Creatio ex Nihilo—Creation out of Nothing

If god created something out of nothing why is there still nothing?

Life is but a dream. Why else does form exist out of nothing? Not the nothing before creation, but the continuation of that same nothing—now perpetuating the great illusion

The paradox of material is apparent. Humanity and the elemental forms appear from a singularity. Of that element we cannot decipher the dream from reality, sleep from death—even the physical forms, not only made of nothing but still consist of no discoverable thing. Parsing the dream with physics we find more roadblocks than avenues.

Gottfried Leibniz asked, “why is there something rather than nothing? Actually that may be the wrong question; is there really any thing to actually be analyzed? Can anyone describe what material form is made of?

But first, what we call substance must be defined. What is it made of if not strictly consciousness? Since the universe consists of only one elementary substance, no other particle consisting of a different nature could interact with it—in fact, immiscible.

Can we understand the universe from a point of view that does not include our experience?

As a logical system, the universe works by simple logical operations at the most fundamental level. Such a substantial logical system is allowed only one type of substance, or one nature. This is because only elements of a same nature – of the same substance may participate in a logical operation. Since the whole universe is allowed to contain only one type of substance, the cause has to be some aspect of that single substance.

The Hebrew model of creation is once again at odds with reality. It seems like this world is all part of something tangible, that a material exists, but it doesn’t. God didn’t create any-thing out of nothing, but the dream is so convincing to it’s forms you could never parse it.

So why is there something rather than nothing? Or really, why does there appear to be something when there is still nothing? Where are the building blocks of this creation?

One cannot find the element, god, or any ontological root because it alone exists. This is you. The seeker is the sought—the sought is the seeker.

If god created something out of nothing why is there still nothing?

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs escaping the faith trap.

79 thoughts on “Creatio ex Nihilo—Creation out of Nothing”

  1. I know this goes against some people’s understanding, but I truly believe we will never know everything. Even in the bible, the translation we read indicates our wisdom is like nothing compared with our Father in heaven. I’m good with that. In this way, we forever will trust, faithfully, in He Who created us. He loves us.

    Like

    1. Are you sure god’s a he?
      Not only do we not know everything, we don’t know anything. Why do you suppose that is so? That is an answerable question, btw?
      If he created us out of nothing, into nothing, what is really going on here?

      Like

  2. i love this quote by Ramana Maharshi
    “When the mind goes outwards, it becomes the ego and the world.
    When it turns inwards, it becomes the Self”.

    at some point I realized, all we have is different states. when we wake up in the morning, the world appears, and the sense of “I” (or ‘me’) arises. and so duality is created.
    when we dream, we are creators, and create whatever reality we want for ourselves, out of mind. free range to our subconsious desires.
    in deep sleep, there is no sense of I, no sense of world, no time, no space. it’s a blissful state of pure being.
    this world, is just a state.🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I think there’s a bit of unintended sophistry in Kaufman’s post in answering the question ‘what existed before the Big Bang’ by saying “We know that our proto-Universe must have been very small, and was thus in the quantum regime. If, by some mechanism, these quantum fluctuations were amplified so that they became very large, then they exit the quantum mechanical regime and can become physical particles”. ‘By some mechanism’ is a deus ex machina no different to saying ‘God did it’.

      If you’re gonna come up with an explanation for the existence of the universe consistent with current scientific theories it makes more sense to me to turn to relativity.

      Firstly, asking ‘what existed before the Big Bang?’ is a meaningless question. Both time and space started with the Big Bang, so you’re essentially asking ‘what happened in the time before time?’. Would you also ask ‘what’s in the space outside space?’. Asking questions like that is trying to make what’s not part of our universe comply with the laws and modes of thinking that are.

      Also, according to relativity, ‘nothing’ is defined by ‘something’. You can’t have empty space if you don’t have proximate matter-energy. It’s the presence of ‘something’ that makes ‘nothing’ and visa versa. It’s another dualism.

      Vedic and Upanishadic texts make that explicit by referring to ground states which are ‘neither nothing nor not nothing’ and ‘neither existence nor non-existence’ from which the dualisms emerge. In the Rig Veda these dualisms are contained non-dualistically within the dragon asura Vritra until he is slain by Indra who cuts his belly open and allows for the separations that makes our dualistic universe possible. It’s not ex nihilo, it’s realising the co-dependent pairings contained within the whole thereby making them perceivable by our dualistic selves.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Certainly you are mostly correct but only because science, philosophy, and religion have had to change definitions of what matter is, except for a few indigenous and the Hindus.
      What is apparently matter is forms. There is no building block atom to be found.

      Like

          1. Oh this from Wikipedia!
            “On a September evening in 1963, Roberts sat down at her table to work on poetry; Butts was in his back-room studio, painting. “It was very domestic, very normal, very unpsychedelic,” she would later remember. And then “Between one normal minute and the next, a fantastic avalanche of radical, new ideas burst into my head with tremendous force … It was as if the physical world were really tissue-paper-thin, hiding infinite dimensions of reality, and I was flung through the tissue paper with a huge ripping sound.” When she “came to,” Roberts found herself scrawling the title of this batch of notes: The Physical Universe as Idea Construction.”
            This sounds very intriguing.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Channeling stuff. People maintaining to receive transcendental knowledge from high beings. It’s very American. Seth became famous with this. Is it genuine?? One has to decide for himself. 🙂

              Liked by 3 people

            2. People maintaining to receive transcendental knowledge from high beings. It’s very American

              And very popular in the 60s.

              It’s like the proto-New Age movement was trying to free itself from the authority of the Abrahamic God by latching onto whatever other external authority it could invoke. It’s no wonder so many Christians responded by telling them they were deceived by Satan. “My God’s bigger than your God!”.

              Liked by 3 people

          2. Well, it’s pretty New Agey. Roberts claimed to channel a spirit named Seth. Her husband took dictation, and over many years filled many books with stuff like this:

            “Consciousness creates form. It is not the other way around. All personalities are not physical. It is only because you are so busily concerned with daily matters that you do not realize that there is a portion of you who knows that its own powers are far superior to those shown by the ordinary self.”

            ― Jane Roberts, Seth Speaks: The Eternal Validity of the Soul

            Googly Roberts/Seth quotes and you’ll find a mountain.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. There was a lady (can’t remember her name) had a spontaneous view of sudden sense of direct contact, union, or complete nondual merging with a perceived ultimate reality and it really messed with her sense of identity. Monica knows her story, maybe she’ll remember for me.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. I’m sure i replied. Where did my reply go?? hrrr

              Her name is Suzanne Segal. She then wrote “Collision with the Infinite”.

              I also have a pdf version of Seth Speaks. If you’re interested, I can forward it to you.
              I never read Seth, but she’s world famous, explains things very straight forward. Maybe you’d enjoy.

              Liked by 1 person

  3. Hi Jim ❤ I want to be loving and friendly in this debate. There was once a man that argued against an all powerful creator with the analogy of a rock. He argued if nothing is impossible for God he could surely create a rock that is too heavy for himself to lift. Concluding that an all powerful creator could not exist.

    However, non-believers have to take on board the actual statement put forth by believers. A claim that there is one infinite creator and that nothing would have been created without him. Meaning that the creator literally is all the power that fundamentally exists. Nothing outside this power can therefore be created. Concluding that everything made contains the power of the maker himself. That power is described as light by believers.

    This has hidden meaning that I will describe to the best of my LIMITED ability. Our universe is a quantum field where particles get their mass by interacting with the higgs bosons. The more they interact the heavier they become. Light does not interact with the higgs field (and yes I know that photons are not the only mass less particle). The light in our universe is not God's eternal light (we all know the fate of stars). Yet, the photons we do know can teach us some vital principles. Bringing new light on the infinite power of God claim. For the statements you are arguing against have depth of meaning to them.

    Space and time is relative to the constant speed of light. Furthermore, mass and energy are fundamentally linked together. Light  travel at such a great speed that it gets through all of the slices of  space-time instantaneously, meaning from lights perspective there is no time. Everything else has its unique space-time (and yes I know that the speed of light is affected by gravity).

    In other words at the speed of light time stops. So, when God is referred to as light, it also means that for him time does not exist. He is also infinite in power. Another point with layers of meaning. Let us explore. We have stated that everything interacting with the higgs field has mass. So, what happens with mass, let us say a car, as speed increases? Well more and more energy is required to keep the car moving.

    As mass and energy are fundamentally linked together, the growing energy pushing the car forward is added to mass to the car. In the end our car is unable to reach the speed of light as it would require infinite energy as the car's mass would become infinite. Another layer to a creator infinite in power.

    Our bodies have mass, they have been restricted to the ground from which they were made. That is the deal of the fall of sin. Where everything in the universe is falling into orbit on the fabric of space-time (an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by another force). The quantum enigma is the fundamental illusion (the lie that was bought) we live under. The veil in front of our eyes. That we have the power to be God, the snake said you will be like God.

    "If god created something out of nothing why is there still nothing?"

    I think therefore I am.

    The light of men

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Meaning that the creator literally is all the power that fundamentally exists. Nothing outside this power can therefore be created”. This is the Tao, not a deity. It is the isness that is. The mistake is to take all of this science and assume one final leap—that this is Jesus.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It is not a leap of faith if you know where the gaps are. We could imagine particles interacting with true God particles (not the Higgs bosons). A field that did not give particles mass, causing them not to fall under gravity under the arrow of time. Instead, rise upward in the opposite direction of time. Since with the passing of time the second law of thermodynamics also comes into play disorder to our systems always increases, we would get an added benefit; more and more order being created as particles was rising upward in the opposite direction of time. Becoming mass less, thus able to reach the speed of light. “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field”.

        Like

    1. What entertains me is the seriousness of religion when reality is so different from the game they play. Does the great Jehovah use deception to test his gadgets? Hardly a noble god and very dishonest if that’s the case.

      Like

      1. Well, He created everything didn’t He? That includes politicians and used car salesmen.

        I form the light, and create darkness: I make the good and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

        Liked by 1 person

            1. I was letting it simmer for a while. Funny you mentioned it because I just did a reread last night and have my final edit complete by an excellent proofer who swore me to secrecy. My goal is to publish 2022.
              Reading it again really brought back some fond memories for me.

              Liked by 1 person

  4. “Can we understand the universe from a point of view that does not include our experience?” I don’t think so, Jim. In fact, I don’t think we can understand our own meager existence without including our experience. It’s all we have to relate to/deduct anything.

    I was once asked by my therapist if I thought the world revolved around me; of course I responded, who else would it revolve around? Everything that happens in the universe happens to/by/from me or around me. It all encapsulates my “world” as I see it, as I experience it. I have no other frame of reference for any other reality.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. We can’t even understand another point of view right in front of us. But I get that. It’s a neat trick having two or three wrong ideas to choose from.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. From Shakespeare to the matrix, the “life is but a dream” concept continues to rear it incomprehensible head. Renamed from dream to artificial simulation–“we are living in the matrix”–I posit that if, over time, this same idea is continually presented, there must be truth to it because even what I did, what I accomplished, and how I felt as little as 20 years ago is already but a dream to me. Perhaps when my physical form passes I’ll awaken from this dream into another.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. you ask “Where are the building blocks of this creation?”
    well, what are dreams at night made of? they seem pretty convincing, aren’t they? so convincing, we wake up in a sweat, or our heart beating fast, etc.
    and, where does the dream go when we wake up in the morning?

    Like

    1. Let’s play with that a little. Science is knowing there is nothing to analyze, yet they keep playing like there is. It’s a compelling game even when you know it’s a trick being played on one self.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. something along these lines. how do you like the book, Be As You Are?? i read the reviews online, they are outstanding.

        Like

            1. it’s wonderful! so cozy and warm and homey! although i suffer to see forests cut down, i love wood inside the house.

              Like

            2. Scroll down and tell john who was that lady that had the spontaneous awakening getting off the bus. Pls.

              Like

  7. I cannot even mentally conceptualize nothing. Saying the “existence of nothing” seems like a ridiculous oxymoron. Even Genesis implies that there was something. As for the dream,

    “…
    In a night, or in a day,
    In a vision, or in none,
    Is it therefore the less gone?
    All that we see or seem
    Is but a dream within a dream….” 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This could quite possibly be the great trick Jehovah uses to fiddle with his thoughts by making organisms that think they are thinking on their own.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. For you, Jim, I would posit not one substance, but three, or maybe three forms for the one substance: solids, liquids, gases. This is all the science most of us really need to know. We cannot move easily though solids. We can move through liquids but we cannot take them into our lungs, We can easily move through gases, and actually need as least one gas to be taken into our lungs in order to survive. All else is arrogance.

    Like

    1. That’s all well and good, but those states of things that you describe are made of the same stuff as a piece of rock, which appears to our conscious form but is absent of raw material.

      Like

      1. The Lord wants to give a dinner party but can never come up with twelve guests.
        Whatever steward He has at the time suggests many names, but the Lord can’t get excited about any of them.
        At least the menu was determined long ago. There would be a mixture of fifty pure chemicals—sugar, amino and fatty acids, vitamins and minerals, all made from rocks, air, and water without any killing at all.
        ” – from 99 Stories of God by Joy Williams

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Granted, but to live in this world we do not need to know what that substance is, or should I clarify, I do not need to know what that substance is. I understand that you probably feel the need to know, but I cannot go there with you. It is enough for me the substance is there. What it is is of no “matter” to me…

        Liked by 1 person

      1. I live on the bald prairie. I could surf fields of wheat, but they have not invented a board for that. Or, at least, I have never heard of one.

        Like

  9. What caused the Horrendous Space Kablooie (I prefer Calvin’s term over the rather mundane “Big Bang”) that started the whole thing in the first place? Why does one of my socks always disappear in the laundry? Why does my toast always land butter side down? If cats always land on their feet what would happen if you buttered a cat’s back and dropped it? Would it just hover in mid-air? Exactly who is the little weasel who controls the traffic lights and turns them red just as I get to an intersection and what does he have against me? Why do ducks always look at me funny? Why do people think Ed Sheeran can sing? Let’s face it, these are mysteries that human beings were never intended to understand. And quite possibly why we invented beer.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. A teaser. In the book I am getting published sometime soon, I retell the old Jewish legend about why the toast must fall butter side down. I hope you have never heard it, and that I can convince said publisher to provide at least 500 free ebooks. Then you won’t have to pay to find the answer, because I will tell you where and when the ebooks will be available…

      Liked by 1 person

    2. Maybe you’ve discovered a source of endless free energy. Buttered cats suspended just above the ground spinning in a gravitational field trying to meet its contractual obligation to bring them to earth. If you shove one end of an articulated shaft up their arse and attach the other to a dynamo, viola …

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: