Does God Exist? God as Creator & Sustainer of Existence
Sunday May 24, 2009
A very common attribute of gods in religious traditions around the world is that of creation — our universe, our world, and indeed our very selves often owe their existence to creative acts of the gods. In the Western traditions of philosophical theism, the existence of everything is owed to a single creative act by a single perfect God. Read Article: God as Creator & Sustainer of Existence
Comments
Creation “ex deo”??? Who believes this nowadays apart from New Agers? Is there one mainstream religion in the world, let along the West, that asserts this?
“Is the notion of God as Creator and Sustainer of the universe coherent and meaningful? Perhaps, but because there is no single or obvious way to understand the act of creation or the relationship between God and the universe, any theist asserting “creator” and/or “sustainer” as attributes of God should be expected to explain what is meant by those terms and why.”
Well, there is one single and obvious way - to assert that it is simply evident (which is what St. Paul asserts in the rest of Romans).
In fact, St. Paul was just repeating the same argument as the Jews had done for thousands of years, which you can find in the Torah or Old Testament.
Not only the Judeo-Christians assert this; Greek philosophy since Plato and Aristotle did the same. Christianity then built upon those foundations.
There is a huge tradition of philosophical thought on this topic. Sadly, fundamentalists, both Christian and anti-Christian, have largely ignored or misrepresented it.
A good place to start is the Catholic Encyclopedia available for free over at the New Advent website.
Someone more knowledgable than I could probably recommend some good websites about modern Christian philosophy too. As a physics major, I enjoyed learning that the more I could explain about the cosmos, the more of a mystery it became. From a physics point of view, it’s easy to understand that all material existence could have a non-material ultimate cause outside of space and time. St. Augustine explained this over 1000 years ago.
Buddhism also asserts the contingency of the material world; presumably Islamic tradition also has well-elaborated philosophical traditions that are simply not well-publicised.
There are plenty of good explanations out there; it’s just that fundamentalists (of all kinds!) generally ignore ‘em.
Saying “it is simply evident” is not an “explanation.” Do you know what an explanation actually is?
An assertion is not an argument, but if you think you can support this assertion you are more than welcome to try.
I recognize the implicit accusation. I challenge you to support this implicit accusation, that I and/or other atheists are “fundamentalist,” or publicly and unambiguously retract it. Randomly dropping unsupported accusations and assertions won’t be permitted here, just so you know and are warned in advance. If you want to start calling names, you’ll be called on to back it up.
Thank you for your clarification.
An explanation is a development of an initial thought.
In this case, it consists of stating “it is evident” i.e. the only argument possible is to return to the concrete evidence which derives from experience.
In “creation ex deo” (which I have never heard anyone seriously expound) the evidence of the natural world is identified with God - I can’t think of a better way to stop people wanting to do science.
Creation “ex nihilo” is admittedly a negativistic term. It means that what exists is contingent and depends on something else. What this “something” is remains a mystery. You recognise this by actually looking at nature as closely as possible, not by arguing about it. Hence this view supports and encourages the practice of science.
In my previous comment I refered to several concrete traditions (Islam, Buddhism, Greek philosophy). I also referred to conrete persons within those traditions (e.g. St. Augustine). I thought this made it clear that I was not making unfounded assertions. Anyone who’s interested can go and look up what those traditions and contributors say - I would waste my time copying and pasting huge chunks of text that anyone can find themselves with a bit of effot.
“Fundamentalist” as I used it refers to an attidute which claims to define community and tradition of thought without reference to the historical predecessors whence it came. I apologise if it sounds like a slur.
In the UK we have Richard Dawkins who studiously avoids referring to the rich history of Western thought and in his bestselling book uses a whole lot of “references” to fringe groups, news items etc. I would call that fundamentalism.
It would be more constructive to engage with the best of religious tradition than with the all-too-apparent worst parts of modern religious life, which get enough “airplay” anyway.
Turning to evidence means actually presenting evidence and explaining how that evidence points to some particular conclusion. Saying “it is evident” avoid all the hard work behind that.
Well, it’s not clear. You’re going to have to support your assertions with specific pieces of evidence, not superficial references to broad traditions.
You are using it as a slur. You are, moreover, using it incorrectly. Fundamentalism means something, and that meaning isn’t anywhere close to how you’re using the term. Indeed, fundamentalist communities frequently have an understanding of their predecessors.
Then you would be using the wrong term. Given how much information there is out there about what fundamentalism is, I would have trouble crediting this as an innocent mistake.
Richard Dawkins has made it unambiguously clear that his intention has been to engage the most common forms of religion — the forms that have the widest influence over the largest parts of society and the most people. If these are not the “best” of religious tradition, that’s the fault of religious believers and not secular critics. I find it instructive when religious apologists spend more time and energy complaining about secular critics than about the popular, common forms of religion they comment on. It’s undeniable that if either is a genuine problem, it’s the latter — the focus on the former is thus not an effort to deal with a genuine problem, but rather to excuse and protect the latter.
“it’s easy to understand that all material existence could have a non-material ultimate cause outside of space and time.”
I myself don’t find this at all easy to understand; the old problem of infinite regress presents itself once again; “cause” is not a tenable notion in this context; what caused “the cause”?
What I find easier to understand is Parmenides’ “Ex nihilo nihil fit”(nothing comes from nothing). It is easier (for me) to understand that there must be that which has always been - the uncaused cause if you like. And I have no problem with assigning this uncaused cause a name - even “God” - if you like. But to dress this “God” notion up in emperors’clothing woven from “sin”, “damnation”, “the word of”, “the love of” and so on and so forth is an utter non sequitur. And it is this unwarranted jump that is the obvious problem with almost all religions.
Blunderov, very well said! One of the most concise and intelligent comments I’ve read. Rarely do I feel that nothing further must be said.
Thank you.
The inner voice does exist, but it makes no claims to all goodness or all powerfulness. The Babylonian skygod is a convenient fiction.
Creation “ex nihilo” is admittedly a negativistic term. It means that what exists is contingent and depends on something else. — Michael on May 25, 2009 at 9:01 am
No, it doesn’t. It means creation “out of nothing” or “from nothing.” Creation from nothing is the opposite of creation from something. Duh.
I believe you are lying when you say you are a physics major. I suppose demonstrating some actual expertise in physics would be too much of an effort for you?