Does God suffer from Loneliness?

[SeekerOfTruth7]

These have all been disproven, both scientifically and philosophically. Further, they imply a cause, not a god - and certainly not the Christian God.

They have not been disproven whatsoever. You are merely asserting(which you seem to do quite a bit). There have been many attempts to disprove them but I think all the attempts I’ve read fall flat or argue strawmen.
And fair point, they don’t prove the Christian God (Hey another thing we agree on!) But that wasn’t Aquinas intention, merely to prove a First Mover, Efficient Cause, Necessary Being, etc. He later goes on in the Summa to prove the Christian God. Give it a read if you have the time.

it does not in any way imply a omniscient or omnipotent being. In fact, it actually rejects an omnipotent being because the universe is FINITE.

This is the building fallacy. Please read http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1025.htm. Thank you

Why does the first cause have to be perfect?

As I said above:

Now [God] is the first principle, not [material], but in the order of efficient [cause], which must be most perfect. For just as [matter], as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most [actual], and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of [actuality], because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.

But my God can logically exist and is consistent, yours cannot.

Mere assertion. Saying mine is not consistent and logical is akin to saying the Catholic Church’s God is not logical. I am merely arguing Classical Theism. Which I think if it was illogical and inconsistent then intellectuals would have disproved it long ago. But they haven’t. Which in the end, you don’t care about.

Consider - will God end the world tomorrow? Yes or no? If there IS an answer (regardless of what it is) - God is shackled, he MUST follow through one way or the other. Is that something you want to concede? God NECESSARILY must do as the counterfactual states. No theist would agree to that.

Ridiculous argument. God will decide which He decides to do. That is what makes it a counterfactual. Come on, you can do better. The decision to make the choice is what makes it a counterfactual choice, but God makes the decision.

“The first cause is immensely powerful” or similar things (which also is not true, as for example, a butterfly can start an avalanche) - but no one can claim the first cause is omnipotent. Nor can they claim it is omniscient. It is nothing more than a cause, an event, a trigger.

You misunderstand the five ways. Please reread them

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Here is a good read that I would like for you to read and give me your thoughts on:

Middle Knowledge, Truth-Makers, and the “Grounding Objection” | Scholarly Writings | Reasonable Faith

WLC says it much better than myself.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I said that the cosmological argument does not prove it is.

Nope reread your arguement

it actually rejects an omnipotent being because the universe is FINITE.

I never said God’s power was not infinite

This is omnipotence. That God’s power is unlimited and infinite. So you do agree that His power is infinite. Here is Aquinas reference to God being infinite, which leads straight back to the five ways: active power exists in God according to the measure in which He is actual. Now His existence is infinite, inasmuch as it is not limited by anything that receives it, as is clear from what has been said, when we discussed the infinity of the divine essence (I:7:1). Do a little more reading before just clicking over to the debate.

That can apply to nearly anything.

Wrong. Prove your assertion.

Ontological arguments are easily dismissed. I could just as easily claim that which is LAST must be perfect, because it is last.

Prove the assertion that ontological arguments can be easily dismissed. And prove that it can be applied to the last? If the last is caused, then it cannot according to the five ways. You must prove the last must not be caused then you can possibly make your case.

Your own words betray your position.

Your understanding betrays yours.

You yourself agreed that the five ways don’t prove God’s existence

They prove the first efficient cause, first mover, necessary cause and so on. Please READ them instead of just assuming what they prove.

But even if it were true, as I have stated, the first cause could be anything - an event, a trigger, multiple ‘causes’, and so forth. Why, for example, could the “first efficient cause” simply be a random fluctuation that exceeds a threshold initiating a massive cascade of energy expansion?

Read the five ways and you’ll understand. In fact, read the rest of what Aquinas wrote and then you’ll understand. Thank you

If a theologian knew what we know now, the five ways would never be proposed.

Wrong.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Please do as WLC asked:

if you are going to say counter-factuals have no truth value, you need to have an objective theory of truth behind it. How so are these statements truthless? What is truth?

Grounding theory has no objective theory of truth. If you really paid attention you would have inferred that from WLC article. But I will admit, this is not my specialty. I still have more research and study to do. thank you for the dialogue. You have actually furthered my belief in Divine Simplicity so much! And have given much to think of in regards to truth. I still agree with Molinism and don’t see a better explanation (your argument of God not knowing the future at all is ridiculous and heresy, so that doesn’t answer anything). And have even further increased my opinion of the five ways, for you do what most deniers of the five ways do, ASSERT ASSERT ASSERT, and argue strawmen.
But thank you for the intellectual dialogue.

God Bless and the peace of Christ be with you

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I wil repeat what I said last:

. I still agree with Molinism and don’t see a better explanation (your argument of God not knowing the future at all is ridiculous and heresy, so that doesn’t answer anything). And have even further increased my opinion of the five ways, for you do what most deniers of the five ways do, ASSERT ASSERT ASSERT, and argue strawmen.
But thank you for the intellectual dialogue.

God Bless and the peace of Christ be with you

 

[mary15]

1 Corinthians 13:12

For now we see through a glass darkly; but then, face to face:

now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Amen!

God Bless

 

[psrojas]

If I am not mistaken: If He suffered from loneliness, then he wouldn’t be God.

God created us to love us, since love is a two way thing, and He is all-loving. Why he created us? For love and to share His glory.

 

[mary15]

share His glory.

He needed others

because He needed to share His glory

otherwise, He would be all alone in His glory

This connotates need on the part of God

Maybe we can make a discussion on this topic forever and never all agree

Because we just have to accept some things on faith

Its a mystery.

One day, when we are face to face, then we will know

Let’s look forwards with trust to that day He is preparing for us

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[EndTimes]

Whatever… Things are what they are…

The Triune God who always Knows Eternity is nothing less than LOVE ITSELF

does not and never has suffered from Loneliness

_

 

[Inquiry]

Did you think I was saying He did?

 

[EndTimes]

Did you think I was saying He did?

No. What makes you think that I might have?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s really sad to see all the responses in this thread which cannot see the charity on the OP, but instead see an error in the OP’s perception of God. Especially sad to see posters piling on, saying the same thing that’s been said 100 times already in this thread. Just shows me the lack of warmth and charity among members here. No surprise though, given the circumstances of the average member.

To the OP’s question though - yes Jesus was surely lonely at times, and yes Jesus is God. No, there’s nothing wrong with the idea of empathizing with God’s loneliness in order to know and love him better.

This thread should have died some time ago. There really isn’t anything productive happening in this thread except the self-righteous “corrections” of wannabe apologist who lack any insight into the heart. That’s the same kind of self-righteousness that Jesus had to deal with, charity abandoned in favor of “being right” - which is the only thing a heartless person has to cling to.

Now, the OP wanted to empathize with God’s loneliness. She has now been given her wish to experience the same kind of frustration that Jesus did. The Lord indeed works in mysterious ways. The Lord knows His, and His always wish to know the Lord better. To the OP, you are truly blessed!

 

[mary15]

Philosophical discourse is the presentation of many different sides of a query for discussion.

This has been a very enjoyable discussion with many different points and arguments.

Thanks so much for sharing your views.

God bless you.

 

[mary15]

The Lord knows His, and His always wish to know the Lord better. To the OP, you are truly blessed!

Thank you so much. I am seeking HIs face, and love HIm so much.

Bless your heart.

 

[mary15]

No, there’s nothing wrong with the idea of empathizing with God’s loneliness in order to know and love him better.

Yes, thank you that is whats in my heart of hearts. To know HIm better, to emphathize and to draw close to His cross.

 

[mary15]

God created us because he is goodness itself, and goodness desires to give of itself to others. And so he gave being to us out of love, which is to will the good of another.

Thank you, Father.

God is love