eternally grateful.
It seems to me to be a case of wishing to eat our cake but still have it. If God is an eternal being then by definition there was never a point in time where there was nothing. According to Ephesians 4:6 “one God is…over all and through all and in all.” which seems to indicate that anything that does exist, does not nor can exist apart from God. Since by definition God is omnipresent but also omniscient this would include any conception of a non existant (physically or spiritually?) created thing. Platonic ideals or what have you included. Now since by definition as well God necessarily has no potential - a potential of zero. This means nothing can be added or removed from God. Yet apparently nothing can exist apart from God either. It would seem that anything that was or is or can exist must necessarily be in some way existant eternal with God in order to avoid our definition of God from collapsing. Of course one could say our definition of God is somehow incomplete or impossible to understand with the human mind but then we have the problem of rendering our definition of God meaningless thus imparting no information about God to us and making our definition the equivalent of no definition at all. Which is bothersome since that would put many people in the precarious position of dictating their actions based on something which they don’t understand and even worse think they do. Now if there is no place where there is nothing, since there is no place God is not, then creation exnihilo as we seem to understand it concerning God must be impossible and we are arguing over ignorance. I do hope someone can put my heart at ease with greater wisdom than I possess.
Click to expand...
Creatio ex nihilo simply means the creation of space, matter, time and energy.

None of those things existed outside of the Godhead, until God willed them into existence.

There’s nothing in that paradigm which contradicts the philosophical understanding of God.
 
PRmerger said:
Creatio ex nihilo simply means the creation of space, matter, time and energy.

None of those things existed outside of the Godhead, until God willed them into existence.

There’s nothing in that paradigm which contradicts the philosophical understanding of God.
Click to expand...
The universe is both finite and eternal at the same time. It has a beginning. But in relation to God it exists simultaneously and in its entirety with God forever. There is no before or after time.
 
IWantGod said:
The universe is both finite and eternal at the same time. It has a beginning. But in relation to God it exists simultaneously and in its entirety with God forever. There is no before or after time.
Click to expand...
I have said this myself. As I delve further into Thomistic philosophy, I’ve learned that Thomas did not necessarily hold that all moments in time exist as one big block before God eternally. God’s being is the fullness of existence; he creates and sustains all contingent being eternally; God is the ultimate reality beneath all being. Even though neither the past nor future are actual (currently in being), God knows the universe past, present, and future because he knows himself and his act fully and entirely.

Granted, not everyone’s a Thomist, of course. But I still find his explanation intriguing.
 
setarcos said:
Forgive my intrusion here but something about exnihilo bothers me. If someone might explain I would be eternally grateful.
It seems to me to be a case of wishing to eat our cake but still have it. If God is an eternal being then by definition there was never a point in time where there was nothing. According to Ephesians 4:6 “one God is…over all and through all and in all.” which seems to indicate that anything that does exist, does not nor can exist apart from God. Since by definition God is omnipresent but also omniscient this would include any conception of a non existant (physically or spiritually?) created thing. Platonic ideals or what have you included. Now since by definition as well God necessarily has no potential - a potential of zero. This means nothing can be added or removed from God. Yet apparently nothing can exist apart from God either. It would seem that anything that was or is or can exist must necessarily be in some way existant eternal with God in order to avoid our definition of God from collapsing. Of course one could say our definition of God is somehow incomplete or impossible to understand with the human mind but then we have the problem of rendering our definition of God meaningless thus imparting no information about God to us and making our definition the equivalent of no definition at all. Which is bothersome since that would put many people in the precarious position of dictating their actions based on something which they don’t understand and even worse think they do. Now if there is no place where there is nothing, since there is no place God is not, then creation exnihilo as we seem to understand it concerning God must be impossible and we are arguing over ignorance. I do hope someone can put my heart at ease with greater wisdom than I possess.
Click to expand...
God does not conceive , or form an idea, this applies to the human mind. God’s all knowing, omniscience, is not a collection of ideas, or concepts. God is His attributes. With humans knowing and willing are two separate powers, in God they are One. He is Perfection, no potentiality, He is Pure Being, Existence and Essence are one in God. If something existed eternally with God, then God would not be God because that something that existed eternally with God, to be that something would have to have something that God didn’t have to be itself and not God. This is a contradiction, then God would not be Pure Being or Existence, lacking Pure Being, then God would have a potential
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top