Originally posted by One Bad Pig
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is Creation ex nihilo
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by robrecht; 01-25-2016, 10:47 PM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostActually 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.
My argument for what and why I believe is in a separate thread in Comparative religions.Last edited by JimL; 01-26-2016, 06:10 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI 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.
Not at all. I just finished my presentation for tomorrow morning so I'm in a very good mood.Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2016, 07:06 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThis 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.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostSo? Are you presuming that ancient myths like the Enuma Elish epic were not scripture of some sort?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYou 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhich is what I have done and you criticized it as being nothing more than an egotistical atheistic 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."
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.Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2016, 11:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View Post
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).
Originally posted by logician bones View PostWe'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.
It does not make sense if God is creating "ex nihilo" and can create any kind of reality that God is capable of imagining.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostAgain, 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 -- ...
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.
Originally posted by logician bones View Post...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).
Originally posted by logician bones View PostSo... 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.
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
Originally posted by logician bones View PostRight, 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".
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.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostAnd 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.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostEverything. 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.
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.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostHere again you seem to be clearly saying "object in a whole = the whole." This is a basic fallacy, and isn't even coherent.
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.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostIt'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.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostOnly the cards that are logically possible to hold, and he has to play them by the rules of logic. ;)
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,
Originally posted by logician bones View Post"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)."
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.
Originally posted by logician bones View PostHe has total knowledge of all that will happen, and all that could happen, and chooses what will happen because it's best....
Originally posted by logician bones View Post.... 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.
7up wrote: "Why would God punish me for being who/what God created me to be?"
Originally posted by logician bones View PostWhat 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.
Originally posted by logician bones View Post....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?)
Originally posted by logician bones View PostWhat 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.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI 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.
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.
-7upLast edited by seven7up; 01-27-2016, 01:27 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not believe I said anything like that.
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]אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostI 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.
-7upאָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not believe I said anything like that.
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.
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.Last edited by JimL; 01-27-2016, 01:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostYou 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.The "Uncreated Creator" is thoroughly Jewish.
God created everything:
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.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Sparko, 06-25-2024, 03:03 PM
|
37 responses
190 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-20-2024, 10:04 AM
|
27 responses
147 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
06-27-2024, 01:35 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 06-18-2024, 08:18 AM
|
82 responses
483 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
||
Started by whag, 06-15-2024, 09:43 AM
|
156 responses
647 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
06-29-2024, 06:38 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
468 responses
2,143 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
|
Comment