Creation Ex Nihilo

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

Of course. But you’re my making my point, namely, that Aquinas is wrong. We can rationally demonstrate that the universe does not have an infinite past.

Really? Not based on what either of us has typed.

Okay. Then you agree with Aquinas that we cannot rationally demonstrate that the universe does not have an infinite past.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Creation ex nihilo means creation out of nothing. However, the late Thomistic scholar and theologian W. Norris Clarke writes the following concerning the doctrine of creation:

Question:

If reason alone cannot prove that the universe must have had a beginning in time, then is it reasonable to believe that the universe is co-eternal with God?

Yes, but only as a philosophical proposition. If that were the case, God would have been and now is, and would always be creating the universe, in time, out of nothing ( here I disagree with Clark in regard to time). The fact is however, that we know and believe with absolute certainty that the universe did have an absolute beginning, in time, out of nothing. But we know this only by faith, not through philosophical argumentation. .

 

[Counterpoint]

Yes, but only as a philosophical proposition. If that were the case, God would have been and now is, and would always be creating the universe, in time, out of nothing ( here I disagree with Clark in regard to time).

Clark is simply expressing the Christian doctrine of creation.

“Creation shold be conceived of as the eternal, indivisible, and immediate bringing into existence of the whole of creation, from its beginning ot its end.” (pg. 26, “The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss” by David Bentley Hart)

The fact is however, that we know and believe with absolute certainty that the universe did have an absolute beginning, in time, out of nothing. But we know this only by faith, not through philosophical argumentation. .

Well, if you know this with absolute certainty, then it isn’t based on faith.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Clark is simply expressing the Christian doctrine of creation.

Well, if you know this with absolute certainty, then it isn’t based on faith.

What we believe through Faith is certain knowledge. It is something we know, but we know it with certainty.

Linus2nd.

 

[Counterpoint]

What we believe through Faith is certain knowledge. It is something we know, but we know it with certainty.

Merriam-Webster defines “faith” as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

“For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” Romans 8:24

 

[polytropos]

But the fact is that there could not have been an infinite number of past fathers. Whether my father (or grandfather, or great grandfather, etc.) is alive or not is irrelevant.

Why not? The infinite number of past fathers would be a problem if each one depended for its existence or activity on the previous one, so that as a whole there was nothing causing them to exist. That isn’t the case, though.

I’ll demonstrate the infinite regress.
…]
Materialist: Another previous state of affairs?

Me: Do realize that you keep begging the question?

This isn’t begging the question. Begging the question is to assume your conclusion in your premises. To say that a single event is preceded by another event does not assume that an infinite regress is possible, which is what the materialist aims to show.

It is true that the previous state of affairs caused the current state of affairs. (Speaking loosely. I don’t believe that states of affairs properly stand in causal relations, but only the constituents of such states, ie. I do not accept an event ontology.)

Materialist: Because I am caught in a vicious infinite regress.

That isn’t a vicious regress. The existence of the current state of affairs does not depend on the past state of affairs (which no longer exists). It had to have been caused by the previous state of affairs, but now it is no longer dependent.

Also, we know that universe could not have had an infinite past in time because an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse to reach the present. That’s a logical impossibility.

This is not necessarily the case. There is no first instant of time in an infinite regress, so if you pick any two points, there is a finite distance between them. It would be problematic if there had to be a first moment of time, and then an infinite span of time between then and now. But that isn’t what the materialist is claiming.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Merriam-Webster defines “faith” as “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1

“For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” Romans 8:24

Well, every year we get a whole new crop of hot shot students who are bound and determined to teach us everything they don’t know. Merriam Webster is not an authority on anything except the normative definition of words. It is not to be relied upon to provide precise meanings for words used in philosophycal/theological/religious discussions.

So, to make it clear. Knowledge gained through Faith, is certain knowledge. It is based on Faith, and it is absolutely certain knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge we gain through any other source has a lesser degree of certitude. Now take that back to your professor and see what he thinks.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

Why not? The infinite number of past fathers would be a problem if each one depended for its existence or activity on the previous one, so that as a whole there was nothing causing them to exist. That isn’t the case, though.

Because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it implies an infinite regress, which it most certainly does.

This isn’t begging the question. Begging the question is to assume your conclusion in your premises.

That’s one definition of “beginning the question.” It’s not the only definition. I can also “mean “to raise the question” (as in “This begs the question of whether…”)” (source: Wikipedia: Begging the quesiton)

To say that a single event is preceded by another event does not assume that an infinite regress is possible, which is what the materialist aims to show.

But to argue that an infinite regress of single events does. The infinite regress is implied because the materialist keeps begging the question (causes me “to raise the question” as in “this begs the question of whether” another previous state of affairs caused the present state of affairs).

It is true that the previous state of affairs caused the current state of affairs. (Speaking loosely. I don’t believe that states of affairs properly stand in causal relations, but only the constituents of such states, ie. I do not accept an event ontology.)

It doesn’t change anything. The previous state of the constituents caused the present state of constituents.

That isn’t a vicious regress. The existence of the current state of affairs does not depend on the past state of affairs (which no longer exists). It had to have been caused by the previous state of affairs, but now it is no longer dependent.

Whether or not a causal series is *accidentally * or essentially ordered is irrelevant as to whether or not a vicious regress is involved.

This is not necessarily the case. There is no first instant of time in an infinite regress, so if you pick any two points, there is a finite distance between them. It would be problematic if there had to be a first moment of time, and then an infinite span of time between then and now. But that isn’t what the materialist is claiming.

I know it is an infinite regress. That’s my point! The universe could not have had an infinite past in time because this would imply an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse to reach the present. This is a logical impossibility. And if you can’t see that, then we have reached an impasse where it will be futile to debate this issue any further.

 

[Counterpoint]

Well, every year we get a whole new crop of hot shot students who are bound and determined to teach us everything they don’t know. Merriam Webster is not an authority on anything except the normative definition of words. It is not to be relied upon to provide precise meanings for words used in philosophycal/theological/religious discussions.

So, to make it clear. Knowledge gained through Faith, is certain knowledge. It is based on Faith, and it is absolutely certain knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge we gain through any other source has a lesser degree of certitude. Now take that back to your professor and see what he thinks.

The problem you have is that I have provided you with two biblical verses (Hebrews 11:1, Romans 8:24) which supports Merriam-Webster’s definition.

 

[polytropos]

Because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it implies an infinite regress, which it most certainly does.

Dependence is irrelevant to whether or not it implies an infinite regress. Correct. But dependence is not irrelevant to whether or not it implies a vicious infinite regress, which is what is at issue.

That’s one definition of “beginning the question.” It’s not the only definition. I can also “mean “to raise the question” (as in “This begs the question of whether…”)” (source: Wikipedia: Begging the quesiton)

OK, but begging the question in that sense is not fallacious.

But to argue that an infinite regress of single events does. The infinite regress is implied because the materialist keeps begging the question (causes me “to raise the question” as in “this begs the question of whether” another previous state of affairs caused the present state of affairs).

As I’ve pointed out, this would be a logically unproblematic sense of “begging the question.”

But if the materialist asserts that he finds a temporal regress unproblematic, and you want him to believe otherwise, then the onus would be on you to show that it is problematic.

Whether or not a causal series is *accidentally * or essentially ordered is irrelevant as to whether or not a vicious regress is involved.

Can you substantiate this claim?

Even if both were always problematic (which I don’t concede; the “it is true that it is true that… it is true that p” is an accidental regress that is unproblematic), then they would be problematic for different reasons. An essentially ordered series constitutes a vicious regress because each element depends on the antecedent element for its own effect on the subsequent element. That is (by definition) not the problem with accidentally ordered series. If accidentally ordered series are impossible, it would have to do with the logical implications of having infinitely many events (say), as Pruss argues.

But even then I don’t think you could argue that all accidentally ordered series are vicious regresses, so the accidental/essential distinction evidently is relevant.

The universe could not have had an infinite past in time because this would imply an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse to reach the present.

Just like we must count an infinite number of integers to get to the number 5?

The problem is that on the infinite temporal regress model, there is no first moment of time. Since there is no first moment in time, it doesn’t make sense to say that there is an infinite number of steps between that must be traversed to get to the present. You say that it “would imply an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse to reach the present.” Would have to elapsed since when? The answer surely cannot be “the beginning of the universe,” because the materialist is claiming that there wasn’t one. And if you pick any time in the past, only a finite duration will have elapsed since then.

An infinite regress does not imply that there is any moment in time infinitely far away from the present. It implies that every moment in time is finitely far away from the present, but that you cannot bound the distances of all of the moments. (In other words, if you are given any time in the past, you can calculate the finite duration that has elapsed since then. But you can’t find any number of years, say, that all of those finite durations will be lower than.)

I would contest that it is at least prima facie consistent that God create a world that exists through an infinite duration.

This is a logical impossibility. And if you can’t see that, then we have reached an impasse where it will be futile to debate this issue any further.

You haven’t shown this. You would have to show the analogy with the integers to be in some way flawed. The integers extend infinitely in both directions, but if you pick any two integers, there is a finite distance between them. It doesn’t make sense to say that we can never reach 0 because we can’t count the infinitely many negative integers.

You might be interested in this post by Bill Vallicella, who is sympathetic to your position.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The problem you have is that I have provided you with two biblical verses (Hebrews 11:1, Romans 8:24) which supports Merriam-Webster’s definition.

Fiddle sticks.

Linus2nd

 

[Counterpoint]

As I’ve pointed out, this would be a logically unproblematic sense of “begging the question.”

But if the materialist asserts that he finds a temporal regress unproblematic, and you want him to believe otherwise, then the onus would be on you to show that it is problematic.

It’s a regress argument. (And if the materialist cannot grasp that, then the debate would stop at that point. It is not possible for two individuals to have a logical debate if they cannot both agree on what is logical and what is not.)

The regress argument (also known as the diallelus (Latin < Greek di allelon “through or by means of one another”)) is a problem in epistemology and, in general, a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified.[1][2][3]

According to this argument, any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, like a child who asks “why?” over and over again. (source: Wikipedia: Regress argument)

Counterpoint:

Whether or not a causal series is accidentally or essentially ordered is irrelevant as to whether or not a vicious regress is involved.

Can you substantiate this claim?

Even if both were always problematic (which I don’t concede; the “it is true that it is true that… it is true that p” is an accidental regress that is unproblematic), then they would be problematic for different reasons. An essentially ordered series constitutes a vicious regress because each element depends on the antecedent element for its own effect on the subsequent element. That is (by definition) not the problem with accidentally ordered series. If accidentally ordered series are impossible, it would have to do with the logical implications of having infinitely many events (say), as Pruss argues.

But even then I don’t think you could argue that all accidentally ordered series are vicious regresses, so the accidental/essential distinction evidently is relevant.

I already have. If I, like a child, must endlessly (infinitely) ask “why?” over and over again, then we can be assured that the argument at issue involves a vicious infinite regress.

By the way, I don’t think you fully understand the two types of causal series.

“Causal series ordered per accidens are linear in character in character and extend through time.” pg. 71

“Causal series ordered per se are paradigmatically hierarchical with their members acting simultaneously.” pg. 71

(source: “Aquinas: Beginner’s Guide” by Edward Fesser)

 

[steve49]

Question:

If reason alone cannot prove that the universe must have had a beginning in time, then is it reasonable to believe that the universe is co-eternal with God?

No. It either says that reason is a part of the universe that God created or that reason is a part of God and we only see a glimpse of it, not enough to prove the universe had a beginning.

If reason is a part of God then reason is eternal not the universe. I think the bulk of reason as we know it is a part of creation and is not eternal.

 

[polytropos]

It’s a regress argument. (And if the materialist cannot grasp that, then the debate would stop at that point. It is not possible for two individuals to have a logical debate if they cannot both agree on what is logical and what is not.)

So what? If all regress arguments are problematic, then can you tell me what is wrong with the truth regress?

I already have. If I, like a child, must endlessly (infinitely) ask “why?” over and over again, then we can be assured that the argument at issue involves a vicious infinite regress.

That leaves explanations unsatisfied, correct. But that is an epistemic problem with the regress. What is the logical/ontological problem?

By the way, I don’t think you fully understand the two types of causal series.

I did not say that I was defining accidentally ordered series in terms of being non-vicious. I was just saying that they are non-vicious, while essentially ordered regresses are vicious. I believe Feser would agree with me on that point. And ironically Feser is inclined to agree with Aquinas (to my knowledge) that accidentally ordered regresses do not need a first element.

 

[Counterpoint]

So what? If all regress arguments are problematic, then can you tell me what is wrong with the truth regress?

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[oldcelt]

I must admit that in all my years in Catholicism, I never once heard of Creation Ex Nihilo and I go back to the time when the nuns and priests taught catechism.

 

[Counterpoint]

I must admit that in all my years in Catholicism, I never once heard of Creation Ex Nihilo and I go back to the time when the nuns and priests taught catechism.

It’s basic Christian theology.

 

[oldcelt]

I just missed it somehow, or subconsciously pushed it aside because I do not agree with it.

 

[Counterpoint]

I just missed it somehow, or subconsciously pushed it aside because I do not agree with it.

“I believe in God,
the Father almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,” - The Apostle’s Creed