Q#2: Is a theistic God necessarily substantially different from (His/Her) creation? Why or why not?
If God is not substantially different from creation, He can be defined as creation. That is to say, He is an abstract equivalent to nature itself – in everything and a part of everything. This ideology is best represented by the philosophy of naturalistic pantheism, which suggests that deity is, ultimately, nature.
Pantheism literally means, “God is All” and “All is God”; it is the “belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but it does not believe God is a person or anything like a person.” (*Levine, 1994, pg. 3) By this definition, pantheism isn’t necessarily atheism, the rejection of a belief in deity. However, it stands in stark contrast to traditional theism. Defining the Creator as His creation strips the divine entity of personality, motive and will. It suggests a God that is radically different from orthodox belief systems – impersonal and unthinking.
Pantheism may not be atheism in the strictest sense, but it is certainly non-personal theism. In it, God is reduced to an abstract existence. However, if the nature of God is defined as a “being”, He must -by definition- be more than a non-sentient sum of parts, but rather a conscious personality.
A theistic God must be substantially different from His/Her creation in order to be called “Creator”. A Creator is a being; sentient beings may create. Abstract existences do nothing with intent or will. God is not synonymous with nature, but rather the Lord of it.
* Levine, Micheal P., 1994, “Pantheism: A Non-theistic Concept of Deity”, Routeledge.
Q#4: When human feral children are found, and after a childs developmental age of language acquisition, are they capable of learning and communicating in a human language?
Victor of Aveyron, Kamala, Kaspar Hauser and Genie all represent cases in which feral children, found after the developmental age of language acquisition, were unable to develop speech fluency. In the Wolf Children and the Problem of Human Nature, Lucien Malson indicates the difficulty in cultivating language patterns where none existed in the formative years: “Finally, however, seeing that the continuation of my efforts and the passing of time brought about no change, I resigned myself to the necessity of giving up any attempt to produce speech, and abandoned my pupil [Victor] to incurable dumbness.”
Victor, missed his Critical Period. Linguistically, the ‘Critical Period’ refers to a window of opportunity in the early years of childhood development, in which communication patterns are most easily learned and recognized. If language is not established in these years humans lose most, but not necessarily all, of their innate ability to learn a language.
However, not every case is a failure. There are some cases, like Isabelle (discussed in The Human Society by Kingsley Davis), who were able to successfully acquire adequate language skills. However, in these types of cases feral children were discovered and taught before the onset of puberty. Although, historical accounts and human nature seem to indicate great difficulty in language acquisition after the developmental stage, it is possible.