But we have a word for that it's called "Manipulation", You cannot share creation with manipulation if they don't have inter-changeable meanings.
Definition of the word "Creation"
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
But we have a word for that it's called "Manipulation", You cannot share creation with manipulation if they don't have inter-changeable meanings.
That rather depends on which understanding you have of the term "manipulation".
What you are trying to do is take a single use of the term "create" and then identify synonyms for every other meaning, not either realising or accepting that those other words also have various meanings depending upon context.
As for the term "manipulation" - I have yet to read about the sun "manipulating" hydrogen atoms to produce heat and light. The sun CREATES light and heat from pre-existing material.
The reason that the phrase is "creation from nothing" (creatio ex nihilo) and not just "creation" is precisely to distinguish the context of that usage from all the others that exist.
To continue insisting on a single usage is futile, and not to mention rather arrogant of you to start telling other people that their usage is "not bad" based on proximity of usage to your own singular usage.
What you are trying to do is take a single use of the term "create" and then identify synonyms for every other meaning, not either realising or accepting that those other words also have various meanings depending upon context.
As for the term "manipulation" - I have yet to read about the sun "manipulating" hydrogen atoms to produce heat and light. The sun CREATES light and heat from pre-existing material.
The reason that the phrase is "creation from nothing" (creatio ex nihilo) and not just "creation" is precisely to distinguish the context of that usage from all the others that exist.
To continue insisting on a single usage is futile, and not to mention rather arrogant of you to start telling other people that their usage is "not bad" based on proximity of usage to your own singular usage.
Ok so can you demonstrate to me a form of Manipulation humans do, and then demonstrate to me a form of creation humans do.
The whole sentence "Manipulation of already existing elements/dimension/energy to make a new thing" can be expressed with one word "create" and not "manipulation" is "create".
Well I don't see any part of that being creation, infact it is just forms of manipulation.
One might say "I have created a new tool" then you go through the description of what the so called "creator" of this new tool did as follows¬
He got some already existing raw metals from the earth, he inserted them into a furnace, beat out the metal on the Anvil in his smithy, got an already existing tree and chooped wood for the handle of the tool. etc etc.
Nowhere did he do anythign other than manipulate already existing elements.
I've described you honestly what it means to me "create".
Humans manipulate other people. They create noise.
But no doubt you say that humans don't "create noise"... they "manipulate the airwaves".
Unsurprisingly they do both.
The term "create" and "manipulate" are applied to different aspects of the same process: the "create" applies to the end product... it didn't exist in the form of "noise" but now it does: the "manipulate" is applied to the underlying elements.
"Creation: where there wasn't, there now is". This applies to all things "ex nihilo" but also to anything else where the new form did not previously exist in that form. The form was not manipulated, the raw materials were manipulated... the new form was CREATED.
Thanks for your contribution, I want to see howmany different 'Definitions as a whole people might use. I use the term personaly when refering to the actual creation of something that really does exist in our universe. I use other words ike 'Concieve, 'Devise, 'Manipulate, 'Re-arrange, 'Alterations. to describe something like "making a watch".
Peace.
Human movement does cause vibrations yes. this is an 'Interesting addition to the thread.
Thankyou.
EFOC you ask people to "Define the word creation for me in the way you personaly Apply it in your vocabulary." [sic] and then when people give said definitions you don't accept them. You asked for how others use the word, you can't then argue against that because you asked for their usage. That isn't the same as asking for the dictionary usage or the most common usage.
You're obviously wanting someone to give you a specific definition, you already have a meaning in mind and you want someone to vindicate what you want to hear. Given the word I imagine it's for some attempt at word play to do with the big bang, particularly since you've asked for an example of something which came from nothing, a phrase often heard in such discussions.
You're obviously wanting someone to give you a specific definition, you already have a meaning in mind and you want someone to vindicate what you want to hear. Given the word I imagine it's for some attempt at word play to do with the big bang, particularly since you've asked for an example of something which came from nothing, a phrase often heard in such discussions.
I can refute a definition if it is not accurate or if it is contradictory or a fallacy, A comparison of Definitions, this is acceptable in linguistics.
Perhaps the etymology of "create" can shed light on this quest for meaning . . .
The word comes from Latin (go figure), which is the transitive verb creo, creare: create, produce, beget, elect (to office), cause, occasion.
In Roman times, a child was 'created' by its parents. I don't think this meaning of the word has changed very much. Most people would probably accept that "to create" means "to make or manufacture from other materials".
That is to say, "creation" is otherwise a sufficient reason or cause for the existence of something. It isn't a word which is restricted to human activity either. We say that waves are created by winds and winds are inanimate.
Usually it isn't a great idea to use personal meanings for words where most other people use an agreed definition, it's just confusing, and generally a load of bollocks.
The word comes from Latin (go figure), which is the transitive verb creo, creare: create, produce, beget, elect (to office), cause, occasion.
In Roman times, a child was 'created' by its parents. I don't think this meaning of the word has changed very much. Most people would probably accept that "to create" means "to make or manufacture from other materials".
That is to say, "creation" is otherwise a sufficient reason or cause for the existence of something. It isn't a word which is restricted to human activity either. We say that waves are created by winds and winds are inanimate.
Usually it isn't a great idea to use personal meanings for words where most other people use an agreed definition, it's just confusing, and generally a load of bollocks.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
* * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *
It's obvious that you're trying to lead this thread into the subject of Divine Creation. I have warned you before about trolling your religious ideas on a science forum. I will not warn you again. The next time it will be a ban.
In addition, this is the Linguistics subforum so I expect people to use language more carefully and properly than on the other subforums. Please respect the other members and use your spell checker.
To get back to the topic, the definition of "create" is "to bring something into existence." There is no requirement that it be created out of nothing. Combining two things in a new way is a classic example of creation. That's how art works, and all artists are creators.
Since we have not yet completed our analysis of the Big Bang, we do not yet know exactly how the various dimensions of the universe, such as distance, time, charge, mass, etc., came into existence. So to speculate about the proper word for it is presumptuous.
I don't know what he is saying, but what I am saying is that we don't know that any of the components of the universe came from nothing.
The Big Bang may have been nothing more than a local reversal of entropy, in which particles and antiparticles came into existence in exact balance. The total mass and energy of the contents of the universe was zero and is still zero. This is permitted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To use the words "out of nothing" in this situation stretches the limits of language, so to also use the word "create" stretches it even further.
No. "Devise" refers only to concepts, such as plans and methods. Despite the fact that "devise" and "device" come from the same Latin root, one does not devise a device, unless one is referring to something abstract like a rhetorical device.
In manipulating the wood of the tree, you create a chair where there was no chair. There was no chair before, there is a chair after, so, by the definition you seem to be insisting on using, you have still created the chair.
Or, alternatively, you could show us all the chair in this image:
http://www.cites.org/I/news/mahogany_big.jpg
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
This definition can only refer to the power of God:
To bring into existence from absolute nothing.
To bring into existence from absolute nothing.
But many people seem to use the word "Creation" to describe "Manipulation" so we need to be clear on using these terms, if somebody says to me "I have created a watch" It confuses me because they have "manipulated" certain elements into fashioning and making a device.
If the word "Create" is to be used to describe a "Manipulation" then it is incorrect use of the word, also If we can only use the word "Create" when describing divine attributes then we need to either make a new word for mass manipulations, or be clear as to what the difference between creation and manipulation is because words cannot have non interchangeable definitions and sti be regarded as the same word, if im making sense.
peace.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
There are different definitions for the word "create" it's just linguistics.
Most people are clear about using those terms.EmptyForceOfChi said:
Most people would probably say (and I know I do) that "manipulate" means to hold in your hands and move some thing from place to place, possibly reorienting the thing or yourself. For instance, a baseball player manipulates a bat when batting, a glove when fielding, and a baseball when pitching.
Only if you're confused about the meaning of either of those words. It's easy to show that they can have the same kind of meaning.
If you "hit" a home run with a baseball bat, have you "manipulated" the ball, or the bat? Do you "create" a home run by "hitting" a home run? Would this kind of question confuse people, do you think?
Does it confuse you?