Is Creation ex nihilo

[Adrift]

I distinguish between belief in a god and belief in God. The latter is Judeo-Christian monotheism, in my opinion, which must avoid all forms of idolatry, including the idea that we can define or comprehend God by means of human thought and language. Belief in a god, on the other hand, implies that we understand what a god is, eg, a supernatural entity. Within the genus of entities, god is specifically a supernatural species of entities. The God of Exodus does not give a name to Moses, he will be who he will be, and the 'name' that characterizes this refusal to be named in the 3rd person, he will be, YHWH, is not to be taken in vain, for the Jews not even to be pronounced, just as visual images are also not to be made of gods. In addition, Jewish Christians like St Paul believe that God could become incarnate only by emptying himself. And Jesus' teachings about God and the Godly life were not accepted by the theologians and canon lawyers and politicians of his time. Thus I am generally pessimistic about our ability to discuss rational reasons for believing in a god that is anything less than the Judeo-Christian God, whom is philosophically discussed by way of negation, as for example in the radically monotheistic philosophical doctrine of divine simplicity.

Wise people should not boast that they are wise. Powerful people should not boast that they are powerful. Rich people should not boast that they are rich. If people want to boast, they should boast about this: They should boast that they understand and know me. They should boast that they know and understand that I, the Lord, act out of faithfulness, fairness, and justice in the earth and that I desire people to do these things."

Also, as a Catholic, certainly you're familiar with the visual representations and adoration of Jesus who is God. How do you square that with the Jewish view that visual images are not to be made? Do you believe that Christians are past that because of the incarnation?

[robrecht]

So you don't believe that God is a god...

No, I do not believe that God is a god. I do not believe that we have multiple Gods. There is only one God. There are many gods, but all fall short of the one true God.

You do realize that this is a pretty peculiar view, and when you tell JimL (or anyone else) that "There is no reason to believe in a god", he's likely not going to pick up on whatever distinction you have in mind, right?

It is a very peculiar view, but I think it is the correct understanding of St Thomas' view of the simplicity of God. If Jim doesn't understand, I can clarify. In context, I don't think my statement is all that likely to be misunderstood: "... from a purely intellectual point of view, God is that intuition of something reasonable beyond our grasp of rationality. It's a word for someone who cannot be named."

Just to make sure I'm comprehending your view, you would disagree with the sentence "There is no reason to believe in God". Is that correct?

Yes.

[Adrift]

It is a very peculiar view, but I think it is the correct understanding of St Thomas' view of the simplicity of God. If Jim doesn't understand, I can clarify. In context, I don't think my statement is all that likely to be misunderstood

I misunderstood and I'm a Christian. What part of the context of your discussion with him here do think would have made it clear for JimL? Is this something you two have discussed previously?

[robrecht]

You believe that comprehending God by means of human thought and language is idolatry?

I do not think it is possible to comprehend God with human thought and language. If ever we believe that we can, I think that is arrogance. And if we substitute our human thoughts and words for God, that does seem to me to be a form of idolatry. To me it seems much more strange for us to imagine that we can comprehend God as he truly is with our limited human intelligence.

Again, the wording of that is strange. Scripture certainly teaches that God cannot be comprehended exhaustively, but it does tell us some things that can be known about God. It tells us that God is powerful, that he is love, that he is light, that he is spirit, that he is righteous, that we can come into personal relationship with him, and so much more besides.

Of course.

Wise people should not boast that they are wise. Powerful people should not boast that they are powerful. Rich people should not boast that they are rich. If people want to boast, they should boast about this: They should boast that they understand and know me. They should boast that they know and understand that I, the Lord, act out of faithfulness, fairness, and justice in the earth and that I desire people to do these things."

I too know these things, all of which (and more) points to the fact that the God of the Bible cannot be comprehended, as you yourself say. From a philosophical point of view, I think this is best expressed in terms of the simplicity of God, who cannot be defined.

Also, as a Catholic, certainly you're familiar with the visual representations and adoration of Jesus who is God. How do you square that with the Jewish view that visual images are not to be made? Do you believe that Christians are past that because of the incarnation?

Yes and no. I have no problem with visual representations of these things, provided we understand that the images, like all of creation, reflect but do not contain the glory of God.

[robrecht]

I misunderstood and I'm a Christian. What part of the context of your discussion with him here do think would have made it clear for JimL? Is this something you two have discussed previously?

You misunderstood, but you also took that sentence fragment out of context, where I clearly affirmed that God exists, despite the fact that he cannot be defined or named.

[Adrift]

Yes and no. I have no problem with visual representations of these things, provided we understand that the images, like all of creation, reflect but do not contain the glory of God.

Sorry for going so off topic, but what are your thoughts on the commandment to the Jews on this. Do you have any reason to believe that they were unable or unlikely to understand that images reflect, but do not contain the glory of God?

[Adrift]

You misunderstood, but you also took that sentence out of context, where I clearly affirmed that God exists, despite the fact that he cannot be defined or named.

My misunderstanding wasn't that you thought that God didn't exist, but that you thought there was no reason for anyone to believe in him.

Maybe JimL will be able to clarify whether he found your statement confusing as well.

[seer]

I do not think it is possible to comprehend God with human thought and language. If ever we believe that we can, I think that is arrogance. And if we substitute our human thoughts and words for God, that does seem to me to be a form of idolatry. To me it seems much more strange for us to imagine that we can comprehend God as he truly is with our limited human intelligence.

I still don't get this. If we say that God is merciful and forgives our sins - that is understandable and genuine knowledge of God.

[robrecht]

Sorry for going so off topic, but what are your thoughts on the commandment to the Jews on this. Do you have any reason to believe that they were unable or unlikely to understand that images reflect, but do not contain the glory of God?

In their historical and social context, it may have been more difficult to understand. Even today, some accuse Catholics and Orthodox Christians of idolatry, and there are indeed abuses that may justify such opposition. I do not think that the iconoclasts were completely wrong. There is a balance and tension to be maintained in these matters.

[robrecht]

My misunderstanding wasn't that you thought that God didn't exist, but that you thought there was no reason for anyone to believe in him.

Maybe JimL will be able to clarify whether he found your statement confusing as well.

Language and beliefs about God are sometimes confusing.

[Adrift]

In their historical and social context, it may have been more difficult to understand. Even today, some accuse Catholics and Orthodox Christians of idolatry, and there are indeed abuses that may justify such opposition. I do not think that the iconoclasts were completely wrong. There is a balance and tension to be maintained in these matters.

I see. Fair enough.

[robrecht]

I still don't get this. If we say that God is merciful and forgives our sins - that is understandable and genuine knowledge of God.

I have never denied this. But I also believe that God's mercy and forgiveness exceed our own abilities to understand and reciprocate. We do the best we can.

[Adrift]

Language and beliefs about God are sometimes confusing.

Quite.

[robrecht]

In describing God's "transcendence", I think that you should be careful in what exactly you mean.

I don't think it is possible to say exactly what we mean by God's transcendence because this is, uh, ... well, transcendent.

On one hand, it seems to mean God's "otherness", but how "other" is God when we were created "in the likeness and image of God". I am reminded by a brilliant article in the Harvard Theological review by Edmund Cherbonnier. In the article, he is basically criticizing the idea of some kind of "mystic god", and that many times people are misinterpreting the Bible in order to develop this "mystic god". The link to the article is here: http://www.philosophy-religion.org/c...ogic-bible.htm

I thought I was clear about both God's transcendence and him immanence, both the purple and the green, and how this is exemplified by the doctrine of the Incarnation in Christianity. But I think you are being a little one-sided in your characterization of Cherbonnier as 'basically criticizing the idea of some kind of mystic god'. That can certainly be a problem, but Cheronnier is not only criticizing this aspect of God. See my undelining below:,

Trancendence was the seventh point on his list, and this is what he wrote about it (I have placed the description of the mystic god in purple, and the Biblical God in green, for your convenience:

7) In what sense is God transcendent and/or immanent?

"Transcendent," as generally used, means "beyond space and time." From what has been said about the mystical God, it is obvious that He is transcendent in this sense. If the categories of space applied to Him, He would be subject to predication, and hence "limited." If the categories of time applied to Him, He would not be "immutable." Finally, a spatio-temporal God would be "a Being besides other beings," and therefore incompatible with the mystical definition of unity. At the same time, however, by a curious inner logic, this transcendent deity is also immanent. Precisely because He is beyond space and time, He is not localized in any one place. Being "nowhere," He can also be everywhere at once. Since He is beyond all "finite" distinctions, it becomes impossible to differentiate Him from anything. Though never identical with any finite object, He nevertheless "somehow" underlies them all. To the person of "spiritual insight," any natural object may, in the "moment of truth," become divine, not as it is in itself, but as a manifestation of the divinity within. It is therefore to be expected that the more God's transcendence (or "otherness") is emphasized, the more immanent he also becomes. In the words of the mystic Meister Eckhart, "The more God is in all things, the more He is outside them. The more He is within, the more without."18 The most prominent contemporary illustration of this rule is the theology of Karl Barth. Having begun his career with an insistence on the absolute transcendence of God, he now begins to discern Him indiscriminately in random artifacts of human culture.
The God of the Bible is neither transcendent nor immanent in the mystical sense. Being anthropomorphic, He is quite compatible with spatio-temporal existence. If he can be called "transcendent" at all, it is only in the sense that he is sovereign over his entire creation. Having conferred existence upon all things, He can also take it away. Having granted freedom to men, He can also overrule them. He is Lord and Master.
Neither is the biblical God immanent, in the sense that He is diffused throughout the universe. To insist that He is omnipresent would be to imprison Him. The biblical God can be wherever He wants to be. If He is "immanent," it is only in the sense that He takes an active role in his creation, and particularly in human history, guiding the destiny of nations in ways they little suspect.
In the biblical context, the meaning of "immanent" is thus not very different from "transcendent." God is immanent insofar as He acts in history. He is transcendent insofar as He acts triumphantly. Terms of such similar meaning are scarcely adequate to express the relation of God to the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Bible uses a different pair. Instead of "immanent/transcendent," "absolute/relative," "infinite/finite," or "unconditioned/conditioned," the biblical God's relation to the world is that of free agent to his act; that is, of Creator to his creation.
The doctrine of creation does not, as is sometimes held, fix a great gulf between two realms of being, the divine and the human. On the contrary, the existence which God bestows upon Adam does not differ in kind from his own. It is therefore misleading to speak of "discontinuity" between the Creator and his creation. Opposition between men and God there surely is, but it is volitional, not metaphysical. In biblical terms, it occurred after creation. That is, a conflict of wills presupposes that both parties share a single logical context, a common world of thought and action. In this sense, the doctrine of creation is a doctrine of continuity, not discontinuity.
Because the Bible does apply a common language to both men and God, it knows nothing of the familiar (and mystical) contrast between "God-as-revealed" and "God-as-He-is-in-Himself." The infinite and the finite, like the absolute and the relative, are incommensurable. They belong to different worlds of discourse. The mystic therefore quite consistently erects a sharp dichotomy between "God manifest" and "God in se." For the Bible, on the contrary, there is a one-to-one correspondence between God-as-revealed and God-as-He-is. As John W. Bowman has said:
Between the God-in-history and the God-in-himself then, there is a link of continuity so strong that the burden of proof must always rest on those who claim to the last that God is the Unknowable . . . Point for point what God is in experience, that he is in fact.19
By recognizing a common frame of reference for both God and man, the Bible enjoys yet another advantage over mystical philosophy. The latter is never able to state unequivocally the difference between man and God. Despite its emphasis on the "divine transcendence," it cannot distinguish between "Being itself" and an alleged "divine spark" in every man. Ultimately, the mystic is driven by the logic of his position to identify them: "Brahman and Atman are one and the same."
The Bible has no such difficulty. At two decisive points the Creator-God establishes his superiority over all creation, mankind included. First, He can do things which mere man can never do. He alone can confer existence. He can "create out of nothing." Significantly, the Old Testament restricts the word bara, "to create," to this divine prerogative. Secondly, the superiority of the Creator to his creatures consists of his "eternity." He can live forever, while they need not. They exist only at his pleasure. Whether they do in fact survive, or whether they perish, is entirely up to Him. De jure, they need never have existed at all. De facto, they might live forever, deo volente. In short, the relation of the Creator to his creation is not that of logical disjunction, but the "existential" relation of sovereignty.

-7up

[seven7up]

Sorry it took me so long to finish this response. Been busy.

Then you do agree with the first part of that point. I would ask if you agree with the second part, .....

You misunderstand. I was placing two assumptions (that I believe to be false) at the beginning of that sentence. IF God creates Ex Nihilo .... (I don't believe he does) and IF creating Ex Nihilo can result in agents of free will ... (I don't believe they would be free if created ex nihilo).

.... then God could create creatures who make better choices, learn empathy more readily, etc.

If you did, I would want to know if you recognize that the main purpose of being created with freewill is to be able to love legitimately. It's still relevant since that is my view! Also, would you say that this is a beneficial but incidental result of the ability to choose anyway?

Of course having free will means being able to love legitimately. But that wouldn't be the case if created Ex Nihilo. That is one of my main points.

(That basically God is relieved these magically also-eternal-yet-uncaused-by-him beings are able to love due to being able to choose?)

There it is again. Magically? It doesn't make sense that God creates Ex Nihilo agents of free will. So ... it is magic... and then you believe it?

So do you believe that everybody comes back to loyalty to God in the end? That hell will be either unpopulated or that you do get let out of jail eventually?

No. There will be some who simply refuse any relationship with God in the end.

And if you wanted to shelter us from for example experiencing rape, torture, etc. then obviously nobody would be experientially familiar with that.

In reality, God HAS to face us with these terrible consequences of sin. But with Ex Nihilo creation, God could have created any kind of being that is logically possible, including beings who wouldn't need to experience or witness such horrors.

No. This is atheist-style oversimplistic thinking at its worst. You're just assuming that by ignoring all other factors of what makes a good design. God, being omniscient, can't ignore them.

You are just saying, "God created Ex Nihilo, AND we are the way we are, ... so God MUST have a reason for doing it this way." Even though your attempts to justify it are clearly inadequate. Throw out the first assumption, and then you have something better to work with.

7up wrote: I think that you aren't open minded enough to realize how many options are available to a God creating Ex Nihilo. Let's try, for example ... God creates those who knows will be saved, and they have free will. Then He creates automatons who do not have free will, and those will do evil acts that the saved people can witness, (but we don't know who is who, or even that automatons exist) but since the automatons are not real people, they will not really go to hell. Yay! Nobody goes to hell! Even a simple human like myself can invent many ingenious possibilities if creating Ex Nihilo, and you are saying that God couldn't do any better?

NPCs, basically -- yes, this is another possibility I have considered and rejected. There's a huge risk of abuse if you believe that -- you can talk to a person who YOU DON'T KNOW is "just an automaton" and say to their face that they might be, and then you can justify murdering them ....

You ignored the part where I said that God doesn't even let us know that they exist. People wouldn't even consider it as a possibility. Plus, people

Which by itself, admittedly, doesn't disprove it, but God would realize this risk and avoid it.

Why? Justifying murder based on theological assumptions/conclusions exists in our world as it is.

Also, everybody we know of acts in the same way that we do in terms of freewill, and the Ockham's Razor explanation is that they do this because the cause of the pattern is the same; there isn't anybody just faking it. (And if you say there is and they can fake it in every way, it becomes an untestable hypothesis.)

And that is your reason for believing in Ex Nihilo creation? Ockham's razor and untestable hypothesis?

Besides, in my definition the main meaning of "freewill" is "ability to disobey spoken commands" and I haven't met a human yet who couldn't as far as I can tell. ;)

I'm sure that God would be smart enough to keep them appearing real to us.

It seems that under this possibility you are defining the ones who do evil acts as the automatons. But
1) We all sin.
2) As you acknowledged above, it's not about sinning versus not, but REPENTING versus not.

I didn't say that. God could even have the real people sinning, too, but all the real people end up saved. Since the automatons aren't real people, no real people would actually end up in hell.

3) ....you have God intentionally programming evil acts!

Yet those evil acts that are programmed in automatons are not damning those who do them, they weren't actual choices, they aren't actual people and they are not punished or going to hell. You are insisting that God MUST create people He knows will go to hell on purpose. I am saying that , given the fact that God could do anything imaginable in the Ex Nihilo scenario, there are other options. I just threw one out there.

Another possibility alluded to was removing the damned from existence. If God just brings them into being from Ex Nihilo, then just send them back to Nihilo. Why leave them damned and suffering for all eternity?

7up wrote: In my theology, there IS no better way. God does EXACTLY what is the best possible with what He has to work with. Pardon the crudeness, but, have you ever heard the expression, "can't polish a turd". There is only so much you can do with it.

And that's exactly the fatal flaw (well, one of them) with your theology. If God CAN'T "polish" humans who were flawed eternally, then he can't do it at any time.

Some He can and some He can't. There ARE actual humans/angels who cannot be polished. God didn't create them out of nothing, so God is not culpable.

If he CAN do it later, then he could simply make perfect beings from the start ...

Like I said, there are some who refuse God and there is nothing God can do about it. With Ex Materia, God cannot make perfect beings from the start.

7up wrote: You are claiming that God can't make anything better than the rapist, murderer, thief, liar, etc. Except my God has an excuse (having to work with existing/eternal non-divine entities with free will), and yours does not (can create any kind of being possible from God's infinite mind).

If it does not, you need to prove that, not just assume that somehow, some other possibility is there. I don't think that can be done. None of us can imagine ALL possibilities. We can only deduce the major lines of reasoning..

I cannot prove it to you, because you simply assume Ex Nihilo, and you will bend over backwards trying to justify it, despite any reason or logic or textual criticism, or historical background which demonstrates the contrary.

We are left with:

1) Proof that God is truly infinite and caused everything (and thus is omniscient, omnipotent, and the source of all other existence).

There are so many assumptions even in this first statement. What do you mean "infinite", "omnipotent", etc? People define those words in different ways.

2) The fact of sin, horrors, etc.

3) And the deduction that he MUST know why making a world where these are possible is right, all things considered. AND the prediction that since we are not omniscient, many of us will struggle to accept that (which is why it's useful to try to deduce as much as we can as to the whys, rather than just relying on "somehow".)

I'm glad you are admitting that it will be a struggle to accept your theology of Ex Nihilo creation.

-7up