Of course we are but I’m not sure how that suppose to relate to what I just said.
Did you mean that we’re not supposed to listen to the likes of Mr Dawkins and random headlines from low quality publications that are probably biased against or simply uneducated about Christianity? I agree we shouldn’t but if you haven’t got the knowledge to see trough them and their claims…
Yes and I admit my faith should probably be stronger and I shouldn’t let things like that get to me. On the other hand
1 Like
It’s Dr. Dawkins and yes I listen to everything he says. Can’t get enough. I disagree with him of course, but not for any reason that anyone else here or any other of his critics sees. I wouldn’t dream of listening to random headlines from low quality publications. As for definite bias and lack of education about Christianity, I come here. And yeah, I see right through claims made in that.
Hi Marta. It’s good to interact with you again.
Well… that probably depends a bit on what matters to you. Creation out of nothing has been a part of Christian orthodoxy for a very long time. When the Nicene Creed (the gold standard of historical orthodoxy says: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible” it’s making a statement that everything God made (however he did it) was made from nothing. This is similar to ‘plain reading’ interpretation of Hebrews 11:3 (NIV2011):
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
All this is to say, that whilst orthodox Christians have historically disagreed and vacillated about how God made everything out of nothing (YEC v ID v OED v EC, etc.). Generally, they have always agreed that the it was from nothing.
That said, whether one accepts creatio ex nihilo or not, neither positions is not without objections. The biggest objecting to creation out of nothing is summed up in the phrase ex nihilo, nihilo fit. That is, out of nothing, nothing comes. In other words, since God cannot do what is logical impossible (like make a square circle), and creating something out of nothing is logically impossible, it is therefore impossible for God to create everything from nothing.
However, those who argue for creation from nothing might reply: Where then did that matter come from? If matter like, God is eternal, then this detracts from God’s uniqueness and therefore his God-ness. Or that creation from nothing is only logically impossible for created beings.
TLDR, neither position is unassailable from a theological perspective, but CxN has been the traditionally orthodox theological position. Personally, I would be remiss to let go of that without compelling evidence. But that is me.
2 Likes
OK I didn’t make myself clear, I didn’t mean we shouldn’t be listening at all. More like we shouldn’t simply accept everything they say just because they claim to be “rational” or are scientists(although we should as long as they speak about their field of expertise).
Since you claim to be disagree for different reasons to everyone else, can I ask what is that reason?
I admire your robustness marta. Iron to iron.
My disagreements with Dickie are here, where I demonstrate that I do not simply accept everything he says at all, on a scientific and rational basis. I don’t disagree with him on evolution of course.
Science MUST refute ex nilio because materialism requires a nonspiritual “only this, and no more” presupposition.
Yeshua Jesus speaks to this directly in John 1, and 3
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
*> John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
*> and…
*> …12 “If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"
This is the sum total of what is INTENDED to be taught in Genesis.
Our “scientifically fixed” education demands we provide the answer to “What is Material” ignoring anything metaphysical.
Personally, I believe in evolutionary processes, but the existence of creation itself must be ex nilio as nothing greater can come out of something lesser. Thermodynamics of philosophy as well as science prevails!
What does this mean?
Likewise🙂
Thank you for your reply, very informative.
I have done a bit more reading and well, as foreseen my head spinning lol
So first everyone has different idea of nothing, how can we know which idea “the founding fathers” had in mind? Let’s keep in mind they had no idea about physics(not that majority of people now have, including me lol)
Also worth remembering that the phrase ex nihilo
Nihilo fit was again coined by people who had no idea about modern science.
Regarding God’s uniqueness in existing for ever… There are important voices saying that time goes back on itself so there was no “before”, so wouldn’t that solve it. I think it’s Stephen Hawking proposing this idea so a big gun in physics. God of course would be outside of time…
I hope you don’t feel bombarded with ideas by me😉
Marta
1 Like
Not at all. Great to hear your thoughts. I like to think about theology as thinking out loud about God with others. And you’ve definitely got me thinking too.
You’re certainly not wrong that it is hard to get any concrete definitions of nothing and especially that one should be extra careful not to project anachronistic ideas on the church fathers. They, as far as I can tell, seemed to come at things from a far more metaphysical starting point, than we ‘moderns’ who tend to look at things scientifically. They were also much more comfortable living with theological mystery. I’m sure if you asked, say, Augustine, “What exactly do you mean by ‘nothing’.” He might well just shrug and say, ‘Dunno. Pass the hummus.’ 
Very good points also. Lots of big questions here from, as you say, some big guns. That’s physics is well outside of my wheelhouse I am afraid.
Indeed… whatever we mean by that statement. I’m not saying that it isn’t true, but it is often asserted as a fact without an accompanying definition. Does that make sense.
1 Like
Yes, it does make a difference, because the Big Bang says that the universe has a Beginning, which means that there there was a time before time, when matter, energy, space, and time, did not exist. Of course there is contradiction here, since before refers to time, there cannot be time before time.
The Big Bang Theory is based on facts. The universe is expanding. If you reverse the process to get back to the starting point, you get back to tiny singularity 13.8 billion years ago. There is clear evidence of a tremendous release of energy at that time when matter and anti-matter came together to produce energy and the universe. We know because of Einstein’s theory that without matter there is no space and time.
Science has demonstrated that the universe emerged from nothing, no matter, no energy, no space, no time. Than tis not the same thing as saying that God created it out of nothing, but can there be any other explanation? Some Christians that this denies that God created it, but God is not a physical thing. Certainly scientists do not consider God to be a thing. We have no idea how God designed and created the Big Bang, but all evidence points that God did.
I have seen no serious argument against the Big Bang. Some say that there was always time and space with no evidence. Others say that it is a part of a cycle of expansion and contraction again without evidence.
Humans are not infinite. We have a beginning and an ending. Philosophy traditionally claimed that the universe was without Beginning, but was eternal. If so it would be logically infinite and logically static so it would be unknowable, and we would need no knowledge to understand changes.
In my opinion atheism is on the ropes. The expectation that science would disprove the existence of God has not materialized. To the contrary the Big Bang is the smoking gun that clearly points to the existence of God as Creator. and ecology points to God’s finger prints all over the Creation. These are not causes for pride or arrogance, but facts that need to be addressed
The problem is that some Christians have tried to defend God and the Bible so long with bad theology, it is hard to do so today with good theology.
1 Like
I seem to remember C S LEWIS explaining it very well in “Mere Christianity”. I don’t think I could explain it very well myself and it probably would need a separate thread anyway but basically it would be illogical to expect God to be constrained and limited by time in the same way as us, right? Prob the best way I can defend it, not easy to find words when it comes to these things!
The physicists are saying “out of nothing… ah but, there was something in the nothing” So they are not really saying out of nothing.
They acknowledge that at the basis of matter is information, but some like Leonardo Susskind is trying to make a case that the information is physical! I would say this is because the basic premise of science is materialism.
I believe the creation came from nothing because God upheld the relevant information (which is contained in the infinite information base in the Mind of God) together with meaning (rules/ laws governing that information) in the Divine Consciousness. Thus creation is brought into being and thus it is also maintained in existence.
Ex nihilo - does it matter?
Is that even a meaningful question? Matter to what? Does football matter? It matters to a great many people. As for questions of theology like this, it matters to people according to their interest in the question.
I could care less about football, but questions of theology do interest me. And the thing that interests me most about this question is that modern science makes this particular question irrelevant. Materialism is dead because the substance of the universe is energy not matter, and the thing about energy is that it annihilates any previous absolute distinction between thing and action. That is one of the problems of old philosophy – it tends to confuse language with reality. In language we have nouns and verbs and so might jump to the conclusion (as so many philosophers have) that reality is divided between these two separate categories of things and actions. But in science we find that this distinction is practically illusory. Not only is matter a form of energy, but so are actions like movement – and we can convert one into the other. That is what we do in particle accelerators, we convert the energy of motion into massive particles.
What does this mean to theology? It means God’s action of creation is more than sufficient to provide all the substance of creation. Suddenly the question of creation ex nihilo seems a bit trivial doesn’t it?
It seems to me that taking ones understanding of reality from headlines looks like a very foolish thing to do. These articles are not written by the scientists you know. If you had ever had an article written about anything you have done as I have, you would know that the correspondence with reality is nearly nonexistent.
The idea that science hotly refutes creation ex-nihilo is absurd. And the truth about the knowledge of science on most topics is that science can tell you a great deal but no it cannot tell you everything and it very much tends to raise even more questions than it answers. This is actually one of the things that makes science so valuable and gives its answers so much substance. It is the way in which it silences all questions which makes answers like “Goddidit” so useless.
1 Like
Does it matter practically as a function of daily Christian living? No.
But, logically anything that exists apart from the source of existence itself (i.e. God) would trace its origin back to Him, and therefore, those initial items would come into being by His sheer will and power alone, and so in that sense would come into being ‘from nothing’ meaning not dependent on other created material.
What was part of the ‘original’ creation vs. what has come into being due to natural processes/laws (which also were determined by God) is an area of inquiry that science can investigate.
1 Like
Not much to offer by way of facts but I do have an opinion though as a non Christian, rather than being shaped by the Bible, it informs the way I interpret what scripture or any other traditional faith system says. For me there is something which I think gives rise to God belief which has to do with the phenomenology of human subjective experience. I guess that corresponds with what was meant when people would speculate whether God was something within or something that is out there. On some level even I would have to say it is both but I suspect it is the part that is within which most motivates God belief.
To clarify a little I don’t think what we experience within is just something we make up or in any way up to us. I think there is a relationship between the part we think of as our ‘self’ and whatever it is which is in there with us, maybe God-lite? Just as we and our species has been and are becoming, so I think is the Cosmos. However I don’t see why we should imagine that what guides the unfolding of the cosmos is the same as what is guiding us. In neither case do I think the guiding is anything like an intentional being carrying out its plan. To my mind that would simply be projecting what it would look like if we were the God in charge. Whatever the ‘God’ is which unfolds the cosmos, our species and us, it is and will remain a mystery to us given our limitations. For us, what matters is the relationship with that which is our guide, and I think we’d do better to leave out speculating on if or how that relates to the unfolding of the cosmos. So I recommend taking whatever is said about the creation of the cosmos with a huge dose of salt and not invest too heavily in what that must be.
1 Like
Since QM might be hinting that the fundamental reality of the universe is information, the Mind of God would fit that bill and be the something unseen from which everything comes.
1 Like
Creation ex nihilo isn’t in Genesis, but appears later, with the Apocrypha books. It’s very important because in the Abrahamic faiths, God creates the world from nothing; and declares it to be good. This is in contrast to much of paganism, where the world is pre-existing in some form, with gods being born and dying. Nobody is really in charge.
Where did you read this? It was once believed by scientists that the physical universe was eternal. But then Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and cosmologist, proposed in 1931 that the universe had a beginning, now called Big Bang Theory. And that is what is accepted by most today.
Marta,
There are graduate level courses on science and religion or science and Christianity with a library of books to consult. The ex-nihilo theology would be one of many topics. Theology has two main focuses. One being doctrines. The other being philosophy. However, theology is always religious philosophy, and like philosophy, theology is based upon the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence but limited to religious ideas concerning these things. Are these, the things divine revelation addresses?
Ex-nihilo is related to the first cause. The first cause may be explained as a natural event or a transcendent event. Because neither of these first causes is currently testable, both are metaphysical speculations in the study of philosophy.
Modern educated Americans (and others) attempt to understand reality using reason. Approaching divine revelation from such a modern perspective generates rational philosophical questions and speculative explanations that in the history of the Church has been the domain of Christian scholars rather than the lay faithful. Considering the above parameters limiting how theology ought to be surveyed, those who seek to grow in their divine relationship might do well by avoiding inquiries about science and philosophy in matters of the Christian faith. In my opinion, divine revelation as recorded in the Bible does not intend to address science or answer metaphysical questions other that what has been clearly revealed. On the other hand, it seems imperative to know what has been revealed.
The launch for properly understanding biblical divine revelation begins with character and nature of deity, that is, the LORD is revealing specific things about who He is. Concerning creation, the divine purpose of the creation is to glorify the LORD by demonstrating his character through the plan of redemption. There is only one plan, no plan B. However, theologians attempt to rationalize the revelation, the LORD created to redeem through Christ a humankind who is incapable of deserving divine redemption. His plan reveals to the creation what deity intends humankind to understand about deity. The only answers revealed through revelation are to address this plan. The question about ex-nihilo is not relevant theologically, doctrinally, or biblically.
The referenced biblical texts clearly reveal the LORD as Creator, but are not definitive concerning if creation was out of nothing or out of pre-existing matter. The faithful Christian ought to read Job 38:1-42:6 and humbly accept God has revealed in part; that is, a divine revelation governed by the divine plan to glorify deity rather than to describe a systematic theology or to provide answers generated by rational philosophical questioning and speculative explanations.
“But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6 KJV). With regards to thinking as modern educated Americans, Christian discipleship requires following the resurrected Lord Jesus rather than theological comprehension.
References: Genesis 1:1ff, Job 38:1-42:6, Psalms 33:6, Psalms 148:5, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 11:3
1 Like
Hi Mitch and thanks for your answer but this last sentence I’m really not getting what you mean.
Do you mean questions that can’t be answered by science are useless? That’s a lot of questions!
Or the answer “goddidit” is useless? Either way I find this surprising from a Christian.
And no, I’m not saying this as an advocate for “Godofthegaps”.
Marta