"Creatio ex" beliefs

[RickD]

Creatio Ex Nihilo, Creatio Ex materia, Creatio Ex deo?

Anyone care to discuss?

[Eureka]

Yes! I don't have much time to write, but this is the basic understanding that I have about the different "creatio ex" theories with regard to God's initial creation of the universe as described in Genesis:

Ex nihilo: God created the universe out of absolutely nothing.

Ex materia: God created the universe out of existing materials

Ex deo: God created the universe out of himself.

Please help me elaborate on those brief descriptions, and of course correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that most Christians believe in creatio ex nihilo, but that strong arguments have been developed for the other situations as well.

Thanks for starting the thread Rick; the "Evolution vs ID" thread made me curious. I don't know anything about this stuff...

E

[RickD]

Eureka, I think those basic definitions you posted are good. I kinda see ex nihilo, and ex deo as almost the same thing. I guess, technically I can't see how something can be created from nothing. But if God did the creating, then at the very least, God "existed". I always understood ex nihilo as meaning God created the physical universe from nothing physical, or He created our universe from Himself. Now as far as ex Materia, the only way I could see that as possible, is if there was something existing before our universe. But then, infinite regress comes into play here. If something existed, which God created our universe from, then how did that "something" get there? That brings us back to ex nihilo or ex deo, doesn't it? I just can't believe anything besides God, has always existed. So, that eliminates ex Materia from my mind. Unless I'm being to simplistic, and I missed something. I'd like to see people's opinions on the differences between ex nihilo, and ex deo.

[Ivellious]

As far as the differences between ex nihilo and ex deo...Is there any kind of scriptural evidence for either case? As far as I can tell, the Bible says there was nothing (except presumably God) and then God made the universe...Perhaps I'm missing something but overall "nothing to something" seems like ex nihilo. Of course, I can also see how you could say that, well, it's entirely possible that God used Himself to make the universe, therefore the universe is from God specifically (and not "nothing"), but it seems to me like you could run around those two options in circles and never get anywhere with it.

[RickD]

Ivellious, that's pretty much what I was trying to say as well. As long as we're assuming that God was the one creating, then I really don't see a difference between ex nihilo, and ex deo. As nihilo means "nothing", the nothing has to refer to physically nothing. Because as God can be described as a spirit, then obviously a spiritual being(God), isn't nothing.

[Jac3510]

God did not create the universe from Himself. That's really just pantheism.

I don't see how you can really delve into these distinctions without getting into metaphysics. The ex deo makes God the material cause of the universe. That gets into some serious problems, though (I think). Take a potter. He fashions his vase out of clay, so clay is the material out of which the vase is formed (clay, then, would be the material cause). So it is a clay vase.

On ex deo, God Himself is the material out of which we are made. But the Divine is not and cannot be a substance out of which something is made. Still, let that pass. What is the Divine? Whatever it is, just call it "the Divine." So now, that vase is no longer a clay vase; it is a divine vase. That tree is divine. You are divine. Everything is The Divine.

All of that also suggests that God is divisible, subject to time, and subject to change. But if God is divisible, then He is neither sovereign nor exists a se (indeed, He would be a contingent being). If He is subject to time, He is not perfect insofar as He does not have all of His life in Himself now--rather, He passes out of and into existence from one moment to the next, meaning He is also not metaphysically necessary ( ). You know that feeling you get when you look back at "the good old days" and you feel a tinge of sadness? God would be feeling that, too. He would be, in that sense, incomplete! And if God is subject to change, then He is not the First Cause, since He Himself would be changed by those things outside of Himself; but that which is caused to change is itself subject to those causes; ergo, God would not be the First Cause.

So yeah, lot's f problems with ex deo. Better to take ex nihilo. God is the efficient and final cause of the universe, but there is no material cause.

[RickD]

I don't see how you can really delve into these distinctions without getting into metaphysics.

I hope we don't have to get into metaphysics. I'd like to be able to understand what we're discussing.

The ex deo makes God the material cause of the universe. That gets into some serious problems, though (I think). Take a potter. He fashions his vase out of clay, so clay is the material out of which the vase is formed (clay, then, would be the material cause). So it is a clay vase.

Jac, that makes sense to me.
I think I see the difference between ex nihilo and ex deo now.
I guess I have a difficult time wrapping my mind around something physical(the universe), being created literally from nothing. While I understand God could do it, it doesn't make it any easier to grasp.

[narnia4]

It may just be because it was always what I was taught, but I feel like it would have to be ex nihilo. Ex deo seems to cause some problems theologically/metaphysically (wouldn't it make us "God stuff"?), but it doesn't seem to me to be necessary. How is creatio ex deo any less confounding and befuddling to the human mind than creatio ex nihilo? Isn't the immaterial just as lacking in materiality as nothing is?

I don't think its something we could ever understand one way or another. I'm hoping on the other side we can understand better, man that'll be exciting! God is good.

[RickD]

How is creatio ex deo any less confounding and befuddling to the human mind than creatio ex nihilo? Isn't the immaterial just as lacking in materiality as nothing is?

It is just as lacking in materiality. But, at least in my mind, I can understand something physical coming from God. Because while God isn't physical, He still "is". My mind just can't grasp the concept of something coming from nothing.

[Eureka]

Are there passages in the Bible that have led people toward one "creatio ex" belief over another?

E

[Jac3510]

Are there passages in the Bible that have led people toward one "creatio ex" belief over another?

E

Here's an article you might want to read, E:

http://tektonics.org/af/exnihilo.html

I'd direct your attention especially to the section about a quarter down the page titled "Biblical Ideas."

He doesn't consider ex deo, but I think if you have to choose between that an ex nihilo, the latter wins hands down for reasons already discussed. The real question is whether or not the Bible teaches that God created the universe from preexisting material or from nothing at all. I think it's pretty clear that Scripture views God as having created from nothing. If nothing else, it's the most natural way to read Gen 1! When you add to that the historical context--that Moses was basically writing to refute Egyptian and Mesopotamian polytheism--the case is all the stronger.

Other passages like John 1:3, Rom 4:17, etc. all are useful here, too.

[Eureka]

Thank you, Jac. I have never heard any Genesis interpretation that described God as a craftsman rather than a creator. Interesting...

Ex nihilo seems outwardly consistent with scripture, but I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who believes in "ex deo" or "ex materia" unless it is expected that arguments and anger will result from the discussion.

[RickD]

The first half of this article explains what I meant by, " I kinda see ex nihilo, and ex deo as almost the same thing".
The second half gets into another topic, but I think the first half makes some good points relevant to this discussion:

http://maverickphilosopher.blogspot.com ... o.html?m=1

[Jac3510]

I have to confess that I don't see the difficulty he's worried about. Ex nihilo refers to the lack of a material cause. The universe still has a final and efficient cause. He seems to want to say that ex nihilo is incompatible with the notion that from nothing, nothing comes. But that notion refers to efficient, not material, causes.

He says in passing that he doesn't like Aquinas' idea of God bestowing existence on pre-existing essences, but he doesn't specify why that is the case. I'd have to see if he even understands Aquinas here, but he doesn't offer an explanation of Aquinas means, much less a critique of it. Put simply, Aquinas can have God create an essence as a way of being, since He is being, and then grant that essence existence; the result is a composite being of essence and existence. Some of those composites would have material being, others immaterial. In both cases, God is the cause, so there's no reason to suggest that God's creation from nothing violates the premise that from nothing, nothing comes. Obviously, the universe came from God, which is not nothing!

He's going to have to do a lot more work to show that something not having a material cause violates the notion that from nothing, nothing comes. He's basically just asserted it and invented a problem. Since classical theists would disagree with the assertion, they'd just ignore the so-called "problem."

[RickD]

I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible.
Ex nihilo can mean God created not from nothing at all, but just not from preexisting physical material. Ex deo doesn't have to mean pantheism. If God is eternal, and He is the only "thing" that is eternal, then His first creation can be ex deo, can't it? If nothing else exists besides God, at the time of His first creation, then can't ex nihilo and ex deo can be synonymous?