A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
spirit-salamander
Posts: 9
Joined: April 11th, 2021, 10:05 am

A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by spirit-salamander »

I present an argument for the bygone existence of God. It is important to note that I refer only to theism. What I write is of course not without alternatives: pantheism, panentheism etc., provided the first premise is true. It is probably philosophically and empirically impossible to prove an absolute temporal beginning of the world.

A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.

B 1. Creation from nothing is impossible.

B 2. However, the transformation of a transcendent substance into mundane things is possible.

C 1. God is absolutely simple. Otherwise, He would not be the first and most original principle.

C 2. Accordingly, He has no parts to offer for transformation. Rather, He would have to give Himself completely for this purpose. In fact, in His simplicity, He is so much of one piece that He would be entirely the power that would serve to transform.

D Therefore, God has completely transformed Himself into the universe.

Here are three quotes to help explain B 1:

(1) “The Supreme does not create out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit—out of nothing nothing comes. He produces from His Own eternal nature and eternal wisdom, wherein all things dwell in a latent condition, all contrasts exist in a hidden or non-manifest state.” (W. P. SWAINSON – JACOB BOEHME. THE TEUTONIC PHILOSOPHER)

(2) “Classical theists hold that God created the world ex nihilo, out of nothing. This phrase carries a privative, not a positive, sense: it means not out of something as opposed to out of something called ‘nothing.’ This much is crystal clear. Less clear is how creation ex nihilo (CEN), comports, if it does comport, with the following hallowed principle:

ENN: Ex nihilo nihit fit. Nothing comes from nothing.

My present problem is this: If (ENN) is true, how can (CEN) be true? How can God create out of nothing if nothing can come from nothing? It would seem that our two principles form an inconsistent dyad. How solve it?

It would be unavailing to say that God, being omnipotent, can do anything, including making something come out of nothing. For omnipotence, rightly understood, does not imply that God can do anything, but that God can do anything that it is possible to do.

God does not create out of pre-given matter, essences, or mere possibilia. But if God creates out of nothing distinct from himself, this formulation allows that, in some sense, God creates ex Deo, out of himself. Creating the world out of himself, God creates the world out of nothing distinct from himself. In this way, (CEN) and (ENN) are rendered compatible.” (Maverick Philosopher – Creation ex nihilo or ex deo)

(3) “If the world (as effect) emerges neither from sheer nothingness [...] nor from any pre-existent some-thing, it seems that the world must emerge ex deo – i.e. from God[.] [...] [Thomas] Aquinas seems to reject this conclusion when, for example, he castigates David of Dinant for teaching the ‘absurd thesis’ that God is prime matter. [...] As long as we are careful, however, not to assume that a material cause has to be some kind of physical ‘stuff’, there seems to be no reason why we cannot speak of God being the ‘material cause’ of the world: i.e., the innermost Cause that provides the whole substantial reality of the creature.” (Daniel Soars - Creation in Aquinas: ex nihilo or ex deo?)

The following quote mentions a theological problem in case one wants to assume that God is not absolutely simple and has parts:

“There’s an objection—I’ll call it the ‘Injury Problem’—that I think poses a larger problem for the claim that God creates out of His proper parts. The objection is this: if the x’s are proper parts of God and God creates the universe out of the x’s, then God loses whatever functions or features the x’s conferred on God. And this would make God worse off or lessened. For instance, if Michelangelo created the statue of David not out of a block of marble but out of the flesh and bone in his right foot, Michelangelo would no longer be able to walk as he once did. It would seem that something just as injurious to God would take place if He were to create out of Himself. Perhaps we could reply that God creates out of parts that don’t really contribute to God’s properties or functions. But this response seems unappealing and ad hoc, for why did God have those parts in the first place and in what sense are they really parts of Him if they don’t really serve any function? A different response is to say that God could heal Himself—replace those parts from which He created the universe with new parts. But the problem (and the injury) would just be pushed back to where those parts were taken from.” (Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker - A Theory of Creation Ex Deo)

So, wouldn't creating out of His parts lessen or weaken and ultimately destroy Him anyway?

Supporting my argument, here are some more quotes:

Cosmological proofs of God do not necessarily lead to a God who still exists:

“Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past. It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists — which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach.” (George H. Smith – Atheism. The Case Against God)

“Indeed, why should God not be the originator and now no longer exist? After all, a mother causes a child but then dies.” (Peter Cole – Philosophy of Religion)

“This world […] is the production of old age and dotage in some superannuated deity; and ever since his death has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force which it received from him….” (David Hume – Dialogues concerning Natural Religion Part V)

Moreover, a postulated or even reasoned necessity of the existence of God probably does not exclude the possibility of his self-annihilation:

“What about the necessary existence of God? I have already suggested that what is metaphysically necessary is God’s initial existence. I see no reason to hold that God necessarily continues to exist. That is, I hold God had the power to bring a universe into being and then cease to exist, while the universe went on.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)

“The reasons given for believing that there is a necessary and simple being are only reasons for holding that, necessarily, at some time, there exists such a being. There is nothing incoherent in the idea that there was a first moment of Time, and that everything that was the case then was necessarily the case, including the existence of a simple being. That leaves open the possibility that this being might change or even cease to exist, contrary to classical theism.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)

This depends on a certain conception of time:

“For Time, I take it, is characterized by the before/after relation between its parts. As it is, there is a succession of other moments. Brian Leftow has pointed out that if you are the only person at the counter, you are not a queue, and that Time is like a queue in that respect. But as soon as someone else comes along, there is a queue, and you are at the head of it. Likewise, if there are no other moments because God chooses to do nothing, then that moment is timeless. Yet if God acts, there is then at least one other moment, and so there is Time.” (Peter Forrest – Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love)
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by Gertie »

The problem really is premises A, B and C are all assumptions which are themselves unknowable imo. (What we know is of this universe and how it works. We don't have access to how things work 'before' or 'beyond' our knowable universe. Assuming there's anything to know of). You can assume them and see where they might lead as an academic What If.. exercise. Then using your framing of 'nothing' that something can't come from, your argument works, I think.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by Pattern-chaser »

spirit-salamander wrote: March 28th, 2023, 8:52 am A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.
I find it hard to imagine a demonstration or verification of this assumption. I find this rather devalues the rest of your OP.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
spirit-salamander
Posts: 9
Joined: April 11th, 2021, 10:05 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by spirit-salamander »

Gertie wrote: March 29th, 2023, 11:41 am The problem really is premises A, B and C are all assumptions which are themselves unknowable imo. (What we know is of this universe and how it works. We don't have access to how things work 'before' or 'beyond' our knowable universe. Assuming there's anything to know of). You can assume them and see where they might lead as an academic What If.. exercise. Then using your framing of 'nothing' that something can't come from, your argument works, I think.
Yes, agree, it is a kind of exercise. My point is to get the theist in trouble. I want to demonstrate that their cosmological arguments inevitably lead to a defunct God.
spirit-salamander
Posts: 9
Joined: April 11th, 2021, 10:05 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by spirit-salamander »

Pattern-chaser wrote: March 29th, 2023, 12:48 pm
spirit-salamander wrote: March 28th, 2023, 8:52 am A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin.
I find it hard to imagine a demonstration or verification of this assumption. I find this rather devalues the rest of your OP.
I do not want to prove a defunct God. Unfortunately, I did not make that clear enough. It is merely to pose a severe challenge to the theist who absolutely affirms that premise which you rightly consider questionable.
And if you accept that premise, I think a defunct God is more plausible than a co-existing one.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by Gertie »

spirit-salamander wrote: March 30th, 2023, 5:23 am
Gertie wrote: March 29th, 2023, 11:41 am The problem really is premises A, B and C are all assumptions which are themselves unknowable imo. (What we know is of this universe and how it works. We don't have access to how things work 'before' or 'beyond' our knowable universe. Assuming there's anything to know of). You can assume them and see where they might lead as an academic What If.. exercise. Then using your framing of 'nothing' that something can't come from, your argument works, I think.
Yes, agree, it is a kind of exercise. My point is to get the theist in trouble. I want to demonstrate that their cosmological arguments inevitably lead to a defunct God.
Fair enough.  Not really my thing, but It crossed my mind panentheists would question C in terms of the Prime Mover being essentially a unity, rather than 'simple'?  A fluid unity might encompass the universe without being de-composed into it or 'injured' as such...
spirit-salamander
Posts: 9
Joined: April 11th, 2021, 10:05 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by spirit-salamander »

Fair enough.  Not really my thing, but It crossed my mind panentheists would question C in terms of the Prime Mover being essentially a unity, rather than 'simple'?  A fluid unity might encompass the universe without being de-composed into it or 'injured' as such...
The scholars or experts in the philosophy of religion: Daniel Soars, Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker, Bill Vallacella (Maverick Philosopher) whom I quote in the OP see it the same way you do. They all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the problems mentioned. The same applies to the mystic Jakob Boehme.

Panentheists would directly say creatio ex deo instead of ex nihilo, which the Catholic Church would never do. And in panentheism, creatures are not absolutely distinct from God, as opposed to theism. Rather, there is a kind of continuum of the world to God (We exist in his "mind".).

Of course, it is difficult to draw the line between theism and panentheism, especially for lay people. I could imagine that many do not find my argument a serious challenge because their God is already a panentheistic God without them being aware of it.
spirit-salamander
Posts: 9
Joined: April 11th, 2021, 10:05 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by spirit-salamander »

Gertie wrote: March 30th, 2023, 6:27 am
spirit-salamander wrote: March 30th, 2023, 5:23 am
Gertie wrote: March 29th, 2023, 11:41 am The problem really is premises A, B and C are all assumptions which are themselves unknowable imo. (What we know is of this universe and how it works. We don't have access to how things work 'before' or 'beyond' our knowable universe. Assuming there's anything to know of). You can assume them and see where they might lead as an academic What If.. exercise. Then using your framing of 'nothing' that something can't come from, your argument works, I think.
Yes, agree, it is a kind of exercise. My point is to get the theist in trouble. I want to demonstrate that their cosmological arguments inevitably lead to a defunct God.
Fair enough.  Not really my thing, but It crossed my mind panentheists would question C in terms of the Prime Mover being essentially a unity, rather than 'simple'?  A fluid unity might encompass the universe without being de-composed into it or 'injured' as such...
The scholars or experts in the philosophy of religion: Daniel Soars, Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker, Bill Vallacella (Maverick Philosopher) whom I quote in the OP see it the same way you do. They all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the problems mentioned. The same applies to the mystic Jakob Boehme.

Panentheists would directly say creatio ex deo instead of ex nihilo, which the Catholic Church would never do. And in panentheism, creatures are not absolutely distinct from God, as opposed to theism. Rather, there is a kind of continuum of the world to God (We exist in his "mind".).

Of course, it is difficult to draw the line between theism and panentheism, especially for lay people. I could imagine that many do not find my argument a serious challenge because their God is already a panentheistic God without them being aware of it.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by Gertie »

spirit-salamander wrote: March 30th, 2023, 7:26 am
Gertie wrote: March 30th, 2023, 6:27 am
spirit-salamander wrote: March 30th, 2023, 5:23 am
Gertie wrote: March 29th, 2023, 11:41 am The problem really is premises A, B and C are all assumptions which are themselves unknowable imo. (What we know is of this universe and how it works. We don't have access to how things work 'before' or 'beyond' our knowable universe. Assuming there's anything to know of). You can assume them and see where they might lead as an academic What If.. exercise. Then using your framing of 'nothing' that something can't come from, your argument works, I think.
Yes, agree, it is a kind of exercise. My point is to get the theist in trouble. I want to demonstrate that their cosmological arguments inevitably lead to a defunct God.
Fair enough.  Not really my thing, but It crossed my mind panentheists would question C in terms of the Prime Mover being essentially a unity, rather than 'simple'?  A fluid unity might encompass the universe without being de-composed into it or 'injured' as such...
The scholars or experts in the philosophy of religion: Daniel Soars, Michael Tze-Sung Longenecker, Bill Vallacella (Maverick Philosopher) whom I quote in the OP see it the same way you do. They all advocate panentheism instead of theism in order to avoid the problems mentioned. The same applies to the mystic Jakob Boehme.

Panentheists would directly say creatio ex deo instead of ex nihilo, which the Catholic Church would never do. And in panentheism, creatures are not absolutely distinct from God, as opposed to theism. Rather, there is a kind of continuum of the world to God (We exist in his "mind".).

Of course, it is difficult to draw the line between theism and panentheism, especially for lay people. I could imagine that many do not find my argument a serious challenge because their God is already a panentheistic God without them being aware of it.
Ah right. Such positions smack of 'how do we get God out this one' to me, rather than following the initial basis for their necessity. And Hume as usual has the best quote!

Well it looks like an impressive piece of work to me, for what it's worth.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: A tough test for theism. Theism can only assume God who merely existed in the past, i.e. who is no longer present.

Post by EricPH »

spirit-salamander wrote: March 28th, 2023, 8:52 am I present an argument for the bygone existence of God.
Arguments are for those who like to argue, I don't see arguments as a tough test for theism. A God who can create the universe and the complexity of life we see today, is not a simple God. God has created life that can grow at the rate of a trillion plus cells a year. That kind of growth and organisation is not the work of a simple mind.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021