Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Creatio ex deo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    IF our physical existence is infinite and eternal and God exists there would be a parallel eternal infinite Matrix of existence that reflects the Nature and Attributes of God. The concept that possibly our physical existence was directly Created form a 'Part' of God would still descriptive of a beginning, not Exnihilo, but a beginning from the essence of God.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    OK for your particular case I will retract it, but yes, Creatio Exnihilo is in deed a widely held view even in the Roman Church, and widely argued in logical argument here and by many established Christian theologians, who in their arguments argue against the possibility of an infinite and eternal existence. This thread was part of the argument as to this possibility in how the relationship between God and Creation is considered. If you review the thread you will find many negative posts challenging this possibility. Please note that I said 'may be uncomfortable' and not a definitive that 'you are uncomfortable.'
    I already noted that, but a hypothetical and false ad hominem can be even worse than one based in fact so thank you for the retraction.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Believe what you will, but you should at least retract your false and unworthy ad hominem. My worldview does not dictate that our universe cannot have begun within a greater created eternal matrix or to reject any scientific findings that might suggest its infinite and timeless existence. That you feel such an idea or scientific finding might be uncomfortable with my world view is 1) false and imaginary on your part, and 2) an unworthy attempt at an ad hominem argument.
    OK for your particular case I will retract it, but yes, Creatio Exnihilo is in deed a widely held view even in the Roman Church, and widely argued in logical argument here and by many established Christian theologians, who in their arguments argue against the possibility of an infinite and eternal existence. This thread was part of the argument as to this possibility in how the relationship between God and Creation is considered. If you review the thread you will find many negative posts challenging this possibility. Please note that I said 'may be uncomfortable' and not a definitive that 'you are uncomfortable.'

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I believe I have done so in the previous post. To add, based on the present knowledge of science, a finite temporal physical existence is not a viable option that fits the evidence.
    Believe what you will, but you should at least retract your false and unworthy ad hominem. My worldview does not dictate that our universe cannot have begun within a greater created eternal matrix or to reject any scientific findings that might suggest its infinite and timeless existence. That you feel such an idea or scientific finding might be uncomfortable with my world view is 1) false and imaginary on your part, and 2) an unworthy attempt at an ad hominem argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Nonsensical ad hominem.
    Not really. This has been the subject of many threads and theological arguments by well known theologians for centuries, based on the theological view of 'Creatio exnihilo.'

    How do you define 'most probably'? Does it not indicate that one idea or outcome is more probable, more likely to occur, more likely to be true than all other possibilities?
    I believe I have done so in the previous post. To add, based on the present knowledge of science, a finite temporal physical existence is not a viable option that fits the evidence. An infinite and eternal physical existence is more likely true then other possible options, which is only one, 'the possibility that our physical existence is finite and temporal. It is, of course still possible, but this knowledge is beyond the present knowledge of science.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-24-2014, 11:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Actually, Truthseeker and you are picking 'frog hairs' on terminology, because of something that may be uncomfortable with your world view.
    Nonsensical ad hominem.

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    The concept of 'most probably' is legitimate, because all the scientific knowledge we have at present concerning the Quantum World shows no evidence of any boundary in time and space that would make our physical existence finite and temporal. Given that our current concepts of time indicate that it does not exist beyond any given space/time possible universe, and cannot logically be considered temporal. Even if you could project a time arrow beyond our time/space frame of reference of our universe, there is no logical finite end that is definitive to the time nor space of our physical existence.

    The problem of using limited concepts such as 'Infinite Regress' to limit the possibility of an infinite past or whatever represents a logical paradox, because time and space comes with no numbers, and the concept of infinite regress can only apply within a greater time and space reference, and is only a constructed concept of human logic.

    Lucretius got it right in 1st century BC Rome.

    Probability, like infinity in time and space need not have numbers to justify its use.
    How do you define 'most probably'? Does it not indicate that one idea or outcome is more probable, more likely to occur, more likely to be true than all other possibilities?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    So because it is not definitive, you say it is 'most probable' without any way of determining any degree of probability? Why not just admit that it is not known with any certainty and leave it at that? Why insert your own assertion of your idea being most probable if you really have no way of grounding that assertion in a probabilistic method?
    Actually, Truthseeker and you are picking 'frog hairs' on terminology, because of something that may be uncomfortable with your world view. The concept of 'most probably' is legitimate, because all the scientific knowledge we have at present concerning the Quantum World shows no evidence of any boundary in time and space that would make our physical existence finite and temporal. Given that our current concepts of time indicate that it does not exist beyond any given space/time possible universe, and cannot logically be considered temporal. Even if you could project a time arrow beyond our time/space frame of reference of our universe, there is no logical finite end that is definitive to the time nor space of our physical existence.

    The problem of using limited concepts such as 'Infinite Regress' to limit the possibility of an infinite past or whatever represents a logical paradox, because time and space comes with no numbers, and the concept of infinite regress can only apply within a greater time and space reference, and is only a constructed concept of human logic.

    Lucretius got it right in 1st century BC Rome.

    Probability, like infinity in time and space need not have numbers to justify its use.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-24-2014, 08:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnnyP
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Actually it doesn't, the Church went through all these different conceptions of how Christ's Incarnation could be squared with God's transcendence and changelessness. The idea that God somehow underwent change when The Son became incarnated strays into the modalism heresy. However later it became clear that Jesus was both fully man and fully God at the same time, so in Jesus there must have existed both a human soul and The Divine Essence. For the same reason Jesus would have to have had two wills, His finite, changing human will and His Eternal Divine Will, both co-existing in perfect harmony. Since this effectively adds a human nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, nothing is changed or detracted from The Trinity.
    Modalism is more like, one person of God played three different roles. Whereas the Word of God did exist eternally as a person of God, but did indeed "empty" and limit himself during the incarnation while the Father did not, for example, of omniscience:
    Source: KJV

    Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

    © Copyright Original Source


    This subordination doesn't mean that the Word of God ceased being God with Jesus, he still had access to all power of God if he chose. As Jesus stated at his arrest, he could have called angels to save him but didn't. But the Father held that power in trust for him so to speak, and gave it to him according to faith of a man praying for it to perform miracles and such.

    Like for example if one (Word) were rich (God) and put all his money (Infinite God Powers) in the bank (Father), he wouldn't change from being rich (God), he simply wouldn't have the money (Infinite God Powers) with him (Kenosis).

    So that kind of "change" is what I'm referring to, which is necessarily so according to verses like Mark 13:32, Philippians 2:7, and elsewhere. Admittedly "change" is a loaded word of choice for those who will jump on it pointing out that God doesn't change, but it is what it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    I am very familiar with the 'most probably' line of assertion. I recognise I use it myself. Lately I've tried to be more honest with myself and openly admit:'These things I believe have no definitive arguments against them, and of course, no definitive arguments for them. I don't so much BELIEVE them to be true but have a warm hope that the might be true and choose to live as if they were.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Truthseeker
    replied
    "Most probably" = "I am guessing!"

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    'most probably' has no connotation of percentages. The reason I used 'most probably is because . . . There of course is no definitive conclusion that would determine whether the physical existence is finite and temporal, nor infinite and eternal.
    So because it is not definitive, you say it is 'most probable' without any way of determining any degree of probability? Why not just admit that it is not known with any certainty and leave it at that? Why insert your own assertion of your idea being most probable if you really have no way of grounding that assertion in a probabilistic method?

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Again, if there are no percentages involved, what is the basis of your saying "most probably"?
    'most probably' has no connotation of percentages. The reason I used 'most probably is because . . . There of course is no definitive conclusion that would determine whether the physical existence is finite and temporal, nor infinite and eternal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Actually it doesn't, the Church went through all these different conceptions of how Christ's Incarnation could be squared with God's transcendence and changelessness. The idea that God somehow underwent change when The Son became incarnated strays into the modalism heresy. However later it became clear that Jesus was both fully man and fully God at the same time, so in Jesus there must have existed both a human soul and The Divine Essence. For the same reason Jesus would have to have had two wills, His finite, changing human will and His Eternal Divine Will, both co-existing in perfect harmony. Since this effectively adds a human nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, nothing is changed or detracted from The Trinity.
    When you say “it became clear later” that Jesus was both fully man and fully God at the same time, we’re looking at nearly 500 years before the definitive creed (i.e. Athanasian Creed) was first formulated.

    http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

    Five hundred years is a long time for the Church to work out just who and what Jesus was, given that he is at the core of the Christian religion. And if you think the doctrine of the 'Holy Trinity' (i.e. the three-in-one God) and 'Hyperstatic Union' (i.e. the double nature of Jesus) actually makes any sense you’re kidding yourself. They are contradictory gobbledygook.
    Last edited by Tassman; 11-23-2014, 05:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leonhard
    replied
    Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
    This would deny the incarnation, hypostatic union, kenosis, etc. of Jesus, where a person of God did change to become something not just God, but Creation and God. If anyone is an orthodox Christian, I'm not sure why ex deo seems like such a wild idea. It's basically the same thing, God limiting Himself to become Creation.
    Actually it doesn't, the Church went through all these different conceptions of how Christ's Incarnation could be squared with God's transcendence and changelessness. The idea that God somehow underwent change when The Son became incarnated strays into the modalism heresy. However later it became clear that Jesus was both fully man and fully God at the same time, so in Jesus there must have existed both a human soul and The Divine Essence. For the same reason Jesus would have to have had two wills, His finite, changing human will and His Eternal Divine Will, both co-existing in perfect harmony. Since this effectively adds a human nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, nothing is changed or detracted from The Trinity.

    Leave a comment:


  • robrecht
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    No there are no percentages involved here.Yes, the current theories, hypothesis and mathematical models demonstrate the our physical existence is most likely infinite and eternal. There of course is no definitive conclusion that would determine whether the physical existence is finite and temporal, nor infinite and eternal.
    Again, if there are no percentages involved, what is the basis of your saying "most probably"?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seer, 12-20-2021, 01:00 PM
11 responses
111 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by Seeker, 08-02-2021, 01:25 AM
23 responses
231 views
0 likes
Last Post Machinist  
Started by Machinist, 07-11-2021, 08:10 AM
240 responses
1,107 views
0 likes
Last Post Machinist  
Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
411 responses
2,634 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X