To act on nothing is to do something?

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess you could say that.

Nope. Blasphemous, you can't say that. Well, I personally have no problem with that. It's just that resorting to blasphemy to defend your religion is like shooting yourself in the head in self-defense.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

According to Christian tradition the act of creation is sui generis, different from all other kinds of causal acts. Aquinas treats this in ST Ia, Q. 45 - "The mode of emanation of things from the first principle," and more thoroughly in De Potentia Dei Q. 3 - "Creation." Francisco Suarez also provides a central study of the topic in his 20th Metaphysical Disputation (which follows the metaphysical disputations on efficient causality - 17, 18, and 19).

Could you please post the relevant answer to my question? Preferably in English? I'm not going to dig through your sources.

To speak technically, Christ's passion and death were fitting, not necessary, for deliverance (ST III, Q. 50, A. 1; ST III, Q. 46, A. 1; ST III, Q. 46, A. 2).

So Jesus allowed himself to be crucified for performance art?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To some extent this was the position I adopted toward the time of the end of my Christianity. The world was create Ex Deo: that is to say, out of God. I also accepted the idea that the universe is 13.8 billion years old and that evolution was the way that that god intended.

As such, yes, the contents of a toilet had its origin in God. Feces has its function in the universe that contains evolving species. This is not blasphemous. That we, as humans, find feces disgusting is only a result of a natural evolved position that protects us from disease, etc.

Ultimately, I found cognitive dissonance in this position with the idea that there should be disease at all. Why should there be waste at all? Etc.

There were other advantages to this position and it does solve the ridiculousness of something from nothing.

(I should note that no matter what constructs I could invent there were always more problems and, too, no matter what construct one posits, one cannot demonstrate any of it.)

No, it is literally blasphemy. There's the divine and there's the profane. To equate them is to blaspheme. While it tickles me, I cannot allow it as a valid defense of Christianity.

Where did you see "ex Deo"? It's not that we are made out of God, it's that we are made through God and ex nihilo. It's always through Christ, not that we are Christ.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, it is literally blasphemy. There's the divine and there's the profane. To equate them is to blaspheme. While it tickles me, I cannot allow it as a valid defense of Christianity.

Where did you see "ex Deo"? It's not that we are made out of God, it's that we are made through God and ex nihilo. It's always through Christ, not that we are Christ.

Ex Deo is the concept that we are made of God's substance. Since nothing can come from nothing nor does it make sense that a god could act on nothing to make something, it is a reasonable position that the universe is a result of God acting upon himself, his own substance, to make it.

Follow that with the idea that no substance in and of itself is truly profane, there is no blasphemy. Now, that a person might do something that God might not like, it might become profane. (Never mind free will and omniscience.) But the contents of a toilet ... not so much. It just is.

Ex Deo is both a concept I was pleased with myself to have invented and a concept that I discovered that greater minds than mine had also thought of. As this website, a website I cannot vouch for, says, "For starters, the concept of creatio ex nihilo is practically nonexistent in the scriptures. There is talk about what God created (namely, everything; Genesis 1, Hebrews 11:3, Revelation 4:11), but there is almost no talk about how God created (which is what this doctrine expresses)."

While ex Nihilo is common, it is not expressly required nor obvious from scriptures. It's just common.

Ex Deo provides relief from the silliness of ex Nihilo. It provides motivation for such a god to want to redeem his own material at the end of things. It provides a connection that acts of God might actually impact reality. Etc.

However, as I have said, as much mental masturbation as this provides, no position on these topics can be justified. There is no reason to believe either position.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I'm asking what God acted on. Some people think they're answering the question by saying that he spoke the universe into existence. You're saying he did so through his word. But this is the ACT. I'm asking what he acted ON.

Or you can square this circle and explain how to do something without acting on anything, although you already indicated that you agree this is impossible.

I guess I am just confused as to what you mean by "acting on". I think it is simple. God said "Let there be light" then light came to exist. His word was the cause and the existence of light was the effect.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I believe that is blasphemous. You're implying that everything is God, including, among other things, the contents of a toilet. Is that your position?

I don't think that is what was being implied. If God created all matter in the universe from merely his word, God would be the source and cause of all matter. Not that all matter is God. What was said was that everything "including, among other things, the contents of a toilet" were created by the matter that God spoke into existence. Nothing more.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ex Deo is the concept that we are made of God's substance. Since nothing can come from nothing nor does it make sense that a god could act on nothing to make something,

Something cannot come from nothing? All I can say for sure about nothingness is that there are no rules to govern it, so the oft-babbled ex nihilo nihil fit does not even apply to begin with. The statement is self-defeating. My comments on creatio ex nihilo are that such a process is absolutely without causation, which is a defeater for Christianity. Can something spring forth from nothing? Perhaps... who knows? But even if God was present, he wasn't doing anything, and that's something we can be sure of.

it is a reasonable position that the universe is a result of God acting upon himself, his own substance, to make it.

So then God is not separated from sin, the divine is profane, and black is white. I cannot accept this as a genuine Christian position. Perhaps some other non-Abrahamic religion, but not Christianity.

Follow that with the idea that no substance in and of itself is truly profane, there is no blasphemy. Now, that a person might do something that God might not like, it might become profane. (Never mind free will and omniscience.) But the contents of a toilet ... not so much. It just is.

I don't know... read the Torah again. Lots of stuff is profane. "Unclean" is the word of choice.

Ex Deo is both a concept I was pleased with myself to have invented and a concept that I discovered that greater minds than mine had also thought of. As this website, a website I cannot vouch for, says, "For starters, the concept of creatio ex nihilo is practically nonexistent in the scriptures. There is talk about what God created (namely, everything; Genesis 1, Hebrews 11:3, Revelation 4:11), but there is almost no talk about how God created (which is what this doctrine expresses)."

While ex Nihilo is common, it is not expressly required nor obvious from scriptures. It's just common.

I agree that creatio ex nihilo is not Biblical, but neither is your position. The best position for the Christian, which is neither blasphemous nor self-defeating, is that matter and energy are eternal and that God shaped the universe. This means that their God is no longer posed as a solution to the problem of existence, but rather is an accessory to existence. Nevertheless, this is as strong as their position can possibly be.

Blaspheming to "win" an online debate with an atheist is, I'd hope, a line that even the most dishonest apologist won't cross. But who knows?

Ex Deo provides relief from the silliness of ex Nihilo.

Yes, but at what cost?

It provides motivation for such a god to want to redeem his own material at the end of things. It provides a connection that acts of God might actually impact reality. Etc.

Being the creator should be sufficient for that. We don't need to be made of the stuff of God for him to care more.

However, as I have said, as much mental masturbation as this provides, no position on these topics can be justified. There is no reason to believe either position.

I'm not interested in evidence on this thread. I'm allowing literally any theological assumption to be made, so long as it is clearly elucidated. The exception, as I've been saying, is that I will not accept a solution to this problem which causes other severe problems in the religion. No starting fires over there to put out a fire here. No blaspheming to dodge questions.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I guess I am just confused as to what you mean by "acting on". I think it is simple. God said "Let there be light" then light came to exist. His word was the cause and the existence of light was the effect.

In causality there are efficient causes and material causes. A sculptor is an efficient cause, and he uses his chisel on marble. The marble is the material cause. The effect is a statue.

God is the sculptor. God's word is the chisel. What is the marble block? What is the universe made out of?

Let's put it this way. I give you a hammer and ask you to make me a table. And you swing your hammer at nothing. In this analogy, you're God, and your hammer is God's word. And the nothing here is the same as the nothing that God had to work with. Now, where's my table?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't think that is what was being implied. If God created all matter in the universe from merely his word, God would be the source and cause of all matter. Not that all matter is God. What was said was that everything "including, among other things, the contents of a toilet" were created by the matter that God spoke into existence. Nothing more.

Others here are saying that the universe is made of God in order to resolve the problem that you're not even seeing (the problem being that creatio ex nihilo is just as logically impossible as a square circle; there was nothing for God's word to ACT ON in order to bring about creation). I'm rejecting this as a legitimate Christian solution to the problem as it is blasphemous.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it is literally blasphemy. There's the divine and there's the profane. To equate them is to blaspheme. While it tickles me, I cannot allow it as a valid defense of Christianity.

Where did you see "ex Deo"? It's not that we are made out of God, it's that we are made through God and ex nihilo. It's always through Christ, not that we are Christ.

@Chriliman, @Tinker Grey
NH, God's so-called 'separate' Creation is profane? .......duh-what?!

Although I'm hesitant to sign on the dotted line in full support of the idea of Ex-Deo creation (of some sort---maybe one involving some Fields with some added Higgs along the way ....), I'm not seeing how much of any of this discussion is blasphemous in and of itself if even the Hebraic/Jewish mindset which permeates the biblical writings (and the overall religious tradition) sees "God's Ways" as transcendent and in an open state for ongoing human inquiry.

Y'know, the more I listen to you, the more your arguments sound like a Bizarro version of those given by @-57, such as what I've dealt with here ... If Genesis 3 is a metaphor...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In causality there are efficient causes and material causes. A sculptor is an efficient cause, and he uses his chisel on marble. The marble is the material cause. The effect is a statue.

God is the sculptor. God's word is the chisel. What is the marble block? What is the universe made out of?

Let's put it this way. I give you a hammer and ask you to make me a table. And you swing your hammer at nothing. In this analogy, you're God, and your hammer is God's word. And the nothing here is the same as the nothing that God had to work with. Now, where's my table?

... like anyone could know 'how' God did it without Him divulging this data to us and doing so in specific relation to Himself. As you already know, we don't know, and God's not just frivolously dropping the answers to us, which is partly why we do science, right? Yet, here you are, asking for specifics which no fellow human being (even 'yours truly') can ever really give you ...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Something cannot come from nothing? All I can say for sure about nothingness is that there are no rules to govern it, so the oft-babbled ex nihilo nihil fit does not even apply to begin with. The statement is self-defeating. My comments on creatio ex nihilo are that such a process is absolutely without causation, which is a defeater for Christianity. Can something spring forth from nothing? Perhaps... who knows? But even if God was present, he wasn't doing anything, and that's something we can be sure of.

I don't wish to keep defending a position I no longer hold. After all, I eventually found it untenable. But I will say a couple more things ... because I can't help myself.

I have found that 'nothing' means one thing to [some] physicists and another to [some] philosophers. In Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing, nothing is more like empty space. We know that that nothing is not without properties. In a sense, from that nothing something may come. (I am not a physicist and my understanding of this is poor.)

A philosopher, OTOH, may well say that yes there is the nothingness in the vacuum of space, but where did that come from. For these, the nothingness is absolute lacking even the properties of the empty space.

When I say God cannot make something from nothing, I mean absolute nothingness, not the nothingness that a physicist talks about. One cannot operate on nothingness. Nothingness is not a thing.

I certainly agree that Krauss' nothingness, supposing that the ideas hold up, makes gods unnecessary.

And, these days I often respond to theists, "what makes you think there ever was nothing?"

So then God is not separated from sin, the divine is profane, and black is white. I cannot accept this as a genuine Christian position. Perhaps some other non-Abrahamic religion, but not Christianity.

Two things here: 1) I see sin, evil, and profane as concepts. The material with which such a god makes the universe has nothing to do with these concepts. If that god gives beings the ability to act in ways that others find "profane", well, God can do that. For me, this creative act is like a mother giving birth. The child is of the mother but not the mother. The universe, then, could be (I say could of course because all of this is useless speculation) of God but not God. So whatever happens that a being could call profane is not God. But whatever. 2) So yeah, not traditional Christianity. This is a fair point and one I was coming to grips with at the end of my time as a believer. I could couch all my ideas in Christian lingo. I could say things that made other believers comfortable all the while not meaning what they meant.

At a certain point, I wasn't really being honest with myself. But the bottom line for me is that if something cannot be demonstrated, cannot be shown, cannot be tested--not even in principle--such things are not worth belief. So I abandoned Christianity and I abandoned "Tinkerism."

I don't know... read the Torah again. Lots of stuff is profane. "Unclean" is the word of choice.

I never really spent a lot of time on the specifics when it came to my ideas. But, a god connected to the universe could have reasons. A disconnected god is simply arbitrary. Why either god would outlaw shrimp is not something I ever focused on.

I agree that creatio ex nihilo is not Biblical, but neither is your position. The best position for the Christian, which is neither blasphemous nor self-defeating, is that matter and energy are eternal and that God shaped the universe. This means that their God is no longer posed as a solution to the problem of existence, but rather is an accessory to existence. Nevertheless, this is as strong as their position can possibly be.

I would have argued that while the Bible doesn't endorse my then position, my then position was consonant with scripture--kind of like a spherical earth could be read into it.

Blaspheming to "win" an online debate with an atheist is, I'd hope, a line that even the most dishonest apologist won't cross. But who knows?

I think we have differing ideas as to what blasphemy is. Suffice it to say that merely being heterodox is not the same as blasphemy.

I'm done. I might be tempted into responding. But I weary of defending something I don't believe anyway.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Chriliman, @Tinker Grey
NH, God's so-called 'separate' Creation is profane? .......duh-what?!

That's the term they use for it. Yep. I didn't make it up. I thought you did a lot of reading...?

Even if nearly all of creation is neither profane nor divine, but "neutral," there are a lot of unclean things that God could not look upon. Just read the Torah. Imagine if someone walked up to Moses and told him that shellfish are part of the essence of God. Such a person would probably be executed for blasphemy.

Although I'm hesitant to sign on the dotted line in full support of the idea of Ex-Deo creation (of some sort---maybe one involving some Fields with some added Higgs along the way ....), I'm not seeing how much of any of this discussion is blasphemous in and of itself if even the Hebraic/Jewish mindset which permeates the biblical writings (and the overall religious tradition) sees "God's Ways" as transcendent and in an open state for ongoing human inquiry.

Do you think that God is unclean, or that unclean things are God, or that unclean things are part of God's being? None of those things would be blasphemous?

Y'know, the more I listen to you, the more your arguments sound like a Bizarro version of those given by @-57, such as what I've dealt with here ... If Genesis 3 is a metaphor...

Is it because I don't use the words "epistemology" and "ontology" enough? Is that what would bridge the gap in communication?

... like anyone could know 'how' God did it without Him divulging this data to us and doing so in specific relation to Himself. As you already know, we don't know, and God's not just frivolously dropping the answers to us, which is partly why we do science, right? Yet, here you are, asking for specifics which no fellow human being (even 'yours truly') can ever really give you ...

OK so let me get this straight. Christians ridicule atheists for believing that "nothing exploded and here we are." Christians claim to have the answer to the problem of existence, which is that God created us. And then here you are acting like Christians don't have to explain the process of how it all occurred! I'm sorry, but yes you do. Otherwise, you're not explaining anything at all. In what world can you just help yourself to a heap of assumptions and then act like you don't have to make use of them to give an explanation?

I'm already granting you literally any theological assumption you might want, so long as you explicitly define your terms. Absolutely zero evidence is required. You're granted that a being with unlimited power exists, and all I ask is that you don't contradict yourself in the process of answering me (whether that is undermining Christ's sacrifice or blaspheming God).

I believe I can speak for most atheists in saying that I do not positively affirm that everything came from nothing, nor that the "stuff" of physical reality is eternal, nor some third possibility that I cannot think of. Obviously something happened, but I don't know what it was. Even if I could somehow explain the mechanics of how something could come from nothing, you'd still tell me that I've only established the possibility and that I need empirical evidence to support my claim. And yet at the same time, you think you can just blurt out "God done it" while providing neither plausible mechanics nor empirical evidence, and then you act like your explanation is better!

Your explanation is absolutely not better, and in fact it is objectively worse because it provides no extra explanatory power but carries with it an unjustified assumption.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's the term they use for it. Yep. I didn't make it up. I thought you did a lot of reading...?

Even if nearly all of creation is neither profane nor divine, but "neutral," there are a lot of unclean things that God could not look upon. Just read the Torah. Imagine if someone walked up to Moses and told him that shellfish are part of the essence of God. Such a person would probably be executed for blasphemy.



Do you think that God is unclean, or that unclean things are God, or that unclean things are part of God's being? None of those things would be blasphemous?



Is it because I don't use the words "epistemology" and "ontology" enough? Is that what would bridge the gap in communication?




OK so let me get this straight. Christians ridicule atheists for believing that "nothing exploded and here we are." Christians claim to have the answer to the problem of existence, which is that God created us. And then here you are acting like Christians don't have to explain the process of how it all occurred! I'm sorry, but yes you do. Otherwise, you're not explaining anything at all. In what world can you just help yourself to a heap of assumptions and then act like you don't have to make use of them to give an explanation?

I'm already granting you literally any theological assumption you might want, so long as you explicitly define your terms. Absolutely zero evidence is required. You're granted that a being with unlimited power exists, and all I ask is that you don't contradict yourself in the process of answering me (whether that is undermining Christ's sacrifice or blaspheming God).

I believe I can speak for most atheists in saying that I do not positively affirm that everything came from nothing, nor that the "stuff" of physical reality is eternal, nor some third possibility that I cannot think of. Obviously something happened, but I don't know what it was. Even if I could somehow explain the mechanics of how something could come from nothing, you'd still tell me that I've only established the possibility and that I need empirical evidence to support my claim. And yet at the same time, you think you can just blurt out "God done it" while providing neither plausible mechanics nor empirical evidence, and then you act like your explanation is better!

Your explanation is absolutely not better, and in fact it is objectively worse because it provides no extra explanatory power but carries with it an unjustified assumption.

Be nice to me, or else I'll vote Republican next time around.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't wish to keep defending a position I no longer hold. After all, I eventually found it untenable. But I will say a couple more things ... because I can't help myself.

I have found that 'nothing' means one thing to [some] physicists and another to [some] philosophers. In Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing, nothing is more like empty space. We know that that nothing is not without properties. In a sense, from that nothing something may come. (I am not a physicist and my understanding of this is poor.)

A philosopher, OTOH, may well say that yes there is the nothingness in the vacuum of space, but where did that come from. For these, the nothingness is absolute lacking even the properties of the empty space.

When I say God cannot make something from nothing, I mean absolute nothingness, not the nothingness that a physicist talks about. One cannot operate on nothingness. Nothingness is not a thing.

I certainly agree that Krauss' nothingness, supposing that the ideas hold up, makes gods unnecessary.

We're not arguing about any of this. I have been on board with what you're saying here for years.

And, these days I often respond to theists, "what makes you think there ever was nothing?"

Two things here: 1) I see sin, evil, and profane as concepts. The material with which such a god makes the universe has nothing to do with these concepts. If that god gives beings the ability to act in ways that others find "profane", well, God can do that. For me, this creative act is like a mother giving birth. The child is of the mother but not the mother. The universe, then, could be (I say could of course because all of this is useless speculation) of God but not God.

In the state of reality wherein nothing exists except for God, there are two "options" for God to act on:

1. Himself
2. Nothingness

If he acted on himself, then God is the material cause, which means we are made out of God. You're now trying to skirt that with this mother analogy, but that analogy doesn't apply to a disembodied mind existing in nothingness. Mothers exist in an environment and get impregnated from other members of their kind. There is no suitable analogy here. Either God acted on himself or on nothingness itself. You're starting to shy away from the former, and the ladder you've already said is nonsensical.

Then again, I know, you already abandoned this a while ago. My point is that there is no solution here in which the Christian gets the edge. Their best option is to say that physical material is eternal and that God molded it, but, like I said, this downgrade's God's role from necessary to accessory. And it's still their best option.

So whatever happens that a being could call profane is not God. But whatever. 2) So yeah, not traditional Christianity. This is a fair point and one I was coming to grips with at the end of my time as a believer. I could couch all my ideas in Christian lingo. I could say things that made other believers comfortable all the while not meaning what they meant.

Lol. So you're saying that Christians deliberately distort the truth. Interesting. I never did. I was a Christian my whole life, then I picked up the Bible and read it from cover to cover, and was an atheist before I put it down. Pretty much that simple for me.

At a certain point, I wasn't really being honest with myself. But the bottom line for me is that if something cannot be demonstrated, cannot be shown, cannot be tested--not even in principle--such things are not worth belief. So I abandoned Christianity and I abandoned "Tinkerism."
I never really spent a lot of time on the specifics when it came to my ideas. But, a god connected to the universe could have reasons. A disconnected god is simply arbitrary.

Not sure what you mean by this. There may or may not be a god, and the universe may or may not be part of its being. There are a lot of scenarios in which theism is correct, but yet Christianity is negated due to the nonnegotiable claims it makes. For example, a 57-in-1 god would eliminated Christianity as a possibility. And I've been trying to hammer home the point that if we are part of a god's being, then Christianity is already wrong.

Why either god would outlaw shrimp is not something I ever focused on.

And yet it is a major aspect of Christianity, which is kind of my point here about why the universe cannot be part of God's being.

I would have argued that while the Bible doesn't endorse my then position, my then position was consonant with scripture--kind of like a spherical earth could be read into it.

No, it is incompatible.

I think we have differing ideas as to what blasphemy is. Suffice it to say that merely being heterodox is not the same as blasphemy.

I guess it's a question of whether blasphemy is intent or content. Is any statement automatically not blasphemous if it is sincerely believed by the person stating it? Is any statement automatically blasphemous if it is intended to be an insult to a deity?

For example, if a Muslim were to mockingly say that God is three persons in one, would that be blasphemy? His tone and intent are insincere and mocking, but the "text of his speech" are exactly in line with core Christian doctrine.

I'm done. I might be tempted into responding. But I weary of defending something I don't believe anyway.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Be nice to me, or else I'll vote Republican next time around.

So no serious response, eh? Also, are you assuming I'm a liberal? You're the one who admitted that the Bible endorses abortions, remember?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So no serious response, eh? Also, are you assuming I'm a liberal? You're the one who admitted that the Bible endorses abortions, remember?

No, I'll get to a more serious response. Right now, I have to go mow a yard at another house. ... I'll get back to you on all of this.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I'll get to a more serious response. Right now, I have to go mow a yard at another house. ... I'll get back to you on all of this.

OK, looking forward to it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

In causality there are efficient causes and material causes. A sculptor is an efficient cause, and he uses his chisel on marble. The marble is the material cause. The effect is a statue.

God is the sculptor. God's word is the chisel. What is the marble block? What is the universe made out of?

Let's put it this way. I give you a hammer and ask you to make me a table. And you swing your hammer at nothing. In this analogy, you're God, and your hammer is God's word. And the nothing here is the same as the nothing that God had to work with. Now, where's my table?

I guess the conclusion would be that an omnipotent being such as God doesn't need wood to make a table. After all, God, who is a spiritual being, can manifest himself into a physical being. Why then would it not be possible for such a being to manifest matter from a spiritual realm to a physical one?
You just have to use you imagination

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Others here are saying that the universe is made of God in order to resolve the problem that you're not even seeing (the problem being that creatio ex nihilo is just as logically impossible as a square circle; there was nothing for God's word to ACT ON in order to bring about creation). I'm rejecting this as a legitimate Christian solution to the problem as it is blasphemous.

Are you suggesting that God is limited by the laws of conservation of mass?