The First Cause

[urroner]

God needs nothing from us. His goal is to share the love that is contained in the Godhead.

There is only one way to share true love. And that's to give your created beings freewill. Anything short of freewill based love isn't love at all.

However, the problem is that if you give freewill you have given the ability to "not" choose love of God/Creator, by definition. And so we see many who don't choose to love God, and that's their choice. God will say to them, "your will be done..." and since they don't choose to be with God, God honors their choice. If God forced them to be with him, that would be Hell for them as well.

So, no. God is the only "I am" or self existing being, in need of nothing or no one.

Your first paragraph and you last paragraph are contradictory.

The first one says that God needs to share His love and the last says He has no needs. You can't have it both ways.

Why would God want to share His love if He is totally self-contained and has no needs. For Him to do so would show that He does have needs that He cannot fulfill Himself, that can only be fulfilled by things external to Him?

[WalkerW]

I don't understand the question. You can't talk to newborns, yet trust me, at least the mom has experienced their "existence"- I can guarantee that part.

I mean how do newborns experience existence without having language?

[inquiringmind]

we are co-creators with God

Does it actually say that (or anything like that) in any of the Mormon standard works?

[mfbukowski]

I mean how do newborns experience existence without having language?

I would argue they have no concept of "existence". They are too busy experiencing everything else. They certainly don't understand the meaning of the word.

But you have raised an important question which is highly debated- can there be "experience" at all without language- I say yes and side with Wittgenstein. I believe others like Saussure would disagree.

Wittgenstein was a mystic ultimately, because he thought some things were "unspeakable".

I think direct communion with God for example, is "unspeakable" and is what Paul talks about- "The has not seen nor the ear heard" etc.

One might argue that the sound of a trumpet and how it differs from the sound of a French horn is "unspeakable" and must be experienced to be known.

Doing that would require the perfect translation of an expression of a subjective experience into an objective one.

Perhaps the "experience" of our own existence is unspeakable because it would require the perfect translation of a subjective experience into an objective one- which is impossible- kind of like the distinction Nagel makes in the quote in my siggy. But I haven't thought about that much! I have answered it to my satisfaction so far.

[mfbukowski]

Does it actually say that (or anything like that) in any of the Mormon standard works?

I am not sure how that is relevant; certainly the notion of exaltation is there and I think it is implied in numerous places.

The Standard Works are not philosophical, thank goodness.

But some of us have questions which go beyond what is actually there, and I have no problem in using our God-given rationality to come up with answers.

[mfbukowski]

I think this is a misunderstanding of God's unchangeable nature and his relationship with us.

He doesn't change this is true, and he doesn't need to because he knows beforehand what we will do or say. But, as I said before, that foreknowledge doesn't determine our actions.

So, does he interact with us? Of course, and he knew from before the foundations of the Universe were laid, what those interactions would be, with each of us.

Nope you missed it. Again.

If God is unchangeable, he could not interact with us because any interaction with us would change him.

Maybe this quote from the same article will finally ring the bell for you

Process theists generally regard the notion of creation ex nihilo, as explained above, as going hand-in-hand with the idea that the relations between God and the world are one-way relations. God creates, but the creatures lack all creative power, the one wholly uncreated, the other wholly uncreative (Hartshorne 1970, 9). It is not within the ability of any creature, according to this view, to make a difference to God. Aquinas's way of expressing this asymmetry is to say that the relation from God to the creatures is real (for it makes a difference, all the difference, to them) whereas the relation from the creatures to God is rational, or in the mind only (for the existence of the creatures makes no difference to the being of God) (Summa Theologica I, Q 13, a. 7). Aquinas borrows, and places in a Christian context, Aristotle's terms of “pure act” and “unmoved mover” to apply to God. To say that God is pure act is to say that anything God could be, God already is—there is no potentiality in God for any type of change. To say that God is the unmoved mover is to say that the divine moves others but is unmoved by another—this includes the idea that God is impassible, literally, without feeling or emotion.

Read that last line over and over til it sinks in.

Any relation we have with God changes him, which is impossible if he is unchangeable.

So if we go from "unsaved" to "saved" and God KNOWS that- that knowledge is a change in HIM,- in what he knows- and is not possible if he cannot be changed.

I'm about done with this- how many times have we gone over it now?

[inquiringmind]

I am not sure how that is relevant; certainly the notion of exaltation.

I wasn't asking about exaltation, I was asking about the idea that we are (or were) "co-creators."

Did we help create ourselves, or this world we live in?

Is that idea expressed anywhere in LDS doctrinal sources?

[urroner]

I wasn't asking about exaltation, I was asking about the idea that we are (or were) "co-creators."

Did we help create ourselves, or this world we live in?

Is that idea expressed anywhere in LDS doctrinal sources?

There are some data about the Divine Council helping God in the creation of the world.

Michael S. Heiser talks about the Divine Council being around before the creation of the Earth. Introduction to the Divine Council

We’ll start our introduction with an obscure but important passage, Job 38:4-7. God is challenging Job, who wanted to know why he was suffering. God’s general answer in Job 38-42 is that he doesn’t need to explain himself because he’s God. Part of that response reads:

4Where were you [Job] when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Speak if you have understanding!

5Who fixed its dimensions? Surely you know!

Or who measured it with a line?

6On what were its bases sunk?

Who set its cornerstone,

7When the morning stars sang together

And all the sons of God shouted for joy?

There’s a lot to be said about this passage. First, you probably noticed that God is basically asking Job (sarcastically) where Job was when God created the earth. God refers to the time when he laid earth’s “foundations,” fixed and measured its “dimensions,” sank its “bases,” and set its “cornerstone.” Second, you also no doubt noticed the underlined portion. We learn from this text that, at the very moment of earth’s creation, there were already a number of “sons of God.” These sons of God shouted for joy when they saw God’s creative power and handiwork. You might be thinking the sons of God are the angels. That’s a common assumption, but it’s wrong since the Hebrew word for angels (mal’akim) is completely different than the Hebrew behind “sons of God” (more on that below). Third, you may have discerned that the two lines of verse 7 parallel each other. That is, the sons of God who shout for joy are also identified as “morning stars” who “sang together.” Such parallelism is the major feature of Hebrew poetry: one line renames or repeats another. I won’t lapse into a lecture on Hebrew poetry—just make a mental note of the parallel, that the sons of God are identified with the heavenly starry host.

I know that Mr. Heiser probably won't agree with this part, since he's Evangelical, but I believe that we were all part of the Divine Council during that time. The Church teaches that we were those "Sons of God" who shouted for joy.

Now what part of the creation we participated in I don't know, but the Book of Abraham talks about "gods" participating in the creation.

Abraham 4

1And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Who these "gods" were, I don't exactly know, but these gods, or "sons of God," were members of the Divine Council.

[mfbukowski]

There are some data about the Divine Council helping God in the creation of the world.

Michael S. Heiser talks about the Divine Council being around before the creation of the Earth. Introduction to the Divine Council

I know that Mr. Heiser probably won't agree with this part, since he's Evangelical, but I believe that we were all part of the Divine Council during that time. The Church teaches that we were those "Sons of God" who shouted for joy.

Now what part of the creation we participated in I don't know, but the Book of Abraham talks about "gods" participating in the creation.

Abraham 4

Who these "gods" were, I don't exactly know, but these gods, or "sons of God," were members of the Divine Council.

And I think that story, whether we take it literally or not, is saying exactly what I am saying here.

It is said repeatedly of course that we were among those who "shouted for joy" at the council- there is abundant evidence that we were included in that "meeting". Remember- we were among the 2/3 of the host of heaven who sustained the Savior's plan at that very "meeting".

Abraham 4 is, as far as I am concerned, an amazing bit of evidence for the view that I am putting forth- that the creation of things in a cultural/ linguistic context IS indeed creation. Repeatedly the Gods create things by giving them names- "and they called (their efforts) the third day" - etc.

It was not the "third day" until it was defined as such- by them "calling" it that.

We cannot exist without culture and our creation of culture further creates us- the very way we think and live today is totally dependent on technology- in a very real sense we have created modern man through the creation of culture. We cannot survive without it.

As we create culture we are creating ourselves- we create the "software" that makes the "hardware" possible. As I have said before, if you believe we as a race can survive without culture, imagine leaving a baby in the desert alone for a few hours.

That baby needs help- human help, food clothing and shelter to survive- which it learns eventually to obtain for itself though culture.

No culture, no humanity. Yes, we do help to create ourselves; each of us through our jobs, hobbies and by raising children make contributions to the advancement of the human race.

Even here, imo, we are doing just that or at least trying. We all want to make a difference.

[Hughes]

Can you logically explain to me how something can exist outside of all temporal dimensions and still be able to do anything?

Logically explain how God works? Not sure I can do that to your satisfaction.

All I can say is that God transcends time/matter/temporal existence. How did Jesus walk through walls?

Your first paragraph and you last paragraph are contradictory.

The first one says that God needs to share His love and the last says He has no needs. You can't have it both ways.

Why would God want to share His love if He is totally self-contained and has no needs. For Him to do so would show that He does have needs that He cannot fulfill Himself, that can only be fulfilled by things external to Him?

My first paragraph states, "God needs nothing from us. His goal is to share the love that is contained in the Godhead."

Second paragraph states, "So, no. God is the only "I am" or self existing being, in need of nothing or no one."

No contradiction.

Why does God want to share his love with us? Because that is the nature of unconditional love, to give it away, to desire to see others partake, the more the merrier.

[Hughes]

Nope you missed it. Again.

If God is unchangeable, he could not interact with us because any interaction with us would change him.

Maybe this quote from the same article will finally ring the bell for you

Read that last line over and over til it sinks in.

Any relation we have with God changes him, which is impossible if he is unchangeable.

So if we go from "unsaved" to "saved" and God KNOWS that- that knowledge is a change in HIM,- in what he knows- and is not possible if he cannot be changed.

I'm about done with this- how many times have we gone over it now?

Yeah, it's kinda funny, you keep repeating the same thing, and think it's an argument, and simply wave your hand and dismiss what I said.

What you didn't do, is demonstrate how God's foreknowledge of an event controls that event. As my example with the dropped golf ball showed there doesn't have to be a connection. One can know something and not control it.

Further, you didn't refute the idea that God knew all the actions/reactions that would happen throughout time the moment he determined he would create. As it says Jesus was crucified before the foundations of the Earth were laid.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, it's kinda funny, you keep repeating the same thing, and think it's an argument, and simply wave your hand and dismiss what I said.

What you didn't do, is demonstrate how God's foreknowledge of an event controls that event. As my example with the dropped golf ball showed there doesn't have to be a connection. One can know something and not control it.

Further, you didn't refute the idea that God knew all the actions/reactions that would happen throughout time the moment he determined he would create. As it says Jesus was crucified before the foundations of the Earth were laid.

I did not argue that. I was using it to explain the argument to you.

This is the argument:

It is contradictory for God to have a relationship with his children and be unchanging. Any change in that relationship changes HIM.

You are either deliberately avoiding the issue or still are not getting it, but at this point I really don't care.

I'm done. I have seen this repeatedly from you and your cronies.

[Mudcat]

Here is a quote from that article I cited from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which might bring some light to this whole subject- in this quote, mentally insert "Mormonism" for "process theism" and "Creedal Christianity" for "traditional theism"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/

<snip> In Whitehead's words, “The term ‘many’ presupposes the term ‘one,’ and the term ‘one’ presupposes the term ‘many’” (Whitehead 1978, 21). Taking creativity as the category of the ultimate is an attempt to keep the one and the many on equal metaphysical footing by taking reality itself as necessarily social. God, considered as the ultimate reality in any version of process metaphysics, necessarily exists as a social being in dynamic interaction with all non-divine entities

And so here we have the idea that we all as humans interact together as a family, and that the Godhead itself has family-like relationships; we are co-creators with God. These obviously are very Mormon notions, and in fact are the reason (apart from revelation) that I am LDS.

Bukowski,

I have been reading through the article. Per the article, I don't qualify as a traditional theist. My own view is similar to Molian's and I am glad at least some lip service was afforded the view. From what I can tell, Process Theism finds a great deal of it's definition in how it contrasts with another view, that being Traditional Theism. I dunno what I think about that.

Regardless, just looking at Process Theism, I left a bit from the article up to examine. I bolded a portion relating to the necessary existence of God, given Process Theism.

Also I wanted to bring up another point from the article, that was directly quoted by you.

Whitehead remarks that, “In all philosophic theory there is an ultimate which is actual in virtue of its accidents” (Whitehead 1978, 7). In process thought, this ultimate is creativity. It would be misleading, however, to speak as though creativity were “the ultimate reality” according to process theism (Hick 1990, 49). Creativity is not a metaphysical agency that produces anything; rather, it is the character of every concrete fact, from the humblest flicker of existence in non-divine actual entities to God. Whitehead's pithy summary of process philosophy is, “The many become one, and are increased by one” (Whitehead 1978, 21). Creativity, then, is the ultimate metaphysical principle. A principle, however, is not a real being. Whitehead explained to his student A. H. Johnson that God is not a principle but an actuality (Johnson 1983, 5). That which is best described, in process theism, as the ultimate reality, is God. For Whitehead and Hartshorne, God should not be treated as the exception to metaphysical principles; otherwise, there can be no reasoned discourse about the divine (that is, no theology). Ideally, God is to be the chief exemplification of metaphysical principles, and it is this ideal that Whitehead and Hartshorne strive to realize. In process theism, the divine or eminent form of creativity provides the basis for cosmic order and achieved value. In Whitehead's words, God is “the poet of the world,” leading it with tender patience by the divine vision of truth, beauty, and goodness (Whitehead 1978, 346).

I bolded a bit here as well, that I thought was relevant.

Process Theism (PT) seems to me to be taking the first horn of Euthyphro's dillema running with it. However, this doesn't by any means resolve the dilemma.

What I am trying to work out is this.

How is God, given Process Theism, not just simply a contingent being?

Given PT, it seems the metaphysical principles have some sort of "power" to determine Godliness. However PT, also states that principles are not beings and the non-being of principles is significant IMO. It is a contradiction of sorts as I see it.

A special pleading is given to this notion of "principle" as a determinant of sorts. In such a situation, God is defined by his adherence to something other than himself that has no being in and of itself. Yet this something seems to be able to act upon other things and yet not be acted upon.

In lack of a better explanation, PT just seems to shift ground from God to principles and does so without good explanation as to why a non-being like "principles" has any determinative power.

[urroner]

Logically explain how God works? Not sure I can do that to your satisfaction.

All I can say is that God transcends time/matter/temporal existence. How did Jesus walk through walls?

Walking through walls, multiplying food, and healing the sick, even raising the dead might be very difficult to explain, but it is not illogical in the scientific sense, but to exist outside of all temporal dimensions and still being able to take an action is totally illogical. In order to make an action, one has to exist within a temporal dimension. An action is a change and time is required for a change to occur. Even the decision to take an action is an action. God cannot exist outside of all temporal dimensions and then decide to exist within one because that decision is an action and has to be within a temporal dimension else it can't occur.

Also, there is possibly more than one temporal dimension just as there are more than the three spatial dimensions that we are physically aware of. If I was able to move freely and willfully through a fourth dimension that three dimensional beings are not aware of, I could more through walls quite easily.

My first paragraph states, "God needs nothing from us. His goal is to share the love that is contained in the Godhead."

Second paragraph states, "So, no. God is the only "I am" or self existing being, in need of nothing or no one."

No contradiction.

Why does God want to share his love with us? Because that is the nature of unconditional love, to give it away, to desire to see others partake, the more the merrier.

So God has a need to share his love with us. God has a need to make us merrier so He can be merrier. Again, you are saying one thing and then later contradicting yourself in the next statement.

[Ambrose]

I apologize for my late waltz into this thread, but my arguments on Facebook have been taking the time that I would ordinarily use for various forums. I wish that I could have had a chance at the beginning to challenge some of the presuppositions of Hume--how Hume contradicts himself by noting that we haven't an inductive way to demonstrate causality (which Aristotle says is one of those first notions, a knowledge prior to intellectual learning) when his very argument hinges on certain notions that are themselves unknown by induction--but that time seems to be past.

urroner and mfbukowski, that you might have a better understanding of motion and how it is that a thing might be a mover and yet be unmoved, how it is that a thing might cause and yet be impassible, I would recommend a review of Book VIII of the Physics. Mary Louise Gill also has an excellent essay, "Aristotle on Self Motion".

These would be a good place to start in order to discuss any sort of classical Theistic explanations of impassibility.

[mfbukowski]

Hey Mister Mud, good to see you here! I was hoping you'd pipe up!

Bukowski,

I have been reading through the article. Per the article, I don't qualify as a traditional theist. My own view is similar to Molian's and I am glad at least some lip service was afforded the view. From what I can tell, Process Theism finds a great deal of it's definition in how it contrasts with another view, that being Traditional Theism. I dunno what I think about that.

Well really it derives from Heraclitus rather than Plato if you want to take it way back- it has been an "alternative view" of metaphysics forever.

Regardless, just looking at Process Theism, I left a bit from the article up to examine. I bolded a portion relating to the necessary existence of God, given Process Theism.

Also I wanted to bring up another point from the article, that was directly quoted by you.

I bolded a bit here as well, that I thought was relevant.

Process Theism (PT) seems to me to be taking the first horn of Euthyphro's dillema running with it. However, this doesn't by any means resolve the dilemma.

We have (you and I) discussed the Didache before and the "Two Ways" and honestly, I think that attitude exemplified there kind of transcends Euthyphro's dilemma; there is a way of life and a way of death- it is not a question of being good to please God it is a question of being good to survive. Personally I find in this a strong parallel with evolution itself- which is of course, the prime "turf" of process theism. The idea of a God who changes and grows through interaction with his children precisely eliminates both "horns" of the dilemma as far as I am concerned. Virtue literally becomes its own reward, a choice in favor of life over death, making God almost irrelevant to morals.

This view is also consistent with an atheistic morality, and of course is as I said, consistent with the idea that morality evolved. That may bother some, but I do not understand why it would. I am in favor for people having as many reasons to be virtuous as possible!

Incidentally, there are many Protestants who are process theists, and frankly I see this as a possible vehicle to Christian unity- the tendency toward social Trinitarianism and the notion of perichoresis is also highly compatible with process theism.

What I am trying to work out is this.

How is God, given Process Theism, not just simply a contingent being?

Given PT, it seems the metaphysical principles have some sort of "power" to determine Godliness.

These notions are of course compatible, imo with Mormonism, so I don't see it as a problem. For traditional theists, being a "conditional being" is a dirty word, but all it means is that our God might be - for example- a result of "previous" generations of Gods. We of course have no problem with that; but the notion that being "conditional" somehow diminishes his majesty as God is, imo, just silly, and results directly out of a Platonic view which places "perfect forms" and "non-contingent beings" as ontologically superior to "contingent beings".

To me, these are distinctions which do not exist- the idea that something which we experience as growing organically out of natural process is ontologically inferior to other linguistic abstractions is close to ridiculous. With my view of language, the whole idea of "ontology" itself is rather tenuous imo.

However PT, also states that principles are not beings and the non-being of principles is significant IMO. It is a contradiction of sorts as I see it.

Well I am certain that you are more of an Idealist than I am- see above. "Principles" are linguistic constructs, as are anything we can talk about- so the whole notion of the "being" of linguistic constructs can go either way. If you want to say they "exist", fine, if not, it's equally fine with me. It becomes a question of definitions and semantics for me.

A special pleading is given to this notion of "principle" as a determinant of sorts. In such a situation, God is defined by his adherence to something other than himself that has no being in and of itself. Yet this something seems to be able to act upon other things and yet not be acted upon.

This seems to be using the terminology and ideas of classical theism, in contrast to process, and so I am not understanding how it is relevant. It seems to assume that it is "bad" to have "adherence to something other than himself that has no being in and of itself"; frankly I am not sure what that phrase means fully, or why that is "bad". Process theology denies the efficacy of such concepts.

Yet of course I am fully willing to admit that God is self-determined and obeys natural law voluntarily, as we obey traffic laws, even though we could choose to do otherwise. If that qualifies as having "adherence to something other than himself that has no being in and of itself" then I have no problem with it.

In lack of a better explanation, PT just seems to shift ground from God to principles and does so without good explanation as to why a non-being like "principles" has any determinative power.

If I am understanding what you mean, I will answer this way. Again, God is self-determined in obeying the natural laws he has defined himself, just as you, for example, might decide that you will obey traffic laws- the difference being that you personally did not define the traffic laws.

I do not find that limiting in any way- if you define a law for yourself and then follow it- "I will never smoke another cigarette" for example- I find that empowering, not in any way limiting.

[mfbukowski]

I apologize for my late waltz into this thread, but my arguments on Facebook have been taking the time that I would ordinarily use for various forums. I wish that I could have had a chance at the beginning to challenge some of the presuppositions of Hume--how Hume contradicts himself by noting that we haven't an inductive way to demonstrate causality (which Aristotle says is one of those first notions, a knowledge prior to intellectual learning) when his very argument hinges on certain notions that are themselves unknown by induction--but that time seems to be past.

urroner and mfbukowski, that you might have a better understanding of motion and how it is that a thing might be a mover and yet be unmoved, how it is that a thing might cause and yet be impassible, I would recommend a review of Book VIII of the Physics. Mary Louise Gill also has an excellent essay, "Aristotle on Self Motion".

These would be a good place to start in order to discuss any sort of classical Theistic explanations of impassibility.

I appreciate your comments; I think that there is a lot of "water under the bridge" on one hand, for that part of the discussion, and also for philosophy itself since both Hume and Aristotle; I for one would be willing to go "back" there if you see relevance in their arguments for process theism, which now seems to be what we are discussing, but process theism is really my interest.

So I guess I am saying that if you think Aristotle or Aquinas would have arguments against process theism, I'm in, otherwise I'm probably not!

I don't think Aristotle ever argued against Heraclitus- but if he did, that might be interesting!

[Hughes]

I did not argue that. I was using it to explain the argument to you.

This is the argument:

It is contradictory for God to have a relationship with his children and be unchanging. Any change in that relationship changes HIM.

You are either deliberately avoiding the issue or still are not getting it, but at this point I really don't care.

I'm done. I have seen this repeatedly from you and your cronies.

I haven't avoided anything. I have been busy, and unable to respond until now, but not avoided your argument.

You say God's interaction with us changes God at the time of the interaction with us.

I disagree. I say God knew what the interaction would be (all interactions in fact with all of us through time) the moment he purposed to create us. And also knew what both our reactions/prayers/etc. and his responses and reactions would be all of it was known by him the moment he purposed to create.

Your argument is that our interaction changes him. My argument is that God doesn't change and is doing exactly what he knew he would.

You say it's contradictory, that God can't have a relationship if he doesn't change... I say hogwash. God is infinite. He knew already what we were going to ask before we even were born. Our relationship with him doesn't change him, only us.

[Hughes]

Walking through walls, multiplying food, and healing the sick, even raising the dead might be very difficult to explain, but it is not illogical in the scientific sense, but to exist outside of all temporal dimensions and still being able to take an action is totally illogical. In order to make an action, one has to exist within a temporal dimension. An action is a change and time is required for a change to occur. Even the decision to take an action is an action. God cannot exist outside of all temporal dimensions and then decide to exist within one because that decision is an action and has to be within a temporal dimension else it can't occur.

Also, there is possibly more than one temporal dimension just as there are more than the three spatial dimensions that we are physically aware of. If I was able to move freely and willfully through a fourth dimension that three dimensional beings are not aware of, I could more through walls quite easily.

So God has a need to share his love with us. God has a need to make us merrier so He can be merrier. Again, you are saying one thing and then later contradicting yourself in the next statement.

Since I don't have much time. Please explain how "Walking through walls, multiplying food, and healing the sick, even raising the dead might be very difficult to explain, but it is not illogical in the scientific sense, but to exist outside of all temporal dimensions and still being able to take an action is totally illogical."

It seems arbitrary to say that he could do all these things, yet he can't exist outside of time? What makes the Almighty limited to temporal existence, in your view?

[cdowis]

If I am understanding what you mean, I will answer this way. Again, God is self-determined in obeying the natural laws he has defined himself, just as you, for example, might decide that you will obey traffic laws- the difference being that you personally did not define the traffic laws.

Natural laws have always existed, and he is subject to those laws.

For example, He did not create time.

[urroner]

Since I don't have much time. Please explain how "Walking through walls, multiplying food, and healing the sick, even raising the dead might be very difficult to explain, but it is not illogical in the scientific sense, but to exist outside of all temporal dimensions and still being able to take an action is totally illogical."

It seems arbitrary to say that he could do all these things, yet he can't exist outside of time? What makes the Almighty limited to temporal existence, in your view?

In order for a change to occur, it has to occur within a temporal dimension, else the change cannot occur. If God makes a decision to do anything, the decision has to occur within a temporal dimension. A decision is a change. So, when God decided to create His very first creation, it had to happen within a temporal dimension, else He couldn't have made that decision because a decision is a change and the temporal dimension had to exist before He made that decision.

To insist that God can create something while existing outside of any temporal dimension is illogical. That's like saying that God can create something so big that He cannot move it or that He can create something more powerful than Himself.

[Questing Beast]

In order for a change to occur, it has to occur within a temporal dimension, else the change cannot occur. If God makes a decision to do anything, the decision has to occur within a temporal dimension. A decision is a change. So, when God decided to create His very first creation, it had to happen within a temporal dimension, else He couldn't have made that decision because a decision is a change and the temporal dimension had to exist before He made that decision.

To insist that God can create something while existing outside of any temporal dimension is illogical. That's like saying that God can create something so big that He cannot move it or that He can create something more powerful than Himself.

Not illogical. It is simply not relative to our temporal perception. I can conceive of "God" being continually aware; that word, "continually", is inaccurate though, since it must rely for definition on space-time. The word NOW is the most facile to show "God's" condition relative to space-time. The scripture that says (in so many words) "God does not think a thing but that he does it", is indicative of the reality of "all things are before my face continually". "God" does not "decide" anything, and then proceed; the decision and the actuation of it are simultaneous. And the really incomprehensible thing about it all is that everything is NOW, yet increasing infinitely. I can hold this concept in my mind, and yet I cannot comprehend the actuality of it: only "God" is capable of that. To assert that "God even had a "very first creation" is fallacious and limiting. Logic as we apply it is limited to space-time. Applying it to "God", the Causer of it, is equally fallacious. There is nothing to lift or move and there is no measuring of "power" with Existence In The First Place: everything we measure of conceive of is merely part of Existence never separate from it. No "creation" of "God" then becomes a separate entity; ergo, there is no such thing as a power or object that is "bigger" than "God"....

[urroner]

Not illogical. It is simply not relative to our temporal perception. I can conceive of "God" being continually aware; that word, "continually", is inaccurate though, since it must rely for definition on space-time. The word NOW is the most facile to show "God's" condition relative to space-time. The scripture that says (in so many words) "God does not think a thing but that he does it", is indicative of the reality of "all things are before my face continually". "God" does not "decide" anything, and then proceed; the decision and the actuation of it are simultaneous. And the really incomprehensible thing about it all is that everything is NOW, yet increasing infinitely. I can hold this concept in my mind, and yet I cannot comprehend the actuality of it: only "God" is capable of that. To assert that "God even had a "very first creation" is fallacious and limiting. Logic as we apply it is limited to space-time. Applying it to "God", the Causer of it, is equally fallacious. There is nothing to lift or move and there is no measuring of "power" with Existence In The First Place: everything we measure of conceive of is merely part of Existence never separate from it. No "creation" of "God" then becomes a separate entity; ergo, there is no such thing as a power or object that is "bigger" than "God"....

For God to "think" something, a change has to occur and without a temporal dimension.....

[mfbukowski]

I haven't avoided anything. I have been busy, and unable to respond until now, but not avoided your argument.

You say God's interaction with us changes God at the time of the interaction with us.

I disagree. I say God knew what the interaction would be (all interactions in fact with all of us through time) the moment he purposed to create us. And also knew what both our reactions/prayers/etc. and his responses and reactions would be all of it was known by him the moment he purposed to create.

Your argument is that our interaction changes him. My argument is that God doesn't change and is doing exactly what he knew he would.

You say it's contradictory, that God can't have a relationship if he doesn't change... I say hogwash. God is infinite. He knew already what we were going to ask before we even were born. Our relationship with him doesn't change him, only us.

Well I am glad you finally read the article.

What you are now advocating is Molinism, or something close I guess, as does Craig. At least you are doing your homework.

That's a commonly held position which Mudcat has also brought up. With my view of language, I think the whole notion that somehow counterfactuals could be "true" is highly problematic. A statement that something "would" be true if xyz happened is, to me, just a fantasy put together to hold onto the tenuous argument that God's knowledge is unchanging. I prefer a deep swipe of Occam's razor and just admitting that his knowledge (forgive the dirty word) is "contingent".

Dirty words are in the mind of the beholder.

But that's fine, if you believe it- it is what it is. It is a solidly logical position with which I disagree because it is so complex. But this is a complex world.

[mfbukowski]

Natural laws have always existed, and he is subject to those laws.

For example, He did not create time.

That's debatable and I think ultimately it's semantics.

The point is so obscure that I could probably go either way.

For example, one could believe that there are two time lines- one for God and one for us. (which has scriptural grounding of course) If that is true, he could have defined our time context with the Big Bang, while remaining in his time context.

And at what point does one's adoption of "natural law" make it one's own as if one invented it for oneself? Prohibitions against adultery, for example, could be seen as "natural law" yet one might covenant to not commit adultery, thereby making that commandment one's own as much as if one thought of it himself.

Some of this stuff gets so abstract, it doesn't matter too much how you define it when the results are the same anyway.