# Questions on Idealism: does it lead to pantheism?



## no1special18 (Nov 1, 2004)

I just got done writting a paper on Idealism for my metaphysics class. At first I took the aproach that Idealism is: logically consistent, factually adequate, has sufficient explanitory power, and is compatible with the Bible. After I finished the paper, and had it peer reviewed, I started to wonder if Idealism is indeed compatible with the Bible. It seems to me that Idealism to easily leads to pantheism. At the very least, I do not see how an Idealist can hold to creation out of nothing. The only creation that Idealism seems to be able to hold logically is creation out of God. Am I wrong in thinking this; what are your thoughts?


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 1, 2004)

Because if creation is just a mere-modification of God's mind, then creation was not out of nothing, it was out of the Mind of God. When I say that it was out of the mind of God, I do not mean that God simply thought it, because creation obviously came from the thoughts and design of God, but I mean that it is litterally of the same substance as God. The wrinkle in the carpet would be a mere-modification of the carpet, and the wrinkle is made of the same stuff as the carpet. Idealism has to assert (I think) that creation (outside of created minds, such as persons) is simply a mere-modification of God's mind; that is modified without adding any parts to it. Just as the wrinkle is out of the same substance of the carpet, it would seem that creation (according to the Idealist) is out of the same substance of God. If this is all true, then creation could not have been from nothing [Ex-Nihilo] it would have to be creation from God [Ex-Deo]. As a result, Idealism seems to be pantheistic, because that seems to be the only logical conclusion to creation out of God. I am sure that I am probably misrepresenting the Idealist position, so therefore, I am seeing if somebody can tell me where I am going wrong.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by no1special18_
> Because if creation is just a mere-modification of God's mind, then creation was not out of nothing, it was out of the Mind of God. When I say that it was out of the mind of God, I do not mean that God simply thought it, because creation obviously came from the thoughts and design of God, but I mean that it is litterally of the same substance as God. The wrinkle in the carpet would be a mere-modification of the carpet, and the wrinkle is made of the same stuff as the carpet. Idealism has to assert (I think) that creation (outside of created minds, such as persons) is simply a mere-modification of God's mind; that is modified without adding any parts to it. Just as the wrinkle is out of the same substance of the carpet, it would seem that creation (according to the Idealist) is out of the same substance of God. If this is all true, then creation could not have been from nothing [Ex-Nihilo] it would have to be creation from God [Ex-Deo]. As a result, Idealism seems to be pantheistic, because that seems to be the only logical conclusion to creation out of God. I am sure that I am probably misrepresenting the Idealist position, so therefore, I am seeing if somebody can tell me where I am going wrong.



Careful - this is where Edwards And Gerstner went....


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Nov 2, 2004)

First, welcome back Paul. I for one have missed you!!!! 

Second, where does Edwards openly state that he is an idealist? Does he use that term? If not, where did you get this from in his writings. I am an idealist (as much of it as I get) and I would like to see what Edwards has to say about it.

Again welcome back!!!!


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 4, 2004)

I guess I am still haveing trouble wrapping my mind around the idea that the external world has its own substance, yet it is not a real substance unless it is percieved by minds. Although, I guess it makes sense considering that God is upholding all things, and therefore, maybe percieving all things... Of course God is percieving all things, becuase he is omni-present (that makes sense). Really the externall world exists even when created minds are not there to percieve them, because God always percieves them. However, I am curiouse how an idealist defines mere-modification, so that it allows for the externall world (the world we percieve) to be something other than out of the substance of God (hence creation ex deo). I admit that my knowledge is not vast in this area, but I understood mere-modification as a modifying of a thing without any parts being added.

(Sorry for jumping around all over the place; I was kind of writing out the thoughts that were running through my head)


----------

