Violins of nothing

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
Mulling…

Creation has sometimes been compared to sounds coming from a musical instrument. A question comes to mind though (1) What is the relationship between sound and matter?

Do sounds go to nothing without a cause. (2) Can anything go to nothing without a cause?

(3) Is the idea that matter has “staying power” of existence just an idea in our heads?

(4) If something can disappear without a cause, why can’t something appear without one?

(5) Did not God by His almighty overrule the rule that “nothing comes from nothing”?

Aquinas wrote that “nothing gives what it has not; for instance, what is not hot does not give heat.” Yet does not God through His power make nothing “gives what it has not”, make it spawn creation?

Catholic Dogma: God created the world from nothing, He didn’t use anything from Himself (Vatican I, condemning emanatism, even though Aquinas had used the word “emanate” to describe creation).

These are hard questions I believe, but we can toss them around on a latter perhaps since its Easter. God bless
 
I am not a Thomist nor a philosopher and so will not address that reference.

But as to the other 2 questions:
  1. Sound does not go to nothing without cause. The soundwave becomes attenuated the farther it travels (the inverse square law) until it is too weak for our ears to hear.
  2. The staying power of matter is **not **just an idea in our heads. We only have heads because the staying power of matter holds our skull together!
ALLELUIA and ICXC NIKA.
 
God did indeed create the universe from nothing.
However the universe did not appear without cause.
God is the First Cause. The universe exists because He wills it to exist.
 
GEddie said:
I am not a Thomist nor a philosopher and so will not address that reference.

But as to the other 2 questions:
  1. Sound does not go to nothing without cause. The soundwave becomes attenuated the farther it travels (the inverse square law) until it is too weak for our ears to hear.
  2. The staying power of matter is **not **just an idea in our heads. We only have heads because the staying power of matter holds our skull together!
ALLELUIA and ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Well I meant the “staying power” in the sense that matter would not disappear without something causing it to.

How do you have over 50,000 posts in 6 years? My gosh :eek:

In the same way that we can say God is **in a sense **the cause of His own existence, we can say that God took nothing and made something from it, in order to better see how amazing and shocking this is. Do our minds have an ability to understand this? I mean, we argue that the universe could not have without some power popped into existence, so we must know something about these matters.

a question (6) Is it logically possible for there to be a power without an agent, so that an almighty power alone popped the world into existence?
 
Reepicheep said:
God did indeed create the universe from nothing.
However the universe did not appear without cause.
God is the First Cause. The universe exists because He wills it to exist.
Click to expand...
It seems that it was without a cause in the sense that we understand cause. You may imagine that the power when from God like a light and the world came out of the light. But if you are Thomistic, the power is not different than God Himself, and Church teaches that it did not come **out of **God (His Power). The great Power made a picture without a canvas so to speak.

I don’t know how to understand this better
 
thinkandmull said:
…
Do sounds go to nothing without a cause?

Is the idea that matter has “staying power” of existence just an idea in our heads?
Click to expand...
Sound is attenuated because the laws of nature allow it. It does not really go to nothing. It either spreads out, as GEddie wrote, or it is transformed into heat.

It’s the same with matter. Matter does not always “stay.” It can be transformed into energy, or into different forms of matter. For example, in a laboratory, protons are stable but neutrons are not. Neutrons decay into protons. Why? Because it does not violate any laws (like conservation of energy). Protons don’t decay because there is no decay pathway that doesn’t violate one law or another (or several). It may be interesting to note, however, that if you squeeze hard enough, as in a neutron star, neutrons are stable and protons are not. The extreme gravitational energy which is available in that environment allows protons to decay into neutrons without violating conservation of energy, but neutrons are stuck in their state because, once again, there is no decay pathway that doesn’t violate laws of nature.

I am not sure whether what I just wrote addresses your question, but it comes around to the idea that matter exists because God created it, and it persists because the laws of nature (also created or authored by God) block the pathways by which it could be transformed into something else.
 
I’m just struggling with matter’s source being nothing, nothing but “not anything”
 
Then why can’t something spring from nothing? What is the logical connection to a power making something spring from nothing, since that is a kind of causality that we don’t see in the world anyway…

I am also wondering whether there can be a power without an agent, or thinking with one thinking but not something thinking. I think Buddhist may imply the second.

Their view of the void may come into play here to. The emptiness of nothing is soft, so to speak, not hard, so its easier to see something coming from nothing.

These thread is so I can figure out if I believe in a “hard proof for God” and “soft proofs for God”. Either way he’s existence is obvious
 
Let’s look at the world through the lens of a different metaphor.

The first sound is Aum (ॐ) and it remains as the vibration that underlies all creation.

All sound, all vision, all taste and smell, all that is touch, and all to which we commune through our our senses and intellect is merely a change in the frequency of that fundamental word, uttered by God at the ground of time.
As the basic substance from which all is moulded, it exists as an ocean of compassion, containing all time and space, alive, feeling, beauty and goodness.

The silence and no-thingness of Aum springs eternally fresh in each moment:
Ahh, the wonder; om, the spreading of the glory into the depths of the void to the heights of heaven eternal.

A mallet hits the gong.
As time flows through the now, the vibrations fill the room.
The silent no-thingness becomes sound resonating and slowly drifting back into the peace of eternal stillness of being that underlies all existence.

Beyond and within is the transcendent Being, the Trinity who as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Love, Beauty, Truth and Life itself.
 
thinkandmull said:
(1) What is the relationship between sound and matter?
Click to expand...
Sound is matter in motion. If there is no matter there is no sound.
thinkandmull said:
Do sounds go to nothing without a cause. (2) Can anything go to nothing without a cause?
Click to expand...
More times than not sounds will get absorbed, possibly converted to heat. Though with certain materials the energy may also be converted to light or electricity.
thinkandmull said:
(3) Is the idea that matter has “staying power” of existence just an idea in our heads?
Click to expand...
It could be said to be a description of how we have observed matter behaving.
thinkandmull said:
(4) If something can disappear without a cause, why can’t something appear without one?
Click to expand...
On a macroscopic scale things don’t disappear, though they may be converted. A quantum scale is another matter. But that’s not my speciality.
 
Aloysium said:
Let’s look at the world through the lens of a different metaphor.

The first sound is Aum (ॐ) and it remains as the vibration that underlies all creation.

All sound, all vision, all taste and smell, all that is touch, and all to which we commune through our our senses and intellect is merely a change in the frequency of that fundamental word, uttered by God at the ground of time.
As the basic substance from which all is moulded, it exists as an ocean of compassion, containing all time and space, alive, feeling, beauty and goodness.

The silence and no-thingness of Aum springs eternally fresh in each moment:
Ahh, the wonder; om, the spreading of the glory into the depths of the void to the heights of heaven eternal.

A mallet hits the gong.
As time flows through the now, the vibrations fill the room.
The silent no-thingness becomes sound resonating and slowly drifting back into the peace of eternal stillness of being that underlies all existence.

Beyond and within is the transcendent Being, the Trinity who as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Love, Beauty, Truth and Life itself.
Click to expand...
Right, but if God uttered the word, then the word came from God.

It seems to me that people here are vibrating between two conclusions they’re not allowed to make. The situation is that God told nothingness to become something, and it did. Now there are two ways this could happen: either it is possible for nothingness to become something, or God actually stuck something of himself into the nothing (e.g. a word.)

Now you might argue that the “fundamental word” isn’t actually God or part of God. That’s fine, but if it’s not God or part of God, then how was it formed? God must have also created it out of nothing! And so, the problem with this analogy is revealed. You are essentially answering the question “how did God create something from nothing without using something of himself?” by asserting “First he created something from nothing without using something of himself, and then he used that!” A cute dodge, but clearly it fails to answer the original question.
 
Aloysium said:
Let’s look at the world through the lens of a different metaphor.

The first sound is Aum (ॐ) and it remains as the vibration that underlies all creation.

All sound, all vision, all taste and smell, all that is touch, and all to which we commune through our our senses and intellect is merely a change in the frequency of that fundamental word, uttered by God at the ground of time.
As the basic substance from which all is moulded, it exists as an ocean of compassion, containing all time and space, alive, feeling, beauty and goodness.

The silence and no-thingness of Aum springs eternally fresh in each moment:
Ahh, the wonder; om, the spreading of the glory into the depths of the void to the heights of heaven eternal.

A mallet hits the gong.
As time flows through the now, the vibrations fill the room.
The silent no-thingness becomes sound resonating and slowly drifting back into the peace of eternal stillness of being that underlies all existence.

Beyond and within is the transcendent Being, the Trinity who as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is Love, Beauty, Truth and Life itself.
Click to expand...
But the sound comes from nothing, right? That’s what I am getting at.

Buddhist think the void shines in a sense. They also believe there could have been an agent-less power (inhering in nothing) which sprung things out of nothing. Its like they don’t believe the world is real, nor that we have a soul, so we have thinking pure and simple, instead of something thinking. I don’t know how to answer such thoughts
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Right, but if God uttered the word, then the word came from God.

It seems to me that people here are vibrating between two conclusions they’re not allowed to make. The situation is that God told nothingness to become something, and it did. Now there are two ways this could happen: either it is possible for nothingness to become something, or God actually stuck something of himself into the nothing (e.g. a word.)

Now you might argue that the “fundamental word” isn’t actually God or part of God. That’s fine, but if it’s not God or part of God, then how was it formed? God must have also created it out of nothing! And so, the problem with this analogy is revealed. You are essentially answering the question “how did God create something from nothing without using something of himself?” by asserting “First he created something from nothing without using something of himself, and then he used that!” A cute dodge, but clearly it fails to answer the original question.
Click to expand...
I’m confused. Are you saying “God told nothingness to become something”? I think that’s what Vatican I said. I mean, how else are we to interpret it? It said that angels AND the world were created from “nothing” in the same sentence. Aquinas used the word emanation, which was condemned at the Vatican Council. He also phrased it “by the diffusion of God’s processions”. His arguments on whether God is good seem to indicate that he thought we come out of God. Otherwise, we are left with just a probable argument: this being creates good things, so we can assume He is good.

It sounds kinda liberal to me to say that Vatican I meant “not out of previous equal material” by “nothing”, although I’ve considered this (that there are energies given off by God, or light, and from this things were made.) To us it is “nothing”, but by that God is the most nothing of all. Indeterminate? I don’t know if Rosmini had any influence on the Council.
 
thinkandmull said:
I’m confused. Are you saying “God told nothingness to become something”? I think that’s what Vatican I said. I mean, how else are we to interpret it? It said that angels AND the world were created from “nothing” in the same sentence. Aquinas used the word emanation, which was condemned at the Vatican Council. He also phrased it “by the diffusion of God’s processions”. His arguments on whether God is good seem to indicate that he thought we come out of God. Otherwise, we are left with just a probable argument: this being creates good things, so we can assume He is good.

It sounds kinda liberal to me to say that Vatican I meant “not out of previous equal material” by “nothing”, although I’ve considered this (that there are energies given off by God, or light, and from this things were made.) To us it is “nothing”, but by that God is the most nothing of all. Indeterminate? I don’t know if Rosmini had any influence on the Council.
Click to expand...
It is all very confusing, I was simply trying to summarize what I thought people had been saying.

It certainly seems to me that the Catholic position is essentially: God took some unspecified creative action and consequently there was something where previously there had been nothing. I was trying to imagine what that creative act could have been. It seems to me that either the nothingness must have brought forth the something without using anything that came from God (i.e. it is actually possible for something to come from nothing) or that the new something was formed by something that came from God (i.e. the something didn’t actually come out of nothing, it came out of God.)

Both cases seem to me to be theologically problematic. If something can spontaneously come from nothing, then certain arguments for God lose some of their premises. If God didn’t actually create the universe ex nihilo but rather out of himself, we might make a conclusion which looks much more pantheistic; that the universe is actually a part of God, or identical to God himself.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
It is all very confusing, I was simply trying to summarize what I thought people had been saying.

It certainly seems to me that the Catholic position is essentially: God took some unspecified creative action and consequently there was something where previously there had been nothing. I was trying to imagine what that creative act could have been. It seems to me that either the nothingness must have brought forth the something without using anything that came from God (i.e. it is actually possible for something to come from nothing) or that the new something was formed by something that came from God (i.e. the something didn’t actually come out of nothing, it came out of God.)

Both cases seem to me to be theologically problematic. If something can spontaneously come from nothing, then certain arguments for God lose some of their premises. If God didn’t actually create the universe ex nihilo but rather out of himself, we might make a conclusion which looks much more pantheistic; that the universe is actually a part of God, or identical to God himself.
Click to expand...
Neither are sufficiently precise expressions, which is why confusion is created where it didn’t exist before.

To say, “something came into being from nothing” makes it sound like “nothing” exerts some kind of agency or is, at least, a prerequisite condition for creation to occur. The preposition “from nothing” is actually irrelevant and unnecessary. What the clause is clumsily attempting to connote is that the thing in question came to be, i.e., came into existence or was actualized as an ontologically subsistent entity, where it didn’t exist prior to its creation.

Neither is there any kind of logical commitment to created things coming “from” or “out of” God. What is implied is that God, by nature as Ipsum Esse Subsistens, is the fullness of actuality (Actus Purus) such that he can actualize or bring into existence entities which then are capable of subsisting as beings/things in their own right.

This does not entail that created things can, therefore, create themselves from nothing nor that nothing has any creative power. We are talking about “nothing” in the metaphysical sense of nada, which is the absolute absence of being completely devoid of all positive characteristics which can, logically speaking, do squat, especially not bring things into being.
 
There are two premises we are considering still though:
  1. What reason is there that there must be a power to bring something from nothing, since the power doesn’t get into the “nothing” and build with itself or anything
  2. Do all powers have to have an agent?
 
thinkandmull said:
There are two premises we are considering still though:
  1. What reason is there that there must be a power to bring something from nothing, since the power doesn’t get into the “nothing” and build with itself or anything
Click to expand...
Again, the question isn’t whether God requires nothing to exist in order to create things, the proposition is merely making the claim that God brings into being things that did not exist previously in such a way that they subsist as entities with their own actuality. The “nothing” being spoken of is not a precursor element nor some primordial “something” from which things are made.
thinkandmull said:
  1. Do all powers have to have an agent?
Click to expand...
Yes, but not necessarily one with intelligence or will, and Aquinas/Aristotle argue that the “agent” must be of a nature which sufficiently explains the power, which is why the act-potency distinction factors into their metaphysics. Put simply, no agent can give what it doesn’t have. God is existence but that does not require that he imparts the same level of existence on the creatures he brings into being (actualizes.) It does mean he created their potential “whatness” and actualized that potential. That does not mean the created beings must, therefore, exist is the same manner that God does. They may subsist according to their own natures and contingent upon a “support system,” but need not exist necessarily nor by the very nature of their “whatness.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top