Thread: Is God really separate from his creation? Argument from a pantheist

Hey guys. A friend of mine who I used to go to church with posted this argument on his myspace the other day. I'm not smart enough to critique it, so I was hoping maybe some people on here could explain it's flaws.

something that has the quality of originating from something else, must be composed of nothing other than that original thing. It''s pretty simple. If God created us, then we could not have begun existing on our own, and if he created us, nothing that we are came from anything except God, so logically how could we be defined as anything except GOD?

something that creates is something that gives rise to origin. something that has origin with a particular thing is DEPENDANT upon that thing for its state of existence. Unless God created us out of something that was not of himself, then we cannot be made of anything except whatever part of himself become us in order for us to begin existing.

But since there is no existence apart from God, there cannot be anything except part of himself that he used to create us.

1. we are substance
2. the origin of all substance is God
3. Since the only source of substance is God, substance must be a piece of God.
4. If substance is a piece of God, and we are substance, then we are pieces of God.
5. If we are pieces of God, and there exists nothing apart from this God-substance, then there cannot be anything separating the God-substance that we are made of, and the original supply of God substance that we originated from...AKA God.

So in short we are not separable from God because

1. there is nothing else that went into our creation except God, and since nothing exists apart from God..
2. If nothing exists apart from God, God must be all that exists.
3. We are sure of our own existence (consciousness) however..
4. So if God is all that exists, and we are sure of our own existence...then we must be same as God.

Thanks all!

In Christ,
- Andy

something that has the quality of originating from something else, must be composed of nothing other than that original thing. It''s pretty simple. If God created us, then we could not have begun existing on our own, and if he created us, nothing that we are came from anything except God, so logically how could we be defined as anything except GOD?

Well, according to the Definer and Creator of logic. God said and made it so.

I'm not the brightest bulb in the box either but God by definition is 'wholly other' and therefore is separate from creation. Holiness is to be set apart from everything else, to be absolutely unique.

This is an inherently materialistic argument, methinks. The crux of the problem is his presupposition that all things are material, including God. He doesn't seem to be able to get past the idea of creation ex nihilo. He has taken something that is true of men (we cannot create something out of nothing) and wrongly applied it to God.

If that presupposition can be nailed, then the incoherence of his presentation can be addressed.

He's conflating categories. That nothing exists apart from God means just that: without God making it, nothing exists. It does NOT mean that nothing exists without partaking of the substance or "material" of God.

Creation ex nihilo means just that: out of nothing. God did not use what existed, i.e. Himself, as material to make all that is; rather, he created it out of nothing. "Nothing" became "something."

Edit
Todd, you have some really good timing. This is the second time we were both posting something at the same time, thus making my secondary post superfluous. Good work.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

This is an inherently materialistic argument, methinks. The crux of the problem is his presupposition that all things are material, including God. He doesn't seem to be able to get past the idea of creation ex nihilo. He has taken something that is true of men (we cannot create something out of nothing) and wrongly applied it to God.

If that presupposition can be nailed, then the incoherence of his presentation can be addressed.

He denies ex nihilo creation, but I don't think explains why other than asserting that whenever something projects from something in the presence of nothing else, that something must be comprised of that something. This is not necessarily so.

Good answers above, I'd add that there is a lot of equivocating going on:

1. we are substance
2. the origin of all substance is God
3. Since the only source of substance is God, substance must be a piece of God.

"Origin" morphs into "source." "Source" equated with "piece of."

It really is a pathetic try.

For example, even in everyday usage, the source of a river is not a piece of a river. Also, for example, the origin of an idea for something does not make it the physical source (I think "I'll make a chair" in my mind--then I build it--obviously the thought is an origin but not the source of the chair).

So, even from an empirical standpoint, the premises are wrong.

Let me first state that I am a newbie in Reformed life. I was formerly into Zen Buddhism. I enjoy apologetics but am no Van Til on the subject. I get confused when trying to understand how God can be infinite spiritually and still be separated from us and nature etc. Wouldn't his spirit permeate everything if He is infinite?

Thanks for your replies.

Hello, Snap Dragon, and welcome to the Puritan Board! Just as a reminder, please be sure to follow the Board's rules regarding including your signature when you write a post. For the rules, see the bottom of post #7 just above me in this same thread.

As to God and His creation, the best I can say is that, although God is the creator of everything in the universe, and that He is present everywhere in the universe at once in all His fulness - omnipresence is the theological term - (there are no "parts" to God, so all of Him is everywhere), it is still true that God is separate from His creation. He is not part of His creatures, even though there is no place where He is not. Pantheism is not a biblical concept.

Originally Posted by snap_dragon

Let me first state that I am a newbie in Reformed life. I was formerly into Zen Buddhism. I enjoy apologetics but am no Van Til on the subject. I get confused when trying to understand how God can be infinite spiritually and still be separated from us and nature etc. Wouldn't his spirit permeate everything if He is infinite?

Thanks for your replies.

Does not the doctrine of creation ex nihilo explain this issue. God does not have to be far away to maintain his separateness.

CT

Dittos to the above...he's arguing from an un-argued materialist perspective and he's doing a lot of equivocating.

He's obviously a "monist" (all is one). I'd ask him if he also thinks God is excrement...it is made of substance, and substance comes from God.

Where can i read more on this for my own understanding?

Originally Posted by snap_dragon

Where can i read more on this for my own understanding?

Definitely read Genesis 1.

God transcends the created order. He did not create with "stuff" already existing...He created by the word of His power. We cannot understand what it is like to be God, because we are dependent and stem from a succession of prior events. God is independent of us.

I was reading Rushdoony's "By What Standard", and he said Van Til says there are several ways to look at existence...the Christian way is to say that we know the temporal order exists, but we can conceive of it not existing...but we cannot conceive of God not existing. The material order is the created order of existing, but that depends upon God. God does not depend on anything but Himself.

Either God created from nothing, or the temporal order has always existed...in which case, an infinte regress becomes an unassailable problem: if you can go into the past forever (ie with no beginning), how did we get to today? Biblically, God says He created from nothing. Logic bares this out as well. It is impossible that God is equivalent to His creation.

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Hey guys. A friend of mine who I used to go to church with posted this argument on his myspace the other day. I'm not smart enough to critique it, so I was hoping maybe some people on here could explain it's flaws.

something that has the quality of originating from something else, must be composed of nothing other than that original thing. It''s pretty simple. If God created us, then we could not have begun existing on our own, and if he created us, nothing that we are came from anything except God, so logically how could we be defined as anything except GOD?

something that creates is something that gives rise to origin. something that has origin with a particular thing is DEPENDANT upon that thing for its state of existence. Unless God created us out of something that was not of himself, then we cannot be made of anything except whatever part of himself become us in order for us to begin existing.

But since there is no existence apart from God, there cannot be anything except part of himself that he used to create us.

1. we are substance
2. the origin of all substance is God
3. Since the only source of substance is God, substance must be a piece of God.
4. If substance is a piece of God, and we are substance, then we are pieces of God.
5. If we are pieces of God, and there exists nothing apart from this God-substance, then there cannot be anything separating the God-substance that we are made of, and the original supply of God substance that we originated from...AKA God.

So in short we are not separable from God because

1. there is nothing else that went into our creation except God, and since nothing exists apart from God..
2. If nothing exists apart from God, God must be all that exists.
3. We are sure of our own existence (consciousness) however..
4. So if God is all that exists, and we are sure of our own existence...then we must be same as God.

Thanks all!

In Christ,
- Andy

Andy,

BY this logic, your friend has just proved that no one exists. After all, we are nothing more than our parents (and they, theirs' etc.)

Thanks for your posts. I am a new poster so cannot simply click on the thumbs up button to thank you that way....so thank you here.

and to all others.