That nothing can come into being

[Qoeleth]

Let us consider the following:
“Socrates came into being”.

Now, it would seem that, before Socrates exists, no action may be predicated of him. Therefore, it is untrue to say “Before Socrates existed, Socrates came into being.”

But, it is equally untrue to say that Socrates came into being, once he already exists. Because, something which already exists cannot come into being.

Hence it would seem that nothing can come into being. If it does not yet exist, no action may be predicated of it. But if it exists already, it may not come into being.

From this, we may conclude either; that all existent things are eternal, or that nothing exists.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I see you describe yourself as a “Sophist.” Apt.

Your conclusion might be valid if “came into being” meant “gave itself being out of nothing”

As it is, something that is not Socrates can turn into Socrates. Also something that is not Socrates but which has the power to create ex nihilo (presumably God) could create Socrates “out of nothing.”

As for God Himself, He never “came into being” at all but “always” existed.

 

[Qoeleth]

I see you describe yourself as a “Sophist.” Apt.

Your conclusion might be valid if “came into being” meant “gave itself being out of nothing”

As it is, something that is not Socrates can turn into Socrates. Also something that is not Socrates but which has the power to create ex nihilo (presumably God) could create Socrates “out of nothing.”

As for God Himself, He never “came into being” at all but “always” existed.

Let us grant then that “came into being” is meant passively. Socrates thus does not “come into being” as an act of Socrates, but rather is acted upon by a creative agent, i.e. Socrates is “brought into being”. But a non-existent ‘thing’ could not even be the subject of action. Thus, whether worded actively (“Socrates came into being”) or passively (“Socrates was brought into being”), both seem to require the existence of Socrates, which is not yet the case.

Now, even if something else ‘becomes’ Socrates- it still follows that Socrates must either “come into being” or “be brought into being”, both of which seem impossible.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Qoeleth,

This analysis of being has been around since Parmendies i.e. no change can occur because from non-being no being can come but if all is being how can things come into and go out of existence. This was solved by Aristotle. All things (apart from God) which have being are composed out of potentiality and actuality (or form and matter for material things). Therefore, with respect to some material thing (ignoring Socrates for the moment) like a tree it can come into being out of pre-existing matter by that matter receiving a form (i.e. the potentiality of the matter being actualised by the form).

The Socrates example is different, because the soul of Socrates, having an immaterial component (as opposed to other animals) is created ex nihilo by God in a different way than how God sustains all other material things in existence.

There is no need to resort to Sophism

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

From this, we may conclude either; that all existent things are eternal, or that nothing exists.

As you know, many people say that from God’s point of view, there is no Time, and so that, from God’s point of view, all of the people and events in the past, all of the people and events in the present, and all of the people and events in the future, exist simultaneously, and are all always known by God.

Thus, it seems that, from this perspective, in a certain sense, from God’s point of view, it would make sense to say that “all existent things are eternal.”

But, I don’t understand why you are wondering about this. Perhaps you will elaborate.

 

[Qoeleth]

As you know, many people say that from God’s point of view, there is no Time, and so that, from God’s point of view, all of the people and events in the past, all of the people and events in the present, and all of the people and events in the future, exist simultaneously, and are all always known by God.

Thus, it seems that, from this perspective, in a certain sense, from God’s point of view, it would make sense to say that “all existent things are eternal.”

But, I don’t understand why you are wondering about this. Perhaps you will elaborate.

I feel that if it is possible to come to believe that the world of appearances (coming into being, time, etc), is an impossibility, we will then be freed of many of the worries and anxieties in life.

God is non-apparent, and the universe is apparent. Demonstrations which destabilize the tyranny and credibility of the apparent, help the search for God. Possibly…

 

[empther]

The phrase “Coming into being” might be interpreted as moving or changing something from outside of being into being,
if your’re a sophist and try to inject something into the phrase which the speaker didn’t intend.

The phrase “Create something from nothing” might be interpreted as changing something from outside of being into being,
if your’re a sophist and try to inject something into the phrase which the speaker didn’t intend.

Try this phrase: “God creates something where there was nothing.”
No ambiguity in that, I think. No room for sophistry.

And so the thread’s question ( if there is one ) is answered.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi Qoeleth,

I feel that if it is possible to come to believe that the world of appearances (coming into being, time, etc), is an impossibility, we will then be freed of many of the worries and anxieties in life.

God is non-apparent, and the universe is apparent. Demonstrations which destabilize the tyranny and credibility of the apparent, help the search for God. Possibly…

If you don’t mind me asking, why the attempt at novelty and sophistry? Look to the saints! If one trusts in God completely, one doesn’t need to try and deny the common sense world to avoid the worries and anxieties in life. Rather, one can affirm reality precisely as it is, with all it’s difficulties and sufferings, and still be completely at peace immersed in the love of God.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hi Qoeleth,

If you don’t mind me asking, why the attempt at novelty and sophistry? Look to the saints! If one trusts in God completely, one doesn’t need to try and deny the common sense world to avoid the worries and anxieties in life. Rather, one can affirm reality precisely as it is, with all it’s difficulties and sufferings, and still be completely at peace immersed in the love of God.

This is not a completely true statement, even if it was meant as such,
we still have to swallow a literal adam and eve to be in line with the church. That is impossible for any intelligent person to do.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi StrawberryJam,

I disagree - one does not have to say that all change is illusory (which is the context of my comments) in order to avoid the supposed problem of Monogenisis. In fact, one can’t really say much at all about the truth or falsity of natural events if one is a sophist. Anyway, here are a couple of links for you to consider:

edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-i.html#more

edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/modern-biology-and-original-sin-part-ii.html

Hope these help

God bless

 

[Qoeleth]

Hi Qoeleth,

If you don’t mind me asking, why the attempt at novelty and sophistry? Look to the saints! If one trusts in God completely, one doesn’t need to try and deny the common sense world to avoid the worries and anxieties in life. Rather, one can affirm reality precisely as it is, with all it’s difficulties and sufferings, and still be completely at peace immersed in the love of God.

That’s true. But some people play football, other play musical instruments. Some people like to play ‘philosophy’- to make the implausible plausible, etc.