When asked to consider the creation account, she objected "Why can you have a something from nothing, but I cannot?"
The great error she made, aside from the obvious logical one, was that her ‘first philosophy’ her orientating ontology was ‘basic materialism’. That is, ‘materialism’ was basic to the explanation of all that is. The problem with materialism is its initial conditions: how did it start; had to be eternal, but where does ‘eternal energy’ come from in a materialist frame?
But the theological concern is that the Scriptures give us a basic theism: basic ‘personist’ first philosophy.
The explanation of all that is is that God is, God is love, God is in triune relationship. God has effective will. God outworks his will in love in the creation of the cosmos and man in his image.
This does not constitute a sleight of hand, where we have something coming from noting. We have everything that has a beginning coming from he who has no beginning, but is spirit and is eternal and who is the continuous sponsor of our foundational ontology. Thus our praise of him, love of him and proper relationship being in his family for ever.
