InterestedApologist
Active Member
- Aug 17, 2017
- 123
- 63
- 49
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I'm not aware of any question that if I've evaded thus far.
You are about to.
Yes, creation ex nihilo is gibberish because:
(1) It seems to contradict the facts of experience. It doesn't seem logically feasible to aspire to pull a hammer out of an empty chest of tools.
(2) It seems to negate the principle of identity. Picture two pieces of matter. We say that the first piece is numerically distinct from the other. They are clearly distinct. Thus you will never be me, I will never be you, and neither of us will ever be God, at least not in any real sense although I did discuss, a couple times on this thread, the possible implications of physical merges. Ok so that's what I mean by the principle of identity. How does creation ex nihilo violate it?
Suppose God pulls two JALs out of nothing. Then He decides to shove them back into nothingness. Then he pulls one out. And so on. Which is the real JAL? Something gets lost in the shuffle in all this. If we try to square these possibilities with the principle of identity, we seem to end up with gibberish.
Dodge #1. Your philosophy is grounded in materialism. Material is observable and testable through science. I asked for some scientific backing for your origin of God. You provided none, yet attacked creation exnihilo as though I made any mention of it. Philosophy is not enough to prove a materialistic theology. Try again.
Eternal matter has no such difficulties. Each piece of matter has a definite identity, each piece is numerically distinct from the next.
Dodge #2: you say God cannot pre-exist matter and call it gibberish. At the same time, you believe matter pre-exists God but have no problem with that. You believe in a totality made up of matter, but have no scientific evidence for the Totality’s origin. Since this totality is material and observable, please provide scientific theory as to its origin. An eternal pre-existent totality meets your definition of gibberish. Your theory is self contradictory.
As for science, it's really not too concerned with philosophical and religious particulars.
Dodge #3: Correct. It is concerned with the observable and material universe. In short, your view cannot stand without scientific substantiation.
Free will is probably 99.99999999999% dormant/inactive until there's a significant awakening unto self-awareness. Thus for all practical purposes, all ordinary matter is ABSOLUTELY DEAD (in stark contrast to our fully awakened souls). Or you can call it NEGLIGIBLY ALIVE if you prefer. It is therefore classifiable as INANIMATE MATTER. Upon it God exerts His own hand to simulate/fabricate/enact (whatever term you like) the so-called 'forces' (gravity, magnetism, nuclear forces).
That's my world view. If any matter even BEGINS to move ONE IOTA towards sentience - and while it is yet still a million miles away - I suspect that God's hand grips it, stifling the effort. So you don't have to worry that the kitchen table is going to get up and fly away anytime soon (try not to lose any sleep over it please).
Scientific evidence please
Separate? There is only one Totality. God is separate in the sense of being one (huge) piece of the Totality that is numerically distinct from other pieces such as you and I.
The word totality implies uniformity. You imply uniformity by virtue of saying that 99.9% of all matter has the same characteristics. Try again
I thought I covered this 20 times already. He labored for a (minimum of) 13 billion years to become holy, at which point He created Adam and Eve, stamping Himself upon their conscience, hence they were obligated to Him, just like your own kids, by virtue of conscience, are obligated to obey you.
Sure if you want to ignore every verse I've discussed since the start of this thread, you can call my views 'purely philosophical'. Obviously that makes you feel better - but it also raises questions about intellectual dishonesty.
Let’s see, God is made up of the same matter as man, is finite like man, re-purposes matter to create just like man, is subject to the same temptations and disorders as man, etc. In your view, I fail to see any difference other than age.
I have to prove to you scientifically that the matter around us exists and behaves like inanimate matter? I thought you already knew that.
No, you have to prove it’s origin and it’s sentience.
Tell you what, I'll give you some proof of inanimate matter once you prove to me that immaterial substance exists, firstly, and secondly that it is infinite. Fair enough?
You’re the one with the revolutionary new view, not me. It is your obligation to prove it. BTW, I have not given a position on materialism vs. immaterialism myself.
Last edited:
Upvote
0