Creation ex nihilo is logically impossible. Either the creator used some pre-existing material or emanated it out of himself.
God is a 12th dimensional being he is outside our reality “logic” doesn’t exist for him
>>18018897>emanated it out of himself.considering that God is not "material," where is the contradiction?No one says God created the Universe apart from himself, or without his conscious will. Only that he created it "from nothing."
>>18018897The second retard
Argument? Proof?
>pre-existing materialWhere did this come from? Why is this more logical?>emanated it out of himselfWhy do you think this?
>>18019240P1. Something cannot come from nothing ("ex nihilo nihil fit", Parmenides).P2. The universe is something.Conclusion: Therefore, the universe did not come from nothing.
Millions of people died for this nonsense btw
>>18019714It did not "come from nothing", it was created in an instant by God. This does not require it to be identical to God, it requires the opposite.
>>18019895How could God create something without using something?
>>18018897Matter/energy are infinite and eternal and were not created
>>18019895If it took God only an instant to create everything, why did it create him 6 days? After each day's "instant" of creation, what did he do with the remaining six periods of 23:59:59.9999?
>>18020102Genesis 1:1 deals with the creation of the physical universe, which happened instantaneously. According to the Bible, the six days of creation happened after this and took place over a period of time. You are confusing the two.
>>18020138The cosmology of the Hebrew Bible assumes creation ex materia. Creation ex nihilo is a latter development.
>>18020079God has the superpower to be able to do anything
By the way, according to Genesis, God, together with the Elohim (Gods), creates the Earth and people. Yes, there is a Absolute but why do people assume that all of this is created by one? It's like Prajaparthi. If there are many universes, then there are many such creators, and they are assisted by powerful spirits. Obviously, there is a very important one, but I don't think people know about him at all.
>>18018897>Creation ex nihilo is logically impossible.That is fine. Logic is created, it makes no promises to contain anything beyond the created world.>>18020079Like this *snap*>>18020211The cosmology of priestly and Yahwist sources could have originally been ex materia, we don't know. But pre-Christian Jewish sources affirm ex nihilo.
>>18020238>Logic is createdNope. God is a superstition
>>18020243>God is a superstitionNope.Logic is created.
>>18020248Logic is not created. God is a superstitionYou have a low IQ
>>18020259> <5 word sentences only> Compulsively re-states opinion> Unaware that logic has limits> "You have a low IQ"Alright, take care!
>>18020267Yes, you have a low IQ.Logic having limits does not imply it is created. I never claimed logic has no limit. God isn't real.
>>18020286> Isn't aware how limits imply creation> Can't help but to restate his opinionJust out of curiosity, are you that Anon who claimed to have a double degree? Please say yes.
>>18020301Limits do not imply creation, and the universe is proved to be eternal and un created via the quantum eternity theorem.No.
>>18018897Well then it's good that neither the Bible nor the Quran teaches ex nihilo.>>18019240First verses of Genesis 1, unmanipulated.
>>18020314>proved>by a theoremRight....
>>18020331Yes, the universe is known to be eternal. The big bang was not creation of the universe ex-nihilo, the energy is eternal. The universe (really multiverse) a state in an infinite Hilbert space HThe total Hamiltonian is a self adjoins on a dense domain in H, and the dynamics is time independent. H does not explicitly depend on t.For any self adjoint H, the schrodigner equation has the unique solution |phi(t)| = U(t)|phi(0)> where U(t) = e^-iHt/h_bar and U(t) is a unitary group that is necessarily defined for all t in (-infnity, infinity)Basically the state necessarily exists for all infinite time both towards the past and future.There is an infinite amount of eternal energy that extant as an infinite amount of eternal universes that are uncreated and can't be destroyed. Mind you that the entire field of chemistry relies on this and it is not speculative physics. It's the current understanding.
>>18018897I'm going with the second option. Since it makes more sense with a divine being
>>18020357My dear, I don't want to be mean because we all started somewhere but please try to get the big picture down before you leap to details or conclusions of literal cosmic proportions. You're shooting yourself in the foot each sentence you make:1- A theorem itself cannot "prove" shit except in mathematics, it's not a scientific theory2- Multiverse is a pop-sci meme, there isn't any evidence of it "actually" and if there were, it would make little to no difference theologically3- QET assumptions aren't know to hold true for the universe. You're splitting hairs of a model that was never shown to apply to this cosmos.4- Creation isn't necessarily a temporal act; Aquinas himself believed the universe may as well be eternal while making one of the most complete cases for the prime mover and its creation
>>18019137Yet you're here trying to use your failed logic.
>>18020399This response shows that you quite simply don't know what you're talking about at allQuantum mechanics is the theory that describes chemistry and particles. There are no assumption and mathematical theorems derived from physical models are accurate at descriptions of the universe insofar as the model is accurate No, multverses are NOT a pop Sci meme. Ironically, this is a statement made by people who don't themselves understand the math used in quantum mechanicsAquinas was wrong about almost everything and referring to him isn't relevant It seems what's happening is you're trying to shoehorn Christian mythology into modern cosmology despite not actually knowing anything about modern physics. Is extremely cringe when you guys do this. The Christian creation myth is false bot physically and metaphysically.
>>18020418Just to be clear, you're saying QET has "no assumptions"??>Multiverses are NOT a pop sci memeGreat evidence.>Aquinas was wrong about almost everything and referring to him isn't relevantHe very well could have been. Doesn't affect my point. Please re-read point 4 in >>18020399
>>18020425>Just to be clear, you're saying QET has "no assumptionsNo>Great evidence.In any system of linear PDEs, all linear combinations are equal solutions via the principle of superposition. It's not unique to quantum mechanics. The idea that creation may not be temporal is not a counter argument to the fact that the universe and energy are necessarily uncreated. The universe was not created temporally or otherwise.Again, you're trying to shoehorn Christian creation (which in reality is the creation of a flat earth with a solid dome firmament lol) onto modern cosmology. It's cringe.
>>18019714"from" vs "out of"Conclusion is theistic either way, either ex nihilo creation by an all-powerful deity, or ascribing attributes to deity to the universe itself (pantheism)
>>18020438>>Just to be clear, you're saying QET has "no assumptions"?>NoGreat. So back to >>18020399 point 3 it is. Any news on that front?>In any system of linear PDEs, all linear combinations are equal solutions via the principle of superposition. >It's not unique to quantum mechanics.No, it's unique to models. I'm starting to see a pattern - you just generally assume models and their assumptions represent reality. That is incredibly wrong. I do hope you're just a hobbyist who likes to feel smart using the terms "quantum" in every other post because if trained professionals are this unaware of the gap between models and reality, we are doomed.> The universe was not created temporally or otherwise.Please do share some info on "or otherwise". Ideally some info that connects to the universe we inhabit.
>>18018897Yes and no. Ultimately the doctrine of creation ex nihilo is one of the few narrow gateways to nondualism in the Abrahamic traditions. Creation ex nihilo is, at its core, a denial of ontological dualism, which the vast majority of cultures accepted in one way or another. The Greek ontologies where matter is eternal, like in Aristotle, or like the Yoga and Sankhya systems in India, are dualistic and endorse an ontology where soul and matter are parallel realities and ontologically equal. Strangely enough, Buddhism is one of the few traditions that mirrors this language and describes the phenomenal world as “empty”. It is the void that underlies phenomena. Though I would say if you want to truly understand creation ex nihilo, you should read Kabbalistic texts, because they explain it in a way that is actually coherent and makes sense
All creation is made through the paradoxical union of opposites male and female.In most religions and mythologies the very first act of creation is usually a supreme being creates a male and female pair. Or rather it splits itself into half’s a male and female. That’s why so many mytholgies have the king and queen of the gods as being a brother sister/husband-wife pair.>uranus and Gaia>zeus and Hera>izanagi and izanami>shu and neftut or geb and Nut(Egyptian)Etc the examples are countlessThe Bible uses heaven and earth which in Greek is ouranos and gaia. Male and female. The male is the conscious observer and the female is a field of waves of infinite potentiality. The waves of particles collapse into definite form based on the intention and will of the conscious observer. This is male and female and and how reality was created. The earth is a field of potentiality and heaven is the observer. God split himself into 2 half of himself he made to be a sea of infinite potential and the other half a conscious observer to direct that sea. It was always right there if you just looked and stopped paying so much attention and undue importance to appearances and names.
>>18020457Okay, it's brazenly obvious that you don't actually know anything about what you're talking about1) no, it is not "unique to models". The superposition principle applies to any linear system. I'm not making my map-territory equivalence, but you do not have a right and you are not entitled to claim that the models we use and are accurate in all cases can not be used for metaphysical claims just because you don't like the implications. Your metaphysics must follow from your physics,never the other way around. Also, you don't know math or physics. I don't know where you're getting off thinking that you have the right to talk down to me when you're not as intelligent as I am and literally dont know what a linear PDE is. I just explained how the universe is necessarily uncreated. Aquinas argued that you can't use reason to conclude that the universe has a temporal beginning and that he simply asserts it does due to the some catholic council verdict. He claimed that an eternal universe would still depend on God for its sustenance, which is simply false. God is not required to "sustain" existence, whatever that means.Again, stop trying to shoehorn Christian mythology or metaphysics onto modern cosmology, especially when you dont know it. It's extremely cringe.
>>18019714>something can't come from nothingEasy, it came from God. Not the JudeoChristian personal God but an impersonal deity. That's why your prayers aren't answered. This also neatly solves the problem of evil, as the impersonal God of Deism isn't intervening at all, the deity set the world in motion but isn't interested in humanity. The alleged personal creator god YHWH is said to frequently (always?) intervene and could, say, stop a murder, but doesn't. So YHWH is evil, should he exist, and not worthy of worship.
>>18018897Yessir!
>>18020489>1) no, it is not "unique to models". The superposition principle applies to any linear system.Linear systems are a type of models, Anon. Please, please, please at least consult chatGPT before answer.>you are not entitled to claim that the models we use and are accurate in all casesPremises of QET weren't shown to be true for our universe, I don't know what would entitle me to state this fact or not.>Your metaphysics must follow from your physics,never the other way around.Exactly, hence the name meta- , meaning "totally not beyond".>I just explained how the universe is necessarily uncreated. You explained how a theorem you liked could hopefully one day prove temoral creation never happened. My question was about non-temporal creation, which you tried to address as well.>He claimed that an eternal universe would still depend on God for its sustenance, which is simply false. God is not required to "sustain" existence, whatever that means.Thank you for your opinion. If you get around to proving them, I will be thrilled.Please do consider connecting your hobbies to the real world.
>>18018897>source: your ass
>>18020512Your entire nonsense about calling linear systems models as though it matters is retarded. By what you're claiming, every formal system and every sensory experience is a model, which is trivial and irrelevant. You're not making any relevant point here. My point was that the superposition principle isn't unique to quantum mechanics.Every premise of QET is corroborated by out universe. The universe has nonzero energy, the schrpdinger equation is valid, and rejecting uniformity is not valid as you have no basis to conclude uniformitarity one way or the other, and rejecting it rejects the possibility of knowledge in the first place and is thus self-defeating.The theorem is not "one day", it's already been proved No, it's not "an opinion". The claim that God is required to sustain reality is a false claim that you can not prove true. Aquinas didn't do it and neither can you. There is no necessity to God "sustaining" reality, it's an incoherent premise.Stop trying to shoehorn disproved Christian metaphysics and mythology onto reality. It's EXTREMELY cringe.
>>18020541> By what you're claiming, every formal system and every sensory experience is a modelNo. Every re-presentation is a model. And I will gladly remind you the relevance: you claimed that the multiverse theory is true because of superposition within linear systems. In other words, you said "my model has this crazy theoretical feature, so the universe does too". A non-sequitur.>Every premise of QET is corroborated by out universe. Here you cross over from over-estimating the accuracy of individual models (that you don't necessarily realize are models) to outright relying on falsehoods. QET relies on establishing one unchanging global space, self-adjoint total Hamiltonian, time as a single global parameter, none of which are confirmed cosmologically. Again, I'm sure you enjoy watching science tiktok a lot, you feel intelligent when you get to use the term "quantum" and even remember the formal shorthand for some variables, but missing the big picture (or knowing that it's just a picture) makes it all almost useless.>The claim that God is required to sustain reality is a false claim that you can not prove true. Aquinas didn't do it and neither can youHe did. Unlike you, which is why I keep quoting your stance as an opinion. You have nothing to show for it.
>>18020438>Christian creation (which in reality is the creation of a flat earth with a solid dome firmament lol)No actually it isn't. In Genesis 1 it literally says birds are flying "through" the firmament (i.e. the atmosphere or the atmospheric air between the clouds and the ground).
>>18020466>you should read Kabbalistic texts,Tell me how I can know you know nothing.
>>18018897Well, think of it like how a dream is.It's all my illusion. The only thing that exists, is my mind. There was no 'creation ex nihilo'. It's just my dream. All my mind.
Amaranth Amaranth AmaranthLife is but a dream. Merrily merrily merrily merrily.I am God and I am an Elf.
>>18020560No, it is not a non sequitur. The model describing chemical reactions necessarily describes an infinite multivariate. The map-territory distinction is true but irrelevant. If chemical reactions are described by the model, then so is the multiverse. If you wish to claim that they're not, that's fine, but there's no reason to care about solipsist claims in this fashion (it reduces to solipsism).All of those things are confirmed cosmologically and empirically to the greatest extent that any physical model ever has been. You can reject this, but there's no reason to do so other than you don't like the implications.And again with the petulant insults that do not apply and clearly show that you are raging and seething. No, he didn't. His argument is that contingent things require a sustaining cause to exist at any moment, they must be continuously received by a necessary being, which need not be a temporal first cause. This means an eternal world can exist but still require a necessary being to sustain it. It becomes a sort of metaphysical hierarchy of efficient causation that he claims leads to a necessary being. The flaw here is that he claims infinite regression is impossible (its not) and the self-cause premise is unrequired and undercut by unitary closed and infinite space I just described.
>>18020604Multiverse*
>>18020604>If chemical reactions are described by the model, then so is the multiverse.A non-sequitur to support a non-sequitur?>Consider all unobserved mathematical features to be real or you're a solipsist.No.>>QET relies on establishing one unchanging global space, self-adjoint total Hamiltonian, time as a single global parameter>All of those things are confirmed cosmologically and empirically to the greatest extentShow me.>he claims infinite regression is impossible (its not)It might not be impossible per se, but it is both logically and practically unsustainable. If you want evidence of why infinite regress should be discarded, please see the next line:please see the next lineplease see the next lineplease see the next line....(this goes on forever. Infinite regress proponents would have to call this evidence.)
>>18020619>Infinite regress proponents would have to call this evidence.They would have to accept that as valid evidence not only for disproving infinite regress, but they would have to accept that as sufficient for disproving anything that you say it does.
>>18020619Infinite regress is not logically invalid. You might think it's unintuitive, but i dont, nor do other people (your intuition does not trump other people's), and it's not unsustainable. There's no reason to discard it. Aristotle and Aquinas' dislike of it are not compelling reasons to reject it, nor is your example. Aquinas basically insists that an eternal world still must be sustained, but persistence (sustainment) is accounted for internally. He's basically just shoehorning God into it because he wants God to exist but it's not necessary. Reality itself is aseitic.
>>18020677I gave you evidence that it ought to be discarded. Or perhaps you think an un-ending link of references that don't eventually refer to anything isn't logically valid....?
>>18020687>I gave you evidence that it ought to be discardedYou didn't. Your specific chain being infinite does not imply it's a valid infinite chain, and does not imply that all infinite chains must exist. The infinite chain of reality aseitic and does not depend on god. This does not mean all infinite chains exist.
>>18018897God exists outside the first three realms. God is beyond The Universe, The Fundamental, and the Emotional and resides in the The Outside, where half-imagined contradictions become true.
>>18020812>Your specific chain being infinite does not imply it's a valid infinite chainYou're so close to realizing why infinite regress cannot be a valid explanation lmao
>>18020476All the shamans had the same epiphany which is why all the cosmologies rhyme.
>>18020844No, the aseitic chain that I described via QET is valid. This does not mean your chain is.
>>18020875>chain that I described via QET is valid.Not from what you wrote, no.>This does not mean your chain is.What makes my chain less valid? I understand it doesn't feature a theorem (with uncertain applicability) you like from TikTok, but that is obviously not enough.
>>18020927Yes, from what I wrote Aquinas was wrong and I'm no longer going to engage with an idiot who keeps bringing up tiktok. Every one of your points has been shown to be wrong. You can't do math buddy.
Christianity lives in your head rent free. Accept it.
>>18020935My friend, at >>18020619 you completely fell apart and just told me infinite regress is not valid when I do it but it is when you like what it mentions. I hope this experience humbles you before you start talking shit about various domains you scarcely understand.
>>18020956It's valid for me because I have a unique solution (the solution is unique, there are no other possible solutions) that accurately describes reality. Yours is an irrelevant claim that I must accept as evidence an infinite chain for a claim that it doesn't apply to. Your claim is that because you are referencing the infinite chain at all that this must be taken as evidence because of the fact that it's an infinite chain. This is not how it works.You did not substantiate your chain. Your only refuge is to claim that the actual model I use is spurious DESPITE it being a mathematically proved unique model that describes reality. Thus to reject it, if you want to, does indeed reduce to solipsismAquinas was wrong, and so are you.
>>18020980>I have a unique solution ...there are no other possible solutions... that accurately describes reality.>mathematically proved unique model that describes realityFalse. Non-confirmed premises listed in >>18020619 and you have fuckall to show for it.>Your claim is that because you are referencing the infinite chain at all that this must be taken as evidence because of the fact that it's an infinite chain. This is not how it works.Woah are you telling me each chain link referencing the next ad absurdum is not accepted as an explanation? Mind blow. Point proven.>You did not substantiate your chain. That is kinda the issue with a causal chain that takes an infinity before going to the justifying cause. Again, you're proving my point.In general, "I have a solution, I swear, just accept it or you're a solipsist" isn't a solid argument. It's pathetic.
>>18020988No, they're notThe solution is mathematically unique And all the premises of the overall argument are valid.No, IF you can demonstrate your chain applies to reality, THEN you are entitled to reference an infinite regression. In my case the "chain" is simply the fact that the unique solution is necessarily infinite. This is the "chain" here. You have to reject QM if you want to do this, which means rejecting the existence of chemistry and basically all modern physics. And again, the solution is unique and as such there does not exist any other model you can construct even in principle that can describe chemistry, and we can completely describe every chemical reactions ever in any situation with this model. So rejecting it is just rejecting reality at that point.Aquinas had been refuted. You should stop relying on him.
>>18021017>[Math and] premises of the overall argument are valid.The question being ignored for the 3rd time is are they sound.>You have to reject QM if you want to do thisYou have to invent a lot of QM if you think QET was shown to apply.You didn't address a single question, Anon. Are you sure you understand what I'm asking you?
>>18018897Emanationism is perfectly compatible with Christianity and Judaism. It's called Gnosticism and Kabbalah.
>>18021225Gnostic teacher Basilides was the first Christian to explicitly teach creation from nothing.
>>18021539>creation from nothingCompatible with emanation, since creation emerges (emanates) from "nothingness," "emptiness," or "void." All same thing. Unmanifest and manifest modes of God.
>1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.>2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.>3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.>4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
>>18021687Ok but Basilides doctrine differs from other Gnostics in that there is no unfolding of the Monad and cosmic fall. Just pure via negativa, out of which comes the seed-mass of the world (the potential cosmos). It is actually a more extreme form of creation ex nihilo than what orthodox would say because in the Basilidean system the world is actually taken out of nothing.
The funny thing is that Christians didn't originally believe in ex nihilo creation, rather, God was originally described as having formed the heaven and earth out of a primordial chaos. This is also more in-line with ancient Judean and Hellenistic narrative as well, and Genesis can more accurately be translated from Ancient Hebrew as describing this as well.
>>18022384>Christians didn't originally believe in ex nihilo creationEx nihilo was present in Judaism before Christianity existed. The primordial chaos premise is just what scholars assume was the original idea, since that idea was the norm.
>>18022408The second verse of Genesis says>the earth/land was without form, and void, and darkness covered the face of the deepThis is clearly about the water chaos that existed before the world was organized by God.
>>18023838That is a sensible reading and if it were the first verse, you would have a case. But the first verse is God creating heavens and earth (material and immaterial). Not from chaos, not from primordial matter, not from potentiality, just creating.
>>18023843The first verse can be translated as, "When in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", it's a dependent clause completed by verse 2. In both the Hebrew and the Greek the word for "beginning" lacks the article, and given what we know about Hebrew cosmology, this makes perfect sense. Because it's not describing an absolute moment in time, but simply a point in time when God arranged the primordial chaos into the cosmos, and appointed times and seasons for those who inhabit it. The world cannot have been created ex nihilo, for not only does this defy logic, but it also contradicts scripture.
>>18023843>But the first verse is God creating heavens and earth (material and immaterial). Not from chaos, not from primordial matter, not from potentiality, just creating.From itself. Nothing whatsoever exists except god. So the only place creation or 'existence' can come from is out of god.Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for your current form comes out of god, and will in time recognize its unity with god (what Christians call 'salvation').
>>18024235So we are all God?
>>18018897From nothing (we have no relation to gods)From self (we are gods)From others (we have no relation to gods)From self and others (we are half gods)
