Infinite regress.

[Leonhard]

All that is created ex nihilo would need be preceded by a cause true, but if the creator and the created are of one and the same substance then the one didn't really create the other, the whole doesn't create its parts.

Correct, we agree on this!

[JimL]

Determined implies that something external to God makes him what he is. God is completely undetermined, whatever He is, He is by Himself alone.

Not necessarily, a greater Cosmos could be defined as a thing by itself alone, a substance that is determined by its own nature.

Yes.

Then as you define it, God is etenally determined by his own nature. Why is it the argument that God can be determined in this way, but the Cosmos can't be.

God has a mind, at least by analogy we can say its more like a mind than anything else we could compare it to. However its not a thinking mind in any sense of our minds.

Sort of like the notion of an eternal Cosmos?

This has more to do with what you conceive thoughts to be; to you a thought is (I'm guessing about your beliefs here) something that goes from one moment to the other, an ongoing stream in your mind.

Sure.

The natural world doesn't have all perfections, its changing, something that changes is always only a subset of what it can be... otherwise it would everything at once.

It could just as well be both everything at once as well as change. The changes that the whole goes through doesn't change the fact that it is everything.

For instance I'm sitting right now, typing out this message, I could also be outside moving the lawn, or running, or singing for a bit, or flicking through youtube. Imagine all the infinitely many things I can occupy... I don't possess all of that at once. Its the same with minds, the greater the mind the greater an idea it can hold in its head at once. With really great things we can only hold a bit of it at a time in our mind, constantly moving to various aspects of it. If we were clever enough the whole thing could be seen at once.

The holding of all knowledge timelesslely would still require acting in time to bring about its reality. You may be able to hold many thoughts at once, ie, typing, mowing, running, singing etc etc, but you can only bring them to reality through time. All knowledge, in a sense could be said to exist in the determined, since it is determined, nature of the universe, but it still requires time for that which could theoretically be known to actualize.

God is more like that, his mind is just one vision spanning everything, leaving nothing out. He doesn't have to think, whatever realisation it is, He already has it.

Sort of like an eternal Cosmos. Positing that the eternal is a mind that isn't really a mind is another way of explaning an eternal Cosmos that doesn't have to think, whatever realisation is to be, is already determined in its own nature.

[seer]

All that is created ex nihilo would need be preceded by a cause true, but if the creator and the created are of one and the same substance then the one didn't really create the other, the whole doesn't create its parts.

Well I was speaking of Shuny's quote. If that is correct God is the cause of the universe, the universe or universes could not exist on their own. Matter and energy could not exist on their own. Materialism would then be false. Look at it this way - you have two books on your dresser, one under the other. The bottom one is supporting the top one, and assume that they have been there for eternity - the bottom one is always necessary to support the top. The top book can not exist without the bottom one but the bottom book could exist without the top. God is necessary -matter and energy are not.

[JimL]

Well I was speaking of Shuny's quote. If that is correct God is the cause of the universe, the universe or universes could not exist on their own. Matter and energy could not exist on their own. Materialism would then be false. Look at it this way - you have two books on your dresser, one under the other. The bottom one is supporting the top one, and assume that they have been there for eternity - the bottom one is always necessary to support the top. The top book can not exist without the bottom one but the bottom book could exist without the top. God is necessary -matter and energy are not.

Yes, but Shuyas quote is not correct because created things in themselves, being that they were created, have not always existed. If they did, then they could not be defined as created things. Of course matter and energy could not exist on their own, exist eternally, if they were created, and materialism would be false, but as the saying goes; if ifs and buts were candy and nuts........ I might add that the analogy fails also because in reality there is no such thing as on top or on bottom, as there is no such real thing as up or down, its all just a matter of perspective.
As to your second point, the eternally existing book on the bottom may support the eternally existing book on the top from a purely logical standpoint, but being that they are both eternally existing, they would both be eternally necessary. Matter and energy, like the two books, being parts of the whole eternal system as defined in your analogy, would both be eternally necessary.

[shunyadragon]

"All that is created, however, is preceded by a cause." So the universe has a cause?

The cause from the human perspective is 'natural processes,' and the Baha'i belief is the God Creates through natural processes. There would be no difference from the Baha'i theist perspective and the materialist perspective as to what we observe through science. Science is neutral in that the knowledge acquired through the scientific methods cannot be used to justify the existence nor the non-existence of God(s) The Materialist perspective is different only in that it concludes no God is the cause, only natural causes based on strict Philosophical Naturalism.

sometimes you appear to equate materialism with 'Naturalism' in general, and in actuality it only applies to the assumption of 'Philosophical Naturalism.'

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but Shuyas quote is not correct because created things in themselves, being that they were created, have not always existed. If they did, then they could not be defined as created things. Of course matter and energy could not exist on their own, exist eternally, if they were created, and materialism would be false, but as the saying goes; if ifs and buts were candy and nuts........ I might add that the analogy fails also because in reality there is no such thing as on top or on bottom, as there is no such real thing as up or down, its all just a matter of perspective.
As to your second point, the eternally existing book on the bottom may support the eternally existing book on the top from a purely logical standpoint, but being that they are both eternally existing, they would both be eternally necessary. Matter and energy, like the two books, being parts of the whole eternal system as defined as defined in your analogy, would both be eternally necessary.

A misinterpretation of my quote. Please read the previous post. In the Baha'i view is that Creation has always existed, and the natural processes we can observe through science is the process of Creation.

[shunyadragon]

Perhaps the reason then that God and creation ex nihilo can't be explained from the human perspective is because the notion of God and creation ex nihilo is itself an incorrect notion. The explanation you give above doesn't even necessitate a Creator beyond or outside of the Cosmos itself.

Creation 'ex nihilo' is a human construct, and beyond a human assumption it is unknown. If you will follow my posts I acknowledge that human science is simply and observer concerning the nature of our physical existence, and no our knowledge of our physical existence cannot be used to justify the necessity of God's existence, nor to conclude that philosophical naturalism is true.

The other problem that persists in communication between theists is that the philosophical nothing in 'ex nihilo' has no corresponding meaning in the scientific understanding 'nothing' in physics and cosmology.

Cosmological arguments for the existence of God fail.

[JimL]

The cause from the human perspective is 'natural processes,' and the Baha'i belief is the God Creates through natural processes. There would be no difference from the Baha'i theist perspective and the materialist perspective as to what we observe through science. Science is neutral in that the knowledge acquired through the scientific methods cannot be used to justify the existence nor the non-existence of God(s) The Materialist perspective is different only in that it concludes no God is the cause, only natural causes based on strict Philosophical Naturalism.

How does God create the natural world through natural processes when natural processes can only exist when there is a natural world? Does Bahai interpret God as being part of the natural world through which he creates naturally?

[sylas]

How does God create the natural world through natural processes when natural processes can only exist when there is a natural world? Does Bahai interpret God as being part of the natural world through which he creates naturally?

Jim, that question has built into an implicit presumption that creation is an event which forms the natural world. That's conventional Christian theology.

But the alternative (Baha'i) theology which shunyadragon is speaking of is very different. Shunhadragon has already answered your question immediately above in #36. The natural world (in his perspective) has always existed; creation is a process by which new forms arise. That perspective may be queried on its own merits, of course; but your specific question is already answered. The natural world is not formed complete at a moment in time, but is in a continual and eternal process of creation of the new; not from nothing but from what was there before.

(Shunyadragon may confirm whether or not I have understood this perspective on creation.)

Cheers -- sylas

[OingoBoingo]

Jim, that question has built into an implicit presumption that creation is an event which forms the natural world. That's conventional Christian theology.

But the alternative (Baha'i) theology which shunyadragon is speaking of is very different. Shunhadragon has already answered your question immediately above in #36. The natural world (in his perspective) has always existed; creation is a process by which new forms arise. That perspective may be queried on its own merits, of course; but your specific question is already answered. The natural world is not formed complete at a moment in time, but is in a continual and eternal process of creation of the new; not from nothing but from what was there before.

(Shunyadragon may confirm whether or not I have understood this perspective on creation.)

Cheers -- sylas

I've found that shunyadragon's understanding of Baha'i theology is very atypical, and often not the mainstream view you encounter among other Baha'i's. A better breakdown of the typical Baha'i view of creation in relation to God is this:

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1'%C3%AD_cosmology#cite_note-Smith1-1

Bahá'í cosmology is the understanding of reality in the Bahá'í Faith, and for which reality is divided into three divisions. The first division is God, who is preexistent and on whom the rest of creation is contingent.[1] The second division is God's logos, which is the realm of God's commands and grace. This realm pervades all created things. The Manifestations of God, messengers from God, are appearances of the logos in the physical world.[1] The third division is creation, which includes the physical world.[1] Creation is not seen as confined to the material universe, and individual material objects, such as the Earth, are seen to come into being at particular moment and then subsequently break down into their constituent parts.[2] Thus, the current universe is seen as a result of a long-lasting process (cosmological time scales), evolving to its current state.[3] In Bahá'í belief, the whole universe is a sign of God and is dependent on him[1] and humanity was created to know God and to serve his purpose.[4]

© Copyright Original Source

References include:

[1] [2] Smith, Peter (2000). "metaphysics: God and the world". A concise encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.
[3] von Kitzing, Eberhard (1998-03-08). "Originality of Species"
[4] Bahá’í World Centre. One Common Faith

Outside of shunyadragon's posts here, the Baha'i's I've come into contact with have been okay with saying that they have a relatively Abrahamic view of God and creation. Here are some writings from Bahá’u’lláh that demonstrate that.

Source: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh - CXLVIII

All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh - XXVII

All praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?

Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him—a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation…. Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh - LXXXIV

Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.

Some, deluded by their idle fancies, have conceived all created things as associates and partners of God, and imagined themselves to be the exponents of His unity. By Him Who is the one true God! Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the victims of blind imitation, and are to be numbered with them that have restricted and limited the conception of God.

© Copyright Original Source

There's a number of other passages in Baha'i writings that are much like this.

[Leonhard]

Not necessarily, a greater Cosmos could be defined as a thing by itself alone, a substance that is determined by its own nature.

The Cosmos isn't one simple substance, its a whole bunch of objects that part of the same physical volume. Though admittedly you can turn the word 'Cosmos' into something sufficiently vague that it'll cover it. I am not part of you JimL. We're two different persons, we both have a nature. The nature I have is in someways the same as yours; we're both humans. However I'm Leonhard and you're JimL.

Then as you define it, God is etenally determined by his own nature. Why is it the argument that God can be determined in this way, but the Cosmos can't be.

The Cosmos is not a self.

Sort of like the notion of an eternal Cosmos?

While the Cosmos contains minds, us at least, its not a mind.

It could just as well be both everything at once as well as change.

But is it?

The changes that the whole goes through doesn't change the fact that it is everything.

As long as the universe isn't everything it can be, it lacks a perfection that God has. God encompasses everything he is. Therefore he doesn't have a first thought, however the universe likely has a first moment.

The holding of all knowledge timelesslely would still require acting in time to bring about its reality. You may be able to hold many thoughts at once, ie, typing, mowing, running, singing etc etc, but you can only bring them to reality through time. All knowledge, in a sense could be said to exist in the determined, since it is determined, nature of the universe, but it still requires time for that which could theoretically be known to actualize.

This is something you're asserting. I can argue that God knows whatever He does timelessly, and in facts its by Him knowing it that that thing is real. Right now I'm just stating the conclusion, but this is how theology has taught it for quite a while now. God's knowledge is simple whole and comprehensive, it has to be if he's to have any knowledge at all. I can do this deductively from metaphysical considerations about God that follow from his nature of being timeless and simple.

You seem to at best be making an argument from analogy: human beings thoughts are like so and so, God is a among other beings just the most powerful of them, so God most have thoughts in a similar fashion to us.

I don't grant that God is a being among other beings, and can therefore be trivially compared to us. He's radically unlike the world He made.

Sort of like an eternal Cosmos.

The Cosmos is not eternal in the way that God is. Right now its May 19th where I'm sitting, a little while ago it was May 18th. Time passes for us.

Positing that the eternal is a mind that isn't really a mind is another way of explaning an eternal Cosmos that doesn't have to think, whatever realisation is to be, is already determined in its own nature.

The universe has no intentions, it isn't aware of anything, it has no will.

[sylas]

Thanks, OingoBoingo. It looks as if conventional Baha'i theology does involve "creation ex nihilo"; and also creation as an ongoing process.

Cheers -- sylas

[OingoBoingo]

Thanks, OingoBoingo. It looks as if conventional Baha'i theology does involve "creation ex nihilo"; and also creation as an ongoing process.

Cheers -- sylas

You're welcome sylas. in my opinion, the Baha'i view is over-complicated, and prone to contradictions based on the time and occasion of the writing. I can understand why shunyadragon is so mixed up.

In a later writing from those I previously cited, Bahá’u’lláh's son, Abdu'l-Bahá, wrote:

Source: Some Answered Questions

Question.—How many kinds of preexistence and of phenomena are there?

Answer.—Some sages and philosophers believe that there are two kinds of preexistence: essential preexistence and preexistence of time. Phenomena are also of two kinds, essential phenomena and that of time.

Essential preexistence is an existence which is not preceded by a cause, but essential phenomena are preceded by causes. Preexistence of time is without beginning, but the phenomena of time have beginnings and endings; for the existence of everything depends upon four causes—the efficient cause, the matter, the form and the final cause. For example, this chair has a maker who is a carpenter, a substance which is wood, a form which is that of a chair, and a purpose which is that it is to be used as a seat. Therefore, this chair is essentially phenomenal, for it is preceded by a cause, and its existence depends upon causes. This is called the essential and really phenomenal.

Now this world of existence in relation to its maker is a real phenomenon. As the body is sustained by the spirit, it is in relation to the spirit an essential phenomenon. The spirit is independent of the body, and in relation to it the spirit is an essential preexistence. Though the rays are always inseparable from the sun, nevertheless, the sun is preexistent and the rays are phenomenal, for the existence of the rays depends upon that of the sun. But the existence of the sun does not depend upon that of the rays, for the sun is the giver and the rays are the gift.

The second proposition is that existence and nonexistence are both relative. If it be said that such a thing came into existence from nonexistence, this does not refer to absolute nonexistence, but means that its former condition in relation to its actual condition was nothingness. For absolute nothingness cannot find existence, as it has not the capacity of existence. Man, like the mineral, is existing; but the existence of the mineral in relation to that of man is nothingness, for when the body of man is annihilated it becomes dust and mineral. But when dust progresses into the human world, and this dead body becomes living, man becomes existing. Though the dust—that is to say, the mineral—has existence in its own condition, in relation to man it is nothingness. Both exist, but the existence of dust and mineral, in relation to man, is nonexistence and nothingness; for when man becomes nonexistent, he returns to dust and mineral.

Therefore, though the world of contingency exists, in relation to the existence of God it is nonexistent and nothingness. Man and dust both exist, but how great the difference between the existence of the mineral and that of man! The one in relation to the other is nonexistence. In the same way, the existence of creation in relation to the existence of God is nonexistence. Thus it is evident and clear that although the beings exist, in relation to God and to the Word of God they are nonexistent. This is the beginning and the end of the Word of God, Who says: “I am Alpha and Omega”; for He is the beginning and the end of Bounty. The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease. If it were to, it would be contrary to the perfections of God.

© Copyright Original Source

And later still, Shoghi Effendi wrote in one of his letters (Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand) "The statement in the 'Gleanings', p. 64–65, 'who out of utter nothingness..' etc., should be taken in a symbolic and not literal sense. It is only to demonstrate the power and greatness of God."

So, who knows. Like I said, most Baha'i's I've come into contact with have a basically Abrahamic view of God and creation.

[shunyadragon]

You're welcome sylas. in my opinion, the Baha'i view is over-complicated, and prone to contradictions based on the time and occasion of the writing. I can understand why shunyadragon is so mixed up.

In a later writing from those I previously cited, Bahá’u’lláh's son, Abdu'l-Bahá, wrote:

Source: Some Answered Questions

Question.—How many kinds of preexistence and of phenomena are there?

Answer.—Some sages and philosophers believe that there are two kinds of preexistence: essential preexistence and preexistence of time. Phenomena are also of two kinds, essential phenomena and that of time.

Essential preexistence is an existence which is not preceded by a cause, but essential phenomena are preceded by causes. Preexistence of time is without beginning, but the phenomena of time have beginnings and endings; for the existence of everything depends upon four causes—the efficient cause, the matter, the form and the final cause. For example, this chair has a maker who is a carpenter, a substance which is wood, a form which is that of a chair, and a purpose which is that it is to be used as a seat. Therefore, this chair is essentially phenomenal, for it is preceded by a cause, and its existence depends upon causes. This is called the essential and really phenomenal.

Now this world of existence in relation to its maker is a real phenomenon. As the body is sustained by the spirit, it is in relation to the spirit an essential phenomenon. The spirit is independent of the body, and in relation to it the spirit is an essential preexistence. Though the rays are always inseparable from the sun, nevertheless, the sun is preexistent and the rays are phenomenal, for the existence of the rays depends upon that of the sun. But the existence of the sun does not depend upon that of the rays, for the sun is the giver and the rays are the gift.

The second proposition is that existence and nonexistence are both relative. If it be said that such a thing came into existence from nonexistence, this does not refer to absolute nonexistence, but means that its former condition in relation to its actual condition was nothingness. For absolute nothingness cannot find existence, as it has not the capacity of existence. Man, like the mineral, is existing; but the existence of the mineral in relation to that of man is nothingness, for when the body of man is annihilated it becomes dust and mineral. But when dust progresses into the human world, and this dead body becomes living, man becomes existing. Though the dust—that is to say, the mineral—has existence in its own condition, in relation to man it is nothingness. Both exist, but the existence of dust and mineral, in relation to man, is nonexistence and nothingness; for when man becomes nonexistent, he returns to dust and mineral.

Therefore, though the world of contingency exists, in relation to the existence of God it is nonexistent and nothingness. Man and dust both exist, but how great the difference between the existence of the mineral and that of man! The one in relation to the other is nonexistence. In the same way, the existence of creation in relation to the existence of God is nonexistence. Thus it is evident and clear that although the beings exist, in relation to God and to the Word of God they are nonexistent. This is the beginning and the end of the Word of God, Who says: “I am Alpha and Omega”; for He is the beginning and the end of Bounty. The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease. If it were to, it would be contrary to the perfections of God.

© Copyright Original Source

And later still, Shoghi Effendi wrote in one of his letters (Letters from the Guardian to Australia and New Zealand) "The statement in the 'Gleanings', p. 64–65, 'who out of utter nothingness..' etc., should be taken in a symbolic and not literal sense. It is only to demonstrate the power and greatness of God."

So, who knows. Like I said, most Baha'i's I've come into contact with have a basically Abrahamic view of God and creation.

I gave a simpler explanation of the above with a quote from Baha'u'llah.

Sylas explained it well and understood, no need to make it complicated. The parallel to essential preexistence would essentially be the Greater Cosmos from which universe arise by Natural processes.

So, who knows. Like I said, most Baha'i's I've come into contact with have a basically Abrahamic view of God and creation.

Basically false, unless you refer to a more symbolic or metaphor version of Creation. The Baha'i Faith basically endorses the scientific knowledge of the nature of our physical existence, and ALL scripture including Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of science.

[shunyadragon]

Thanks, OingoBoingo. It looks as if conventional Baha'i theology does involve "creation ex nihilo"; and also creation as an ongoing process.

Cheers -- sylas

No, please refer to the quote by Baha'u'llah. Essential Preexistence is eternal with God.

Source: Source: Some Answered Questions - Question.—How many kinds of preexistence and of phenomena are there?

The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease. If it were to, it would be contrary to the perfections of God.

© Copyright Original Source

Like in science nothingness and nonexistence has is not ex nihilo. It has always existed. There never has been 'absolutely nothing' as in the philosophical 'nothing.'