Actually there is one solution for this: God exists in one perfect moment, the Eternal Now.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Revelation 22:13
If God sustains everything, then God changes, because God is no longer sustaining things that have changed. Did God sustain the Colossus of Rhodes? Is God currently sustaining the Colossus of Rhodes? God must have changed from sustaining to not-sustaining.
Ah, but you forget also one more thing about God: He is Omnipotent, i.e. He is infinitely powerful.
Can you prove that? God is powerful enough to create one universe. We have no evidence that He is powerful enough to create two universes. I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible that He claims to have created more than one universe.
Yes. Try Aleph-0, Aleph-1, Aleph-2 and the various Aleph numbers.
Is God currently sustaining the Colossus of Rhodes? Can we go and see it today? At least part of God has changed.
As St. Augustine once remarked, the Scriptures are all about how to go to Heaven, not about how the heavens go.
And thank you for dashing your own argument. We were talking about God and using mathematics as an allegory, not mathematics itself.
As said before, Pantheism is false. This universe may be sustained by God, but He is not of this universe. This world is not made of God; God was made by God. You change anything in this world, you change that thing, not God. Which further throws off your conclusions about God, rossum.
You were the one who introduced mathematics, not me.
We can see that the universe changes. Hence, anything which sustains the universe also changes. An unchanging God cannot change, obviously. Hence an unchanging God is extremely constrained in what He can do: “On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day …”
And hence, I can stop it anytime whenever the idea being conveyed is being constrained by the weaknesses of the allegory itself.
And again you forget: God is omnipotent. He can do anything and not change anything about Himself, because He is Power Himself.
You are incorrect. God cannot do anything. He cannot ever learn anything new, because He is omniscient so He already knows it.
Thanks Kate(name removed by moderator) - it’s good to hear from you again! I hop you and your family have a wonderful Christmas!Sufjon: Or, if we see clearly, we might find ourselves astonished that the world is great beyond all of our expectations, because it emanates from a Creator that is wonderful beyond all imagination. A world that is ugly and bad is not created by a good and wonderful God, therefore, one who sees a world that is ugly and full of unhappiness must indeed be a person who is improperly tuned in
This is a beautiful statement Sufjon!
rossum,
Perhaps we should repeal the laws against arson and vandalism? When someone burns down a church they are not actually destroying any of the atoms that make up the church, so they have not really committed a crime?
YOU and I are not of this world. We are simply passing through it.
I was simply responding to what you said. You are the one suggesting it is “all about” the person viewing the world, not me. I am resisting your idea that it is all about the self, or the person looking at the world, that determines ultimate reality. That is your claim amiga not mine.
Hi Lisa: You haven’t really understood anything I’ve said, because you keep confusing Lisa and Sufjon for our “selves.” We are infinitely more than Lisa or Sufjon. However, I have learned that there are times when covering the same ground more than once is futile. My sense is that this is one of those times. In other words, I can intuit from where we are in the discussion that you are not going to understand what I’m saying, so it’s best to leave you with the conclusions you’ve already come to. I think I mentioned before that I’m not here to change what you think.
What conclusion have I come to? And what is it I do not understand?
Hi Lisa: I understand what you’re saying. You were saying that I had asserted that we create the world around us, and my assumption is that this is through our own will. To some extent that is true, but there are significant limits to our ability to do that. Moreover, I was talking more about what one choses to see in the world around us. Do we see the ugliness and suffering that is attended by a view that is based on sense perception, or do we see the transcendent beauty that is inherent within and without. These perceptions have an impact on our actions and the outcomes. While it can’t be denied that a correlation exists between conscious observation and what potentials collapse into realities, I think for the most part, these realities are determined by a much larger consciousness that is transpersonal, universal and shared. It is not to be confused with sentience which is day to day sensory experience and thought, which are only instruments of experience, and there is where I don’t think you are following my point. It’s quite alright to disagree with it, but from your replies I still don’t think you are getting at the core of what I’m talking about. If you do follow what I’m saying and you disagree, then I’m happy to leave it that way.What conclusion have I come to? And what is it I do not understand?
I asked you if you understood what I was saying, and you chose not to repeat back to me what it is I’m saying.
What is trans personal, universal consciousness? And how does it relate to sensory experience?