Philosophical Logic of Creation Ex Nihilo

  • Thread starter Thread starter splegrand
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

splegrand

Guest
I have a bit of a concern about the philosophical explanation of how God created Everything. I have no doubt that God created All, but the issue I have is logical:

By definition the “Nothing” has no existence. Something that has existence CANNOT follow from something that has NO existence. It would be a logical fallacy, such as a “square circle”.

The something that has eternal existence is God (or sometimes denoted as The Source in non Catholic terms). I am not saying that God “divided himself” to create something. I am saying that the existence of All was in the Mind of God (if you will), therefore not breaking a logical fallacy of existence proceeding from non-existence. God spoke the Word and all came into being as he planned it to be initially and it was “good”. Ergo, All came from an existence - The Mind of God.

I don’t believe any of this violates Catholic Theology, but if it does, please correct my errors in thinking.

Yours in Christ,

Shawn P. Legrand
 
splegrand said:
By definition the “Nothing” has no existence. Something that has existence CANNOT follow from something that has NO existence. It would be a logical fallacy, such as a “square circle”.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… no, I don’t think so. For, we have two terms here, that being “existence” and “nonexistence” (or being and nonbeing). Now, we can identify pure existence (or pure being) as something like pure actuality; there is no perfection it has yet to achieve, no part of existence it does not have for it simply is existence and therefore actuality.

Now, if we hold that pure existence is marked by pure actuality, we must ask what the opposite of pure existence would be other than the opposite of pure actuality, that being pure potentiality. And if we also recognize that the opposite of existence is nonexistence, we therefore can say that nonexistence is pure potentiality. We can know this further because pure potentiality by its very nature cannot even have being for to hold being would itself be an actuality. Therefore, pure potentiality must be nonexistence.

Now, if nothing (nonbeing) is pure potentiality, and potentiality by its nature is that which is not yet could be, then nothing can be actualized into something. As such, nothing can be a material cause. Lets not be fooled into thinking it may be an efficient cause, however, for potentiality, by being completely nonexistent, is also causally inert, and thus cannot itself make anything.
 
Last edited:
To me, it sounds like you are putting some kind on limitation on God. God can create something out of nothing, simple as that, there are no limits to God’s power.
 
The problem is not with God’s Omnipotence – the problem is for me is that something can come from nothing breaks the logic of existence. The Something does come from God who has existence and is an eternal Something. When you logically say that something can come from nothing (here meaning no existence thereby truly Nothing with a capital N) then you open the argument up to atheism in that you no longer need a God or any Source to create the Universe (it just randomly appeared from a infinite nothing - which by its very illogic disproves Atheism in that existence cannot logically come from non-existence by definition - in fact non-existence does not exist - LOL), That Something can come from Nothing seems to me to be Atheistic…or at the very least not needing a Creator.

Ergo, as in Genesis using the Hebrew ‘bara’ it always requires a Something – that being God and if you say that ‘bara’ infers Ex Nihilo I think we as Catholics open ourselves up to an illogical Atheistic interpretation of the Universe when clearly ‘bara’ refers to God as Creator who is the Something that has Existence avoiding a logical paradox of creating Existence from No-Existence.

Atheists have abused Quantum Mechanics is this manner, not paying attention to Bell’s proof that all objects are non-local, thereby allowing non-Relativity effects such as instantaneous change over a great distance yet leaving Einstein’s Relativity theoiry intact. Bell in essence proved Vertical Causation which clearly informs that the Universe has a higher (or external if you will) dimensional connection. Atheists have to hold to a horizontal causation and have difficulty explaining Quantum Effects as they cannot see what ancient man has known since the beginning - that all is Vertical Causation…
 
What you say has logic based on the definition of nothingness as potentiality of something - however, I am thinking in terms of our Nothing in this case being truly Nothing in that no potentiality at all without and outside Something.

Your logic based on potentiality I believe is correct and I would not argue that point.
 
Perhaps a little mathematics and Physics can help you.
In the center of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is “the point where all laws of physics break down”.
Click to expand...
The singularity at the core of a black hole is a smaller scale entity like the one that created our Universe.

Before our Universe was created in the beginning there was “nothing” and from that “singularity” a point from which the whole Universe came forth.
All the energy that is available in our Universe came out of this singularity.
Remember the 1st law of Physics "Energy is neither created or destroyed only transformed.
So the amount of energy that was contained at the beginning is a value that science has been able to measure to a certain degree of confidence as well as how old our Universe is.
All of this does not contradict Catholic theology in fact many of these discoveries were made by scientists who also happen to be Priests.
Fr Lemaitre originally proposed the Big Bang Theory.

Check the Magis Center https://magiscenter.com/ and Fr Spitzer.

Peace!
 
Last edited:
splegrand said:
What you say has logic based on the definition of nothingness as potentiality of something - however, I am thinking in terms of our Nothing in this case being truly Nothing in that no potentiality at all without and outside Something.
Click to expand...
So when you speak of Nothing, you mean to say something (if I can even use that word here) to which is completely devoid of both potency and act, yes?
 
Have no problem with any of that - a singularity is something. Not true Nothing. If the Creator wishes to use a singularity, who am I to argue 😉
 
That is partially correct yes it is something in the sense that it exists, however it is also nothing because there is no inside.
It is a point a mathematical construct to try and express the weirdness of it.
There is no space or Time or anything within the singularity. It is a point.
When a singularity manifests in our Universe the outward manifestation is a “black hole” We understand that these are created when a gravitational field is so strong that the space-time around in the inside of the event collapses to a singularity.
Also it is important to understand that at the “Big bang” event the only thing that was released was “energy” that was then transformed into the primordial H2 atoms who then produced the first superstars that then cooked the H2 into heavier and heavier elements.
So before the event there was truly nothing! Nothing at all.
Not even energy.
Peace!
 
Last edited:
Yes. a point without Time, Space, Existence. This Nothing cannot logically exist because if a Nothing did exist then something could come from it and I believe that is a violation of the definition and logic of a true Ex Nihilo . Existence cannot come from a non-existence since a non-existence does not exist. It perhaps seems like I am playing with words - the problem is I believe that the Void spoken of in Genesis is a true Nothing beyond even what we would call an Abyss - an abyss is at least a something we (as an existing being) can be pulled from… So I am saying it is only logical that the Creator spoke the Logos and the existence of Something came from the Action/Mind of the Creator who is the only infinite Existence/Source/Cause leaving all of us - humans, sons of God (Genesis 6), Angels, ET?, etc. as the something flowing from this Source of All Sources (God of All gods as once in Ancient times was known). To not acknowledge that Something (God of All gods) as what all other Somethings came from is to create a non-Catholic Philosophy (Maybe any Philosophy/Religion/Belief?) IMHO.

Of course, as just a guy, I could be completely wrong. But I’m currently not seeing by my definition of Nothing where I am going wrong. I leave it to our little group here to correct me in the love of our Lord Jesus Christ if I am missing something logically.
 
Oh and just to say - I am loving the responses to this line of though from everyone. Loved the explanation of the Singularity and Physics, and even pointing out the Absolute Power of God and the arguments of Potential. Such a knowledgeable group of folks!!!
 
So you are saying that Something can come from Nothing without an extra-dimensional (outside time, space, etc.) Creator?
 
GOD does not exist in another dimension.
If there are any extra dimension HE is the Creator of them all.
And NO something CANNOT come out of nothing. However this is precisely what happened at the Big Bang.
You see a singularity does not have any motivation to change. It is a POINT. So someone decided to change the singularity and out of it came forth our whole Universe.
Check Fr. Spitzer book “New Proofs for the Existence of God”
Peace!
 
Half the problem I think it just semantics. When we say God made out of nothing we are not speaking of nothing as some type of material from which things are made. We just mean that God created from no pre-existing material. He did not give order to chaos, or mold things that already existed.

“From nothing, nothing comes” the old saying goes. Hence why there must be a First Cause (not that this doesn’t deserve more discussion).
 
Last edited:
I think we also need to be careful when discussing things such as a singularity. At least to recognize that mathematical abstraction (a point) is not necessarily the same thing as what really exists.
 
JerryZ said:
Also it is important to understand that at the “Big bang” event the only thing that was released was “energy” that was then transformed into the primordial H2 atoms who then produced the first superstars that then cooked the H2 into heavier and heavier elements.
So before the event there was truly nothing! Nothing at all.
Click to expand...
If a thing is released then some prior entity exists that explains the act of releasing. What is/was it?

If a field of energy exists then space for that energy to exist in also exists. Where does space come into being?

If a thing “is transformed” then time exits. When did time come into being?
 
Time is a Dimension part of the 4 dimensional space we exist in namely the Universe.
Before the Big Bang there was NO Universe. Therefore none of the 4 Dimensions existed, they were all created at the same 'time" “instance”.
We always tend to confuse 'time" vs Time.
the first is a mental construct that we use to express change. We know that the Sun sets in the horizon and after a period it raises again. We live moment to moment.
Time on the other hand is a Dimension that is affected by Gravity. The singularity of a Black Hole it actually stops, it ceases to exist. In fact one is tempted to speak of the inside of a singularity, the reality is that there is NO inside. The singularity is a point that collapses all the dimensions into nothing, zero, nada.
I know most people have a really hard time (pun intended) trying to grasp what a Singularity actually is. (Again pun intended) because a singularity is actually Nothing.

Peace!
 
Your speculation on black holes (something to nothing) claims extreme annihilation, i.e., not just transformation of matter to energy referred to as particle annihilation in the quantum world, but absolute nothingness. As such, your speculation, it seems to me, violates Newton’s conservation of matter and energy law modified by Einstein to a relative relationship but still conserved law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top