Serious Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo

[handys003]

Hi Handy:

You posted:

For the benefit of the non-science types here (me), perhaps you can explain exactly where and how these articles demonstrate the falsity of CEN.

Best.

cks

Aloha bruddahhhh!

By placing helium in a state cooled to 0.0003 degrees F above absolute zero which most closely resembles the form it held at the beginning of the universe, scientists have created an opportunity for the gas to go through several low-energy evolutions. These defects in space-time, are represented by tiny whirlpools in the helium, which are created by the rapid expansion, and equally rapid slowing of the expansion; something that it

[Sargon]

Hello Rob. I look forward to your debate with Dave Burke.

You wrote:

One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that if an object does not have the property of self-existence then "it is their nature to not exist." This does not follow, and it is not something I or anyone I know accepts as a corollary of creation ex nihilo. It is in God's nature to exist necessarily; it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently (not "to not exist").

Blake Ostler writes:

Thomas Aquinas recognized that, given creatio ex nihilo, it is not in the nature of created beings to exist. Thus, in each moment of existence, God in effect recreates the entire world and all of its constituents ex nihilo.

Unfortunately, Ostler doesn't give a clear reference for this. It seems that he might be relying on a paper by Hugh McCann in Faith and Philosophy, but I'm not in a place where I can access that article right now (coincidentally, I just realized that McCann substitute taught one of my classes once). I may be able to get a hard copy of it next week if I can find time.

Ostler also notes some other authors who interpret Aquinas similarly, including T.P. Flint, T.V. Morris, and A.J. Freddoso. I wish Ostler would have included specifics about where Aquinas is alleged to have taken this stance.

Perhaps this notion that Ostler is defending ought to be discussed before we can move forward.

Orthodox Christians like myself affirm that God sustains the cosmos and all things in it without attributing to him direct responsibility for each and every action of each and every creature in the cosmos. We view both physical cause-and-effect and volitional choice-and-action as real, not illusionary.

Well I wouldn't expect you to embrace the implications of creation ex nihilo that Ostler describes (if they are correct). Those implications are what we must discuss!

Do you believe that if God blinked out of existence (an impossibility of course) that we would continue to exist? If so, what changes would happen to us if any?

Thanks.

Sargon

[Tsjoeva]

This discussion is inspired by Blake Ostler's treatment of it in vol. 2 of his series "Exploring Mormon Thought."

The doctrine of creation ex nihilo seems to be incompatible with any notion of significant free will. Here are the premises of this discussion, which I believe are accurate representations of orthodox Christianity (but not of Mormonism):

1. God is the only entity in the universe that has the property of self-existence. It is impossible for God to

not

exist.

2. All other objects, be it living things or non-living things, do not have the property of self-existence. It is their nature to not exist.

Maybe it is better to make point 2 clear.

After the sin fall, the creations of the Lord is subject to deterioration. I think you agree with that. If we don't maintain the world, it will be a chaos.

God created all things besides himself ex nihilo, bringing them from their natural state of non-existence into a state of existence. If left to their own devices, all things besides God would immediately blink out of existence, because it is their nature to not exist. In every moment their existence is necessarily sustained by God. In effect, God re-creates ex nihilo all things in every moment. If God did not do this, all things besides God would blink out of existence immediately after the first moment of their existence.

No, not everything make the Lord, ex nihilo. When you study this correct, you will see, that the Lord made the human out of dust. (Gen 2:7). The Dutch Reformed dogmatic page 240 said: ex nihilo mean actually post nihilo, because nothing was there before. And the human isn't created ex nihilo.

The implications of this are astounding. This effectively makes God responsible for everything that occurs. The actions we perform in one moment have no effect on the conditions of the next moment because the conditions of the next moment are created ex nihilo by God. It only appears that we impact future moments because that is how God has chosen to go about re-creating each new moment ex nihilo.

For example, the stages of growth that a tree passes through are artificial. The conditions of the tree at T1 have no bearing on the conditions of the tree at T2. In every moment T God re-creates the tree ex nihilo. In every moment T God re-creates the tree ex nihilo in a stage slightly more advanced than it was at at T-1.

No, I do not agree this. Because when God created the world..it was very good (like Gen 1:31 said), and after the sin fall, it wasn't good any more (Gen. 3:17-19)

[

This idea won't be terribly problematic for hyper-Calvinists who embrace God's absolute sovereignty over the universe anyway. But for other Calvinists, Arminians, and even open theist of the creatio ex nihilo tradition this is highly problematic. It suggests that who we are, including our desires, will, and our choices, are completely determined and created ex nihilo by God in every moment. There is no free will. There is no accountability for who we are, and for what we do.

There is no real opportunity for a man to enter into a relationship with God.

Thoughts?

Sargon

In my opion ex nihilo got nothing to do with our free will. Nothing to do with thought of the Arminians (who got a really nice hidden church got in my place, a recommend for people who visit Netherland). The predestination, got no relationship with the ex nihilo.

[3DOP]

Hello Rob. I look forward to your debate with Dave Burke.

You wrote:

Blake Ostler writes:

Unfortunately, Ostler doesn't give a clear reference for this. It seems that he might be relying on a paper by Hugh McCann in Faith and Philosophy, but I'm not in a place where I can access that article right now (coincidentally, I just realized that McCann substitute taught one of my classes once). I may be able to get a hard copy of it next week if I can find time.

Ostler also notes some other authors who interpret Aquinas similarly, including T.P. Flint, T.V. Morris, and A.J. Freddoso. I wish Ostler would have included specifics about where Aquinas is alleged to have taken this stance.

Perhaps this notion that Ostler is defending ought to be discussed before we can move forward.

Well I wouldn't expect you to embrace the implications of creation ex nihilo that Ostler describes (if they are correct). Those implications are what we must discuss!

Do you believe that if God blinked out of existence (an impossibility of course) that we would continue to exist? If so, what changes would happen to us if any?

Thanks.

Sargon

Sargon,

Do you concede or tend to concede that Ostler's argument fails if it can be demonstrated that creatio ex nihilo implies contingent existence, as opposed to non-existence? Contingent existence implies that something is dependent for existence on another being apart from itself. If that contingency is removed, the existence would fail. But that does not speak toward continuing "recreation ex nihilo" on the part of the "initial creation" as Rob Bowman has clarified to my satisfaction.

Hi Rob Bowman,

I missed your clarification earlier about my misgivings regarding your first post. I grant that the secondary causes you spoke about necessarily argue against Ostler's main presupposition, that if God once creates ex nihilo, He must continue to create each moment out of nothing.

3DOP

[handys003]

Handys,

You wrote:

The experiments do not prove that the universe started by the hypothesized "collision of branes," much less that this means that branes are eternal, self-existent realities that spontaneously gave rise to everything. This is a hypothesis I should think a Mormon would find problematic at least as much as I do, but I have run into Mormons before who seemed to feel such theories preferable to the specter of creation ex nihilo.

Why? You think we are heretics anyway because of JS King Follet Discourse which discounts CEN.

Your first article states, "And though they don

[cksalmon]

Hi Handy:

You wrote:

Therefore my assertion CEN is not possible based on the ability to create universes out of a common element. IMO HF existed in a universe or world to which he put in play the elements that compromise our universe. The universe must consists information of building blocks from his world to create our world and the universe. He just does it on a much larger and grander stage of science that we are incapable of yet producing.

So, something like:

(1) It is possible to create universes out of a common element

(2) Therefore, CEN is impossible

I don't find this a cogent argument. Just to address the elephant in the room, I'm aware of only one existent universe, and I'm unlikely to be persuaded that the theorists in your articles have actually created a universe out of a common element. Call me hardheaded.

But, more fundamentally, you're begging the question. Your (1) assumes without demonstrating the eternality of common elements, something CEN explicitly denies.

Best.

cks

[erichard]

... If left to their own devices, all things besides God would immediately blink out of existence, because it is their nature to not exist. In every moment their existence is necessarily sustained by God. In effect, God re-creates ex nihilo all things in every moment. If God did not do this, all things besides God would blink out of existence immediately after the first moment of their existence.

....

Hi Sargon,

Another implication is that at any moment God could recreate us into something totally different. Hitler (whom we love to hold up as the epitome of evil) could have been at any moment transformed into a Christ like person like Abraham.

And since Hitler was created from absolutely nothing, and God loves men like Abraham (also created from absolutely nothing) who trust and follow Him, one would think a loving God would do this if He could.

Even if one believes that somehow God is not ultimately responsible for the "free will" choices of a being He creates out of absolutely nothing, why would God not use his "blank check" power to "fix" those who go bad?

Isaiah 65:17 says: "For, behold, I CREATE new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind."

Will this new creation of the earth also be out of nothing? If CEN is God's creating modus operandi, one must consider this possiblity. Thus, since we are "something", then none of us would be in this new creation.

So, the very fact that salvation is offered by God to us through Christ is an evidence that neither the Isaiah 65 new creation, nor the Genesis 1 first creation are out of nothing.

Richard

[Blake]

Let me begin by observing that the argument that begins this thread doesn't accurately state my argument. I don't argue that it follows from creatio ex nihilo that anything has a "property of non-existence." Indeed, a property of non-existence would entail that the thing having such a property simply doesn't exist at all. My argument is that, however much Thomists and other (like Bowman and 3DOP here) may want to deny it, their beliefs entail occasionalism or that God is the sole actual and efficient cause of all events. That is, there is no secondary causation in nature. This result follows from these premises that anyone who adopts creatio ex nihilo must accept:

(1) God alone has the property of self-existence or self-sustenance. (God alone has the property of esse)

(2) Everything but god is, as a matter of fact, created by god out of nothing (premise)

(3) Only God can create ex nihilo (only god can impart existence or esse to another)

(4) Therefore, any created being cannot sustain itself in existence because that would entail imparting existence (esse) to itself. (from 1-3)

(5) If god did not sustain a created entity CE in existence at t2 that existed at t1, it would cease to exist at t2 (from 4 and from the notion that CE doesn't have self-existence)

(6) Therefore, god must create any created entity CE in existence in each moment of its existence. (from 4 and 5)

When Bowman and others write about creatio ex nihilo, they simply refuse to accept the implications of their doctrine of not only creatio ex nihilo, but the doctrine of divine sustenance. For example, Rob Bowman asserts that : " One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that if an object does not have the property of self-existence then "it is their nature to not exist." This does not follow, and it is not something I or anyone I know accepts as a corollary of creation ex nihilo. It is in God's nature to exist necessarily; it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently (not "to not exist")." Whether Bowman or anyone else he knows accepts a conclusion is hardly an argument against it! Apparently he thinks that all he has to do is say "I reject the implications that you assert that my beliefs entail, therefore my beliefs don't entail those implications." That is a case of begging the question and special pleading if ever there was one.

However, Bowman is correct that it doesn't follow that some existing thing has a the property of non-existence -- but my argument makes no such assertion. If something exists contingently, the it follows that it is possible that it doesn't exist. It also entails that if the necessary conditions for its existence cease or fail, that it ceases to exist. It is this last implication that Bowman and 3DOP fail to address or acknowledge. The notion of creation out nothing entails that God alone has the property of self-existence and that only God can impart existence (esse) to what does not exist. It follows immediately than any contingently existing thing would cease to exist if God did not sustain it from moment to moment since it cannot sustain itself in existence. That is simply as statement of the well-entrenched doctrine of divine sustenance. But if God must sustain a created entity CE in existence at t1 and also again at t2 (and so on for all times that CE exists), then all of CE's property are simply re-created at both t1 and t2 (and indeed all times that CE exists) directly by God -- including any properties of CE's actions. But of course an action whose properties are directly created by God is not free on any view of freedom. Even a compatibilist would deny that acts that are directly caused by God to be what they are is free.

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm not much of a philosopher, but I'm willing to learn. I have some questions for those who believe in creation ex nihilo.

Question 1: If God is necessarily existent, then is not this creation also necessarily existent? For God must exist as He is, and He is such that He willed to create.

Question 2: Did God only create the "initial" state of the universe, or did/does He create all states of the universe? If only the initial state, did He create it to be in a state to proceed as He willed, or did He create it to do something He didn't will, or something else entirely?

Question 3: Is it not true that God could end the universe whenever He wanted? Thus, is it not the case that God wills the universe to "continue" (from our point of view) existing? Thus, is it not the case that God creates each state of the universe by willing its existence? [Trying to phrase Ostler's argument in my own language. I may have gotten some things wrong.]

[3DOP]

Let me begin by observing that the argument that begins this thread doesn't accurately state my argument. I don't argue that it follows from creatio ex nihilo that anything has a "property of non-existence." Indeed, a property of non-existence would entail that the thing having such a property simply doesn't exist at all. My argument is that, however much Thomists and other (like Bowman and 3DOP here) may want to deny it, their beliefs entail occasionalism or that God is the sole actual and efficient cause of all events. That is, there is no secondary causation in nature. This result follows from these premises that anyone who adopts creatio ex nihilo must accept:

(1) God alone has the property of self-existence or self-sustenance. (God alone has the property of esse)

(2) Everything but god is, as a matter of fact, created by god out of nothing (premise)

(3) Only God can create ex nihilo (only god can impart existence or esse to another)

(4) Therefore, any created being cannot sustain itself in existence because that would entail imparting existence (esse) to itself. (from 1-3)

(5) If god did not sustain a created entity CE in existence at t2 that existed at t1, it would cease to exist at t2 (from 4 and from the notion that CE doesn't have self-existence)

(6) Therefore, god must create any created entity CE in existence in each moment of its existence. (from 4 and 5)

When Bowman and others write about creatio ex nihilo, they simply refuse to accept the implications of their doctrine of not only creatio ex nihilo, but the doctrine of divine sustenance. For example, Rob Bowman asserts that : " One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that if an object does not have the property of self-existence then "it is their nature to not exist." This does not follow, and it is not something I or anyone I know accepts as a corollary of creation ex nihilo. It is in God's nature to exist necessarily; it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently (not "to not exist")." Whether Bowman or anyone else he knows accepts a conclusion is hardly an argument against it! Apparently he thinks that all he has to do is say "I reject the implications that you assert that my beliefs entail, therefore my beliefs don't entail those implications." That is a case of begging the question and special pleading if ever there was one.

However, Bowman is correct that it doesn't follow that some existing thing has a the property of non-existence -- but my argument makes no such assertion. If something exists contingently, the it follows that it is possible that it doesn't exist. It also entails that if the necessary conditions for its existence cease or fail, that it ceases to exist. It is this last implication that Bowman and 3DOP fail to address or acknowledge. The notion of creation out nothing entails that God alone has the property of self-existence and that only God can impart existence (esse) to what does not exist. It follows immediately than any contingently existing thing would cease to exist if God did not sustain it from moment to moment since it cannot sustain itself in existence. That is simply as statement of the well-entrenched doctrine of divine sustenance. But if God must sustain a created entity CE in existence at t1 and also again at t2 (and so on for all times that CE exists), then all of CE's property are simply re-created at both t1 and t2 (and indeed all times that CE exists) directly by God -- including any properties of CE's actions. But of course an action whose properties are directly created by God is not free on any view of freedom. Even a compatibilist would deny that acts that are directly caused by God to be what they are is free.

Hi Blake and welcome.

I had earlier asked Sargon, who started the thread the following: "Do you concede or tend to concede that Ostler's argument fails if it can be demonstrated that creatio ex nihilo implies contingent existence, as opposed to non-existence?"

I am not terribly concerned about what my position should be on this question, except as it impacts the doctrine of free will. As a Catholic I am obliged to affirm freedom of the will. I do not think I am obliged to a position on whether God recreates each moment out of nothing. I was thinking that perhaps we were getting a little off track with the discussion of contingent existence vs. non-existence. It seemed to me that you would hold that an initial ex nihilo creation would be adequate in itself to maintain your argument that our view of creation is incompatible with freedom of the will.

I am not saying you are wrong about "recreation ex nihilo", and have no wish to be pushed into a defense of a view that allows contingent being, to not require recreation, if even after establishing the point, I would find everyone saying we can't have free will anyway if God creates ex nihilo initially.

Thanks,

3DOP

[Mudcat]

Let me begin by observing that the argument that begins this thread doesn't accurately state my argument. I don't argue that it follows from creatio ex nihilo that anything has a "property of non-existence." Indeed, a property of non-existence would entail that the thing having such a property simply doesn't exist at all. My argument is that, however much Thomists and other (like Bowman and 3DOP here) may want to deny it, their beliefs entail occasionalism or that God is the sole actual and efficient cause of all events. That is, there is no secondary causation in nature. This result follows from these premises that anyone who adopts creatio ex nihilo must accept:

(1) God alone has the property of self-existence or self-sustenance. (God alone has the property of esse)

(2) Everything but god is, as a matter of fact, created by god out of nothing (premise)

(3) Only God can create ex nihilo (only god can impart existence or esse to another)

(4) Therefore, any created being cannot sustain itself in existence because that would entail imparting existence (esse) to itself. (from 1-3)

(5) If god did not sustain a created entity CE in existence at t2 that existed at t1, it would cease to exist at t2 (from 4 and from the notion that CE doesn't have self-existence)

(6) Therefore, god must create any created entity CE in existence in each moment of its existence. (from 4 and 5)

When Bowman and others write about creatio ex nihilo, they simply refuse to accept the implications of their doctrine of not only creatio ex nihilo, but the doctrine of divine sustenance. For example, Rob Bowman asserts that : " One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that if an object does not have the property of self-existence then "it is their nature to not exist." This does not follow, and it is not something I or anyone I know accepts as a corollary of creation ex nihilo. It is in God's nature to exist necessarily; it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently (not "to not exist")." Whether Bowman or anyone else he knows accepts a conclusion is hardly an argument against it! Apparently he thinks that all he has to do is say "I reject the implications that you assert that my beliefs entail, therefore my beliefs don't entail those implications." That is a case of begging the question and special pleading if ever there was one.

However, Bowman is correct that it doesn't follow that some existing thing has a the property of non-existence -- but my argument makes no such assertion. If something exists contingently, the it follows that it is possible that it doesn't exist. It also entails that if the necessary conditions for its existence cease or fail, that it ceases to exist. It is this last implication that Bowman and 3DOP fail to address or acknowledge. The notion of creation out nothing entails that God alone has the property of self-existence and that only God can impart existence (esse) to what does not exist. It follows immediately than any contingently existing thing would cease to exist if God did not sustain it from moment to moment since it cannot sustain itself in existence. That is simply as statement of the well-entrenched doctrine of divine sustenance. But if God must sustain a created entity CE in existence at t1 and also again at t2 (and so on for all times that CE exists), then all of CE's property are simply re-created at both t1 and t2 (and indeed all times that CE exists) directly by God -- including any properties of CE's actions. But of course an action whose properties are directly created by God is not free on any view of freedom. Even a compatibilist would deny that acts that are directly caused by God to be what they are is free.

Blake,

I bolded a bit from your response. This seems to be where you were headed on 4-6. I am not really following your argument that well and am hoping for a clarification.

Let me ask you this. It seems you are reaching a conclusion that once something has begun to exist, it can not continue to exist without that thing which brought it into existence taking some sort of active role in its continued existence.

I suppose as I see it, if God can make things out of nothing.. like universes and so forth. Well once he makes a universe, for example, it would make better sense to me that this universe would just hang around with no special further effort on God's part to keep it "created".

I sounds like you are saying God has to continually keep something created for it to be.

If that is what you are proposing could you explain a little better how you arrive at that conclusion?

If not, then could you let me know where my misunderstanding lies?

Regards,

Mudcat

[Sargon]

Sorry for getting it wrong Blake. I'm just an amateur trying to figure this out! I'm glad you've come to sort this out.

[Zeta-Flux]

Mudcat,

I[t] sounds like you are saying God has to continually keep something created for it to be.

If that is what you are proposing could you explain a little better how you arrive at that conclusion?

Would not God leaving the universe alone be equivalent to God purposefully willing its continued existence, if He has the power to end it whenever He wants?

[3DOP]

Hi Zeta-Flux, you sound more philosophical than me!

I can give you the ammo, ...er answers to your questions, but I can't necessarily defend them.

Question 1: If God is necessarily existent, then is not this creation also necessarily existent? For God must exist as He is, and He is such that He willed to create.

Ans: God is free in Catholic theology, whether our philosophy supports it or not.

Question 2: Did God only create the "initial" state of the universe, or did/does He create all states of the universe? If only the initial state, did He create it to be in a state to proceed as He willed, or did He create it to do something He didn't will, or something else entirely?

Ans: I think that is what is being asked in the thread. I am open-minded, but have to defend free will in both God and man.

Question 3: Is it not true that God could end the universe whenever He wanted? Thus, is it not the case that God wills the universe to "continue" (from our point of view) existing? Thus, is it not the case that God creates each state of the universe by willing its existence? [Trying to phrase Ostler's argument in my own language. I may have gotten some things wrong.]

[Rob Bowman]

Blake,

Thanks for offering some clarifications of your argument. You wrote:

My argument is that, however much Thomists and other (like Bowman and 3DOP here) may want to deny it, their beliefs entail occasionalism or that God is the sole actual and efficient cause of all events. That is, there is no secondary causation in nature.

I think what you mean is that one of our beliefs (creation ex nihilo) is inconsistent with other beliefs that we also hold (e.g., that there are secondary causes in nature; that human beings are responsible for their actions). When you say "their beliefs," this misleadingly implies that the total package of our beliefs entails occasionalism. It doesn't.

You wrote:

This result follows from these premises that anyone who adopts creatio ex nihilo must accept:

(1) God alone has the property of self-existence or self-sustenance. (God alone has the property of esse)

(2) Everything but god is, as a matter of fact, created by god out of nothing (premise)

(3) Only God can create ex nihilo (only god can impart existence or esse to another)

(4) Therefore, any created being cannot sustain itself in existence because that would entail imparting existence (esse) to itself. (from 1-3)

(5) If god did not sustain a created entity CE in existence at t2 that existed at t1, it would cease to exist at t2 (from 4 and from the notion that CE doesn't have self-existence)

(6) Therefore, god must create any created entity CE in existence in each moment of its existence. (from 4 and 5)

I have already pointed out that premise (2) is not necessary to creation ex nihilo, and in fact it is both false and inconsistent with traditional Christian belief. I wasn't created ex nihilo; I was brought into existence from preexisting matter by the actions of sentient beings (thanks, Mom and Dad!). So there goes your argument.

Also, (6) does not follow necessarily from (4) and (5). You are assuming that anything that exists must either sustain itself in existence or be re-created each moment. I don't see why those are the only two possibilities. God might sustain created things in their existence without re-creating them each moment. In effect, you are equating sustaining existence with creating ex nihilo. But on what basis are you equating these? Your argument doesn't provide any basis for this equation.

You wrote:

When Bowman and others write about creatio ex nihilo, they simply refuse to accept the implications of their doctrine of not only creatio ex nihilo, but the doctrine of divine sustenance. For example, Rob Bowman asserts that : " One of the fallacies in your reasoning is that if an object does not have the property of self-existence then "it is their nature to not exist." This does not follow, and it is not something I or anyone I know accepts as a corollary of creation ex nihilo. It is in God's nature to exist necessarily; it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently (not "to not exist")." Whether Bowman or anyone else he knows accepts a conclusion is hardly an argument against it! Apparently he thinks that all he has to do is say "I reject the implications that you assert that my beliefs entail, therefore my beliefs don't entail those implications." That is a case of begging the question and special pleading if ever there was one.

How ridiculous. I didn't merely assert that we don't accept the conclusion, I responded to the reasons presented for the conclusion. My statement that it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently refutes the argument I was presented, and is also at least a partial answer to the corrected argument you present. I am sure you would not begrudge a Mormon pointing out to a critic that no Mormon believes what the critic asserts is the implications of his doctrine!

You wrote:

But if God must sustain a created entity CE in existence at t1 and also again at t2 (and so on for all times that CE exists), then all of CE's property are simply re-created at both t1 and t2 (and indeed all times that CE exists) directly by God -- including any properties of CE's actions. But of course an action whose properties are directly created by God is not free on any view of freedom. Even a compatibilist would deny that acts that are directly caused by God to be what they are is free.

Your argument makes a number of unwarranted assumptions. In addition to what I have stated above, your argument assumes that God's work of providence or sustaining must refer to keeping each individual entity in existence. But this may not be correct, at least not the way you assume. God can sustain the whole of the cosmos without re-creating each entity in it at each moment. In sustaining the whole, the parts can be sustained without each part being re-created ex nihilo. And again, keeping in existence is not identical with re-creating. Indeed, it cannot, or there would not be anything "kept" in existence. If there is no enduring object that continues to exist without interruption, but instead merely a series of objects that were separately created, then there is no "thing" that God actually "keeps existing." Your straw-man implication reduces each creature, each object, in the universe to a series of lifeless objects moved by God's hand into millions of poses to give the illusion of life, like a Claymation movie. Worse still, the Filmmaker would have to recreate each object in his Claymation film from nothing in each moment. So if you want to caricature classical theism along these lines, you can do so, but again, your argument makes assumptions about what creation ex nihilo means that advocates reject and that are not essential to the doctrine.

[Zeta-Flux]

Blake,

Just a wild thought I had. Why could it not have been the case that God created the universe (out of nothing) in such a manner that He gave the universe the ability to be self-sustaining for a set period of time, in its own sphere? That is, I'm not certain that the ex nihilo crowd here accepts statement (1) in your list; at least in its absolutism.

Or does this have something to do with God creating time itself?

[Zeta-Flux]

3DOP,

I too believe God is free, man is free, and love trumps philosophy. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Best wishes,

Zeta-Flux

[Blake]

Rob: My view is precisely that one of your belief in creation ex nihilo is inconsistent with your view that we act freely. I argue that the notion of craetion ex nihilo entails occasionalism though such a view must be rejected by those who affirm free will.

You say that you reject premise (2): Every is, as a matter of fact, created out of nothing. You give a counter-example -- you were created from the zygotes of your parents. Yes, were were, but the matter from which these things are derived, in its most essential form, was created out of nothing. So let's use two words: "actualized" to mean given existence out of nothing and "organized" to mean giving form to matter that has been actualized. This matter out of which you are made was created ex nihilo and your existence is dependent on the existence of the matter of which your body is made. I make this clear so that you can see that you only move one step away. So let's amend (2) to make it clearer if that will work better for you: (2*) The matter of which you are made was created out of nothing. With this amendment nothing in the argument changes since you cannot exist without the matter of your body existing.

You also assert: Also, (6) does not follow necessarily from (4) and (5). You are assuming that anything that exists must either sustain itself in existence or be re-created each moment. I don't see why those are the only two possibilities. God might sustain created things in their existence without re-creating them each moment. In effect, you are equating sustaining existence with creating ex nihilo. But on what basis are you equating these? Your argument doesn't provide any basis for this equation

The position you are asserting is nonsense. If you believe that God could sustain something in existence without re-creating it in each moment, then you fail to grasp the meaning of "sustain." Here is the key concept. A contingent thing requires an active causal power to maintain it in existence. If that causal power ceases, then the contingent thing ceases to exist. At t1 CE exists. If God does not cause CE to exist at t2 through his active causal power of granting esse to CE at t2, then CE does not exist at t2 -- since CE exists contingently in dependence on God's active causal power. However, God must sustain everything that is true of CE because of all CE's properties are contingent properties as well. This, at t2 God must cause through his active causal power every property, both essential and accidental properties, to exist at t2 as well if t2 exists at t2. If he doesn't CE ceases to exist at t2. However, CE's free acts are accidental properties of CE -- but if these properties are directly caused by God then occasionalism follows and CE is not free.

Thus, (6) follows from (4) and (5) just as I claimed. There are no alternatives. If CE cannot cause its own existence at t2 because it has no active causal power that could do so, and only God can impart existence to CE at t2, it follows that CE doesn't just continue existing at t2 unless God active causes it.

Rob Bowman: My statement that it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently refutes the argument I was presented, and is also at least a partial answer to the corrected argument you present. I am sure you would not begrudge a Mormon pointing out to a critic that no Mormon believes what the critic asserts is the implications of his doctrine!

You are simply mistaken that observing that it is in a creatures nature to exist is your doctrine -- and if it were, then your doctrine would be even more incoherent than my argument asserts. Further, you are mistaken that observing that a creature exists contingently answers my argument in any way. Existence isn't part of any thing's nature if it exists contingently. If a thing has existence as part of its nature (as all medieval theologians asserted was part of God's nature), then the thing exist necessarily exist but it existence would be contingent. It follows that the very concept of a thing that "it is in a creatures nature to exist contingently" is an incoherent notion and the perfect definition of an oxymoron. Neither necessary nor contingent existence are part of a creature's nature -- being created is merely what it means to be a creature. A creature that exists contingently is, by nature, something that doesn't have existence as part of its nature. If a things exists that could fail to exist, it follows that it exists contingently if it exists at all -- but that hardly entails that contingent existence is part of its nature.

Thus, your supposed answer to the argument rests on a self-contradictory notion of "having contingent existence by nature."

You also assert: In sustaining the whole, the parts can be sustained without each part being re-created ex nihilo.

This is a non-sequitur several times over. A whole cannot exist as such unless each of its parts exist. Further, the whole is created by creating its parts. Thus your argument is fallacious.

Rob Bowman: If there is no enduring object that continues to exist without interruption, but instead merely a series of objects that were separately created, then there is no "thing" that God actually "keeps existing."

Yup, I agree. There is no identity and no secondary causation. You beginning to see the absurd consequences of belief in creation out of nothing more clearly. I know that advocates of creatio ex nihilo will try to avoid such absurd consequences of their beliefs. But it does no good to observe, as you do, that my argument entails that your beliefs are absurd since that is just the point of my argument. It is a form of reductio as absurdum after all.

[Blake]

Zeta-Flux: Blake, Just a wild thought I had. Why could it not have been the case that God created the universe (out of nothing) in such a manner that He gave the universe the ability to be self-sustaining for a set period of time, in its own sphere? That is, I'm not certain that the ex nihilo crowd here accepts statement (1) in your list; at least in its absolutism.

God cannot grant a power of self-existence to that which has been created by himself because to be created is to not be self-existent. even God cannot create what cannot be created. Even God cannot create an uncreated universe (that is self-contradictory). Similarly, God cannot grant the property of being able to sustain that which requires an active causal power to maintain its existence because it is not self-existing. That too is self-contradictory.

[Tarski]

The idea that a thing's nature is to not exist, already sounds like muddled nonsense to me.

You speak of premises.

In logic, unless one's terms are clear and well defined, one gets nowhere in a hurry.

[Sargon]

The idea that a thing's nature is to not exist, already sounds like muddled nonsense to me.

You speak of premises.

In logic, unless one's terms are clear and well defined, one gets nowhere in a hurry.

You are right. My terms were not clear nor well defined on this point. But, in my defense, these two statements are quite easy to get mixed up:

1. It is a thing's nature to not exist (stated by me)

2. It is not in the nature of a thing to exist (a paraphrase of Thomas Aquinas by Ostler)

Forgive my recklessness.

[handys003]

Hi Handy:

You wrote:

So, something like:

(1) It is possible to create universes out of a common element

(2) Therefore, CEN is impossible

I don't find this a cogent argument. Just to address the elephant in the room, I'm aware of only one existent universe, and I'm unlikely to be persuaded that the theorists in your articles have actually created a universe out of a common element. Call me hardheaded.

But, more fundamentally, you're begging the question. Your (1) assumes without demonstrating the eternality of common elements, something CEN explicitly denies.

Best.

cks

Aloha cksalmon!

It's okay to be hard headed. It pays off for me also in other areas such as business negotiations at times.

Then you do not accept JS King Follet Discourse?

http://jon.swelter.n..._discourse.html

"In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning -- to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Elohim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right"

It goes on... then we come to:

God an Exalted Man

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, -- I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible."

It continues on then this:

Meaning of the Word Create

"You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.[5] Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos -- chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end".[6]

I will ask you this.

Are we not now as mere mortals playing the role of Gods? Evident by the splitting of atoms and unleashing it's destructive force. How about the power of cloning. The advances of prolonging life. The close breakthroughs on artificial life, and yes as courtesy of Rob Bowmen linking to a Science magazine that by mathmatical calculations banes do exist. Even though small they exist. Just as our universe might look so small to HF. Even if you don't accept the assertions of a micro universe through helium. These alone should be proof enough by proven science that we are becoming like Gods.

Does not these things only give foundation to JS assertion of Godhood? We glorify the Father by becoming like him. I see our Father as holy, but also I see him as an intelligent being who has a greater technology being used for our benefit and his. The kind of technology/science we have yet to have comprehension. How do you think this universe was made. What by stardust fairy magic? I do not think of my HF so small as by the assertion of CEN . It goes to the Mormon cosmology question. Who made God? He had to come from somewhere, and why not the same process, as how Jesus is going through now, as well as ourselves. The universe and our worlds were built upon the building blocks of information. A universal concept accepted by physicists and astronomers. Therefore it had to be made by a set of materials. Just not out of nothing.

Aloha!

[Nofear]

A contingent thing requires an active causal power to maintain it in existence.

While no fan of creatio ex nihilo myself (believing it to be one of the more abominable doctrines of traditional Christianity), I'm not persuaded by this assertion.

Suppose we have a ball at rest. Being at rest, it will remain at rest. I become an active causal power and impart motion to it. The ball continues in motion.

It is very true in Aristotelian physics that the active cause must be present to maintain the motion. However, given the property of inertia, the ball will continue its motion even without any active causal power whatsoever.

But, does the argument apply to esse? Sure, why not. We can simply posit that God created the property of "esse inertia". Thus, once a substance is created, it will simply continue its created status without any active causal power just as motion can continue without any active causal power. Perhaps God has to actively maintain the existence of the property, as he would all laws of nature, but that wouldn't be the same thing as actively sustaining the existence of the object.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

Would not God leaving the universe alone be equivalent to God purposefully willing its continued existence, if He has the power to end it whenever He wants?

Hey Zeta,

I follow you here. If God makes X and God equally has the power to unmake X, then X contingently exists upon the will of God not to unmake it. However, what I am driving, bold mine, is that to me it makes better since that X continues to exist unless God purposefully wills it nonexistence.

Sounds a bit semantic, but as I see it, if God makes X then X exists. From that point forward, it would seem to me that the continued existence of X would require no special effort of will on behalf of its creator. I don't think I am articulating the thought very well... and perhaps there is a good word for the concept. I suppose I see it like that physical law about and object staying in motion until acted upon by another force.

Looking at in a more active sense, which seems to be what Sargon and Blake support, then looking at the question you asked me draws some odd parallels.

I mean that there is an underlying sentiment to it, that not only that anything that exists is created moment to moment, but also that anything that is uncreated is uncreated moment to moment.

If I can conceive of something that could exist, a winged oyster for example, then God must actively keep this winged oyster uncreated moment to moment as well. Makes a rather big job of the whole thing, and I am sure he has a much simpler way of handling this sort of thing.

Also, the posited theorem/argument does nothing to address those things that God has created with eternal properties, like the human soul. If God has guaranteed eternal existence of the spirit, then I don't it fair to say that this is something he has to keep up moment to moment.

And IMO, the eternal nature of the spirit is something that lends strength to the concept of free will. Haven't developed that concept much in my mind, but it seems to make since to me. I may try to flesh that out a bit, when I have more time.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Rob Bowman]

Blake,

Your entire argument is nothing more than a speculative critique that makes unjustifiable assumptions about what creation ex nihilo necessarily entails. You assume, for example, that God's act of causing a specific creature C to exist at time t1 is a separate act from his act of causing C to exist at t2. I don't see why this assumption must be true. Why cannot God will that C exists for a specified period of time? Your argument amounts to saying that God cannot create anything ex nihilo without performing a nearly infinite number of separate acts of creation ex nihilo in order to "sustain" what he creates. I see no justification for this claim. You assert that it is "nonsense" to believe that God can sustain something in existence without recreating it at each moment, but then you agree with me that he really isn't sustaining any thing at all -- instead, he is re-creating new things ex nihilo at each moment that only appear to be the same existing things that existed in the previous moment. It is you, then, who apparently doesn't understand what it means to "sustain something in existence." It means that God is ultimately responsible in some way for the energy, coherence, natural-law matrix, etc., that enables real things to continue existing over time, to be real enduring things.

I do not agree with your objection to my point about God sustaining the whole without re-creating the parts ex nihilo at each moment. As best I can determine, your argument, among other problems, commits the division fallacy (what is true of the whole must be true of the parts). Your claim that the whole is created (ex nihilo) by creating its parts (ex nihilo) is simply erroneous. God created the universe ex nihilo and then the parts of the universe emerged through a process of development. God did not create the parts (all of the stars, the earth, moon, planets, water, dirt, plants, dogs, cats, you, me, etc.) and assemble them to form the universe. The process was actually the reverse: he initiated the universe and the parts emerged over time.

I wonder at your appealing to "all medieval philosophers" as if all of a sudden you think they understood something, when your whole line of argument is bent on showing that the classical theism of those medievals is supposedly nonsense. I see nothing incoherent about affirming that creatures exist contingently, and I see no difference in meaning between affirming that creatures exist contingently and that it is in the nature of creatures to exist contingently. Thus, it seems to me that your argument amounts to denying that anything can exist contingently. I'm simply unpersuaded that you have given us any reason to follow you on this point.

Reductio ad absurdum is a time-honored form of rational critique, but to be cogent such critique must proceed from premises that do not beg the question.

Rob: My view is precisely that one of your belief in creation ex nihilo is inconsistent with your view that we act freely. I argue that the notion of craetion ex nihilo entails occasionalism though such a view must be rejected by those who affirm free will.

You say that you reject premise (2): Every is, as a matter of fact, created out of nothing. You give a counter-example -- you were created from the zygotes of your parents. Yes, were were, but the matter from which these things are derived, in its most essential form, was created out of nothing. So let's use two words: "actualized" to mean given existence out of nothing and "organized" to mean giving form to matter that has been actualized. This matter out of which you are made was created ex nihilo and your existence is dependent on the existence of the matter of which your body is made. I make this clear so that you can see that you only move one step away. So let's amend (2) to make it clearer if that will work better for you: (2*) The matter of which you are made was created out of nothing. With this amendment nothing in the argument changes since you cannot exist without the matter of your body existing.

You also assert: Also, (6) does not follow necessarily from (4) and (5). You are assuming that anything that exists must either sustain itself in existence or be re-created each moment. I don't see why those are the only two possibilities. God might sustain created things in their existence without re-creating them each moment. In effect, you are equating sustaining existence with creating ex nihilo. But on what basis are you equating these? Your argument doesn't provide any basis for this equation

The position you are asserting is nonsense. If you believe that God could sustain something in existence without re-creating it in each moment, then you fail to grasp the meaning of "sustain." Here is the key concept. A contingent thing requires an active causal power to maintain it in existence. If that causal power ceases, then the contingent thing ceases to exist. At t1 CE exists. If God does not cause CE to exist at t2 through his active causal power of granting esse to CE at t2, then CE does not exist at t2 -- since CE exists contingently in dependence on God's active causal power. However, God must sustain everything that is true of CE because of all CE's properties are contingent properties as well. This, at t2 God must cause through his active causal power every property, both essential and accidental properties, to exist at t2 as well if t2 exists at t2. If he doesn't CE ceases to exist at t2. However, CE's free acts are accidental properties of CE -- but if these properties are directly caused by God then occasionalism follows and CE is not free.

Thus, (6) follows from (4) and (5) just as I claimed. There are no alternatives. If CE cannot cause its own existence at t2 because it has no active causal power that could do so, and only God can impart existence to CE at t2, it follows that CE doesn't just continue existing at t2 unless God active causes it.

Rob Bowman: My statement that it is in a creature's nature to exist contingently refutes the argument I was presented, and is also at least a partial answer to the corrected argument you present. I am sure you would not begrudge a Mormon pointing out to a critic that no Mormon believes what the critic asserts is the implications of his doctrine!

You are simply mistaken that observing that it is in a creatures nature to exist is your doctrine -- and if it were, then your doctrine would be even more incoherent than my argument asserts. Further, you are mistaken that observing that a creature exists contingently answers my argument in any way. Existence isn't part of any thing's nature if it exists contingently. If a thing has existence as part of its nature (as all medieval theologians asserted was part of God's nature), then the thing exist necessarily exist but it existence would be contingent. It follows that the very concept of a thing that "it is in a creatures nature to exist contingently" is an incoherent notion and the perfect definition of an oxymoron. Neither necessary nor contingent existence are part of a creature's nature -- being created is merely what it means to be a creature. A creature that exists contingently is, by nature, something that doesn't have existence as part of its nature. If a things exists that could fail to exist, it follows that it exists contingently if it exists at all -- but that hardly entails that contingent existence is part of its nature.

Thus, your supposed answer to the argument rests on a self-contradictory notion of "having contingent existence by nature."

You also assert: In sustaining the whole, the parts can be sustained without each part being re-created ex nihilo.

This is a non-sequitur several times over. A whole cannot exist as such unless each of its parts exist. Further, the whole is created by creating its parts. Thus your argument is fallacious.

Rob Bowman: If there is no enduring object that continues to exist without interruption, but instead merely a series of objects that were separately created, then there is no "thing" that God actually "keeps existing."

Yup, I agree. There is no identity and no secondary causation. You beginning to see the absurd consequences of belief in creation out of nothing more clearly. I know that advocates of creatio ex nihilo will try to avoid such absurd consequences of their beliefs. But it does no good to observe, as you do, that my argument entails that your beliefs are absurd since that is just the point of my argument. It is a form of reductio as absurdum after all.