Is Creation ex nihilo

[robrecht]

Got it.

While we're striving for precision, that would be "the scriptures of normative rabbinic Judaism," as other Jewish groups in the first century had different canons - 1 Enoch was found in Greek at Qumran, after all. (Yes, I'm reading vanderkam's "The Meaning of The Dead Sea Scrolls" - why do you ask?)

I just meant the current Jewish scriptures, which were indeed defined within rabbinic Judaism, but I too am very much interested in the other writings of 2nd Temple Judaism, which was significantly influenced by Roman-Greco ideas and social factors. The Qumran library is very interesting. A friend of mine was one of the proofreaders of one of VanderKam's books. Don't remember if it was that one or not.

[JimL]

Actually this thread does not deal with whether God exists or not. It deals with the problem of whether creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia or creation ex deo best describe the relationship between God and Creation.

I do not believe that my acknowledgement of the possibility of an alternate view, Ontological Naturalism, as possibly a logical alternative is not the basis for claiming my view is not logic. I have always questioned logical arguments for and against God, because they virtually all require assumptions that make them circular.

Well then this discussion doesn't belong in apologetics since one need be a believer in god in the first place in order to discuss it. Logic only holds in this discussion if, and only if, you first accept creation as a premise in the first place.

My argument for what and why I believe is in a separate thread in Comparative religions.

And so to then should this topic be in another thread.

[shunyadragon]

I think profundity and ambiguity are oftentimes more evocative of the mystery of God than philosophical or scientific exactitude. Not that there's anything wrong with philosophical or scientific exactitude, but God is sometimes quite a bit larger than our ability to define exactly.

This is closer to the Baha'i view than many traditional religions and churches. Ah . . . scientific exactitude is a bit of over statement. Science is often more flexible and open to change than traditional churches.

Not at all. I just finished my presentation for tomorrow morning so I'm in a very good mood.

Than do not beat a dead horse with sarcasm that are not issues, and clarified in previous posts.

[shunyadragon]

Well then this discussion doesn't belong in apologetics since one need be a believer in god in the first place in order to discuss it. Logic only holds in this discussion if, and only if, you first accept creation as a premise in the first place.

And so to then should this topic be in another thread.

You may be correct, but atheist/ agnostics may present arguments in this thread against creatio ex nihilo based on the present scientific knowledge as is commonly done in the philosophy and science dialogue without necessarily arguing against the existence of God. Craig argued against the scientific view of the eternal timeless nature of the greater cosmos, and called it an atheist belief.

[robrecht]

This is closer to the Baha'i view than many traditional religions and churches. Ah . . . scientific exactitude is a bit of over statement. Science is often more flexible and open to change than traditional churches.

Than do not beat a dead horse with sarcasm that are not issues, and clarified in previous posts.

By exactitude, I do not mean anything resembling an inability to change and evolve. Sarcasm? Perhaps a little humor. Certainly nothing resembling disrespect. I am much more respectful of you and your Baha'i faith than you are of me and Christian theological traditions.

[shunyadragon]

So? Are you presuming that ancient myths like the Enuma Elish epic were not scripture of some sort?

I consider ancient works like this and Gilgamesh, Canaanite texts, and the Bible to be set in history, possibly contain, or as in later works such as the Bible contain scripture, and contain the human view of Revelation as the evolving spiritual nature of humanity in terms of the progressive emanations of Revelation. Actually going back ~60.000 years we can see this progressive Revelation in Neolithic cultures like the aboriginal people of Australia.

Progressive emanations of Revelation may confirm, correct and reveal new knowledge. In the case of creatio ex materia, and creatio ex deo, there is confirmation, and in context correction of previous views. The Revealed view allows flexibility and confirmation in the principle of the Harmony of Science and Religion in the progressive revelation of scientific knowledge through the objective methods of science.

[JimL]

You may be correct, but atheist/ agnostics may present arguments in this thread against creatio ex nihilo based on the present scientific knowledge as is commonly done in the philosophy and science dialogue without necessarily arguing against the existence of God. Craig argued against the scientific view of the eternal timeless nature of the greater cosmos, and called it an atheist belief.

Which is what I have done and you criticised it as being nothing more than an egotistical athiestic perspective, or something to that effect. Personally I don't see how timelessness makes any sense whatsoever. How would one even define eternal without associating it with time. You actually believe time to be eternal yourself since your definition of creation and time is that of a reflection of the eternal attributes of God. "As long as the object exists, the shadow exists."

[shunyadragon]

Which is what I have done and you criticized it as being nothing more than an egotistical atheistic perspective, or something to that effect.

I do not believe I said anything like that.

Personally I don't see how timelessness makes any sense whatsoever. How would one even define eternal without associating it with time.

I believe science does just that, it describes a timeless eternal nature of the Quantum zero-point energy cosmos existing beyond and through our universe.

You actually believe time to be eternal yourself since your definition of creation and time is that of a reflection of the eternal attributes of God. "As long as the object exists, the shadow exists."

Time, by definition is necessarily being dependent on a time/space scenario of our universe, and any possible universe, would conclude that the greater cosmos is eternally timeless, because the time/space scenario would not exist outside our universe, ie before the 'big bang.'

If God exists, and God creates in harmony with science, God must Create in the scenario that science has determined the origin of our universe. It is from an existence which is timeless and eternal like the greater the Quantum zero-point energy cosmos.

[seven7up]

Strawman. Never said that, 7. In fact I said there is infinite possible variety -- and there's no reason I know of that only one substance (of the construct sense) has to exist outside of linear time. We have multiple substances in it. In the past I've suggested infinite "substances" within God's nature (but only one "base" substance... probably).

Just remember, that the "God of the creeds" is a single divine spirit substance. So, if you believe in something other than classical theism, as described by the main Christian creeds, then all you have to do is say how your view differs from that.

We've been over this. Because of logical necessity, he had to let us sin, and withdraw protective power (and usually not directly intervene), for a time, so we would experience what such a world is like. God doesn't arbitrarily decide that it would be this way. I think it's one of the things like math that is how things have to be.

That makes perfect sense, IF something outside of God has always existed "like math" and like substances / entities that require experience in order to learn from it.

It does not make sense if God is creating "ex nihilo" and can create any kind of reality that God is capable of imagining.

Again, it seems to me that this term originally meant that we don't mindlessly obey direct commands like a robot. You seem to be taking it in the "you randomly choose something for no reason at all" sense, which I reject. If not, then you don't have freewill either -- ...

I approached the issue both ways, and the quote from Mark Hausam that I provided also addresses it. IF our actions Do Not have anything to do with our characteristics (who and what we are), then you are right, that it would be like random acts rather than free will.

Yet if God created us Ex Nihilo, then God ultimately is responsible for our characteristics and our nature (ie God is responsible for creating every aspect of our being from God's own mind) and thus God determines the choices that we would make.

...you just put the reasons in some other source and say (apparently) that this source has no causal relationship to God at all (which makes no sense).

It makes perfect sense. Just as God has always existed, and God has free will, each of us (as individuals) have also existed forever, and we also have free will.

So... you would suggest that a CLOSED mind is the way to go??
Have you actually studied this issue? The reason it's unclear is that I have not yet seen total sound support for the claim that none are annihilated. I strongly suspect none are, as that seems to be the simplest explanation, but absolute proof? If there is, I haven't yet found it.

You can claim to believe in annihilation if you want, but I doubt that you can claim to be a "Bible believing Christian" at the same time. You are going to have to twist your way out of many, many scriptures. You can feel free to do so here if you want.

7up wrote: God could create beings that have all of the attributes that you imagine people who will be in heaven to have, without having to go through any work or process in order to get to that point

Right, and that last part is where biblical theism departs from you -- God isn't into avoiding work and process just because he CAN. He's holy and knows what's right all things considered, as I've said many times. It still sounds like you're not engaging with this and are stuck back on "omnipotent, so COULD do things the easy way".

No, it isn't just about the "easy way". It is about UNNECESSARY suffering. It is about UNNECESSARY damnation.

7up wrote: God can do anything that is possible to do. God knows everything that is possible to know. That is omnipotence and omniscience. You believe that God brings beings into existence, from nothing or from God's own mind or whatever, and I believe that God either does not or cannot.

Which, again, is circular reasoning, like me saying I'm omnipotent even though I can't lift a mountain, because it's impossible for my muscles to do that. This is NOT a useful definition of omnipotence! It is in fact NOT omnipotence, since it could apply to everything.

Nonsense. Even previous in your post, you said it is "like Math". God can't just make 2+2 = 7. There are simply things that God cannot do, like lie and at the same time not be a liar. Just add creatio ex nihilo to that list of things God cannot do. Problem solved.

And again, it's that God brings matter and energy into existence from substance causally rooted in him. You didn't list this in your options there! You did say "or whatever" but you're still framing it in your bizarre and unsupported terms as if it's either from "nothing" (literally, apparently), or "from his mind". But mind is immaterial, so is not the same subject as where the material comes from, which is what ex materia, ex nihilo, ex deo normally refer to.

I didn't frame it that way, the classic theists framed it that way. If you want to argue from the position of Ex Nihilo or Ex Deo, you have the same problem: God is the cause of evil and suffering.

Everything. It's all causally connected, so everything that exists plays some role (most extremely small) in who I am, and so forth. And this includes things outside of me, that aren't me.

Yes, but in your Ex Nihilo (or Ex Deo) framework, everything about you was created/caused by God, your environment was also created/caused by God. Everything you do is caused by God. Get it?

7up wrote: If the Universe perfectly reflects what existed within God's mind before God created it, and the created Universe is exactly what God imagined it to be, then the creation is simply an outward manifestation of God's mind.

Here again you seem to be clearly saying "object in a whole = the whole." This is a basic fallacy, and isn't even coherent.

No. I am saying that :

ALL of reality = God + Creation

God = spirit / personalitie(s) / characteristics / thoughts / ideas / etc.

Creation = everthying that God imagined in God's mind that God wanted to make into reality

Which is why I called it a kind of PanEntheism.

It's a manifestation, yes, and a manifestation of ideas that God deduced, but does not wholly or perfectly portray God's nature in and of itself, in part because the form of the manifestation includes what is logically necessary, including things God doesn't want.

So, you are saying that God HAD to bring into reality/creation things which God did NOT WANT to bring into reality/creation? What forced God to create that which God did not want to exist in reality?

Only the cards that are logically possible to hold, and he has to play them by the rules of logic. ;)

We might be getting somewhere. Would you say that,

All of reality = God + creation + "logic" ?

7up: Do you believe that God is an "unchanging, impassable, and/or simple substance"?

Yes. I've explained in part my understanding of most parts of that earlier here. Ask if you still need clarification (I'm guessing so since apparently you still needed to ask even though I've answered this already?).

Oh, yes. You certainly were quite "possibly/probably" clear when you said,

"In fact I said there is infinite possible variety -- and there's no reason I know of that only one substance (of the construct sense) has to exist outside of linear time. We have multiple substances in it. In the past I've suggested infinite "substances" within God's nature (but only one "base" substance... probably)."

... Sorry for questioning your clear and straightforward doctrine on this subject. An "impassable" God who ... cares? Who ... answers our prayers? No further questions sir.

7up wrote: God had everything that has happened and everything that ever will happen already existing within his own mind in a state of existence before time began.

He has total knowledge of all that will happen, and all that could happen, and chooses what will happen because it's best....

Best for whom? For Him/It? For those who are damned?

.... This knowledge is in his mind, outside of linear time. It is not the same thing as the events and physical things when the plans come to fruition.

With creation Ex Nihilo, it is virtually the same. There is the thought that God has, then "poof" the thought becomes created reality.

7up wrote: "Why would God punish me for being who/what God created me to be?"

What is punishment? It is either just consequences or correction. If he creates in the way the Bible describes, then he doesn't sow seed only in the most fertile ground, but throws it out in a normal scatter pattern, so we can understand what happens if he does; we can see the different results as Jesus describes in that parable.

Are you purposefully being obtuse? Let me address the ACTUAL point by using that same parable. A God creating Ex Nihilo doesn't have to create "rocky ground" AND "fertile ground". He can create any kind of reality he wants, including making ALL OF THE GROUND created to be fertile. Get it?

....I know you only brought up NPCs in a different context, but they would be necessary to give you a non-shared fully equivalent experience of illusion. So... why not just make it real for a time?)

Yes, it was a different context, but as a quick answer, for starters, because it means that actual people are going to hell for eternity (unless you and other Christians begin to go unorthodox and argue for annihilation, which it appears you are open to.)

What you post next to try to explain this, apparently, is just a quote of the starting post of your topic, which I already mentioned part of the answer to in here several times -- the problem it doesn't solve of experiential familiarity. This IS a matter of omniscience because God DOES consider this issue, and you showed no consideration of it in that post. And I haven't seen you really deal with it yet after that. The closest you have come it to try to equate it with mere empathy.

It isn't must "mere empathy".

As I explained earlier, Classical theism believes that God has "non-communicable attributes" (such as omnipresence, omnipotence, etc.) as well as "communicable attributes" (love, wisdom, righteousness, charity, etc.)

As I said, a God creating Ex Nihilo could bring into existence beings who already have love, wisdom, intelligence, understanding, etc. You insist that "experiential knowledge" is necessary, but when God is creating any kind of being logically possible, it really is NOT logically necessary.

The evil and suffering is unnecessary, and this has been and will be the bane of classical theism, as long as you all cling to the same assumptions that became the "God of the creeds."

-7up

[seven7up]

I will have to look into your references more, but these germinal views of creatio ex materia views did not catch on in neither Christianity nor Islam. I do not think it is clear that the Neo-Platonic view was creatio ex materia. I think, Gemistus Pletho described it differently in his translations. I have to check. I do believe both views were represented in Neo-Platonic philosophy.

I question your reference to Medieval Judaism and would like a reference. I am personally looking into it. I believe the dominant view remained creatio ex nihilo. '. . .probably dates' from the 2nd century AD without references needs more explanation. Yes, some Jews were likely influenced by Greek philosophers.

I have spent considerable time on this, and you are right that the mid to end of the second century A.D. is when Ex Nihilo became defined. (There is a great quote by Henry Chadwick at 6:48 which describes how Philo and others used their terms concerning this.)

You are right to mention the Greek philosophers, because they were a huge influence on theology at this time. The Greek Philosophical "Prime Mover" is the "unchanging, immutable" substance that essentially became the "Uncreated Creator" in classical theology. In fact, Thomas Aquinas simply used the exact same concepts and arguments given by Greek philosophers, but instead applied it to the Ex Nihilo scenario.


-7up

[seven7up]

By the way, did logician bones ever analyze/respond to this quote I provided?

- mark hausam

[robrecht]

I do not believe I said anything like that.

But you did. You said to JimL (#334): "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 is no need to invest these differing perspectives with such moralistic rhetoric. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose you probably feel that you are just expressing a Baha'i religious perspective, whereby you understand such terms in a nonmoralistic sense, eg, 'egocentric' might be intended as something more like 'anthropocentric' and 'narrow' might mean something like 'having not yet attained the enlightened Baha'i' or scientific cosmological perspective of theoretical physics', or something like that. I always find it more interesting and rewarding to acknowledge the limitations of my own perspective when exploring the views of others. Especially in profound matters like these, differing perspectives can usually enlighten each other, and we can learn from each other. End of sermon.

But, insults aside, it is just not true that creation ex nihilo is more ancient than creatio ex materia. Everything that I've seen here in this thread and elsewhere supports the opposite view, that creatio ex materia was the more ancient and much more common view.[/QUOTE]

[robrecht]

I have spent considerable time on this, and you are right that the mid to end of the second century A.D. is when Ex Nihilo became defined. (There is a great quote by Henry Chadwick at 6:48 which describes how Philo and others used their terms concerning this.)

You are right to mention the Greek philosophers, because they were a huge influence on theology at this time. The Greek Philosophical "Prime Mover" is the "unchanging, immutable" substance that essentially became the "Uncreated Creator" in classical theology. In fact, Thomas Aquinas simply used the exact same concepts and arguments given by Greek philosophers, but instead applied it to the Ex Nihilo scenario.


-7up

Actually, you and Shuny seem to be on opposite sides of this question. Shuny believes creatio ex nihilo is the more ancient view and that creatio ex materia is more recent. In his post #358, he claimed that "creatio ex materia is fairly modern belief. The Baha'i Faith is the first, I believe, to clearly state that creatio ex materia is the relationship between God and Creation." After I reminded him of the more ancient world view as variously expressed, he modified his claim (#369) to: "The Baha'i Faith was the first to establish creatio ex materia in scripture definitively." Note, however, the wiggle words 'clearly' and 'definitively'.

[JimL]

I do not believe I said anything like that.

I believe you did, but no biggie.

I believe science does just that, it describes a timeless eternal nature of the Quantum zero-point energy cosmos existing beyond and through our universe.

No, I don't believe science does that. But if you have a link in which science shows that the cosmos from out of which our universe was born need be defined as timeless, I would appreciate it if you would provide it.

Time, by definition is necessarily being dependent on a time/space scenario of our universe, and any possible universe, would conclude that the greater cosmos is eternally timeless, because the time/space scenario would not exist outside our universe, ie before the 'big bang.'

No, thats an assumption, time itself is not necessarily dependent upon our universe.

If God exists, and God creates in harmony with science, God must Create in the scenario that science has determined the origin of our universe. It is from an existence which is timeless and eternal like the greater the Quantum zero-point energy cosmos.

Well then try explaining what you mean by eternal timelessness without your brain exploding.

[One Bad Pig]

You are right to mention the Greek philosophers, because they were a huge influence on theology at this time.

The Greek philosophers were a huge influence on Christian language of theology. We first find it cropping up in the 2nd century apologists in order to explain Christian theology to the larger culture. None of the philosophical systems were a very good fit, however, so it took a while to do so accurately.

The Greek Philosophical "Prime Mover" is the "unchanging, immutable" substance that essentially became the "Uncreated Creator" in classical theology.

The "Uncreated Creator" is thoroughly Jewish.

God created everything:

Scripture Verse: Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

© Copyright Original Source

There is no other God:

See also Isaiah 45 passim.

In order for God to be created, there would have to be another God, and there isn't.