Serious Implications of Creation Ex Nihilo

[cksalmon]

What I assert is merely the obvious that all writers who have dealt with this issue agree on: contingent things don't have existence as part of their essence or nature.

Do you mean that all writers who have dealt with this issue agree that contingent things don't exist necessarily? Perhaps (one hopes). Or, perhaps that all writers who have dealt with this issue agree that contingently existing things do not exist necessarily? But, that's the same. So, you must mean something more profound: Contingent things are not self-existent? Wait.

What is it, again, precisely that the set of "all [relevant] writers" agree about with you as over against Bowman?

I missed it.

Best.

cks

[Blake]

Do you mean that all writers who have dealt with this issue agree that contingent things don't exist necessarily? Perhaps (one hopes). Or, perhaps that all writers who have dealt with this issue agree that contingently existing things do not exist necessarily? But, that's the same. So, you must mean something more profound: Contingent things are not self-existent? Wait.

What is it, again, precisely that the set of "all [relevant] writers" agree about with you as over against Bowman?

I missed it.

Best.

cks

Without equivocation every writer has held that contingent things don't exist necessarily -- if they did then by definition they wouldn't be contingent. All writers agree that contingent things don't have the explanation of their own existence within themselves. They all agree that contingent things don't have existence or esse as part of their essence -- otherwise they wouldn't be contingent by definition. Saying that a contingent thing can sustain itself in existence like Bowman does is logically equivalent to saying "this bachelor is married."

[Blake]

The problem is that you interpret this premise to mean that contingent things aren't really things. I don't think this is a caricature or misstatement of your contention at all.

Rob that is just nonsense and you know it. Of course contingently existing things are things; they just aren't the kind of things that have the explanation of their own existence within themselves or within their own essence. If you would be so kind as to show me where I said anything remotely like what you attempt to foist upon me I'd be much more open to your assertion. The good thing about the net is that we can go back and look over the statements -- and it just ain't there because I haven't said anything remotely like what you attribute to me.

You claim that if God created the universe ex nihilo, then nothing in the universe can exist for more than a moment at a time, and therefore all continuity of things existing from one moment to the next, of events happening to these things, and of some of these things actually acting, are illusions. That means that there really are no such things as stars, planets, trees, horses, or people. There is only the illusion of such things, because supposedly if God created the universe ex nihilo and sustains contingent things in their existence, he must re-create them ex nihilo at each and every moment. Therefore, your argument does amount to claiming that if something exists contingently it doesn't exist at all.

It would be hard to find a more complete non-sequitur than you write here. It doesn't follow at all from my argument (nor do I ever claim that it does) that if something exists contingently then it doesn't exist at all. If that is the best you can do, then you are really desperate. What follows is only that if a thing exists contingently then: (1) its existence is not logically or metaphysically necessary; (2) existence is not part of its essence; (3) it requires something else as the explanation of its existence in each moment that it exists because that explanation isn't found within its own intrinsic properties. Thus, occasionalism follows from creation ex nihilo -- like it or not.

[Rob Bowman]

Blake,

You complain that I caricature your argument, but perhaps we're simply having difficulty seeing what each other really means. After all, you wrote:

Saying that a contingent thing can sustain itself in existence like Bowman does is logically equivalent to saying "this bachelor is married."

And, of course, I never said that a contingent thing can sustain itself in existence.

[Rob Bowman]

Blake,

I had written:

"The problem is that you interpret this premise to mean that contingent things aren't really things. I don't think this is a caricature or misstatement of your contention at all."

You replied:

Rob that is just nonsense and you know it. Of course contingently existing things are things; they just aren't the kind of things that have the explanation of their own existence within themselves or within their own essence. If you would be so kind as to show me where I said anything remotely like what you attempt to foist upon me I'd be much more open to your assertion. The good thing about the net is that we can go back and look over the statements -- and it just ain't there because I haven't said anything remotely like what you attribute to me.

Glad to oblige. The following comes from post #43 in this thread:

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.

There you go.

[Blake]

Blake,

I had written:

"The problem is that you interpret this premise to mean that contingent things aren't really things. I don't think this is a caricature or misstatement of your contention at all."

You replied:

G

There you go.

Rob: Good grief. Dialoging with you is like talking to a brick wall. Note that I don't agree with your statement that they are not things. They just aren't things that endure. They aren't the same thing in terms of having all accidental properties in common from moment to moment. That is all that I said would support. That hardly entails that they aren't things in the moment God sustains them in existence. I find it hilarious that you assert that they aren't things, I clarify that there are absurd consequences and the sense in which these absurd consequences follow, and you attempt to foist upon me your initial caricature that I didn't accept without that furth clarification. So, glad to oblige back at you.

[Ahab]

That statement is based on ignorance.

God (your God to be more specific) can NOT create (or reproduce) a being like Him (or Her, It or Them)self(ves).

Your claim that my statement is based on ignorance is evidence of your own ignorance.

God (the person I call God to be specific, and more specifically my Father in heaven) actually CAN create (or reproduce) a being like himself, and he's already been doing it for a very, very long time.

[Vance]

Your claim that my statement is based on ignorance is evidence of your own ignorance.

God (the person I call God to be specific, and more specifically my Father in heaven) actually CAN create (or reproduce) a being like himself, and he's already been doing it for a very, very long time.

So you are saying that the ONLY uncreated being can create another UNCREATED being and has already done so?

Please, please expound on this.

Who is this UNCREATED being that was CREATED? And when did this creation occur?

Please educate me on this topic!

[saemo]

I listened to this lecture by Peter Kreeft, and thought of this thread. It is a philosophical approach to how we are both fated and free. I recommend giving it a listen.

[Ahab]

...God cannot remove Himself from being responsible for something over which He had complete control in bringing into existence out of nothing.

God is responsible for what God created, and God is also responsible for giving agency to what God created, but God is not responsible for how that creation chooses to use that agency. To understand that, you need to correctly understand what agency is.

Agency empowers someone who has it to make his/her own choices while bearing the responsibiilty for those choices.

God essentially says: [This] is what I would like you to do, but you can do what you want, because I gave you that power to choose. I would prefer that you do what is right, but you can also do what is wrong because you have the ability to do either. It's your choice, and you will bear the responsibility for your choices.

Because since God had full control, and there were no other outside factors beyond His control in bringing us into existence, then He alone is responsible for the outcomes related to His creation - again under the doctrine of CEN.

Not true, not even under the doctrine of CEN.

Even when operating under the paradigm of CEN, God gave those he created the power to make their own choices, and with that power came/comes the responsibility for the choices that those who had agency made.

He cannot create something and then let it loose on its own, disavowing any responsibility for its actions.

Yes he can, and he did.

He created us and then gave us free reign to become whatever we choose to be, limited only by the power we have to make our own choices.

When God created us we were good, but then God gave us the freedom to become evil, if we want to be evil.

That is the power of agency.

Under CEN, we are what we are because God made us that way.

Yes, but what way did God make us?

In truth: First good, and then with the power to choose between good and evil.

That's how God made us, and it isn't God's fault if we use (or have used) our agency to choose to become evil.

God is responsible for giving us our agency, but God isn't responsible for our choices to do or be evil, even though we are using the agency God gave us to become either good or evil.

Evil is our choice, and it is in opposition to God's will, with God allowing us to oppose him if we want to.

In the process of making the choices we do, we make them because of what we are - and God is directly responsible, under CEN, for what we are. There is ultimately no other influence on us that did not originate from God.

I'm fairly impressed with your argument, and I accept the fact that God is responsible for creating us while giving us our agency.

I still don't accept the idea that God is responsible if we choose to use our agency to do something evil, though.

God gave us our agency, but he isn't responsible if we choose to use it to do or be something evil.

Carry on.

[Ahab]

So you are saying that the ONLY uncreated being can create another UNCREATED being and has already done so?

No, I didn't say that. I said God can create other persons like himself, and that he has already been doing it.

Please educate me on this topic!

God is the one who can do it. Learn from him.

[Vance]

No, I didn't say that. I said God can create other persons like himself, and that he has already been doing it.

So now you are back pedaling!

You said,

God (the person I call God to be specific, and more specifically my Father in heaven) actually CAN create (or reproduce) a being like himself, and he's already been doing it for a very, very long time.

Now to me "person" and "being are the same thing, BUT to you they are different, correct?

To you there are three persons in one being, correct?

So why the back pedaling?

God is the one who can do it. Learn from him.

So in other words, you can't explain it?

Is that because it doesn't make sense?

Is that because it will sound ridiculous?

Do you not believe that God is uncreated?

How is it possible to CREATE a being like an UNCREATED being?

Come on oh wise one, expound and enlighten.

[Vance]

<SNIP>

Just more "nuh uh"!

Why don't you try to use logic, instead of just saying "nuh uh".

You can believe whatever you want but just because you believe it doesn't make it logically defend-able.

(3 = 1 comes to mind)

All Blake is asking, is for you to present a logical explanation. Your unsupported assertions are UNSUPPORTED and left without a logical basis. Spouting your personal beliefs is not the same as presenting a logical argument.

[Rob Bowman]

Blake,

You wrote:

Rob: Good grief. Dialoging with you is like talking to a brick wall. Note that I don't agree with your statement that they are not things. They just aren't things that endure. They aren't the same thing in terms of having all accidental properties in common from moment to moment. That is all that I said would support. That hardly entails that they aren't things in the moment God sustains them in existence. I find it hilarious that you assert that they aren't things, I clarify that there are absurd consequences and the sense in which these absurd consequences follow, and you attempt to foist upon me your initial caricature that I didn't accept without that furth clarification. So, glad to oblige back at you.

Blake, things that don't endure for any period of time at all aren't really things. A rock that isn't falling down a slope, but is being re-created at every moment to give the illusion of a falling rock, not only isn't a falling rock, it isn't a rock at all. A horse that isn't really running but is merely a series of flashes of three-dimensional horse-images giving the illusory appearance of a running horse isn't a horse at all. You yourself had agreed that on your critique "there is no identity." That means there is no rock and no horse. So I stand by my statement that what your critique amounts to saying is that if God creates the world ex nihilo then there are no things in the universe. If I'm caricaturing your argument, I sure don't see it.

[Ahab]

Just more "nuh uh"!

Why don't you try to use logic, instead of just saying "nuh uh".

I did, and now you are just saying "nuh uh" yourself.

Now why don't you try using some logic to explain how what I said isn't logical, to support your allegation that it isn't.

Just saying "nuh uh" to the idea that I was usinjg logic isn't a valid argument to show that I really wasn't.

Here is the logic of my argument, again, as plain as day:

The person making choices is the person who is responsible for those choices.

That is good logic.

To go a little further,

If it is true that God gave us agency when God created us, and if agency gives the one who has it the power to make his or her own choices, then a person who is using his/her agency to make choices is the person who is responsible for those choices.

That, also, is good logic.

I maintain the idea that God is the one who is responsible for giving us: agency.

I also maintain the idea that agency gives the one who has it the power to make his or her own choices.

Therefore, if those ideas are based on truth, then each of us who has agency is responsible for our own choices.

If you'd like to show that what I have said is not logical, go for it.

It is logical, and it is also true.

Try doing more than simply saying "nuh uh" to my "uh huh".

[Vance]

If it is true that God gave us agency when God created us, and if agency gives the one who has it the power to make his or her own choices, then a person who is using his/her agency to make choices is the person who is responsible for those choices.

So again you are just asserting your personal theological beliefs without providing any logical explanation as to how they could be supported.

What logical argument do you have that, something God created out of NOTHING, CAN have agency?

Blake has provide very solid logical arguments as to why they can NOT.

AND neither you nor Rob have provide logical arguments as to why they CAN.

You only assert that they were.

So NO!!!! you haven't provided a logical explanation for your premise that God DID give the creations ex nihilo agency.

I look forward to your continued "nuh uh" approach.

PS.

Still waiting for an explanation of how an uncreated being can create an uncreated being.

I won't hold my breath.

[Vance]

Blake,

You wrote:

Blake, things that don't endure for any period of time at all aren't really things. A rock that isn't falling down a slope, but is being re-created at every moment to give the illusion of a falling rock, not only isn't a falling rock, it isn't a rock at all. A horse that isn't really running but is merely a series of flashes of three-dimensional horse-images giving the illusory appearance of a running horse isn't a horse at all. You yourself had agreed that on your critique "there is no identity." That means there is no rock and no horse. So I stand by my statement that what your critique amounts to saying is that if God creates the world ex nihilo then there are no things in the universe. If I'm caricaturing your argument, I sure don't see it.

Rob,

I see that you have been reduced to word games and red herrings.

That, in and of itself, is revealing.

[Ahab]

So now you are back pedaling!

Good catch, but while I didn't use exactly the same words that I used before, the thoughts I had are in harmony.

I'll clear it up now, from both angles:

God can create other persons like himself, and he has already been doing it.

God (the person I call God to be specific, and more specifically my Father in heaven) actually CAN create (or reproduce) a being like himself, and he's already been doing it for a very, very long time.

There. I've now made both statements, and both of the statements are true, from my perspective, regardless of whether or not you know that.

Now to me "person" and "being are the same thing, BUT to you they are different, correct?

Sometimes I use both words interchangably to refer to the same idea I have in my mind, but on some occasions I will use the word "being" to refer to a genus or kind of being consisting of "persons".

For example, I consider "God" to be a particular kind of being consisting of more than one person, and I also use the word/name/title "God" to refer to a particular person who I refer to as my Father in heaven.

To you there are three persons in one being, correct?

Yes, I can think of God in that way. I can also think of God as a particular, individual being if I am using the word "being" in much the same way that I often use the word "person". The point of reference is in my own mind.

So why the back pedaling?

Partly because I was speaking "off the cuff" without worrying about semantics, and partly so that I would have this wonderful opportunity to go into some more detail for you.

So in other words, you can't explain it?

I could, but rather than accepting you as one of my own disciples, I would rather see you follow God, personally.

Is that because it doesn't make sense?

No. It makes perfect, and wonderful, sense.

Is that because it will sound ridiculous?

No. I learned to not worry about what anyone, other than God, thinks a long, long time ago.

Do you not believe that God is uncreated?

In your use of the word "God" as you asked that question, were you thinking of only one particular person, or were you thinking of all of those who are the same kind of being?

How is it possible to CREATE a being like an UNCREATED being?

Ask God to explain it to you. He has a wonderful way of explaining things.

Come on oh wise one, expound and enlighten.

LOL. Is that a command, or a request?

I'm satisifed with what I have already told you.

You can learn from the God I am learning from, if you really want to.

[Ahab]

So again you are just asserting your personal theological beliefs without providing any logical explanation as to how they could be supported.

My main focus here is to simply use logic to support my beliefs, and I have already done that.

If you're expecting me to prove to you that my logical belief is true, then you might as well stop.

Something can be logical and still not be true. I'm simply showing you how my beliefs are, in fact, logical.

What logical argument do you have that, something God created out of NOTHING, CAN have agency?

The premise that God is a person or a kind of being capable of giving what he creates the power to choose.

If God is a person or a kind of being that can do that, then that kind of God would be able to do that for his creation whether or not that creation was created out of nothing.

[Vance]

God (the person I call God to be specific, and more specifically my Father in heaven) actually CAN create (or reproduce) a being like himself, and he's already been doing it for a very, very long time.

So again, we have a bald assertion.

What can you tell me about this created being that is like your uncreated God?

I could, . . .

Well, I am going to have to call BS!

Either put up or recant!

. . . I would rather see you follow God, personally.

Been there, done that, doing that!

No. It makes perfect, and wonderful, sense.

OBVIOUSLY not!

Or you could and would explain it.

No. I learned to not worry about what anyone, other than God, thinks a long, long time ago.

LOL!!!! Then why are you here trying to convince people that what they think/believe is wrong?

In your use of the word "God" as you asked that question, were you thinking of only one particular person, or were you thinking of all of those who are the same kind of being?

I was thinking about the BEING that you call God.

How can the (uncreated) BEING that you call God create another uncreated BEING like the uncreated BEING that you call God?

Ask God to explain it to you. He has a wonderful way of explaining things.

I have, and He has revealed to me that your concept of Him is an abomination to Him.

LOL. Is that a command, or a request?

It was a request, but now I make it a challenge.

You can learn from the God I am learning from, if you really want to.

(I could say "Nah, I would rather learn from the true God" but that might hurt your feelings or something so I will say "Been there, done that, doing that".

[Calm]

Diagram G: Picture showing how God is not responsible for the actions of the person God created, because God gave that person his/her own agency to make his/her own choices, whether good or evil.

If this has been answered, please simply point me to it....

If one accepts that God gave the individual the agency to make his or her own choices, that still leaves the issue of what the source of those choices are, iow why does the person choose what s/he chooses. If it is the person's nature that drives the choice and God created that nature, how is God not the source of the choices even if he has given the individual the ability to make those choices?

[Vance]

My main focus here is to simply use logic to support my beliefs, and I have already done that.

Then you should be very clear that that is your purpose. (Which basically amounted to saying "nuh uh" to OP and associated posts.

If you're expecting me to prove to you that my logical belief is true, then you might as well stop.

I am just telling you that "nuh uh" is of no value to this discussion. Either provide logically based support for your premise or just state what you clearly define as you OPINION and leave it at that.

Something can be logical and still not be true.

And something that is illogical is likely untrue. (You know, things like 3=1 .)

I'm simply showing you how my beliefs are, in fact, logical.

But the premise of you logic has not been defended logically.

That is what is being asked for here. If you can't provide that then you shouldn't waste everybody's time posting what amounts to drivel when considering the arguments being presented.

The premise that God is a person or a kind of being capable of giving what he creates the power to choose.

True, so it would be nice to see a logical argument as to why this is possible. Rather that just presume it in posted drivel

If God is a person or a kind of being that can do that, then that kind of God would be able to do that for his creation whether or not that creation was created out of nothing.

Still waiting for a logical argument as to how it is possible.

Asserting it, is not enough.

[Calm]

I see my question has come up more than once (see below), but the only answer appears to be an assertion that since God gave man agency, responsibility for choice went along with it with no mention that I could see that if the source of the reasons for those choices (not the power to make them) is God, then how is he absolved of responsiblity?

Under CEN, we are what we are because God made us that way. In the process of making the choices we do, we make them because of what we are - and God is directly responsible, under CEN, for what we are. There is ultimately no other influence on us that did not originate from God.

That is the problem that the rationale of God giving us agency cannot answer - that our choices in that agency are made because of God being responsible for what we are.

An analogy---I create a computer program, set the parameters for 'decision making' and then let the computer run the decision making program. Is the computer ultimately responsible for its decisions since those decisions were based on my limits/controls even though it is the one doing the measuring of whether or not something fits those parameters and is acceptable or not, iow choosing? Or am I even though I am not now directly involved in the decision making process, but was only involved in the initial stages where I set up the whys and hows of the choices being made.

If you agree that I--the programmer---is ultimately responsible for the choices being made even if I am not the one making each choice, but still disagree that humans--created from nothing by their creator and thus given the parameters or the hows and whys of their choices by their creator---are not similarly not ultimately responsible for their own "programmed" choices, could you please explain why. Simply saying that they have the ability to choose does nothing in that computers also have the ability to choose, you need to go to the reason for those choices and why for humans it's independent of their creator and for computers it is not.

PS: I have no problem if one believes as a matter of faith that God is capable of giving true responsibility to something he is the sole source of everything for, including not only the ability to choose, but the desire to make those choices. However, I think if one makes that claim and then does not show a logical support for it, I don't think there is any reason I or anyone else needs to accept it as "logical" and we can challenge the logicalness of the belief without ridiculing the faith aspect of it.

IOW, simply because this faith belief has been stated as some sort of "premise"---

The premise that God is a person or a kind of being capable of giving what he creates the power to choose.

---unless that "premise" is demonstrated to logically follow from generally accepted "givens", it is a simply statement of faith, not a statement of logic.

[Ahab]

If this has been answered, please simply point me to it....

If one accepts that God gave the individual the agency to make his or her own choices, that still leaves the issue of what the source of those choices are, iow why does the person choose what s/he chooses. If it is the person's nature that drives the choice and God created that nature, how is God not the source of the choices even if he has given the individual the ability to make those choices?

The source of the choices is the person who is making those choices.

Person A makes choices. Person A is the source of those choices, regardless of whether or not Person A was created from out of nothing.

From the perspective of people who accept the idea that God created ex nilo, Satan chose to rebel against God using the agency God had given to him, and Satan was the source of his choices, using the power God gave him to choose to make all of his choices.

Why would anyone want to try to give credit to God for the choices that Satan made?

Why would anyone want to try to gie credit to anyone else for the choices they are making, themselves?

Sounds to me like they're trying to absolve themselves of their own accountability for making their own choices, and such a position doesn't make any logical sense.

It wasn't God who did what Satan did. That was Satan, and he made his own choices.

[Ahab]

An analogy---I create a computer program, set the parameters for 'decision making' and then let the computer run the decision making program.

One of the differences beween a person and a computer is that a person can create their own program.

God does have a plan for us to follow, but it is up to us to choose whether or not to follow it.

Someday some people are going to learn their own way was not the best way to live, and they're also going to learn that many other people made similar mistakes in their own lives.

I hope to be someone who will hear God say to me, personally: That was awesome, and I'm very impressed.