Evidence for God from Science

You still have creation being made out of "God stuff." If everything is made out of "God stuff," then you either have pantheism or else you have a god who is not the First Cause (for the reasons I discussed previously).

Hi Rick,

Which route you take is really built heavily upon other theological beliefs.

For example, if you subscribe to divine simplicity as Chris does, then your only option is really creation ex nihilo. Since God does not consist of any real substance.

Furthermore, if you believe God's relationship to creation is that creation is separate from God, then your only option as I logically see it is also creation ex nihilo.

Also, if your subscribe to William Lane Craig, he's a heavy advocate of creation existing outside of God and creation ex nihilo, so I'm sure he has lots of writing on this stuff.

However, for me, I tend to think creation ex nihilo strictly understood is logically unsound. That is, the belief that: God literally spoke into existence creation which is separate from Himself from absolutely nothing -- such that creation is not derived from any divine substance.

Perhaps there is something in Chris highlighting the different types of causes -- so perhaps ex nihilo has a loophole here, however it would only apply to those who subscribe to Divine Simplicity like Chris.

Craig does not subscribe to Divine Simplicity but rather believes God has a divine substance. So Craig may or may not have such a loophole. Thus, the refuting argument from nothing, nothing comes, still applies to those like Craig who believe in creation ex nihilo. That is -- God can't speak into existence something new unless He imparts Himself into it in some way (creation ex deo). Craig just says God spoke creation into existence and ends all further questions there. But that's too simple I think.

Jac wrote: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.

This is some sort of composition fallacy -- that is, you're assuming what applies of parts applies to the whole.

God injecting Himself into humanity does not necessitate we are now the Divine. Divine creatures perhaps, but not wholly divine. It just means God imparted some element of Himself into us. And Scripture says we are made in God's image so even on if in form only, would this not still imply some kind of ex deo?

However, your belief that God does not have a substance would perhaps render this whole talk for you meaningless anyway?

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Rick,

Which route you take is really built heavily upon other theological beliefs.

For example, if you subscribe to divine simplicity as Chris does, then your only option is really creation ex nihilo. Since God does not consist of any real substance.

Furthermore, if you believe God's relationship to creation is that creation is separate from God, then your only option as I logically see it is also creation ex nihilo.

Also, if your subscribe to William Lane Craig, he's a heavy advocate of creation existing outside of God and creation ex nihilo, so I'm sure he has lots of writing on this stuff.

However, for me, I tend to think creation ex nihilo strictly understood is logically unsound. That is, the belief that: God literally spoke into existence creation which is separate from Himself from absolutely nothing -- such that creation is not derived from any divine substance.

Perhaps there is something in Chris highlighting the different types of causes -- so perhaps ex nihilo has a loophole here, however it would only apply to those who subscribe to Divine Simplicity like Chris.

Craig does not subscribe to Divine Simplicity but rather believes God has a divine substance. So Craig may or may not have such a loophole. Thus, the refuting argument from nothing, nothing comes, still applies to those like Craig who believe in creation ex nihilo. That is -- God can't speak into existence something new unless He imparts Himself into it in some way (creation ex deo). Craig just says God spoke creation into existence and ends all further questions there. But that's too simple I think.

You make a good case as to why Rick should accept divine simplicity.

This is some sort of composition fallacy -- that is, you're assuming what applies of parts applies to the whole.

God injecting Himself into humanity does not necessitate we are now the Divine. Divine creatures perhaps, but not wholly divine. It just means God imparted some element of Himself into us. And Scripture says we are made in God's image so even on if in form only, would this not still imply some kind of ex deo?

However, your belief that God does not have a substance would perhaps render this whole talk for you meaningless anyway?

Right, all of that really is meaningless. With that said, I do think Christians should take more seriously the doctrine of divination of man. But that's another subject entirely.

As to the charge of the fallacy of composition, there is a well known exception when we are talking about expansive properties--that is, those properties that are non-relative and are not dependent on the structure of a thing. So if I say that because balsa wood is light, and that my project is made of balsa wood, and therefore it must be light, and am clearly committing the fallacy. For here, "light" is a relative term. If, however, I said, that because balsa wood is a type of wood, and that my project is made of balsa wood, and therefore my project is a type of wood, I've not committed the fallacy. For the woodenness of the balsa is not a relative property--it is an absolute. That is to say, it is an expansive property.

Just so with ex deo. If everything that exists is made out of the divine, then everything that exists is divine. It makes no sense to say that every part of me is made out of the divine, and yet somehow the whole is not divine.

I know you like panentheism, but this is perhaps the biggest reason I reject it. I don't see how you get away from this conclusion. We are not made of the divine. We are not divine. We are not made of "God stuff" (and, of course, I point out with you again that this is all for accommodation, because all of this is really meaningless to me). Any position that suggests we are, well I take that as a reductio against the position. Rick and others will have to decide if they find that a reductio at all . . . what one person finds absurd another may not, and thus what one finds a defeater another may simply find to be the logical conclusion. And on that point, you are absolutely right that there are much deeper issues here, which is why I first said that I don't know how we can have this conversation properly without getting into metaphysics.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Rick,

Which route you take is really built heavily upon other theological beliefs.

For example, if you subscribe to divine simplicity as Chris does, then your only option is really creation ex nihilo. Since God does not consist of any real substance.

Furthermore, if you believe God's relationship to creation is that creation is separate from God, then your only option as I logically see it is also creation ex nihilo.

Also, if your subscribe to William Lane Craig, he's a heavy advocate of creation existing outside of God and creation ex nihilo, so I'm sure he has lots of writing on this stuff.

However, for me, I tend to think creation ex nihilo strictly understood is logically unsound. That is, the belief that: God literally spoke into existence creation which is separate from Himself from absolutely nothing -- such that creation is not derived from any divine substance.

Perhaps there is something in Chris highlighting the different types of causes -- so perhaps ex nihilo has a loophole here, however it would only apply to those who subscribe to Divine Simplicity like Chris.

Craig does not subscribe to Divine Simplicity but rather believes God has a divine substance. So Craig may or may not have such a loophole. Thus, the refuting argument from nothing, nothing comes, still applies to those like Craig who believe in creation ex nihilo. That is -- God can't speak into existence something new unless He imparts Himself into it in some way (creation ex deo). Craig just says God spoke creation into existence and ends all further questions there. But that's too simple I think.

You make a good case as to why Rick should accept divine simplicity.

No problem. I'm neither for or against it, but rather based on my current knowledge and accepted beliefs I'd have swing against it.

Jac wrote:

k wrote:This is some sort of composition fallacy -- that is, you're assuming what applies of parts applies to the whole.

God injecting Himself into humanity does not necessitate we are now the Divine. Divine creatures perhaps, but not wholly divine. It just means God imparted some element of Himself into us. And Scripture says we are made in God's image so even on if in form only, would this not still imply some kind of ex deo?

However, your belief that God does not have a substance would perhaps render this whole talk for you meaningless anyway?

Right, all of that really is meaningless. With that said, I do think Christians should take more seriously the doctrine of divination of man. But that's another subject entirely.

As to the charge of the fallacy of composition, there is a well known exception when we are talking about expansive properties--that is, those properties that are non-relative and are not dependent on the structure of a thing. So if I say that because balsa wood is light, and that my project is made of balsa wood, and therefore it must be light, and am clearly committing the fallacy. For here, "light" is a relative term. If, however, I said, that because balsa wood is a type of wood, and that my project is made of balsa wood, and therefore my project is a type of wood, I've not committed the fallacy. For the woodenness of the balsa is not a relative property--it is an absolute. That is to say, it is an expansive property.

I'm not sure that captures this particular case well. Rather what I meant was substituting the whole for parts or vice-versa.

For example, humans are made of atoms; atoms are invisible; therefore humans are invisible. This confuses parts (atoms) to argue a conclusion of the whole (humans).

Simiarly, God makes creation; creation is made from the Divine; therefore creation is the Divine... this reasoning similarly appears to be fallacious, committing a parts-to-whole fallacy. OR, even as you put it:

• "so with ex deo. If everything that exists is made out of the divine, then everything that exists is divine."

I guess I could even agree with this statement as literally written, since we are God's creation and so divine in this sense. However, if what you mean to say is "everything that exists is the divine" then that would be fallacious.

Jac wrote:It makes no sense to say that every part of me is made out of the divine, and yet somehow the whole is not divine.

Keeping intact the logic, but rephrasing this with subject matter more readily fallacious:

• It makes no sense to say that every atom in me is invisible, and yet somehow the whole of me is not invisible.

If this is true, then your statement regarding the divine can be accepted to. If you do not accept this atom example, then there is something amiss with your statement on the divine.

However, there are much bigger fish to fry I think for you, at a more foundational level with whether it even makes sense to consider God as a substance.

Jac wrote:I know you like panentheism, but this is perhaps the biggest reason I reject it. I don't see how you get away from this conclusion. We are not made of the divine. We are not divine. We are not made of "God stuff" (and, of course, I point out with you again that this is all for accommodation, because all of this is really meaningless to me). Any position that suggests we are, well I take that as a reductio against the position. Rick and others will have to decide if they find that a reductio at all . . . what one person finds absurd another may not, and thus what one finds a defeater another may simply find to be the logical conclusion. And on that point, you are absolutely right that there are much deeper issues here, which is why I first said that I don't know how we can have this conversation properly without getting into metaphysics.

Yeah, I pretty set on panentheism I think.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense logically of God's relationship to creation. When thought through, it also has perks that demand the necessity of a being like the existence of a Triune God as found in Christianity.

Definitely not pantheist. Despite your not seeing how the conclusion can be avoided, panentheism ("all in God") does not logically lead to pantheism ("all is God").

The building blocks of God's creation may be derived from God's substance, but the form of creation is unique to God's word.

To be open, I am neither creation ex nihilo nor fully creation ex deo but probably a bit of both.

K, the invisibility of atoms is not an expansive property. It's a relative property. The only reason they are invisible is that they are so small.

You should agree with the following:

• The chair is made of painted wood
  Every piece of the wood is green with no mixture of any other color anywhere
  Therefore, the chair is green

This isn't a composition fallacy, because the greenness of the wood is an expansive property. Or again to use an illustration I've used before:

• The vase is made of clay,
  Therefore, the vase is clay vase.

There's no composition fallacy there because the clayness of the material is an expansive property. The composition fallacy only applies to non-expansive properties (those that are relative and/or structure-dependent). To say that if we are made of "divine stuff" then we are divine is no more fallacious than to say a vase made of clay is a clay vase, since material causes refer to expansive properties.

And I understand your commitment to panentheism. You also understand why I reject it. I think if you stick on the road you are on long enough, you'll see that it's hard to embrace panentheism without eventually embracing some form of process philosophy (which could be justified on your Molinism, by the way), although process theology might be a step too far.

Kurieuo wrote:
Furthermore, if you believe God's relationship to creation is that creation is separate from God, then your only option as I logically see it is also creation ex nihilo.

I do believe that God is separate from His creation. So, I may ultimately see ex nihilo as the only logical option.

Also, if your subscribe to William Lane Craig, he's a heavy advocate of creation existing outside of God and creation ex nihilo, so I'm sure he has lots of writing on this stuff.

I do agree with a lot of what Craig says, but I'm not convinced that it has to be ex nihilo OR ex deo. I just see overlapping of the two. I don't see such a definite line drawn between the two.

However, for me, I tend to think creation ex nihilo strictly understood is logically unsound. That is, the belief that: God literally spoke into existence creation which is separate from Himself from absolutely nothing -- such that creation is not derived from any divine substance.

I think that's where my issue lies. Where I can't fully subscribe to ex nihilo only. Nothing can come from nothing. It has to come from something, unless it is preexistent. And, I believe only God preexists creation. At least He preexists whatever He created first. Maybe God created something before He created our universe. And then created our universe from that preexisting "stuff". But ultimately, it still gets back to the same thing.

Yeah, I think that's pretty much my thinking - that it is more the case of the two.

Craig always reasons from nothing, nothing comes. And yet, I have not seen a response from him on this other than God just brings into existence something brand new. If someone Craig debates wants to douse down his Kalam cosmological, then their best tact would be to point out the universe appearing from nothing is no more absurd than God creating the universe from nothing. In each case, nothing is treated as though it is something so both are absurd. But enough of Craig.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Furthermore, if you believe God's relationship to creation is that creation is separate from God, then your only option as I logically see it is also creation ex nihilo.

I do believe that God is separate from His creation. So, I may ultimately see ex nihilo as the only logical option.

The sense you probably understood this I did not intend. I should have been more careful with my words.

Let me re-phrase: if you believe God exists outside of Creation and vice-versa, then your only option is ex nihilo. Notwithstanding eternally pre-existing material ex materia, but I don't give that much credence since it adds unnecessary complexity and raises many other questions.

There are multiple nuances, but to try diagram some different possible relationships we have the following:

If at the beginning God was all that was then why would he have to speak a command? and to what or who would that command be heard?

A second thing to consider is why would God create raw materials without specific organization from 'nothing' just so he could then arrange them into specific arrangements? should we assume he did not know what the end design would be when he created the raw materials? and if he did know the end design then why not simply speak the end result into existence.

Why was it important for God to convey to his creation that he took a number of steps in forming everthing? He is God right? does he need to form things in steps? Further if God knows the final outcome of our existence why not simply skip this part and go straight to the end. What is being accomplished by the creation.

I think there should be a considering of this verse;
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil...

How did God already know what evil was? since our understanding of evil is anything or anyone who does not obey the will of God then how could God know what evil is unless there was already an experience to define it. From my understanding I don't believe that the bible describes Gods first creative acts even though the bible does describe his first acts of our creation.

I think part of our conceptual problem on this issue is that we somehow feel that the biblical account is describing the first of Gods creative acts and thus must mean that something had to come from nothing before physical existence could occur. I believe that there has always existed something alongside of God, something that is not intelligent but more akin to a physical substance or primordial matter if you will. I base this on the idea that without this something existing there would be nothing for God to exert his will upon. If all that was was God then he would have no need to have a will or to exert a command... It seems ludicris to assume that God would need to command himself which eliminates ex dio considerations and ex nihilio would require that God created something from outside himself which must function according to his imposed will on it.

So ultimately in my mind you cannot create something from nothing nor can you impose your will on yourself. You can only create from something and impose your will on something outside yourself.