The ultimate question for theists

[Patrick Silverstone]

But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?

Asking this question is wrong. The God and the universe with everything is it are two fundamentally different entities. They are not comparable. And it is wrong to state that since one has a cause the other must have as well or the other way round. Their natures are different.

 

[Murad]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

Like one find a car no one around it, he start asking himself who create this car?
At the end of thinking " because he doesn't see the maker" he end with conclusion that, it was created by itself.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"What makes more sense, a universe that was self-created, or a universe created by a creator who was self-created?"

For many, many years, that kind of settled things for me. I mean, what was the point of invoking a "middle man?"

It really is a chicken-or-the-egg kind of question. And you are right, we simply do not (cannot) ever really know.

However, even if the Big Bang theory is correct, it does not imply that the universe never existed before t = 0. Some sort of cyclic scenario may be the way things are (and much current cosmological research is pointing in that direction).

However, one thing that has lead me to believe that some sort of creator, or some "design" is at work. And that is that, with just hydrogen (and tad bit of helium and lithium) - assuming the BB theory is correct - and the natural, physical laws of the universe, the building blocks of life have become abundant (we have detected many amino acids in space).

If you think about it, that is an amazing thing. Matter, natural laws, and a lot of time and *poof* life emerged, and in many cases intelligent life (of course we are not the only intelligent species on the planet, as whales, elephants, etc., clearly have an intelligence of a different degree, not kind).

We are the universe contemplating itself.

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

The theist makes a logical error when he pares his list of candidate hypotheses for the origins problems down to one. My list has six items on it, and I cannot rule any in or out, so they all stay there. The list is based on the idea that because there is something rather than nothing, that either something has always existed into the infinite past, or something came into being uncaused and from nothing - two highly counterintuitive ideas. Nevertheless, the reasoning seems sound, and I can't conceive how one of them is not the case.

Next, is the universe all there is? If so, then either the universe has always existed or it came into being uncaused from nothing.

Does the universe have a source? OK; then either that source has always existed beck through an infinite succestions of moments, during which time it generated our univeerse, or else that source came into being from nothing uncaused. If we call all such sources that are conscious agents a god or gods, and all such sources that are unconscious a multiverse, then we arrive at this list:

[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.

[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.

[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.

If there are other possibilities, I haven't thought of them. And to my knowledge, the list cannot be made smaller without taking a leap of faith.

Notice that this formulation allows for an uncaused cause of the universe, but doesn't require or assume it.

This argument contradicts the cosmological argument for God, which assumes that the universe had a first moment, that this requires an external cause that itself is uncaused, and worse, imputes it a variety of qualities for this uncaused cause including consciousness.

Here's William Lane Craig's version, called the Kalam cosmological argument:

• Like everything that comes into being, the universe has a cause.
• If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
• Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful

He's basically whittled my list of possibilities from six down to one without explaining where the other possibilities went to. It's a safe bet that he never considered other possibilities.

One of us is very wrong.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Me, I just assume the universe has always existed in some form or another.

That is one of the six logical possibilities I just listed, but do you want to assume it. Why not keep all options until you know how to rule one in or out?

There are a few weaknesses with the idea of the universe (defined at that which has been expanding for the last 13.8 billion years and excluding any other realities that may exist outside of it such as a god or multiverse) having always existed. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe had a first moment. There are arguments against this, but they are arcane:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

The bang-crunch model was - eternal cycles of universal expansion followed by contraction - was threatened by the discovery that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, not slowing as bang-crunch models require - discovery for which a new aspect of reality,dark energy, was proposed as a place filler to account for this unexpected and inexplicable observation. But alas, this whole idea is also being subject to criticism that may turn out to be valid.

Another potential problem for the eternal universe and its companion hypothesis - the universe that came into being uncaused from nothing by nothing - is the so-called fine tuning problem. It's not clear that there really is a problem -that the constants of physics that seem to conspire to create a gentle and long-lived universe capable of supporting stable matter, life, and mind, could have been otherwise, or that there isn't a lot more play in those numbers than is assumed.

But if the argument is valid - if our universe really is just-so - only the god and multiverse hypothesis account for that. A multiverse generating uncounted numbers of all possible universes could make this universe just as it is however finely tuned than may be.

Still, your intuition may be correct. None of the above is conclusive, and at most only allows us to order our list rather than cull any elements from it.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm getting the impression this question is directed towards a particular type of theism, not theism on the whole. The question doesn't really make sense with respect to the theology I follow, at least with respect to it somehow being a "serious logical problem" as the opening post put it. The question seems to assume monotheism, and particularly a monotheistic creator deity. That is not the teaching of my sort of theism.

If you want to know how Storm comes to be (Storm being one of the gods I worship), study meteorology (or if you prefer, take a gander at more poetic and mythic tales). But, generally speaking, knowing the origins of the gods is not important in my tradition. What is important is that they are here in the present and that I can develop a relationship with them and learn about them now. Knowing origins is only important insofar as it helps one get to know the gods in the now. If that origin is unknowable, that represents a limitation of humans and that is humbly accepted. Maybe some people view human limitations as a "serious logical problem," but that's not really how I would frame it. It just is what it is.

 

[Nakosis]

That is one of the six logical possibilities I just listed, but do you want to assume it. Why not keep all options until you know how to rule one in or out?

Mostly so I don't have to deal with theists I suppose but you're right.

There are a few weaknesses with the idea of the universe (defined at that which has been expanding for the last 13.8 billion years and excluding any other realities that may exist outside of it such as a god or multiverse) having always existed. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe had a first moment. There are arguments against this, but they are arcane:

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

The bang-crunch model was - eternal cycles of universal expansion followed by contraction - was threatened by the discovery that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, not slowing as bang-crunch models require - discovery for which a new aspect of reality,dark energy, was proposed as a place filler to account for this unexpected and inexplicable observation. But alas, this whole idea is also being subject to criticism that may turn out to be valid.

Another potential problem for the eternal universe and its companion hypothesis - the universe that came into being uncaused from nothing by nothing - is the so-called fine tuning problem. It's not clear that there really is a problem -that the constants of physics that seem to conspire to create a gentle and long-lived universe capable of supporting stable matter, life, and mind, could have been otherwise, or that there isn't a lot more play in those numbers than is assumed.

But if the argument is valid - if our universe really is just-so - only the god and multiverse hypothesis account for that. A multiverse generating uncounted numbers of all possible universes could make this universe just as it is however finely tuned than may be.

Still, your intuition may be correct. None of the above is conclusive, and at most only allows us to order our list rather than cull any elements from it.

Sure, I'm even open to the possibility of a God, but I think we agree there is no reason to jumped to any conclusions.

 

[stevevw]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

As far as I would understand it, I would not even attempt to explain things as that would be trying to comprehend something that is beyond the logic and laws of existence, time, space, cause and effect that we know of. When we go beyond the big bang or whatever brought our existence into being we also go beyond the realms of time and space as these were set in motion when the universe began. Whatever was before that cannot be measured or explained in the terms we use now. Even when we get close to nothingness in the quantum world things cannot be measured in the same way as the macro world so what is beyond the quantum world which probably created quantum physics as well is another dimension again that will have different conditions or no conditions or whatever as no one knows or can even comprehend.

One thing that helps me to have a bit of an understanding but still may be wrong or only part of the answer is that the bible says that in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and through him, all things were made. This to me speaks about immaterial things that cannot be measured physically. Something in that non-material (whatever it is realm) has the creative power of everything. So the material world came from a non-material source.

 

[Ponder This]

The problem with infinite regression of causes is that causes exist in the "physical" universe. When we say X causes Y, we mean that both X and Y are events in the physical universe. When we actually trace the seemingly infinite causality using the knowledge gained through Science, we come to the conclusion that there was a "big bang" in other words there was a moment when the universe as we know it began. This is truly extraordinary because it suggests that everything in the universe was caused by something not of this universe. The problem with infinite regression of causation is that causes are real things and not extra-universal things.

For example, let's say that I create a video game. The rules of the video game are clear and everything follows according to causation within the video game. But interestingly enough the cause of the video game cannot be found within the video game itself. To know the cause of the video game, you have to look beyond the boundaries of the video game (to me the "creator"). Now you might say that something must have caused me to have then caused the video game, but the problem with that reasoning is that the nature of causation inside the video game is not comparable to the nature of causation outside the video game. In other words, the same rules don't apply. In fact, according to the rules of the video game: I don't exist.

But why not simply say that we don't know what caused the universe? Why say that "God" caused it? That is a great question! Science doesn't have an answer. Scientists can't prove or disprove the existence of the game creator. So in the end, people choose to believe what they would believe. It is hard for us to imagine that the universe came into existence from absolutely nothing at all! How can that be? It boggles the mind. People find that they have this need to believe that something ultimately caused everything and that something can't just be a something. It has to be transcendental. It has to be a god, and not just any god, but The God.

No one can really say what The God truly is because The God exists outside of the universe as we know it. When people use the expression, "God knows" it means that we don't know, but it acknowledges that there may be a being outside this universe that does know. People also say, "No one knows" in which case it's basically saying the same thing except that they don't acknowledge that a hypothetical being existing outside this universe would know either.

 

[siti]

You may clarify if you like.

OK - I will. It seems clear to me that the notion of "divine morality" - the idea of an all-knowing deity handing down an inviolable "moral code" on "stone tablets" - as it were - is the cause of many of the many of the kinds of atrocities that you mention. The fact that this is a cock-eyed view of morality is evident from the fact that you include abortion as an "evil" alongside war, terrorism and police brutality. The fact is that the atrocity I mentioned - the bombing in Manchester that deliberately targeted a concert full of teenage kids and killed 22 of them - was the result of obeying "God's morality" not disobeying it.

Is that clear enough yet? No? OK - how about this: the idea that there is such a thing as "divine morality" in a theistic sense is utter bull****, highly dangerous and the cause of a significant amount of what is wrong with human society at present. The idea of "divine morality" is about the strongest evidence against the existence of a theistic God - in my opinion.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

Very well put.
An answer to this is that the universe is at least partially illogical.
The word I use is this: mystical.

It can be simply put as:
'how did logic come into being?'
(we can use 'causality' or 'math' or 'determinism' instead of 'logic' in this question)
The answer to this must be at least a-logical.
(or a-causal, indeterminate, non-mathematical)

This answer cannot be purely logical, for if it was logical,
then logic would have to exist before logic existed.

So we have to seek a qualitative answer, rather than a quantitative one.

We know that the universe at its most profound reduces to 'laws of nature'.
We hold in highest esteem scientists and artists; and most especially those like for example
Leonardo Da Vinci, who are accomplished in both these qualities.

We are amazed when minds can derive laws of science, or create beautiful music;
or invent incredible contraptions like flying machines.

So we can observe that an amazing entity like the universe itself can only come
into being in a similar manner. Great minds produce great works.
Feeble minds do not produce great works.

So a great work like the universe comes into being as an act of mystical imagination.
And yet, so many people refuse to acknowledge this.
The only way for people to appreciate this is to be involved in acts of creation themselves.
Not only arts and music, but technological innovation too.

But people who attempt this, but fail, often then refute the mystical, despite all of this.
It requires much patience, but also clearing the mind of everyday fears and anxieties.
So this also requires appreciation of effort, concentration, and inner bravery.
But also nurturing. First efforts are normally weak at creative pursuits, so most
vitally, it requires humbleness, humor, and time.

There are many other such answers, most of which are similar to the 'argument from design' of Aquinas.

 

[God's Avatars]

Asking this question is wrong. The God and the universe with everything is it are two fundamentally different entities. They are not comparable. And it is wrong to state that since one has a cause the other must have as well or the other way round. Their natures are different.

So isn't that just another way of saying "...because god acts in mysterious ways." In that way surely madness lies.

 

[1137]

I would like to briefly discuss what I believe to be a serious logical problem for theism, and I would be interested in reading responses. The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause? In other words, why not just save a step and state that the universe is uncaused, rather than arbitrarily declaring that an uncaused metaphysical entity caused the universe? Essentially, I am illustrating how the First Cause argument for God's existence fails. In this sense, atheists and theists hold a fairly similar position. Atheists must deal with the problem of what caused the universe to come into being. Theists, however, in attempting to resolve this conundrum, have only created more difficult problems, now needing to deal with the conundrum involving the cause of God. It is quite obvious that there is no end to this conundrum, we could continue to invent an infinite hierarchy of "supergods" that caused each other, but in the end, we would be left with an infinite regression of causes which is illogical. To me, the simplest answer to the question about our ultimate origin is that we don't know. But, if we are to state that any entity is uncaused, it seems to me to be most logical to avoid any suppositions, and just regard the universe itself as an uncaused entity.

All that came "before" was infinite potential. Uppercase G "God" is just what many have come to call the Order which inevitably formed within timeless possibility.

"And after uncounted ages of this great ferment, a force fused to focus that became God, and this force presumed to effect not the creation of substance and energy - for these transcended this God - but the conformation of all the Universe to a single and supreme order. And not yet is this order absolute, though oft it may have been supposed thus by man in his innocence."

- The Diabolicon

 

[Grandliseur]

. The fact is that the atrocity I mentioned - the bombing in Manchester that deliberately targeted a concert full of teenage kids and killed 22 of them - was the result of obeying "God's morality" not disobeying it.

It seems you ignore willfully the fact that Christians are told not to kill, not to go to war, and that if they do engage in war that "those who kill by the sword shall die by it." In this you willfully seem to mix the different religions and the very different values each has. Of course, that seems to be your agenda in defense of your stance.

If you, an atheist, can recognize this act of terrorism as evil surely we as Christians can too, and likewise can God and Christ. As usual, there is no meeting ground between theist Christian and atheist. You want to be right no matter what logic is employed, no matter you already fully know that this is not God's morality as seen in the Christian teachings in the Bible.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

This is a great question. I know the answer from my mystical perspective but you will not be satisfied with the answer. How do I describe it to you so that you are at least a little bit more aware. Hmmmmm....

The problem you are facing, respectfully, is that you feel you were born and have a beginning because that is the illusion of this universe i.e. we have a beginning and an end. The reality is me, you, everyone all throughout the Universe always was even before this place and always be without beginning or end.

We are all from the Darma which I call Everything where we lived with ideal bodies and in an effort to transcend Everything or the Darma we come to this place where we face the illusion of beginning, end and nothing.

The reality is nothing is not a concept in the absolute but a relative term; life and existence and the infinite are the standard outside this place. So, just like we always were and will be God and Goddess always are and will be. So, then what are we? We are the literal embodiment of our ideas (The physical representation of ideas) where God and Goddess are the literal embodiment of all ideas. Think Platonism where Plato knew the idea is transcendent and always is even if the material suggests it is not there at the moment.

Cheers!

Interesting......just as an aside, I find it interesting that you describe yourself as a "Catholic" in the religion description box, yet believe in the existence of both a "God" and a "Goddess."

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Like one find a car no one around it, he start asking himself who create this car?
At the end of thinking " because he doesn't see the maker" he end with conclusion that, it was created by itself.

The position is not that the universe was "created by itself" but rather that it is uncreated.

 

[ChristineM]

It seems you ignore willfully the fact that Christians are told not to kill, not to go to war, and that if they do engage in war that "those who kill by the sword shall die by it." In this you willfully seem to mix the different religions and the very different values each has. Of course, that seems to be your agenda in defense of your stance.

If you, an atheist, can recognize this act of terrorism as evil surely we as Christians can too, and likewise can God and Christ. As usual, there is no meeting ground between theist Christian and atheist. You want to be right no matter what logic is employed, no matter you already fully know that this is not God's morality as seen in the Christian teachings in the Bible.

The bible is full of verses advocating killing of non believers. Also note that the bible mentions killing significantly more than love.

 

[siti]

It seems you ignore willfully the fact that Christians are told not to kill, not to go to war, and that if they do engage in war that "those who kill by the sword shall die by it." In this you willfully seem to mix the different religions and the very different values each has. Of course, that seems to be your agenda in defense of your stance.

If you, an atheist, can recognize this act of terrorism as evil surely we as Christians can too, and likewise can God and Christ. As usual, there is no meeting ground between theist Christian and atheist. You want to be right no matter what logic is employed, no matter you already fully know that this is not God's morality as seen in the Christian teachings in the Bible.

For a start, who said I was an atheist? I simply argued that "divine morality" is a very weak argument for theism and that if "divine morality" as handed down in scripture were truly from God we'd be better off without him - and it.

Second - it turns out (it seems) that the extreme religiously motivated views of the Manchester bomber's father was, at least partly to blame for his son's "sacrificing" his own life in pursuit of a "greater" religious (theistic) ideal. Forgive me if I see parallels between that mentality and Christianity.

And third, if you are a genuine Christian pacifist - opposed to any warfare or killing of fellow humans - then I whole-heartedly applaud you. But you are definitely in a minority. Does your Church officially teach a doctrine of pacifism? If it does, I might even join it.

 

[Clear]

Hubert Farnsworth (Opening Post) said : “… The problem lies with the answer to the question "Who created God?" The most common answers I hear from theists is that God is uncreated, or that he is somehow "the uncaused cause of the universe." But, if it is the case that God does not need a cause, then why does the universe need a cause?...”

Politesse (post # 22) said : “I'm not sure "created" has any clear meaning in this context. If you're talking from science, we have no reason to believe that anything has ever or could ever be created in the sense of going from non-existent to existent; when we create things normally, we're shifting matter or energy from one form to another, not causing it to exist. That matter needs to have been "created" is a claim that makes no inherent sense to me except as a metaphor, since we have never in fact seen this happen. If it did, it is beyond the reach of science to help us understand, whether it is the universe, God, or both at once.”

Hubert Farnsworth (post #24) replied : “So, basically, you are proposing the idea that the matter that the universe consists of has always existed, but God manipulated it in such a way that it would lead to the universe we have now? I agree this is a somewhat more logical view than the traditional view of ex nihilo creation.”

Quintessence observed : “I'm getting the impression this question is directed towards a particular type of theism, not theism on the whole. “ (post #66)



I like the specific points that Politesse and Quintessence make. Farnsworths’ O.P. is aimed at the later illogical Christian theory that God made everything ex-nihilo (out of nothing) while leaving the earliest logical and historical Christian descriptions untouched on this point.

While the earliest Christian worldviews were that God had an eternal existence, so also did matter in their worldview. In this model, matter is co-eternal with God and God organized this chaotic matter so as to form material things. These early Christians did not believe God “created” out of “nothing”.



1) THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION FROM MATTER WAS TAUGHT ANCIENTLY

Many ancients and early Christians UNDERSTOOD a creation out of pre-existing matter, and not ex-nihilo.
Justin Martyr, in his First Apology, says : “We have been taught that He in the beginning did of his goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter” (ex amorphou hyles). First Apology, 49.

Philo mentions : This cosmos of ours was formed out of all that there is of water, and air and fire, not even the smallest particle being left outside" (De Plantatione 2.6). Further, "when the substance of the universe was without shape and figure God gave it these; when it had no definite character God molded it into definiteness. . ." (De Somniis 2.6.45).

Justin Martyr, in discussing this preexistent primal matter (hyle), assures us, :" we have learned" from our revelations was in the tradition of Clement (c. A.D. 96) who had praised God who "has made manifest (ephaneropoiesas) the everlasting fabric (aenaon sustasin) of the world."

Athenagoras, (despite his stress on the transcendence of God), explains concerning the preexistent Son : "He came forth to be the energizing power of things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter."

Creation from matter is implicit throughout Greco-Roman literature of the time of Christianity's inception, and there is no indication in the Christian writings that they held a different view. On the contrary, the famous late nineteenth-century study by Edwin Hatch on the inroads of Greek philosophy into early Christianity describes the tacit but widespread assumption of the coexistence of matter with God.



2) EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

In the Secrets of Enoch, 25.1-3, God says : "I commanded . . . that visible things should come from invisible . . . ."

Dodd, in “The Bible and the Greeks”, p. 111 explained that to the ancients, such creation meant organization of the elements, as the Codex Brucianus tells us, "Creation IS organization" (Manuscript No 96). And it indicates that first, there is matter and that matter is organized into things created. (Cosmos MEANS order / organization...)

The early Jewish Apocalypes of Abraham hails God as the one who brings order out of confusion, ever preparing and renewing worlds for the righteous. The Berlin (Mandaean) Papyrus says " At the same time, the great thought came to the elements in united wisdom, spirit joining with matter." Matter can be imbued with spirit, but it will always be undergoing change and processing.

Pistis Sophia says : "I (christ) called upon Gabriel from the midst of the worlds (aeons) along with Michael, pursuant to the command of my Father...and I gave to them the task of outpouring of the light and caused them to go down into matter unorganized (chaos) and assist Pistis Sophis"

Even 2 Maccabees, which is often used to SUPPORT ex nihilo, has Syriac recensions as well as some Greek manuscripts describing an organization of [chaotic] matter, which is also the explicit position of Wisdom of Solomon 11:17 where we read of God's hand which "created the world out of unformed matter (ktisasa ton kosmon ex amorphou hyles)," Even the "non-existent" cited in 2 Maccabees 7:28 is not absolute nothing, but rather is . . . the metaphysical substance . . . in an unformed state." This relative "nonbeing" referred to a chaotic, shadowy state of matter before the world was made; as we might say in biblical terms, "without form and void."

The Early writings are full of references regarding how chaotic matter is used. The ancients understood that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements " This particular 'restating' of the 'conservation of mass' is from Ben Sirach. But the principle is also found in the Odes of Solomon; it's in the Ginza; it's in the Mandaean Johannesbuch; it's in Berlin Manichaean; it's in the Pistis Sophia, and it's in the oldest and most impressive Coptic writings.

The point here is that these were common teachings and the ancients were NOT unaware of matter and how it was used in creation from chaotic matter (rather than the later doctrine of creation from "nothing").



3) THE DOCTRINE THAT GOD ORGANIZED ALL THINGS FROM ETERNALLY EXISTING MATTER CHANGES THE PREMISE

The implications of creation from eternal chaotic matter are profound in how they affects the context; the understanding and the debates that have raged among theists; philosophers and scientists since later Christians abandoned the belief in creation of material things from “matter”. These arguments have lasted for hundred and hundreds of years.


A return to the historical doctrine has profound implication for religious philosophers and Theists.

For example, The Organization of all Material things from eternally existing “matter” (which has it’s own innate eternal characteristics) rather than organizing them from “nothing” changes the locus of responsibility for evil. The principle revolutionizes both the debates AND their underlying assumptions and questions since the question of WHY GOD “CREATED” EVIL IS ONE OF THEIR GREAT DEBATES with Christianity.

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.


The restoration of this principle has profound implications for scientists. 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 Scientific Laws of Thermodynamics which are universally applied in modern science, no longer argues with a conflicting Religious Law of Creation from “Nothing”. Religious truth and Scientific truth will stop fighting and may again agree with each other on this point by the simple restoration of this ancient principle of creation from matter.

The restoration of this principle has it’s most profound implications for religion. The implications seem to run deeper and are more profound than the implications for all other disciplines. The principle of Creation from eternally existing matter provides a framework for all subsequent religious considerations. If matter is eternal with its own basic eternal characteristics, yet God uses that matter and organizes it into spirits which have some inherent characteristics, such as “intelligence” and the ability to “progress”, this forms a context for all other subsequent considerations.

In this early Christian model, one can better predict the subsequent ancient doctrines as to WHAT God is doing with this matter; with the spirits of men; and WHY he is doing it; and HOW he going to accomplish these purposes. It provides better logic and understanding of why Moral law is eternally important both outside and inside the atonement of Jesus Christ. The re-adoption of the principle that God organized and created the Material universe and all other material things from eternally existing “matter” is a simple principle that acts as one of the important beacons that sets men on the path to understanding what God is doing with that matter and why.

In any case I hope your journeys are good as you work out these questions for yourselves

Clear
σισεακω

 

[Grandliseur]

For a start, who said I was an atheist? I simply argued that "divine morality" is a very weak argument for theism and that if "divine morality" as handed down in scripture were truly from God we'd be better off without him - and it.

Second - it turns out (it seems) that the extreme religiously motivated views of the Manchester bomber's father was, at least partly to blame for his son's "sacrificing" his own life in pursuit of a "greater" religious (theistic) ideal. Forgive me if I see parallels between that mentality and Christianity.

And third, if you are a genuine Christian pacifist - opposed to any warfare or killing of fellow humans - then I whole-heartedly applaud you. But you are definitely in a minority. Does your Church officially teach a doctrine of pacifism? If it does, I might even join it.

Your generalization is rejected. Just because many people during WWII opted for becoming warriors, did not make them Nazis. Most probably fought the Nazis. Thus slinging the term "extreme religious motivated views" does not mean that those views in any way approve of the killing of innocent. To me, you have entered areas that I find I do not need to defend, nor answer. Just because something is a vegetable (religious view) does not an onion of it make. Just because someone in some corner of the world has religious views that demand that they kill as was done in Manchester, in no way makes "extreme religious views" undesirable.

As to my personal views, I am not a pacifist as such. I believe in violence where I need to protect my family and myself. I believe that violence may function as a deterrent to those who want to be bullies - be it political, or personal. Thus deterrent to me, including nuclear deterrence, is for many's benefit. This is the last post to you on this subject.