Do We Exist in the Mind of God?

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

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 ).

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.

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.

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.

And I should have added, we could never agree to this :

" 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. "

All created creatures exist outside the mind or intellect of God. God of course knows all His creatures. He knows them in two ways, as creatures He created and as Ideas existing in the Divine Intellect.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

And I should have added, we could never agree to this :

" 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. "

All created creatures exist outside the mind or intellect of God. God of course knows all His creatures. He knows them in two ways, as creatures He created and as Ideas existing in the Divine Intellect.

Linus2nd

Linus, I really don’t care if you can agree with something or not. This is a philosophical debate, and asserting logical error is not proof of logical error. Its absolutely ridiculous to say that I must make it clear that I am not arguing for pantheism.

You should go and see the thread about Circular arguments.

 

[Linux]

.
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.

You are a hypocrite, that’s what you have been doing with your patronising attitude all along.

 

[Beryllos]

Interesting phrase in today’s second reading (Col 1:15-20) relates to this thread:

…in him all things hold together.

Peace

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, I really don’t care if you can agree with something or not. This is a philosophical debate, and asserting logical error is not proof of logical error. Its absolutely ridiculous to say that I must make it clear that I am not arguing for pantheism.

You should go and see the thread about Circular arguments.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are creatures of God’s creation, that makes our existence outside the mind of God. But of course He knows us in the Divine Intellect, He also knows the Ideas He has of us in His Intellect. So all Catholics must believe God created the heavens and the earth and all the creatures in them and that they are absolutely other than God and that He is absolutely transcendent to all that He created.

These truths must guide all philosopical, theological discussion on these issues. I don’t think I said that you must make it clear that you are not arguing for pantheism. I said that anyone on this Catholic site must be aware that anything like pantheism is opposed to Catholic teaching, and that any one on this site has the right to point that out at any time it appears that a contributor is doing just that. Or any time any one is attempting to insert ideas that are contrary to Catholic teaching.

Your argument about circular arguments is off point. It doesn’t apply here. I have not used that kind of argument. It is just a smoke screen you are using to deflect real problems with your " argument. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

The Catholic Church teaches that we are creatures of God’s creation, that makes our existence outside the mind of God. But of course He knows us in the Divine Intellect, He also knows the Ideas He has of us in His Intellect. So all Catholics must believe God created the heavens and the earth and all the creatures in them and that they are absolutely other than God and that He is absolutely transcendent to all that He created.

These truths must guide all philosopical, theological discussion on these issues. I don’t think I said that you must make it clear that you are not arguing for pantheism. I said that anyone on this Catholic site must be aware that anything like pantheism is opposed to Catholic teaching, and that any one on this site has the right to point that out at any time it appears that a contributor is doing just that. Or any time any one is attempting to insert ideas that are contrary to Catholic teaching.

Your argument about circular arguments is off point. It doesn’t apply here. I have not used that kind of argument. It is just a smoke screen you are using to deflect real problems with your " argument. "

Linus2nd

You are making circular arguments, red herrings, Ad hominem attacks and strawmen. You are accusing me of heresy in order to avoid engaging in a true philosophical discussion or engaging seriously with the logical arguments I have made. In other-words its cop-out.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You are making circular arguments red herrings and strawmen. You are accusing me of heresy in order to avoid engaging in a true philosophical discussion or engaging seriously with the logical arguments I have made. In other-words its cop-out.

You could try defending your thesis and you could try answering my objections.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

You could try defending your thesis and you could try answering my objections.

Linus2nd

I have defended my thesis thoroughly in all my debates. You have made no rational objections: you have only made a straw-man of what I have argued and called it heresy. I am not interested in straw-men or a theological debate. I am not interested in your red herrings or your Ad hominem attacks.

 

[livingwordunity]

The idea of all things existing in the Mind of God would contradict the Church teaching on how people in Hell are eternally separated from God. So I think this inverse of pantheism is also a heresy.

 

[Linux]

The idea of all things existing in the Mind of God would contradict the Church teaching on how people in Hell are eternally separated from God. So I think this inverse of pantheism, although an interesting idea, is also a heresy.

Loooool

What do you mean by eternally separated? Are you saying that hell is a place where Gods being is not? That is heresy. God’s being permeates everything that exists and is present to everything that exists. So your understanding of hell is obviously flawed. Secondly you are asserting that I have argued for pantheism, that Gods mind is identical with creation; which I evidently did not.

You cannot just assert that accusation of heresy. This is not a theological debate; its a philosophical debate.

 

[meltzerboy]

The idea of all things existing in the Mind of God would contradict the Church teaching on how people in Hell are eternally separated from God. So I think this inverse of pantheism is also a heresy.

Certainly when “holy” refers to G-d, there is separateness. When holy refers to humans, I’m not sure. Holy people may be “closer” to G-d in a way, but not completely apart from less holy people since all are subject to sinful behavior and repentance so long as they are still living on earth. When holy refers to non-human things, such as religious objects and events, yes in one sense but no in another (at least according to certain movements within Judaism) in that mundane objects and experiences may attain a level of holiness and spirituality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Loooool

What do you mean by eternally separated? Are you saying that hell is a place where Gods being is not? That is heresy. God’s being permeates everything that exists and is present to everything that exists. So your understanding of hell is obviously flawed. Secondly you are asserting that I have argued for pantheism, that Gods mind is identical with creation; which I evidently did not.

You cannot just assert that accusation of heresy. This is not a theological debate; its a philosophical debate.

You are mixing apples and oranges. As I explained above God certainly is present to all His creation, even to the creatures in Hell, but His Being and the being of His creatures are two different realities and not mixed in any way. He is present to His creatures by His Substance as the cause of something must be immediately present to its effect. But that is not to suggest that some how the nature of creatures is some how mixed with the nature of God or that creatures exist in the mind of God.

But of course God knows His creatures and He has Ideas of His creatures in His Intellect.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

You are mixing apples and oranges. As I explained above God certainly is present to all His creation, even to the creatures in Hell, but His Being and the being of His creatures are two different realities and not mixed in any way.

I never argued that the two natures where identical. Straw-man.

He is present to His creatures by His Substance as the cause of something must be immediately present to its effect. But that is not to suggest that some how the nature of creatures is some how mixed with the nature of God or that creatures exist in the mind of God.

Arguing that Gods nature and our nature is not identical does not prohibit the idea that we have our being in the mind of God; at least, nothing you have said has prohibited that possibility…

 

[meltzerboy]

Some of my ideas about G-d have changed since seeing the film “Oh, G-d!” played by George Burns, yesterday on PBS, which I had first seen when it came out in the 1970’s. But not the spiritual separateness of G-d from His creation! Burns makes that clear.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I never argued that the two natures where identical. Straw-man.

Arguing that Gods nature and our nature is not identical does not prohibit the idea that we have our being in the mind of God; at least, nothing you have said has prohibited that possibility…

I disagree, God is Spirit, we are material beings. Can material beings exist in a spiritual being? Why not say an apple exists in an orange? You are mixing apples and oranges.

And of course such an idea would be contrary to Catholic teaching and the Scriptures.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

I disagree, God is Spirit, we are material beings. Can material beings exist in a spiritual being? Why not say an apple exists in an orange? You are mixing apples and oranges.

Why should I agree that an apple existing in an orange is the same thing as a being existing in the mind of God? You are once again just asserting that there is a problem

And of course such an idea would be contrary to Catholic teaching and the Scriptures.

Once again you haven’t proven this to be the case.

In any case My logical argument stands just the same.

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 or displace him. Thus there cannot be a place outside of God as that would contradict his very nature.

 

[Linux]

Paul Before the Areopagus
…27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 29For as much then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like to gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. …

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Linux,

I do think this is an interesting analogy as long as we understand its limitations as an analogy.

The three -isms that have classically been proposed as describing God’s relationship with creation can be put into perspective to some extent with this idea of the “mind” of God.

Deism completely separates and detaches creation from God as if creation is a mechanical device God created at one time and disposed of it to let it fend for itself.

Pantheism views God as nothing but the universe. That if you described the complete cosmos you have described essentially what God is.

I think this view of creation as “a thought” of God is not as averse to the views of many classical theists as a few other posters on this thread have been led to believe. I also do not believe Aquinas would be a vociferous opponent of this view, either. However, it is important to keep in mind that as an analogy, it can be limited but helpful.

It does retain the intimate and personal connection between God and creation that theism holds to be important. How much more intimate can God be with creation than “thinking it” into existence? It also reflects the utter and total dependence of creation upon God to keep it in existence at every moment in time. God stops thinking of creation and creation ceases to exist. This reminds me of much of what Aquinas refers to as God being pure act and created things having potential until actualized by God.

To set your mind at ease in terms of this idea being contrary to traditional Catholicism, I recall Fr. Barron somewhere in the Catholicism series depicting the traditional view of God in similar terms. I will post a link or reference when I find it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I never argued that the two natures where identical. Straw-man.

And I never said you did. You said creatures exist in the mind of God. And I said you cannot mix these two natures. That is contray to reason and to the teachings of the Catholic Church, both of which I have explained.

Arguing that Gods nature and our nature is not identical does not prohibit the idea that we have our being in the mind of God; at least, nothing you have said has prohibited that possibility…

It does to me. And I pointed out to you that it is contrary to the teaching of the Church, so it cannot be held. Catholics cannot hold that view.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linux,

I do think this is an interesting analogy as long as we understand its limitations as an analogy.

The three -isms that have classically been proposed as describing God’s relationship with creation can be put into perspective to some extent with this idea of the “mind” of God.

Deism completely separates and detaches creation from God as if creation is a mechanical device God created at one time and disposed of it to let it fend for itself.

Pantheism views God as nothing but the universe. That if you described the complete cosmos you have described essentially what God is.

I think this view of creation as “a thought” of God is not as averse to the views of many classical theists as a few other posters on this thread have been led to believe. I also do not believe Aquinas would be a vociferous opponent of this view, either. However, it is important to keep in mind that as an analogy, it can be limited but helpful.

It does retain the intimate and personal connection between God and creation that theism holds to be important. How much more intimate can God be with creation than “thinking it” into existence? It also reflects the utter and total dependence of creation upon God to keep it in existence at every moment in time. God stops thinking of creation and creation ceases to exist. This reminds me of much of what Aquinas refers to as God being pure act and created things having potential until actualized by God.

To set your mind at ease in terms of this idea being contrary to traditional Catholicism, I recall Fr. Barron somewhere in the Catholicism series depicting the traditional view of God in similar terms. I will post a link or reference when I find it.

Catholics cannot believe that they exist in the Mind of God, they may believe that God knows them and that He has Ideas of them in His mind. That is the wrong interpretation of the teaching that God works innermostly in all His creation.

And Thomas Aquinas would certainly disagree with you. I can find the sources if you insist. But I would think you would look them up yourself. They are in Part 1 of the S.T. Thomas explains clearly that God’s presence is not to be thought of as being mixedwith the being of His creatures.

Yes, and I would also like to see that link. Linux is speaking in terms of ontological realities. He was not speaking in terms of Mystical metaphors. Two entirely different things.

Linus2nd