Is Creation ex nihilo

[robrecht]

I very much disagree that the assumptions of Creation ex materia put any limitations of how God is capable of or could have Created our physical existence, and I believe my previous posts indicated this view.

So do you believe that it is as possible for either creatio ex materia or creatio ex nihilo to be true as far as we can know from our limited human perspective?

Actually those that believe in Creation ex nihilo often propose that this is the only way Creation could happen and alas put limits on how God Created.

I don't know how often this claim is made; I have never heard it asserted by Christian or Jewish theologians or philosophers in all my years of formal study of philosophy and theology. Do you have any references to theologians or philosophers making this claim? In my experience, I think creatio ex materia is much more frequently thought of in terms of limiting God's transcendence and creative abilities. If all matter/energy is eternally pre-existent and governed by eternal natural laws, would not God in some sense be subject to the nature of these matter/energy, conditions, and natural laws? If these realities and laws merely reflect the nature of God, are they necessarily so or was God free to eternally create a different kind of eternally existing matter/energy/natural laws? If the natural laws governing the behavior of the eternally existing matter/energy are not necessarily so, would you consider them to be arbitrarily dependent upon God's whim?

In fact I believe, as previous stated, and there are distinct human limitations as to whether ex deo nor ex nihilo is true, and what possible relevance the difference between the views are in the now. Our present relationship between the Created and Creator is the paramount issue, and alas cannot be objectively described nor differntiated.

Would you say then that you are agnostic as to whether or not creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia are true?

I believe there is no reason to believe that both views do not "understand these limitations as fully part of God's loving will to create and to involve himself in a relationship of love and self-revelation with and through creation."

I am glad that you agree with this, and I was not saying that a believer in creatio ex materia could not also believe this. I was merely trying to avoid any equation of creatio ex nihilo with theological nominalism. But do you not see how in the case of creatio ex materia, the very existence of eternal matter/energy is easily seen by many as less of a free decision of God to create matter/energy? You can say that you believe God is always freely and eternally creating this eternal matter/energy, but then does it really make sense to say that he is eternally creating it out of eternally existing matter/energy?

Your assumption does not present an adequate argument. Your trying to put a not so logical limitation of Creation ex materia.

I was certainly not attempting to present a logical argument for one being true, but rather merely describing how these concepts are typically used in theological discourse in my experience.

Yes

Yes, I disagreed with this, and I do not believe you adequately addressed the issue that ex nihilo would not be a form of Dualism where God is distinct from Creation as in Creation ex materia. ex materia may be a form of dualism but that does not exclude ex nihilo as a form of dualism.

Sure I did. If there is no pre-existing matter/energy/time/space, etc, out of which God created, then there is clearly no eternal dualism.

No I did not 'seem to think that creatio ex Deo involves creation existing eternally alongside God.' nor did I indicate so in a previous post.

You said in your post #313: "I believe that Creatio ex nihilo vel Deo as a relationship of Creation along side God (a possible form of dualism?), but not one that Creation is eternal along side God as in ex deo. Did you mean to say rather that creatio ex materia asserts that creation is eternal alongside God?

I indicated that both exist along side God, one eternally and one temporally.

When you say 'both' here, are you merely saying that matter exists alongside God in a temporal manner in creatio ex nihilo and in an eternal manner in creatio ex materia. If that is all you were trying to say, that is just defining the terms as they are ordinarily understood. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. But do you see now that the former is a form of eternal dualism, whereas the latter is not a form of eternal dualism? The only nuance I would add is that one need not and should not, in my opinion, think of creatio ex nihilo as creation necessarily taking place in time. The typical classical understanding of eternity and certainly a modern understanding of creatio ex nihilo would not understand creation as taking place in time but rather that time itself was created as part of creation.

Other than that there is no logical difference between the two from the human perspective.

I think it is a rather important difference when affirming God's ultimate transcendence from our limited human perspective vis-a-vis limitations that may be imposed upon God by eternally existing matter/energy/time/space and the natural laws that govern such. If we say that these natural laws are not imposed upon God but are ultimately and merely a reflection of the attributes of God, then I think we are asserting more about the attributes of God than one would typically affirm from the perspective of apophatic theology and the ultimate simplicity of God.

So do I believe this is so regardless of whether God created ex nihilo or ex materia.

So do I.

[shunyadragon]

So do you believe that it is as possible for either creatio ex materia or creatio ex nihilo to be true as far as we can know from our limited human perspective?

Yes, it is possible. That has been my view from the beginning of our dialogue,

I think creatio ex materia is much more frequently thought of in terms of limiting God's transcendence and creative abilities. If all matter/energy is eternally pre-existent and governed by eternal natural laws, would not God in some sense be subject to the nature of these matter/energy, conditions, and natural laws? If these realities and laws merely reflect the nature of God, are they necessarily so or was God free to eternally create a different kind of eternally existing matter/energy/natural laws?

Your using wording here I did not use concerning the nature of God and attributes of God such as the underlying nature of Natural Laws. Please cite me correctly. NO, God would not be subject to nature of these matter/energy, conditions and Natural Laws. God would be the transcendent omnipotent Source of the nature of these matter/energy, conditions and Natural Laws. They are not necessary from the human perspective. God is, of course, free to Create in whatever nature and way God chooses to Create

What you consider or anyone else as "much more frequently thought of in terms of limiting God's transcendence and creative abilities." remains anecdotal and hypothetical and does not represent the apophatic view of the simplicity of the nature of God, which is of course unknown.

If the natural laws governing the behavior of the eternally existing matter/energy are not necessarily so, would you consider them to be arbitrarily dependent upon God's whim?

Nothing is necessarily so, nor not necessarily so concerning God from the human perspective. Considering anything 'to be arbitrarily dependent upon God's whim' is ridiculously anthropomorphic from the human perspective. I simply said that I 'believe' that the Laws of Nature are attributes of God.

Would you say then that you are agnostic as to whether or not creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia are true?

No, I said both views are possible from God's perspective.

the very existence of eternal matter/energy is easily seen by many as less of a free decision of God to create matter/energy?

As seen by many . . . as easily seen? Arguing from popularity has absolutely no influence on my view. As before, this is hypothetical speculation. The eternal existence of Quantum zero-point cosmos or something equivalent would be a reflection of the attributes and nature of God and not any reflection of limitations on free decisions of God.

You can say that you believe God is always freely and eternally creating this eternal matter/energy, but then does it really make sense to say that he is eternally creating it out of eternally existing matter/energy?

What makes sense to you nor I has no relationship to the nature of God, and whether he creates ex nihilo or ex materia.

I was certainly not attempting to present a logical argument for one being true, but rather merely describing how these concepts are typically used in theological discourse in my experience.

What you describe as "typically used theological discourse," appears rather hypothetical and anecdotal. Not much of an argument, and too third hand in terms of information to be useful to me.

Sure I did. If there is no pre-existing matter/energy/time/space, etc, out of which God created, then there is clearly no eternal dualism.

I never stated that there was eternal dualism if there was no pre-existing matter/energy/time/space, etc. I said there was dualism regardless.

You said in your post #313: "I believe that Creatio ex nihilo vel Deo as a relationship of Creation along side God (a possible form of dualism?), but not one that Creation is eternal along side God as in ex deo. Did you mean to say rather that creatio ex materia asserts that creation is eternal alongside God?

When you say 'both' here, are you merely saying that matter exists alongside God in a temporal manner in creatio ex nihilo and in an eternal manner in creatio ex materia. If that is all you were trying to say, that is just defining the terms as they are ordinarily understood. I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

Careful, I will clarify if there was a miscommunication. Both Creation ex nihilo and Creation ex deo may be described as dualism regardless.

But do you see now that the former is a form of eternal dualism, whereas the latter is not a form of eternal dualism?

Yes, but the latter remains a form of (temporal) dualism.

The only nuance I would add is that one need not and should not, in my opinion, think of creatio ex nihilo as creation necessarily taking place in time. The typical classical understanding of eternity and certainly a modern understanding of creatio ex nihilo would not understand creation as taking place in time but rather that time itself was created as part of creation.

Why should there be a problem of a nuance? I consider Creation of our universe as well as any possible universe as Creation with a beginning of time, matter, energy, space and motion. I do not believe it is Creation ex nihilo.

I think it is a rather important difference when affirming God's ultimate transcendence from our limited human perspective vis-a-vis limitations that may be imposed upon God by eternally existing matter/energy/time/space and the natural laws that govern such. If we say that these natural laws are not imposed upon God but are ultimately and merely a reflection of the attributes of God, then I think we are asserting more about the attributes of God than one would typically affirm from the perspective of apophatic theology and the ultimate simplicity of God.

I consider the use of 'imposed' above to be an unfortunate anthropomorphic assumption. The truly apophatic belief of the simplicity of God would not make some of the assumptions you make as what would be the difference between ex nihilo and ex deo arbitrary and anecdotal. I use, I believe based on the information at hand, and make no necessary assumption either way beyond that. I believe you go beyond what could reasonably be known about an apophatic belief in God.

I also believe the positive kataphatic doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond what can be known in terms of simplicity of God and the apophatic human view

There is no reason to conclude that this is an important difference from the human perspective, because it is an unknown that there would be any such difference form the human perspective, assuming God is transcendent and omnipotent regardless of the nature of Creation in relationship to God.

[JimL]

Shunya, this subject is sometimes difficult to follow, so just for clarification on your position, is it your understanding that god is not the cause of material existence? Exactly how do you understand the distinction between an immaterial god and the material world, which you describe as a reflection of the attributes of god? do you consider matter itself to be one of those attributes, and if not then what is the cause of matter itself. Or by "reflection of god" are you assuming that matter itself is not real? Or is it that you believe god himself to be material? Thanks.

[logician bones]

Jim:

It must be describable in terms of motion, but its not motion that is at issue?

Right, because whether you see it as motion depends on where your perspective is; if you're a character in the movie, or watching the movie, you see the video slides as moving, but if you take the film out and set it down on a shelf, the slides are the same but then you don't perceive them as in motion. But even if you aren't within the slides or watching the movie, you can recognize the causal relationships between what's shown on each slide, and describe it in terms of motion.

It's pretty obvious, really -- for causality to be absolute throughout the infinite existence beyond our linear time, the same sorts of connections have to exist our there as we observe in here -- they just aren't linear. Again, picture our world as a straight line, and this outside realm as a web of arrows pointing in all directions, and leading in eventually to begin the straight arrow of linear time.

So, we see linear time as in motion because we're in linear time, and see non-linear time as not in motion, because we're NOT in that part of existence.

(And the fact that we can't access our own future states of mind plays a role here too -- God can, so while he is aware of the "changing" states of any particular component, they're all connected and he's aware of all of them, i.e. he's "simple", not compartmentalized as we are, so he is unchanging as the total knowledge is always available to every component of his mind.)

But nonlinear time is "describable" in terms of motion because we can imagine ourselves experiencing things like time travel and so forth; we could hypothetically follow any one line of the nonlinear time in any direction if we had a way to access it, and our compartmentalized nature would be experiencing it as change, or motion.

The only alternative is no variation at all within it, obviously -- but then causality cannot be absolute.

(Now at that point in the analysis, the question then is whether the variety is endless. If so, as I think is proven but it's a long story why, within that infinite variety, mind(s) exist, and within that category, non-compartmentalized mind (full access in all causal directions) that is totally self-consistent (so able to reach full infinity) must exist; this being a basic definition of God. The key is that infinite variety step, once you grasp non-linear time.)





Shun, I, too, would like some clarification on your view -- and especially I'd like to ask you to refrain from poetic language in trying to explain it. Your topic, your choice, but it's very confusing if I don't know the "poetic code" that's being used (like water = Spirit in some of the poetry of the Bible). Nothing wrong with poetic language, but I'd like to understand the literal meaning behind it.

Wouldn't you agree that ultimately all reality has to be causally related?

If that's true, then an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo" that is like instantiating a virtual reality or a Braille typewriter making new dots (without actually making new "base substance" from literal nothing) is indeed necessary and anything else DOES weaken God (and violates causality, so should be impossible).

Whether that is prior to the start of linear time or not, it has to be the case that everything outside of God was ultimately caused by God in some sense. (Not necessarily wanted by God, though; some things are logical necessities.)

And yet, "ex materia" CAN be a valid term as long as you don't include the "material that was always outside him; that has no causal root in him" part of it, and simply mean substance that is currently outside him. (So in THIS sense, it would be true that saying that God can't create ex materia would limit him, but only if you mean he can't create with currently existing matter with no regard to where it started. It doesn't limit God to say that all things have to be rooted in him ultimately; to say some things aren't is obviously what would be limiting.)

By that definition, I believe God created matter ex-nihilo/ex-deo at or before the start of linear time, and then reshaped that matter in an "ex materia" way (humans from dust, etc.).

Would you agree?


Edit to Adam below: Sorry. Told you I'd probably forget. :P In that case I should have just clicked the quote button. Whoops.

[Adam]

Seven paragraphs in, you mention "Shun", which leaves us confused whether your starting six paragraphs are aimed at someone else.
All my attempts to help you be understandable seem again to have failed.
Turns out your quote is from JimL way back on Post #304, just like even I had enough memory to surmise. But this all the more proves you don't give a darn about our perplexity at your verbose ramblings.

[logician bones]

Good catch, Adam. Edited.

[shunyadragon]

Shunya, this subject is sometimes difficult to follow, so just for clarification on your position, is it your understanding that god is not the cause of material existence? Exactly how do you understand the distinction between an immaterial god and the material world, which you describe as a reflection of the attributes of god?

No, our eternal physical existence is a reflection of God's attributes. The analogy is the shadow of an object, as long as the object exists the shadow exists. From the limited Newtonian logic of human cause and effect this does not compute. Cause in this case is the nature of God, and is the existence of the timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos or something equivalent from with universes originate, and eventually fade into cold death.

Do you consider matter itself to be one of those attributes,

Yes.

and if not then what is the cause of matter itself.

The cause of matter, energy, time and space in our universe is, of course, Creation of the universe by natural processes and Laws of Nature by God from the timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos.

Or by "reflection of god" are you assuming that matter itself is not real?

No, matter, energy, time, space and motion in our universe and all possible universes is very real.

Though, sometimes seer proposes it is not real, and we are deceived by the appearance of the phantoms of epiphenomenalism.

Or is it that you believe god himself to be material? Thanks.

No God is not material as we know matter, energy, time, space and motion are real. I believe in an apophatic God, where is ultimate nature is unknown. We only know God from the attributes of God Created in our universe and revealed by the manifestations of God.

[robrecht]

Yes, it is possible. That has been my view from the beginning of our dialogue,

My question was not if it were possible, but whether or not both views were equally possible from our limited human perspective, ie, we cannot know whether one option is more likely true, thus if you hold this position you would be agnostic with respect to these two positions.

Your using wording here I did not use concerning the nature of God and attributes of God such as the underlying nature of Natural Laws. Please cite me correctly.

I am not attempting to cite you because I am merely asking you questions to try and clarify your position. Do not consider every conversation to be an argument.

NO, God would not be subject to nature of these matter/energy, conditions and Natural Laws. God would be the transcendent omnipotent Source of the nature of these matter/energy, conditions and Natural Laws. They are not necessary from the human perspective. God is, of course, free to Create in whatever nature and way God chooses to Create

This is an important consideration. Thank you for answering my question.

What you consider or anyone else as "much more frequently thought of in terms of limiting God's transcendence and creative abilities." remains anecdotal and hypothetical and does not represent the apophatic view of the simplicity of the nature of God, which is of course unknown.

The reason I bring up the views of philosophers and theologians who are well known for holding such views, defined in some of the same terms that you are using, is to try and clarify your position with respect to theirs.

Nothing is necessarily so, nor not necessarily so concerning God from the human perspective. Considering anything 'to be arbitrarily dependent upon God's whim' is ridiculously anthropomorphic from the human perspective. I simply said that I 'believe' that the Laws of Nature are attributes of God.

And I am trying to understand what you mean by saying that the laws of nature are attributes of God. On the one hand you say that God is free to create things differently, but you also say that the laws of nature are attributes of God. I am trying to explore how you hold both of these positions. Is natural law created by God as one possibility among others or are they attributes of God? Are they somehow both true? For example, one might say that God freely chose to reveal some of his attributes by eternally creating eternal matter/energy and natural laws in one particular way, but he might have alternatively eternally created eternal matter/energy and natural laws (completely?) differently, and that would be reflecting other attributes of God. That seems a reasonable position. Is that your view perhaps? Or, if not, how would you express the tension between natural law being both created and contingent and also an attribute of God? Also, which attributes of God are you speaking of, ie, that he is rational, good, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, some of these or perhaps other attributes? I notice that you said above to Jim that matter is an attribute of God but that God is not material, at least not as we understand matter in our universe.

No, I said both views are possible from God's perspective.

So, is it correct to say that you think creatio ex nihilo to be possible from God's perspective, but you yourself favor the other possibility of creatio ex materia as a more likely possibility? If so, why? Or, by saying that both are possible from God's perspective, are you saying that you are agnostic with respect to this question and as far as anyone can say from our human perspective both are equally probable?

As seen by many . . . as easily seen? Arguing from popularity has absolutely no influence on my view.

Once again, I have presented no argument for a particular position, let alone an argument from popularity, I am merely trying to clarify your view with respect to others who use the same terminology.

As before, this is hypothetical speculation. The eternal existence of Quantum zero-point cosmos or something equivalent would be a reflection of the attributes and nature of God and not any reflection of limitations on free decisions of God.

What makes sense to you nor I has no relationship to the nature of God, and whether he creates ex nihilo or ex materia.

But do you agree that we should generally try to use reasonable and sensible language when engaging in theological speculation? Or is it all koans and purposeful absurdities? Theology is a speculative discipline.

What you describe as "typically used theological discourse," appears rather hypothetical and anecdotal. Not much of an argument, and too third hand in terms of information to be useful to me.

Again, I have presented no argument. If one wants to be understood using specific terms one should take some responsibility for understanding how these terms have been used by others who hold well known positions expressed in some of the same terms. It probably would be useful to you if I quoted some of these philosophers and theologians, but it would also be helpful for you to do some of your own research. If you are unaware of how creatio ex materia has been variously understood in the history of philosophy and theology, I can give you some references, but for now I have only been trying to help you clarify your views.

I never stated that there was eternal dualism if there was no pre-existing matter/energy/time/space, etc. I said there was dualism regardless.

If this were a discussion about whether other beings and reality existed apart from God, that might have some relevance. But I am specifically trying to clarify your views with respect to eternal dualisms of the metaphysical kind.

Careful, I will clarify if there was a miscommunication. Both Creation ex nihilo and Creation ex deo may be described as dualism regardless.

If you would like to clarify, then please free to answer the question, which I will repeat for your convenience: You said in your post #313: "I believe that Creatio ex nihilo vel Deo as a relationship of Creation along side God (a possible form of dualism?), but not one that Creation is eternal along side God as in ex deo." Did you mean to say rather that creatio ex materia asserts that creation is eternal alongside God? Or do you think that creatio ex Deo also posits an eternal creation existing eternally alongside God?

Yes, but the latter remains a form of (temporal) dualism.

So what? Has anyone here been proposing that only God exists and that all other reality is illusory and nonexistent? This seems to have no relevance to our discussion.

Why should there be a problem of a nuance? I consider Creation of our universe as well as any possible universe as Creation with a beginning of time, matter, energy, space and motion. I do not believe it is Creation ex nihilo.

The reason I added that nuance is that some of your previous statements seemed to imply that creatio ex nihilo necessarily implies creation in time rather than the creation of time. If that was not your implication, great. Was it? I merely want to clarify if that is in fact your understanding.

I consider the use of 'imposed' above to be an unfortunate anthropomorphic assumption. The truly apophatic belief of the simplicity of God would not make some of the assumptions you make as what would be the difference between ex nihilo and ex deo arbitrary and anecdotal. I use [sic], I believe based on the information at hand, and make no necessary assumption either way beyond that. I believe you go beyond what could reasonably be known about an apophatic belief in God.

I have made no assumptions, let alone any that go beyond what can be known about an apophatic belief in God. I have merely tried to get you to clarify your views with respect to how the view of creatio ex materia is commonly understood in philosophy and theology. To date, the best we've done is for you to perhaps imply that creatio ex materia, as you seem to understand it, might not make sense to your or me, and that for you this doctrine has no relationship to the nature of God:

robrecht: "You can say that you believe God is always freely and eternally creating this eternal matter/energy, but then does it really make sense to say that he is eternally creating it out of eternally existing matter/energy?"

shunyadragon: "What makes sense to you nor [sic] I [sic] has no relationship to the nature of God, and whether he creates ex nihilo or ex materia."

I also believe the positive kataphatic doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond what can be known in terms of simplicity of God and the apophatic human view

As we have seen, your description of the doctrine of the Trinity is a misrepresentative caricature that does not relate to how the Trinity is viewed by Christian monotheist theologians. If you want to continue our discussion of the Trinity where you left off, you are still free to respond to my most recent posts on this topic (eg, #287). Or if you want to show how your caricature of the Trinity is related to creatio ex Deo vel nihilo vel amore, go ahead, but it would still be best for you to try and represent specifically and correctly the actual theologies of the Trinity (eg, hypostases), once you've done the essential background reading.

There is no reason to conclude that this is an important difference from the human perspective, because it is an unknown that there would be any such difference form the human perspective, assuming God is transcendent and omnipotent regardless of the nature of Creation in relationship to God.

I presume that by "this" (underlined above by me) you mean differences between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are important from a human perspective. Once we better understand your view of creatio ex materia, if in fact it is your view, we may be able to form an opinion about this.

[shunyadragon]

Shun, I, too, would like some clarification on your view -- and especially I'd like to ask you to refrain from poetic language in trying to explain it. Your topic, your choice, but it's very confusing if I don't know the "poetic code" that's being used (like water = Spirit in some of the poetry of the Bible). Nothing wrong with poetic language, but I'd like to understand the literal meaning behind it.

Please make your questions specific. General confusion is hard to answer. I believe I have been as specific as possible. For examples:

I believe in ex deo or ex materia. This belief is simple. Some sort of existence has existed eternally as reflection of God's attributes. The ultimate Laws of Nature are attributes of God and there is no contradiction between science and religion. In scientific terms this is described as the timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos. From this timeless cosmos the universes are create with matter, energy, time, space and motion.

I believe in transcendent, omnipotent apophatic God that cannot be defined nor described in the positive kataphatic way from the human perspective.

The ultimate relationship between God and Creation is unknown, because of the fallible limits of human reasoning Creation ex deo and Creation ex nihilo are possible.

Wouldn't you agree that ultimately all reality has to be causally related?

'Has to be?' No. From the fallible human perspective nothing is necessary, and any claim of Truth by logic is questionable. There are adequate explanations from the Theistic, and Atheist/Agnostic perspective for the eternal nature of our existence only govern by Natural Law and natural processes. I believe the logical Theistic perspective is dependent on the acceptance of Methodological Naturalism as reflecting the nature of Creation. If not accepted there is an unresolvable contradiction that God Created in contradiction to physical properties of Creation observed objectively by science.

If that's true, then an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo" that is like instantiating a virtual reality or a Braille typewriter making new dots (without actually making new "base substance" from literal nothing) is indeed necessary and anything else DOES weaken God (and violates causality, so should be impossible).

By that definition, I believe God created matter ex-nihilo/ex-deo at or before the start of linear time, and then reshaped that matter in an "ex materia" way (humans from dust, etc.).

Would you agree?

I do not view ex materia in this way. Creation ex materia is the origns of our universe before the time, space, matter, energy and motion of our universe. Humans evolved naturally according to Natural LAws that are in harmony with the attributes of God.

[shunyadragon]

My question was not if it were possible, but whether or not both views were equally possible from our limited human perspective, ie, we cannot know whether one option is more likely true, thus if you hold this position you would be agnostic with respect to these two positions.

From the human perspective we cannot determine whether the two view are either equal nor unequal or for that matter some other explanation as possibilities. My belief in the view that ex deo offers the best explanation is not an agnostic view, because I believe it is the correct view, and as previously state this is based on my current knowledge, scriptures of different religions and the harmony of science and religion that some sort of eternal pre-existence outside our universe is the best option. In acknowledging that both are possible is acknowledging the sincere limits of human knowledge, reasoning and logic to make that determination conclusively.

I am not attempting to cite you because I am merely asking you questions to try and clarify your position. Do not consider every conversation to be an argument.

PLEASE cit me specifically and correctly, your paraphrasing tends to misrepresent my views. I have no choice but to consider your posts an argument from your perspective.

The reason I bring up the views of philosophers and theologians who are well known for holding such views, defined in some of the same terms that you are using, is to try and clarify your position with respect to theirs.

Again this type of third person reference is too vague and anecdotal to be meaningful.

And I am trying to understand what you mean by saying that the laws of nature are attributes of God. On the one hand you say that God is free to create things differently, but you also say that the laws of nature are attributes of God. I am trying to explore how you hold both of these positions.

The problem is that it is not a question of 'one hand or the other,' and NOT two different positions as I have described. The apophatic transcendent omnipotent nature of God would limit our perception of God to only the attributes of God we can be aware of. The limits of our human awareness does not limit the limitless attributes of God.

Is natural law created by God as one possibility among others or are they attributes of God? Are they somehow both true?

As above the attributes of God are limitless and not constrained by our perceptions.

For example, one might say that God freely chose to reveal some of his attributes by eternally creating eternal matter/energy and natural laws in one particular way, but he might have alternatively eternally created eternal matter/energy and natural laws (completely?) differently, and that would be reflecting other attributes of God. That seems a reasonable position. Is that your view perhaps? Or, if not, how would you express the tension between natural law being both created and contingent and also an attribute of God? Also, which attributes of God are you speaking of, ie, that he is rational, good, loving, omnipotent, omniscient, some of these or perhaps other attributes?

All of those mentioned above are in did among the limitless attributes of God.

Actually in our present knowledge of science variations in 'Laws of Nature' are indeed possible in different universes, or possible in different multiverses. Assuming God exists, God's nature being transcendent and omnipotent, would logically conclude that God's attributes are limitless beyond human comprehension.

I notice that you said above to Jim that matter is an attribute of God but that God is not material, at least not as we understand matter in our universe.

Yes.

So, is it correct to say that you think creatio ex nihilo to be possible from God's perspective,

Yes.

. . . but you yourself favor the other possibility of creatio ex materia as a more likely possibility? If so, why?

Described above, but here goes again. Based on my current knowledge of science and the scriptures of the different religions including the Bible and the Baha'i scriptures, and the philosophy of the possible meanings of 'nothingness' most definitely favor some version of ex deo or ex materia where some sort of eternal existence.

Or, by saying that both are possible from God's perspective, are you saying that you are agnostic with respect to this question and as far as anyone can say from our human perspective both are equally probable?

I am not agnostic, nor will I make the judgement that both are equally possible or not possible.

Once again, I have presented no argument for a particular position, let alone an argument from popularity, I am merely trying to clarify your view with respect to others who use the same terminology.

Again such references in a general context are not meaningful to me.

But do you agree that we should generally try to use reasonable and sensible language when engaging in theological speculation? Or is it all koans and purposeful absurdities? Theology is a speculative discipline.

I have no problem with reasonable and sensible language, but some your references represent vague third person views, which I find speculative and anecdotal. I would need more specific reference and citations.

Again, I have presented no argument. If one wants to be understood using specific terms one should take some responsibility for understanding how these terms have been used by others who hold well known positions expressed in some of the same terms. It probably would be useful to you if I quoted some of these philosophers and theologians, but it would also be helpful for you to do some of your own research. If you are unaware of how creatio ex materia has been variously understood in the history of philosophy and theology, I can give you some references, but for now I have only been trying to help you clarify your views.

I am very much aware that BOTH creatio ex materia and Creation ex nihilo have been variously understood in the history of philosophy, but the various views need to be cited specifically, if not they are of no meaning to me,
If this were a discussion about whether other beings and reality existed apart from God, that might have some relevance. But I am specifically trying to clarify your views with respect to eternal dualisms of the metaphysical kind.

If you would like to clarify, then please free to answer the question, which I will repeat for your convenience: You said in your post #313: "I believe that Creatio ex nihilo vel Deo as a relationship of Creation along side God (a possible form of dualism?), but not one that Creation is eternal along side God as in ex deo." Did you mean to say rather that creatio ex materia asserts that creation is eternal alongside God? Or do you think that creatio ex Deo also posits an eternal creation existing eternally alongside God?

I already answered this specifically in a previous post. I will repeat my answer for your convenience. I said, " I consider both 'ex deo eternally alongside God,' and 'ex nihilo temporally along side God' as possibly described as a form of dualism; one eternal and one temporal."

So what? Has anyone here been proposing that only God exists and that all other reality is illusory and nonexistent? This seems to have no relevance to our discussion.

The reason I added that nuance is that some of your previous statements seemed to imply that creatio ex nihilo necessarily implies creation in time rather than the creation of time. If that was not your implication, great. Was it? I merely want to clarify if that is in fact your understanding.

I have made no assumptions, let alone any that go beyond what can be known about an apophatic belief in God. I have merely tried to get you to clarify your views with respect to how the view of creatio ex materia is commonly understood in philosophy and theology. To date, the best we've done is for you to perhaps imply that creatio ex materia, as you seem to understand it, might not make sense to your or me, and that for you this doctrine has no relationship to the nature of God:

I presume that by "this" (underlined above by me) you mean differences between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are important from a human perspective.

No, it is not important.

Once we better understand your view of creatio ex materia, if in fact it is your view, we may be able to form an opinion about this.

It is most definitely my view as repeatedly clearly and specifically described.

You need to form your opinion based on how you view the evidence, scripture, and philosophy. I presented mine clearly and specifically.

[JimL]

Jim:



Right, because whether you see it as motion depends on where your perspective is; if you're a character in the movie, or watching the movie, you see the video slides as moving, but if you take the film out and set it down on a shelf, the slides are the same but then you don't perceive them as in motion. But even if you aren't within the slides or watching the movie, you can recognize the causal relationships between what's shown on each slide, and describe it in terms of motion.

I'm not sure that the above makes sense. We don't see the individual slides as moving, we see the film as a whole as moving. There are no changes taking place within the individual slides, the individual slides are only parts of the whole and so only one thing moving, i.e. the film itself as a whole is moving. The causal realtionships between the slides can't be described in terms of motion, because there is no motion within the individual slides themselves. If we take the film out and set it on a shelf we can see the logical relationships with respect to the individual slides but thats different than perceivng actual motion.

It's pretty obvious, really -- for causality to be absolute throughout the infinite existence beyond our linear time, the same sorts of connections have to exist our there as we observe in here -- they just aren't linear. Again, picture our world as a straight line, and this outside realm as a web of arrows pointing in all directions, and leading in eventually to begin the straight arrow of linear time.

By the same kind of relationships I take you to mean cause and effect. I don't think that time, motion, cause and effect, or the infinite cosmos of which they are attributes, need have a beginning and so a cause, they/it only need a backdrop that is not in motion by which to give measure to their/its own motion. If for instance we consider the rolling film in your above metaphor as being the only existing thing, existing within a timeless void, aka nothingness, then time, the measurment of motion, the distance between events, is just the relationship between that which moves and the void, or between that which moves and that which doesn't move.

So, we see linear time as in motion because we're in linear time, and see non-linear time as not in motion, because we're NOT in that part of existence.

My guess is that we see motion because motion is the eternal nature of existence. The direction in which particular forms within the whole moves, is not measured with respect to the direction of the whole, because the direction of the whole is measured with respect to the timeless, or motionless, and so directionless void, within the which it is moving.

(And the fact that we can't access our own future states of mind plays a role here too -- God can, so while he is aware of the "changing" states of any particular component, they're all connected and he's aware of all of them, i.e. he's "simple", not compartmentalized as we are, so he is unchanging as the total knowledge is always available to every component of his mind.)

I think that you are making an unfounded assumption in assuming that the timeless, motionless, directionless state, within the which the eternal existing stuff is and moves, is an immaterial mind or causal entity that somehow effects or sets into motion the eternal existing material stuff. I think what needs to be explain from you perspective is why you think motion itself needs a beginning? Also I think that the idea that a timeless god is the cause of the world, and so the attributes of its nature, i.e. time, motion etc etc. is illogical, because not a single philosophical definition of "cause" makes sense of it. Cause requires temporality, an effect, an effect such as the beginning of time itself, would, by the definition of "cause', require that there be a time before the creation of time, which in itself if non-sensical.

But nonlinear time is "describable" in terms of motion because we can imagine ourselves experiencing things like time travel and so forth; we could hypothetically follow any one line of the nonlinear time in any direction if we had a way to access it, and our compartmentalized nature would be experiencing it as change, or motion.

We would be experiencing it as motion, no matter the direction, because we would be moving with respect to the motionless void.

The only alternative is no variation at all within it, obviously -- but then causality cannot be absolute.

Still not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that causality can not be an eternal attribute of eternally moving existence, or are you saying that the notion of eternal motion itself is incoherent?

(Now at that point in the analysis, the question then is whether the variety is endless. If so, as I think is proven but it's a long story why, within that infinite variety,

This confuses me. If you believe infinite variety is endless, wouldn't that mean that change, motion and so the notion of timeitself, is also infinite.

mind(s) exist, and within that category, non-compartmentalized mind (full access in all causal directions) that is totally self-consistent (so able to reach full infinity) must exist; this being a basic definition of God. The key is that infinite variety step, once you grasp non-linear time.)

Again, why do assume the existence of a motionless, timeless, and immaterial mind rather than a motionless, timeless and immaterial void?

Btw, I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, so to speak, so not denying outright your perspective, just trying my best to understand it and question it.

[logician bones]

Shun:

'Has to be?' No. From the fallible human perspective nothing is necessary, and any claim of Truth by logic is questionable. There are adequate explanations from the Theistic, and Atheist/Agnostic perspective for the eternal nature of our existence only govern by Natural Law and natural processes. I believe the logical Theistic perspective is dependent on the acceptance of Methodological Naturalism as reflecting the nature of Creation. If not accepted there is an unresolvable contradiction that God Created in contradiction to physical properties of Creation observed objectively by science.

It sounds like you think that reshaping matter after the start of the universe somehow contradicts physical laws. If it does, then humans shaping matter to make things would. That's a common mistake. God didn't use material hands to do it, but there's no logical reason he can't by other means.

As for the rest, truth by sound logic is, well, guaranteed to be true, though everything is always still questionable, in my way of thinking. :)

Anyway, I think you did help clear up what I was wondering about, so thank you. :)




Jim:

we see the film as a whole as moving.

When watching it, or if we were in it, yes, though it would be better to say we see things within the film as moving (while watching it). We can also see the whole film as not moving when we set it on a shelf.

There are no changes taking place within the individual slides

Correct. But they are placed next to each other in such a way that the causal relationships between the slight differences in one slide compared to the next can be understood. A bouncing ball appears slightly moved in the next slide, etc.

The causal realtionships between the slides can't be described in terms of motion

Yes they can. (And by the way, try to avoid universal negatives. You might just not have yet concluded or observed what is being denied.) A circle on one slide representing the ball is reproduced on the next, but in a slightly different position -- a basic definition of motion. The same object or objects at different coordinates at different points in time. (In relation to other objects, or "particles" of substance.)

Or two or more objects arranged in one way moving apart and being rearranged across time to form another arrangement (like ingredients being used to make a whole -- or base "particles" being rearranged to make a new construct substance).

I don't think that time, motion, cause and effect, or the infinite cosmos of which they are attributes, need have a beginning and so a cause

Agreed, as long as we're defining "time" as basically direction of cause and effect, and accept that it can be nonlinear as well as the linear time we live in. (And changing "cosmos" to simply existence.) This boils down to just saying what I've said before, that neither causality nor existence as a whole can have an outside cause, as it would have to also exist, and have to have the trait of causality already in order to cause something else. (Motion and time are just parts of causality.)

If for instance we consider the rolling film in your above metaphor as being the only existing thing

If it was, causality wouldn't be absolute and then we're back where we started... Something needs to cause the film, the arrangement of things on the slides, etc.

Your point here is there has to be an unmoving backdrop, but "backdrop" may be going too far; I would say "reference frame". I would say the slides themselves are not "really" moving (from an outside-the-film, or beyond-linear-time perspective), so are their own reference frame when you see it sitting on the shelf. The consistent shape of the slides provides that; the rectangle allows you to define coordinates, so you can measure the difference in position in the x axis and y axis of the object on one slide versus another (and so forth).

So, similar consistencies through 'slides' in nonlinear time would provide reference frames for "strands" (of mind, for God, or of physics of some sort if you wanted to put a ban on mind in this due to a ban on infinite variety) that aren't limited to one linear direction, and within those consistencies (which act like the frame of the slides), there would be causal differences which would not be truly random but would be causally related to a different 'slide' within this strand.

assuming that the timeless, motionless, directionless state, within the which the eternal existing stuff is and moves, is an immaterial mind

You're getting ahead of yourself again. I already said I don't think you will agree that God exists yet. But since you did say this, I should probably remind you that this isn't how I would word things. It's unclear how you mean most of these terms here (why would I use "motionless" after just saying it can all be seen as in motion depending on your perspective, for example?), and looks like you're equating everything with God by saying that all of this "is" God, rather than contains God. (I would say infinite existence includes or contains God, but is not God because some of the existence is not God.)

I think what needs to be explain from you perspective is why you think motion itself needs a beginning?

I must admit, Jim, my first reaction to this is, why in the world would you claim that I thought that, since I just said in the posts you were replying to that it doesn't?

But maybe you're still not grasping the perspective-based nature of statements like this. Experiential perception of motion starts when a being that is following those lines of motion starts -- for us, that's when we begin to live and move through linear time, as we perceive it, but for God, since I don't think he had a start, motion from his within-components perspective (versus his total omniscient perspective; he has both, unlike us) never does have a start.

So, motion only has a beginning if you are defining it in terms of the perspective of a linear being who has a start.

If you do that, then in that sense, motion does need to have a start, but the reason for this is only your choice of definition of motion and that you are focusing it on a being who also has a start. Does that help? :)

Also I think that the idea that a timeless god is the cause of the world, and so the attributes of its nature, i.e. time, motion etc etc. is illogical, because not a single philosophical definition of "cause" makes sense of it. Cause requires temporality, an effect

Again I get the impression you haven't been keeping up with our conversation. What it looks like you're saying here is that it requires single-linear temporality, but this whole time we've been discussing multi-linear temporality. [Edit: I see at the end of your post you seem to have explained why you're behind on this part. Anyway, hope I can help you learn more about it. :)]

And, again, since we have single-linear-time, that state of existence needs explaining. The only logical explanation is multi-linear time, rooting in basically infinite-linear causality.

We're not yet moving on from there to infinite variety and therefore God; I've alluded to it, but first I want to see if you can grasp this step before we move on, make sense? Prerequisites.

an effect such as the beginning of time itself, would, by the definition of "cause', require that there be a time before the creation of time, which in itself if non-sensical.

This is an equivocation fallacy, because you're defining "time" in the first use as linear (this is why I say it's best to not condense "linear time" down to just "time" in these discussions; it sets people up for this error), but those saying there is a sort of "time" before the start of linear time are referring to nonlinear time/causal-direction. So it's not the start of "time" in that sense, but the start of the linear setup.

This is why I said it can be pictured with arrows; it's not hard at all to see that a linear arrow pointing off into infinity in just one direction, can have curving web arrangements of arrows pointing at its origin point (and pointing everywhere else too), beyond it.

Btw, I'm flying by the seat of my pants here, so to speak, so not denying outright your perspective, just trying my best to understand it and question it.

That's perfectly fine. :) Again, just let me emphasize that I'm trying to take this one step at a time, so asking why I see God at the end of this analysis is jumping ahead (although I have already summarized why several times, but it looks like you couldn't understand those explanations yet because you still need time to get used to some of the prerequisites -- which is fine).

A few of your other questions don't look productive to answer right now for the same reason. For the record, it looks like you misunderstood the "only alternative" idea as something I normally talk about. In that part I was only reacting against you appearing to mean that outside our universe there isn't motion at all in any perspective. (Which would mean no variety at all. But it now looks like you didn't mean it that way.)

[shunyadragon]

I messed this up a little and left out part of your post. I want to answer the part I left out

Wouldn't you agree that ultimately all reality has to be causally related?

I believe God is ultimately the Origin and cause of everything, but 'Has to be?' No. From the fallible human perspective nothing is necessary, and any claim of Truth by logic is questionable. There are adequate explanations from the Theistic, and Atheist/Agnostic perspective for the eternal nature of our existence only govern by Natural Law and natural processes. I believe the logical Theistic perspective is dependent on the acceptance of Methodological Naturalism as reflecting the nature of Creation. If not accepted there is an unresolvable contradictions that God Created in contradiction to physical properties of Creation observed objectively by science.

If that's true, then an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo" that is like instantiating a virtual reality or a Braille typewriter making new dots (without actually making new "base substance" from literal nothing) is indeed necessary and anything else DOES weaken God (and violates causality, so should be impossible).

My view is neutral to the necessity of causality, nor whether it is possible nor impossible. Nothing here is logically necessary from the human perspective. If you pursue this in a logical argument you will get caught making assumptions about the existence of God, and an intensely circular argument.

Creation by ex nihilo or ex deo would make the same general assumptions about the nature of God as the transcendent omnipotent Creator of everything, which in and of itself cannot be logically proven.

[shunyadragon]

It sounds like you think that reshaping matter after the start of the universe somehow contradicts physical laws. If it does, then humans shaping matter to make things would. That's a common mistake. God didn't use material hands to do it, but there's no logical reason he can't by other means.

No, 'reshaping matter.' just sounds too phony and anthropomorphic, as 'humans shaping matter to make things would.'

If you follow my posts carefully; I believe God is transcendent and Omnipotent, therefore God can Create anything in any manner God chooses. What we are dealing with is God's Creation as it is, and not how it could be.

As for the rest, truth by sound logic is, well, guaranteed to be true, though everything is always still questionable, in my way of thinking. :)

I do not believe in Truth by sound logic is, well, guaranteed to be true. Logic in the hands of humans is like statistics in the hands of scientists. The logic and the statistic may be perfectly sound but humans are not as reliable on using either, and it may be sound but false.

[shunyadragon]

As usual when post get long I make mistakes that need clarification. I did not respond correctly to this part of your post:

I have made no assumptions, let alone any that go beyond what can be known about an apophatic belief in God. I have merely tried to get you to clarify your views with respect to how the view of creatio ex materia is commonly understood in philosophy and theology. To date, the best we've done is for you to perhaps imply that creatio ex materia, as you seem to understand it, might not make sense to [you(r?)] or me, and that for you this doctrine has no relationship to the nature of God:

I believe I have clarified it several times, and need not do it again. The highlighted above does not make sense, and as usual you are not quoting my accurately, but implying odd stuff. This is not a doctrine! Please clarify this comment: 'might not make sense to [you] or me, and that for you this doctrine has no relationship to the nature of God.' I have been specifically clear concerning my belief and the relationship between God and Creation. I have made no statement that reflects the garbled sentence highlighted.

I presume that by "this" (underlined above by me) you mean differences between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia are important from a human perspective.

No, it is not important in the over all questions of the nature of an omnipotent and transcendent God, Creation and Revelation, and God's relationship to humanity over the Millennia in the now of our universe, but it is important in philosophical and theological understanding of scripture. and harmony of science and religion in accordance with my understanding of the nature of God and Creation.