A: But then your whole idea of creation is contradictory.
A: Because you deny it is from anything at all, but if we deny everything then a fortiori we deny real possibility.
B: Right. Real possibility is only in matter, or something like it.
A: But then you’re denying that creation was possible, and yet here it is!
B: That does seem to be a problem.
A: There seems to be a related problem for classical theism: if the universe came to be, it was possible. But this possibility was either in God or in another. If in another, then God did not create ex nihilo; if in God, then God is not a pure actuality.
B: But it seems really odd to say that if we start with the power to do anything, that the universe is not possible.
A: In one sense, sure, but not in another – if you start with everything in perfect fulness, then what else is there to make?
B: So your first objection seems to be that creation involves doing the impossible, the second is that pure act could not create.
A: I think so. You need possibility to be a given to get anything, even possibility. This might be why Avicenna put possibility outside of God.
B: But this just can’t work. The real has to come from some source. There can’t be a fundamental duality of God and possibility.
A: So you say.
B: But why can’t creation be unique in being the only action where the possibility and actuality of a thing are simultaneous?
A: Who knows, maybe this isn’t even unique: a thing only has to be possible when it is, I suppose. Maybe this is the sense of “concreation” of possibility. Still, there seems to be a problem.
B: How so?
A: Because creation is ongoing. If you really think possibility and act are simultaneous in creation, then any future state of the universe is impossible – including the one three seconds from now. But… That wasn’t true.