AN ESSAY
To create is to make out of nothing, in other words, to bring something that didn't exist at all before into existence.
The Christian Church claims that God made all things. He made them out of nothing. He didn't make them out of himself. They surmise this on the basis that nothing causes itself or brings itself into being - in other words, all that can come out of nothing is nothing. They say that the contents of the universe did not make themselves but must have been made by a being that just exists and was not made, an uncaused cause. This being is God.
This assumes that God has the power to make things out of nothing. In other words, 0 can be turned into 1. In our world, things come into existence by being made of things that already exist which is compatible with logic. People tend to forget that when something is said to have been made from nothing that it makes no sense to think of nothing as a material of which something can be made. Nothing is nothing and nothing can come from it or be made from it.
Premise One: God made all things and used nothing at all to to make them. He did not make all things out of his power for that would not be making something out of nothing.
Premise Two: But even he can't make anything where there is nothing. It is a law of mathematics that 0 cannot become 1 and 1 cannot become 0 again. If that is wrong then 2+3 can be =1000.
Conclusion: God making all things out of nothing is impossible
The Christians argue that Premise Two is wrong. They say that they do not say God makes all things out of nothing as if nothing was a material. They may even say that making something out of nothing is impossible even for God. They say what they do say is that God makes things where there was nothing. But to say God made something where there was nothing is just another way of saying he made all things from nothing. Their argument does not help. Premise Two is therefore correct.
They say that something cannot come out of nothing or be made from nothing. They also say it is impossible for something to come out of nothing without God. So something can be made from nothing after all but only God can do it. That is like saying 1 cannot be the same as 2 unless there is a God. When they can't prove God can create or understand how he can do it they have no business saying something can exist having been made of nothing if there is God to make it.
The idea of creation out of nothing is plainly a contradiction. Even if it happened we don't understand it. We should have the humility to leave it at that instead of trying to trick people into thinking God explains it for if it cannot be understood it cannot be explained. If it turned out that something contradictory was true, it would mean that we can't make any meaning of it. It would mean that if creation happened though impossible, anything is possible. Perhaps your dog made all things. Perhaps God is pure evil. Perhaps God both exists and does not exist meaning that there is no error in saying Atheism is true. Creation would not prove God at all. At best, it would prove he was evil for a God who makes no sense is not a good God. It would prove that the creator should not be honoured as God.
If we don't understand creation out of nothing and we see it as a contradiction, then saying it happened and that is that does not help at all. We can't talk about it knowing or understanding what we are talking about so like Buddha, we would just have to be silent. If creation out of nothing is impossible and still it is true, then what right do we have to insist that the universe being made out of something instead of nothing is so wrong?
The idea that the universe made itself is not as absurd as a universe being created from nothing. Yet all believers say it is absurd for the universe would need to exist before itself to make itself. A universe making itself is a universe made from something. A universe made from nothing is far more absurd.
God is supposed to be self-sufficient and to have no need to create. There is then no reason to suppose that he has the power to create. Christians only assume God can create. They have no understanding of how he could do it or why he could have the power to do it. They use lofty words to hide the fact that they don't know what they are talking about!
Proof says that something can't come into existence unless made from something else. If we put the proof out of our heads we will see that evidence also says that. Evidence is not as strong as proof. But if the evidence says something doesn't come from nothing that justifies us in agreeing with it even if there is no proof.
Creation out of nothing is a guess. Even if there was a big bang and even if physicists think that there was nothing before the big bang it could mean the big bang came from some element outside of science and its scope. Perhaps this element was spirit. Spirit being an entity without parts would be pretty close to nothing and there is nothing we can do but reason that it exists though many of us think such reasonings are wrong. Something coming from spirit would be like something that came from nothing. Nothing is undetectable. Spirit is undetectable as well. God could make a spirit that makes a spirit force that provides the something that the big bang came from. So nothing at all can ever prove creation from nothing or creation ex nihilo. It is simply a guess. If God makes a spirit, how can you test it to see if it had to have been made out of nothing? Scientific experimentation could never prove that matter came from nothing. The best it might be able to do is say that matter came from nothing or spirit which is just as undetectable as nothing is.
Creation out of nothing is a contradiction. A human cat is not as big of a contradiction for at least a human can exist and so can a cat. But a non-existent human is a bigger contradiction. A human who is made out of nothing is equal to that in absurdity - if nothing can become something then clearly something can be something and nothing at the same time! Creation out of nothing says the non-existent can become the existent. The worst kind of contradiction then is having nothing becoming something or something becoming nothing. If something becomes nothing then where did the energy comprising it go? It goes nowhere. A stone turning into a cat is a contradiction so imagine how great a contradiction it is to have nothing turning into an existing entity.
If nothing can become something then why can't there be a half and half? Why not a nothing/something? Admitting this is impossible is to admit something cannot come from nothing and no God can make a difference. Nothing becoming something is more absurd than nothing becoming a half-nothing and half-something.
Imagine there is a piece of bread. The priest comes along and he turns it into Jesus Christ without its appearance changing. The Church says that whatever makes the bread bread is gone and now what makes it Jesus is there in its place. Surely God could do a space-warp so that the end result is both bread and Jesus. We cannot accept this for it is against all our language and commonsense. How much worse is it to have something coming out of nothing?
To say God cannot make a stone that is too heavy for God to lift is to say a stone cannot be lifted and not-lifted at the same time - an impossibility. It is to say that this is a physical rule - a stone that is lifted though it can't be lifted is impossible. An existing thing cannot be a contradiction. A physical thing becoming nothing is a contradiction as well. If this is possible so is the other. If nothing can be turned into something is possible then the stone that is lifted though it is too heavy to lift can exist. The stone being lifted means the stone must exist. The stone not being able to be lifted means the stone is nothing. So we still have the something/nothing contradiction. To have something being nothing and something at the same time is just as contradictory as having nothing becoming something or something becoming nothing. Creation out of nothing implies that a stone can't be lifted because there is nothing to make the stone from and then it says there is a stone so its all incoherence.
It is mathematics that dictate that a stone that cannot be lifted cannot be lifted. Maths tells us what is a contradiction. 0 does not make 1. One is totally different from the other. 0 becoming one even by the power of God is a contradiction.
Believers in a God who can make things out of nothing hold that God is not subject to time. He is in eternity which is like a present that never changes unlike time where the present turns into the past and the future is still ahead. If God creates an object out of nothing without making it in time then because nothing passes and the object is made out of nothing it follows that it is not made and made at the same time.
The creation out of nothing idea indicates that God has made the universe by means of miracle. Miracle is not an explanation at all but a cop-out. Nobody can understand how a miracle happens or how something can come from nothing. So the claim by the Christians that God is the explanation for the universe is deceit. It is an explanation that does not explain anything.
The doctrine means that God made nothing turn itself into something. If nothing can do that then surely it can do it without God?
If a power can turn nothing into something then why can't nothing turn itself into something? If some power can make 1=100 it is possible for 1=100 without that power. Why? Because power or not it means 1 can = 100. This is because if it can't, no power can do anything about it!
The Christians say something cannot come from nothing. They then say that only God can make it possible. If something cannot come from nothing then even God can't make it possible. They can't explain how God can do it so they are not really explaining at all when the question arises, "Where did all things come from?" and they say, "God made all things". They have to say then that something can come from nothing which means that the God idea is unnecessary. They surmise that creation out of nothing must have happened because they work it out from the idea that nothing can make itself. But they contradict themselves so they are only guessing not not working out that creation out of nothing happens. For such an extraordinary idea as creation out of nothing, we need more than guesses and even evidence. We need proof.
The Church says that what is finite (not infinite) cannot come from what is infinite. And what is infinite cannot become what is finite (page 138 or Question 650, Radio Replies, Volume 1, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul Minnesota, 1938). This is its response to those who say the infinite God mutated into all things. This would be a doctrine of mutation of spirit into matter rather than a doctrine of matter coming from nothing. Surely it would be easier for spirit to turn into matter than for nothing to turn into matter? At least spirit would be something and not nothing. There are problems with spirit turning into matter. But are they as bad as the problems of nothing becoming matter?
The Christians believe that God made matter out of nothing by just commanding it to exist. Is this really making matter? No it is calling on magic to make the matter for you. If God provides no power and makes no input except just ordering then that is magic. If I order pizza and provide the goods for making it that is okay. If I order pizza and no goods are provided to make the pizza then my order will not work. Ordering alone cannot make anything unless power is provided to make the order. God did not make the universe out of his power or himself or anything but out of nothing - that is no power. He just commanded it to exist which means he didn't make it at all.
What about the idea that God made matter by his power but not of his power?
Creation out of nothing does not mean that God uses his power on nothing to turn it into something. Nothing can't be turned into anything for it is nothing. God does not make out of his own power for that is making out of his power and not out of nothing.
If God made matter of his power then it did not come from nothing. But his power can't work on nothing to turn it into something because nothing is nothing. There is nothing there to work on. You can't make a cake out of ingredients that don't exist. The power has no material to work on. There is no real power used. It just drives us back to the idea of God commanding. You can't make a pig fly when there is no pig. You can't even try. You can only command it. Of course nothing will happen.
The notion of God making all things from nothing is absurd. If a witch does nothing but command things to come into existence she is not making anything. Either nothing or some power is doing it for her at her request. Creation by God or anything does not answer the problem of how something can come from nothing at all. It only makes the problem worse and so should be dismissed. If all things have come from nothing that is a problem. But you only make it a worse problem by saying God commanded things to exist. Before, you had the problem of something coming from nothing. Now you still have that problem. But you are adding the problem of how commanding something to exist is any help. To be plain: God ordering things to exist is not creating them at all. It implies he is calling on some power outside himself to produce them because he does not use his own power at all.
The creation doctrine then implies that there is magic and this magic is greater than God. Creation implies that he can't make creation himself but has to invoke magic to do it. This implies that God is not really a God and can be controlled by the magic. If the magic can make things out of nothing then surely it can be used to control God!
If something cannot come from nothing unless it is commanded to come, then did God command himself to exist? He must have. But that would be impossible. If he can make himself, how do we know that all that exists didn't make itself as well?
God made so many unnecessary things. It follows then that if he produced them by miracle we have overwhelming evidence that when Johnny says a miracle put the loaf in his larder he is probably telling the truth. The idea of creation as a miracle leads to so much nonsense.
Miracle and magic are one and the same thing. The religious idea that a dead man can be turned into a live one is no better than princes being turned into frogs. It is just religious bias that makes people pretend there is a difference.
There could be nothing. There should be for it is easier for there to be nothing than something. So if God exists, he was able to go against what should be. This would mean that God is evil. A God that is evil is defective. It does not deserve to be called God. It has no right to be worshipped.
HOW CREATION OUT OF NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE
To create is to make something out of literally nothing. It means not that nothing is a material from which
things are made. It means that what does not exist is turned into
something that does exist. The Church says it means that God made all
things from nothing and not from his own power or energy or himself and it is as unchangeable as himself
for it is him because that would be mutation not creation (Question 650, Radio
Replies, Vol 1; Summa, Book One, chapter 17).
Infinite power alone can bring something into existence from nothing for
the distance between it and nothing is infinite. When God causes himself or is the necessary
being he would have to be infinite because he sustains himself and causes
himself.
God is
infinite. There is no power that is not
God’s. God is spirit. God is his power. All things are made of God’s power. Therefore all things are God. Creation didn’t happen.
Creation
is impossible so if God wishes to make anything he has to make it from
himself. This is Pantheism which teaches
that God and the universe and all in it are one and the same and since God does
not have free will for he cannot sin or change it follows that we cannot have
it either and that what we will is really what God wills for it is God that is
doing things while pretending to be us.
So if we want to murder and do so it is God’s will and we don’t do
wrong. God is supposed to be an infinite
spirit, that is, a being without parts and therefore having no separation in
it. God can’t become parts for parts are
finite. But if that is true then how can the man be different from the mouse? Even if separation is an illusion it is still
evident that separation exists. God
would not become the universe to suffer.
Pantheism is self-evidently absurd and if you want to believe in God you
have to go for it. Atheism with all its
problems is more rational so it should be the accepted option. Agnosticism would be unacceptable for it
would imply that either Pantheism or atheism could be true whereas Pantheism is
too silly to be true. If you want to believe
in God you have to believe that God is the creation for to say he is not is
still subscribing to Pantheism the doctrine that he is creation and adding the
absurdity of God not being the creation as well. To simply settle for Pantheism is the most
rational thing to do for it reduces the absurdities or contradictions or
paradoxes or whatever you want to call them.
All
the Church is able to say in refutation of the fact that if God is an infinite
creator then he must be the creation is that experience proves we are not God who
is a being without composition or parts which is what they mean when they say
that the solution is in the fact that our being, our existence is different
from God’s (page 145-6, Aquinas).
But if this God exists our experience is misleading us.
God
is his attributes so if he is a logically necessary being then everything he
does is necessary and as necessary as he does for he is what he does. It follows that even the most useless grain
of sand on a far distant planet is logically necessary for it was logically
necessary for him to make it. But this
is ridiculous. Even if God could be
logically necessary this observation would cancel out this argument and show
that there was some big misunderstanding in our reasoning that led us to think
God necessarily exists.
Christians are all agreed that free will in God is something we cannot explain
or understand and that we cannot imagine what it is like for God to be
free. We don’t even understand it in
ourselves so it is infinitely harder to understand it in him. One wonders then by what right they can say
he is free at all for they have no evidence.
They certainly cannot say they can prove God as long as this will
problem remains an unanswered question.
To say they have other reasons to believe in God and that he is free is
mad for the other things can prove nothing until we prove that God is or can be
free first. I mean they argue for
example that though they cannot understand how God can be free they will say he
is free for he revealed the Bible and the Bible says he is free. But what use is the Bible or any doctrine
saying God is free when we admit we cannot understand his freedom? What they are doing is like somebody making
enquiries about a murder suspect and not bothering to look at his blood splattered
shirt.
The
proofs of Aquinas from causality, necessity and motion presuppose that God is
infinite. It takes infinite power to
bring something out of nothing for the distance between something and nothing
is infinite. It takes infinite power to
bring motion from non-motion for the distance is infinite. The proofs of Aquinas are refuted by
experience for they would demand a pantheistic God. Even if they could not be refuted we would
have to hold that there has to be something so difficult that we cannot grasp
it that explains how the proofs can be true and yet disproved by
experience. Experience would come first
in this for I know I exist and I know I am not almighty or all knowing or God.
It
is telling that the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (page 105) when
answering the view that creation is impossible does not deal with the problem
of a God of infinite power who is his power making all things from nothing and
being distinct from what he makes.
Christians habitually ignore any problems they cannot deal with and like
to give half the truth. It replies to
the Greek philosophical view that creation cannot happen for nothing can come
from nothing. It agrees with it that
nothing can come from nothing but claims that this is only a natural law and
God is the maker of nature and can go against it. The reason it gives is that God has infinite
power to bring something from nothing for the distance from something to
nothing is infinite. Then it says that
the idea of a creator God is not irrational because it does not say that
anything or even God just popped into existence without a cause.
To say that nothing
coming from nothing is a natural law is to deny that reason proves that nothing
produces nothing.
Reason says if there is absolutely nothing in the universe there will
always be absolutely nothing for there is nothing there for something to come
out of. That’s a way of re-phrasing the
point. If nothing can produce something
then we don’t need a God. Reason is no
good. If A=A which is the first
principle of reason, then to say something can come from nothing is to say that
Nothing can be = to A or vice versa. It
is the abolition of reason.
If God can make
something come from nothing, something can come from nothing without him as
well because there is no inherent contradiction in that case between something
and nothing. If a scientist can turn
chalk into gold then it follows that it is possible for chalk to become gold by
chance without anybody doing it.
Religion says miracles
are God bringing things out of nothing or sending something back into
nothing. For example, when a tumour
vanishes in a healing it’s the reverse of creation, something becomes nothing. This idea is incoherent and miracles do not
prove a God for this reason.
The thought that God can
make things out of nothing is mad.
First
of all, God cannot bring something out of nothing without exercising his power
and whatever comes to be has to be made of God’s power for God has infinite
power. If he can make new power that is
not part of him then he is not infinite.
Infinite means all without limit. Infinite + 1 means the infinite cannot be
infinite but finite.
Second,
God did pop into existence in some sense when there might have been nothing. Even if he always existed and causes himself
like religion says what we have is the popping into existence but this popping
has happened in the timelessness of eternity so it does not look like popping
at first glance but it is. If a cat
popped into existence this moment and you did away with the past and the future
it would not look like the cat had popped into existence for it would always
exist in the timeless sense but it did pop.
It is a perfect analogy for what happened with God. So God popped but the present he popped into
was one without a past or future which gives him the illusion of a being that
did not pop.
When you look at a stone you see something that is finite in the sense that it does not fill all space to infinity and is infinite in the sense that the distance between it and nothing is infinite. It is like starting say at the number three and counting on forever instead of counting and having never started but having counted from all eternity. Its is hard to see how a being that is infinite could make something that is infinite one way and not another. The reason is that the being is supposed to be act and not potency – potency means having the power to act but not using it. A perfect being would have to be act and not potency. If God makes something small it follows that he did not use the power to make a bigger one and so he must be both potency and act which is absurd as even the most bigoted believing Christian philosopher confesses. This consideration demolishes the necessary being argument totally. It give us reason to think that even if the argument for that being seems valid there is something wrong - or if not wrong then there is something missing in us and our elevators do not all rise up to the top floor - with us that makes us mistake it for validity. At one time, all people thought there was no higher number than ten. A cat thinks there is nothing more to life than eating and sleeping and hunting.
Conclusion
The doctrine of creation despite being the main logical attraction to belief for those who think insufficiently is actually the greatest proof that practical atheism if not belief that there is no God should be the rule. It proves that if there is a God it is a pantheistic God - in other words, not the kind of God that has the right to ask any obedience of us for we and he are one and the same being. The idea that God does not use his power to create but simply commands something to exist implies that the created thing may have appeared with God's consent but it didn't need it. Also to command something to exist is not to make it. Commanding alone cannot make anything unless power is provided to make the command happen. No power went out from God so God was not the cause of the creation even though he commanded it. The doctrine of creation does not require God at all!
WORKS CONSULTED
A HISTORY OF GOD,
Karen Armstrong, Mandarin,
A HISTORY OF
PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image,
A PATH FROM
A SHATTERED VISAGE
THE REAL FACE OF ATHEISM, Ravi Zacharias,
A SUMMARY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust,
AN INTELLIGENT
PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum,
AN INTRODUCTION TO
PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS, John Hospers, Routledge,
APOLOGETICS AND
CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, & Son,
APOLOGETICS FOR THE
PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD,
AQUINAS, FC
Copleston, Penguin Books,
ARGUING WITH GOD,
Hugh Sylvester, IVP,
ASKING THEM
QUESTIONS, Various,
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ
McGrath, Wolfhound Press,
BEYOND GOOD AND
EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin,
CITY OF
CONTROVERSY: THE
HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books,
CRITIQUES OF GOD,
Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books,
DIALOGUES CONCERNING
NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons,
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society,
DOES GOD EXIST?
Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
DOING AWAY WITH
GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall
Pickering,
EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT GOD IS WRONG, The Disinformation Guide to Religion, Edited by Russ Kick, The Disinformation Company, New York, 2007
EVIL AND THE GOD OF
LOVE, John Hicks,
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003
GOD AND EVIL, Brian
Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society,
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY,
GOD AND THE HUMAN
CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward,
GOD AND THE NEW
PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books,
GOD AND THE PROBLEM
OF SUFFERING, Philip St Romain, Liguori Publications,
GOD THE PROBLEM,
Gordon D Kaufman,
HANDBOOK OF
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch,
HISTORY OF
PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ
HONEST TO GOD, John
AT Robinson, SCM Press,
HUMAN NATURE DID GOD
CREATE IT? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF
CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books,
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V.
Messori,
NEW CATHOLIC
ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE
CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New
York, 1961
PHILOSOPHY AND THE
CHRISTIAN FAITH, Colin Brown, IVP,
RADIO REPLIES, Vol
1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
RADIO REPLIES, Vol
2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
RADIO REPLIES, Vol
3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press,
REASON AND RELIGION,
Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd,
SALVIFICI DOLORIS,
Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society,
SEX AND MARRIAGE – A
CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE, John M Hamrogue CSSR,
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD,
Don Cupitt, SCM Press,
THE CASE AGAINST
GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks,
THE CASE FOR FAITH,
Lee Strobel, Zondervan,
THE CONCEPT OF GOD,
Ronald H Nash, Zondervan,
THE HONEST TO GOD
DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards,
THE KINDNESS OF GOD,
EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press,
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, CTS EXPLANATIONS, Fr M C D'Arcy SJ, Catholic Truth Society, London, 2008
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN,
CS Lewis,
THE PROBLEM OF
SUFFERING, Alan Hayward, Christadelphian ALS,
THE PUZZLE OF GOD,
Peter Vardy, Collins,
THE REALITY OF GOD
AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum,
THE RECONSTRUCTION
OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray,
THE TRUTH OF
CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd,
UNBLIND FAITH,
Michael J Langford, SCM,
WHAT DO EXISTENTIALISTS
BELIEVE? Richard Appignanesi, Granta Books, London, 2006
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny,
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW
SUFFERING? LG Sargent, Christadelphian
Publishing Office,
WHY DOES GOD ALLOW
SUFFERING? Misc, Worldwide
WHY DOES GOD?
Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970
WHY WOULD A GOOD GOD
ALLOW SUFFERING? Radio Bible Class,
THE WEB
www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/Tooley2.html
THE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL AND THE EXISTENCE OF
GOD by Michael Tooley.
http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/courses/finitism.htm
FINITISM AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, R Dennis
Potter,
www.ffrf.org/fttoday/august97/barker.html
THE FREE WILL ARGUMENT FOR THE NON-EXISTENCE
OF GOD by Dan Barker