Re: [asa] Musing on entropy, chaos, and omniscience

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Mon May 25 2009 - 17:08:33 EDT

Or is it more like everythingness, similarly problematic for us bounded
folks? I think our usual notion of God and His domain is more like this
than nothingness. Still, either is a speculation, with some uncertainty
as to whether written words in holy writ are helpful or not in grasping
anything of that existence.

Oh, and Dave, I am not troubled by God tinkering, before or after that
singularity (whatever that might mean in the absence of time as we know
it), though that wasn't really what I was trying to convey. However,
gathering and forming are a bit different than experimenting, more like
sculpting, I think.

JimA [Friend of ASA - and surely past my post limit today]

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Alexanian, Moorad wrote:
> I think the difficulty that we will always encounter is that we cannot think of nothingness, whereas that is a natural state for a Creator. Whatever our thoughts, they are always embedded in some sort of spacetime.
> Moorad
> ________________________________
> From: [] On Behalf Of dfsiemensjr []
> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 2:43 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [asa] Musing on entropy, chaos, and omniscience
> There seems to be a problem with /nihilo/ or nothing. /Creatio ex nihilo/ indicates that what now is was not. I was going to write "once was not" but that suggests more strongly that there was a time before, which cannot be the case. We are so much creatures of time that we cannot comprehend that creation initiated time, space, matter and energy. Our language does not deal well with the concept of an absolute beginning. The ancients were equally involved in such thought and tended to hold that nothing or chaos was a thing from which things were organized or made. Jim, I note that you have God tinkering in a pretime time, trying things out. One can read John 1:1, "In the beginning was ..." that way, but most exegetes do not consider this the intent.
> Dave (ASA)
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 10:38:54 -0700 Jim Armstrong <<>> writes:
> I too am grateful for the presence and consistency of the conservation laws, now that Creation is in place.
> But that really wasn't the point.
> Whatever God did to initialize Creation is the point, and it seems to me that "ex nihilo" as a process might well be the way it appears to us in our context. But that appearance may not be (and probably isn't) particularly accurate if we were able to access the domain of God's existence. Our context does not span the whole of reality, most particularly not spanning the reality of God's existence. Who knows? He may have a workshop or laboratory, and raw starting stuff in forms of which we know nothing and of which we are incapable of knowing. We would never know the difference from that and ex nihilo. But the posit of ex nihilo just seems inappropriate, more akin to a statement of magic than a descriptor of divine creation. This is just an opinion. Perhaps most users of "ex nihilo" are aware of the implicit limitation. Maybe not.
> The use of this expression does offer a convenient shorthand, and I guess I would be hard-pressed to offer a concise substitute at this point.
> JimA [Friend of ASA]
> ____________________________________________________________
> Free health insurance quotes. Great rates for individuals and families. Click Now.<>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon May 25 17:09:10 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 25 2009 - 17:09:10 EDT