On simplicity of God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by seeds » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:42 pm

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
And I already suggested that any entity that is self-aware is subject to its own “relative” perspective of time.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:25 pm
There is a problem with being subject to time so called the origin. An entity cannot be eternal therefore it must have a beginning. This, having a beginning, is problematic in case of God.
What’s the difference between the problem of God having a beginning and that of the problem of the universe having a beginning?

Why would either one be more problematic than the other?

In other words, why would a mindless (Godless) material universe having a beginning (presumably from absolute nothingness) be any less problematic than God having a beginning (again, from absolute nothingness)?
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
Re-read my question quoted above and then tell me why God - not being subject to time - has anything to do with you taking abstract concepts such as “love” and “justice” and calling them God?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:25 pm
God cannot be two different things, love and justice, if He is not subjected to time unless you show that there is a relation between love and justice.
bahman, stop trying to twist and confuse the issue, for it was you who stated the following in your OP:
bahman wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:44 pm
God is love. God is justice.
And when I asked you...
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:52 am
Do you think that God is a conscious entity that is aware of its own “I-Am-ness”?
...you replied with this:
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:57 am
Let's assume so.
In which case, I am simply trying to get you to explain how you can take abstract (non-living/non-conscious) concepts such as “love” and “justice” (concepts that have no “I-Am-ness”) and call them “God,” which is a title for a living entity that you yourself agreed could be sentient and self-aware?
_______

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:06 pm

seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:41 pm
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:42 pm
...the universe cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.
I agree with that.
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:42 pm
This means that there is nothing before the beginning.
No, bahman.

In no way does that mean there was “nothing” prior to the beginning of our universe. That is pure guesswork on your part.
So there was something before beginning? If yes, then universe started in the earlier time. If no, there was nothing. We don't have any other option.
seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:41 pm
Furthermore, you need to stop assuming that our tiny little speck** of reality represents the full embodiment of the “ALL-THAT-IS.”

**(Our universe is indeed a “speck” in both age and size when compared to eternity and infinity. See this post here - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14919&start=570#p391098)

(Continued in next post)
_______
I think we can have a good understanding of reality.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:26 pm

seeds wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:42 pm
_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
And I already suggested that any entity that is self-aware is subject to its own “relative” perspective of time.
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:25 pm
There is a problem with being subject to time so called the origin. An entity cannot be eternal therefore it must have a beginning. This, having a beginning, is problematic in case of God.
What’s the difference between the problem of God having a beginning and that of the problem of the universe having a beginning?
What is the point of having a God if the universe can have beginning without intervention of God?
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
Why would either one be more problematic than the other?
It matters. In one hand you have a absolute intelligent agent, God, in another hand you have the dumb universe. Regardless, nothing doesn't have any causal power.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
In other words, why would a mindless (Godless) material universe having a beginning (presumably from absolute nothingness) be any less problematic than God having a beginning (again, from absolute nothingness)?
It is very unlikely.
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:47 pm
Re-read my question quoted above and then tell me why God - not being subject to time - has anything to do with you taking abstract concepts such as “love” and “justice” and calling them God?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:25 pm
God cannot be two different things, love and justice, if He is not subjected to time unless you show that there is a relation between love and justice.
bahman, stop trying to twist and confuse the issue, for it was you who stated the following in your OP:
bahman wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:44 pm
God is love. God is justice.
And when I asked you...
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:52 am
Do you think that God is a conscious entity that is aware of its own “I-Am-ness”?
...you replied with this:
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:57 am
Let's assume so.
In which case, I am simply trying to get you to explain how you can take abstract (non-living/non-conscious) concepts such as “love” and “justice” (concepts that have no “I-Am-ness”) and call them “God,” which is a title for a living entity that you yourself agreed could be sentient and self-aware?
_______
You simply cannot personify God by saying that He has attributes like Love, justice, etc. God becomes a person like us if you do so therefore there is no need to make separate category. What I said may not make sense to you if you are not familiar with Catholic teaching.

Age
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by Age » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:48 am

bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:42 pm
Well, the universe cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.
Why can the Universe not be eternal?

That would have to be shown first before one could logically conclude that the Universe had a beginning.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:48 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:42 pm
Well, the universe cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.
Why can the Universe not be eternal?

That would have to be shown first before one could logically conclude that the Universe had a beginning.
Basically you need infinite amount of waiting to reach from eternal past to now. That is impossible. Why? Consider that you reverse the time and try to reach eternal past. Eternal past stays farther no matter how far you go in past.

Age
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by Age » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:48 am
bahman wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 6:42 pm
Well, the universe cannot be eternal therefore it has a beginning.
Why can the Universe not be eternal?

That would have to be shown first before one could logically conclude that the Universe had a beginning.
Basically you need infinite amount of waiting to reach from eternal past to now.
That is if you are looking at this from the human being perspective.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm
That is impossible. Why? Consider that you reverse the time and try to reach eternal past. Eternal past stays farther no matter how far you go in past.
That is WHY this is a ridiculous way to look at this.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:48 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:48 am


Why can the Universe not be eternal?

That would have to be shown first before one could logically conclude that the Universe had a beginning.
Basically you need infinite amount of waiting to reach from eternal past to now.
That is if you are looking at this from the human being perspective.
No. It doesn't depend on human perspective.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm
That is impossible. Why? Consider that you reverse the time and try to reach eternal past. Eternal past stays farther no matter how far you go in past.
That is WHY this is a ridiculous way to look at this.
It is not ridiculous.

Age
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by Age » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:12 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:48 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm

Basically you need infinite amount of waiting to reach from eternal past to now.
That is if you are looking at this from the human being perspective.
No. It doesn't depend on human perspective.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 3:40 pm
That is impossible. Why? Consider that you reverse the time and try to reach eternal past. Eternal past stays farther no matter how far you go in past.
That is WHY this is a ridiculous way to look at this.
It is not ridiculous.
To both your responses; You do NOT appear to be at all open to any thing else, so if you say so, then that MUST be the way it is.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:18 pm

Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:12 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:48 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm

That is if you are looking at this from the human being perspective.
No. It doesn't depend on human perspective.
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:31 pm

That is WHY this is a ridiculous way to look at this.
It is not ridiculous.
To both your responses; You do NOT appear to be at all open to any thing else, so if you say so, then that MUST be the way it is.
No, I am very open to understand. Please elaborate.

Age
Posts: 3107
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by Age » Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:37 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:18 pm
Age wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:12 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 4:48 pm

No. It doesn't depend on human perspective.


It is not ridiculous.
To both your responses; You do NOT appear to be at all open to any thing else, so if you say so, then that MUST be the way it is.
No, I am very open to understand. Please elaborate.
Could it depend on human perspective?
Could it be ridiculous?

seeds
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by seeds » Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:47 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:52 am
...I am simply trying to get you to explain how you can take abstract (non-living/non-conscious) concepts such as “love” and “justice” (concepts that have no “I-Am-ness”) and call them “God,” which is a title for a living entity that you yourself agreed could be sentient and self-aware?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:26 pm
You simply cannot personify God by saying that He has attributes like Love, justice, etc. God becomes a person like us if you do so therefore there is no need to make separate category. What I said may not make sense to you if you are not familiar with Catholic teaching.
Good grief, bahman, I started out by criticizing you for conferring “Godhood” on the ideas of “love” and “justice” in your OP, and now you have somehow managed to contort that into accusing me of using the terms love and justice to personify God.

I would accuse you playing games here, but I honestly don’t think that you are purposely trying to be misleading and difficult.

Furthermore, if you are going to appeal to Catholicism to support your arguments, then realize that Catholic teachings are based upon Biblical doctrines, and Biblical doctrines insist that God created humans in his own image, and that we are the literal “offspring” of God.

In which case, it is not inconceivable that certain aspects of the human condition can be turned around and applied to God.

Therefore, it is indeed possible to personify God (i.e., liken God to us, and vice versa) in limited ways.
_______

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:10 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:47 pm
seeds wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:52 am
...I am simply trying to get you to explain how you can take abstract (non-living/non-conscious) concepts such as “love” and “justice” (concepts that have no “I-Am-ness”) and call them “God,” which is a title for a living entity that you yourself agreed could be sentient and self-aware?
bahman wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:26 pm
You simply cannot personify God by saying that He has attributes like Love, justice, etc. God becomes a person like us if you do so therefore there is no need to make separate category. What I said may not make sense to you if you are not familiar with Catholic teaching.
Good grief, bahman, I started out by criticizing you for conferring “Godhood” on the ideas of “love” and “justice” in your OP, and now you have somehow managed to contort that into accusing me of using the terms love and justice to personify God.

I would accuse you playing games here, but I honestly don’t think that you are purposely trying to be misleading and difficult.

Furthermore, if you are going to appeal to Catholicism to support your arguments, then realize that Catholic teachings are based upon Biblical doctrines, and Biblical doctrines insist that God created humans in his own image, and that we are the literal “offspring” of God.

In which case, it is not inconceivable that certain aspects of the human condition can be turned around and applied to God.

Therefore, it is indeed possible to personify God (i.e., liken God to us, and vice versa) in limited ways.
_______
What are those limited ways?

seeds
Posts: 814
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by seeds » Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:38 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:47 pm
...if you are going to appeal to Catholicism to support your arguments, then realize that Catholic teachings are based upon Biblical doctrines, and Biblical doctrines insist that God created humans in his own image, and that we are the literal “offspring” of God.

In which case, it is not inconceivable that certain aspects of the human condition can be turned around and applied to God.

Therefore, it is indeed possible to personify God (i.e., liken God to us, and vice versa) in limited ways.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:10 pm
What are those limited ways?
Sentience, self-awareness, a personal identity (i.e., an “I Am-ness”), along with the ability to reason and create, etc., etc.

And most important of all, the ability to willfully grasp the mental fabric of our own inner-being and shape it into absolutely anything imaginable.

Indeed, as you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are witnessing (from a “fetal” perspective) the extent to which that ability can be taken by a Being that, again, created us in its own image.

Simply (and metaphorically) stated, if you can just imagine the Creator of our universe as being the fully-grown “adult version” of that which we are the “offspring” of, and that we are each imbued with the same potential as our Creator, then you will understand what I am suggesting.

The title of your thread is addressing the “simplicity” of God.

Well, I propose that the truth of God...

(or at least the truth of the simplicity of our present relationship with God)

...cannot get any simpler (or any more “natural”) than in the understanding that God is literally “pregnant” with us.

It is a truth that I have loosely depicted in one of my oft used illustrations:

Image

(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and then click on the image to expand it - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... ge%207.jpg)
_______

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2314
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by bahman » Sat Jan 26, 2019 11:15 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:38 pm
seeds wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 7:47 pm
...if you are going to appeal to Catholicism to support your arguments, then realize that Catholic teachings are based upon Biblical doctrines, and Biblical doctrines insist that God created humans in his own image, and that we are the literal “offspring” of God.

In which case, it is not inconceivable that certain aspects of the human condition can be turned around and applied to God.

Therefore, it is indeed possible to personify God (i.e., liken God to us, and vice versa) in limited ways.
bahman wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:10 pm
What are those limited ways?
Sentience, self-awareness, a personal identity (i.e., an “I Am-ness”), along with the ability to reason and create, etc., etc.

And most important of all, the ability to willfully grasp the mental fabric of our own inner-being and shape it into absolutely anything imaginable.

Indeed, as you stand on the earth and look out into the universe, you are witnessing (from a “fetal” perspective) the extent to which that ability can be taken by a Being that, again, created us in its own image.

Simply (and metaphorically) stated, if you can just imagine the Creator of our universe as being the fully-grown “adult version” of that which we are the “offspring” of, and that we are each imbued with the same potential as our Creator, then you will understand what I am suggesting.

The title of your thread is addressing the “simplicity” of God.

Well, I propose that the truth of God...

(or at least the truth of the simplicity of our present relationship with God)

...cannot get any simpler (or any more “natural”) than in the understanding that God is literally “pregnant” with us.

It is a truth that I have loosely depicted in one of my oft used illustrations:

Image

(For a clearer view of the dialogue, click on the following link and then click on the image to expand it - http://www.theultimateseeds.com/Images/ ... ge%207.jpg)
_______
Interesting. Another version of God. If he could come out of nothing then everything else could come out. What is the truth?

osgart
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: On simplicity of God

Post by osgart » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:43 pm

If the universe is eternal would we have a linear progression of events that extend infinitely into the past?

The universe will simply fade from its current state, and die a certain death, yet it is here at this moment in eternity, active and alive.

What would be the previous state of the universe from the Big Bang event?

Therefore if the universe is eternal it would have infinite potentiality and an extremely higher energy momentum than it now has. It would have to be perpetual energy for the universe to be eternal. Since nothing in the universe is perpetual it almost assuredly had a beginning.

And you cant escape the linear flow of events in the universe regardless of the existence or non existence of time.

Therefore there must be an alternate reality of neverending perpetuality that is noneso like our universe. Add to that that true love is just and does no harm to innocence and nothing contradicts.

However, The present state of life in the universe is one of fleeting, desparate survival. The present universe is a junkyard compared to an ideal God, and ideal existence of a God. Life only survives off of other life coupled with fruits and vegetables; that is a brutal existential plight for life not conducive to love and justice. Why is that so?

So if there is a perpetual existence out there then good and evil always existed. And there is no ideal God of love and justice.

God would have to be a scaled down power from omniscience. And if intelligence must pre exist for any intelligence to form and become, then there must be an eternal entity with eternal life in it and no doubt it has its share of problems.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sculptor and 6 guests