Creationist Equivocation

[Objectivist]

 two different meanings into the concept of 'creation'

Basically the issue comes down to whether you think the universe has always existed, or whether it came into being at some point. 

If it has always existed, then everything that's made is made of pre-existing materials. If it came into being at some point, then all the stuff in the universe appeared ex nihilo. Naturally people who believe in God will say "created" ex nihilo, while others will prefer a different verb. "Started" maybe. Or whatever word you use for the Big Bang. 

As far as I recall, Greek philosophers reasoned that the universe had no starting point. They talk about "creation," but this always means the imposition of order on preexisting stuff. So for example Hesiod says that in the beginning was chaos -- but chaos is something. Over time the chaotic stuff that was floating around started to form shapes, thanks to Eros, the attractive force. Eventually you got the world as we know it. Plato's creation myth is sort of similar. There are atoms pre-existing (he doesn't call them atoms, but they are tiny particles that come in a variety of shapes) and the atoms get organized into recognizable objects, due to the Forms, through the agency of the Demiurge. 

The Jews seem to have debated whether creation was ex nihilo or not. The first chapter of Genesis seems to suggest that "the face of the waters" was there before God made the other stuff, but this was not enough to cause the author of Maccabees and Philo of Alexandria to believe in a universe with no beginning. They argued for creatio ex nihilo. (Another case where a sentence in Genesis was read metaphorically very early on.)

Later theologians have been very careful to differentiate creation from existing material from creation from nothing. One particular heated debate took place around the iconoclasm controversy in Byzantium. These issues prompted careful thinking about what it means for one thing to be an image of another, and what degree of creativity human beings might have. While they said that human creativity is a part of what it means for us to be made in the image of God, they were careful to specify that an image is not the complete reproduction of the original, which means that human creativity must always employ preexisting materials, while God's creation did not. 

This particular discussion was renewed when the Romantic poets began to make creativity the most important virtue of the arts. Before this, skillful mimesis was generally thought to be most important, but the Romantics emphasized originality. Coleridge in particular wrote carefully about different levels of the imagination, and to what extent it could be creative. He also concludes that the human imagination can only recombine preexisting elements, and that God alone works ex nihilo.

So I certainly understand that if you're not a Christian or a Jew you wouldn't accept the idea of God creating everything from nothing. But I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity in general equivocates or uses the terms carelessly.

If existence is primary, then it is eternal.  Existence is primary.  The question "where did it all come from" is a nonsensical question that trades in stolen concepts.  The universe is existence seen as a whole and represents all beings, their attributes, their actions, their relationships, etc., so saying that the universe came into being is like saying the universe came into itself.

No one should accept the idea that a god created anything from nothing because not only do we not need an explanation for the fact that existence exists, but as I've pointed out there is no evidence of anything, ever, being created out of nothing by conscious will alone. Can you provide any?

[Objectivist]

Hello all,

I'm not new here, although I haven't posted in a long time.  

I want to discuss the fact that creationists are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.  They pack two different meanings into the concept of 'creation' and don't seem to think that this is a problem for them.  

When someone creates something, they take existing materials and rearrange them into a new combination or form such as when a tree is cut into lumber to build a house, stones are mortared together to make a wall, or sap from a rubber tree is made into a tire.  This is the objective meaning of the concept 'create' that is informed by countless examples that we can observe.  

When creationists use the concept 'create' they mean something very different.  They mean that a supernatural consciousness brings something into existence from nothing by essentially wishing it into existence.  I think this is an insurmountable problem for them because they ignore the fact that their worldview forces them to pack a duplicitous meaning into the concept.  The watchmaker argument is a classic example of this.  

I want to know what evidence they have for this double meaning.  When I pick up a piece of rhyolite in my backyard, what evidence or reason is there to suppose that it was wished into existence by a supernatural consciousness?  Can the creationist provide a single example of something being created out of nothing by conscious will alone?  If they can't then they have no rational warrant to use the concept 'create' as they do.

That's not the fallacy of equivocation, which means assigning different meanings to the same word in different parts of the same argument. There is nothing wrong with how creationists are using the word 'create', there's no double meaning involved.

In any case, I'm not sure that pointing out supposed logical fallacies is the way to attack creationism. I support the much more direct method of hitting them over the head with bags of fossils (metaphorically speaking) (sort of).

Boru

OK, maybe package dealing is a better description, which I think is also a fallacy. Packing two different and contradictory meanings into a concept is certainly a breach of logic and completely destroys the purpose of concepts in the first place, isolating all concretes of a certain type from others and uniting them as one as means of cognition.

[Mister Agenda]

God, if real and past eternal, could not have created the universe/everything that exists. If it preceded the universe as we know it, God WAS the universe...everything that exists. And God would have had to have time in order to think and act, so time would have to be past-eternal as well and not created by God. So at most God could have expanded on the universe that was God (the kabalistic idea of a universe that emanates from God is more sensible than the Christian ex nihilo notion, IMHO) or created a new universe (compatible with the common Christian claim that God is outside of our universe).

OTOH, some people's idea of God is so rarified that it can't be differentiated from quantum foam, which avoids some of these problems.

[Angrboda]

God, if real and past eternal, could not have created the universe/everything that exists. If it preceded the universe as we know it, God WAS the universe...everything that exists. And God would have had to have time in order to think and act, so time would have to be past-eternal as well and not created by God. So at most God could have expanded on the universe that was God (the kabalistic idea of a universe that emanates from God is more sensible than the Christian ex nihilo notion, IMHO) or created a new universe (compatible with the common Christian claim that God is outside of our universe).

OTOH, some people's idea of God is so rarified that it can't be differentiated from quantum foam, which avoids some of these problems.

I think avoiding problems is the point of many of these gods.

[brewer]

 two different meanings into the concept of 'creation'

Basically the issue comes down to whether you think the universe has always existed, or whether it came into being at some point. 

If it has always existed, then everything that's made is made of pre-existing materials. If it came into being at some point, then all the stuff in the universe appeared ex nihilo. Naturally people who believe in God will say "created" ex nihilo, while others will prefer a different verb. "Started" maybe. Or whatever word you use for the Big Bang. 

As far as I recall, Greek philosophers reasoned that the universe had no starting point. They talk about "creation," but this always means the imposition of order on preexisting stuff. So for example Hesiod says that in the beginning was chaos -- but chaos is something. Over time the chaotic stuff that was floating around started to form shapes, thanks to Eros, the attractive force. Eventually you got the world as we know it. Plato's creation myth is sort of similar. There are atoms pre-existing (he doesn't call them atoms, but they are tiny particles that come in a variety of shapes) and the atoms get organized into recognizable objects, due to the Forms, through the agency of the Demiurge. 

The Jews seem to have debated whether creation was ex nihilo or not. The first chapter of Genesis seems to suggest that "the face of the waters" was there before God made the other stuff, but this was not enough to cause the author of Maccabees and Philo of Alexandria to believe in a universe with no beginning. They argued for creatio ex nihilo. (Another case where a sentence in Genesis was read metaphorically very early on.)

Later theologians have been very careful to differentiate creation from existing material from creation from nothing. One particular heated debate took place around the iconoclasm controversy in Byzantium. These issues prompted careful thinking about what it means for one thing to be an image of another, and what degree of creativity human beings might have. While they said that human creativity is a part of what it means for us to be made in the image of God, they were careful to specify that an image is not the complete reproduction of the original, which means that human creativity must always employ preexisting materials, while God's creation did not. 

This particular discussion was renewed when the Romantic poets began to make creativity the most important virtue of the arts. Before this, skillful mimesis was generally thought to be most important, but the Romantics emphasized originality.  but at some point in particular wrote carefully about different levels of the imagination, and to what extent it could be creative. He also concludes that the human imagination can only recombine preexisting elements, and that God alone works ex nihilo.

So I certainly understand that if you're not a Christian or a Jew you wouldn't accept the idea of God creating everything from nothing. But I don't think it's fair to say that Christianity in general equivocates or uses the terms carelessly.

Why do you constantly think that any of this 'ancient thought' reguarding creation has relevance in the modern world?

I mean, understanding history/historical thinkers and their thoughts/positions may be a good thing, but at some point it fails.

You might consider having some original thoughts of your own instead of constaintly 'aping' the past.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's not the fallacy of equivocation, which means assigning different meanings to the same word in different parts of the same argument. There is nothing wrong with how creationists are using the word 'create', there's no double meaning involved.

In any case, I'm not sure that pointing out supposed logical fallacies is the way to attack creationism. I support the much more direct method of hitting them over the head with bags of fossils (metaphorically speaking) (sort of).

Boru

OK, maybe package dealing is a better description, which I think is also a fallacy. Packing two different and contradictory meanings into a concept is certainly a breach of logic and completely destroys the purpose of concepts in the first place, isolating all concretes of a certain type from others and uniting them as one as means of cognition.

I think you’re unnecessarily hung up on the word ‘create’ (or at least on the creationists’ use of it). There is nothing about the word that requires that creation must occur using pre-existing materials. Create simply means ‘to bring something into existence’.

The chief trouble with creationists isn’t that they’re misusing a word, but that they wish to account for existence in a manner that is wholly unsupported by evidence or valid reasoning.

Boru

[Objectivist]

God, if real and past eternal, could not have created the universe/everything that exists. If it preceded the universe as we know it, God WAS the universe...everything that exists. And God would have had to have time in order to think and act, so time would have to be past-eternal as well and not created by God. So at most God could have expanded on the universe that was God (the kabalistic idea of a universe that emanates from God is more sensible than the Christian ex nihilo notion, IMHO) or created a new universe (compatible with the common Christian claim that God is outside of our universe).

OTOH, some people's idea of God is so rarified that it can't be differentiated from quantum foam, which avoids some of these problems.

There's this notion that there is one unbroken timeline going back and forward but I don't think this is right.  I think that time is very much a local thing.  It is a measurement of change or motion and it is relative.  Time is flowing faster out in interplanetary space and it is even flowing faster at my head than at my feet.  Inside a black hole does it even exist?  What time is it in the Andromeda galaxy?  Time varies in different locations and we know it can be warped.  But one thing is for certain:  existence as such is a precondition of time.  That's why I say that existence is primary and therefore eternal.  

You have to start somewhere and since we know that things exist we need to start there.  The only alternative to starting with existence is to start with non-existence. Anyone asking what caused the universe is asking us to step outside of existence to look for a cause. 

Creationists are perfectly happy to start with something that has always existed as long as it is a consciousness.  They conceive of existence as a product of consciousness.  But consciousness presupposes existence.  Conscious of what?  Blank out.

[Objectivist]

OK, maybe package dealing is a better description, which I think is also a fallacy. Packing two different and contradictory meanings into a concept is certainly a breach of logic and completely destroys the purpose of concepts in the first place, isolating all concretes of a certain type from others and uniting them as one as means of cognition.

I think you’re unnecessarily hung up on the word ‘create’ (or at least on the creationists’ use of it). There is nothing about the word that requires that creation must occur using pre-existing materials. Create simply means ‘to bring something into existence’.

The chief trouble with creationists isn’t that they’re misusing a word, but that they wish to account for existence in a manner that is wholly unsupported by evidence or valid reasoning.

Boru

I don't think I am.  Concepts are how our minds work so it's important to understand how they are formed, how they are validated, and especially how they are defined.  It's a lack of understanding of concepts, and the relationship between consciousness and reality, that leads to notions such as creation ex nihilo in the first place.  It's no different than notions of dragons, witches riding broomsticks, and Casper the friendly ghost. These notions could not have been formed objectively since we don't have a single example of any of them to perceive.  The only way to come up with them is to imagine them.  Since we have all perceived something being created, it's easy to imagine something being created out of nothing, by conjuring it up but to accept such a notion as legitimate would be to obliterate the line between the imaginary and the real.  That's what creationism does and piggybacks on a legitimate concept to leach meaning.  It's a lack of understanding of concepts that allows people to do this.  It's also a lack of understanding of the relationship between consciousness and its objects that leads to this.

[Objectivist]

Hello all,

I'm not new here, although I haven't posted in a long time.  

I want to discuss the fact that creationists are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation.  They pack two different meanings into the concept of 'creation' and don't seem to think that this is a problem for them.  

When someone creates something, they take existing materials and rearrange them into a new combination or form such as when a tree is cut into lumber to build a house, stones are mortared together to make a wall, or sap from a rubber tree is made into a tire.  This is the objective meaning of the concept 'create' that is informed by countless examples that we can observe.  

When creationists use the concept 'create' they mean something very different.  They mean that a supernatural consciousness brings something into existence from nothing by essentially wishing it into existence.  I think this is an insurmountable problem for them because they ignore the fact that their worldview forces them to pack a duplicitous meaning into the concept.  The watchmaker argument is a classic example of this.  

I want to know what evidence they have for this double meaning.  When I pick up a piece of rhyolite in my backyard, what evidence or reason is there to suppose that it was wished into existence by a supernatural consciousness?  Can the creationist provide a single example of something being created out of nothing by conscious will alone?  If they can't then they have no rational warrant to use the concept 'create' as they do.

That's not the fallacy of equivocation, which means assigning different meanings to the same word in different parts of the same argument. There is nothing wrong with how creationists are using the word 'create', there's no double meaning involved.

In any case, I'm not sure that pointing out supposed logical fallacies is the way to attack creationism. I support the much more direct method of hitting them over the head with bags of fossils (metaphorically speaking) (sort of).

Boru

They are using two different definitions in the same argument, in every argument for creationism.  The second meaning is smuggled in the definition of the Christian God who is said to be a consciousness that created everting by essentially wishing it into existence. that's how they hide the equivocation.  That's why definitions are so critical.

[Belacqua]

If existence is primary, then it is eternal.  Existence is primary.  The question "where did it all come from" is a nonsensical question that trades in stolen concepts.  The universe is existence seen as a whole and represents all beings, their attributes, their actions, their relationships, etc., so saying that the universe came into being is like saying the universe came into itself.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that existence preceded the Big Bang? How does that work? I know there are various theories...

Do you hold that the universe is somehow eternal, with no beginning? If existence preceded the Big Bang, and existence is something, then there was something before. 

I know you don't believe in any supernatural stuff, so we don't have to go through that. But I'm curious if you see a point at which all the stuff started (Big Bang-like). 

I've watched a few Roger Penrose videos on YouTube but they are way over my head.