So lets see if we have an ineffable three dimensional picture which can describe the ineffable. One of the movements which turned Christianity into man made Christendom within society. Was the adoption of the personal Hebrew god. So I’d like to use the ONE as described by Plotinus.God, I suggest, was emergent and we need to consider what He emerged from (I think).
I'm trying but I only have one simple premise: Nothing is an impossibility.
a. The One
The 'concept' of the One is not, properly speaking, a concept at all, since it is never explicitly defined by Plotinus, yet it is nevertheless the foundation and grandest expression of his philosophy. Plotinus does make it clear that no words can do justice to the power of the One; even the name, 'the One,' is inadequate, for naming already implies discursive knowledge, and since discursive knowledge divides or separates its objects in order to make them intelligible, the One cannot be known through the process of discursive reasoning (Ennead VI.9.4). Knowledge of the One is achieved through the experience of its 'power' (dunamis) and its nature, which is to provide a 'foundation' (arkhe) and location (topos) for all existents (VI.9.6). The 'power' of the One is not a power in the sense of physical or even mental action; the power of the One, as Plotinus speaks of it, is to be understood as the only adequate description of the 'manifestation' of a supreme principle that, by its very nature, transcends all predication and discursive understanding. This 'power,' then, is capable of being experienced, or known, only through contemplation (theoria), or the purely intellectual 'vision' of the source of all things. The One transcends all beings, and is not itself a being, precisely because all beings owe their existence and subsistence to their eternal contemplation of the dynamic manifestation(s) of the One. The One can be said to be the 'source' of all existents only insofar as every existent naturally and (therefore) imperfectly contemplates the various aspects of the One, as they are extended throughout the cosmos, in the form of either sensible or intelligible objects or existents. The perfect contemplation of the One, however, must not be understood as a return to a primal source; for the One is not, strictly speaking, a source or a cause, but rather the eternally present possibility -- or active making-possible -- of all existence, of Being (V.2.1). According to Plotinus, the unmediated vision of the 'generative power' of the One, to which existents are led by the Intelligence (V.9.2), results in an ecstatic dance of inspiration, not in a satiated torpor (VI.9.; for it is the nature of the One to impart fecundity to existents -- that is to say: the One, in its regal, indifferent capacity as undiminishable potentiality of Being, permits both rapt contemplation and ecstatic, creative extension. These twin poles, this 'stanchion,' is the manifested framework of existence which the One produces, effortlessly (V.1.6). The One, itself, is best understood as the center about which the 'stanchion,' the framework of the cosmos, is erected (VI.9.. This 'stanchion' or framework is the result of the contemplative activity of the Intelligence.
From this perspective God is beyond time and space and always was. GOD and I AM. God may be complete but AM is not. Am is a necessity emerging from God but with inexactituded put into its basic laws which guarantee function of the universe is to turn in circles providing its purpose. Rather than god emerging from nothing, nothing or what we perceive as nothing, the six dimensional universe we perceive as three emerges from God..What I am thinking is that before God emerged there was no purpose.
Where god as ONE exists infinitely as ONE, God as three or the initial three forces which genertate the necessaty of I AM. GOD is “IS” one but also simultaneously EXISTS as “THREE” at a lower level of creation within the ONE
Yes, God is fundamental; Creation taking place within God at decreasing lower levels like a ladder is notOn the other hand something basic about God may have been fundamental.
But this doesn't mean that the fundamental part was purposeful but instead purpose may have evolved from the fundamental part.
Does this make sense so far?