Creation Ex-Nihilo?
-
Hello Arnoldyasin,
If you only tried to refer to the Greek-Christian ex-nihilo of that particulair group, yes, i don't accept that, why? Because that view gives a size to God, that the nothing was bigger then God, or that there was a nothing next to God, and by thus again giving Him a size.
But if you say even God can't create something out of nothing then you are limiting God's omnipotence are you not?
And also saying the Christain version of ex-nihilo is the same as the islamic is not quite correct.
Yes, it is true that Falsafa, the Islamic philosophers came to reject creation ex-nihilo. But creation ex-nihilo was the doctrine of the majority of the muslim Ulemas I think...
St Augustine "confessions" 400AD
"What was God doing before He created the Universe? Before He created Heaven and Earth, God created hell to be used for people such as you who ask this kind of question."
PeaceI take it you have read "Zorba The Greek" -)
-
Peace,
Quote
But if you say even God can't create something out of nothing then you are limiting God's omnipotence are you not?No, most people see God as having a certain form or size, see Him 'float' in the nothingness, and then He created out of the nothing, that is what i mean with God and the nothing next to it. What is meant with nothing, is there was no form of creation, but everything was God, God with no form or size or limit. Nothing only is a definition for no shape, or created form, inside God. I hope it is clear what i mean...
Quote
I take it you have read "Zorba The Greek" -)No, i read Augustine myself...... ;D He is an interresting philosopher.
Peace
-
Peace,
Quote
But if you say even God can't create something out of nothing then you are limiting God's omnipotence are you not?No, most people see God as having a certain form or size, see Him 'float' in the nothingness, and then He created out of the nothing, that is what i mean with God and the nothing next to it. What is meant with nothing, is there was no form of creation, but everything was God, God with no form or size or limit. Nothing only is a definition for no shape, or created form, inside God. I hope it is clear what i mean...
So there is no such thing as "nothingness" then? Nothingness as in absence of both matter and energy? Absensence of form is not "nothingness" as understood in the judeo Christian and Muslim concept of Creation Ex Nihilo.
Regards,
-
No, this is my concept of it...........
I follow Quran and science, no tradtions or perceptions from ancient mythology.... -
Strictly logically speaking
Nothing = lack of any and all properties
Existence = a property
Thus nothing does not and nor did it ever exist.Therefore creation from nothing is impossible since it can't exist.
However, if we take the scientific definition of 'nothing' (which is by and large a 'pure vacuum', but however is not property-less) then creation from 'nothing' is possible.
-
Therefore creation from nothing is impossible since it can't exist.
Even for an omnipotent God?
Regards,
-
Therefore creation from nothing is impossible since it can't exist.
Even for an omnipotent God?
Regards,
I don't think you're following the logic here. "Nothing" does not and never existed. The concept of "nothing" is as logically sound as the fabled "squarecircle". It's a logical impossibility. Whether or not it is 'possible for an omnipotent god' is not a logical question.
-
Peace,
Maybe if you approach the word 'nothing' differently as in nothing=no creation, as in nothing had shape, nothing of creation was part of reality. So God was already as the everything, but He formed nothing yet..
So i see it not as from 'nothing', as in philosophy non-excistance refers to not-being, as in not being there in a form. So all is formed out of ' nothing', as in formed out of God, as God being all-pervading and everywhere, and only then had gotten shape/form/creation/purpose.The creation of matter is out of nothing as proven by the string-theory.
In "Parallel Worlds" Dr Kaku, world known co-founder of String theory, states
" At first, one might object to the notion of amultiverse, because it seems to violate known laws, such as the conservation of matter and energy. However the total matter/energy content of a universe may actually be very small. The matter content of universe, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, is huge and positive. However, the energy storedwithin gravity may be negative. If you add positive nenergy due to matter to the negative nergy due to gravity, the sum may be close to xero!.In some sense, such universes are free. They can spring pout of the vacuum almost effortlessly.( if the universe is close then the total energy content of the universe must be zero.In fact to creat a universe like ours may require a rediculously small net amount of matter, perhaps as little as an oune.As "Guth"like to say,"the universe may be a free lunch".This idea of creating universe from nothing was frist introduced by physicist Edward Tyron of Hunter college of the City University of NEw York, in a paper published in "Nature" magazine in 1973. He speculated that the univese is something <" which happens from time to time" due to a quantum fluctuation in the vacuumAlthought the net amount of matter required to creat a universe may be close to zero, thismatter must be compressed to incredible densities.
He continues to discuss," Although the universe from nothing theory cannnot be proved with conventional means, it does help to answwer very practical questions about the universe. For example why deos not the universe spin?Everything we see around us spins , from tops, hurricanes,plantes, and galaxies to quasars. It seems to be a universal characteristic of matter in the niverse. But the universe itself doe snto spin. When we look at the galaxies in the heavens, their total spin cancels out to zero.
He adds," this is quite fortunate, becasue if the universe did spin then time travel would become common place and history would be impossible to write.The reason why the univese does not spin may be that our univese came from nothing. Since the vacuum does not spin, we do not expect to see any net spin arising in our universe. In fact all the bubble universes with in the multiverse may have zero net spin."Peace
-
Peace,
Maybe if you approach the word 'nothing' differently as in nothing=no creation, as in nothing had shape, nothing of creation was part of reality. So God was already as the everything, but He formed nothing yet..
So i see it not as from 'nothing', as in philosophy non-excistance refers to not-being, as in not being there in a form. So all is formed out of ' nothing', as in formed out of God, as God being all-pervading and everywhere, and only then had gotten shape/form/creation/purpose.Only problem with this is when it comes to logical inspection it falls down. Firstly, 'god' has to inherently be part of 'reality', and the exitence of god itself would nullify said 'nothingness'. I don't know...maybe if you gave your idea of 'nothing' clearly defined boundaries it would be easier to discuss.
The string theory
The idea of a multiverse is interesting but as of now it's still speculative physics with no evidence. But yeah, it's fun to speculate on it and it does answer some questions (such as why is everything in the universe so finely-tuned for life?). In terms of science, I'm fond of the idea of the 'singularity' which exploded thus giving rise to the universe; it's good because it has the added support of the accuracy of Quantum Theory.
P.s. Kaku didn't 'find' String Theory but he is one of the bigger proponents of it.
-
Maybe if you approach the word 'nothing' differently as in nothing=no creation, as in nothing had shape, nothing of creation was part of reality. So God was already as the everything, but He formed nothing yet..
But I have defined "nothingness" for you already. Nothingness is absence of both matter and energy. But you are saying this kind of "nothingness" does not Exist. You are defining "nothingness" as formlessness...
The creation of matter is out of nothing as proven by the string-theory.
But that is not "nothing" - matter arises from energy.
But is energy itself formless?
Regards,
-
Peace,
I say everything arised from God, energy and from that matter. God cannot be defined in terms as energy. That is what i mean with nothing. Nothing not as truly empty, as God is there, but not as 'energy', as God cannot be defined in those terms. And God self is formless, but not conciousnessless or powerless.
P.S. where do i say he was the discoverer? He is one of the co-founders of the theories that are now worked out.
-
Peace,
I say everything arised from God, energy and from that matter. God cannot be defined in terms as energy. That is what i mean with nothing. Nothing not as truly empty, as God is there, but not as 'energy', as God cannot be defined in those terms. And God self is formless, but not conciousnessless or powerless.
P.S. where do i say he was the discoverer? He is one of the co-founders of the theories that are now worked out.
What's the difference between a co-founder and a co-discoverer? Either way, he is neither. And String Theory has a long way to go before it's worked out.
-
Peace,
Yes, i use the wrong word, as he workes out the old theories into new ones that give better answers. I meant it in that context, but i used the wrong word. He is the developer of further answers. And yes, it is a theory, but it starting to answer a lot of questions in Quantum physics. I just posted out of interrest, not directly to prove my point.
-
I say everything arised from God, energy and from that matter. God cannot be defined in terms as energy.
Yes, everything emanated from "God" - both energy and matter. This is in line with insights of the past sages. I found it troubling that people here have equted "God"=Energy...
But Arnold if there is no such thing as "nothingness" - where did energy and matter emanated into? or what is Big Bang expanding into?
Regards,
-
Peace,
We are 'inside' God, how is a long story, and i don't have all the answers yet. But this i know for sure, we are 'in' God, that i believe and is also confirmed in the Quran. So matter, energy all exist from God, in God. So the big-bang expands 'in' God. God has no position or size or anything. It is hard to express it in words. As words are limited. So i call it the All. God shows us a movie, and the movie is real, but at the same time not-real. God is just God, no description possible. Our words can only point towards it, but cannot compass it. Touch it. It is just like feelings, we can describe the effects they have on us, but try to describe love or hate, you can't. You can only say; love feels like...hate makes me... But you can not grasp the feeling.
-
Peace arnoldyasin. I think i get what you are saying...Could this relate to the god=reality theory?
-
God is God. Stop trying to = God. God cannot be grasped. God is reality, but beyond that. Whatever we say He is, is not a description, it is only pointing a direction to Him. God is truth, God is All. God is God. God is the ultimate conciousness that created us all and every creation. He is All. God is not a thing, or non-thinking. God is alive, knowing, and present. You can talk to Him and He talks to you in different ways. It is sad some people appraoch God as energy or just your concience. God is beyond that. God is All......
-
Peace arnoldyasin. Why do you tell me not to think and question when it comes to god?...And why are you emotional when it comes to this topic? You yourself say god=all etc... We all can have different understandings of god which can make sense to us personally,and be equally as valid as other peoples different opinions of god...Think about it please...
peace. -
Peace,
It was not meant to lecture you, you asked my opinion and i gave it to you, that's all. And my opinion is, God is ungraspable and limitless, infinite. And i'm not emotional about this, not at all. I think you misunderstood me. And of course anybody must follow their own ideas on this, is all you can do, everybody is on its own path of understanding and cannot be judged to have a certain understanding as they are meant to be now on that level of understanding. So i never judge people on their ideas, at least i try my best not to. And that is say God is All, is because All is ungraspable. You cannot count the All, encompass it. It is only a direction we point to. It never was meant to lecture you dear brother. It was meant as an answer to your question. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.....
-
Peace arnoldyasin. I apologise for possibly misunderstanding you. I just think that our ideas on this matter are possibly related,or very close... The totality of reality also is infinite,cannot be grasped totally,encompassed,counted,fully defined etc...That is what i was saying...Maybe my use of = is a bit unusual...anyway sometimes the typing doesnt fully explain what we are trying to convey...And sometimes we use different words/concepts to explain the same thing...
Peace my good fellow... )