Creatio ex deo

[shunyadragon]

When you say that science says the the nature of the quantum world is "most likely" infinite and timeless, you probably do not really mean that scientists have actually agreed upon a percentage of likelihood that this is so, eg, 51% or 80% likely, right? Do you just mean something like you're aware of several theories or hypotheses or mathematical models and most of these envision eternal scenarios?

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.

[JohnnyP]

Do you want me to explain metaphysically what happened? Prior to the Act of Creation there was nothing. God then by a single unified act of his Divine Will created matter de novo. We know this because, as can be shown by other arguments, and Biblically (if you doubt rational arguments), God Himself cannot undergo change, He's a simple substance without part, and beyond Him in the beginning there was nothing else. So when God created the world, he made it out of nothing: that is he did not refashion something else (that He did not Himself make), and He didn't make it out of Himself.

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.

[robrecht]

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"?

[Leonhard]

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.

[Tassman]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[robrecht]

'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?

[Truthseeker]

"Most probably" = "I am guessing!"

[pancreasman]

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.'

[JohnnyP]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

[robrecht]

Actually, Truthseeker and you are picking 'frog hairs' on terminology, because of something that may be uncomfortable with your world view.

Nonsensical ad hominem.

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?

[shunyadragon]

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.

[robrecht]

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.'