Something from nothing

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecone137
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ReapReason said:
If you do not have a thing from which to produce another thing, from what do you produce a thing? Nothing is not real. It is not an object which can be moved to actuality. You have not explained why I should think that omnipotence justifies thinking that God can produce a being out of nothing at all. You are merely asserting that such is the case.

To say that God produced something from absolutely nothing at all, is to remove the distinction between nothing and something. Only things are real, thus potential reality can only be manifested out of the reality or nature of other real things. Nothing is always nothing, it never becomes something.
Click to expand...
If this is true, from what existing something does God create a soul for a newly conceived child in their mother’s womb?
 
But it’s not made from nothing. God made it. According to physics, all matter is made of energy. God has infinite energy.
 
davidv said:
If this is true, from what existing something does God create a soul for a newly conceived child in their mother’s womb?
Click to expand...
The abstract idea of an essence is conjoined with the act of Gods reality/actuality. This combination produces actual essences.

Creation is a manifestation of Gods abstract knowledge conjoined with the actuality of Gods esse.
 
ReapReason said:
The abstract idea of an essence is conjoined with the act of Gods reality/actuality. This combination produces actual essences.
Click to expand...
So, the “something” is God’s idea.
So, the world was created from God’s idea of what it should be.

Confirming that from nothing comes nothing.
 
ReapReason said:
illogic ɪˈlɒdʒɪk]
n
(Philosophy / Logic) reasoning characterized by lack of logic; illogicality

thefreedictionary.com/illogic

How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
Oh my friend, look at my location. English is not my first language. And really I’m not some adolescent all wrecked by silly cares about what some anonymous posters on the internet who dont know me think of my English. Really are you that immature? Cmon. now, let’s talk philosophy here, and leave the cheap shots to children. 😉
 
Marybeloved said:
:rotfl:
Oh my friend, look at my location. English is not my first language. And really I’m not some adolescent all wrecked by silly cares about what some anonymous posters on the internet who dont know me think of my English. Really are you that immature? Cmon. now, let’s talk philosophy here, and leave the cheap shots to children. 😉
Click to expand...
[Edit]

I have just looked back at the original post and realise now that this is a big misunderstanding. Sorry.:o
 
thecone137 said:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Gn 1:1

Logically speaking, can something come from nothing?
Click to expand...
Thecone:

No, not logically speaking. Unless that which is being called “nothing” is not really “nothing” but instead, “something.” For example, space is not a vacuum. It’s close to it, but no cigar. I think that most Physicists would refer to it as a “soup” of quantum particles.

But, the Catholic Church says that God creates where there was nothing, rather than, from nothing." The Church does not regard “creation” as “cause.” If we analyze “cause,” it is that which requires something else to exist from which the “effect” can be brought to be. Remember, we’re talking about “efficient causality.” In “efficient causality” an “agent” is required to bring forth the form from the matter. Had the Universe been caused, it would mean that some sort of matter would have to have pre-existed the effect, which was the Universe. But, that wouldn’t be Creation. It would be causation.

Further, the Church teaches that only God creates. It has no theory yet, as far as I know, as to how God creates, and rightly so.

God bless,
jd
 
Red_Godfather said:
Since knowledge of the things in themselves is a posteriori, our faculties, in accordance with the principles of our concepts, should only be used as a canon for pure logic, yet necessity should only be used as a canon for the architectonic of natural reason. Our problematic judgements exclude the possibility of natural causes. Hence it follows without more ado that noematic descriptions exist for us thanks to multiplicities of transcendental subjectivity. The Transcendental Deduction (and we can deduce that this is true) stands in need of our sense perceptions. Has it ever been suggested that, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions, it must not be supposed that there is a causal connection between our a posteriori concepts and the employment of the phenomena? Our a priori knowledge constitutes the whole content for the objects in space and time, and our judgements have nothing to do with the phenomena. I assert, in natural theology, that pure logic is by its very nature contradictory, as we have already seen.
Click to expand...
It seems to be snowing in here. I know I just read something you wrote but I can’t make heads or tails out of it. If you fly too high, you will be talking to yourself. :confused:
 
thecone137 said:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Gn 1:1

Logically speaking, can something come from nothing?
Click to expand...
Using Divine Logic, yes. " …In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made…" John 1: 1-3

Well that’s good enough for me. People can quibble all they want about the meaning of " nothing " or " something. " But this is what happened. First there was the Word. Then, by his act of creation the universe and all that is in it or ever will be in it appeared.

Perhaps St. Paul was right: " …from now on I will only preach Christ, and Him cruxcified…"

Philosopy is fine but I am beginning to think it is a total waste of time except as the handmaid of Theology and should be avoided by anyone not destined for a life devoted to one or the other or to the Church. I suppose we can’t forbid people from philosophyzing but really I think it is a danger for ordinary people to attempt to philosophize. I think it is fine that they are interested and they should always improve their minds but engaging in debates for many can be a real danger. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Using Divine Logic, yes. " …In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made…" John 1: 1-3

Well that’s good enough for me. People can quibble all they want about the meaning of " nothing " or " something. " But this is what happened. First there was the Word. Then, by his act of creation the universe and all that is in it or ever will be in it appeared.

Perhaps St. Paul was right: " …from now on I will only preach Christ, and Him cruxcified…"

Philosopy is fine but I am beginning to think it is a total waste of time except as the handmaid of Theology and should be avoided by anyone not destined for a life devoted to one or the other or to the Church. I suppose we can’t forbid people from philosophyzing but really I think it is a danger for ordinary people to attempt to philosophize. I think it is fine that they are interested and they should always improve their minds but engaging in debates for many can be a real danger. 👍
Click to expand...
I hope you aren’t saying free thought is a danger. We need axioms and logical principlesi in order to communicate, so I’m not sure why a negative image is painted as such.
 
thecone137 said:
I hope you aren’t saying free thought is a danger. We need axioms and logical principlesi in order to communicate, so I’m not sure why a negative image is painted as such.
Click to expand...
What I meant was that people of weak faith and/or deficient in acumen or philosophical and/or scientific education can loose their faith engaging with unscrupulous but clever sophists.

However your term " free thought " is a perfect example of what I mean. Some people may not be aware of the historical connotation. Historically a " free thinker " was one who adhered to and advocated atheism. In that connotation I would certainly argue against its legitimacy, it means to me the absence or inability to recognize reality, the reality or this world and what it means. From its assumptions no meaningful principles of communication can be obtained because no adequate theory of knowledge is possible.

So I am merely advising against universal participation in debates of this kind. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top