Board index ‹ God

[Chaim]

The GOD of the Bible is not separate from his creation.

Does the Bible teach that he exists somewhere outside of creation?

If so, then what is creation made from?

Wouldn’t it be true that GOD and creation are one and the same, becoming each-other at the speed of now at all times like the yin-yang symbol? ☯️

It seems to me that GOD would be mathematically ZERO, being No-Thing while simultaneously being the source of ALL things. And the son or logos would be the number ONE or the prime THING of which all other things are descended or devised from.

[jimwalton]

> Is GOD (all caps) separate from creation?

Yes, God is separate from creation. Genesis 1 shows us that pantheism (God's oneness with creation) is not reality. Nor is it possible. Pantheism removes all possibility of subject/object relationship, leaving us with the emptiness and void of non-personality as the ultimate reality. If God is not separate from creation, there is no particularity, but instead only a blank unity. In such a view there is no foundation for knowledge, love, or morality. Without absolute personality there is no diversity or distention basic to reality at all. We all know this is not the case and it is impossible that it were the case.

> If so, then what is creation made from?

Matter and energy. The Big Bang theory tells us that before the "bang" there was a dimensionless singularity, and that matter and energy sprang forth from "nothing." The Bible tells us the same thing (Heb. 11.3).

> Wouldn’t it be true that GOD and creation are one and the same, becoming each-other at the speed of now at all times like the yin-yang symbol? ☯️

No. See above.

[Chaim]

So the “nothing” being GOD?

[jimwalton]

No. The Bible does not portray creation as ex Deo (of something that was from Him) or ex materia (of some matter that was already in existence), but ex nihilo—out of nothing. The world came from God but is not of God. He was its cause but not its substance. Hebrews 11.3 shows us that God has the power to cause matter to spontaneously exist.

[Chaim]

And where does it exist? Where was GOD before this matter came of nothing and where is he now!

[jimwalton]

Nothing can spontaneously generate out of nonexistence. Therefore something (or someone), whether matter, energy, or God, must have always existed for the cosmos to exist today. Everything we see around us had to have come from somewhere—something that made it come into existence. Things don’t just pop into existence all by themselves. Other things make them come into existence. My claim is that science gives us no evidence of anything that began to exist spontaneously of its own volition. We know of nothing that at any time began to exist from its own nature (How can something pop itself into existence when it doesn’t exist?). If it had a beginning, it had a cause outside of itself, whether technological, mechanical, or even biological. Something had to have already existed.

Scientists are on the hunt for "the beginning." They use mathematics to extrapolate back to "the beginning." Using the observable expanding universe (from the Big Bang) as factors in the equation, the theory holds that way back in time, before the Bang, there existed only an infinitesimally small point consisting of no matter and no dimensionality, where the laws of physics as we know them were not in operation. If that is the case, a supreme, supernatural divine being outside of what we know as nature is a logical candidate to have been the First Cause.

Ilm al-Kalam proposed that unless there was a beginning, there wouldn't be a present. Think of it this way: Suppose you go to the grocery store and, approaching the deli counter, you plan to take a ticket for your proper turn. But on the ticket-dispenser you see a sign that says, "Before taking this ticket, you must take a ticket from the machine on the right." You reach for that machine, but it also has a similar sign on it. The third machine has the same sign. And the fourth. This could go on forever (which is Kalam’s point), unless you finally get to a machine somewhere in the line that allows you to take a ticket. Unless there is a beginning, there can be no present.

Kalam’s case could also be stated mathematically. Instead of starting counting at 1, start at the first number after zero. Well, you can’t start at .9, because there’s .8, .7, etc. You can’t start at .1 because there’s .99, and there’s .999, and .9999. In other words, if we have to consider an infinite quantity of previous numbers, we can’t even begin to count.

Here is the way Kalam’s argument looks:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What he is arguing is that somewhere there must be a First Cause, something (or Someone) that was always there to kick the whole thing into gear, to cause everything else. God is a more reasonable possibility as the First Cause than any other explanation, including a scientific/natural one.

We are wrestling with what best explains the beginning. Since such realities cannot be observed with our senses or tested in a lab, and since the laws of physics and the forces of the universe were not operational before the Big Bang, theists claim that no explanation for the universe can be found from nature's own existence, since it didn’t yet exist. The mechanism that caused the universe was external to the universe, and it was obviously powerful, outside of nature, and before time (eternal). While alternatives for what that mechanism was are continually theorized and discussed, God is not an irrational choice among the options. For that matter, God is probably the most rational choice among the options, if you're not biased against God from the beginning (which is, of course, irrational all on its own).

[Mattel Toys]

Strictly speaking, that approach doesn't negate the possibility of panentheism

[jimwalton]

The little bit I just said does not strictly negate that possibility, correct. I don't subscribe to it, however, and I don't think the Bible does, either. My understanding of panentheism is that God has his fingers in every pie. The opposite position, deism, is that God has His fingers in no pies. But I don't see it as either extreme. For instance, God doesn't leave everything to be determined by free will, but only the decisions of humans not submitted to His sovereign will. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. God can direct His salvific purposes for the world (and He does) without having to direct every human's thought (which He doesn't). There is no logical or theological necessity that it must be all or nothing.

[Tokyo Rose]

None of that has anything to do with scripture, but is mere conjectural theology, with its attendant jargon such as "absolute personality".

Indeed, your reference of Hebrews 11:3 does not say what you think it does:

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Here the Greek for "formed" is κατηρτίσθαι which means "to prepare" or "to join", but not to create. The phrase "what is seen" is from the Greek φαινομένων from which we get our word phenomena, and which means essentially "to appear", while the phrase "what was visible" is βλεπόμενον and refers to what we perceive. Finally, the word "made" is the Greek γίνομαι meaning "to become" and which is similar to the English "gene", suggesting an evolution of something, not creation.

[jimwalton]

> Here the Greek for "formed" is κατηρτίσθαι which means "to prepare" or "to join", but not to create.

You're right that it can mean to prepare or to join, but it can also mean to form, to make, to create, to put together. In Galatians 6.1, Paul uses the term in the sense of restoration. In Matthew 21.16, in the sense of bringing to ordered perfection. In Pss. 74.16; 89.37 it is used (LXX) in the context of creation. Therefore context is key.

Hebrews 11.3 is a reference to creation, as the writer is starting at the beginning of history (Gn. 1). He is speaking of the universe being κατηρτίσθαι by the word of God, a clear reference to the "And God said" of Genesis 1, and a thought he parallels in the next phrase with the verb γεγονέναι, "to make." He follows with Abel (Gn. 4), and so on.

> The phrase "what is seen" is from the Greek φαινομένων from which we get our word phenomena, and which means essentially "to appear"

Our derivative term has nothing to do with what the author of Hebrews meant by his or her use of it. The author is saying that God existed before the visible universe and that the universe was not made out of visible raw materials. In Greek and Roman cosmological thought (Hesiod, Empedocles, Plato, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius), the universe was formed from preexisting matter. The author of Hebrews could be taking his/her thoughts from Prov. 8.22-31.

> while the phrase "what was visible" is βλεπόμενον and refers to what we perceive.

Actually, θεωρέω is more on the lines of "perceive." βλέπω is more attuned to the physical things we see with the eyes. The author is speaking of nature that we see around us.

> Finally, the word "made" is the Greek γίνομαι meaning "to become" and which is similar to the English "gene", suggesting an evolution of something, not creation.

Again, our derivative English terms don't define what the author meant by them. Words and their meanings evolve, and it's retrojective to take our use of the term and plant it back into that author's head. Etymology works forward, not backwards. γίνομαι means "to become; to make." When the author says γεγονέναι ἐκ φαινομένων, he is speaking of the source of what is visible.

In addition, γεγονέναι is the perfect active infinitive of γίνομαι. The perfect tense speaks to completed action in past time, viewing the action as a finished product and then continuing to exist in its finished state. It does not, therefore, suggest an evolution of something in contrast to creation.

The context is clearly speaking of creation of the universe by God's spoken word, and the terminology leads us to interpret what he is saying as creation ex nihilo: That which we see with our eyes did not have its source in anything that was already visible (i.e., extant raw material, as was the theology of the surrounding Greek and Roman culture).