The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation

[mfbukowski]

Plato definitely meant something and determining what he meant is important.

I guess that is what I have a problem with. I am not a Plato scholar so solving that problem has no importance to me and I have about as much interest in that as I have in determining the genetic code of an oak tree. But someone would have an interest in each of those issues and I am glad there are people to figure that out.

I am just not one of them.

[mfbukowski]

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

An infinite series of numbers is one?

An infinite distance is one? How is anything infinite one? Is that true in math? It is certainly not an a priori statement.

Yes, I know the Greeks said that. Upon examination it doesn't work too well.

Just wondering how on one hand you agree that these are "just stories" and then use grammatical semantic arguments to make a point.

[mfbukowski]

"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.

Fine with me.

The last sentence is the only one that makes sense to me.

Okie doke.

Enough for me- this is going nowhere in my estimation

Catch you later when we have something besides tales to talk about

Edited October 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

I guess that is what I have a problem with. I am not a Plato scholar so solving that problem has no importance to me and I have about as much interest in that as I have in determining the genetic code of an oak tree. But someone would have an interest in each of those issues and I am glad there are people to figure that out.

I am just not one of them.

 

I'm not a scholar of any philosopher.  I'm just blindly stumbling through trying to figure things out.  However, I do enjoy philosophy and as an Orthodox Christian who believes in creatio ex nihilo, when someone not in the Catholic tradition asserts that ex nihilo is from Greek philosophy and not from the apostolic tradition, I'm naturally interested in finding out whether there's any merit to the assertion; hence, the importance of determining what Plato really meant (to the extent that's possible), since some have asserted that Plato is the source. 

[Vance]

What you call mumbo jumbo is perfect sense within my paradigm, which defines the Infinite as that which is without limit.

Yet (your) infinite God IS limited because He (not to express or imply a sexual being) It is limited.  It can't reproduce.  It's power has a limit.

 

So, by your definition of infinite, (your) God can't be infinite.

 

Being subject to time and space imposes limitation ('now', not 'then'; 'here', not 'there').

Which now is irrelevant, because (your) God can't meet your definition of infinite.

 

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.

Which now is irrelevant, because (your) God can't meet your definition of infinite.  It's powers are limited.  It can't reproduce.

 

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.

See above.

[Spammer]

Fine with me.

The last sentence is the only one that makes sense to me.

Okie doke.

Enough for me- this is going nowhere in my estimation

Catch you later when we have something besides tales to talk about

Ok, it's family Walking Dead night anyway and it just started. Talk to you later.

[Vance]

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.

Why did God create Adam that way?  Was He It incapable of creating an obedient Adam with free will?  Or is It limited?

 

Death and sin were the result.  What we were before the Fall is what we were created to be.

 

That would be beings that, in the fallen state,  would choose sin rather than obedience?

 

Why didn't God create us to be obedient, even AFTER the fall?  Was it not within His Its power?

 

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.

 

Did God not know that Adam would choose wrong?  Or did God choose to create Adam to choose the way he did?

 

Why didn't He  It create a better Adam?

[Spammer]

Yet (your) infinite God IS limited because He (not to express or imply a sexual being) It is limited. It can't reproduce. It's power has a limit.

So, by your definition of infinite, (your) God can't be infinite.

Which now is irrelevant, because (your) God can't meet your definition of infinite.

Which now is irrelevant, because (your) God can't meet your definition of infinite. It's powers are limited. It can't reproduce.

See above.

I can see where this is going. Endless word games. No thanks.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not a scholar of any philosopher.  I'm just blindly stumbling through trying to figure things out.  However, I do enjoy philosophy and as an Orthodox Christian who believes in creatio ex nihilo, when someone not in the Catholic tradition asserts that ex nihilo is from Greek philosophy and not from the apostolic tradition, I'm naturally interested in finding out whether there's any merit to the assertion; hence, the importance of determining what Plato really meant (to the extent that's possible), since some have asserted that Plato is the source.

Plato being the source has no bearing on the validity of the argument

Plato has been influential throughout the history of philosophy because of issues he raised about the reality of universals, a type of general statement, but that has nothing to do with theology

[mfbukowski]

Ok, it's family Walking Dead night anyway and it just started. Talk to you later.

OOPS ok no need to reply to any of this. Have fun. This is going nowhere anyway

[Calm]

Why did God create Adam that way?  Was He It incapable of creating an obedient Adam with free will?  Or is It limited?

 

I find it very disrespectful to talk about someone else's belief in God in this manner ("It").  I would not appreciate it if people did the same to Mormon belief where it is possible (such as claiming that LDS think God was a ________ sinner in his mortal existence....'well, at least that is what one could conclude logically from LDS beliefs'), it seems as bad when it is done to others.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

Why did God create Adam that way?  Was He It incapable of creating an obedient Adam with free will?  Or is It limited?

 

 

 

 

That would be beings that, in the fallen state,  would choose sin rather than obedience?

 

Why didn't God create us to be obedient, even AFTER the fall?  Was it not within His Its power?

 

 

 

 

Did God not know that Adam would choose wrong?  Or did God choose to create Adam to choose the way he did?

 

Why didn't He  It create a better Adam?

IMO good exposition of why this is going nowhere

I only give it another hundred pages or so.

But Cal has a good point. I get carried away all the time too. It's so frustrating

Outa here

Edited October 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

I find it very disrespectful to talk about someone else's belief in God in this manner ("It").  I would not appreciate it if people did the same to Mormon belief where it is possible (such as claiming that LDS think God was a ________ sinner in his mortal existence....'well, at least that is what one could conclude logically from LDS beliefs'), it seems as bad when it is done to others.

No disrespect is intended, expressed or implied.  The fact is (his) God is a sexless, non-physical being, incapable of reproduction, sexually or asexually, so I am not sure how to accurately talk about Him It.  I am trying to show respect by capitalizing the pronoun I use.

 

If Spammer finds it offensive he (or she) can let me know.

 

So, you can stop being a board nanny now.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

I can see where this is going.

To a thought you haven't had before?

 

I am glad that Catholicism works for you. But I can't get it to work for me.  Just too many logical problems.

[Spammer]

Why did God create Adam that way?  Was He It incapable of creating an obedient Adam with free will?  Or is It limited?

 

 

 

 

That would be beings that, in the fallen state,  would choose sin rather than obedience?

 

Why didn't God create us to be obedient, even AFTER the fall?  Was it not within His Its power?

 

 

 

 

Did God not know that Adam would choose wrong?  Or did God choose to create Adam to choose the way he did?

 

Why didn't He  It create a better Adam?

 

Free will entails the freedom to choose good and evil; the freedom to choose to obey and disobey.  If God created us to be obedient, then we would be created unable to choose to be disobedient or to choose evil.  We would not have free will.  Yes, it was in God's power to create Adam to be obedient after the fall, but that would destroy his freedom. God chose to create us this way because without such freedom we could not choose to love another over self and God is love.  He desired to create beings whom He could love and who would love God.  Why didn't God just create beings that would choose to love?  Because beings whose choices are predetermined don't really choose anything and love predetermined is not love freely chosen.  A choice entails at least two alternatives and freedom requires the ability to freely choose between them.  Creating a being who is predetermined to always make one of those choices (to choose the good; to obey; to love) is to destroy that being's freedom, even if the result is goodness, obedience, and love.  That's Satan's plan.

 

C.S. Lewis writes about this a lot more eloquently.  You might not find it convincing, but it will likely be more interesting to read than my ramblings.  I can point you to a source, if you're interested. 

[Spammer]

OOPS ok no need to reply to any of this. Have fun. This is going nowhere anyway

 

Thanks, it was a fun episode.  Thanks for the conversation. I really enjoy our dialogues.

[Spammer]

IMO good exposition of why this is going nowhere

I only give it another hundred pages or so.

But Cal has a good point. I get carried away all the time too. It's so frustrating

Outa here

 

Lol, yep.  I won't be able to last much longer.  I get sucked into these conversations so easily and I waste so much time.  They're still interesting, though. 

[Spammer]

To a thought you haven't had before?

 

I am glad that Catholicism works for you. But I can't get it to work for me.  Just too many logical problems.

 Lol, no, not new thoughts.  It's just that I can tell that without a shared definition of Infinity, the conversation will just go on and on and I'm tired.  I get too easily wrapped up in these kinds of conversations and end up wasting a lot of time, like my sons and their video games.   

[Robert F. Smith]

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'. 

It is quite true that Thomist theology is internally consistent.  The question is about the premises:  Are the basic premises true?  And in the Bible and in physics, we have a problem with Thomism not cohering with reality as we know it.  This is a problem which began in earnest with the Enlightenment, and has only gotten worse since that time.

 

As for infinity, one must confront set theory in which there is an infinity of infinite sets.  Math and logic don't bode well for traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma.

[Vance]

Free will entails the freedom to choose good and evil; the freedom to choose to obey and disobey.

That is not in dispute.

 

If God created us to be obedient, then we would be created unable to choose to be disobedient or to choose evil.

[Vance]

 Lol, no, not new thoughts.  It's just that I can tell that without a shared definition of Infinity, the conversation will just go on and on and I'm tired.  I get too easily wrapped up in these kinds of conversations and end up wasting a lot of time, like my sons and their video games.   

Well, I do have a problem with your definition of infinity.  And I think I have shown why you should rethink it.

 

Anyway, have a good night.