Creation ex nihilo

[Kurieuo]

Since undertaking a philosophy class in theology some years ago, different venn diagrams were presented based on God's relationship with the created universe.

Back then, I saw what I considered to be an absurd belief I held to. That is, God as one circle, and creation existing as an entirely separate circle. I had always believed that creation was ontologically separate from God. But seeing those simple diagrams, I saw some immediate inconsistencies with my belief:

1) God is everywhere (as we understand in Scripture), and yet, if the universe is entirely separate from God then God cannot really be everywhere.
2) If the universe exists apart from God, then there are strong implications that something else has always existed eternally apart from God (and perhaps God just shaped it).
3) Finally, it is illogical to believe God's creating ex nihilo can mean God created from no existing essense ("stuff"). Unless we purely exists in God's mind (Idealism), then we really are made of "stuff" (the question then is, what is that "stuff" derived from?).

The classic Christian theological notion is that God spoke into existence (caused) the universe to come into existence from nothing. I always believed this only meant that God created something new which did not previously exist. Not that it entailed God actually created "new stuff" from "absolutely nothing". To believe this is to me almost as absurd as Atheists believing our universe popped into existence from absolutely nothing.

So after seeing those simple diagrams representing different views on God's relationship to the created universe, I came to accept that everything exists within God (panentheism). God could not logically create something outside of Himself, and indeed if God is the be-all and end-all then there is nothing God's existence does not touch. I have come to learn there are preconceptions of what panentheism is, and often people who hold to this view attach a lot more baggage to it than needs be, but foundationally I do not see how panentheism can be escaped.

Thus, I was recently surprised to hear William Lane Craig take the ex nihilo formula to the extreme that God created something new from absolutely no previous substance (not even imparting Himself). My understanding of Craig is that God merely spoke into existence something new from nothing (in the strictest sense of nothing). In other words, God existed, but the universe was not created from any previous existing substance like a brick might be made from clay. God caused the "brick" (our universe) to come into existence from absolutely no substance.

To me, I find this illogical. Unless going down the route of Idealism, God must have imparted somehing of Himself into what He created new. Craig loves to reason in his debates with Atheists, "from nothing, nothing comes". Even though God may be the cause, not even God can create something to exist from absolutely nothing. This is an nonsensical statement on par with God creating a square circle. This has to be the first time I've disagreed with Craig on a topic, but I think in this instance he does not get the full weight of the problem.

I can only think that for Craig, it is enough to simply leave it at "God spoke" without reflecting any deeper about what exactly happened when "God spoke".

Myself, I believe God imparted some "stuff" from Himself into all of creation, creating something new and placing boundaries around His creation. Thus, creation exists within God's existence, and yet creation is not God or even part of who God is but distinct. By analogy, in a similar way to how Earth resides in the universe and yet is not the universe, I believe we reside in God's existence and yet are not God. Furthermore, everything having its existence in God (panentheism) helps to answer some of Christianity's most puzzling questions. For example, how can God be omnipresent or omniscient? All God has to do is look inside His own existence.

Deeper yet, for those I have not lost and who can still grasp my thinking, panentheism begs for the existence of something like the Trinitarian concept of God we believe in. For in order for God to enter into relations with His created order, He must enter into His own be-all and end-all existence in order to relate. Thus, we have the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit derived in an undifferentiated manner from God, who together completely and perfectly fulfill distinct roles and functions that allow God to relate to us within Himself.

So... what do you others believe about God creating ex nihilo. What does this mean to you?

[Silvertusk]

Why dont you pose this question to William Lane Craig on his website - www.reasonablefaith.org and see what reply you get.

Personally this does not really bother me. You reasoning is as good as any. In all the fantasy stories about magicians casting firebolts for example - the explanation is that they draw on energy from themselves to make it happen. It looks like they are creating it from nothing but they are using some substance - this time - theirselves. If God did it another way - then fine.

This maybe one of those things that we are not meant to really understand - like the Trinity.

SIlvertusk.

[Byblos]

I'm in the middle of reading Robert Spitzer's 'New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy'. Long title I know but Spitzer argues the very same that God created absolutely ex nihilo and offers a metaphysical proof for such along the lines of Lonergan's proof for the existence of God (among other proofs). The only difference is that Lonergan's proof is from an epistemological point whereas Spitzer's proof is ontological (which makes it that much more potent, IMO). I have to say most of the stuff is way over my head, I will end up reading the book several times just to grasp the meaning but I cannot recommend it highly enough K. It is without a doubt one of the best books out there that combine both a scientific (cosmological) and metaphysical cases for the existence of God. Something that was utterly lacking from Hawking's new book 'The Grand design'.

I will try to summarize the proof:

A. There must be at least one unconditioned reality
B. An unconditioned reality must be unrestricted intelligibility
C. Unrestricted intelligibility must be unique - one and only one
D. Unique unrestricted intelligibility must be an unrestricted act of understanding - understanding itself
E. All other intelligibility besides the one unrestricted act of understanding must be restricted and be a thought content of the one unrestricted act of understanding

(note that last one K).

Spitzer goes to great lengths to define each term (restricted, unrestricted, understanding, intelligibility, etc.) and offers proof for each one of the above statements. The obvious conclusion is that a unique, unrestricted intelligibility that is a pure act of understanding - understanding itself, must exist. Otherwise some denial in reality (or violation of the law of non-contradiction) will occur.




P.S. It's times like these that I miss Jac around here.

[CeT-To]

Lost me at the first premise O_O... hahahah

[Katabole]

Hi Kurieuo.

I pondered the question you asked a number of years ago. If in the beginning, God was all alone and He created, what did He create from? Did He take some of His Divine essence and create or did He create all things from nothing (ex nihilo)?

Since you are a Christian, then you evidently believe this line of scripture:

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (KJV)

The Bible doesn't tell us all things we 'want' to know otherwise it should be many trillions of pages long. It does however, tell us all things we 'need' to know.

There is a beautiful example illustrated in Gen ch 18. Abraham is told his wife Sarah is going to have a child. Sarah was past the age of childbearing, and when she overheard what was said, she laughed. To her, having a child in old age was "not logical". The Lord heard her laugh. This is His response:

Gen 18:13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

Gen 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

The word 'hard' there is the same word used in some scriptures as wonderful, meaning full of wonder, beyond the imagination.

Again in the New Testament, an angelic being answers the question that is a conundrum to intellectuals:

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Jesus Himself answers this question:

Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

One of the questions I posed to myself was, "What is greater; the ability to create a universe or the ability to create a universe from nothing?" Both answers to these questions are incomprehensible to the human logical intellect. IMHO, I think a person would go insane trying to comprehend it. That is why I believe Solomon states:

Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

The great scientist Isaac Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

I have often wondered about the impossibility of some things, including like you, the creation of the universe(s) even to the point of laughing to myself like Sarah, and asking myself, "That can't be. It defies logic!" The response the Bible emphatically gives me is, "Is any thing too hard for the LORD?"

So, could God have created the universe from nothing. Absolutely.

[jlay]

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3

Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

I'm not really sure why you think logic has anything to do with it. Miracles in themselves defy logic, and the creation is the miracle of miracles. We understand that the cosmos is in a state of decay and curse. And our Father is not decaying, nor is He cursed.

[B. W.]

+
Kurieuo after reading your post...

...it appears to me that you are repeating the Stoic philosopher's Chrysippus (3 B.C.) Stoic cosmology. Under his take on the matter (no-pun intended) his thought line was that the cosmic pneuma (spirit) was like an arm of logos in organizing matter in animals, humans, and the physical world like rocks and trees which all will either be destroyed or reabsorbed into the cosmic pneuma.

Your idea seems to mirror this line of reasoning a bit but with a twist more added in.

Were you aware of this?
-
-
-

[Kurieuo]

I'm in the middle of reading Robert Spitzer's 'New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy'. Long title I know but Spitzer argues the very same that God created absolutely ex nihilo and offers a metaphysical proof for such along the lines of Lonergan's proof for the existence of God (among other proofs). The only difference is that Lonergan's proof is from an epistemological point whereas Spitzer's proof is ontological (which makes it that much more potent, IMO). I have to say most of the stuff is way over my head, I will end up reading the book several times just to grasp the meaning but I cannot recommend it highly enough K. It is without a doubt one of the best books out there that combine both a scientific (cosmological) and metaphysical cases for the existence of God. Something that was utterly lacking from Hawking's new book 'The Grand design'.

I will try to summarize the proof:

A. There must be at least one unconditioned reality
B. An unconditioned reality must be unrestricted intelligibility
C. Unrestricted intelligibility must be unique - one and only one
D. Unique unrestricted intelligibility must be an unrestricted act of understanding - understanding itself
E. All other intelligibility besides the one unrestricted act of understanding must be restricted and be a thought content of the one unrestricted act of understanding

(note that last one K).

Spitzer goes to great lengths to define each term (restricted, unrestricted, understanding, intelligibility, etc.) and offers proof for each one of the above statements. The obvious conclusion is that a unique, unrestricted intelligibility that is a pure act of understanding - understanding itself, must exist. Otherwise some denial in reality (or violation of the law of non-contradiction) will occur.

P.S. It's times like these that I miss Jac around here.

Thanks Byblos. I'll add this book to my reading.

I know Jac believed in divine simplicity, that God is His attibutes pure intelligence, goodness, etc. So he would probably argue that my conception of God is all wrong. DS is probably a doctrine I have to investigate more fully myself, as if my conception of God's ontology is wrong, then so too is my panentheistic reasoning that follows.

[Kurieuo]

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Hebrews 11:3

Psalm 33:9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.

I'm not really sure why you think logic has anything to do with it. Miracles in themselves defy logic, and the creation is the miracle of miracles. We understand that the cosmos is in a state of decay and curse. And our Father is not decaying, nor is He cursed.

Hi jlay,

I still believe God created what is seen from what is not seen and that there was "nothing" before except God alone. My questioning and reflected go much deeper though.

Re: logic. Yes, God can do miracles, but as CS Lewis put it, "God isn't a God of nonsense" that He can create a rock so big that He can't lift it.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Kurieuo.

I pondered the question you asked a number of years ago. If in the beginning, God was all alone and He created, what did He create from? Did He take some of His Divine essence and create or did He create all things from nothing (ex nihilo)?

Since you are a Christian, then you evidently believe this line of scripture:

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. (KJV)

The Bible doesn't tell us all things we 'want' to know otherwise it should be many trillions of pages long. It does however, tell us all things we 'need' to know.

I know, but theology of which philosophy is apart, looks more deeper at questions. Loves to keep questioning and understanding as much as is possible with the brain God intended us to use.

It is often surprising just how much we can understand. If theology threw its hands up and walked away every time something looked "mysterious" or complicated, than we likely would not have the rich Christian thinkers throughout history and many Christian doctrines that have been accepted as a standard of orthodoxy today.

So, could God have created the universe from nothing. Absolutely.

As in my response to Jlay, I believe this.

There are different definitions of nothing however. For example, God could not have created the universe from absolutely nothing because He Himself existed and was the cause. Thus, God at least exists. And that is where the questioning deepens to explore what this "nothing" entails, and how God created something new.

Some are happy to not look any further, but I do not work that way. I love looking further and trying to solve logical puzzles. We are even commanded to love God with all our mind, and my Christianity has been enriched and strengthened greatly because of this.

[Kurieuo]

+
Kurieuo after reading your post...

...it appears to me that you are repeating the Stoic philosopher's Chrysippus (3 B.C.) Stoic cosmology. Under his take on the matter (no-pun intended) his thought line was that the cosmic pneuma (spirit) was like an arm of logos in organizing matter in animals, humans, and the physical world like rocks and trees which all will either be destroyed or reabsorbed into the cosmic pneuma.

Your idea seems to mirror this line of reasoning a bit but with a twist more added in.

Were you aware of this?

Thanks B.W.,

No, I wasn't aware to Chrysippus' cosmology. However, I wouldn't be too quick to get behind Chrysippus, although from what you say it does seem to have much similarity to what I currently believe.

[Kurieuo]

Why dont you pose this question to William Lane Craig on his website - http://www.reasonablefaith.org and see what reply you get.

Personally this does not really bother me. You reasoning is as good as any. In all the fantasy stories about magicians casting firebolts for example - the explanation is that they draw on energy from themselves to make it happen. It looks like they are creating it from nothing but they are using some substance - this time - theirselves. If God did it another way - then fine.

This maybe one of those things that we are not meant to really understand - like the Trinity.

SIlvertusk.

Yeah, I might just do that. But I'm sure he gets a zillion other questions.

[August]

Kurieuo, interesting question. My son came back form church last night thoroughly confused, because they spoke about who God is, and he didn't understand how they explained it. We went a little bit into the ontology of God, and that is where I think some of this discussion could lead.

I think I understand your dilemma, and wish I had an elegant explanation for you. As is typical of me, I like to ask questions, so here goes:
1. What exactly was it that God created? Not only did it have to be matter or at least some energy, but also all of the transcendent laws and design.
2. What is God's ontology? We know that He became man as Christ, but in what sense does He exist eternally? If God is not energy, then your argument, at least by our current scientific standards, cannot work.
3. If we can devise some scheme by which we can determine what God is, and that is consistent with what was created in the beginning, then the problem still has to be overcome of how it went from the Godly realm into the physical which we can observe and experience. Conceptually this is not to hard for me to think of, any time one comes up with an original thought or other type of creation, like a drawing or painting or sculpture, one is essentially doing something similar, albeit with the benefit of pre-existing energy and matter, and of course, on a much smaller scale.
4. We then arrive at your problem, which is how God could have created from nothing, and you argue that He used some of Himself as the initial material and catalyst for the coming into existence of the universe. I don't think your proposal gets rid of the problem though, unless you make the assumption that God consists of some kind of physical material or energy, and that is not warranted in my opinion. Because if it was true, then there was no real "beginning" as we currently define it, because there was a pre-existence of some physical substance.

I would be interested to hear your answers to 1-3.

I would also like to add that your proposal is thoroughly Biblical, should one read Genesis in the context of ANE history, where the creation deed in Genesis 1 is not creation ex-nihilo (that may have happened some other time), but an organizing of existing substance into the universe to be His residence.

[Byblos]

I know Jac believed in divine simplicity, that God is His attibutes pure intelligence, goodness, etc. So he would probably argue that my conception of God is all wrong. DS is probably a doctrine I have to investigate more fully myself, as if my conception of God's ontology is wrong, then so too is my panentheistic reasoning that follows.

And so does Spitzer (believe in divine simplicity). In his book he argues the exact opposite of panentheism which holds that (as he says) "restricted realities constitute God". On the other hand, he argues that an unrestricted act of understanding creates all restricted realities through its mentative act without those realities becoming (part of) it.

[B. W.]

+
Kurieuo after reading your post...

...it appears to me that you are repeating the Stoic philosopher's Chrysippus (3 B.C.) Stoic cosmology. Under his take on the matter (no-pun intended) his thought line was that the cosmic pneuma (spirit) was like an arm of logos in organizing matter in animals, humans, and the physical world like rocks and trees which all will either be destroyed or reabsorbed into the cosmic pneuma.

Your idea seems to mirror this line of reasoning a bit but with a twist more added in.

Were you aware of this?

Thanks B.W.,

No, I wasn't aware to Chrysippus' cosmology. However, I wouldn't be too quick to get behind Chrysippus, although from what you say it does seem to have much similarity to what I currently believe.

Yeah, my bed of nails is a bit rusty these days too, and I haven’t worn a ramrod down my back in a long time so I need to brush up on my stoic philosophy a bit more.

http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chrysippus/chrysippus.html

Better stay away from the figs too…

Here is a bit more…

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/s ... hrysippus/
-
-
-