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

[Sparkythedog]

Could “speaking” have more the one meaning? Could it be that there is a different meaning than the one you imposed? Dictionary.com lists 18 definitions for the word speak. This one is the closest to the meaning stated in “God said”.
I bolded a significant part.

By what means does God disclose? And how does that disclosure create universes? I don’t hear any reasons why I should accept this idea of how the universe originated.

You say God spoke the world into existence, but you can’t provide any further information about what that means. To me this is some flowery language that sounds profound but says nothing of substance.

 

[PRmerger]

Some people contend that the universe was always present in one form or another, so there is no need for a creation.

This is logically nonsense. Even the skeptic David Hume asserts this.

“An infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man, one should think, whose judgement is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.”–David Hume
genius.com/David-hume-an-enqu…-122-annotated

And it is also scientifically nonsense. Science asserts that the universe had a beginning.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what that means. Speaking involves sending sound waves through the air by vibrating your vocal cords. How does doing that make a universe?

Interesting.

It seems as if, for some peculiar reason, you are suddenly quite the literalist and fundamentalist here regarding the word “speak”.

And yet here you are, understanding that “speak” doesn’t necessarily involve “sending sound waves through the air by vibrating your vocal cords”.

As I understand it, those non intelligent interaction are what make me who I am. I speak in terms of “me” because that is how I perceive myself in relation to the outside world.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8238876&highlight=speak#post8238876

Or do you actually vibrate your vocal cords with each word you type on your laptop?

 

[thenobes]

God’s first cause allows that all states of the universe to exist at once. This however does not explain how the universe could have any dynamic. This also does not explain how God could sustain the universe as well.

Maybe the universe only appears to us to be dynamic because our consciousnesses are travelling through the dimension of time. All the universe, from creation to end, has been created, taking into account at each point in time the actions desired by our wills, within physical limits set by God.

IMHO

peace
steve

 

[Sparkythedog]

Interesting.

It seems as if, for some peculiar reason, you are suddenly quite the literalist and fundamentalist here regarding the word “speak”.

And yet here you are, understanding that “speak” doesn’t necessarily involve “sending sound waves through the air by vibrating your vocal cords”.

Or do you actually vibrate your vocal cords with each word you type on your laptop?

Speaking has the connotation of uttering sounds. I do not speak by typing on a keyboard.

Anyway you are correct when you say the literal definition of speak doesn’t matter. What I want to know is, how did God create the universe. If I were standing there when it happened, what would I see? And how do you know this to be the case?

 

[Nixbits]

Anthony V:

It’s not contradictory to say that something can positively be known to be the case without knowledge of precisely how it is the case.

I agree.
Anthony V:

For instance, I don’t have to know every detail of neuroscience to think. I don’t really even have to know any details of neuroscience to think, since the act of thinking does not entail thinking about neuroscience – in which case, I don’t even need a hypothesis to justify my act of thinking. Some things are so basic that they are infallibly known, and are anterior to justification.

I agree, but I don’t think your analogy very apt. In the context of this discussion, being able to think is analogous to the universe existing. We don’t need to know how it happens to know that the universe exists. But, just as it would be unjustified to claim something about how or why we think without some explanation, it’s unjustified to assert that God created and sustains the existence of the universe without some explanation to back it up.
Anthony V:

Some things are so basic that they are infallibly known, and are anterior to justification.

I would tentatively accept this, although I think the set of such things is very small. In the case of solipsism, for example, we cannot infallibly know it’s not true, but we have no choice but to assume that it’s not if we’re ever to think or attempt to ‘know’ anything.
Anthony V:

To be sure, I wouldn’t say that God numbers among them, but we shouldn’t prematurely say that what what can be infallibly known doesn’t give way to analytic propositions like “Whatever is moved is moved by another,” or “There exists what we call Pure Act.” That is, in fact, how the Catholic philosophical tradition has generally advanced. It is not a kind of reasoning contingent upon scientific hypothesis (as useful as such a thing might be in other matters). Otherwise, we could not even demonstrate the validity of scientific methodology, since we can’t do experiments on such abstract notions.

The problem I see with such abstract notions is that by denying that they are testable they are also removed from any practical application to the physical world. For the proposition “Whatever is moved is moved by another” this matters because the First Cause argument makes claims about the physical universe.

 

[PRmerger]

Speaking has the connotation of uttering sounds.

Even you don’t believe that.

To wit:

The article (or the portion that you presented of it) talks about the attitude of ownership that some men feel towards their spouse and how this attitude can lead to violence. It goes on to speak how an attitude of ownership may be understood in terms of the evolution of our species.

Unless you believe that articles can utter sounds?

I do not speak by typing on a keyboard

Egg-zactly. And yet you used “speak” to describe what you were doing on a keyboard.

QED.

Anyway you are correct when you say the literal definition of speak doesn’t matter. What I want to know is, how did God create the universe. If I were standing there when it happened, what would I see? And how do you know this to be the case?

These are otiose questions, Sparky, as it’s the same answer no matter if God exists or not.

That is, you still need an explanation for how the universe was created, and if you were standing there when it happened you’d see the same thing…and we’d ask* you: *how do you know this to be the case?

 

[Sparkythedog]

Even you don’t believe that.

To wit:

Unless you believe that articles can utter sounds?

Egg-zactly. And yet you used “speak” to describe what you were doing on a keyboard.

QED.

These are otiose questions, Sparky, as it’s the same answer no matter if God exists or not.

That is, you still need an explanation for how the universe was created, and if you were standing there when it happened you’d see the same thing…and we’d ask* you: *how do you know this to be the case?

I don’t when know if you are intentionally missing my point or legitimately confused. When we say an article or something incapable of creating sound “speaks”, that word is being used metaphorically. As you point out, I’m not against using metaphors in everyday language.

However, in this case, when I asked for a description of how God created the universe I got, ‘God spoke it into existence’. Is that metaphorical language? If it is, that’s not what I’m looking for.

I am asking for a description of what physically happened. You have God as a beginning and you have God and the universe in the end. What, in your mind are the steps in between?

 

[Sparkythedog]

I agree.

I agree, but I don’t think your analogy very apt. In the context of this discussion, being able to think is analogous to the universe existing. We don’t need to know how it happens to know that the universe exists. But, just as it would be unjustified to claim something about how or why we think without some explanation, it’s unjustified to assert that God created and sustains the existence of the universe without some explanation to back it up.

I would tentatively accept this, although I think the set of such things is very small. In the case of solipsism, for example, we cannot infallibly know it’s not true, but we have no choice but to assume that it’s not if we’re ever to think or attempt to ‘know’ anything.

The problem I see with such abstract notions is that by denying that they are testable they are also removed from any practical application to the physical world. For the proposition “Whatever is moved is moved by another” this matters because the First Cause argument makes claims about the physical universe.

Well said!

 

[Partinobodycula]

Nixbits:

The problem I see with such abstract notions is that by denying that they are testable they are also removed from any practical application to the physical world. For the proposition “Whatever is moved is moved by another” this matters because the First Cause argument makes claims about the physical universe.

Sparkythedog:

However, in this case, when I asked for a description of how God created the universe I got, ‘God spoke it into existence’. Is that metaphorical language? If it is, that’s not what I’m looking for.

I am asking for a description of what physically happened. You have God as a beginning and you have God and the universe in the end. What, in your mind are the steps in between?

 

[fisherman_carl]

God’s first cause allows that all states of the universe to exist at once. This however does not explain how the universe could have any dynamic. This also does not explain how God could sustain the universe as well.

The first cause has within it the ability to cause everything else that exists and its properties. Since the first cause must have within itself the ability to actualize all of these potentialities.

For instance, if a cup rests on a desk and that desk rests on the floor and the floor rests on the foundation which rests on the earth, then the first cause, the earth, is the cause of all the other causes. The cup would not rest on the table without it. Yet all the other causes play a secondary cause to it. All these causes occur simultaneously. Like God sustaining existence.

 

[Anthony_V]

I agree, but I don’t think your analogy very apt. In the context of this discussion, being able to think is analogous to the universe existing. We don’t need to know how it happens to know that the universe exists. But, just as it would be unjustified to claim something about how or why we think without some explanation, it’s unjustified to assert that God created and sustains the existence of the universe without some explanation to back it up.

I’m not sure I understand your point. All I’m attempting to illustrate is that there is not in every case a regress of explanation to determine whether something is the case, even if there may be a regress of explanation in determining how something is the case. I’m not saying that the act of thinking is inexplicable. Indeed, I would insist that it is explicable on some level. I’m just saying that we don’t have to explicate it to know that it exists. I feel that I am misunderstanding you, though.

I would tentatively accept this, although I think the set of such things is very small. In the case of solipsism, for example, we cannot infallibly know it’s not true, but we have no choice but to assume that it’s not if we’re ever to think or attempt to ‘know’ anything.

I would agree the set of such things is very small, but I would say that speaks to their fundamental character. If they are fundamental principles, maybe we can agree they would have wide-reaching effects?

The problem I see with such abstract notions is that by denying that they are testable they are also removed from any practical application to the physical world. For the proposition “Whatever is moved is moved by another” this matters because the First Cause argument makes claims about the physical universe.

The first cause argument makes claims about the physical universe only incidentally. More proximately, it makes claims about change; the term “motion,” as used by Aristotle and the scholastics, denoted not merely local motion in the sense of movement from here to there, but motion from potentially being the cause to actually being the case:

For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.
S.T. Ia Q.2 Art. 3.

That would number among the fundamental principles mentioned above, and, as I understand, there are a few corollaries stemming from it. Those corollaries, in fact, would be what the Aristotelian and Scholastic tradition uses in arguments for a first cause. Such an argument would be, in terms of empirical investigation, no more falsifiable than the fact of change.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t when know if you are intentionally missing my point or legitimately confused.

Oh, yes. I am legitimately confused.

You seem to have some weird fundamentalist reading of “God speaks”, saying that speaking must involve “sending sound waves through the air by vibrating your vocal cords” (do I need to cite your posts again?)

And yet, when it’s been shown that you clearly don’t believe this for yourself…you act as if I shouldn’t be confused?

Isn’t it confusing for readers to see you reserve for yourself what you object to in others?

“I get to, er, ‘speak’ metaphorically” but when another poster does the same thing you do, you demand a different standard.

Why is that?

 

[Aloysium]

Sparky, my dawg, what happened is what happened.

In a way we can be said to be looking, through technological extensions of our senses, to the beginning of time. Our intellect allows us to be literally standing there watching it happen as we gaze into the depths of space.

I would describe the beginning of all this, is as follows:

There was the Plank Era, what happened during the smallest conceived first fragment of time. Not much is or can be known about that.
The very early universe includes what happened between the Plank Era and the cosmic expansion. Here too, not much is known other than it lasted a picosecond and resulted in a 10 to the power of 26 increase in volume.
The early universe comprised of the Quark and Photon epochs lasted 380,000 years and saw the beginning of familiar particles and forces. The universe at that time was a plasma.
What followed this is described as a dark age, lasting 150,000,000 yrs, in which the universe was transparent but contained no large structures.
Stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and superclusters formed subsequently. Our galaxy is about 9 billion years old, our solar system about four and a half and life’s been here for about four billion years.
We have been around for a while but since science cannot detect the human spirit, I really can’t say whether it’s in the tens or hundreds of thousands or more years. But, here we are discussing; at some point humanity started.

While this summary is more elaborate, it fits the template of Genesis. God as Love, perfect timeless relational Existence, Truth, and Beauty, brought all this into being in a step-wise fashion, casting what He had previously created into new being.

The physical universe is what it is, and we are trying to understand it workings. However, to see the cosmos as merely a collection of particles, forces and other material events is like approaching your beloved in the same manner. But, if you don’t see it, you don’t see it.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Oh, yes. I am legitimately confused.

You seem to have some weird fundamentalist reading of “God speaks”, saying that speaking must involve “sending sound waves through the air by vibrating your vocal cords” (do I need to cite your posts again?)

And yet, when it’s been shown that you clearly don’t believe this for yourself…you act as if I shouldn’t be confused?

Isn’t it confusing for readers to see you reserve for yourself what you object to in others?

“I get to, er, ‘speak’ metaphorically” but when another poster does the same thing you do, you demand a different standard.

Why is that?

I don’t think you actually read my last post. It explains my issue with metaphorical language in the context of this discussion and lays out my question as simply as possible.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think you actually read my last post. It explains my issue with metaphorical language in the context of this discussion and lays out my question as simply as possible.

What you said was that speaking involves “sending sound waves through the air.”

And that’s why you putatively couldn’t understand the phrase “God spoke it into existence”.

Now, it turns out you understand very well how one can speak without “sending sound waves through the air.”

Or is it that you understand “speaking without the use of vocal cords” for yourself, but, curiously, when we are discussing theology there is the weird literalist and fundamentalist framework you appeal to?

I find the witticism, “Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist” quite apropos here.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Sparky, my dawg, what happened is what happened.

In a way we can be said to be looking, through technological extensions of our senses, to the beginning of time. Our intellect allows us to be literally standing there watching it happen as we gaze into the depths of space.

I would describe the beginning of all this, is as follows:

There was the Plank Era, what happened during the smallest conceived first fragment of time. Not much is or can be known about that.
The very early universe includes what happened between the Plank Era and the cosmic expansion. Here too, not much is known other than it lasted a picosecond and resulted in a 10 to the power of 26 increase in volume.
The early universe comprised of the Quark and Photon epochs lasted 380,000 years and saw the beginning of familiar particles and forces. The universe at that time was a plasma.
What followed this is described as a dark age, lasting 150,000,000 yrs, in which the universe was transparent but contained no large structures.
Stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters and superclusters formed subsequently. Our galaxy is about 9 billion years old, our solar system about four and a half and life’s been here for about four billion years.
We have been around for a while but since science cannot detect the human spirit, I really can’t say whether it’s in the tens or hundreds of thousands or more years. But, here we are discussing; at some point humanity started.

While this summary is more elaborate, it fits the template of Genesis. God as Love, perfect timeless relational Existence, Truth, and Beauty, brought all this into being in a step-wise fashion, casting what He had previously created into new being.

The physical universe is what it is, and we are trying to understand it workings. However, to see the cosmos as merely a collection of particles, forces and other material events is like approaching your beloved in the same manner. But, if you don’t see it, you don’t see it.

I’m with you for the most part, up until your third to last paragraph. After, don’t really understand what you’re talking about. I don’t see how it connects to the Bible’s creation story and it doesn’t answer the question I’ve been asking in this thread.

You seem convinced that God is part of the equation. So how does God physically tie in to the creation of the universe?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . So how does God physically tie in to the creation of the universe?

God brings physical creation into existence. He is the Source of all that is, an eternal, beyond and inclusive of all time, Act of love as the triune Godhead. The universe is and it derives its being from the relationship it has with God, who brought it into being, gave it shape and has maintained its existence.

We are able to create from what we have been given. We do not bring ourselves into existence, but we can decide in this moment to let’s say, raise our hand to be counted among the faithful. We can do PET scans, SPECHT scans, EEG’s, blood tests and so forth and get an idea of all the physiological processes going on. None of this physical testing will reveal the person who listens, considers, chooses and acts. We have a limited capacity to create from what is. This activity is understood not through terms that relate to the structure and behaviour of matter, but by interpreting meanings. We are physical beings, animated by something different (the spirit) which with the body, forms the unity, which is the person, perceiving, thinking, feeling and acting.

God brings the physical universe into existence. If one is merely looking at physical processes, one may not see Him. All that appears is the surface reality.

 

[ynotzap]

I’m with you for the most part, up until your third to last paragraph. After, don’t really understand what you’re talking about. I don’t see how it connects to the Bible’s creation story and it doesn’t answer the question I’ve been asking in this thread.

You seem convinced that God is part of the equation. So how does God physically tie in to the creation of the universe?

God does not physically tie into creation of the Universe He wills it into existence. He gives existence to the universe. The universe can not cause itself, if it could it would have no beginning and no end, be eternal, always existing. It would have no cause for its existence, as it always existed. The nature of God is Existence, complete Being, no change. The universe is always in motion, always changing. Things only change if they do not have complete being, they have as part of their nature potency ( the capacity to become,) to becoming (act) and this can be proven by objective reality. eg. an uninformed mind can become an informed mind, a baby can become an adult, and so on and on. Everything has a cause, and they do not cause themselves for if they did, they would have always existed, and human experience shows us that is not the case with reality. We live in time, constant change and change leads us in the direction of complete being The question’" how" never will explain existence, it is an existential question that is answer by “that it is” it is self-evident that the universe exists and it needs a cause to explain its existence because it can not explain itself.

 

[PRmerger]

God does not physically tie into creation of the Universe He wills it into existence. He gives existence to the universe. The universe can not cause itself, if it could it would have no beginning and no end, be eternal, always existing. It would have no cause for its existence, as it always existed. The nature of God is Existence, complete Being, no change. The universe is always in motion, always changing. Things only change if they do not have complete being, they have as part of their nature potency ( the capacity to become,) to becoming (act) and this can be proven by objective reality. eg. an uninformed mind can become an informed mind, a baby can become an adult, and so on and on. Everything has a cause, and they do not cause themselves for if they did, they would have always existed, and human experience shows us that is not the case with reality. We live in time, constant change and change leads us in the direction of complete being The question’" how" never will explain existence, it is an existential question that is answer by “that it is” it is self-evident that the universe exists and it needs a cause to explain its existence because it can not explain itself.

Thumbs up to everything you say here, although I would tweak the bolded section with: Everything* that begins to exist* has a cause.