creatio ex nihilo

[Jig]

This seems to be a popular belief. However, I'm at a loss. I do believe God created the universe, but not out of complete and utter nothingness.

First, before anyone opposes me, give me your difinition of "nothing".

I believe there is either existence or non-existence. I'm sure no one can disagree here. One is absolute. By their very difinition the two can not co-reign. For where existence is, non-existence isn't. There can be no border or line that seperates these two, one has to be infinitely vast. That one is obviously existence.

My difinition of true complete and utter nothingness: (No time, no energy, no matter, no space, no emptiness, no light, no darkness, no nothing) True nothingness can not be pictured because there is nothing to picture.

True nothingness is non-existence. And if existence (and God) are infinitely vast, where was this "nothing" God created from?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

True nothingness is non-existence. And if existence (and God) are infinitely vast, where was this "nothing" God created from?

I'm glad you opened this here and not in the Origins Theology subforum, since this touches on both creation and paterology...

Here's the central problem, I think- you're still conceiving of God in terms of 'being' and spatial relationships. Paul Tillich, for as much as I disagree with him, made one really fantastic point- we ought not think of God as a being among other beings, or an existant entity among other existant entities, but as the Ground of Being.

As I understand it, anything that exists must have a cause, and things cannot cause themselves. To conceive of the space-time universe as coeternal with God would be to make them outwith a Cause. The real problem with this is that it makes God not transcendent of time- in which case, we have the added problem of God being confined within a realm of causality and have introduced the silly question of the cause of God.

 

[Jig]

As I understand it, anything that exists must have a cause, and things cannot cause themselves. To conceive of the space-time universe as coeternal with God would be to make them outwith a Cause. The real problem with this is that it makes God not transcendent of time- in which case, we have the added problem of God being confined within a realm of causality and have introduced the silly question of the cause of God.

Not everything that exists needs a cause. It's logical to reason at least one "thing" had to always exist for existence to be present today. The common cosmological argument states casual chains have a beginning (since infinite chains would be impossible). The beginning of these chains is an agent that is uncaused and just is. Whatever that agent is has the ablity to generate causes. The name given thus is the uncaused cause.

I don't think the universe and God are co-eternal. The Big Bang had a cause, which was in the line of above mentioned casual chains.

 

[stumpjumper]

True nothingness is non-existence. And if existence (and God) are infinitely vast, where was this "nothing" God created from?

The only way to really oppose creatio ex nihilo is to take a David Ray Griffin process view... I am a theistic evolutionist and accept a form of process theology but not one that opposes creatio ex nihilo or a traditional view of God's attributes (ie I don't accept OVT).

The temporal created universe is an emanation from God and came into existence through God's Word/Logos which can be broadly viewed as God's creative and revelatory aspect... I would say that it is not so much that God created everything out of nothing but materiality and and temporal existence came into being where there was nothing and that it is all contingent upon God...

 

[light_eclipseca]

When someone says that God created the universe out of nothing, what they mean is that He created it by His own Word, and did not use pre existing matter. Creatio ex nihilo does not mean that there was nothing, and something came from that. Creatio ex nihilo means that God created everything except Himself, and that everything has a beginning and He alone exists eternally. If you think about it, it makes sense that if He alone exists eternally (without beginning or end), then He must have created everything without pre-existing matter, for then that matter would be without beginning.

A corollary of matter not having a beginning is time and space not having a beginning. And that would not make sense if there was an infinite amount of time in the past, because that would mean we would have to travel over an infinite amount of time which was in the past to get to now, and by definition one cannot traverse over an infinite amount of time. So matter had a beginning.

Of course this is just an infinite regress argument, but I hold to it because it makes sense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

An alternative is ex Deo.

If nothing comes from nothing and the universe exists, then God (assuming God) must have created it from something.

If nothing but God existed, then the only thing from which the universe could be made is God himself.

Ex Deo.

 

[Jig]

When someone says that God created the universe out of nothing, what they mean is that He created it by His own Word, and did not use pre existing matter. Creatio ex nihilo does not mean that there was nothing, and something came from that. Creatio ex nihilo means that God created everything except Himself, and that everything has a beginning and He alone exists eternally. If you think about it, it makes sense that if He alone exists eternally (without beginning or end), then He must have created everything without pre-existing matter, for then that matter would be without beginning.

I believe God is the "uncaused cause" that all the causal chains we see today lead too. Before God created anything, it is obvious to reason He was the only thing in existence. Being so, we notice that He Himself would have to be that which existence is. Since existence is infinitely vast (because non-existence and existence can not co-reign), we know that "whatever" substance God is, is also infinite. I believe God is some form of energy. The Scriptures seemingly backs this up in several ways including calling God Light.

If you look at everything in existence it is in some form of another energy, even matter. If God was made up of infinite amounts of energy He would be able to manifest His substance to become anything He'd want, including the universe. This is like how we have children. The children are made up of it's parents substance, but the child is seperate from the parent. This is the reason God calls Himself Father of us.

When God spoke to create, He was using His infinite substance to do so, not nothing.

A corollary of matter not having a beginning is time and space not having a beginning. And that would not make sense if there was an infinite amount of time in the past, because that would mean we would have to travel over an infinite amount of time which was in the past to get to now, and by definition one cannot traverse over an infinite amount of time. So matter had a beginning.

Not if all the matter is made up of the energy substance of God Himself, whom is eternal. This also makes since with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[Melethiel]

This also makes since with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Well, in most cases. There are these weird things that start happening around singularities...

 

[Jadis40]

[/size][/color][/font]Well, in most cases. There are these weird things that start happening around singularities...

Referring to black holes?

From study, they think that Cygnus X-1 is the best candidate for proof of the existence of black holes.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2003/bhspin/

 

[busterdog]

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]Well, in most cases. There are these weird things that start happening around singularities...

Exactly. They teach us that there is such a thing as "nothing that we know of", while "nothing" may not really a concept that we have any right to speak of, just as some argue that randomness and infinity do not exist in our world.

Clearly there is a distinction between all of the created things of this world, for which we have laws, and the God that preceded it all, for whom we have no "laws" but the Word itself.

Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

If there was a "before all things", there is a concept that we can call either 1. "nothing" or 2. God.

 

[light_eclipseca]

Well, I doubt that God took a part of himself (as though he could be divided) and formed it into the world. I don't think that it is so far fetched that he could create matter from nothing. I mean, if everything is made out of God, then we enter into pantheism; everything is God (including ourselves), and we should worship everything. The world is marred by sin, so if the world is a part of God, then that may mean that God is marred by sin.

So I guess that your argument is from the laws of science (which God made) that matter cannot be made or destroyed. The Christian belief is that God can do anything that is logical and does not go against his nature. Maybe it's just that no one has seen matter made (no human), that the law of conservation of matter and energy exists (this has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics which states The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium). It mainly exists for the purpose of explaining how matter acts. It is a law that can change; it isn't like a logical law. It can be revised.

In any case, whether we do come up with a better conclusion than creatio ex nihilo or not, we are working with a heresy. I think the Mormons believe that everything came from pre-existing primordial matter too.

Umm, I'm not saying this next one for arguments sake, but matter can only exist within space. And without time, there is no matter either. These are corollaries, logical implications of matter. Now, I don't know if you've done philosophy or science, but try to envision matter existing without space for it to exist in. Time is another dimension of space, and so in order for matter to exist without time, then it would have to exist without space. Essentially, if there is no space, then matter could not exist, whether matter is God or not.

 

[light_eclipseca]

Well, in most cases. There are these weird things that start happening around singularities...

Mainly because functions are not defined on singularities.

 

[billwald]

There are only two possible answers to why is there something instead of nothing: God and always was.

 

[Jig]

Well, I doubt that God took a part of himself (as though he could be divided) and formed it into the world. I don't think that it is so far fetched that he could create matter from nothing. I mean, if everything is made out of God, then we enter into pantheism; everything is God (including ourselves), and we should worship everything.

Not quite. Think of two parents who have a child. The childs "substance" came from his parents, but the son is not his parents. He is seperate. Why could this not be the same with God?

Umm, I'm not saying this next one for arguments sake, but matter can only exist within space.

Though are universe and time are connected and finite, our idea of space is flawed. There can be no true concept of space (room) within an infinite being. The Big Bang (and our universe) was only a link in the universal causal chain linking todays events with the original uncaused cause. Before our universe there was God, and He was infinitly vast. Nothing contained Him, thus "whatever" He was made up of was freely everywhere. Not housed by space like our minds would like to think. The idea God is energy is valid.

The universe is expanding within the caused that created it. It is not expanding into nothingness.

If God is omnipresent (everywhere), that means that "nothing" doesn't exist.