Is Creation ex nihilo

[shunyadragon]

There's an assumption in there somewhere...

There is an assumption in there both ways.

[seven7up]

Does May discuss the exegesis of specific Old Testament passages in any detail? I am only indirectly familiar with his general view of the philosophical/theological development of the doctrine, which I presume is what seven7up was sketching.

Cow Poke knows nothing about Gerhard's work. He didn't read the forward, he just read what other people quoted rather than investigating himself.

Here is the FULL quote, Ex Nihilo "To be sure, corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation, but as a theory it is not yet present in the Old Testament"

Oops.

Gerhard May goes on to explain what that means.

Don't worry about Cow Poke. He is intellectually "formless and void".

-7up

[seven7up]

Note that Hubler disagrees with May about Basilides. Otherwise, I agree with this summary of the scholarly consensus. When you speak of your own research, are you referring to your own contributions to scholarship or just your reading of these scholars? Personally, I think the most interesting part of this question is the Jewish interpretive tradition.

Well the transition is difficult to nail down and these individuals sometimes didn't seem consistent even with themselves (sometimes views evolve). That is why scholars see the transition between Basilides, Valentinus, and Tatian, and there are likely others who were involved, but we don't have all the information, but instead are trying to sift through extant texts from 2,000 years ago.

-7up

[seven7up]

7up wrote in post 393: Jon Levenson concluded in his Old Testament study, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, that Ex Nihilo was not supported. Many other scholars have come to the same conclusion, like John H. Walton and James Hubler.

This is all besides my point, which is that Walton believes in creatio ex nihilo based on what he believes the (NT) text teaches, despite your claim to the contrary in post #395.

Well, to be fair, my original context when I brought up John H. Walton was concerning the Old Testament.

But since you brought up his New Testament interpretation, I just wanted to go ahead and explain why his New Testament analysis is lacking. He can believe whatever he wants, of course.

-7up

[One Bad Pig]

Cow Poke knows nothing about Gerhard's work. He didn't read the forward, he just read what other people quoted rather than investigating himself.

Here is the FULL quote, Ex Nihilo "To be sure, corresponds factually with the Old Testament proclamation about creation, but as a theory it is not yet present in the Old Testament"

Oops.

Gerhard May goes on to explain what that means.

Don't worry about Cow Poke. He is intellectually "formless and void".

-7up

I'm the one who supplied the quote, not Cow Poke. And contrary to your assertion, I read the forward [sic]. Your earlier post implied that Dr. May did not believe that creatio ex nihilo was factually correct. Unlike you, I don't have reading comprehension problems, and was already aware that Dr. May argued that the theory was not present in the OT. Do try to keep everything straight.

[logician bones]

Hm, missed a lot while I was busy. That'll probably continue, but I'll at least read through. Dunno if I have time for a thorough reply -- I see at least one long post directed at me. We'll see...

Shun:

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

You know, you can't really have "because" in the same sentence as "I'm skeptical of logic." :P

Again, sound logic is ALSO used to ground the observations. For example, "guy sees glowy thing in sky" does not mean we have an observation of alien spacecraft. :P

Sound logic depends on true premises, but these are not assumptions. It's merely valid reasoning whose premises may be mere assumptions. Sound logic builds up only from observation and reliable (valid) reasoning (so is not merely valid or merely observation), to reliable conclusions. You do this every time you make a reasonable "because" statement or thought (not that all such thoughts are reasonable though -- the point is, the study of sound logic lets us understand why the reasonable ones are reasonable and predict true conclusions accurately).

[Edit: Well, premises aren't assumptions in the sense of having no sound or observational grounding -- of course, we do use "assumption" as a jargonistic synonym for premise. But this doesn't mean the same thing as assumption in casual English.]

In reality our physical existence exists as it is, and any assumptions of necessity ('has to be') represent a priori assumption

You could make much the same argument against ANY sound explanation, even though sound explanations reliably predict future observations. It's awfully convenient that it happens to be invoked when it's a conclusion you don't like that you're objecting here.

If the conclusion is wrong, throw out the bathwater (identify bad reasoning leading to it) -- not the baby (logic).

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'

I've already defined them, and I didn't say M.N. is inherently anti-causal. It is atheism and anti-true-infinity theism (like, apparently, 7up's theism) that are anti-absolute-causality. Whether your brand of naturalism is anti-causal depends on whether you think God CANNOT do things more efficiently (impotence), or knows a reason why he SHOULD not. Just like how I say God COULD stop all evil, but chooses not to do so, because of knowledge he has in his omniscience.

So, to argue that in a way consistent with absolute causality, you need to have sound support for a way that derives from his omniscience, not from impotence. Make sense?

(Or you can just hope that somehow causality isn't absolute, but I see no hope there. The most consistent thing you can do if you go that route is to say you aren't logical. :P)






Jim:

Well, this isn't the most relevant thing to quote, but out of curiosity, what did you mean by this?

There is no such thing as atheistic logic.

It sounds like you really meant you are trying not to rely on atheism as an assumed premise. Wouldn't you agree that arguments attempting to be logical that are made by atheists are "atheistic logic" or at least that in normal English that's a fair term to use?

Nitpick, though, so I won't overthink it...

There is also nothing that suggests that the immaterial can effect the material.

Er, of course there is. Immaterial refers primarily to information, or it can refer to "not atomic matter". By either definition, "the material" can be and often is affected by the "immaterial." I strongly prefer the former definition, and brain waves are information-based, and will affect matter, for example. Even by the latter definition, heat will affect matter.

I think by "immaterial" you may have meant "outside this universe" or something like that, perhaps supernature -- and in that sense, again we get the same answer. Here the analogy of a virtual world in a computer is probably the simplest way to explain it -- but instead of virtual objects affected by a material world outside, see the material world as the virtual world, and affected by something even more fundamental that generated it from outside.



Shun:

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.

Agreed... I think I'm going to go light on the "why theism" stuff from now on, after it got so involved (and repeated) earlier. Anybody who wants to know more about my views on that is free to PM me about it. :) (We'll see, though... but let's try to focus it on the issue of the method of creation.)

And you know, Jim, the best answer to "why God?" (or, for my part, why the Bible specifically) is to do the years' worth of research that those who came to accept theism from sound reasoning did, like me. I never read a single argument that made me go "Okay I accept!" -- it took me a long time of careful study and ultimately I found sound support from several routes all agreeing. It's hard to sum that all up as an aside in a topic that isn't even about that... I'm glad you're asking, though. :)



7up:

Well, it looks like again in many places you're just repeating your earlier claims that I've already answered rather than engaging with the answers.

Again, it's not just God as if God himself is able to make random choices -- but God deducing what needs to be done according to deeper rules that even he cannot change, akin to the laws of mathematics (logic). Both logic and causality can be absolute.

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.

Huh? I don't believe in it. But I do admit that I can't absolutely prove it false from the Scriptures, based on what I've studied so far. Learning those Scriptures and the evidence pro/con for how to interpret them doesn't require any twisting at all, 7, because I just want to know what the actual truth is. This is simply the process of finding it. :) I'm just saying I haven't had time to study that issue enough to find sound proof either way. (Or, perhaps there is none, but in my experience usually any subject once studied enough will find some for one position or another.)

Can you understand the concept of not having a firm opinion before you have all the facts?

Nonsense. Even previous in your post, you said it is "like Math". God can't just make 2+2 = 7.

What is "even" doing here? God being unable to do something that violates math (an intentional, legitimate paradox), does not at all imply the same kind of impotence you're relying on is equally on the table -- the inability to do things that ARE logically possible.

But at this point I must wonder, because of something you said in a previous post -- pardon if I'm remembering wrong, but didn't you already acknowledge that it's either that God cannot stop sin or does not? If you accept the latter, you must believe he has a logical reason not to stop it, even though it's in his power, right? So, aren't you actually agreeing with me? Why, then, the disagreement?

Unless you think God has an evil reason not to stop it??

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.

Some of them for reasons he doesn't like, and will ultimately overcome, but had to do for a time. We've been over this, 7.

So, you are saying that God HAD to bring into reality/creation things which God did NOT WANT to bring into reality/creation?

That's what I said, didn't I?

What forced God to create that which God did not want to exist in reality?

Seriously, 7?

You have already replied to the quotes of me saying what -- why the sudden acting like you don't know it?

We might be getting somewhere. Would you say that,

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

No. That makes it sound like logic is entirely outside God...

An "impassable" God who ... cares? Who ... answers our prayers?

Because he knows those things are right. Not due to being overcome by passion in the sense defined in the theological term "impassible." This term is similar to "simple" in referring to total self-consistency, as I said, rather than inconsistent compartmentalization. A passable God has one part overpowered by passions erupting from an inconsistent compartmentalized section of him. This obviously isn't possible in my view!

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

Best for everybody -- hence all things considered.

Let me ask you -- is it best to imprison dangerous criminals?

If you say yes, then I ask you, best for whom? The prisoners?

;)

A God creating Ex Nihilo doesn't have to create "rocky ground" AND "fertile ground".

Yes, 7, he does... if from his omniscience he knows reasons he should, and if he's holy -- so he can't do what he knows is wrong.

He can create any kind of reality he wants

And he wants the reality he knows, all things considered, is best, which includes letting us know from direct observation what life is like when he doesn't stop evil.

including making ALL OF THE GROUND created to be fertile. Get it?

Yes, 7, I got that from post #1 of your own topic, and had it reinforced quite well the other 978 times you repeated it... I'm trying to help you see why it doesn't work, okay? :)

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

Yes I did. Basically it is the very argument my view debunks! I explained in detail why. Don't have time to dig it up. I get that you don't have time to read every post, so forgiven that you missed it. (But this is why I try to always at least read everything directed at me or dealing with things I was discussing, before reading anything later, or posting! It's easier to do it in order rather than have to catch up later. I would strongly advise that for you, but your choice.)

[seven7up]

I'm the one who supplied the quote, not Cow Poke. And contrary to your assertion, I read the forward [sic].

So, YOU actually read the forward, and it was YOU who purposefully left out the second half of the sentence?

That is even worse!

Your earlier post implied that Dr. May did not believe that creatio ex nihilo was factually correct.

I don't know what May's personal beliefs are. I assumed he was a secular scholar.

May argues that the concept of Creatio Ex Nihilo, as currently understood, did not develop until the mid to second century A.D.

-7up

[seven7up]

7up: 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.

Huh? I don't believe in it. But I do admit that I can't absolutely prove it false from the Scriptures, based on what I've studied so far.... Can you understand the concept of not having a firm opinion before you have all the facts?

I get it.

It is nice to have the option around, because bringing even a single being into existence, while knowing even before creating the creature, that the individual will suffer for eternity, is hard to justify. It is even harder to justify bringing millions into existence from nothing in order to send them to hell.

7up: Nonsense. Even previous in your post, you said it is "like Math". God can't just make 2+2 = 7.

What is "even" doing here? God being unable to do something that violates math (an intentional, legitimate paradox), does not at all imply the same kind of impotence you're relying on is equally on the table -- the inability to do things that ARE logically possible.

Have you ever considered the idea that creating Ex Nihilo truly IS logically impossible, even for God?

But at this point I must wonder, because of something you said in a previous post -- pardon if I'm remembering wrong, but didn't you already acknowledge that it's either that God cannot stop sin or does not? If you accept the latter, you must believe he has a logical reason not to stop it, even though it's in his power, right? So, aren't you actually agreeing with me? Why, then, the disagreement?

It is really simple. You are saying that God is bringing evil beings into existence from nothing. I am saying that these flawed entities capable of evil already exist. THAT is the disagreement.

7up: 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.

Some of them for reasons he doesn't like, and will ultimately overcome, but had to do for a time. We've been over this, 7.

You haven't addressed the true issue here. If God is the ultimate cause for everything we do, then it is God's fault that any evil act ever occurs and the individual does not deserve punishment, and God can also be credited for every righteous act ever performed, and individuals deserve no reward.

Just like the logic and math that you mentioned above, if God truly is the only substance/being that existed prior to creation, then God is the only single cause to every other effect. This includes the so-called "choices" that every individual supposedly makes. Just eat up the logic, "God cannot cause an 'uncaused cause' ".

7up: So, you are saying that God HAD to bring into reality/creation things which God did NOT WANT to bring into reality/creation?

That's what I said, didn't I?

Yep. Just making your position very clear here.

7up: We might be getting somewhere. Would you say that,
All of reality = God + creation + "logic" ?

No. That makes it sound like logic is entirely outside God...

Well, you seemed to be indicating that logic includes laws/math/rules that even God Himself must obey. Can God just make whatever laws/math/rules that God wants?

7up: An "impassable" God who ... cares? Who ... answers our prayers?

Because he knows those things are right. Not due to being overcome by passion in the sense defined in the theological term "impassible." This term is similar to "simple" in referring to total self-consistency, as I said, rather than inconsistent compartmentalization. A passable God has one part overpowered by passions erupting from an inconsistent compartmentalized section of him. This obviously isn't possible in my view!

Impassibility, according to classical theism, means that God does not feel emotions: whether it be suffering, or pain, or joy. Really, it is one of the concepts that stem from the "ontological divide" between God and creation, which is also rooted in ex nihilo creation. God is "entirely other" or metaphysically a different kind of being than any spiritual/physical creation.

7up: Best for whom? For Him/It? For those who are damned?

Best for everybody -- hence all things considered.

Let me ask you -- is it best to imprison dangerous criminals?

If you say yes, then I ask you, best for whom? The prisoners?

We are stuck with the criminals that exist. We aren't bringing them into existence from nothing and we are not designing every single aspect of their being... as you presume God is with creation ex nihilo.

7up: A God creating Ex Nihilo doesn't have to create "rocky ground" AND "fertile ground".

Yes, 7, he does... if from his omniscience he knows reasons he should, and if he's holy -- so he can't do what he knows is wrong.

Again, you are saying, essentially, "God creates Ex Nihilo, and God creates evil beings from nothing ... THEREFORE, God MUST have a good reason for doing it."

You are simply trying to rationalize or excuse God, because you have to because of your false assumption about how God creates.

7up: By the way, did logician bones ever analyze/respond to this quote I provided?

Yes I did. Basically it is the very argument my view debunks! I explained in detail why. Don't have time to dig it up.

Please dig it up, because I am pretty sure I reviewed this entire thread. To be clear, I am asking where you specifically addressed the arguments in this quote:

- mark hausam

-7up

[seven7up]

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 "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.

Where in the Bible does it say that there is "nothing" outside of the Heavens and the Earth?

Jesus is God ... yet Jesus said that He has a God ... his Father. Now, that doesn't mean that Jesus was "created ex nihilo" either. That is a false dichotomy.

-7up

[One Bad Pig]

Where in the Bible does it say that there is "nothing" outside of the Heavens and the Earth?

There is nothing outside of the Heavens and the Earth. It is an Earth-centric way of saying "everything."

Jesus is God ... yet Jesus said that He has a God ... his Father. Now, that doesn't mean that Jesus was "created ex nihilo" either. That is a false dichotomy.

Jesus was not created, period; He was begotten (John 3:16).

[seven7up]

There is nothing outside of the Heavens and the Earth. It is an Earth-centric way of saying "everything."

That is a huge assumption.

Believe it or not, language is a little more nuanced than that. If someone says, "everyone was at the party". Oh really? EVERYONE ... meaning everyone on the planet?

Even in the Bible , when it says "all of Jerusalem" or "all of Judea" had gone to be baptized of John the baptist ... you cannot take such language literally. To do so would be ludicrous.

Jesus was not created, period; He was begotten (John 3:16).

Agreed. However, you and I will disagree on what that means.

The orthodox Christian view is NOT that Jesus was begotten in a normal past tense way. Instead, the idea was developed that Jesus is continuously/eternally begotten from the Father; constantly being issued forth from the Father as the second person in the Trinity, which is a single divine Substance/Being.

-7up

[logician bones]

7:

Have you ever considered the idea that creating Ex Nihilo truly IS logically impossible, even for God?

If the term is defined the way I did, we certainly know it's possible, since we can do the same thing in terms of creating a new virtual realm, where the sort of things in the virtual realm did not exist previously. So, "nothing" in a nonliteral sense.

If God is the ultimate cause for everything we do, then it is God's fault

Again, this forgets about the math-like necessity of logic, as well as that God knows how to "outsmart" the problems he had to work with. So it's not God's fault, it's necessity's fault and God is the one who defeats it. The only one who ever could, since he is the infinite perfect being.

individuals deserve no reward

This certainly defines "deserve" very differently from the Bible! God creates beings, and the ones that he makes have the traits and the life situations and so forth that lead to their doing a good thing get the results of that good thing, where logical. Just like if we make something well, we will keep it around (thus "rewarding" it) because it has the traits we want.

To suggest otherwise again goes back to the nonsensical idea that deserving should be based on the idea that a person is a certain way for no reason at all. But it doesn't work that way -- everything has prior reasons.

if God truly is the only substance/being that existed prior to creation

Didn't say that. I suggested he might not be. But all of it goes back to him at some point, some way, since causality is absolute and time is ultimately nonlinear.

Impassibility, according to classical theism, means that God does not feel emotions

Not quite. God is omniscient, and that includes full knowledge of what emotions feel like. But he isn't controlled by them at all, unlike humans who may be. Which makes sense, because he's infinite, but we're relatively simple artificial lifeforms that have definite limits, and emotion is a big part of how we work.


About your quote, really no need to dig up the whole reply -- the whole line of reasoning is based on this one obvious false premise:

If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature

But they aren't -- they are results of prior causes. And they are determined by God, within the constraints of the consideration of all logical possibilities and balancing all upsides against their necessary downsides and so forth. They don't just happen randomly with no cause. It's unclear, but Hausam seems to think that "what we are" is somehow different from "what God made us to be" -- but that's just nonsense. What we are had to have causes outside of what we are. And that ultimately all goes back to God, working within the constraints of perfect logic.

Basically, this attacks a strawman.



7, speaking to OBP:

There is nothing outside of the Heavens and the Earth. It is an Earth-centric way of saying "everything."

That is a huge assumption.

No, it's a conclusion based on scholarship. That was a phrase in Hebrew that meant that. And your analogy of "everyone was at the party" isn't relevant. That's just saying not literally everyone or everyone the speaker cares about. This is just the way the Hebrew language indicated everything -- actually everything, not just one tiny place like where a party happens. (But whether they considered it a literal phrase or not, I don't know, but either way, OBP's statement was correct.)

[seven7up]

Again, this forgets about the math-like necessity of logic, as well as that God knows how to "outsmart" the problems he had to work with. So it's not God's fault, it's necessity's fault and God is the one who defeats it. The only one who ever could, since he is the infinite perfect being.

If you ask me, creating billions of people from nothing, the most of whom end up in hell for eternity, does not sound like "problem solving".

This certainly defines "deserve" very differently from the Bible! God creates beings, and the ones that he makes have the traits and the life situations and so forth that lead to their doing a good thing get the results of that good thing, where logical. Just like if we make something well, we will keep it around (thus "rewarding" it) because it has the traits we want.

As you indicate here, GOD has total control with ex nihilo creation. That is my point.

To suggest otherwise again goes back to the nonsensical idea that deserving should be based on the idea that a person is a certain way for no reason at all. But it doesn't work that way -- everything has prior reasons.

With creatio ex nihilo, God is the ONLY prior reason.

7up wrote: If our choices are undetermined by God and first-causal by nature ...

But they aren't -- they are results of prior causes...

A SINGLE cause, which is God.

... And they are determined by God, within the constraints of the consideration of all logical possibilities and balancing all upsides against their necessary downsides and so forth. They don't just happen randomly with no cause. ...

With Ex Nihilo, God is the ONLY cause.

.. It's unclear, but Hausam seems to think that "what we are" is somehow different from "what God made us to be" -- but that's just nonsense. ...

Wrong. Hausam is a Calvinist. He believes in Ex Nihilo. Hausam believes that "what we are" is EXACTLY "what God made us to be".

Hausam is criticizing Arminianism as being inconsistent with the doctrine of Ex Nihilo.

... What we are had to have causes outside of what we are. And that ultimately all goes back to God, ...

Exactly my point.

Thank you.

-7up

[logician bones]

7:

If you ask me

But you don't factor everything; you're not all-knowing. God is. God doesn't ask for our finite-knowledge-based, fallible opinions to decide these things. The Bible has a few things to say on that if you recall. :P

GOD has total control with ex nihilo creation.

Total potency, but he also cannot sin (he's perfectly holy), so he cannot do what he knows from his omniscience is wrong. So, while nothing is impossible for him in and of itself, it has to be in his will.

With Ex Nihilo, God is the ONLY cause.

Not sure what your point is. God is ultimately causally related to everything. Since time isn't merely linear; future knowledge also "loops" back to play a part in the causing of creation, at least in the sense of God knowing the future, and since we are not part of him, he's not literally the only cause. He's the only cause with actual power in and of himself to do that, of course -- since we ARE only linear.

So, God is the ultimate cause.

But how is this relevant to what we were talking about?

The quote you were responding to was reminding you that you were, once again, ignoring (purposefully?) the limitation of logical necessity in what God does. He doesn't do nonsense like making everybody always perfect, 7. I've been over why, and you've continued to ignore it.

Again, we needed to be experientially familiar with evil. And any "not making it real but letting us understand it fully anyways" that really does that job would include a full "simulation" with temporary forgetting that it wasn't real -- so that defeats the point; he may as well just make it real. There's no logical way around it, 7. We all need to face that.

Wrong. Hausam is a Calvinist. He believes in Ex Nihilo. Hausam believes that "what we are" is EXACTLY "what God made us to be".

I know, 7, but he was trying to portray the opposition's view. And while some do seem to buy into "choices have no causes" nonsense, it is NOT the Arminian/biblical view. Hence my concern that he was strawmanning.

[One Bad Pig]

So, YOU actually read the forward, and it was YOU who purposefully left out the second half of the sentence?

That is even worse!

I left it out because it was immaterial to the point I was making.

I don't know what May's personal beliefs are. I assumed he was a secular scholar.

May argues that the concept of Creatio Ex Nihilo, as currently understood, did not develop until the mid to second century A.D.

-7up

Yes, you'd already pointed that out, and I did not dispute that. All I did was point out that regardless of when he felt it was developed, he felt it was not incompatible with what the OT said about creation.