Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

[Linux]

Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.
2. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.
3. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite. Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.
4. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God.

 

[meltzerboy]

Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.
2. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.
3. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite. Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.
4. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God.

This sounds to me like the inverse of pantheism: instead of G-d’s existence within everything, everything exists within G-d’s mind. I don’t think the belief is in accord with the tenets of Judaism in that the separateness of G-d’s being and His creation’s being is essential. However, G-d is necessary to maintain the life and functioning of His creation, as well as understanding and loving us better than we do ourselves.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.
2. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.
3. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite. Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.
4. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God.

1. You have to prove this.
2. You have to prove this, and in what sense.
3. You have two assumptions here that have to be proven
4. You must define in what sense you mean this, you have not done so.
   Your conclusion would be false and would be untrue according to Catholic teaching and that of Thomas Aquinas.

By the way what is being ? You just admonished another poster on another thread for not knowing what being was :

" Re: How does God create “the act of existing” out of nothing?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by .-…
I’m getting there, if you can agree that act of being is not a thing, but a power or act, as .-… is explaining.

( Your response )
I don’t know what you mean by being. But If the “act of existing” is not a nature in and of itself, then we are not talking about a “power” or an act. We are talking about nothing at all. "

As far as how God interacts with His creation I refer you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you want the truth that is where you will go.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

Does anybody else want to discuss this philosophically?

 

[Trishie]

We simply wouldn’t exist unless we exist in the mind of the Creator.
As that is a simple reality, I don’t feel drawn to discuss it philosophically…though I did study philosophy at university…and remember lengthy discussions with fellow philosophy students that sometimes lasted until sunrise.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Does anybody else want to discuss this philosophically?

First of all you did not start philosophically, you started with four statements that need to be proved.

Secondly, this is a Catholic site and Catholic Philosophers and Theologians always start with the Faith and always are guided by that Faith.

If you are not Catholic, that gives you no right to object to this starting point, in the sense that the Faith is always the object of Catholic Philosophy and Theology.

Its a free world, accept this reality and stop complaining about it, if you insist on staying here.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This sounds to me like the inverse of pantheism: instead of G-d’s existence within everything, everything exists within G-d’s mind. I don’t think the belief is in accord with the tenets of Judaism in that the separateness of G-d’s being and His creation’s being is essential. However, G-d is necessary to maintain the life and functioning of His creation, as well as understanding and loving us better than we do ourselves.

Sure has a lot of holes in it. You are right, neither Judaism, nor Islam, nor any form of Christianity could accept it. Sounds like some Eastern Cult belief.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

1. You have to prove this.

Isn’t that what God is? Why do I need to prove it?

1. You have to prove this, and in what sense.

Isn’t God the first cause? Why do I need to prove it?

1. You have two assumptions here that have to be proven

No there isn’t actually. God is infinite (he has no physical extension) and therefore it follows necessarily that God permeates all things and transcends them. If that were not true then logically speaking it would mean that there is a place where Gods being is not which would in turn imply that God has limits like a physical object (has finite dimensions) Nothing can contain God. Thus there cannot be a place outside of God as that would contradict his very nature.

1. You must define in what sense you mean this, you have not done so.

Do you not know what permeated means?

Your conclusion would be false and would be untrue according to Catholic teaching and that of Thomas Aquinas.

You haven’t show that to be the case; and whether or not it would conflict against your beliefs is not a philosophical argument in-itself and is therefore irrelevant.

That is your faith based opinion. But I am here for a philosophical discussion, not a theological debate on dogma. If all Aquinas ever did was make circular arguments such as “this is against my belief and therefore the argument is false” he wouldn’t be much of a philosopher. He gave his opponents the dignity of a rational argument. Who do you think you are?

By the way what is being

If you don’t know what it means to have an act of existing I don’t think philosophy is for you.

 

[polytropos]

1. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite. Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.

What do you mean by infinite?

Also, God is omnipresent, but God is not spatial, so it does not seem clear to me about what it would mean for God’s being to be in a place or for us to be immersed in God.

1. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Even if you establish that we are “immersed in God and permeated by God,” who is a mind, I don’t think it would follow that we are in the mind of God. That would seem to conflate our spatial position with a “thought” in God’s mind. To me it seems like the “immersed in God” and “in the mind of God” do not formally use the same preposition “in.”

 

[Linux]

We simply wouldn’t exist unless we exist in the mind of the Creator.
As that is a simple reality.

Tell that to linus. He would call you an inverted pantheist.

 

[Linux]

What do you mean by infinite?

Also, God is omnipresent, but God is not spatial, so it does not seem clear to me about what it would mean for God’s being to be in a place or for us to be immersed in God.

Even if you establish that we are “immersed in God and permeated by God,” who is a mind, I don’t think it would follow that we are in the mind of God. That would seem to conflate our spatial position with a “thought” in God’s mind. To me it seems like the “immersed in God” and “in the mind of God” do not formally use the same preposition “in.”

I don’t mean “In” in a spatial sense. That is just an analogy for lack of a better word. Its like saying God is “out side of space”, but that would not mean there is a place outside space where God is. Its just an analogy.

See post 8 to see what I mean about God being infinite.

 

[Beryllos]

1. … He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.

Mind and Intellect are human terms that I believe are inadequate to describe God. We are very proud of our own powers of intellect, and so we imagine that God is intellectual, like us, only bigger: infinite intellect. No, I would say God is even more than that.

1. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.

I am not convinced of this because I am not sure what is implied by terms like “first” and “being.” For instance, how do you apply the concept of “first” (or sequence, or cause) to God who exists apart from time (since he created time)? And I have heard there are some difficulties in thinking of God as a being, as a member of the class of beings, but I do not understand this well enough to elaborate.

3 … , 4 … , Conclusion…

Can’t comment, as I do not accept #1.

 

[Linux]

Can’t comment, as I do not accept #1.

While Gods mind is not like our mind, our mind is still something analogous to God in that he has self knowledge and a will. Thus it is not an error to speak of the mind of God. But I am sure you knew that, and wasn’t just trying to be difficult for difficults sake.

 

[Beryllos]

Linux, I have just read your post #8, and I am disappointed that you take all your assumptions to be so obvious as to be beyond question. “Isn’t X so? Why do I need to prove it?” and “If you don’t know what it means to have an act of existing I don’t think philosophy is for you.” If that is your attitude, I don’t see how we can have a meaningful discussion. But I’m willing to try a little longer before I give up.

 

[Beryllos]

While Gods mind is not like our mind, our mind is still something analogous to God in that he has self knowledge and a will. Thus it is not an error to speak of the mind of God. But I am sure you knew that, and wasn’t just trying to be difficult for difficults sake.

No, I am not trying to be difficult, or to speak in riddles. I think the concept of mind/intellect is too limited, an ill-chosen model, not even analogous to God.

Please continue, but I am signing out for the night, and will not be back until tomorrow evening. God bless you all.

 

[Linux]

No, I am not trying to be difficult, or to speak in riddles. I think the concept of mind/intellect is too limited, an ill-chosen model, not even analogous to God.

Please continue, but I am signing out for the night, and will not be back until tomorrow evening. God bless you all.

Not even analogous to? Are you denying that God has a will and knowledge?

 

[Linux]

Linux, I have just read your post #8, and I am disappointed that you take all your assumptions to be so obvious as to be beyond question. “Isn’t X so? Why do I need to prove it?” and “If you don’t know what it means to have an act of existing I don’t think philosophy is for you.” If that is your attitude, I don’t see how we can have a meaningful discussion. But I’m willing to try a little longer before I give up.

Well first of all. I thought Catholics believed already that God had a will, knowledge, and therefore a mind (even if we are talking about something transcendent of what we can comprehend). The premise is made with that assumption. Its not uncommon for Catholic philosophers including Aquinas to speak of God as an unmoved mover or a first cause. Its got nothing to with time or spatial relations. Its simply to signify that God is the Ultimate cause of things. The second premise is made with the assumption that this is in fact what Catholics believe God to be. And then I move on to show the logical consequences of those beliefs (like it or not).

Are you denying that God is these things (The first cause/ has self-knowledge)

It just doesn’t make sense for someone to come along and say prove your description of God, unless it is evident that my description is not true of the Catholic concept of God.

If an atheist came alone and said “God is by definition perfectly good”, you wouldn’t turn around say “prove it”. That just doesn’t make any rational sense. Only someone who doesn’t really understand philosophy would do that; or someone who is so desperate to avoid the conclusion of the argument they will do anything to make the process more difficult than it has to be.

I really hope that you and Linus are not those kinds of people, because it isn’t charitable.

 

[openmind77]

Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

I’m not entirely sure what that would mean for creation, and I am hesitant to agree, but I can see the reasoning behind such a concept, and I would like to discuss it further before I agree or disagree with the idea…

1. God is not a giant man. He does not have a body. He is an Infinite Mind or intellect.
2. God is the first cause and therefore the first being.
3. Anything that begins to exist, cannot exist “outside” of God precisely because God is infinite. Thus it cannot be said that there is an existing place where Gods being is not. We are immersed in God and permeated by God.
4. In respect of premise 1, we are therefore permeated by and immersed within Gods mind or intellect since there is nothing outside of Gods mind or intellect.

Conclusion: Therefore we move and have our being inside the mind of God.

As far as Hinduism is concerned we do indeed exist inside God - whether it is the Mind or any other part of God it is not possible to say. This God is impersonal, infinite, unknowable and eternal (so we can not even call it the first cause - it always existed). All the other multiple personal Gods that we worship also exist within this impersonal One. This is panentheism

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Isn’t that what God is? Why do I need to prove it?

If you are setting up a proof for your conclusion, Yes, you have to prove it.

Isn’t God the first cause? Why do I need to prove it?

Ditto, my first comment

No there isn’t actually. God is infinite (he has no physical extension) and therefore it follows necessarily that God permeates all things and transcends them. If that were not true then logically speaking it would mean that there is a place where Gods being is not which would in turn imply that God has limits like a physical object (has finite dimensions) Nothing can contain God. Thus there cannot be a place outside of God as that would contradict his very nature.

Again, if you are trying to prove something, you have to prove these statements, you can’t just make statements.

Do you not know what permeated means?

Of course. But you still have to define exactly how you mean that. You should have added a caveat. For example, you should have said, " …such that the Being of God does not mix with the our being or …such that the Being of God mixes with our being. "

You haven’t show that to be the case; and whether or not it would conflict against your beliefs is not a philosophical argument in-itself and is therefore irrelevant.

It is relevant to every Catholic, layman, philosopher, theologian alike

That is your faith based opinion. But I am here for a philosophical discussion, not a theological debate on dogma. If all Aquinas ever did was make circular arguments such as “this is against my belief and therefore the argument is false” he wouldn’t be much of a philosopher. He gave his opponents the dignity of a rational argument. Who do you think you are?

You are welcome to your opinion. First, you have made no argument, you have made statements. You should have said. " If 1, 2, 3, and 4 are true, wouldn’t the conclusion be true? And my last statement simply is to remind you that this site is guided by Catholic beliefs and teaching, whether or not that pleases you…

If you don’t know what it means to have an act of existing I don’t think philosophy is for you.

Read my post again. You are the one who chided another poster by asking what it meant. It is only fair to ask if you yourself knew what it meant. And, yes, I do know.

Thomas would say.
Since we have established that God is Infinite and is the First Cause, He is present by His substance whever He acts, wherever His causality is active. But He is not present in a place after the manner of created beings. For while He is present, His Being does not mix with our being. His presence is like the presence of a cause that is contact with that which it causes. So our being is still outside the Being or Intellect of God.

It is because the above is true that the Prophet said, " In Him we live, and move, and have our being. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well first of all. I thought Catholics believed already that God had a will, knowledge, and therefore a mind (even if we are talking about something transcendent of what we can comprehend). The premise is made with that assumption. Its not uncommon for Catholic philosophers including Aquinas to speak of God as an unmoved mover or a first cause. Its got nothing to with time or spatial relations. Its simply to signify that God is the Ultimate cause of things. The second premise is made with the assumption that this is in fact what Catholics believe God to be. And then I move on to show the logical consequences of those beliefs (like it or not).

Did you read my response, I think you are so quick to respond that you don’t really think about what someone says. In regards to the above, Catholics would agree ( though I always stand to be corrected for minor errors or misstatements of fact ). Where I disagree is that you formed any kind of argument. You should have stated your intention to do so right up front. It sounded to me like you were just asking for opinions.

Are you denying that God is these things (The first cause/ has self-knowledge)

Catholics would agee that God is the Infinite, Perfect, Eternal, Spirit/Being, Whose Being is One with an All Knowing Intellect and Will ( for starters ).

It just doesn’t make sense for someone to come along and say prove your description of God, unless it is evident that my description is not true of the Catholic concept of God.

That is true. But part of the problem is the way you approach your position, the way you express it. You attempt to bowl over people before you get started.

If an atheist came alone and said “God is by definition perfectly good”, you wouldn’t turn around say “prove it”. That just doesn’t make any rational sense. Only someone who doesn’t really understand philosophy would do that; or someone who is so desperate to avoid the conclusion of the argument they will do anything to make the process more difficult than it has to be.

And this is another problem. You always assume the worst in anyone who disagrees with you. You don’t attempt to understand them, you just blast away.

I really hope that you and Linus are not those kinds of people, because it isn’t charitable.

Yes, we admit we are great sinners. That fact cannot be denied. And that means we can be very uncharitable and are so at times.

In your response to me, you changed one of your comments to make it more acceptable.

In post 8 you said, " No there isn’t actually. God is infinite (he has no physical extension) and therefore it follows necessarily that God permeates all things and transcends them. If that were not true then logically speaking it would mean that there is a place where Gods being is not which would in turn imply that God has limits like a physical object (has finite dimensions) Nothing can contain God. Thus there cannot be a place outside of God as that would contradict his very nature. "

Fine, why didn’t you say that in the first place! It still needs some refinement, but you are getting close. Read the conclusion of my response. You must state that God’s nature never mixes with the natures or beings of His creatrues, nor theirs with His. The two beings are absolutely separate at all times because the Being of God transcends the being of creatures. He is with us, He surrounds us, He surrounds ever bit of His creation, but does not **mix /B] with it in any way.

Linus2nd**