Is Creation ex nihilo

[logician bones]

Shun:

I believe God is ultimately the Origin and cause of everything, but 'Has to be?' No.

It seems like you're changing the meaning of 'has to be' here. I was talking about causality needing to be unbroken, in the sense that nothing just happens for no reason(s) at all. Pardon if I'm reading too much into it. I've mentioned before why I don't think causality can be partial; if it could (and thus, things can happen for no reason), chaos should be expected everywhere; things happening with no cause anywhere (what could stop them, after all?). If that was the case, life couldn't exist.

Some people seem to try to solve this by just hoping that the violations of causality just happen to happen in all the convenient places and none of the deadly places, but this is hopelessly illogical and amounts to blind faith.

And really I think that it's not just that there would be total chaos, but that there really wouldn't be anything at all.

From the fallible human perspective nothing is necessary

I certainly agree we're fallible, but sound logic is the one way we can get past our flaws, if we truly use it. :) Some things ARE reliable as observation continually demonstrates. Nobody who claims otherwise actually acts on that claim in all aspects of life. They know to make X happen, you have to do things logically understandable as causing X.

I believe the logical Theistic perspective is dependent on the acceptance of Methodological Naturalism

Understood, but this is an unfounded assumption.

If you pursue this in a logical argument you will get caught making assumptions about the existence of God, and an intensely circular argument.

Such as? I've already done this; I know that that claim itself is the assumption...

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

How is that anything but an emotional argument? I hate to throw your wording back at you, but frankly this claim looks "phony" to me. As for anthropomorphic, God can share some traits with humans (like having a mind), without being like them in other ways. For example, he isn't limited to a finite, physical body.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=logician bones;284132]Shun:


It seems like you're changing the meaning of 'has to be' here. I was talking about causality needing to be unbroken, in the sense that nothing just happens for no reason(s) at all. Pardon if I'm reading too much into it. I've mentioned before why I don't think causality can be partial; if it could (and thus, things can happen for no reason), chaos should be expected everywhere; things happening with no cause anywhere (what could stop them, after all?). If that was the case, life couldn't exist.

Some people seem to try to solve this by just hoping that the violations of causality just happen to happen in all the convenient places and none of the deadly places, but this is hopelessly illogical and amounts to blind faith.

And really I think that it's not just that there would be total chaos, but that there really wouldn't be anything at all.

I certainly agree we're fallible, but sound logic is the one way we can get past our flaws, if we truly use it. :) Some things ARE reliable as observation continually demonstrates. Nobody who claims otherwise actually acts on that claim in all aspects of life. They know to make X happen, you have to do things logically understandable as causing X.

Nonetheless I am skeptical of logic, because of the dependency on the assumptions, which my not be true.

Understood, but this is an unfounded assumption.

Here is where we disagree. God does not create contradictions. Methodological Naturalism just simply objectively observes the nature of our existence as it is, without religious assumptions as to the nature of our physical existence.

Such as? I've already done this; I know that that claim itself is the assumption...

It gets into arguments that makes assumptions presuppositions that God exists.

How is that anything but an emotional argument? I hate to throw your wording back at you, but frankly this claim looks "phony" to me. As for anthropomorphic, God can share some traits with humans (like having a mind), without being like them in other ways. For example, he isn't limited to a finite, physical body.

Well, humans can share the attributes of God, but no Creation should not be described as 'reshaping matter,'

[JimL]

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.

I don't think that answers the question I asked shunya. Is god in your view immaterial, and the the world, which you define as the reflection of god, material? If so, is it your contention that the creator of matter itself is not material?

Yes.

Okay, so you see god as being both immaterial and material? So basically the material world is a part of god in your view?

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.

But it seems your contention is that matter is an eternal attribute of god, not a creation. How do you reconcile this view of matter being the eternal nature of, an eternal attribute of god, with creation?

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

Real, and eternal? Or real and created?

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.

This is confusing me. If god is not material, then what do you mean by saying that matter is a very real reflection of non matter? In what sense do you describe matter as a real reflection?

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that answers the question I asked shunya. Is god in your view immaterial, and the world [physical existence], which you define as the reflection of god, material?

Yes and yes. This is the basic belief of most Theists, no problem. If God exists that is fundamentally what Theists believe, not only me. My posts have been very clear on this.

Okay, so you see god as being both immaterial and material?

No, that was very specific and clear in my posts.

So basically the material world is a part of god in your view?

No, and that was answered very specifically and clearly in my previous posts.

But it seems your contention is that matter is an eternal attribute of god, not a creation. How do you reconcile this view of matter being the eternal nature of, an eternal attribute of god, with creation?

Real, and eternal? Or real and created?

No problem. Your view is consistently trying to define how God must be, and how God must not be, and you actually do not believe in God in any form. Appearance of 'How God must be' or else, is a contradiction of your belief system. You have an archaic narrow egocentric ancient world view of what 'Creation' should be, ie ex nihilo, but fortunately God need not comply with your narrow atheistic logic of how things must be.

There are obvious contradiction in the Quantum nature of our physical existence that cannot be explained by contemporary science due to the limits of human comprehension. Scientists are indeed confused by these contradiction, but nonetheless still believe in science.

This is confusing me. If god is not material, then what do you mean by saying that matter is a very real reflection of non matter?

I do not say that. Your confused by your own archaic narrow definitions of how God must be, how Creation must be, and in actuality you do not believe in any form of God(s). God cannot be narrowly defined nor undefined by the egocentric view of 'words.'

Your byline should read atheist.

Again . . .

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.

[shunyadragon]

Shun: It seems like you're changing the meaning of 'has to be' here. I was talking about causality needing to be unbroken, in the sense that nothing just happens for no reason(s) at all.

No, not changing the meaning concerning 'has to be.' It is often interpreted by Theists that if God did not exist there is no 'unbroken' causality. This remains a Theistic assumption of how things 'have to be,' and no things do not 'have to be' from the objective perspective.

Pardon if I'm reading too much into it. I've mentioned before why I don't think causality can be partial; if it could (and thus, things can happen for no reason), chaos should be expected everywhere; things happening with no cause anywhere (what could stop them, after all?). If that was the case, life couldn't exist.

It depends on what you mean by 'causality cannot be partial.' and your mistaken assumption that you can logically conclude that 'chaos should be expected everywhere; things happening with no cause anywhere (what could stop them, after all?). If that was the case, life couldn't exist.' Such assumptions are not logical form a less biased objective perspective. This type of argument is often used in circular logic that if God did not exist as the primal cause (complete causality), than nothing would exist as it exists. In reality our physical existence exists as it is, and any assumptions of necessity ('has to be') represent a priori assumption that the Theist view God is necessary for our physical existence to be as it is.

Some people seem to try to solve this by just hoping that the violations of causality just happen to happen in all the convenient places and none of the deadly places, but this is hopelessly illogical and amounts to blind faith.

You need to define 'unbroken causality' and what would be 'violations in causality.' Objectively from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism that here is not any 'violations of causality' nor 'broken causality' from the simple objective perspective of the nature of our physical existence as it is observed.

And really I think that it's not just that there would be total chaos, but that there really wouldn't be anything at all.

[robrecht]

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.

Here you say that creatio ex deo offers the best explanation and is the correct view. Can you be more specific about why you think science (in harmony with religion) is supportive of this view? Are you speaking here merely of the limited 'creation' of our universe within a multiverse? Is that the science part of the harmony you are referring to? Or are you also speaking of science being supportive of the idea of the creation of the multiverse or all of the multiverses (if you believe in multiple multiverses)?

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.

You do have a choice. It very well may be that I am not understanding your view correctly, but that is precisely why I am asking you questions. If you do not answer my questions, your views will remain confusing, ambiguous, and possibly confused.

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

I offered to provide you with references if you need them. What specific references would you like?

The problem is that it is not a question of 'one hand or the other,' and NOT two different positions as I have described.

Which is why I proposed one way of uniting the two statements, along with questions trying to clarify your view, several of which you have chosen to ignore or avoid.

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.

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

All of those mentioned above are in did [indeed?] 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.

Yes.

Yes.

This is fine, but not really answering what I am trying to get at.

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'[, I?] most definitely favor some version of ex deo or ex materia where some sort of eternal existence. [?]

Is something missing from the end of this sentence? I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi, but there are times when your grammar and syntax are so bad that I cannot tell what you are trying to say. Did you mean to say something like you most definitely favor some version of ex deo or ex materia where some sort of eternal existence exists alongside God?

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

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

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, let me know what specific references you need.

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.

Your sentence ends with a comma, and then you include a sentence of mine (yellow highlight) as if it were part of your post. Sometimes you repeat other peoples' text back to them as a way of stonewalling, but I suspect here it is just your failure to use quotation tags correctly, which occurs much more frequently in your posts. I really wish you would learn to use the quote function correctly as this sometimes causes you to effectively ignore important points or questions of others. In response to your sentence ending with a comma, I am happy to provide any specific reference you need. I will not provide you with specific references for all of 'the variously views of creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo in the history of philosophy. You should do some of your own research. Let me know if you need a specific reference.

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, if I understand you correctly, you really did mean to say that creatio ex Deo entails an eternal existence of creation alongside God. Is this view original to you or, to your knowledge, has anyone else previously proposed this interpretation of creation ex Deo?

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:
No, it is not important.

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.

I have given my view. With respect to your view, I have been reading some of your other posts to others trying to understand what you are saying.

For example, I've excerpted parts of your response to logician bones to focus just on the the Latin formulas we have been discussing:

... I believe in ex deo or ex materia. ...

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. ...

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). ...

All three are possible. You believe in creatio ex deo or creatio ex materia and an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo. When you say you believe in creatio ex deo or creatio ex materia, do you mean that you believe in one or the other but you're not sure which one? Or do you mean that you believe in some specific kind of combination of the two? Or something else perhaps? And what do you mean by an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo? How would an "ex deo"-like sense of [i]creatio ex nihilo[/] that be different from an non-"ex deo"-like sense of "creatio ex nihilo?

[robrecht]

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

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.

You may not remember your statement, but you failed to respond to this part of my post and left it out completely when quoting me. This is also something that you do frequently. I have quoted this statement of yours twice. In addition, what you call a garbled sentence is not a sentence at all but a sentence fragment that you removed from a complete sentence, which was only part of a larger unit, which you have further obscured by removing the punctuation with a colon, indicating that it goes with the following, which provides yet again the statement of yours that you are now denying having said. Here is your statement again:

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."

If you would like to clarify further what you mean by this, I would appreciate it.

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.

Thank you for clarifying this earlier response of yours.

[shunyadragon]

First, your yellow highlighting is not easily visible.

Here you say that creatio ex deo offers the best explanation and is the correct view. Can you be more specific about why you think science (in harmony with religion) is supportive of this view? Are you speaking here merely of the limited 'creation' of our universe within a multiverse? Is that the science part of the harmony you are referring to? Or are you also speaking of science being supportive of the idea of the creation of the multiverse or all of the multiverses (if you believe in multiple multiverses)?

I will clarify here that I do not believe in one specific defined nature of pre-existence with God that our universe and all possible universes are created from by natural processes. I believe that some version of ex deo or ex materia is the best choice for the relationship of God to Creation. Your use of 'limited' is a confusing word here. I believe that God Created our universe by natural processes out of what is described by scientist as the eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos.

The scientific view of an eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos of multiverses is most in harmony with a God Creating universes out of pre-existence that is eternal and timeless as God is eternal and timeless. There is also the possibility of not only multiple universes, but also multiple multiverses beyond limit.

I believe the best understanding of scripture including the Bible, Vedic, Taoist, Buddhist, Islamic, and Baha'i is that some sort of eternal and timeless pre-existence reflecting the attributes of God is the best scenario based on our present knowledge.

As far as Creation, Natural Laws and natural processes reflecting the attributes of God I made it clear that God's attributes are limitless, and not specific limiting based on the attributes of our universe. According to our present knowledge of our physical existence, other universes and possibly multiverses may well have different Laws of Nature, which in turn would reflect the attributes of God. The attributes of God are in the intent and nature of all of Creation including love, compassion, life and the nature of humanity itself and are limitless beyond human comprehension.

You do have a choice. It very well may be that I am not understanding your view correctly, but that is precisely why I am asking you questions. If you do not answer my questions, your views will remain confusing, ambiguous, and possibly confused.

My view is clear and specific as described, and repeated above.

I offered to provide you with references if you need them. What specific references would you like?

I do not believe you offered, and none have been forthcoming.

You said

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.

"Well known holding such views?" Who what did they say? References please.

You made very general third party statements concerning the philosophy and theological views, which to me are meaningless. Any citations of philosphers and theologians that support your vague general statements would be meaningful.

Which is why I proposed one way of uniting the two statements, along with questions trying to clarify your view, several of which you have chosen to ignore or avoid.

I have not ignored nor avoided any of your questions and answered everything to the best of my ability. Your own vagueness at times cannot be specifically answered.

Did you mean to say something like you most definitely favor some version of ex deo or ex materia where some sort of eternal existence exists alongside God?

As described specifically before and above the questions have been answered.

In response to the above; Yes I believe in some version of ex deo or ex materia something like the eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos exists as a reflection of the limitless attributes of God.

Again, let me know what specific references you need.

Again anything would be better than the nothing you have provided so far.

Your sentence ends with a comma, and then you include a sentence of mine (yellow highlight) as if it were part of your post. Sometimes you repeat other peoples' text back to them as a way of stonewalling, but I suspect here it is just your failure to use quotation tags correctly, which occurs much more frequently in your posts. I really wish you would learn to use the quote function correctly as this sometimes causes you to effectively ignore important points or questions of others. In response to your sentence ending with a comma, I am happy to provide any specific reference you need. I will not provide you with specific references for all of 'the variously views of creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo in the history of philosophy. You should do some of your own research. Let me know if you need a specific reference.

So, if I understand you correctly, you really did mean to say that creatio ex Deo entails an eternal existence of creation alongside God. Is this view original to you or, to your knowledge, has anyone else previously proposed this interpretation of creation ex Deo?

In response to the highlighted: the Baha'i writings describe this mode of Creation. I previously cited a Bible quote that supports the pre-existence of unformed matter from which our universe 'formed matter and energy originated.

Wisdom 11:17 For not without means was your almighty hand, that had fashioned the universe from formless matter.

For example, I've excerpted parts of your response to logician bones to focus just on the the Latin formulas we have been discussing:

... I believe in ex deo or ex materia. ...

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. ...

There are adequate explanations from the Theistic, and Atheist/Agnostic perspective for the eternal nature of our existence only governed 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.

Yes this is my view.

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). ...

Are you saying this is the necessary conclusion if "ex deo" is true? This looks a little like 'logician bones' view, not mine. Possibly an error in citation.

That is an awkward limited Newtonian description of what is possible.

All three are possible. You believe in creatio ex deo or creatio ex materia and an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo. When you say you believe in creatio ex deo or creatio ex materia, do you mean that you believe in one or the other but you're not sure which one? Or do you mean that you believe in some specific kind of combination of the two? Or something else perhaps? And what do you mean by an "ex deo"-like sense of "ex nihilo? How would an "ex deo"-like sense of [i]creatio ex nihilo[/] that be different from an non-"ex deo"-like sense of "creatio ex nihilo?

As clarified above 'not one nor the other.' I believe that some version of ex deo or ex materia that describes an eternal timeless preexistence as a reflection of the attributes of God is the best choice. There is no problem with the view that God is transcendent and omnipotent and an eternal timeless pre-existence does not limited as to God's nature.

The problem with the concept of 'out of nothing' with no consideration of an existence beyond our universe is that it totally fails to have any relevance as to what we now of our physical existence, and philosophically the possible definitions of what is 'nothingness' is awkward at best.

I consider references to 'nothingness' in scripture, philosophy, and theology as best described as unformed pre-existence such as the eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos.

[JimL]

Yes and yes. This is the basic belief of most Theists, no problem. If God exists that is fundamentally what Theists believe, not only me. My posts have been very clear on this.

So basically you believe that either eternal existence itself is endowed with an infinite mind which is its efficient cause, or that there are 2 eternal existences, the one being the efficient cause of the other. If I'm reading you correctly, is this belief of yours simply due to the fact that you don't believe that the laws that power existence can be mindless and natural?

No, that was very specific and clear in my posts.

No, although it may be clear to you, it really isn't made that clear in your posts.

No, and that was answered very specifically and clearly in my previous posts.

Not that I hold it against you, but your posts are not always understandable to others shunya.

No problem. Your view is consistently trying to define how God must be, and how God must not be, and you actually do not believe in God in any form. Appearance of 'How God must be' or else, is a contradiction of your belief system. You have an archaic narrow egocentric ancient world view of what 'Creation' should be, ie ex nihilo, but fortunately God need not comply with your narrow atheistic logic of how things must be.

Well, that is true, of course, but logic is logic no matter the users worldview. There is no such thing as atheistic logic. The disbelief in creation ex nihilo is not atheistic logic, it is reason based, based on philosophical observational analysis not atheistic logic. What is the belief in creation ex nihilo based on?

There are obvious contradiction in the Quantum nature of our physical existence that cannot be explained by contemporary science due to the limits of human comprehension. Scientists are indeed confused by these contradiction, but nonetheless still believe in science.

As well they should. There are of course things that science has not come to grasp with, but there is nothing that suggests that something can come from nothing. There is also nothing that suggests that the immaterial can effect the material.

I do not say that. Your confused by your own archaic narrow definitions of how God must be, how Creation must be, and in actuality you do not believe in any form of God(s). God cannot be narrowly defined nor undefined by the egocentric view of 'words.'

You said that the material existence is very real, and that it is a reflection of god, aka the reflection of immaterial existence. Perhaps what you meant is that material existence is very real, but that the form it takes is a reflection of god. That would be creation ex materia. Is that what you meant?

Your byline should read atheist.

Perhaps it should. I've yet to see a clear and reasonable argument for belief in a creator.

Again . . .

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.

You mean to say that is your belief. But why should one believe that the attributes observed of the natural world don't belong solely to the natural world?

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.[/B]

The above sentence is why people sometimes find you confusing. I know you mean to convey something of your thought there, but I can't for the life of me figure out exactly what you mean.

[shunyadragon]

So basically you believe that either eternal existence itself is endowed with an infinite mind which is its efficient cause, or that there are 2 eternal existences, the one being the efficient cause of the other. If I'm reading you correctly, is this belief of yours simply due to the fact that you don't believe that the laws that power existence can be mindless and natural?

Nothing above is remotely what I described as what my belief is. You definitely have some serious communication problems.

No, existence itself is not endowed with an infinite mind. Physical existence itself is a reflection of the attributes of God. Natural Laws are attributes of God, as are Love and compassion. Yes, God is the efficient eternal cause.

No, I did not say that our physical existence and Natural Law cannot logically exist without God. On the contrary, I said it is logically possible.

Your only reading me correctly when you cite me correctly.

My belief again: I believe God is a transcendent omnipotent Source of everything. Our eternal timeless physical existence (eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos) is a reflection of God's attributes. The analogy is the shadow of an object, as long as the object exists the shadow exists. Cause in this case is the nature of God, and this is the existence of the timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos or something equivalent from which created universes originate, and eventually fade into cold death.

No, although it may be clear to you, it really isn't made that clear in your posts.

. . . because you you are single mindedly persisting in defining how a God must exist or not exist in contradiction to the fact that you do not believe any form of God exists. and ignoring and rewriting my view in a form that is comfortable to you.

Well, that is true, of course, but logic is logic no matter the users worldview. There is no such thing as atheistic logic. The disbelief in creation ex nihilo is not atheistic logic, it is reason based, based on philosophical observational analysis not atheistic logic. What is the belief in creation ex nihilo based on?

This does not remotely make sense. Yes, logic is logic no matter the users worldview. I never said there was anything such as specifically atheistic logic. I never said creation ex nihilo was atheistic logic. No creation exnihilo is NOT based on observational analysis. Creation ex nihilo is based on subjective assumptions of ancient religious beliefs on how believers think how Creation must be based on their religious worldview.

Your communication skills remain bizzaro/

As well they should. There are of course things that science has not come to grasp with, but there is nothing that suggests that something can come from nothing. There is also nothing that suggests that the immaterial can effect the material.

I do not believe something came from nothing. This is a belief in creatio ex nihilo.

The highlighted above, of course, reflects your atheist world view, not mine. You apparently do not believe the immaterial exists. This would be a specific absolute statement that reflects your atheist worldview.

You said that the material existence is very real, and that it is a reflection of god, aka the reflection of immaterial existence.

Yes.

Perhaps what you meant is that material existence is very real, but that the form it takes is a reflection of [the attributes of God] god. That would be creation ex materia. Is that what you meant?

That is possible scenario.

Perhaps it should. I've yet to see a clear and reasonable argument for belief in a creator.

That better reflects your statements as an atheist. You would have to believe that it is possible the immaterial exists before you would be considered agnostic.

You mean to say that is your belief.

Yes, of course it is.

But why should one believe that the attributes observed of the natural world don't belong solely to the natural world?

That is a logical and reasonable alternative to believe in Ontological Naturalism, which you apparently believe. That, at present is not what I believe.

[robrecht]

Frank, because of what you revealed yesterday about your condition, I think it is best to respond to one or two points at a time:

First, your yellow highlighting is not easily visible.

The yellow text was not meant to be visible because it is text of mine that you mistakenly placed within your own post because of problems you're having with the quote tags.

I will clarify here that I do not believe in one specific defined nature of pre-existence with God that our universe and all possible universes are created from by natural processes. I believe that some version of ex deo or ex materia is the best choice for the relationship of God to Creation. Your use of 'limited' is a confusing word here. I believe that God Created our universe by natural processes out of what is described by scientist as the eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos.

The scientific view of an eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos of multiverses is most in harmony with a God Creating universes out of pre-existence that is eternal and timeless as God is eternal and timeless. There is also the possibility of not only multiple universes, but also multiple multiverses beyond limit.

I believe the best understanding of scripture including the Bible, Vedic, Taoist, Buddhist, Islamic, and Baha'i is that some sort of eternal and timeless pre-existence reflecting the attributes of God is the best scenario based on our present knowledge.

As far as Creation, Natural Laws and natural processes reflecting the attributes of God I made it clear that God's attributes are limitless, and not specific limiting based on the attributes of our universe. According to our present knowledge of our physical existence, other universes and possibly multiverses may well have different Laws of Nature, which in turn would reflect the attributes of God. The attributes of God are in the intent and nature of all of Creation including love, compassion, life and the nature of humanity itself and are limitless beyond human comprehension.

I used the word "limited" when referring to 'this particular universe' as opposed to all other possible universes or the larger multiverse(s). Thus my question was whether your views regarding creatio ex Deo refer only to this universe or all other universes in the sense of the entirety of the multiverse or multiverses. Most specifically, I was particularly interested in how you see science (in harmony with religion) as supportive of your preference for creation ex Deo as the best explanation--do you see science merely as supportive of creatio ex Deo of this particular universe or do you also see science as supportive of creatio ex Deo of the entirety of the multiverse or multiverses?

My view is that science cannot be supportive of any view of creatio ex Deo. I can see why you might see some models of theoretical physics as supportive of creatio ex materia of this particular universe, but not creatio ex Deo of this particular universe or the entirety of all creation. Do your views of creatio ex Deo only apply to your religious or theological views, irrespective of scientific findings or theoretical models?

With respect to purely religious or theological views, do you believe that the creatio ex Deo and your view of matter as an attribute of God equates to some sense in which the eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos of multiverses is itself God? If not, why are you referring to this as creatio ex Deo?

[shunyadragon]

Frank, because of what you revealed yesterday about your condition, I think it is best to respond to one or two points at a time:

The yellow text was not meant to be visible because it is text of mine that you mistakenly placed within your own post because of problems you're having with the quote tags.

If I cannot read it why bother. This is ridiculous.

I used the word "limited" when referring to 'this particular universe' as opposed to all other possible universes or the larger multiverse(s). Thus my question was whether your views regarding creatio ex Deo refer only to this universe or all other universes in the sense of the entirety of the multiverse or multiverses.

Your use of limited in the previous text was not clear in this perspective. You also previously used it in terms of 'limitations' or God may be 'limited' by a pre-existing eternal timeless existence.

I believe I have been very clear. Creation and the attributes of God are not limited to 'our universe,' but apply to ALL possible universes, and possible multiverses. The concept of ex deo may apply to a degree, because our physical existence may be described as the attributes of God 'out of the being' of God, but ex materia would describe these attributes of God are eternal and timeless with God.

Most specifically, I was particularly interested in how you see science (in harmony with religion) as supportive of your preference for creation ex Deo as the best explanation--do you see science merely as supportive of creatio ex Deo of this particular universe or do you also see science as supportive of creatio ex Deo of the entirety of the multiverse or multiverses?

Probably ex materia better explains my view of the support of science works better here, but aspects of both may apply to the nature of Creation. The present scientific knowledge of the timeless eternal Quantum zero-point energy cosmos that underlies all of our physical existence is the primary support for the belief of creatio ex materia. By role of creatio ex deo be the nature of the eternal timeless cosmos resulting from the attributes of God emanating from 'out of the being' of God.

My view is that science cannot be supportive of any view of creatio ex Deo.

Your probably correct here

I can see why you might see some models of theoretical physics as supportive of creatio ex materia of this particular universe, . . .

This is my primary scientific support for creatio ex materia aspects of Creation, and not creatio ex nihilo

. . . but not creatio ex Deo of this particular universe or the entirety of all creation.

Do your views of creatio ex Deo only apply to your religious or theological views, irrespective of scientific findings or theoretical models?

The aspects of Creation possibly be described as creatio ex deo would be philosophical and theological views concerning the limitless attributes of God that eminate out of the being of God

With respect to purely religious or theological views, do you believe that the creatio ex Deo and your view of matter as an attribute of God equates to some sense in which the eternal timeless Quantum zero-point cosmos of multiverses is itself God? If not, why are you referring to this as creatio ex Deo?

I probably was not clear, and I hope this post clarifies that. Explained above.

[robrecht]

If I cannot read it why bother. This is ridiculous.

I did it to illustrate for you how confused your posts become when you do not use the quote tags correctly. It's a jumble of your text and the text of others and one can get confused as to whether or not a statement is yours or that of someone else.

Your use of limited in the previous text was not clear in this perspective. You also previously used it in terms of 'limitations' or God may be 'limited' by a pre-existing eternal timeless existence.

I believe I have been very clear. Creation and the attributes of God are not limited to 'our universe,' but apply to ALL possible universes, and possible multiverses. The concept of ex deo may apply to a degree, because our physical existence may be described as the attributes of God 'out of the being' of God, but ex materia would describe these attributes of God are eternal and timeless with God.

Probably ex materia better explains my view of the support of science works better here, but aspects of both may apply to the nature of Creation. The present scientific knowledge of the timeless eternal Quantum zero-point energy cosmos that underlies all of our physical existence is the primary support for the belief of creatio ex materia. By role of creatio ex deo be the nature of the eternal timeless cosmos resulting from the attributes of God emanating from 'out of the being' of God.

Your probably correct here

This is my primary scientific support for creatio ex materia aspects of Creation, and not creatio ex nihilo

The aspects of Creation possibly be described as creatio ex deo would be philosophical and theological views concerning the limitless attributes of God that eminate out of the being of God

I probably was not clear, and I hope this post clarifies that. Explained above.

Yes, this clarifies quite a bit. Not only clarifying how you see creatio ex Deo as philosophical and theological language that is not supported by science, but also your additional explanation of your understanding of creatio ex deo as the "eternal timeless cosmos resulting from the attributes of God emanating from 'out of the being' of God." You may have used this language previously, but I do not recall your use of emanation terminology in any of our previous conversations. This seems to place your views more in line within Neo-Platonism, except for the idea that matter is an attribute of God.

I understand that you do not think that God is material in the sense in which we know of matter in our particular universe, but when you say that matter is an attribute of God, are you only speaking of it being an attribute of an emanation or are you saying it is an attribute of the very being of God from which emanates the eternal timeless cosmos of quantum zero-point energy?

[shunyadragon]

I did it to illustrate for you how confused your posts become when you do not use the quote tags correctly. It's a jumble of your text and the text of others and one can get confused as to whether or not a statement is yours or that of someone else.

Such motivation is ridiculous.

Yes, this clarifies quite a bit. Not only clarifying how you see creatio ex Deo as philosophical and theological language that is not supported by science, but also your additional explanation of your understanding of creatio ex deo as the "eternal timeless cosmos resulting from the attributes of God emanating from 'out of the being' of God." You may have used this language previously, but I do not recall your use of emanation terminology in any of our previous conversations. This seems to place your views more in line within Neo-Platonism, except for the idea that matter is an attribute of God.

Well, since I believe all creation represents attributes of God. When God Creates the universe, matter, energy, time, space and motion represent attributes of God, yes matter may be considered an attribute of God, but not God.

I understand that you do not think that God is material in the sense in which we know of matter in our particular universe, but when you say that matter is an attribute of God, are you only speaking of it being an attribute of an emanation or are you saying it is an attribute of the very being of God from which emanates the eternal timeless cosmos of quantum zero-point energy?

God's attributes are limitless, and emanate from the 'being of God' as reflected in our physical existence, and not that God is physical as the nature of our existence. Not any one of these attributes represents the reality of God, only his attributes.

Example: Humans are Created in God's image, but that does not translate that God is human. Humans are Created as reflecting God's attributes.

This is also reflected in the apophatic view of God in that we can perceive and comprehend the attributes of God through Revelation, but not the ultimate nature of God.

The analogy I often use reflect this relationship. Creation reflects the attributes of God the way the shadow or the mirror image reflects the attributes of the object. The shadow and mirror image exists as long as the object exists, and there are no physical attributes of the object in the image.

[robrecht]

Such motivation is ridiculous.

If it gets you to be more careful about your use of the quote tags, it will go a great way toward making your posts more coherent and should help you to not ignore the points and questions of others. I don't think that is ridiculous.

Well, since I believe all creation represents attributes of God. When God Creates the universe, matter, energy, time, space and motion represent attributes of God, yes matter may be considered an attribute of God, but not God.

God's attributes are limitless, and emanate from the 'being of God' as reflected in our physical existence, and not that God is physical as the nature of our existence. Not any one of these attributes represents the reality of God, only his attributes.

Example: Humans are Created in God's image, but that does not translate that God is human. Humans are Created as reflecting God's attributes.

This is also reflected in the apophatic view of God in that we can perceive and comprehend the attributes of God through Revelation, but not the ultimate nature of God.

In the Christian tradition, apophatic theology applies also to the attributes of God and not only to his ultimate nature. Thus it seems to me you are describing attributes of God's creation and not attributes of God, though we certainly believe that creation reflects the glory of God. Is that a specific view of Baha'i revelation/theology, ie, that humans can comprehend the attributes of God through revelation moreso than what is thought in terms of the Christian apophatic tradition?