Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 04, 07:50:47pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Misunderstanding. Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/28/04 3:13pm In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "God violates ex nihilo" on 04/ 1/04 11:42am I was hesitant to respond to this as I feared it would only lead to more misconsturals, but I’ll try anyway. It sounds like you're referring to ex nihilo nihil fit, and if so you've simply misapplied it. From nothing, nothing comes. This is to be understood literally. God creating the universe ex nihilo is then not a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit because the universe didn't literally come from nothing and wasn't uncaused; it came from God. (The notion of God creating the univese ex nihilo then is probably not the best way to describe it, but instead creation ex Deo.) A correct example of a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit would be the universe beginning to exist and literally coming from nothing, with no cause. One could still criticize this belief of creation ex Deo on other grounds, perhaps by claiming it is not metaphysically possible for an outside agency to create a universe merely via the agency itself (i.e. the Creator created the universe out of nothing but his own power, self, etc.) but that would be a different objection against the belief. The belief itself is not a real violation of ex nihilo nihil fit (since the universe does not begin to exist with nothing to cause it, rather a Creator causes the universe to exist) regardless of what other flaws it may have. >Modern science actually supports the idea that >something can come from nothing. (nothing being >defined as the lowest possible energy state). If you redefine "nothing" to mean "a fluctuating sea of energy" (and that's what a vacuum is, among other things) then yes modern science supports the idea of something coming from nothing. But clearly this is not an example of a true violation of ex nihilo nihil fit because "nothing" was used in a very different sense then what is meant in the Latin phrase. When we use the word "nothing" in its more classic dictionary definition, the Latin phrase holds true. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date understanding Damoclese 04/28/04 7:00pm nothin -- Damoclese, 04/28/04 7:01pm Much ado about nothing -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/04 12:58pm nothing from nothing leaves...nothing. -- Damoclese, 04/29/04 2:37pm Beware the fallacy of equivocation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:20pm Imagining -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 9:43am Imagining ex nihilo -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:31pm End game -- Damoclese, 05/ 7/04 4:42pm Are ee ess pee ee see tee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/10/04 4:09pm