Creation Ex Nihilo


(system) #1
The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo is not just saying that there was no matter for God to work from, it is articulating how radically different God is from the kinds of things we find in the universe today.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/jim-stump-faith-and-science-seeking-understanding/creation-ex-nihilo

(James Stump) #2

Creation ex nihilo – well, that came out of nowhere! (#dadjokes) What do you think?


(Mervin Bitikofer) #3

Are you implying that cyberspace is an empty vacuum? :no_mouth:


(Mohammad Nur Syamsu) #5

Creatio ex nihilo, with it’s complement, ex nihilo, nihil fit (from nothing comes nothing) is actually the correct theory of everything.

All science is described in terms of mathematics, and mathematics is ordered by the zero. That is the theory of everything. Think about it, there is not going to be a theory which cannot be stated in terms of maths. And science says an action has an equal and opposite reaction, signifying a totality of zero.

Standard mathematical theory is based on counting as the most fundamental logic of maths. But new mathematical theory uses rewriting as the most fundamental logic. To generate mathematics we just posit an arbitrary symbol to start with, say we call this symbol D. Then we rewrite this symbol, obtaining a new symbol which we call G.

What rewriting means is something like to represent the same information in a different form. For example in a computer the same information may be represented as pits on a dvd, or as electrons in RAM. The pits in the DVD are “rewritten” to electrons in RAM, the same information is presented in a different form.

So that G is rewritten from D means they are different but the same, it means the essential mathematical relationship between D and G is boolean interchangeability.

And of course D and G represent 0 and 1 in the mathematics that we all use. The origin of the number 1 is thus not arrived at by counting, but by rewriting the 0. So now we have the 0 and the 1 and the boolean operator, and continuing this way mathematics is built up to obtain all the other numbers, operators and methods like counting.


(GJDS) #6

@jstump

This is a good summary (I will have to think about the joke - after all it is as cheap as dirt) - a serious point is to note with you, the world is not divine and yes we may study it via the scientific method. Aquinas is a fine example of a philosophical approach (after we have appreciated his Summa) that is consistent with his theology - I am not aware of a thinker who has given us an equivalent treatment that links the insights of the Physical Sciences with a coherent philosophical outlook (Heller has some interesting things to say.)

Most arguments I am familiar with inevitably reduce to, you either belief in God, and all else follows, or you do not believe there is a God, and from this all else follows. Perhaps you or someone else may suggest a philosopher who would take us from Thomas and onto a modern Philosophy of Science. It would certainly bring some fun to the debate.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #7

@jstump

Thank you for the essay and thank you even more for the review of Kraus’ book by David Alpert in the background.

Alpert’s review abundantly illustrates the intellectual poverty of Krause, Dawkins & Co. when they attack theology by trashing science which they claim to understand and respect.

The fact is that the Big Bang Theory supports Creation ex Nihilo. The fact is that the Big Bang Theory clearly says that before creation there was no matter and no energy and thus no quantum fields, but also no space and no time, so Kraus’ theory is pure hokum, unless he is able to completely revise modern cosmology based on the Big Bang.

Einstein has clearly demonstrated the time and space are related to each other and to matter/energy. Before there was matter/energy, that is before the Big Bang, there was no matter/energy. The universe did not exist. Thus there was no time and there was no space and surely there were no quantum fields. Technically and truly there was no “before the Big Bang,” because there was no time. The Big Bang is the Beginning not only of matter and energy, but also of time and space.

Kraus’ book is not an attack on theology, it is an attack on science. It is an attempt to use pseudo science as a ideological tool to discredit a theology that Kraus doe not like.

Further the New Atheism rejects the human quest to understand life and reality. It rejects the Why? question. Instead of using science to extend our understanding Dawkins uses it to reduce our understanding. Instead of trying to understand why birds fly south for the winter, it says that the best understanding is “because of a evolutionary advantage” for all such questions.

Finally as Albert points out the New Atheists are not concerned about the real moral questions of our day, when the world is crying out for such.

Who is taking a stand against Jihadi and ISIL terror, Russian terrorism in the Ukraine, and Syrian terror weapons against its own people?


(Patrick ) #8

Roger,
Cosmic inflation theory has the universe expanding in size dramatically in a minuscule faction of a second. So during the inflation epoch there was no matter, no energy, no quantum fields but there was expanding space just like there is now. A property of space is that it is governed by Quantum Mechanics. Somewhere in this expanding space, a quantum fluctuation occurred - the big bang. Energy and matter in the form of a quirk-gluon condensate emerged. This was/is our observable universe.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #9

@Patrick

Patrick,

if there was inflation there was motion, and if there was motion there was time and space. There was also matter because quanta are based on subatomic particles which are the components of matter.

E = mc squared.


(Patrick ) #10

Not correct. Expansion of space is not motion. We observe that today. That is why the radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years (a measure of distance). Since the observable universe is only 13.8 billion years old, How can the CBR light have traveled 46 billion light-years to get into our telescopes? Because it was space that expanded.


(George Brooks) #11

What? Something has to be moving …

George Brooks


(Patrick ) #12

George,
Think of it this way. A cubic foot of empty space a billion year ago is now 10 cubic ft of space today. No motion, just an outward expansion by a property of empty space called dark energy.


(George Brooks) #13

@Patrick

With or without dark energy … if the space between two galactic objects is increasing… by definition that’s motion.

George


(Patrick ) #14

incorrect, it is not motion in a Newtonian physics sense or a General relativity sense.


(George Brooks) #15

Patrick, you’ll need a citation for that.

Motion in space has to be defined by a measurement of distance. And all movement is relative.

George Brooks


(Patrick ) #16

Try this out. If it doesn’t satisfy your curiosity, I’ll look for more.


(George Brooks) #17

Well, @Patrick, I think you need to find another article. The only paragraph this link has using the word motion SPECIFICALLY says it is MOTION!:

"So if we look at any one particular galaxy, in roughly ten billion years it will be twice as far away; in twenty billion years (twice that time) it will be four times as far away; in thirty billion years it will be eight times that far away, and so on. It’s accelerating away from us, exponentially. “Constant expansion rate” implies . . .

“accelerated motion away from us” for individual objects."


(Patrick ) #18

That is talking about the motion of things in space. Two galaxies in space have relative motion to each other. But the expansion of space is not motion. So over time the galaxies will be further apart because space is expanding not moving. And the galaxies are moving within that expanding space.


(George Brooks) #19

So you say… but you haven’t cited any authority that says so.

Expansion requires the change in distances… as far as I know… the ONLY way to measure motion is by measuring changes in distance…


(Patrick ) #20

So Sean Carroll is not good enough. Oh well, I tried.


(George Brooks) #21

I don’t think you understand what Sean Carroll is saying… He certainly didn’t say there is no motion when space between galaxies expand…

George