Religious implications of God creating all things from eternal matter (moral, Earth)

[Clear]

A friend and I recently discussed the ancient religious doctrine of creation from eternal matter (i.e. creation from chaotic and unorganized matter) versus the more modern doctrine of creation from nothing (ex-nihilo creation). The implications of creation from eternal chaotic matter seem profound in their affect of several disciplines.

Implication for religious philosophers are profound. for example, creation from matter (which has it’s own innate eternal characteristics) rather than creation from nothing changes the locus of responsibility for evil.

If the universe is created from eternal matter, then there are principles as eternal as God, and these principles possess their own innate characteristics. This is important, since, if God does not create the conditions from which arises evil, then he is not responsible for it. Obviously there are many other philosophical implications that are just as profound.

Implications for scientists are just a profound. Creation from matter is a type of creation that they can agree with and which can rationalize (make rational) religious creation with their scientific knowledge. Such a creation makes for better sense and for better science.

The implications for religion seem to run deeper and are more profound than all other disciplines.

If the ancient religious doctrine of creation from matter is a true principle, what sort of implications might it have for religion?

Clear

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Clear

A friend and I recently discussed the ancient religious doctrine of creation from eternal matter (i.e. creation from chaotic and unorganized matter) versus the more modern doctrine of creation from nothing (ex-nihilo creation). The implications of creation from eternal chaotic matter seem profound in their affect of several disciplines.

Implication for religious philosophers are profound. for example, creation from matter (which has it’s own innate eternal characteristics) rather than creation from nothing changes the locus of responsibility for evil.

If the universe is created from eternal matter, then there are principles as eternal as God, and these principles possess their own innate characteristics. This is important, since, if God does not create the conditions from which arises evil, then he is not responsible for it. Obviously there are many other philosophical implications that are just as profound.

Implications for scientists are just a profound. Creation from matter is a type of creation that they can agree with and which can rationalize (make rational) religious creation with their scientific knowledge. Such a creation makes for better sense and for better science.

The implications for religion seem to run deeper and are more profound than all other disciplines.

If the ancient religious doctrine of creation from matter is a true principle, what sort of implications might it have for religion?

Clear

This is an interesting post, but ex-nihilo and creation from eternal matter are not the only options. There is a third: an all-encompassing and self-differentiating God. That is, God, as Father, achieved the realization of personality in eternity by becoming the Eternal Father of the Original Son simultaneously with becoming the Eternal Source of organized matter. This means that the Son is the personality of Father divested of non-personal realities, with Mind (Holy Spirit) functioning as sort of a coordinating intermediary.

Just a thought.

[Clear]

Rollingstone commented:

"...

ex-nihilo and creation from eternal matter are not the only options. There is a third: an all-encompassing and self-differentiating God. That is, God, as Father, achieved the realization of personality in eternity by becoming the Eternal Father of the Original Son simultaneously with becoming the Eternal Source of organized matter."

Hi rollingstone;

I had imagined the ancient doctrine of creation from matter (some thing) and the later doctrine of creation from No matter (nothing) but do not understand your "third option". Can you explain more regarding the origin of matter in your "third" option?

If God does not create from matter and does not create from "no matter", then what other option is there?

Thanks for your time.

Clear
tz vi

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Clear

Rollingstone commented:

Hi rollingstone;

I had imagined the ancient doctrine of creation from matter (some thing) and the later doctrine of creation from No matter (nothing) but do not understand your "third option". Can you explain more regarding the origin of matter in your "third" option?

If God does not create from matter and does not create from "no matter", then what other option is there?

Thanks for your time.

Clear
tz vi

Essentially, it's all God, not matter and God. Before the beginning that never was (there really never was a beginning, but when you're talking Absolutes we need to begin somewhere in order to understand their relationships), there was the I AM and nothing but the I AM. All spirit and all matter were (and still are) contained in an undifferentiated One. At this infinitely distant and hypothetical past-eternity moment, "the I AM may be conceived as both thing and no thing, as both cause and effect, as both volition and response. At this hypothetical eternity moment there is no differentiation throughout all infinity. Infinity is filled by the Infinite; the Infinite encompasses infinity. This is the hypothetical static moment of eternity; actuals are still contained within their potentials, and potentials have not yet appeared within the infinity of the I AM. But even in this conjectured situation we must assume the existence of the possibility of self-will."

By an act of free will, "the Infinite simultaneously revealed his infinity in the Son and as Paradise {the pattern of material perfection]." "In this original transaction the theoretical I AM achieved the realization of personality by becoming the Eternal Father of the Original Son simultaneously with becoming the Eternal Source of the Isle of Paradise." The Holy Spirit, mind-personality, is the inevitable mediator between the spirit-personality of the Son and matter.

While it has some elements of pantheism, it's talking about relationships between multiple co-eternal absolutes in one, undivided Whole.

Note: The lines in quotes are from The Urantia Book.

[Clear]

Regarding the doctrine of God having created worlds from chaotic matter, rather than a creation from nothing.

1) One Implication for religious philosophers - creation from matter changes the locus of responsibility for evil. There are other eternal principles besides God (matter and non-arbitrary moral laws for example)

2) One Implication for scientists - Creation from matter is more rational to their scientific knowledge. Creation of an entire universe of worlds and stars from “nothing” is difficult for scientists to rationalize with science.

Rollingstone observed:

...This is an interesting post, but ex-nihilo and creation from eternal matter are not the only options...Essentially, it's all God, not matter and God.” - Rollingstone

Rollingstone; I cannot tell if my inability to understand your doctrine is due to my being too stepped in my own Christian traditions to even understand what you’re saying; or if it’s simply difficult to make sense of; or if I lack the philosophical talent to understand what you are saying.

For example, I can’t image how the pre-creation councils where God councils with others would fit into your theology, or how the war in heaven and pre-earth controversies would fit into your model, or how the various ascension literature and descriptions of pre-earth conditions by the various prophets (such as the abrahamic ascension literature) would possibly fit into that theology.

I can’t tell if there are other eternal principles (such as moral laws) that are eternal in your theology. And, if there are no other eternal principles operant in your theology, then the philosophers will argue that you are still stuck with God being responsible for the presence of evil.

Since I do not understand your theology, I cannot tell how your doctrine might change the arguments of the philosophers and scientists. To me, If God IS “every thing” in your model, then evil is part of him (since it exists).

Perhaps you could elaborate how the pre-creation councils, war in heaven, etc fit into your theology? Perhaps you could then elaborate on how this theology changes the concerns of the philosophers on the origin of evil, or how it makes any more scientific sense to the scientist.

I appreciate your time Rollingstone.

Clear

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

This is an interesting post, but ex-nihilo and creation from eternal matter are not the only options. There is a third: an all-encompassing and self-differentiating God.

Hello,

This view appears to have clear theodicy problems. It is also problematic when considering the base meaning of God. If there is a thing that is not God then its existence must be accounted for. If all is God, then that all must share the attributes of God. Any difference would undercut the base idea and lead to coherence problems.

[tomspug]

Yeah, there's definitely another option. We like to think that there was SOMETHING before there was SOMETHING. We call the first something chaotic matter, but Christians don't believe there was chaos before creation. They believe that creation was the beginning: creation, of this world. There was no chaos before then or after it. Whatever there was was something beyond our understanding, and we wouldn't be able to definitely call it 'chaos', 'eternal matter' or whatever.

As far as other stuff: other dimensions, angels, etc. We don't know anything about that, really. It's all theoretical.

[Clear]

1) Regarding Christians "not believing" in creation from matter:

"but Christians don't believe there was chaos before creation. They believe that creation was the beginning: creation, of this world. There was no chaos before then or after it. Whatever there was was something beyond our understanding, and we wouldn't be able to definitely call it 'chaos', 'eternal matter' or whatever." - Tomspug

Actually Tomspug, I WAS thinking of ancient christianity as my example of a group that DID believe in creation from matter.

You may claim that YOU personally do not believe in creation from matter, but to make a general statement indicating all Christians believe this is incorrect. I am Christian and I DO NOT believe God made all things out of nothing, but I believe he created worlds out of matter that existed for ever BEFORE it was organized into worlds (and stars, etc) by God.

Albeit there are Christians and Jews that believe in creation from "nothing", I have to wonder if they weren't in the minority anciently. MANY of the ancients (including christians) believed in Creation from MATTER.

I'd hate to see someone try to label ALL Christians (whether modern or ancient) as believing in "creation from nothing".


Christians who believe God created the worlds from nothing still are taken to task by philosophers, scientists, geologists, etc. for the difficulties this modern doctrine creates. It doesn't make for good sense OR good science.

Christians who believe that God created the Worlds from matter are NOT taken to task for the same difficulties generated from this doctrine of creation from "nothing".



2) Regarding the Creation of the earth being the "beginning" of all things:

"but Christians don't believe there was chaos before creation. They believe that creation was the beginning: - Tomspug

I do not believe this is correct. I believe that there was ALWAYS matter, and before it was organized into the various worlds that exist, is was NOT organized (i.e. "unorganized" or "chaotic" matter). Just as matter has always existed, there are other eternal verities that have always existed, just as God has always existed.

For example, there are moral principles which have always existed and were not arbitrarily created by God. They are eternally fixed and he cannot arbitrarily change them. He cannot, for example define it as "EVIL to rape and kill a child" and then later arbitrarily redefine this moral act and define it as "GOOD to rape and kill a child". (Sorry for the graphic example, but I wanted an example that is completely clear and unambiguous) God cannot, for example, lie to us and still be a "God of truth". To be a God of truth, he MUST tell the truth. Thus, there are eternal principles and verities and conditions he operates in harmony with and they are as eternal as he is.


Clear
a tze

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Hello,

This view appears to have clear theodicy problems. It is also problematic when considering the base meaning of God. If there is a thing that is not God then its existence must be accounted for. If all is God, then that all must share the attributes of God. Any difference would undercut the base idea and lead to coherence problems.

It's been a while since I visited this thread and I apologize for the delay. I understand what you mean by the "theodicy problems, but this is only due to a confusion of terms. It was addressed in another thread, but I don't remember where. The problem goes you cite goes something like this:

• If God includes the world, then he includes imperfect entities.
• If God includes imperfect entities, then he is imperfect.
• If God is imperfect, then he is not worthy of worship.
• God includes imperfect entities.
• Therefore, he is imperfect and so not worthy of worship.

The above argument sounds correct, but indeed it is not. The proposition "If God includes imperfect entities, then he is imperfect" is not true. If "God includes the world" meant the same thing as "God is the world", then the proposition would be true. For if God is the world and the world is imperfect, the we can deduce that God is imperfect. But "God includes the world" is not identical with "God is the world". Therefore, we cannot deduce that God is imperfect.
The response can also be used in regard to the Trinity, but that's outside the perview of this thread.

Originally Posted by Clear

1) Regarding Christians "not believing" in creation from matter:


Actually Tomspug, I WAS thinking of ancient christianity as my example of a group that DID believe in creation from matter.

You may claim that YOU personally do not believe in creation from matter, but to make a general statement indicating all Christians believe this is incorrect. I am Christian and I DO NOT believe God made all things out of nothing, but I believe he created worlds out of matter that existed for ever BEFORE it was organized into worlds (and stars, etc) by God.

Albeit there are Christians and Jews that believe in creation from "nothing", I have to wonder if they weren't in the minority anciently. MANY of the ancients (including christians) believed in Creation from MATTER.

I'd hate to see someone try to label ALL Christians (whether modern or ancient) as believing in "creation from nothing".


Christians who believe God created the worlds from nothing still are taken to task by philosophers, scientists, geologists, etc. for the difficulties this modern doctrine creates. It doesn't make for good sense OR good science.

Christians who believe that God created the Worlds from matter are NOT taken to task for the same difficulties generated from this doctrine of creation from "nothing".



2) Regarding the Creation of the earth being the "beginning" of all things: I do not believe this is correct. I believe that there was ALWAYS matter, and before it was organized into the various worlds that exist, is was NOT organized (i.e. "unorganized" or "chaotic" matter). Just as matter has always existed, there are other eternal verities that have always existed, just as God has always existed.

For example, there are moral principles which have always existed and were not arbitrarily created by God. They are eternally fixed and he cannot arbitrarily change them. He cannot, for example define it as "EVIL to rape and kill a child" and then later arbitrarily redefine this moral act and define it as "GOOD to rape and kill a child". (Sorry for the graphic example, but I wanted an example that is completely clear and unambiguous) God cannot, for example, lie to us and still be a "God of truth". To be a God of truth, he MUST tell the truth. Thus, there are eternal principles and verities and conditions he operates in harmony with and they are as eternal as he is.


Clear
a tze

I don't agree with all you say here, but I admire your clarity of thought.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

It's been a while since I visited this thread and I apologize for the delay. I understand what you mean by the "theodicy problems, but this is only due to a confusion of terms. It was addressed in another thread, but I don't remember where. The problem goes you cite goes something like this:

• If God includes the world, then he includes imperfect entities.
• If God includes imperfect entities, then he is imperfect.
• If God is imperfect, then he is not worthy of worship.
• God includes imperfect entities.
• Therefore, he is imperfect and so not worthy of worship.

The above argument sounds correct, but indeed it is not. The proposition "If God includes imperfect entities, then he is imperfect" is not true. If "God includes the world" meant the same thing as "God is the world", then the proposition would be true. For if God is the world and the world is imperfect, the we can deduce that God is imperfect. But "God includes the world" is not identical with "God is the world". Therefore, we cannot deduce that God is imperfect.
The response can also be used in regard to the Trinity, but that's outside the perview of this thread.

Howdy,

Actually a theodicy* issue turns on evil not perfection. The perfection of deity is a coherence issue. God by definition must be perfect. Any imperfection in Deity would therefore undercut the base meaning of God and therefore mean either the dubbed object X is not God, or God is an absurdity.

To your response: note your first premise in the argument you attempt to refute: "If God includes the world, then he includes imperfect entities." The predicate "includes" necessarily means part of. If the world (per your example) is part of God, then any imperfection in the world would therefore also be a part of God. This alone undercuts the argument. Perfection is necessarily a categorical position. If a part is tainted then any perfection assertion for the whole is refuted.


* The theodicy problem arrises insofar as one admits evil exists. If evil is part of God, as the idea "an all encompassing God" seems to entail, then God is evil.