Enjoy:
Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Ex-Nihilo–Ex-Materia-e9hcd1
GOD AS CREATOR AND RULER OF EVERYTHING
CLAIMS, STATEMENTS OF BELIEF & PRESUPPOSITIONS;
Claims: Dale makes no claims this week, its more an expository exploration of the topic to explain how I view these things.
Statements of Belief: Nothing special to highlight, read the blogs or listen to the show.
Presuppositions: Dale presupposes the God of the Bible exists and the Bible is His inspired Word. I assume a “Tensed” or “A-Theory” of time as opposed to a B-Theory of Time (I will be doing a show in the New Year where I focus in on God’s relationship to Time and the universe).
*** Note I had final exams this week and so I didn’t have time to edit my blog, my apologies for any spelling and grammer errors. ***
GOD AS CREATOR AND RULER OF EVERYTHING
In our series on the Trinity, we learned about Richard Bauckham’s notion of the divine identity whereby the Bible provides two unique identifying characteristics for knowing “who” God is; i) His unique relationship with Israel over salvation history, and ii) His external relationship with the universe as its Creator/Sustainer and Sovereign Ruler. It is the latter part of God’s identity that I wish to focus on in this blog.
Creatio Ex Nihilo- Creation Out Of Nothing
Genesis 1:1 teaches the entirely unique doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (God’s creation of the universe out of nothing); in this respect OT biblical scholar Dr. Claus Westermann says;
“The typical ancient creation account formula was, “When _____ was not yet, than God _____…. But what the author of Genesis does is he prefixes then verse 1 ahead of this typical formula, verse 1 lies completely outside the typical ANE structure, and it is the author’s own completely new formulation…. It acquires a monumental importance which distinguishes it from all other ANE creation stories. . . . Verse one has no parallel in other creation stories while all three sentences of verse two are based on traditional material . . . the tradition history of the creation stories provides us with an answer to the question about the interrelationship of the first verses of Genesis which is certain”.
Originally, I had planned a blog/show about proving the uniqueness of the Genesis creation narrative in this regard, but the skeptic felt uninterested in such a topic and as such, I instead want to focus on providing an explanation as to what such a doctrine might mean philosophically speaking.
In the first place, God is said to be the “cause” (i.e. the First Cause) of the universe/creation (space, time and all of its contents). As such, one must ask what it means for God to be the “cause” of reality and on this front, the doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo in Gen 1:1 emphatically denies that God used a material cause to create us (no material stuff existed prior to creation). Further, it is incorrect to think that “nothing” is a kind of substance or “something” that God used to create as well, in reality there was only God and it was of Him or His power that the universe was created as a distinct entity external to God Himself.
One might be tempted to argue that this is really Creatio Ex Deo (i.e. Creation out of God) and to some extent I take the point but this view errs in saying that God is the material cause of the universe (a view of pantheism) and thus, I agree with the traditional Creatio ex nihilo doctrine in that God is said only to provide the “efficient cause” for creation and it is through God that the needed “potentiality” of creation exists until the potentiality of the universe is actualized through God’s power.
As the “efficient cause” of the universe, God brings the universe into being/existence (i.e. He brings it into the belonging or exemplifying relation). The coming into being of the universe entails that it enter the “belonging relation” (comes to exist) at a specific time (13.7 billion years ago) and that this is the first time at which the universe exists.
The mechanics of how God brings the universe into being is simply irrelevant to the question, but most see it along the same lines as a direct/immediate causative action on God’s part whereby no intermediate chains of cause and effects are involved. This is along the same lines as how many see the soul directly causing various events to actualize in our minds/bodies (such as thinking about 1+1=2 actualizes abstract thoughts to exist in mind and/or willing to lift my arm immediately causes an initial physical effect in my brain).
Continuing Creation vs. Conservation of Creation
God is also said to sustain the universe in existence subsequent to His initial act of creation, how might one understand this doctrine?
The doctrine of “Continuing Creation” as advanced in the odd medieval and Islamic doctrine of “occasionalism” denied that anything persisted over time, but rather that God creates everything brand new at each time interval. Thus, it denies that anything or anyone persists as the same thing through changes over time. It also denies the notion of secondary causation and makes God the sole cause of all change in the universe.
This doctrine is Biblically false, as humans serve as instrumental means or causative agents all the time and God’s Word presupposes that existing things in the universe persist through change in time and it is for this reason that Christian theologians have come to see God’s sustaining act as being totally different from His initial act of creation; they have coined the term “conservation” to describe God’s sustaining efforts.
Conservation is a transitionary process and as such, unlike creation, cannot take place at any one moment or instant in time but rather takes place over a period of time. The conservation of the universe is therefore not so much distinguished from creation based on the nature of the “act of God” itself, but more based on the different relations of God to the object (universe), such as in one case the universe relates to God in an instantaneous way and the other occurs and/or changes over an interval of time (it is a matter of “act” plus “relation” that is used to distinguish the two).
God and the Universe- A Matter of Time
One will notice that I assume a “tensed” theory of time in my above explanations of the doctrines of Creatio Ex Nihilo and the Conservation of the Universe, this is not something that all Christians will agree on. At some point later on I will be doing a blog/show addressing the theories of time more fully, but for now, given that I have assumed that creation is temporal (i.e. that an “A-Theory” of time is true), I want to see what implications that might have on God’s mode of eternality (if any).
One of the main reasons for thinking that God must likewise be temporal, if the creation is temporal, is the notion of how God could stand in real relations to His creation. The temporal world is constantly changing and thus God must also come to stand in new relations as the world changes. Further God is also related to the world in that He is its Creator and the world depends constantly on God for its existence throughout time, thus there is a dynamic “dependor/dependee” relationship that must be real. As God cannot be entirely immutable (changeless) in regard to His external relations with a temporal world, then it stands to reason that God must change (in His relations to creation) and therefore be temporal as well (at least from the moment of creation onward).
God as Sovereign Ruler- The Issue of Divine Providence
The Biblical data is pretty clear that God is the Creator, Ruler and Owner of all things, God is the cause and/or author of all things (including evil), God chooses or elects people for certain ends, etc. and yet at the same time the Word tells us that people are praiseworthy or blameworthy based on their choices to obey or disobey God, people are tested by God, the elect are responsible to respond to God’s calling, prayer requests are real and not scripted, God pleads for us not to sin but to repent and be saved. How ought one make sense of these paradoxical verses? The answer is Molinism!
Molinism is the idea that God has 3 types of knowledge in His divine omniscience. The first is God’s “Natural knowledge” of all logical possibilities which is essential to God’s nature and is not limited in anyway by His Divine Will. In this way He has knowledge of all contingent states of affairs that could obtain given various circumstances and as such He knows in advance what any free creature “could or couldn’t” do in any set of circumstances.
The second is God’s “Middle knowledge” which is where He knows in advance what every free creature would or wouldn’t do (via their freewill choices) and it is based on this knowledge that God chooses to actualize a possible world (create our universe as the one of the best possible worlds) and decrees that such a world come into being. It is important to note that it is at this level that the range of possible worlds that God can choose to create or actualize is restricted only to “feasible worlds” (those worlds that are broadly logically possible as opposed to merely strictly logically possible based on all the facts like God’s Maximal Greatness and the freewill choices of creatures in relation to all the various circumstances).
Finally, in the light of His middle knowledge, when God actually creates the universe via His decree to actualize this world/universe, then God gains “free knowledge” whereby God knows, given the circumstances He set up, what will, in fact, happen based on His own internal states of propositional knowledge- having nothing to do with some need for God to external perceive what is happening in real time or to predict what will happen in a passive observational way like a sports spectator .
Under this schema, God’s providence refers to God’s ordering of things to their ends either directly or indirectly through intermediary secondary/instrumental agents. As such there is a distinction between God’s absolute intentions to create a world with free creatures and no sin at all and His conditional intentions whereby no such world is logically “feasible” (i.e. broadly possible) for Him to create and thus He is forced to accomplish His end goal via creating the actual world where God’s Will or absolute intention is frustrated and where He must permit sin to be actualized.
As a final note, God does not directly cause evil to occur but merely passively and regretfully allows or permits it to happen through “simultaneous concurrence” whereby God acts, not on, but with freewill secondary causes to bring about His end goals (this is in contrast to the mistaken notions of Calvinists who hold to a “doctrine of pre-motion” whereby God “acts on” a person’s will to make them do or not do something).
Creatio Ex Materia (Skeptic’s View)
If you grew up as any brand of mainstream Christian, you were indoctrinated with the assumption of creatio ex nihilo. That means creation from nothing. This is a presuppositional notion that is almost never challenged. Most skeptics who seek to challenge this notion almost certainly lack the language to do so because it is assumed that ex nihilo is a vital and inseparable part of the Christian Theology. They would be wrong.
Today, the people most likely to challenge ex nihilo are Mormons: a group many Christians deem apostate. But historically, ex nihilo is not the oldest view. Some of the best Christian thinkers opposed it and held to a different view that is known as creatio ex materia. That simply means creation from existing material. That is the position I will be (somewhat) arguing this week.
I am only somewhat arguing the point because like most everyone else, I grew up with the ex nihilo assumption. It never occurred to me to question the notion. Also, I don’t believe in any form of creation. So even creation ex materia is mostly meaningless to me. It is a little like arguing the trinity. I simply don’t care. I don’t believe in any version of the Christian god. And I don’t believe in any version of his creation. I suspect most skeptics are in the same boat.
That said, I do find creatio ex nihilo to be incoherent. That is just one of three reasons I am defending creatio ex materia. The second is that I find the Christian position to be intellectually dishonest and question begging. They start with a conclusion that requires ex nihilo. So regardless of the objection raised, they have to come back to ex nihilo for their other conclusions to work.
Finally, I believe the biblical and historical evidence favors ex materia. Christians use a handful of passages to support the ex nihilo theory. And they are all examples of bad hermeneutics. They are better understood to support ex materia. I will expand on each of these points briefly:
The Christian Version of Something from Nothing
Christians are always criticizing atheists for suggesting that the universe came from nothing. They say that something cannot come from nothing. It makes no sense. I completely agree. But the Christian is unaware of their own blindspot. Creatio ex nihilo is their version of something from nothing. And it makes no more sense when you add a religious gloss.
The irony is that atheists tend not to argue that the universe came from nothing. When a physicist speaks of nothing, they are not talking about literally nothing. There is always something like equal amounts of opposing states of positive and negative energy. That is far from nothing. It is the Christian arguing that something came from a literal nothing.
I often mock the Christian view by calling it magic, which it is. They believe they have a clever response which only highlights the magnitude of their blindspot. They say that at least they have a magician and a hat to explain the appearance of the rabbit. But I contend that does not help in the least bit. If the hat is empty, which is to say it contains nothing, then neither the hat nor magician provides an explanation for how the rabid came from nothing.
The trick is a great example of ex materia, not ex nihilo. We know that the magician acquired the rabbit from someplace other than the hat. And before making it appear in the hat, the rabbit was safely stashed some place else. The one thing we know for sure is that a magician is not making a rabbit appear in a hat from nothing. The rabbit already existed, even if you can’t see where it was being hidden.
Alternatively, god could create from himself. The universe could be equivalent to god’s mucus when he sneezes. I don’t believe there would be anything incoherent about that proposition. But it doesn’t work for Christians for other presuppositional reasons. Another option is to say that material preexisted god. A third option is to say that while it didn’t exist before god, other material came from other creative sources such as other gods or demigods. Again, Christians have their presuppositional reasons for dismissing all of these possibilities.
Presuppositional Apologetics Strikes Again
I just provided three viable alternatives to ex nihilo to which the modern Christian is duty bound to object. But why? One reason is that their god must not just be the best god, but the only god. They can leave no room for any other power or entity. The only explanation for anything has to be their god. Morality cannot be grounded in any other being. It is their god or nothing. So he must not just be the best, but the only. Other explanations leave room for other gods. The Christian can’t allow that.
The whole point of ex nihilo is, like the moral argument, just a delivery system for their theory of god. If there was preexisting material, then god was unnecessary. He still might have been the sources of creation. But their argument is weaker. And they will acknowledge nothing that weakens their conclusion.
My only point here is that Christians have a builtin reason for sticking to creatio ex nihilo that has nothing with the absolute truth or sense of it. So it is almost useless debating the issue because regardless of what you offer to the contrary, their ex nihilo theory is unfalsifiable because it is ultimately presuppositional in nature. They believe it because they feel they have to believe it.
The Biblical Record Is Underdetermined
To read ex nihilo into the Bible is to read it as shallowly as they accuse people like me of reading a young-earth creation into the text. But I am very consistent because I use the same hermeneutical tools. I start with what the writer most likely intended. Literary integrity is my first hermeneutic.
I simply do not believe that the original writers were thinking the landscape was composed of nothingness. To this day, the absence of anything is something we can’t really conceive of. And I don’t think they could, either. They spoke of things like the deep, chaos, and invisible things. Here is a video that provides good commentary on the creation passages:
[https://youtu.be/-XFST2-vfIY]
There are no passages that are not consistent with ex materia. And some that seem to explicitly point to it such as the following:
By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God’s command, so that the visible has its origin in the invisible. Heb. 11:3
This passage can seem wildly different depending on your translation. But in this one, god is fashioning and ordering, and not from nothing, but from something invisible.
Besides presuppositional apologetics, there is no reason to ever read ex nihilo in the places where the Bible uses create or made. We also create and make things. We just do it from existing material. Builders create amazing wood products without ever growing a tree. Chefs create amazing dishes without growing the grain. There is nothing in the word in English, Greek, or Hebrew that suggests ex nihilo. That is a purely interpretive measure that didn’t come until later.
Conclusion: Still No Need for the God Hypothesis
At the end of the day, Laplace is still right. There is simply no need for the god hypothesis. It is not my intention, here, to disprove the god hypothesis, just to show it is not necessary. First, we don’t need any hypothesis. If you don’t know how the universe came about, just say you don’t know and be done with it. Second, there are plenty of possibilities for the origin of the universe. You don’t have to reach for supernatural explanations.
Honestly, I don’t know how it all got started, and neither does the Christian. I am just the only one on the show willing to admit it. And I don’t have any need to rush the research so that I can have a nice, neat conclusion in my lifetime. I am one of those people who really doesn’t care how it all got started. I don’t have a dog in the fight.
The Christian, on the other hand, cares deeply about how it all came about. They have to. For them, it has to be god. If we did come up with an explanation for origins that didn’t include god, Christians would lose their faith. It would be game-over for them. So they have to argue for ex nihilo with more fervor than the evidence allows for. Because it they can’t get you to believe their origin story, they can’t get you to believe the rest of it.
But you don’t have to be bullied. I don’t know is a perfectly acceptable answer. It is far superior to making up an answer just to soothe your existential angst about where it all comes from and what it all means.
And that’s the view from the skeptic.
David Johnson
Recommended Sources (for further study);
a) See Dr. William Lane Craig’s excellent series on the Doctrine of Creation here = https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-creation/ &/or on YouTube here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0fvZLX-9EY&list=PLIpO3BUiq2IHkYGeqcKruUK-mvlmu66z0
Also see a short article = https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/christianity-other-faiths/creatio-ex-nihilo-a-critique-of-the-mormon-doctrine-of-creation/
b) Sources on “creatio ex deo” and other theories of Creation = https://thebiblicalreview.wordpress.com/tag/creatio-ex-deo/ OR https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2016/10/creation-ex-nihilo-or-ex-deo.html
Also see “creatio ex materia” (as per the Mormons that David mentions) refuted here = http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/12/09/creation-ex-materia/
c) The 4 Types of causes = https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau
d) One of our Christian listeners Arthur provided the following source for people to look into;
“This blog post titled “Creatio ex Nihilo: Is it Found in the Bible?” briefly looks at the question: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/creatio-ex-nihilo-is-it-found-in-the-bible/ It’s part two of a series of posts on creatio ex nihilio and why it matters.”
Skeptics and Seekers 
Hey everyone,
I’ve tried editing this thing multiple times now but for some reason sometimes no matter what I do, WordPress messes up the spacing and stuff- no idea why it does that but it won’t let me fix it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dale: “Genesis 1:1 teaches the entirely unique doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo (God’s creation of the universe out of nothing); …”
“… God to be the ‘cause’ of reality and on this front, the doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo in Gen 1:1 emphatically denies that God did not use a material cause to create us (no material stuff existed prior to creation to use to make the universe). Further, it is incorrect to think that ‘nothing’ is kind of substance or ‘something’ that God used to create as well, in reality there was only God and it was of Him or His power that the universe was created as a distinct entity external to God Himself. …”
David: “If you grew up as any brand of mainstream Christian, you were indoctrinated with the assumption of creatio ex nihilo. That means creation from nothing. This is a presuppositional notion that is almost never challenged.”
Hi David and Dale,
Not long ago I was listening to a YaleCourses’ “Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) (RLST 145) with Christine Hayes” and in Lecture 3 the professor seems to challenge the concept that Genesis 1:1 is saying when God created that there wasn’t anything there.
“The chapter begins with a temporal clause which is unfortunately often translated ‘In the beginning,’ which implies that what follows is going to give you an ultimate account of the origins of the universe. You sort of expect something like, ‘In the beginning, God created heaven and earth,’ like this was the first thing to happen in time. So, that translation causes people to believe that the story is giving me an account of the first event in time forward; but it’s actually a bad translation. The Hebrew phrase that starts the book of Genesis is pretty much exactly like the phrase that starts Enuma Elish: ‘When on high,’ there was a whole bunch of water and stuff, then suddenly this happened–very similar in the Hebrew. It’s better translated this way: ‘When God began creating the heavens and the earth… he said, “Let there be light and there was light.”’ And that translation suggests that the story isn’t concerned to depict the ultimate origins of the universe. It’s interested in explaining how and why the world got the way it is. When God began this process of creating the heaven and the earth, and the earth was unformed and void, and his wind was on the surface of the deep and so on, he said, ‘Let there be light and there was light.’ So, we find that, in fact, something exists; it has no shape. So creation in Genesis 1 is not described as a process of making something out of nothing: that’s a notion referred to as creation ex nihilo, creation of something out of utter nothing. It’s instead a process of organizing pre-existing materials and imposing order on those chaotic materials.”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANUD8IK12ms&t=5s )
I certainly don’t know ancient Hebrew and cannot say which translation is the best – I just thought I’d share that at least one Yale professor doesn’t feel the passage means God created ex nihilo. I’m also not sure if it really matters or not.
Enjoying the blog,
Brian
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hey Brian,
I wasn’t planning on the show being focused on the literary or biblical question myself as I had researched this in depth and David said he wasn’t able to respond to my knowledge on that front. That said, its true that some scholars argue this and/or other notions along the lines you speak, but they are simply wrong.
You have to evaluate the arguments on both sides and make up your own mind as I have done, but the ex materia interpretation and the notion of primordial chaos that God simply orders/forms/makes is not the proper way to read God’s “Bara” creation.
If I can make a suggestion- see the William Lane Craig sources to counter what you’ve listened to Hayes (at least then you will have another side to think on). I keep putting up his Defenders series as they are so detailed and amazing, but most of the time people don’t use those links, so please do so if you wish to learn about this issue and the arguments for and against from a traditional Christian understanding.
Also as to Enuma Elish was not a template for Genesis at all. I didn’t put these in the sources but if you want to see an analysis against this idea you’ve put forward (as well as assessing all of the various Genesis 1 interpretations amoung scholars), then see here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhsMvlCGEyY&list=PLIpO3BUiq2IFZ4vKB8Qk5Hs8Mohv-v1hr&index=1 . For the Babylonian and Egyptian creation and Flood accounts in Parts# 11-13.
Hope it helps and let me know what you think when you’ve taken a look 🙂
LikeLike
Dale: “I wasn’t planning on the show being focused on the literary or biblical question myself as I had researched this in depth and David said he wasn’t able to respond to my knowledge on that front. That said, its true that some scholars argue this and/or other notions along the lines you speak, but they are simply wrong.
You have to evaluate the arguments on both sides and make up your own mind as I have done, but the ex materia interpretation and the notion of primordial chaos that God simply orders/forms/makes is not the proper way to read God’s ‘Bara’ creation. …”
Hi Dale,
I wasn’t trying to shape the show or have it focus on the literary or Biblical question. I had always understood the passage to be saying God created the heaven and earth out of nothing, and was a bit surprised when, a few months ago, I found YaleCourses and that a professor had a different understanding of the Hebrew. I’m not saying who does the best translation – just sharing there are differences of opinion on this basic view.
Looking forward to the podcast,
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian
Alright and yeah I wasn’t saying you did anything bad, just sort of pointing it out, but it’s part of David’s blog anyways. Anyways, yeah there were no complaints on my end on that front and yes I am aware of the differing views of Genesis 1. Nonetheless, I still recommend you check out the sources I gave on this, I think you’ll learn some things you may not be familiar with 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dale,
I will check out your sources – and I almost always learn something new from them.
Thanks,
Brian
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Brian, that is wonderful to hear 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Dale,
In re-reading Genesis 1:1-2 I can see why some might feel it wasn’t saying there was nothing. I can see why some would say there was an earth; the earth was a formless void (but that is still something); there was a “deep” and there was water.
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.”
But, I can also see why people understand the passage as indicating creation out of nothing.
To me, I’m not sure it matters. Even if there was an earth that was a formless void and even if there was water when God did the creating of heaven and earth – that doesn’t mean that God didn’t also create the water and the formless void and the “deep.” It could be that the deep; the water; and the formless void all came from God too.
Again, I certainly cannot say what the best way to understand these passages is. I’ll leave that for others.
Finding it interesting to re-read some passages from different perspectives,
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
This blog post titled “Creatio ex Nihilo: Is it Found in the Bible?” briefly looks at the question: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/creatio-ex-nihilo-is-it-found-in-the-bible/ It’s part two of a series of posts on creatio ex nihilio and why it matters.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Arthur,
Thanks you gave that source to me before but I forgot to include it in the blog portion, I will add it now 🙂 Plus, here ya go, I always keep my promises to people in terms of show topics, I promised you at the beginning of Season 2 I’d do creatio ex nihilo and well, promise fulfilled 🙂
I have fulfilled all listener topic request promises with one exception which I will be doing in the New Year- Grant, if you still listen, I got your back historicity of Exodus/conquests, Monarchy, Patriachs, etc. – I got those shows coming for you- sorry it has been over a year since I made the promise to you but I tried bringing on experts to do the show on it but they have all blown out for one reason or another and so I will simply do the shows myself with David– it’s coming 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m embarrassed to admit that I forgot that I mentioned the blog series before, although I do remember that you planned this episode. It’s an episode I’ve been waiting for. I don’t know that I’ll have anything to contribute but I definitely look forward to listening to it.
I can’t remember the OT discussions we had, but episodes on those topics would indeed be interesting. Usually whatever you and David come up with interests me, even when I don’t comment, so I’m sure that whatever you guys come up with will be an interesting and challenging listen.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Arthur,
Awesome, I’m glad to hear it as I’m not always sure, I know of the original Unbelievable group Joyce and Robert only listen sometimes and Marvin and PeterA and Nixak aren’t interested in the show overall, so glad to know that you are always listening even when I don’t hear from ya 🙂
As to blog- no worries, its good, this way I got to put it in the post so it will be front and center for people to click on- in fact 4 people have already went to your link 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arthur: “This blog post titled ‘Creatio ex Nihilo: Is it Found in the Bible?’ briefly looks at the question: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/creatio-ex-nihilo-is-it-found-in-the-bible/ It’s part two of a series of posts on creatio ex nihilio and why it matters.”
Hi Arthur,
A nice article – thanks for sharing it.
Brian
LikeLiked by 2 people
Both sides could probably trade sources till the end of time (supposedly circa 70 CE) but my completely unscientific anecdotal observation is that the question of interpretation for Gen 1:1 has the same kind of distribution that you find in nearly all contended questions of biblical interpretation: the majority of secular sources interpret Gen 1:1 as either ex materia or underdetermined, and the majority of conservative sources interpret it as ex nihilo. I know this risks going way off tangent, but I disagree with the apologetic claim that observations of this nature are irrelevant. Sure, conservative Christians can do good scholarly work that is effectively unbiased. But unless you are one who embraces the “rebellion thesis”, it is clear that on average, the ex nihilo sources are far more likely to have a stronger a priori preference for their conclusion compared to the other sources. And that is not irrelevant.
And since we’re sharing sources, here’s one that is about as detailed as you can possibly get in focusing on the text of that verse, and which lands squarely in the underdetermined camp.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Travis,
Good source, my sources do address the Syntax argument but nevertheless yes there are a variety of positions on Gen 1- its a complex text that can’t be read simplistically like lay skeptic’s like to do and pretend there is no merit to the other interpretations. My own prof was from Harvard and taught for 40 years about creation in various religious thought- though he is biased against the Bible (as a Hindu), he thinks its a both/and- some verses are ex nihilo while others are ex materia but even he sees that verse 1 teaches ex nihilo via God’s Word.
That said, again thanks a lot for your great source, I think its important to know all the sides on this and let’s be clear there aren’t just two sides- heck even in one of my own sources they mention something like 9 different types of “creatio-theories” that some think is derived from the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, those lay skeptics never think critically like the lay Christians do
LikeLiked by 2 people
Travis, point taken from you, you have the right to call me out given your good behaviour and interest in substantive truth. That said, lay skeptic is a loaded term for me, kind of like JP Holding’s “fundy atheist” term. I only use it for skeptics who are not only ignorant but also more arrogant in dismissing the ideas of scholars backing up my position without understanding of what they are dismissing and a persistent hypocrisy in doing so. Its more the arrogant factor that causes me to use that terminology- perhaps something like “fundy lay skeptic” would capture that more.
I’d never use that for someone like you or myself as a lay Christian, but when seriously considering the matters and not having to defend myself against arrogant dismissals of my research, I try to take seriously the counter-arguments and provide some level of fair interaction as to why I’m not persuaded by them. Would you agree I do my best to do this in the shows and/or in my solo shows- I give pro and con arguments and scholarly sources on both sides on the substantive issue, so I think you would agree I do good on that front and put my money where my mouth is when needed- does that come through on your end in my shows/blogs (again ignoring any defensive quips about ignorant scientists and stuff but more on the issues themselves) or do you think I need to do better?
LikeLike
I can’t say whether you are doing your best to be even-handed. Only you can answer that. But since you seem to be looking for constructive criticism, I’ll offer a few thoughts.
a) Try to steelman the opposing position as often as possible, and don’t let the steelman degrade into a tinfoil man. Keep steelmanning even as you’re critiquing the position in further detail. If someone representing the opposing position is available then give them a chance to confirm or correct your steelman.
b) Acknowledge the relative credence of alternative views instead of just discounting them as “rubbish” after presumably identifying some weakness. Epistemic humility means allowing for uncertainty even within the context of arguing for one particular position.
c) As much as possible, save the derogatory or accusatory quips for good-natured repartees and direct them at the appropriate parties rather than at a broad label. They are distracting and counter-productive in the context of an argument or exposition, and the integrity of the argument suffers when it is riddled with vapid stereotyping.
Of course, these are applicable to anybody who wants to be charitable (and I recognize that many simply aren’t interested in that). I don’t always live up to these standards either, so please take this as a general aspiration rather than a personal critique.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Travis: “And since we’re sharing sources, here’s one that is about as detailed as you can possibly get in focusing on the text of that verse, and which lands squarely in the underdetermined camp.”
Hi Travis,
I read part and skimmed the rest of the article – but have saved it in case I want to dive more deeply into the subject. Thanks for sharing it.
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
If anyone wants to know why we know that A-theory of time is wrong, this is a good documentary that explains the basics. https://youtu.be/rSfDj_-Um5s
LikeLike
Darren, very good, do you have any sources on the other side as well- or do you just know one side of the debate? Again, I’m presupposing an A-Theory in this show (see the Presuppositions section up top of the blog), so not going to argue it but I will and I will totally refute the nonsensical B-Theory of Time in the New Year- including skeptical assumptions about relativity apparently “proving” the B-Theory being true- total pig swallow let me assure you.
LikeLike
Darren, very good, do you have any sources on the other side as well- or do you just know one side of the debate?
This isn’t sides of a debate. This is the physical evidence we have that shows that the A-theory of time is false.
I’m talking about reality, not a debate. There is no debate except for those people that decide to ignore reality.
…I will totally refute the nonsensical B-Theory of Time in the New Year- including skeptical assumptions about relativity apparently “proving” the B-Theory being true- total pig swallow let me assure you.
If I thought you had an understanding of what you were actually talking about then I might be worried. But the physical evidence of reality says you are wrong. So you can make as many baseless claims as you want. It isn’t going to “refute” B-theory.
LikeLike
Darren,
Alright well that false assessment of the matter gives me my answer, you have no idea what you are talking about. Alright well I’ll refute you later on this issue of the nature of time.
LikeLike
Alright well I’ll refute you later on this issue of the nature of time.
No, what you will do is make baseless claims that you can’t demonstrate are actually true. You will wage a campaign of assert and assume with a pinch of special pleading, all the while completely ignoring what we already know to be true about how reality works.
And then you will go on and on about how you “refuted” those ignorant and biased scientists.
LikeLike
Here is one of my favorite physicists talking about the B-theory of time without ever mentioning the term.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=a+vs+b+theory+of+time&&view=detail&mid=0636F0986222C54478250636F0986222C5447825&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Da%2Bvs%2Bb%2Btheory%2Bof%2Btime%26FORM%3DAWVR
Why does it seem like proponents of the A-theory tend to be philosophers and theologians while B-theorists tend to be physicists? Just curious. 🙂 I don’t actually plan to talk much about this in the show. But I have always had a fascination with time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A-theory of time hasn’t been a thing in physics since Einstein came out with relativity. Relativity pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of a-theory and has mountains of evidence to demonstrate it is correct (or at least more correct than any other model we currently have).
I suspect philosophers and theologians still cling to it because they just don’t understand how devastating the evidence against a-theory is. Or maybe they do and just want to keep a-theory alive so they can keep their pet ideas alive. After all, you don’t have a beginning of the universe (as the theist likes to think of such things) when you have b-theory. So they can’t give up the a-theory without also giving up the kalam cosmological argument. And without the kalam for the first step, the entire “cumulative case” for god starts to unravel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David,
Just so you know I will not be talking about the A-Theory vs. B-Theory as that is off-topi for today’s show. I’m assuming its true here for the universe at least so you aren’t allowed to challenge that or if you do I will simply ignore it and say wait for my show on it later on.
That said, most scientists do go for a B-Theory, they are not logical philosophers but ignorant of metaphysics and that’s why they have no idea what they are talking about when using relativity to prove a B-Theory- most of them like it as it allows them to put space and time on an easy to understand X and Y axis as a visual aid. Darren above, for example, is obviously totally ignorant as a “fundy lay skeptic”, he is probably blissfully unaware that there are at least three empirically equivalent interpretations of relativity theory and that Einstein’s own original interpretation of his own theory was not the B-Theory nonsense that your buddy Brian Greene and physicists advocates for today.
LikeLike
I don’t take any theories of time too seriously from fundie Christians like yourself who are not scientists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you foolishly dismiss Albert Einstein as a fundie Christian- pathetic!
LikeLike
David: “Here is one of my favorite physicists talking about the B-theory of time without ever mentioning the term.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=a+vs+b+theory+of+time&&view=detail&mid=0636F0986222C54478250636F0986222C5447825&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Da%2Bvs%2Bb%2Btheory%2Bof%2Btime%26FORM%3DAWVR ”
Hi David,
A great video about time. Thanks for posting it.
Brian
LikeLike
Brian,
Just remember this isn’t really fair for Darren and David to be going into this issue as it was not up for debate this time around- be patient until you hear my side as well in the New Year, I’m well aware of this stuff they put out. Please keep your mind open til you’ve heard the A-Theory side as well.
LikeLike
Just remember this isn’t really fair for Darren and David to be going into this issue….
So it isn’t fair to correct your factual mistake? One that you said over and over again throughout the show? Interesting, I would be surprised if anyone else agrees with you.
I look forward to your sources that say that the standard big bang model makes the claim that there was your version of nothing before the expansion of the universe. Just keep in mind that when scientists say nothing, they don’t mean the same thing you do when you say nothing, as I already provided sources to show.
LikeLike
Darren,
Well, no I addressed the Std Big Bang model over and over again, but we didn’t really debate the nature of time in relation to the universe- I explicitly said that was not up for debate in the blog and the show. So the whole A vs B-Theory dialogue is off-topic.
Again my Boards are entirely free and so you can talk about whatever you like whether on issue or not, but I just wanted to make sure Brian wasn’t getting influenced unfairly against my side of the issue b4 I even had a opportunity to present my take on it. So long as he is aware of that and remains open when I get around to giving the truth of the matter, then feel free to post all the Brian Greene stuff you like- I think its great to have credible sources on both sides of the issue, just so long as he isn’t being unduly brainwashed b4 I even get started on the A-Theory stuff to provide a balanced counter to the info you and David are posting about the B-Theory. Look at both sides at the same time, not just one side- that is sheer skeptical bias and why I don’t take your unproven assertions seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about, you are merely a parrot echoing the talking points of Atheistic scientists with no deeper understanding as to how and why they come to the B-Theory vs. the A-Theory and/or why one ought to dismiss the B-Theorists as being totally absurd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…you are merely a parrot echoing the talking points of Atheistic scientists with no deeper understanding as to how and why they come to the B-Theory vs. the A-Theory and/or why one ought to dismiss the B-Theorists as being totally absurd.
I always love it when theists try to pretend they know more about the science than the people that actually DO the science, who don’t really care one way or the other but are just following the physical evidence where it leads. It really does go to show how completely absurd your position is. You have no choice but to pretend that everyone else is wrong, just so that you can be right. The guy that is proposing magic and gods has to pretend that the scientists don’t know what they are talking about so that he can feel better about his arguments.
I look forward to your argument and hope it is more than just ‘I believe it to be true because that is how it appears to me and I can’t be wrong because I said so.’
LikeLike
Oh it will be, oh it will be Darren.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dale: “Just remember this isn’t really fair for Darren and David to be going into this issue as it was not up for debate this time around- be patient until you hear my side as well in the New Year, I’m well aware of this stuff they put out. Please keep your mind open til you’ve heard the A-Theory side as well.”
Hi Dale,
Will do.
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just wanted everyone to know I will get the podcast posted Sunday morning first thing EST. Sorry for the delay. It was a very good discussion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, never mind. I got it done. Enjoy:
https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Ex-Nihilo–Ex-Materia-e9hcd1
LikeLiked by 2 people
I just want to clear up something for the listeners. This claim that the Standard Big Bang Model supports something from nothing is absolutely false.
The problem is semantics. The theist thinks that because space, time, and matter began, that the scientist is saying all of physical reality began. That is in fact not what they are saying because scientists don’t view space, time, and matter as all of physical reality.
When scientists talk about it they will always add something along the lines of the laws of physics existing before the big bang or in the case of Krauss (he has a book out explaining all this, it is pretty good), that space, time, and matter are emergent properties of the quantum foam. Obviously, if the laws of physics or the quantum foam exist, they are not proposing a model of nothing and then something.
It is easy enough to show that the theist is incorrect when making these claims. All you have to do it google the person they cite and see if they think quantum physics is the underlying structure of matter, space, and time or not. Chances are, they do.
Alexander Vilenkin is a multi-verse guy and says “I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.”
Alan H. Guth says that the theorem he did with Borde and Vilenkin only implies that inflation had a beginning, not the universe. And by universe he doesn’t mean all of physical reality.
Sean Carroll in his debate with WLC also made the clarification “Now there’s a theorem by Alan Guth, Arvind Borde, and Alex Vilenkin that says the universe had a beginning. I’ve explained to you why that’s not true but in case you do not trust me I happen to have Alan Guth right here. One of the authors of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, Alan what do you say? He says, “I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. I suspect the universe didn’t have a beginning. It’s very likely eternal but nobody knows.” Now how in the world can the author of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem say the universe is probably eternal? For the reasons I’ve already told you. The theorem is only about classical descriptions of the universe not about the universe itself.”
Hawking was quoted as saying “Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless, according to the no-boundary proposal, because there is no notion of time available to refer to,” Hawking said in another lecture at the Pontifical Academy in 2016, a year and a half before his death. “It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole.”
Hawking was a quantum physicist, which means he viewed space, time and matter as being emergent properties of the quantum foam.
If anyone wants a good overview of the Standard Big Bang Model you can find it here. It includes the math and a bit about how the assumptions were arrived at. https://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2005
LikeLiked by 4 people
Perhaps this is what Dale was talking about:
View at Medium.com
That is not a universe from nothing. That is a universe from the quantum foam. Now if this is the kind of nothing Christians are saying god made the universe from, then I would say that view is coherent. But that is an olive branch no Christian will take. Because they will just say that god created the quantum foam from nothing. And round we go again. Here are some other links I won’t bother promoting to the blog if people are interested. Sorry if some are duplicates:
Christians like WLC talk about a universe from literally nothing. But they are not physicists. And they are misrepresenting what actual physicists are saying. Physicists don’t believe in the “nothing” conceived of by the average person.
I encourage everyone to do their own science homework and not copy the answers from Christians with a god to prove.
LikeLiked by 3 people
David,
Good sources, I like when people share knowledge on both sides, but no, you misunderstand again- when I say nothing I don’t mean a quantum foam- that is eternal stuff which is not creatio ex nihilo. Energy = matter after all. So I will simply say that you don’t understand cosmology and it shows (not an insult as you know lots of things I have no clue about). Darren does know more though he makes the same mistake you did by jumping to the eternal cosmologies as somehow having any relevance to the Std Big Bang Model- no those are other cosmological models and obviously they don’t hold to a beginning of the universe in the sense of creatio ex nihilo. Again your using oranges to try and prove the apple is orange in colour, it doesn’t work the two are entirely different.
Anyways, I’ll clear this up for you in the solo show of the cosmological model- please listen to it and help me make visible images on YouTube so you will be able to see and hear and get a better understanding of what I’m saying.
LikeLike
Darren,
I don’t wish to take anything away from you as this is a good post with substantive information, but I will just say your doing what David did, using notions of eternal cosmology as though that applies to the Std Big Bang Model which posits an absolute beginning point or boundary that has no quantum foam or anything. The tip of the cone represents the absolute beginning.
Stephen Hawking for example has proven this in the Hawking Penrose Singularity Theorem as you well know and as you probably well know he takes one of the 5 exceptions to the Theorem, the Quantum Gravity escape route whereby the universe is said to be shaped like a badminton birdie with the tip rounded off indicating that time (via the use of imaginary numbers) becomes a dimenion of space- hence his no south of the south pole quip. Even this model says the universe has a beginning boundary, but as you say it allows for eternal matter/energy (the quantum foam) to exist. That is not what the Std Big Bang model says.
Anyways as I said, once I’m done with the Miracle show, I can begin getting my cosmological argument show done- finally! But yes this was a good comment- not judgmental or arrogant and offered some substantive critique to what I said on this show- thank you for that I appreciate those kinds of comments and I promise all that you mention will be addressed when I do the cosmological argument show- obviously its stuff I’m aware of already.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t wish to take anything away from you as this is a good post with substantive information, but I will just say your doing what David did, using notions of eternal cosmology as though that applies to the Std Big Bang Model which posits an absolute beginning point or boundary that has no quantum foam or anything. The tip of the cone represents the absolute beginning.
You are just factually wrong here. Since you don’t seem to like the people that wrote the theorem that most theists like WLC use, telling you that the Standard Big Bang Model is not saying what you are claiming, and you don’t like the physicist that I linked to that provided the math to demonstrate that you are wrong in your assessment, Here is a link to the wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The Standard Big Bang Model says absolutely nothing about how the big bang came about. The only thing it describes is the expansion of the universe.
Even this model says the universe has a beginning boundary, but as you say it allows for eternal matter/energy (the quantum foam) to exist. That is not what the Std Big Bang model says.
You are correct because the Standard Big Bang model says NOTHING about the beginnings of the universe. Just the beginning of the EXPANSION of the universe. The two are not the same thing and you seem to be equating the two.
LikeLike
The Big Bang model of the Universe: https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/BigBang/universe.htm
“GUTs suggests that at the moment of creation there was no distinction between the four forces; all were equally strong and were governed by one set of rules. A promising line of attack in developing GUTs is theoretical “superstrings” or “cosmic strings”. Cosmic strings are faults in space-time, where GUTs physics still applies today. Strings would be produced about 10-35 s after t=0, and they could play an important role in the formation and evolution of structure in the Universe.”
LikeLike
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
“The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a “Big Bang” did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.”
LikeLike
The Big Bang & the Standard Model of the Universe: https://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/education/senior/cosmicengine/bigbang.html
Notice that there is nothing about begining from nothing mentioned in the article. Just an understanding of coming into existence that is the same as the Phys.org article I posted.
“The “Big Bang” is the term given to what is currently the most widely accepted scientific model for the origin and evolution of the Universe. This model has supplanted other models such as the Steady State theory proposed by Hoyle, Bondi and Gold in the 1940s. Indeed it was Fred Hoyle who coined the term “big bang” as a derisory one in an interview in the 1960s.
In the Big Bang theory the Universe comes into existence, creating time and space. Initially the Universe would have been extremely hot and dense. It expanded and cooled. Some of the energy involved was turned into matter. Current observations suggest an age for the Universe of about 13.7 billion years.”
LikeLike
Momentarily setting aside which of us is misreading the science, I am still at a loss about where god comes in. If Dale is saying there is a coherent, naturalistic, scientific explanation for a universe from “absolutely nothing,” then why do we need the god hypothesis?
LikeLike
Hi Dale and David,
Another very informative show! Thanks for putting it on.
Dale, in your blog and on the show, you discuss Divine Providence. As I’m understanding you, this means that God know all of the possible worlds and what will happen in each of these worlds and actualizes one of the worlds that accomplishes what God’s desires. (Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood.)
And, if I recall correctly, Dale, you hold that God’s desire is to maximize the number of beings in heaven who freely choose to go there. But, where I get confused, is that it seems that for any possible world where X number of beings freely choose to go to heaven there is another possible world in which X+1 number of beings freely choose to go to heaven. This would go on to infinity – so there would be an infinite number of possible worlds. And, since one never reaches the end of an infinite progression it would seem there would never be a world at the end of the infinite progression of worlds for God to actualize one of them. Am I making sense? Even if there is an end, wouldn’t that mean that there is a possible world in which there is an infinite number of beings who freely choose to go to heaven. If so, then the world God actualized will have an infinite number of beings who freely choose to go to heaven – and that must be this world. Does this make sense? And, if so, do you hold that in this actual world there will be an infinite number of beings who freely choose to go to heaven? Can there even be an infinite number of beings in this actual world?
Just a thought while listening to your podcast,
Brian
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hey Brian,
Yes it is strictly logically possible for all free persons to choose to be saved and/or heck never sin to begin with and just have God and a potentially infinite number “salvation-fit persons” (this would be in God’s natural knowledge- what every free creature could or couldn’t do logically).
However, in God’s Middle knowledge this is where broad vs. strict logical possibility comes in and God knows given our freewill what possible worlds would or would not be “feasible” for him to create or actualize- this is where I’ve said that its not truly logically possible (broadly) for God to create such a world because in every set of circumstances that God actualizes humans would freely choose to sin no matter what even if there may be a “counter possible world” in which humans never sin- this relates to the difference between a counterfactual world (broadly logically possible worlds that are possible but false relative to our actual world) vs a counter-possible world = A counterfactual in which the antecedent could (or rather would) not possibly be true.
So ultimately in reality, there simply is no logically possible/feasible world where free creatures exist and never sin. I provided the source for this previously if you remember, see 18-25 min mark = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q5zQC2BEVY
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Dale,
I had listened to this audio before and have just finished listening to it again and either I am not properly understanding Dr. Craig or his example doesn’t address what I was thinking of. My take on what Dr. Craig said is that in world W2 Peter freely chooses to do some evil act X. But there is another possible world W3 that is identical in every way except the Peter does not choose to do the evil act X. Dr. Craig says that it MAY be the case that in world W3 that Peter would still choose to do the evil act X unless God were to change the circumstances and to INTERVENE to PREVENT Peter from freely doing the evil act X, because it is Peter and not God who determines what Peter freely does. So, in this case while it is logically possible for world W3 to exist it is not feasible for God to activate it. (Please correct me if I have not understood Dr. Craig correctly.)
Dale, what I was saying is that there is a possible world W4 that is identical to W2 and to W3 except that in W4 Peter freely decides not to do evil act X. At time T1, Peter is using is free-will and freely deciding: Do I do X or not? In world W2 Peter freely decides to do X. In world W4 Peter freely decides to not do X. In neither world W2 nor W4 does God change the circumstances. In neither world W2 nor W4 does God intervene. In neither world W2 nor W4 does God prevent or cause Peter’s decision. In both worlds W2 and W4 Peter uses his free-will and freely decides. The difference between worlds W2 and W4 with Dr. Craig’s world W3 is that in Dr. Craig’s world W3 God intervenes and God prevents Peter from freely choosing. So, I can see why God wouldn’t actualize world W3 but those reasons don’t apply to world W4.
So, in my example from before, we agree that there is a world W5 where X number of people use their free-will and will freely choose God. And, I’m saying, there is a possible world that is identical to W5 – let’s call it W6 – where X+1 people use their free-will and freely choose God. In neither of these worlds does God intervene or prevent anyone from rejecting God nor from freely choosing God. So, if God wants to maximize the number of people who use their free-will to freely choose God, then wouldn’t God actualize world W6 rather than world W5? And, … if there is the world W6 with X+1 people choosing to freely choose God, without any interference from God, then there is a world W7 with X+2 people freely choosing to choose God, without interference from God. And so on and as the number of people freely choosing to accept God without interference approaches infinity, the more likely it is that world will be actualized by God. Wouldn’t this be God’s will and Divine Providence? But since infinity is never reached then no world is actualized by God. Hmmm…. A contradiction because we live in an actualized world. Hmmm… So, it must be the case that the world God actualizes is determined by something other (or in addition) to the maximum number of people who use their free-will to freely choose God without interference from God.
Trying to understand, if it is God’s will and Divine Providence to maximize the number of people who use their free-will and freely choose God, without interference, then why doesn’t that reach to an infinite number of people,
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Brian,
Never mind, was able to find my long reply so not lost after all 🙂
Here it is;
Fair enough but what I’m telling you Brian is that there is no W4, ultimately those are logically impossible worlds because given that Peter is a free agent as one of the facts of the world there is a logical contradiction that results (though it not be obvious at face value- hence why it emerges at the level of God’s Middle Knowledge not Natural Knowledge). W4 does not possibly exist as it is “infeasible”- the proposition Peter is a freewill agent who is able to freely decide on salvation or damnation when in conjunction with all the other circumstantial facts being the same as W3 (to otherwise be identical to it but for the one difference of Peter’s eternal fate) constitutes a logical contradiction b/c in those circumstances Peter would never choose to be saved vs. damned to Hell.
So, I’m saying its just as logically contradictory to say W4 is possible whereby everything is the same as W3 except that Peter freely chooses to get saved as it is to say there is a possible world with a square circle but the contradiction is not as obvious in a strict way as its not an tautological contradiction in the way a married bachelor or square circle is. Some logical contradictions are hidden and need to be sussed out. Its the same way I resolve the Max Great vs. Max Evil Beings in Modal ontological arguments- the Max Evil Being is possible strictly speaking, but there is no “feasible” world where it exists given that a Max great Being exists- both existing at the same time entails a broad logical contradiction even if its not immediately obvious in a tautological way (strictly or narrow possibility). Given I have warrant for favouring the possibility of the Max Great Being over the Max Evil Being, then the existence of the Max Great Being makes it logically contradictory and therefore impossible for the Max Evil Being to exist- there is no possible world with a Max Evil Being in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dale: “W4 does not possibly exist as it is ‘infeasible’- the proposition Peter is a freewill agent who is able to freely decide on salvation or damnation when in conjunction with all the other circumstantial facts being the same as W3 (to otherwise be identical to it but for the one difference of Peter’s eternal fate) constitutes a logical contradiction b/c in those circumstances Peter would never choose to be saved vs. damned to Hell. …”
Hi Dale,
I don’t see the contradiction if Peter truly has free-will. You seem to be saying that if in one world a person makes a specific choice X then in the exact same world she cannot choose Y. That seems to be saying there is no free-will to make alternative choices. But, I thought you did believe in free-will (I’m not sure that I do).
Suspecting there is a feasible possible world in which I respond differently to this post (and seeing no contradiction in that possible world),
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian,
Not necessarily, remember the freewill factor is mysterious- who can say for sure what one would or would not choose to do given some situations. It may very well be that in no possible world whereby the circumstances are the same as this world, would David freely choose to get saved vs. damned. People are very weird when it comes to freewill and I for one don’t think my modal evaluating faculties allow one to make judgements in that regard even if I can use them to judge that there are at least some possible worlds where David would choose to be saved (under different circumstances for example).
But I think its entirely plausible or equally possible/probable to argue that you may be going too far in saying you can conceive of a possible world that is exactly the same as this world except that David freely chooses to get saved- my claim or argument is that is not the case- there is no such possible world where David “would” do that in those circumstances (heck even he himself has said as much himself for whatever limited good his own testimony is based on his own introspective revelations and his knowledge of this world’s circumstances (obviously, there may be future things he learns that might cause him to change his mind and hence why I say his own testimony that he will never be choose to be a Christian in this world is of limited value but still somewhat helpful nonetheless and provides some measure of plausibility for what I’m saying here.
LikeLike
Dale: “Not necessarily, remember the freewill factor is mysterious- who can say for sure what one would or would not choose to do given some situations.”
Hi Dale,
It seems that both you and Dr. Craig are saying that Peter (or whomever) cannot (or could not) make the free-will choice to choose God. If so, then Peter doesn’t have the freedom to choose and thus no free-will with respect to God. That seems very much like the Calvin doctrine, doesn’t it?
Brian
LikeLike
Brian, no I’m saying Peter would not make that choice in those circumstances and never would (notice I say would not could). The proposition Peter would never freely choose to be saved in a world where all else is equal to World #3 (W3) makes it logically impossible for there to be a World #4 (W4) where its true that all else is equal to W3 and Peter would freely choose to be saved.
Nothing to do with calvinism as there is no can’t only a won’t or wouldn’t involved that makes the world infeasible. Anyways, got to get back to work now, I’m almost done my massive Miracle blog now (approx 20+ pages) and many many sources for people to check out for this show 🙂 Plus, I want to record a solo show to give a proper run down of my intro for people as on Sat that would never happen in just 20 min normal intro statements.
You will have lots to look over there Brian 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dale: “Brian, no I’m saying Peter would not make that choice in those circumstances and never would. The proposition Peter would never freely choose to be saved in a world where all else is equal to World #3 (W3) makes it logically impossible for there to be a World #4 (W4) where its true that all else is equal to W3 and Peter would freely choose to be saved.
Nothing to do with calvinism as there is no can’t only a won’t or wouldn’t involved that makes the world infeasible.”
Hi Dale,
I’ll just say that doesn’t make sense to me. But, … lots of things that are true don’t make sense to me.
Thinking there is a feasible and possible world where I freely chose to respond differently,
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m confused. You say there is no possible world where I would choose to remain a Christian because, whatever. But you balk when I say there may not be a possible world where you choose to where a red shirt as opposed to a blue one. How are those things different?
LikeLiked by 1 person
David ,
In one case my modal faculties provide me with knowledge that its possible to be wearing a red shirt such as by changing the circumstances, maybe my internal desires are different in that other world or something. But if all else is equal than freewill is a mystery and can’t be predicted, all I have is your word backing me up that in this world you would never choose to be saved- whether you are deluded or not, this provides me with some plausibility for my position that there is no world that is exactly the same as this world and in which you freely choose to be saved. I can easily take away future changes of mind and say there is no possible world up to this point in time whereby all else is equal and whereby David has made the choice to be saved- your freewill is what is constraining the possibility. You’ve stated many times given what you are privy to and have experienced in life up to this point, it is impossible for you to believe in Jesus and I agree with you fully on this, its logically impossible for this to occur- thank you David, I love it when the hard-core skepticism of an Atheist becomes useful for the cause of Christ 🙂
Apart from that I have warrant from this position externally via proving God is a Max Great Being and as such, if there were any feasible worlds whereby the same number of souls get saved and all circumstances are the same except that there is an added +1 of David choosing to be saved (hence the X+1 factor), well then this is a contradiction because God must have created that world instead of this one in order to be Maximally Great. In this way I reason we are in one of the best possible worlds and thus there must not be any other world where all else is equal to this world yet you choose to be saved (at least up until this point in your life anyways).
Outside of that, no one has any way to prove this is the case, but that means the skeptic has no way to prove its not the case either and as a defense all I need to do is provide an equally possible/probable defeater to destroy your skeptical objection on this front.
LikeLike
To me, that is indistinguishable from special pleading. There couldn’t be a possible world where I would remain a Christian because that would make god imperfect. So it simply couldn’t be. My objection to your red shirt option was that I couldn’t say for sure that it would be possible for you to choose a red shirt in some other world. We don’t know why you didn’t where one in this world. Whatever reason it is, that circumstance might obtain in all other worlds. So we don’t know that some other choice is possible.
Like you, I have a bit much on my plate for this. So I hope Darren or someone comes in and picks this up. I honestly don’t see your point as anything other than special pleading.
LikeLike
David,
Honestly, I’m interested with the skeptical strategy of overusing the “special pleading” fallacy, I don’t think you guys know what it is half the time as you apply it to literally anything and everything- I think I’ll just give the fallacy fallacy as a counter everytime you skeptics misuse it going forward, so that way you guys can see the folly of just citing the same old false charges again and again and learn to apply the fallacies properly to people’s arguments.
Anyways, my modal faculties give me knowledge of the possibility in one situation (via all else not being equal, thus popping up my knowing of the possibility), but they don’t provide me with knowledge in the other situation that you ask me about. Quite the opposite, I know that the scenario you provide is not possible to happen there.
LikeLike
Dale: “Apart from that I have warrant from this position externally via proving God is a Max Great Being and as such, if there were any feasible worlds whereby the same number of souls get saved and all circumstances are the same except that there is an added +1 of David choosing to be saved (hence the X+1 factor), well then this is a contradiction because God must have created that world instead of this one in order to be Maximally Great. In this way I reason we are in one of the best possible worlds and thus there must not be any other world where all else is equal to this world yet you choose to be saved.”
Hi Dale,
Other possibilities:
1. Maximizing the number of saved beings isn’t God’s only goal and other factors limit which world God actualizes.
2. Universalism. God will eventually call all people to God – even those who have died – and this actual world will continue to infinity adding an infinite number of saved people.
3. There is no God.
4. There are no possible worlds but only this actual one.
Just some thoughts,
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian,
Yep, these are all things I’ve already thought about and ruled out as either irrelevant or not true in my books, but I get these issues need to be addressed- I just have already done that on my end in delivering my take.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was yet another show with David outlining question begging and special pleading from Dale on this subject as they came up with a big Red Spray Can, to try and keep the eye on the problem, and still….”whoosh”….it’s still “problem? what problem?”
Basically, the theist wants to use magic to explain things, the atheist keeps requesting any example where magic does anything and how it would do anything, and the theist keeps pointing to material causes as examples, presuming they provide some basis for magic, and doesn’t notice the problem.
It reminded me of that comedy sketch…
The Expert (Short Comedy Sketch)
(I can’t imbed the video – but if you google it that youtube video should show up)
Where David is playing the beleaguered “red line drawing expert’ constantly pointing out the “batsh*t crazy” concepts the theists want him to accept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh brother Vaal, your foolish bias is getting rather tiresome but that said I’m appreciative of having you on here as you do have some interesting things to say at times and you are willing to take on the burden of proof on your end unlike some other skeptics on here so that is refreshing. Too bad your arguments are utterly fallacious and unpersuasive but at least you try.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on my take on proving Miraxles, I’ll be able to reply up until the 23rd before I go on vacation and so I intend on interacting with everyone on that before I’m out as I’ve been so busy I’ve had to avoid long substantive convos the past few weeks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Dale, my more sardonic posts, like that one, are a sort of “letting off of steam.” I just find myself exasperated listening to most theistic arguments, so I’ll vent about it. Since I don’t take things personally I tend to presume that others have a thick skin. But as you know, I’m down for debating issues.
But despite my barbs, please remember that behind them I truly admire your abilities to host the show, to stay calm and thoughtful, think on your feet while “on air” etc. David was lucky to find you as a show partner (or visa versa whatever the case may be).
Maybe I’ll get around to commenting more directly on parts of the show.
Cheers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Vaal,
That awesome, thanks for saying that 🙂 As I say barbed or not, I really would like to hear what you have to say about my case for how we identify miracles as I really do think I have something unique to add there and its not something I’ve seen fully developed by any Christian philosopher or apologist and I think it allows us to get past this whole supernatural vs. natural chasm that has existed between skeptics and Christians since the Enlightenment- so would be curious of your take on that for sure 🙂
Yes and on that front, I’m all about giving credit where credit is due (even for the little things so no one takes anyone for granted) and so I want to say that I’m appreciative of David, Andrew and Matt and all the listeners of the show (whether regular or occasional listener) as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dale: “Brian I typed up a huge reply dang it and then pressed cntrl “N” and I lost it all- so peeved off. I’ll explain it in an announcement for you in my solo show on Miracles for you as I don’t have time to retype everything I said.”
Hi Dale,
I hate it when that happens! But, no worries! No hurry. Look forward to reading it whenever you post it.
Brian
LikeLiked by 1 person