T
thecone137
Guest
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Gn 1:1
Logically speaking, can something come from nothing?
Logically speaking, can something come from nothing?
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
As a matter of physics, no. Although, I believe that quantum physics has examples of a particle and anti-particle pair destroying each other through collision, and releasing a quanta of energy. The reverse of that process is the creation of a particle / anti-particle pair.
But that’s not what theology means by creation from nothing. Theology postulates an infinite Being who is not made of matter or energy, creating all matter, energy, space, and time, by the power of the divine will, and not using any pre-existing materials, not even a substrate of space filled with total vacuum.
P
PeterJP
Guest
I may be quite wrong (doctrine-wise) but I’ve never had a problem assuming that the Uncaused Cause is the* Is-ness* of all that is; in other words, that the “Nothing” out of which all the “Somethings” emerged is actually God, who is and always was and always will be the ALL that IS.
PeterJP
PeterJP
L
lerapt78
Guest
I have yet to comprehend how it could be so.
T
thewanderer
Guest
:yup: Which is why one must ulitmately posit something as having always existed, whether that be god, the universe, energy, whatever.
B
Battleaxe
Guest
That`d contradict the doctrine of Creation ex nihilo (Creation out of nothing). It sounds like a form of pantheism.
God is infinite, so His will is infinite. As the archangel Gabriel said to Mary: “For with God, nothing is impossible.” (Luke 1:37)
A
atheistgirl
Guest
No, because if nothing existed, then something would exist, that is, nothing, so there wouldn’t be nothing, there’d be something, which is nothing, so something exists and always has existed, so there never has been nothing, since if nothing exists, something exists.
Er, yeah.
Something like that.
Sarah x
S
spockrates
Guest
Funny! I suppose the more precise question would be: Can existence come from nonexistence?No, because if nothing existed, then something would exist, that is, nothing, so there wouldn’t be nothing, there’d be something, which is nothing, so something exists and always has existed, so there never has been nothing, since if nothing exists, something exists.
Er, yeah.
Something like that.
Sarah x
Hey, AtheistGirl, I used to live near an Iroquois reservation. I hope you don’t mind my asking: From what tribe do your ancestors come?
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
You cannot reverse a particle-antiparticle reaction to get two particles. Even the ‘virtual particles from nothing’ argument others put forth is wrong: there needs to be an electromagnetic wave from which the particles are created and destroyed.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
If you’re talking about the universe, it still adds up to nothing.
astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
Basically it’s a balancing act, such that despite it’s stupendous size, it is a sum-zero energy universe, and therefore is essentially nothing.
Which is why it’s going to vanish at the end of time, when God wraps it up. It will just go back to nothing.
God is the author, and finisher, of the universe.
E
empther
Guest
No. It can’t.
The problem here is the phrase “come from”. It doesn’t belong there.
“Come from” implies a starting point, or a supply of raw materials with which to build, or something of that nature.
It might be better to say “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Really Sarah, that was funny. A little spoofing is good for us all.No, because if nothing existed, then something would exist, that is, nothing, so there wouldn’t be nothing, there’d be something, which is nothing, so something exists and always has existed, so there never has been nothing, since if nothing exists, something exists.
Er, yeah.
Something like that.
Sarah x
However ( and I know how much you love and respect Thomas Aquinas ) Thomas Aquinas assumed the eternity of the universe when he designed and published his Five Ways. Of course he held on Faith that the universe had a beginning in time before which only God existed. And this last point is means that there existed no time, no matter, no waves, particles, impulese, etc., just God, the Pure Actuality, the Pure Existent, the One Spirit.
By the way Thomas did really believe and taught that after creation the universe would be eternal unless God chose to annihilate it.
But no, that there was a creation event cannot be proven by science ( my opinion ) and certainly not by philosophy and/or logic ( Thomas’ opinion ).
J
JimG
Guest
Something was created by God, but it was not created from God. The universe is not an extension of God’s being. However, being created from nothing, it does rely on Him for continued existence.
To use Frank Sheed’s example, if I make a chair and then walk away from it, it remains held in existence by that from which it was created–i.e., wood. If God makes something and then walks away from it, it remains held in existence by that from which it was created–i.e. nothing!
R
ReapReason
Guest
The act of reality cannot come from nothing.
God can manifest something that is distinct in essence, so long as you understand that there is a distinction between esse and essence or existence and nature. However he cannot create something that has its own independent act of reality because you cannot get reality out of nothing.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
It would be so much easier if nothing existed, then we would not have to ponder these questions.
Blessings
Eric
Blessings
Eric
R
ReapReason
Guest
That depends on what you mean by created from God. Things are not created from physical parts of God, this is true. The nature of a dog or a human being is not parts of God in an intrinsic sense. However that only means that there is a distinction between the essence of a Dog and the essence of God. God is however the Actuality or “Esse” of a Dog and a Human being. There is no distinction between Gods Esse and the Esse of the Universe, since God alone is the act of reality.
The “Nature” of a Dog is not the same thing as the “Existence” of a Dog. These are distinct acts.
The Universe does not have its own act of reality. That is logically impossible.
J
JimG
Guest
I agree, at least in part. Only God posseses is essence as necessary and not contingent, because His essence is To Be. But created (from nothing!) beings like the universe possess a contingent essence. Our being (as well as our continued existence) depends on God, as I suggested in my previous post, while not being a part of God in a pantheistic sense. We have a real, but contingent, existence.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Battleaxe:
Actually, the doctrine is that “God creates something where there was nothing.” “Creation out of nothing,” unfortunately, sounds as though nothingness is a substrate - which God used to cause something. But, “creation” does not equal “cause.” Whereas “cause” is dependent upon a pre-existing substrate, “creation” is not.
God bless,
jd
R
ReapReason
Guest
We have a contingent essence. That is very different from saying that we have an independent act of reality that is contingent. You cannot create reality from nothing. If that is what you think God has done, then you faith involves believing in metaphysical impossibilities.
I think you are confused about what creation ex-nihilo is intended to mean.
Creatio ex nihilo, logically speaking, can only mean creation out of nothing physical. That is the context in which i believe it is expressed.
J
JimG
Guest
Okay, God created us out of nothing physical. But do you mean to say that he used a pre-existing NON-physical (i.e. spiritual) substance as a substrate for creation? For, I don’t think that is the doctrine either. It’s rather that he created both the physical universe, man, and angels (non-physical beings) where there had been nothing.
- Status