creation "ex potentia infinitus et ordinatio"

[Breckmin]

RE: creation ex infinitus ordo quod potentia

The problem with creation ex nihilo is that it contradicts a very basic
logic of nothing comes from nothing "ex nihilo nihil fit."

We all know the implications of creation ex nihilo are "creation ex Deo."

For years I have argued that creation ex nihilo is not a suitable nomenclature
just as I have argued that creationists need a term to discribe "natural
selection" as it relates to the observed "survival of the fittest" that we
see in creation.

One alternative I have given for creation ex nihilo is "creation ex potentia
infinitus et ordinatio" which simply means "out of infinite power and order" (actually
"ex infinitus ordo quod potentia" is grammatically more equivalent).

To me, just about anything that acknowledges God' infinite mathematical
power, His infinite Order, His Infinite Knowledge, His Infinite Power is better
than referring to creation ex nihilo.

Even if you said the Latin equivilant of "out of non-matter" would be
better than "out of nothing" even though we know that "ex nihilo"
carries with it the implications of infinite order, power, and non-matter
forming to matter.

The purpose of this thread is to give alternative nomenclatures for
creation "ex nihilo." For years I have argued for "infinite power and
order" so I started with:

creation "ex potentia infinitus et ordinatio" (actually this is worded awkwardly
in the Latin since the unlimited would be restricted to the might - grammatically
it would be better to say "creation ex infinitus ordo quod potentia" which is
what I should have started with.

M

 

[Breckmin]

We could also take suggestions on an alternative name for "survival of
the fittest" as we observe this principle in creation.

Even if we take the latin for "the strongest survive" we still need
to deal more thoroughly with the process as a whole and the situations
which appear to validate "natural selection" as some sort of mechanism.

Just looking for a term to discribe what we see in creation in relationship
to survival of the fittest.

M

 

[Assyrian]

Even if you said the Latin equivilant of "out of non-matter" would be
better than "out of nothing" even though we know that "ex nihilo"
carries with it the implications of infinite order, power, and non-matter
forming to matter.

I think the problem with ex nihilo is that it is answering the sort of question Greek and Latin philosophy asks, rather than the Hebrew approach which the bible gives. It is a question the bible does not specifically mention. The bible says God made everything. there isn't anything that has been made that hasn't been made through and for Christ. Seems pretty clear. Then the Greek philosopher asks, "Well what did God make it out of..?" While ex nihilo is correct, it is not actually a biblical phrase and as you point out has its limitations. However I doubt you will get an alternative to ex nihilo generally accepted.

The problem with some of the alternatives you mention is that they can suggest the universe is made from part of God himself. The universe is made by his power, ab potentia (my Latin is very rusty), not out of his power ex potentia.

The nearest to 'out of non matter' you suggest is probably Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. Or as the Vulgate puts it, ex invisibilibus.

Invisibilibus? Wasn't that the bus in Harry Potter?

 

[ChristianSoldier85]

Why must one make up fancy labels and fit the Word of God into a little box of one's preferred choice? The fossil record has proven what a failure evolution has been.

Dinosaurs are Satan's newest boogiemen.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ, we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honorable, but we are despised. (The early church faced the same proverbial firing squad.)

The secular world history from the neolithic age to the common era is quite harmonious with the scriptures.

 

[wisaak]

I agree that there is a problem saying that something was created out of nothing. Ex nihilo doesn't add up. The problem with Ex Deo, I understand is that God can't take part of Himself to make the universe because He is an infinite whole. However, we know that E=MC squared, therefore what is the problem with understanding that God took some of His energy and created the universe with that?
When you speak, energy comes out of your mouth. So when God spoke, energy came out of His mouth which converted into mass - the material universe. Since God has infinite energy, it only took a little of His energy to create the universe.
This looks like ex nihilo because you cannot see energy, but when the energy is converted to mass, you suddenly see it and think it was created out of nothing.
In summary: There was nothing except God, then there was something, that something was energy converted to mass.

 

[jckstraw72]

the book of 2 Maccabees says that God created ex nihilo -- a Jewish source (although, yes, from a time of Greek influence).

 

[wisaak]

Hebrews 11:3 clearly implies that the universe was made out of something, but that something was invisible.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

 

[shernren]

I agree that there is a problem saying that something was created out of nothing. Ex nihilo doesn't add up. The problem with Ex Deo, I understand is that God can't take part of Himself to make the universe because He is an infinite whole. However, we know that E=MC squared, therefore what is the problem with understanding that God took some of His energy and created the universe with that?
When you speak, energy comes out of your mouth. So when God spoke, energy came out of His mouth which converted into mass - the material universe. Since God has infinite energy, it only took a little of His energy to create the universe.
This looks like ex nihilo because you cannot see energy, but when the energy is converted to mass, you suddenly see it and think it was created out of nothing.
In summary: There was nothing except God, then there was something, that something was energy converted to mass.

The problem is: that makes God out to be the same "stuff" as the universe.

If you have a jug filled with some stuff, and you pour some of it out into a cup, the stuff that's in the cup must be the same as the stuff that's in the jug. So if there's water in the cup, there's water in the jug; if there's kerosene in the cup, there's kerosene in the jug (and a beautiful explosion waiting to happen). Would this change if the jug in fact held an infinite quantity of stuff? Not at all; if I have an infinite jug of water and pour, I will still get water, and not kerosene.

If, therefore, the stuff of the universe is really stuff that was "poured out" of God, that would make God out to be made of the same stuff as the universe. This would be an error because God is indivisible while the stuff of the universe is divisible; more severely, this would remove God's grounds for transcendence above the universe, since God and the universe would fundamentally be the same (being made of the same stuff), differing only in ordering and magnitude.

The traditional understanding is that God created by commanding the universe to exist, and, in obedience to an omnipotent God, the universe existed. Simple as that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hebrews 11:3 clearly implies that the universe was made out of something, but that something was invisible.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

That's actually an interesting point, no the universe was not created from nothing, but we have no clue what that something was. It's like the abyss, defined generally to mean a bottomless pit. It's not that we don't realize that there is a bottom it's just unfathomable. Bara is the word for creation in Genesis 1 and while we don't know how God did it, it's something that only God can do, thus the theological significance of the use of that word.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[wisaak]

I like your answer Shernren, God is spirit and the universe is matter and energy. It makes sense that God is not of the same essence as the universe. I was thinking myself that energy was created by God and is part of the created universe. E=MC squared is something created by God. It is a law of the created universe that energy can be converted to mass and vice versa. Therefore it does not necessarily follow that God used some of his energy and converted it to matter to make the universe.
However, I don't know if we have to accept your logic either. You say God is indivisible. I suppose you get that from verses that say God is one. However God is also divided into three persons.

Mark Kennedy agrees with me when he says, "no the universe was not created from nothing, but we have no clue what that something was." (Evidence from Heb. 11:3)

I am not sure if you agree with Mark or not, but if you do, then even though we do not know what that something was, let us consider some possibilities. Either it is something outside of God or it is something from God. If it is something outside of God, where did it come from. Who made it. How did he make it? It seems we are back to this something coming from God. What you say about the universe not being be made of the same stuff as God, makes sense since God transcends the universe. However, why is it impossible for God to take some of his essence and convert it into an entirely different essence - namely something physical - that is no longer eternal?
When we breathe out, we aren't really breathing out something of our essence, but it does come from us.

 

[shernren]

I like your answer Shernren, God is spirit and the universe is matter and energy. It makes sense that God is not of the same essence as the universe. I was thinking myself that energy was created by God and is part of the created universe. E=MC squared is something created by God. It is a law of the created universe that energy can be converted to mass and vice versa. Therefore it does not necessarily follow that God used some of his energy and converted it to matter to make the universe.
However, I don't know if we have to accept your logic either. You say God is indivisible. I suppose you get that from verses that say God is one. However God is also divided into three persons.

I think it's more of the basic philosophy of theism. The Creeds state that in considering the Trinity, we neither confound the persons nor divide the essence. We must take seriously the verses of the Bible that state that God is One. What that means is that insofar as we consider the Persons of the Trinity in isolation from each other, we are not considering the full biblical data concerning God and are therefore not considering God so much as our own conceptions of what God might be.

Alternatively, suppose some aliquot of God-stuff could be taken out of God. Either God is changed by that removal of stuff, or He isn't. If He is, then God can change, which is proscribed in Scripture; if God is not changed, then in what sense can anything be said to be "taken out of" God in the first place? Furthermore that does not change my fundamental problem: if the manipulation of God-stuff suffices to create a universe, then surely the manipulation of that universe-stuff will suffice to create a God, and that is an untenable prospect.

Mark Kennedy agrees with me when he says, "no the universe was not created from nothing, but we have no clue what that something was." (Evidence from Heb. 11:3)

I am not sure if you agree with Mark or not, but if you do, then even though we do not know what that something was, let us consider some possibilities. Either it is something outside of God or it is something from God. If it is something outside of God, where did it come from. Who made it. How did he make it? It seems we are back to this something coming from God. What you say about the universe not being be made of the same stuff as God, makes sense since God transcends the universe. However, why is it impossible for God to take some of his essence and convert it into an entirely different essence - namely something physical - that is no longer eternal?
When we breathe out, we aren't really breathing out something of our essence, but it does come from us.

Consider the first verse of Hebrews as well: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." In what sense are "the things of faith" not seen? Think, for example, to Abraham believing in faith that Isaac would be born to Sarah and himself. At that point, Isaac was unseen. Does that mean that the stuff that would become Isaac was really an aliquot of God-stuff waiting around in God - is that why Isaac was unseen at that point? No, surely not! Isaac would be born of Abraham's sperm and Sarah's ovum, and while there was surely miracle in the mechanics, the stuff of Isaac's body itself was simply ordinary stuff like everything else in creation.

No, what was not seen was the possibility of Isaac's being born. The physical structure of the universe is such that reproduction in humans simply does not occur past a certain age. No matter how hard Abraham and Sarah tried to rearrange the physical matter of their bodies, they simply would not have a son. The unseen was not a spiritual body or being, it was a concept and frame of mind.

In fact Hebrews 11:3 says that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. It does not say - and the subtle transposition is crucial that "what is seen was made out of things that are not visible". It does say that the universe was created "by the word of God". That means, if anything was transferred from God to the universe in the process of its creation, it wasn't "stuff": it was God's rational will for what the universe should be like.

God says "Let there be light!": and, precisely because nothing can exist before God commands it to do so, God does not need to push or pull or tug or transfer energy or mass in any way. God simply wills, and it is.

 

[wisaak]

You have good arguments Shernren. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me.

 

[Breckmin]

That's actually an interesting point, no the universe was not created from nothing, but we have no clue what that something was. It's like the abyss, defined generally to mean a bottomless pit. It's not that we don't realize that there is a bottom it's just unfathomable. Bara is the word for creation in Genesis 1 and while we don't know how God did it, it's something that only God can do, thus the theological significance of the use of that word.

How about some sort of infinite equilibrium?

A source for both positive and negative energies as well as the formation of matter (and anti-matter?).

 

[wisaak]

Shernren says:
Alternatively, suppose some aliquot of God-stuff could be taken out of God. Either God is changed by that removal of stuff, or He isn't. If He is, then God can change, which is proscribed in Scripture; if God is not changed, then in what sense can anything be said to be "taken out of" God in the first place? Furthermore that does not change my fundamental problem: if the manipulation of God-stuff suffices to create a universe, then surely the manipulation of that universe-stuff will suffice to create a God, and that is an untenable prospect.

Time has passed and I still have a problem with ex nihilo. Now if that is how God actually did it, I accept that is how He did it. However, the reasons Shernren uses for why God cannot create out of his own being is simply man-made logic, really no better than my man-made logic that says you cannot make something out of nothing. But God is beyond our logic. Just because we don't think something follows our logic does not mean it is not so. Our human logic is finite and is often missing in facts.
So, just as my logic says God doesn't make something out of nothing, or Shernren's logic that God cannot make something out of His own being, we could still be wrong.
But here is logic from the Bible I would like you to consider:
When God made his highest creation, he made us out of something not nothing. Now Gen. 1:26-27 seems to indicate that God created man ex nihilo just like the most of the rest of creation (using the word bara). He spoke and it came into being. Yet Gen. 2 goes into more detail than Gen. 1 and there we find out that God created man out of the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7). So God creates His highest being out of something already there.
But wait, there is more. Man is not yet a living being. God takes from some of His own essence and makes man a living being. (Gen. 2:7) So now we have logic from the Bible that God created out of His own being. God did not change because He used some of His own God-stuff to make us, and we cannot become God just because we have some God-stuff in us. However, we have become eternal beings because we have God-stuff in us.

 

[wisaak]

Another thought I have is this: One day God will destroy the universe, likely the mass will be converted into energy. Now we know He is going to take that energy and create a new heaven and earth, but what if He didn't. Where would that energy/mass go? Could He just make it disappear into nothingness? Or would it exist eternally as well? Isn't one of the laws of the universe that matter cannot be created or destroyed? Therefore, the universe is eternal as well ( I mean the essence of the universe - not the present day universe)

 

[jacksonduluth]

Where was the mass/energy before He spoke it into existence? It didn't exist. There is no reason to think spiritual realms are dependent on physical constructs.

 

[wisaak]

Where was the mass/energy before He spoke it into existence? It didn't exist. There is no reason to think spiritual realms are dependent on physical constructs.

First, I agree with you that there was no mass/energy before God spoke it into existence. I am not sure which post or which part of which post you are responding to. My last post is an extension of my second last post. In my second last post my argument is that since God used some of His God-stuff to breathe life into man, it is quite likely He used some of His God-stuff to create the universe. My conclusion was that because God-stuff is eternal, therefore we are eternal. I then extended the conclusion in my last post saying that if we are eternal because we have some God-stuff in us, then perhaps the universe is eternal for the same reason. To be sure you don't misunderstand, I do not mean eternal in the sense of having no beginning but only eternal in the sense of having no end. This is true for angels and humans, and also the universe - in the case of the heavens and earth, they will be converted to energy and then recreated into a new heaven and earth. There is no indication in Scripture that anything God has created simply ceases to exist. It only changes into something else. However, another speculation is that God could - if He wanted to - absorb it back into Himself, but there is no indication He would do that. I think Shernren would have a theological problem with that. I don't, because the universe doesn't have the power to create itself into a god.

 

[mark kennedy]

How about some sort of infinite equilibrium?

A source for both positive and negative energies as well as the formation of matter (and anti-matter?).

What I have heard from those who are into it is that the universe might have been as small as a walnut. Then it exploded, thus the Big Bang. What it was, God only knows because only God can create in that sense. The word used is
בָּרָא bara' Strong's H1254 Bara' is the the strongest word in the Scriptures for a miracle.

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish." (F.F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I like et perpendiculum in desolationem

out of emptiness

 

[wisaak]

CREATE: bara' (baw-raw) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5).
​

I have Vines too, and I could be wrong because I am not a Hebrew scholar, but it seems that Vines determines the meaning of bara from the context only, and the context is subject to a person's assumptions. So if Vine's assumption is ex nihilo, then of course he can see bara as meaning ex nihilo. However, as I explained in an earlier post, even though in Gen. 1 it seems God created man ex nihilo (bara), this is incorrect as we know, because in Gen. 2 when Scripture goes into more detail, it explains that God made man out of the dust of the earth. Bara is a general term for creation, and you have to look elsewhere for the details. The formula in Gen. 1 is "Let there be _______ (and then it exists)" But the fact that it is not explained how it became, does not neccessarily mean that it was created out of nothing. Gen. 2 explains how some of those things which were seemingly created out of nothing (that is many assume it was because it doesn't say how) - were actually created out of the earth - which is explained in Gen. 2 when Scripture goes into more detail.