Re: [asa] Critical review of Dawkins' Book by the "Liberal Media"

From: Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
Date: Fri Dec 29 2006 - 14:04:51 EST

I guess I would argue that "creation out of nothing" is pretty much the
purest of speculations, however historical.

Perhaps we would be better served if we acknowledge the possibility of
"creation out of nothing-as-we-know-it". In our sphere of existence, we
know of no creative transaction that conforms to the "creation out of
nothing" mode. Such things are more transformational in character.

There is no evidence I know of that precludes the Creator creating out
of "something" rather than "nothing", though that "something" be in a
form unknown to us in its transcendent state (and thus outside our
experience). Given our state of knowledge, it is a coin toss - divine
creations might or might not be "out of nothing" in the context of the
greater divine domain.

Moreover, given our incomplete knowledge of our own sphere of existence,
divine creations might or might not be "out of nothing" even in our
non-transcendental realm. We just might be unaware of the "substance"
that was the starting point.

So, for what it's worth, I would be inclined toward "creation out of
something", letting our experience be the tipping factor as we
speculate about thus-far-unknowable things.
Somehow that would also be consonant with the theological thread of
transformation as well, though the connection is flimsy. Or is it?

JimA

Ted Davis wrote:

>>>>Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net> 12/27/06 9:08 PM >>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>That's not the Jewish perspective that I'm more familiar with. The
>Creator does something like creating form through organizing a portion
>of chaotic "something", and then assigning functionality (along with a
>name). JimA
>
>Ted disagrees.
>
>Jim's view sounds more like that of PLato, in Timaeus, where the "DEMIURGOS"
>(craftsman, the same word used in the book of Hebrews for God the creator)
>makes the world out of 3 things: preexisting, unformed matter; the form of
>the good (a reference no doubt in two dimensions to a prefect square with 90
>feet between bases), from which other forms are derived; and "the nurse of
>becoming," a sort of potential to be something.
>
>The Greeks saw this as different from the Jewish view, and I think they were
>correct to see it that way. The Biblical God was not beholden to uncreated
>things with which he had to work. As a consequence of the Greek view that
>the demiurgos lacks omnipotence (ie, cannot create from nothing) and has to
>work with externally given perfect forms *that can only be imperfectly
>imposed on matter*, nature is an imperfect copy of the perfect forms. We
>can therefore have only "opinion," not genuine "knowledge" (ie, science =
>knowledge), of physical nature; we can however have genuine "knowledge" (ie,
>science) of the forms themselves. That is, we can know mathematics, but
>only opine physics. There is no "science" of nature for Plato, there is
>mere opinion of an imperfectly formed nature that only "copies" the forms
>imperfectly.
>
>There are also further consequences. As the Hellenistic physician Galen
>wrote roughly 500 years after PLato, Moses believed that God could do
>whatever he wanted to, whereas the Greeks held correctly (in Galen's view)
>that God can only choose the best of the various possibilities that
>presented themselves to him. He says this in his biological treatise, "De
>usu partium," which I do not have here at home to quote. Boyle picked up on
>this very Galenic point in his treatise on the doctrine of creation, "A Free
>Inquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature" (published 1686 but
>mostly written in the mid-1660s), where he strongly affirmed the Hebrew
>notion of creatio ex nihilo. As Boyle underscores the point, Hebrew has no
>word for "nature" in the sense spoken of by the Greeks (ie, no equivalent to
>"PHYSIS"), only words expressing the fact that God created it.
>
>ted
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Dec 29 14:07:55 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 29 2006 - 14:07:55 EST