Monthly Archives: September 2016

Creatio Ex Se

People often take Creatio Ex Nihilo as an argument for the existence of God, however, it can only be a theological statement; that unlike man, God doesn’t create by merely rearranging something which already exists.

The argument Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit is what actually makes the idea of God sound because it is true by experience, definition, and by observation that “nothing” isn’t a possible state of affairs. It means that since “nothing from nothing”, and since there is anything at all, then something must be eternal. This doesn’t mean we can conclude God exists. It only means that we are justified to think of God as eternal if there is a God. The debate on that matter would be over this “Eternal Something” being volitional or non volitional, but that’s not interesting here.

Because one, if not the only, means to suggest God exists is by Ex Nihilo reasoning, we cannot literally claim Creatio Ex Nihilo. If we did, or as soon as we do, we have either claimed nothing can come from nothing or that God is a special exception; and that fallacy shares the same name. God must in some way be said to create of himself, not from nothing at all. Not only that, but given another observation we have by common experience, Sicut A Simili, God must in some way be like that which is created. For example, dogs are not born of cats and even streams of consciousness flow in the same direction no matter the number of forks. “Like effects necessarily follow from like causes” (David Hume, A Treatise On Human Nature; Book 1: Of The Understanding/Part III, Section XV, Rules By Which To Judge Of Causes And Effects). This is a terribly old Aristotelian idea.

All things considered and accounted for, there is an eternality which exists because other things exist, and all contingent things which exist are necessarily some form of that eternality itself.

This means that if you believe this “Eternal Something” is volitional, then all that is implied is that there is a mindful reason why anything else exists. You likely call this eternality, “God”. Given that God is defined as immaterial and given Sicut A Simili, materiality is an accidental property of existence. How God must be like creation, causal to it without being material himself, is in the idea that God is the “Ground Of All Being” and not a specific instance of something which exists; which is to say in the regular sense, “something which manifests” in material form.

While the entire matter of volition is completely debatable, what isn’t is what follows from the idea of volition given. That is, God has a reason in creating anything at all. And in all cases, what has been created is like its cause. Quite literally then, all that exists is from God and is an expression of God and is in some way God.

Creatio Ex Se; God created from himself.

Tagged ,

​The Pragmatic Argument About “God”

1) “God” exists in the human vocabulary.
2) Human reason is restricted by vocabulary.
3) God transcends the human vocabulary.
4) Therefore:
    a) “God” in the human vocabulary has no referent.
    b) All God-narratives are metaphysical sentences.
    c) God-narratives are only meaningful (not true or false)

Can we talk about God at all and know what we mean, or should we know what we mean when we talk about “God”?


Fr. Herbert McCabe, God Matters, pg 6
A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth And Logic, pg 117
Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume 1, pg 615
George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, pg 26


Free Won’t

​I say I have free will because I have reason to believe it, and therein lies the damnability of trying to prove it!

Tagged ,

Very Straight!

If LGBTQ doesn’t violate any moral principle but is in fact a moral issue, then denying LGBTQ its expression is immoral because it prevents us from a full experience of life. This must also be a sin because in denying a full experience of life, we have a diminished understanding of ourselves. A sin because we are icons of God and understanding ourselves is our only means of understanding God.

That’s as straight as it gets!

Tagged , ,

Good Grief

​Christians ought to consider the Holy Spirit and grieving it. We think it is the work of the Holy Spirit as what brings a person to Christ. We have to ask when that work is done, for if it isn’t ever done, then we have to ask a question about Christ.

Reflexively, to be in Christ is to be in the Spirit and “in Christ” is to merely say once more, the Holy Spirit is at work in a person’s life.

We are in danger then of the “unforgivable sin” when we suggest a doctrine, a set of approved beliefs is what is synonymous with salvation and atonement rather than being moved toward the good, being a participant in doing it, being transformed in it all and understanding ourselves as a result.

To see the fruits of the Holy Spirit but denying it is at work, for whatever reason, is to grieve it. Must one consent to creed? Is it of no use? It seems we must say “no” in either case.

Tagged ,