Is God still creating today?

[juvenissun]

New? Doesn't everything exist in God's mind "before" creation? (imperfect
in the English).

Let's look at an induction....

IF people "create" today...in that we can create thoughts that are not
there or we can use our imaginations...etc. THEN why can't God?

Perhaps God doesn't create new thoughts because He is Omniscient, but
what is *creation* really for God? Do we know?

No no. Creation is only meaningful to human, not to God. (of course).

Is "new idea" from human an example of creation? I don't think so. Instead, we call that "discovery". The content of the "new" idea must have existed. This is particularly true in the field of science. Creation is not a word in the dictionary of science. That is why I always think the use of creation in a non-science description is an abusive use of the word.

 

[Assyrian]

It is useful.

1. As I repeated several times, everyone of our spirits is newly created, according to my definition. This is a continuous action of creation I can identify. May be it is the only one, before the rapture.

So your definition relegates creation to the spiritual and an initial ex nihilo creation in Gen 1:1. It probably is a useful definition, for a deist, but it is hardly a good definition for a creationist.

2. It also implies a fatal mistake of TE.

meh, only in your strawman version which none of us recognise.

 

[LightSeaker]

And forgive me to say that. Your definition of creation is an abusive use of the word. A better word to replace it is "make'.

For example, we do not say: "create a situation", but say: "make a situation". Because the referred situation should have happened before. Like Solomon said: there is no new thing under the sun.

I'm thinking also that your view of what creation is, is very narrow and limiting in scope and direction.

.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm thinking also that your view of what creation is, is very narrow and limiting in scope and direction.

.

In other word, very focused. That is what I want. I want to discuss a very focused issue.

If you like to replace it with another word, please do. I will appreciate it.
But before you do that, do you think God is still "creating" today, according to my definition?

 

[juvenissun]

So your definition relegates creation to the spiritual and an initial ex nihilo creation in Gen 1:1. It probably is a useful definition, for a deist, but it is hardly a good definition for a creationist.


meh, only in your strawman version which none of us recognise.

I don't care whether it is one for deist or one for creationist. I look at it from the view point of a scientist.

Here is my strawman: It is not a new one, I used it in previous post. A newly born dog is not an example of creation. A mutated frog is not an example of creation. etc. etc. They are simply recycled star dust. I guess you are getting it: speciation is not an example of creation. God creates new human, but does not create new animal. 100 dogs or 1,000,000 dogs make no difference to God. But 100 human or 101 human IS different to God.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't care whether it is one for deist or one for creationist. I look at it from the view point of a scientist.

I thought creation was only used to describe what God does? How does a scientist get God into his laboratory?

Here is my strawman: It is not a new one, I used it in previous post. A newly born dog is not an example of creation. A mutated frog is not an example of creation. etc. etc. They are simply recycled star dust. I guess you are getting it: speciation is not an example of creation. God creates new human, but does not create new animal. 100 dogs or 1,000,000 dogs make no difference to God. But 100 human or 101 human IS different to God.

So you admit at last each human born is a creation of God, now all you have to do is go back and look at all the other examples of creation in those verses I showed you. Every new generation of animals and plant is a creation, so is every new wind, so is the darkness. Your definition is very focused, unfortunately it is not focused on what you want create to mean rather than the biblical use of the word.

 

[ebia]

I don't see a great deal of use for the word as you use it, so I wouldn't expect a dedicated word but a phrase like create from nothing or creation ex-nihilo

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see a great deal of use for the word as you use it, so I wouldn't expect a dedicated word but a phrase like create from nothing or creation ex-nihilo

OK, good. I will change the question in the OP:

Is God still creating ex-nihilo today?

Am I right to say human is created ex-nihilo, but animal is not.

 

[ebia]

OK, good. I will change the question in the OP:

Is God still creating ex-nihilo today?

I would say that there can only be one such instance - at very beginning of creation. So the question is kind of nonsensical.

Am I right to say human is created ex-nihilo, but animal is not.

Genesis 2 doesn't portray human creation as from nothing.

 

[juvenissun]

I would say that there can only be one such instance - at very beginning of creation. So the question is kind of nonsensical.


Genesis 2 doesn't portray human creation as from nothing.

So, I guess your answer is negative to my question. But no, my question is not nonsensical.

So you don't think you were created ex-nihilo. Then may I ask you: what were you? Are you limited to your physical elements? If not, then where does your additional element, namely, the spirit, come from?

 

[ebia]

But no, my question is not nonsensical.

IMO it is.

I'll stick with what I said - Genesis 2 does not depict man as created from nothing. I'm not going to be drawn into sub-biblical dualisms.

 

[juvenissun]

IMO it is.

I'll stick with what I said - Genesis 2 does not depict man as created from nothing. I'm not going to be drawn into sub-biblical dualisms.

OK. Adam is made from "clay" which is a material. But that is not it yet. What is the "breath" of God? I don't think it is any type of material. With only "clay", which is our body, Adam is not a human YET. Same as you. All the atoms/ions on your body do not make the whole of you. If that is the case, then where do you come from?

Buddhist has no problem on this question. They think our spirit is recycled. Right or wrong, it is a complete answer.

You do not think about the question does not mean the question is not there.

 

[gluadys]

OK. Adam is made from "clay" which is a material. But that is not it yet. What is the "breath" of God? I don't think it is any type of material. With only "clay", which is our body, Adam is not a human YET. Same as you. All the atoms/ions on your body do not make the whole of you. If that is the case, then where do you come from?

Buddhist has no problem on this question. They think our spirit is recycled. Right or wrong, it is a complete answer.

You do not think about the question does not mean the question is not there.

Genesis 2 says "breath of life" not "breath of God".
And what of all the animals who have the "breath of life"? How did they become living creatures?

What is immaterial about breath?

 

[ebia]

OK. Adam is made from "clay" which is a material. But that is not it yet. What is the "breath" of God? I don't think it is any type of material. With only "clay", which is our body, Adam is not a human YET. Same as you. All the atoms/ions on your body do not make the whole of you. If that is the case, then where do you come from?

Buddhist has no problem on this question. They think our spirit is recycled. Right or wrong, it is a complete answer.

You do not think about the question does not mean the question is not there.

I'll stick to what I said in my last post, thanks.

 

[Assyrian]

OK. Adam is made from "clay" which is a material. But that is not it yet. What is the "breath" of God? I don't think it is any type of material. With only "clay", which is our body, Adam is not a human YET. Same as you. All the atoms/ions on your body do not make the whole of you. If that is the case, then where do you come from?

Buddhist has no problem on this question. They think our spirit is recycled. Right or wrong, it is a complete answer.

You do not think about the question does not mean the question is not there.

So you would prefer a complete answer whether it is right or wrong than living with the realisation that some things are outside our knowledge. You know in the early church they debated the nature of the spirit and soul and whether God gave a soul to each new fetus, and if so at what stage in its development, or whether the soul and spirit were passed down from the parents and slowly formed in the growing fetus. The thing is, we simply do not know enough to give a definitive answer, they didn't then, we do not now. Your insistance on coming up with a definite answer and building you doctrine of creation on it is simply building a house on sand.

The bible talks of God forming our spirit with in us, it talks of God giving us our spirit, but it does not talk of God creating our spirit. Which is a bit of a problem for you when you want to ignore what the bible describes as creation and make up one of your own.

To answer your first question, God could have given a spirit to mankind like he gave his Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost, he could form our spirit anew in each embryo, impart a spirit to each embryo, have his initial gift of spirit pass down through the generations and form in each embryo. On the other hand the terms soul and spirit are actually metaphors (they both come from word that mean breath or wind a movement of air) now soul and spirit could be metaphors for some sort of spiritual material that is part of our make up, or what we call soul and spirit could simply be emergent properties of increasingly complex brains, our story to the paper and ink of our physical nature, the AI to our physical hardware. We simply don't know. But whatever the nature of soul and spirit, it is still be God forming our spirit and soul in us. However until you know the nature of our spirit and soul, you have no basis to think it is ex nihilo creation.

 

[juvenissun]

Genesis 2 says "breath of life" not "breath of God".
And what of all the animals who have the "breath of life"? How did they become living creatures?

What is immaterial about breath?

Good point. God did NOT give all animals any breath of life. So, they are not the same as human even they may be made of the same material (God does not say).

Evolution may explain the material part of human (by a model), but certainly not the spiritual part. The breath of life is not made of any material (if you think it is, then tell me what is it?)

 

[juvenissun]

So you would prefer a complete answer whether it is right or wrong than living with the realisation that some things are outside our knowledge. You know in the early church they debated the nature of the spirit and soul and whether God gave a soul to each new fetus, and if so at what stage in its development, or whether the soul and spirit were passed down from the parents and slowly formed in the growing fetus. The thing is, we simply do not know enough to give a definitive answer, they didn't then, we do not now. Your insistance on coming up with a definite answer and building you doctrine of creation on it is simply building a house on sand.

The bible talks of God forming our spirit with in us, it talks of God giving us our spirit, but it does not talk of God creating our spirit. Which is a bit of a problem for you when you want to ignore what the bible describes as creation and make up one of your own.

To answer your first question, God could have given a spirit to mankind like he gave his Spirit to the disciples at Pentecost, he could form our spirit anew in each embryo, impart a spirit to each embryo, have his initial gift of spirit pass down through the generations and form in each embryo. On the other hand the terms soul and spirit are actually metaphors (they both come from word that mean breath or wind a movement of air) now soul and spirit could be metaphors for some sort of spiritual material that is part of our make up, or what we call soul and spirit could simply be emergent properties of increasingly complex brains, our story to the paper and ink of our physical nature, the AI to our physical hardware. We simply don't know. But whatever the nature of soul and spirit, it is still be God forming our spirit and soul in us. However until you know the nature of our spirit and soul, you have no basis to think it is ex nihilo creation.

It is quite dangerous to be satisfied with not knowing and to abandon the thinking, particularly in today's environment. If you do not think about the answer, someone may give you an answer and you do not know if you should accept it or not, because you think God does not tell you anything about it. God gives us the fruit of wisdom (thanks to Eve who ate it). We are able to think like God does. He does not have to tell us everything explicitly.

The thing strikes me is that each of our spirit MUST BE brand new. Otherwise, we will have history and we are not a 100% independent person anymore. If that were the case, then when God sees you, He would not only see you, but also see somebody else before you. That is terrible.

This is a simply logic thinking and we SHOULD KNOW from reading the Genesis. You may argue that the spirit is not really anything independent, but is a "function" of material. If so, you are seriously poisoned by evolution and, basically, are not a Christian any more.

 

[gluadys]

Good point. God did NOT give all animals any breath of life. So, they are not the same as human even they may be made of the same material (God does not say).

How did animals get the breath of life if God did not give it to them? Do they not breathe?

Evolution may explain the material part of human (by a model), but certainly not the spiritual part. The breath of life is not made of any material (if you think it is, then tell me what is it?)

Is the "breath of life" referred to in Gen. 2:7 and 6:17 referring to "the spiritual part"?

We have a difficulty here in that there is one Hebrew word (ruach) where we have three (wind, breath, spirit). Should we assume that in these verses 'ruach' means non-physical spirit rather than physical breath?

Gen. 2:7 completes the saying about the breath of life with "and the man became a living being". The Hebrew here for "living being" is identical to the one used for any living animal.

A living animal is one that has breath, one that breathes. So it is breath that gives life to the body. Without breath it is no longer a living creature.

So why do you say the breath of life is not made of any material?

Are you thinking of soul rather than breath?


Now 'ruach' DOES mean 'spirit' as well as 'wind' and 'breath' so one can make an argument the other way, but I don't think it is possible to settle for certain one way or another if the writer's intention was to refer to some immaterial spirit or to ordinary breath. In fact, since Hebrew doesn't distinguish between the words, it may be the question would make no sense to him. It would be like asking: "When you write 'ruach' here, do you mean 'ruach' or 'ruach'?"

 

[gluadys]

The thing strikes me is that each of our spirit MUST BE brand new. Otherwise, we will have history and we are not a 100% independent person anymore. If that were the case, then when God sees you, He would not only see you, but also see somebody else before you. That is terrible.

What a strange notion, that it would be terrible not to be a 100% independent person or that God would see someone else (who? my parents? their parents?) when he sees me.

Personally, I think it is a modern fiction that anyone is or can be 100% independent anyway. And why should it bother me if God sees me as part of my family, my church, my nation? That is who I am, after all.

I have just finished Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God". One of the things she points out again and again is that the cultural divide between liberals and fundamentalists (not going into any nuances here) is that they have such different values that what is good in the eyes of one group is seen as evil by the other. Yet it is not a simple conservative vs. modern conflict. The fundamentalist is just as modern as the liberal.

Originally it was a liberal idea to value the single individual and conservatives of the 17th century found this wrong-headed, for they valued community and family and tradition and were not prepared to allow individual freedom. But now, we have a non-liberal aghast at the idea that an individual is not 100% independent. The triumph of liberalism is that it is now taken for granted by anti-liberals.

This is a simply logic thinking and we SHOULD KNOW from reading the Genesis. You may argue that the spirit is not really anything independent, but is a "function" of material. If so, you are seriously poisoned by evolution and, basically, are not a Christian any more.

Read my previous post and then explain to me WHY we should know this from reading Genesis.

 

[metherion]

It is quite dangerous to be satisfied with not knowing and to abandon the thinking, particularly in today's environment.

But we don’t. We constantly look for the answers even if we don’t know them right this very second. Hence research.

If you do not think about the answer, someone may give you an answer and you do not know if you should accept it or not, because you think God does not tell you anything about it.

Which is why they should be thought about. Something which a lot of people who reject science seem to fail to do, and embrace conspiracy theories instead.

God gives us the fruit of wisdom (thanks to Eve who ate it). We are able to think like God does. He does not have to tell us everything explicitly.

But I thought humanity wasn’t SUPPOSED to eat from the tree. According to you... God didn’t WANT us to get wisdom. Is that what you are saying?

And no, He doesn’t. Like if His World conflicts with the way some of us read His inspired Words, we didn’t need Him to tell us we were probably reading His inspired Words wrong.

Metherion