The concept of Self Creation
Why is there something rather than nothing?
We have been looking to some of the possible alternatives to account for reality as we encounter it. There are four and last time we dealt with the possibility of ‘Illusion.” We eliminated this by the Cartesian manner of reasoning, that is, by a skeptical view of how everything is. How doubting, in the end, made us give way to the existence of ‘Self.’ “If I doubt, therefore I am.”
The second one our short list is, ‘Self Existence’. It is not the only one of the alternative that atheists offer against full bodied theism. But this one is the most frequently given explanation proffered by opponents of theism. It is rare, however, that someone will just come out and say that the Universe is ‘self created.’ Sproul is using this phrase as a generic principle under which there are several types. So even when people say they are not referring to this, they do ultimately mean their concept must be defined by this idea of ‘self creation.’
Self creation is a concept in philosophy which we say is ‘analytically false.’ That is it is false by definition. Sproul reminds us that we looked earlier at those basic principle of knowledge and principles of epistemology, that are crucial for understanding truth of any sort. And we should never negotiate these 4 away as theists or agnostics of any rational variety, because to reject theism, one will reject, along the way one of these 4 principles of knowledge.
When we look at the idea of ‘self creation’ it is manifestly absurd.
Because, for something to create itself, to be an effect which is it’s own cause, it would have to exist - Before - it existed.
Or to put it another way, it would have to Be - before - it Was.
Or something would have to Be and not Be at the same time and in the same relationship.
For something to create itself it would have to antedate itself.
Clearly, this violates the Law of no contradiction, our first law of the four, and puts this idea into the level of pure irrationality and absurdity.
The idea of ‘Self Creation’ is by logical analysis a false premise.
Before we continue, let us contrast between number 2 and number 3. Between self creation and the concept of self existence. To say that something is ‘self existent’ is to say that it is ‘Eternal.’ It has the Power of Being within Itself. That is, it is Uncreated. So we must right now speak of the rational and within this process, the logical framework of rational methodology. There is nothing of absurd or irrational contained in the idea of ‘self existence’ or ‘eternal existence.’ That is, #3 is at least a rational possibility. Because it violates no law of reason or logic (The why we will get to next time.) But the concept of ‘self creation’ does violate rational and logical standards because of the law of non contradiction. Sproul is suggesting that nothing can be ‘self created.’
Did God make Himself?
The example being the story of two kids talking and the one says ‘Who mad the trees? God made the trees. Well then, who mad you? God made me. Well then, says the girl, who made God? Well the boy declares, God made himself! Now that might be a cute story but it is not sound. This is a thing God cannot do….He cannot make Himself. Because that would mean that He would have to Be before he Was. Same as we said a little earlier about the 4 statements about what is absurd and contradictory. Hamlet understood in his question, ’to Be or not to Be.’ You cannot have it both ways at the same time in the same relationship.
How do different theories on Self Creation pan out?
There are several theories that have been articulated in the past. One of the most widespread attempts to use ‘Self Creation’ as a substitute for notion of the Creation of the Universe by a Self Existent Eternal Being took place during the Enlightenment. Although the period was not monolithic in it’s teaching and debate on theism and other forms of premises. The French Encyclopaedic Movement had names like Diderot and others who vociferously argued against the existence of God. And for these the chief outcome or principle of ‘enlightenment’ that swept through Europe was the idea that now, with modern science, the God Hypothesis was no longer deemed necessary in order to explain, or to account for, or to provide a sufficient cause for the universe. They argued that in place of the God Hypothesis, which former generations believe was a rational necessity, a logical necessity to account for reality as we encounter it, but now, that can be released with impunity. Because the French said, ‘now we know that material things in the universe come into being from ‘Spontaneous generation.’
They thought that this was an explanation for things ‘beginning’ on their own. Suddenly and without any developmental period. Things just come into being. They would take as their explanation a mud puddle in the street and they would look down and see tiny little fish eggs and later they would be tadpoles and would conclude that life just ‘appeared.’ came spontaneously out of a puddle of water. They didn’t analyze all the phenomena that the water was adjacent to and the ecosystem it was apart of; as we would call it today. For them the causes were not visible to the naked eye. There was a period of time in history people believed that there was physical ex-nihilo, things came on their own. But the fundamental law of science was ignored with the axiom, ‘ex-nihilo nihil fit.’ Out of nothing, nothing comes. And science states that out of nothing - nothing can come. It doesn’t come because it cannot come. Nothing doesn’t produce something; because nothing cannot produce something.
This full throated logical impossibility lasted from he middle 1700’s to even into the early 20th century. Science was now certain that reality cannot give birth to itself. But they then made the concept more sophisticated and refined. They called it ‘gradual spontaneous generation.’ So, amazingly, even the learned men of our day can believe nonsense statements. Because this means that you can’t get reality to produce something out of nothing quickly, but it takes time to create it. An evolutionary process of time can do it. If you have enough patience it will yield a result. Sooner or later reality will create reality.
Gradual generation: universes exploding out of nothing
This is where science and philosophy butt heads. For at this point the scientist has left the scientific method back in the laboratory. He took the empirical half, the inductive half with him, but left the deductive side hidden in his trunk. The scientist has to take both of these methods and look at these statements which butcher rationality. It brings to mind the axiom that ‘a rose by any other name is still a rose.’ If you analyze these concepts of either gradual or spontaneous generation you will find a sophisticated attempt to articulate the idea of ‘self creation.’
When the Hubble spacecraft was launched as strategic scientific enterprise in America, that very same day a famous astro-physicist was on a radio broadcast and was quoted as saying this is an important day for science. It will expand our understanding by virtue of this new technology. He went on to explain that the beginnings of the universe were some 13-18 billion years ago when the universe exploded into Being. Here is where a scientist used language heavily conditioned by philosophy and said there is a beginning point and it then had Beingness. That is curious and what does he mean? What was it before it exploded? Was it the antithesis of being? Which in philosophic categories is called ‘non-being’ or in the form of a synonym is called ’nothing.’ So from our discussions a few minutes ago it is said that it takes great amounts of time for ‘something to come out of nothing.’ That ladies and gentlemen, is philosophical nonsense! Sheer irrationality of this physicists thinking and if Sproul had a chance to interview him he hopes he would say he misspoke and would apologize. That there was a previous state of being and it changed at the time of this great explosion -there must have been something before this. [pay attention to the verbiage and manner of what people say]
So we see what spontaneous generation is and what gradual generation is. Now we come to what we come into contact most in modern culture; which is…
Creation by chance
The universe comes into being by some power attributed to ‘chance.’
The formula is: space + time + chance; will = something. Our third type of self-creation.
Because this method is used so often today Sproul is going to spend the next lecture presentation on it. He has written a whole book on it titled “Not A Chance.” We will see how this relates to quantum mechanics, physics and astronomy. Theories that try to teach us that at the sub-atomic level we have things that are coming into being out of nothing. Based on the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle and other theories set forth by Niels Bohr.
To summarize: there are 4 possibilities to explain the presence of anything. Remember, the oldest question in either science or philosophy is why is there something rather that nothing? I’ve tried to labor the point with you , that if ever there was time when there was nothing; absolute nothingness, -- no God -- no matter -- no anything; what could there possibly be now?
If there ever was a time when there was nothing, well then, the only explanation is, the presence of something is through self-creation.
Something coming out of nothing by itself. Sproul wouldn’t assign this task of conquering Being from non-being to: an amino acid, neutrons, dark matter, mathematical constants or any of the pantheons of Gods.
No comments:
Post a Comment