The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[stephenpurdy]

This is embarrassingly oversimplified and insulting.

 

Causes cannot even be clearly defined much less imputed to God.  ....

 

OF COURSE the explanation you refer to was embarrassingly oversimplified, but that isn't my fault.  My initial explanations were deeper but still fairly simple and could be understood if any effort was put forth by the other side.  Hausam uses some big words, but no attempt was made by Daniel or the others to comprehend what is being conveyed.  Hence, I provided an oversimplified version.

 

We are talking about Ex Nihilo theology.

 

This means that God was the only Being/Substance in existence, then this being caused every other thing/creature to come from existence as designed by the "mind" of this single and eternal Being/Substance.

 

There are logical implications from this kind of theology that cannot be escaped.  Certainly you can appreciate how problematic this is.

 

 

 

-Stephen

Edited October 18, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

Who in the Christian tradition teaches that God created ignorant and disobedient beings?  I've never heard of such a thing.

 

 

It is clear from Genesis that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil when God created them.  This means that God created them to be ignorant.  They were easily deceived by the serpent.  They were not wise enough to follow direct orders not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and they disobeyed.

 

In Ex Nihilo creation, God appears to create some beings with some serious design flaws.  If God is creating any kind of reality that is imaginable, and any kind of being that is logically possible, then other options are available. 

 

As Blake Ostler wrote, "{The "free-will defence" of evangelicals} assumes that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given evangelical assumptions. If God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Indeed, Francis Beckwith, in his contribution to NMC, argues that perfectly rational beings are perfectly good even though free to choose evil if they wish. If Beckwith is correct, then the fact that a person rationally chooses to always do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who will always see by the light of reason that always choosing what is right is the most rational course. Thus, God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do because of sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing."

 

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Even if you were to get beyond the problem explained above (which is impossible), mainstream Christianity still has another problem (and keep in mind that it is different than the problem that we have been discussing above):

 

Let's say that God creates two people.  Johnny and Jacob.

 

Johnny makes some bad choices, refuses to repent and goes to hell for eternity.

 

Jacob makes some good choices, when making mistakes he repents, and goes to heaven for eternity.

 

The omniscient and omnipotent God knows before hand who is going to heaven and who is going to hell.  God, seeing that Johnny is going to hell, could simply decide not to create Johnny in the first place. 

 

So, even if God could divorce Himself from the responsibility of creating flawed beings from nothing (which is illogical), simply deciding NOT to create the individuals who God knows will be damned would not take away from those who are created and "choose" to go to heaven.

- - - - - - -  - - - - -  - - - - -  - - - - - -  - - - - -

Again, these two different points are illustrated here with easy to follow animation and audio:

 

 

The point of the "six sided cube" examples is to show that EVEN IF our created characteristics have nothing to do with our choices, God STILL determines outcomes by deciding which persons to create (out of infinite possibilities).

 

However, the end of the video drives home the idea that our created characteristics and our very nature (created by God) WOULD influence our "choices" a great deal. As Hausam explained, God cannot "cause an uncaused cause" , "cannot create self-existing or self-originated being."   By its very definition, such a proposal is contradictory.  Thus, God in ex nihilo, determines all outcomes.

 

-Stephen

Edited October 18, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

 God can do that because, you know, he's God. 

 

 

 

If God can do anything imaginable, then why not create beings with a better nature, more wisdom, who make better choices?

 

You believe that Jesus has free will, don't you?

 

Why not create a world of Jesuses?

 

.....or at the very least, a world of Noahs, Marys, Enochs, Peters, etc.

 

There are problems here with ex nihilo theology.  The real question is whether or not you are willing to acknowledge them.  That's all.

 

 

The human will is both created and self-determining.  Self-existent and self-determining are distinct.  The created will is both caused and self-determining. God created the human will and then caused a break in the subsequent causal chain by assigning a self-determining property to the created will.

 

 

 

 

This is a long convoluted way of saying that God "caused an uncaused cause". 

 

This is a long convoluted way of saying that God "divorced himself from the responsibility of the flawed beings that were created from God's own mind."

 

Good luck trying to sell that God to the masses.  Don't be surprised if nobody is buying.  In fact, the idea that the world we live in does not match up with the God you describe is the biggest criticism of Christianity. 

 

The answer to your problem is right in front of you, but you refuse to accept it.  And as long as you refuse to accept it, you are fighting against the cause of Christ.  You, and people like you, are a huge reason why Christianity is rejected by large populations in the world.  Your God makes no sense!

 

 

 

 

Do you have the name of a Greek philosopher whose cosmology entails ex nihilo and who described it as such?  I'm very interested in how your claim is grounded.  For now, I'm not at all interested in what any scholar has to say about it, I'd just like to know the ancient source that grounds such a claim.  Aristotle's cosmology includes a First Cause and Unmoved Mover, but he argues for the existence of eternal matter and the impossibility of ex nihilo, so it couldn't have been him.  So which Greek philosopher argued for ex nihilo?  If you don't know, can you provide a scholarly reference?  I'd like to check the footnotes and see whether the scholar cites a Greek philosopher so I can read what was written for myself.  Thanks.

 

I did not say that Greek philosophers developed Ex Nihilo.  The Greek philosophers died long before ex nihilo was invented. But the "unmoved mover" concept was the foundation which was used to develop ex nihilo.  If you are interested, then I quote the scholars , the texts, and the evidences here:

 

 

 

Finally, let me address this point you made: "{God is} the creator of matter, consciousness, and will, not matter's organizer, and as such God is not subject to causation and the laws of physics."

 

In LDS theology, God may not be subject to "the laws of physics", or at least the laws of physics as we understand them.  God may not be subject to the "laws of the Universe" as we know it.   But perhaps God IS subject to laws.  Maybe we can call them "laws of existence".

 

This is the only way to reconcile a truly benevolent God , and the world in which we live, and the evil and suffering within it.

 

-stephen

Edited October 18, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[Bobbieaware]

If God can do anything imaginable, then why not create beings with a better nature, more wisdom, who make better choices?

You believe that Jesus has free will, don't you?

Why not create a world of Jesuses?

.....or at the very least, a world of Noahs, Marys, Enochs, Peters, etc.

There are problems here with ex nihilo theology. The real question is whether or not you are willing to acknowledge them. That's all.

This is a long convoluted way of saying that God "caused an uncaused cause".

This is a long convoluted way of saying that God "divorced himself from the responsibility of the flawed beings that were created from God's own mind."

Good luck trying to sell that God to the masses. Don't be surprised if nobody is buying. In fact, the idea that the world we live in does not match up with the God you describe is the biggest criticism of Christianity.

The answer to your problem is right in front of you, but you refuse to accept it. And as long as you refuse to accept it, you are fighting against the cause of Christ. You, and people like you, are a huge reason why Christianity is rejected by large populations in the world. Your God makes no sense!

I did not say that Greek philosophers developed Ex Nihilo. The Greek philosophers died long before ex nihilo was invented. But the "unmoved mover" concept was the foundation which was used to develop ex nihilo. If you are interested, then I quote the scholars , the texts, and the evidences here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhWaeyEPlAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2pBm6n_yqs

Finally, let me address this point you made: "{God is} the creator of matter, consciousness, and will, not matter's organizer, and as such God is not subject to causation and the laws of physics."

In LDS theology, God may not be subject to "the laws of physics", or at least the laws of physics as we understand them. God may not be subject to the "laws of the Universe" as we know it. But perhaps God IS subject to laws. Maybe we can call them "laws of existence".

This is the only way to reconcile a truly benevolent God , and the world in which we live, and the evil and suffering within it.

-stephen

The fundamental problem with the ex-nihilo position is that it creates endless theological and philosophical problems with which one has to wrestle (many of which you cite), while the LDS model of reality is based on an eternal matrix of opposing entities that never had a beginning and will never have an end. In the LDS model, element is eternal because element (matter) stands in eternal opposition to the nothingness of a state in which there is no God and nothing exists. And in the LDS model, God is God because there have always been countervailing forces of intelligence that have forever stood in opposition to him and his goodness, In the ex-nihillo model, a perfectly good God must somehow create out of nothing the destructive evils found in the LDS model of existence that is based on eternal opposition in all things. And if prior to the ex-nihillo creation all that existed is God and his perfect goodness, how could such a being of perfect goodness exist if evil wasn't a real force to be reckoned with that his wil had to be overcome! In the LDS model of reality, as Christ so powerfully demonstrates, God himself if the chief warrior in the eternal battle between good and evil, a battle that never had a beginning and will never end lest God cease to be God. It is not mere happenstance that In the scriptures Christ is presented to us as the presiding General in the armies of heaven because God himself must overcome evil IN A FAIR FIGHT (as in the atonement and the war in heaven). God conquers evil, he does not create it. If evil wasn't real and coeval with God, God would not and could not exist. 2 Nephi 2 lays the ex-nihillo position to rest,

Edited October 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Spammer]

OF COURSE the explanation you refer to was embarrassingly oversimplified, but that isn't my fault. My initial explanations were deeper but still fairly simple and could be understood if any effort was put forth by the other side. Hausam uses some big words, but no attempt was made by Daniel or the others to comprehend what is being conveyed. Hence, I provided an oversimplified version.

Well, golly! I sho' am glad that you're here to explain all them big words to us!

[Spammer]

Well I must thank you for your fine effort and a great post.  I really learned something today, and spent some time re-reading sections of the Timaeus which I have not read for probably 40 years.  I spent time reading secondary sources as well and found it all quite enlightening.

 

I think it is clear that nearly any interpretation of this work projecting back a Christian view of pre-existent matter or ex nihilo - either one- is very hazardous.  I think it is presentism to attribute any of these views to Plato.

 

Yes, of course he says what you say he says, but only after explaining clearly that the story he is about to tell is just a story, and not a representation of the truth, which is impossible to explain among sensible beings like ourselves.

 

So what follows is a "tale" which is the best that can be wished for among "mortal men"

 

So I think that any interpretation which casts Plato in some kind of Christian context at all- either way, as if he believed or argued for one position or another- is highly suspect.  He says that any descriptions he comes up with are not authoritative but simply "tales" that do not represent "reality"

 

But I really do thank you for the opportunity to do a little research and come to my own conclusions.  I hope we get to talk about Florensky sometime.

 

It's been about 20 years since reading Timaeus for me.  Yep, this is a great statement by Timaeus: "As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further."  Plato almost sounds like a Pragmatist in that statement, if not for that messy Theory of Forms of his.  All we have is interpretations and keeping that in mind helps keep us intellectually humble.  That's critical.

 

I have the Florensky book.  I'm currently reading his letter on Gehenna.  I'd like to discuss it with you at some point.

[Spammer]

It is clear from Genesis that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil when God created them. This means that God created them to be ignorant. They were easily deceived by the serpent. They were not wise enough to follow direct orders not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and they disobeyed.

In Ex Nihilo creation, God appears to create some beings with some serious design flaws. If God is creating any kind of reality that is imaginable, and any kind of being that is logically possible, then other options are available.

As Blake Ostler wrote, "{The "free-will defence" of evangelicals} assumes that God must create morally fallible persons if he creates them free. However, that is not true given evangelical assumptions. If God creates ex nihilo, then he can create any persons that it is logically possible to create. He certainly could have created more morally sensitive and rational persons than we are. Indeed, Francis Beckwith, in his contribution to NMC, argues that perfectly rational beings are perfectly good even though free to choose evil if they wish. If Beckwith is correct, then the fact that a person rationally chooses to always do what is right is not incompatible with libertarian free will. Given the creedal view, there is no reason that God could not have created perfectly rational persons who will always see by the light of reason that always choosing what is right is the most rational course. Thus, God had open to him the possibility of creating more intelligent and morally sensitive creatures who would bring about less evil than we do because of sheer irrationality. God is thus morally indictable for having created creatures who bring about more evil than other creatures he could have created from nothing."

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Even if you were to get beyond the problem explained above (which is impossible), mainstream Christianity still has another problem (and keep in mind that it is different than the problem that we have been discussing above):

Let's say that God creates two people. Johnny and Jacob.

Johnny makes some bad choices, refuses to repent and goes to hell for eternity.

Jacob makes some good choices, when making mistakes he repents, and goes to heaven for eternity.

The omniscient and omnipotent God knows before hand who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. God, seeing that Johnny is going to hell, could simply decide not to create Johnny in the first place.

So, even if God could divorce Himself from the responsibility of creating flawed beings from nothing (which is illogical), simply deciding NOT to create the individuals who God knows will be damned would not take away from those who are created and "choose" to go to heaven.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Again, these two different points are illustrated here with easy to follow animation and audio:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

The point of the "six sided cube" examples is to show that EVEN IF our created characteristics have nothing to do with our choices, God STILL determines outcomes by deciding which persons to create (out of infinite possibilities).

However, the end of the video drives home the idea that our created characteristics and our very nature (created by God) WOULD influence our "choices" a great deal. As Hausam explained, God cannot "cause an uncaused cause" , "cannot create self-existing or self-originated being." By its very definition, such a proposal is contradictory. Thus, God in ex nihilo, determines all outcomes.

-Stephen

Our created characteristics and our very nature influence, but do not determine, our choices. That is the nature of free will. And in ex nihilo, God only determines all outcomes if free will doesn't intervene to break the causal chain. The question of how free will is possible is relevent to both ex nihilo and ex materia creation, the former needing to find a way for the immaterial will to free itself from determination by God-caused spiritual causation and the latter needing to find a way for the material will to free itself from determination by material causation and the laws of physics. Either can only escape causal determination and acquire self-determination if free will is possible. Ex nihilo posits a God who creates free will by divine fiat; ex materia in the LDS tradition as you've described it posits a God that doesn't create free will. You've argued that if free will is to be uncaused and therefore really free it must be posited as eternally existent and self-determining. Therefore, in ex materia it must be posited that each individual's will is eternally free, which means that each individual's consciousness and personhood are also eternal, as will, consciousness, and personhood are inseparable. Thus, the human persons are uncreated, eternal beings. How does that square with Joseph Smith's doctrine of the eternal pool of intelligences? Was this a pool of free-willed, conscious persons that existed eternally in that state prior to being united to spirit matter to create spirit children of Heavenly Father? Of was it a pool of pure intelligences that were yet lacking in consciousness, awareness, personhood, and all that goes along with that? It seems to me that to avoid the same outcome that you attribute to beings created ex nihilo, you need to posit the latter of these scenarios: human beings are eternal beings who are eternally free-willed, conscious persons and their properties of free will, consciousness and personhood are eternal and uncaused. In this scenario, it's not so much the existence of a pool of 'intelligences' as a pool of fully conscious, willing beings who have neither spirit nor body (what is their substance, then?). If the pooled 'intelligences' in the pre-spirit state are not yet conscious and self-aware, if they're not yet truly persons, then an external cause (God) is required to actualize their potential to become such. They are therefore 'caused' by God to be such and we run into the same problem of free will as an uncaused cause.

I don't have time today to go through all of the videos. I'll just put these comments here as a placeholder, to indicate things that are on my mind in response to a quick read of your responses. .

Edited October 18, 2015 by Spammer

[mfbukowski]

OF COURSE the explanation you refer to was embarrassingly oversimplified, but that isn't my fault.  My initial explanations were deeper but still fairly simple and could be understood if any effort was put forth by the other side.  Hausam uses some big words, but no attempt was made by Daniel or the others to comprehend what is being conveyed.  Hence, I provided an oversimplified version.

 

We are talking about Ex Nihilo theology.

 

This means that God was the only Being/Substance in existence, then this being caused every other thing/creature to come from existence as designed by the "mind" of this single and eternal Being/Substance.

 

There are logical implications from this kind of theology that cannot be escaped.  Certainly you can appreciate how problematic this is.

 

 

 

-Stephen

No in fact I can't. Contemporary philosophers see these for the most part as semantic issues. Free will and determinism are often seen as compatible.

Your arguments are very old, and no longer relevant unless you are in a bible college, than who knows

[mfbukowski]

It's been about 20 years since reading Timaeus for me.  Yep, this is a great statement by Timaeus: "As being is to becoming, so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further."  Plato almost sounds like a Pragmatist in that statement, if not for that messy Theory of Forms of his.  All we have is interpretations and keeping that in mind helps keep us intellectually humble.  That's critical.

 

I have the Florensky book.  I'm currently reading his letter on Gehenna.  I'd like to discuss it with you at some point.

Well oddly, if change and relativism is the only constant, at least that is one constant

Does the theory of evolution itself evolve, or is it an eternal Form?

Words, words, words. As Plato says, all we have are tales. And so Plato becomes Nietzsche, no facts just interpretations.

And oddly this relativism is what makes revealed religion possible. One mans revelation is another man's fable, with only our own revelations to decide truth.

[Spammer]

Well oddly, if change and relativism is the only constant, at least that is one constant

Does the theory of evolution itself evolve, or is it an eternal Form?

Words, words, words. As Plato says, all we have are tales. And so Plato becomes Nietzsche, no facts just interpretations.

And oddly this relativism is what makes revealed religion possible. One mans revelation is another man's fable, with only our own revelations to decide truth.

Yes. This applies to everything we happen to "think" about anything.

The debate over ex nihilo vs ex materia - none of us were there when the universe came into being - all we have are the words we and others use to describe and defend our conceptions. The words correspond to nothing in our experience. The debate is over which words, sequences, and concepts best match our conception of what must have happened, when in fact the words correspond only to other words and concepts.

Which church is true? What is God really like? The only way to really know is through experience.

It's like ice cream. Some folks only read about people who eat ice cream and look at pictures that describe the range of flavors that people enjoy. Some descriptions come with glossy, colorful images of the kinds of ice cream. This class of people debate the images, trying to prove which flavor is the best based solely on the images and descriptions. Other folks visit the ice cream store and observe people who enjoy eating ice cream, examine the range of flavors, and so forth, but never actually order and eat any ice cream. Others visit the store and try a flavor or three and finally settle on their favorite of the three. Those who really want to know which flavor is best go to the store as many times as necessary and try every single available flavor.

The first category of people are those who seek to know which church or tradition is true and what God is like through philosophical discourse, argument, and consideration of historical evidences. The second type are those who attend various churches but never join any, never participate, never "live the faith" on offer. The third type are those who do spend time joining, participating, and living the faith of one or more options. You see where this is going. The final kind of person is very rare. This is the guy who travels the world spending years and years as a participating member of every imaginable tradition in order to know through direct experience which is best. Most of us who are serious about gaining knowledge go with the third option. We experiment until we hit upon something that is sweet and fulfilling. But we'll never know whether the options we didn't explore aren't better. Even then, we're still stuck with experiences rooted in contingency.

So all we can do is go with what we've experienced directly and what we therefore know to be true. There's nothing else. Only those traditions that emphasize the critical role played by direct experience are worth exploring, but we must never forget we can never escape contingency in this life.

It's still fun to debate "the truth", though.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Spammer

[3DOP]

Yes. This applies to everything we happen to "think" about anything.

The debate over ex nihilo vs ex materia - none of us were there when the universe came into being - all we have are the words we and others use to describe and defend our conceptions. The words correspond to nothing in our experience. The debate is over which words, sequences, and concepts best match our conception of what must have happened, when in fact the words correspond only to other words and concepts.

Which church is true? What is God really like? The only way to really know is through experience.

It's like ice cream. Some folks only read about people who eat ice cream and look at pictures that describe the range of flavors that people enjoy. Some descriptions come with glossy, colorful images of the kinds of ice cream. This class of people debate the images, trying to prove which flavor is the best based solely on the images and descriptions. Other folks visit the ice cream store and observe people who enjoy eating ice cream, examine the range of flavors, and so forth, but never actually order and eat any ice cream. Others visit the store and try a flavor or three and finally settle on their favorite of the three. Those who really want to know which flavor is best go to the store as many times as necessary and try every single available flavor.

The first category of people are those who seek to know which church or tradition is true and what God is like through philosophical discourse, argument, and consideration of historical evidences. The second type are those who attend various churches but never join any, never participate, never "live the faith" on offer. The third type are those who do spend time joining, participating, and living the faith of one or more options. You see where this is going. The final kind of person is very rare. This is the guy who travels the world spending years and years as a participating member of every imaginable tradition in order to know through direct experience which is best. Most of us who are serious about gaining knowledge go with the third option. We experiment until we hit upon something that is sweet and fulfilling. But we'll never know whether the options we didn't explore aren't better. Even then, we're still stuck with experiences rooted in contingency.

So all we can do is go with what we've experienced directly and what we therefore know to be true. There's nothing else. Only those traditions that emphasize the critical role played by direct experience are worth exploring.

 

By their fruits?

[mfbukowski]

Yes. This applies to everything we happen to "think" about anything.

The debate over ex nihilo vs ex materia - none of us were there when the universe came into being - all we have are the words we and others use to describe and defend our conceptions. The words correspond to nothing in our experience. The debate is over which words, sequences, and concepts best match our conception of what must have happened, when in fact the words correspond only to other words and concepts.

Which church is true? What is God really like? The only way to really know is through experience.

It's like ice cream. Some folks only read about people who eat ice cream and look at pictures that describe the range of flavors that people enjoy. Some descriptions come with glossy, colorful images of the kinds of ice cream. This class of people debate the images, trying to prove which flavor is the best based solely on the images and descriptions. Other folks visit the ice cream store and observe people who enjoy eating ice cream, examine the range of flavors, and so forth, but never actually order and eat any ice cream. Others visit the store and try a flavor or three and finally settle on their favorite of the three. Those who really want to know which flavor is best go to the store as many times as necessary and try every single available flavor.

The first category of people are those who seek to know which church or tradition is true and what God is like through philosophical discourse, argument, and consideration of historical evidences. The second type are those who attend various churches but never join any, never participate, never "live the faith" on offer. The third type are those who do spend time joining, participating, and living the faith of one or more options. You see where this is going. The final kind of person is very rare. This is the guy who travels the world spending years and years as a participating member of every imaginable tradition in order to know through direct experience which is best. Most of us who are serious about gaining knowledge go with the third option. We experiment until we hit upon something that is sweet and fulfilling. But we'll never know whether the options we didn't explore aren't better. Even then, we're still stuck with experiences rooted in contingency.

So all we can do is go with what we've experienced directly and what we therefore know to be true. There's nothing else. Only those traditions that emphasize the critical role played by direct experience are worth exploring.

So what's there to argue about then?

What I argue about is whether or not the view you voice above is valid, that is about all that is important in religious discourse, I think. That's why I am not participating here and throwing back and forth words which are undefined and ambiguous.

You had your experience, I had mine and I am convinced that the reason there could be apparent "conflict" is the difference in our lenses- your culture, up bringing, circumstances, and the way you see the world vs my factors in the way I see mine. Throw into the mix philosophical education which always muddles everything for better or worse.

Since I believe that God is good and loves his children, the only thing I can ascribe any apparent conflict to is the fact that each of us needs to define our own paths which fit our own needs to get back to him.

I could very easily be Orthodox but I find it very philosophically appealing to think of God as Human and immanent by his own choice. Christ was those things and I see the Father as no different. I have no problem with the idea of the Father being mortal at one "time" (which is a tale- time doesn't make sense in this context) as a mental construct to make me feel closer to him.

The "way it is" if such a think can be spoken in human language (I believe it cannot- that it is literally unspeakable- that we don't have the words to have it make sense)is unknowable anyway since it won't fit into our little skulls.

So for me, whatever story or tale you tell yourself that moves you closer to God is perfectly fine. You like pre-existent matter? Fine. I like that the best, but if you like ex-nihilo, good for you.

Both are just tales anyway- so who ultimately cares? Some here obviously.

But guess what? What they say about this stuff is nonsense and so is what I say about it. Just words. Knowing that is the key to everything.

And I can justify that philosophically. Wittgenstein among others viewed all these disagreements as simply semantic errors- problems with language and definitions, and I agree. It's not like I am making this stuff up.

[mfbukowski]

By their fruits?

I prefer oranges. What about you?

[Vance]

God can do that because, you know, he's God.

Can (your) God reproduce?  Or in other words, can He create another infinite (uncaused caused, or unmoved mover) being like Himself?

 

Or is this something that He can't do?

[Spammer]

So what's there to argue about then?

What I argue about is whether or not the view you voice above is valid, that is about all that is important in religious discourse, I think. That's why I am not participating here and throwing back and forth words which are undefined and ambiguous.

You had your experience, I had mine and I am convinced that the reason there could be apparent "conflict" is the difference in our lenses- your culture, up bringing, circumstances, and the way you see the world vs my factors in the way I see mine. Throw into the mix philosophical education which always muddles everything for better or worse.

Since I believe that God is good and loves his children, the only thing I can ascribe any apparent conflict to is the fact that each of us needs to define our own paths which fit our own needs to get back to him.

I could very easily be Orthodox but I find it very philosophically appealing to think of God as Human and immanent by his own choice. Christ was those things and I see the Father as no different. I have no problem with the idea of the Father being mortal at one "time" (which is a tale- time doesn't make sense in this context) as a mental construct to make me feel closer to him.

The "way it is" if such a think can be spoken in human language (I believe it cannot- that it is literally unspeakable- that we don't have the words to have it make sense)is unknowable anyway since it won't fit into our little skulls.

So for me, whatever story or tale you tell yourself that moves you closer to God is perfectly fine. You like pre-existent matter? Fine. I like that the best, but if you like ex-nihilo, good for you.

Both are just tales anyway- so who ultimately cares? Some here obviously.

But guess what? What they say about this stuff is nonsense and so is what I say about it. Just words. Knowing that is the key to everything.

And I can justify that philosophically. Wittgenstein among others viewed all these disagreements as simply semantic errors- problems with language and definitions, and I agree. It's not like I am making this stuff up.

 

 

'So what's there to argue about then?"

 

Well, I jumped into this thread's conversation over the issue of whether ex nihilo comes from Greek philosophy.  I focused on Plato and a conversation ensued.  Like Plato said, we can discourse, but we're still always stuck with probability - not absolute certainty.  But determining the probability and the direction in which it points is still worth discussing.  Plato definitely meant something and determining what he meant is important.  That's why I'm engaged, knowing full well that all of us very well may be projecting our world views and religious understandings back onto Plato.  Hence, the probability.  It's still an interesting, worthwhile conversation to have, though, especially since when it comes to whether Plato taught ex nihilo, I think I'm right! 

Edited October 18, 2015 by Spammer

[Vance]

Yes. This applies to everything we happen to "think" about anything.

The debate over ex nihilo vs ex materia - none of us were there when the universe came into being -

If none of us were there, how do we know that "the universe came into being"?

 

Perhaps it always existed.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Vance

[Spammer]

By their fruits?

Yes, by there fruits. I'll quote a monk of the Russian Orthodox Church. Right after declaring the Orthodox Church to be the true church outside of which there is no salvation, he says:

"Does this mean that everyone outside of the Church is, of necessity, damned and those visibly within the Church saved? The ansewr is an emphatic No! As the Blessed Augustine noted: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within." There may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must, in some sense, be a member of the Church, but in what sense, it is not always possible to say. The Spirit of God blows where it will, and, as St. Irenaeus points out, where the Spirit is, there is the Church! In any case, the final judgement is left to God."

By their fruits ye shall know them. Jesus described those fruits and those who manifest them will be saved. God knows the limitations imposed by the contingency of our existence and He is merciful and is the lover of mankind.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Spammer

[Spammer]

If none of us were there, how do we know that "the universe came into being"?

 

Perhaps it always existed.

 

None of us were there.  How do we know that the universe always existed? 

 

Perhaps it didn't exist and then it did.

[Spammer]

Can (your) God reproduce?  Or in other words, can He create another infinite (uncaused caused, or unmoved mover) being like Himself?

 

Or is this something that He can't do?

 

By definition, the Infinite is without limit and is therefore one.  Introducing limit would turn one into two, eliminating the one and the Infinity along with it.  God would cease to be God.  Does that answer your question?

[Spammer]

"I could very easily be Orthodox but I find it very philosophically appealing to think of God as Human and immanent by his own choice. Christ was those things and I see the Father as no different. I have no problem with the idea of the Father being mortal at one "time" (which is a tale- time doesn't make sense in this context) as a mental construct to make me feel closer to him."

This really isn't all that far off from what the Orthodox believe. The only difference is that we think only the Son was incarnate, that God does not need a body, and that our salvation as embodied souls required that God unite divine nature with human nature in order to repair human nature and restore us to what we were before the Fall and since the Son is God his incarnation was all that was needed. I personally don't need the Father to be embodied to feel closer to him. Since the Father and the Son are one, to be in a relationship with the Son is to be in a relationship with the Father. Yes, just words, but they work for me. The tale told by the ancient Catholic Church is what moves me.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Spammer

[Vance]

None of us were there.  How do we know that the universe always existed? 

 

Perhaps it didn't exist and then it did.

Perhaps it always existed.

[Vance]

By definition, the Infinite is without limit and is therefore one.

By whose definition?

 

Sorry, but the "and therefore one" isn't a logical requirement.

 

Or are you saying that (your) God can't create a dual infinite?

 

Introducing limit would turn one into two,

Again, where is the logical requirement?

 

Can't infinite be both forward and backward?

 

eliminating the one and the Infinity along with it.

Again, where is the logical requirement.

 

God would cease to be God.

You are positing a rather drastic result for a non logical end.

 

Does that answer your question?

No.  It was nearly a yes or no type of question.

 

Can (your) God reproduce?

 

With your mumbo jumbo are you basically saying "no"?

 

If so, (your) God is by definition impotent, rather than omnipotent.

 

So, help me out here and just answer the question.

[Vance]

. . .our salvation as embodied souls required that God unite divine nature with human nature in order to repair human nature . . .

So, God's original creation (our human nature) was flawed?????

 

Why would He do such a thing?  Was it beyond His power to do it right the first time?

 

. . . and restore us to what we were before the Fall . . .

What were we before the Fall?  Did we exist before the Fall? 

 

and since the Son is God his incarnation was all that was needed.

Right, because God failed to get it right the first time. 

 

Again, the question is WHY?

[Spammer]

By whose definition?

 

Sorry, but the "and therefore one" isn't a logical requirement.

 

Or are you saying that (your) God can't create a dual infinite?

 

 

 

Again, where is the logical requirement?

 

Can't infinite be both forward and backward?

 

 

 

Again, where is the logical requirement.

 

 

 

You are positing a rather drastic result for a non logical end.

 

 

 

No.  It was nearly a yes or no type of question.

 

Can (your) God reproduce?

 

With your mumbo jumbo are you basically saying "no"?

 

If so, (your) God is by definition impotent, rather than omnipotent.

 

So, help me out here and just answer the question.

 

What you call mumbo jumbo is perfect sense within my paradigm, which defines the Infinite as that which is without limit.  Being subject to time and space imposes limitation ('now', not 'then'; 'here', not 'there').  The Infinite, to be truly limitless, must be simultaneously 'then', 'now', 'in the future', 'here', and 'there', simultaneously present at every point in time and space.  Only something 'beyond' time and space fits the bill.  Once you create parts ('this God' and 'that God') you've created space and put those Gods inside space.  Neither is any longer able to be simultaneously present at every point in space.  Limitation is introduced and Infinity ceases to be Infinity; God ceases to be God.  That's my paradigm.  Your definition of the Infinite is based on your paradigm and since I don't share your materialist paradigm I consider your definition of the Infinite (one bounded by space and time, hence your reference to a temporal and spatial metaphor) to be mumbo jumbo.

 

I can't answer your question in a way that would satisfy you because we're using different definitions of 'Infinite'. 

[Spammer]

So, God's original creation (our human nature) was flawed?????

 

Why would He do such a thing?  Was it beyond His power to do it right the first time?

 

 

 

What were we before the Fall?  Did we exist before the Fall? 

 

 

 

Right, because God failed to get it right the first time. 

 

Again, the question is WHY?

 

Nope.  God got it right the first time.  We were created as rational beings with free will and in communion with God in a state of Paradise, the priests of the cosmos tasked with caring for the Garden cosmos, receiving it, and offering it back to God in thanksgiving (Eucharist).  However, instead of choosing to receive everything (life, self, and cosmos) and offer it back to God in thanksgiving, Adam fell by choosing self over God and lost that communion.  Death and sin were the result.  What we were before the Fall is what we were created to be.  The Incarnation healed the breach, restored communion, defeated sin, and destroyed death by death.  The restoration of lost humanity happens one person at a time, as each chooses to avail himself of the benefits provided by the Incarnation by incorporating himself into the Body of Christ through baptism  This is salvation in our tradition.  So, no, God did not create a flawed creature.  He created a holy creature intended to always remain in communion with his Creator.  Humans nevertheless chose to forsake communion with God, holiness, and his role as priests of the creation in favor of self.  The Fall was the result.  Human nature was created whole but was broken by Adam's choice. Humanity was the author of its own doom and the Son became man to heal and save us because He loves us. 

Edited October 19, 2015 by Spammer