God, then, God and creation!

[Linusthe2nd]

This is just my understanding. I don’t know if I can call it faith. Can you tell me what is the problem with it? I am open to discuss it with you.

Surely you have a reason for that understanding. What is that reason? You are attempting to lay out a vision of who God is, who we are, and what reality is. This is our house. You are welcome to have a vision but you have to back it up. We are Catholic here. We have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2,000 years of consistent teaching and solid Philosophical reasoning behind what our vision is. I and others have been giving it to you here and in other threads.

I would be glad to address your views after you provide me with some reasons for them besides, " …that is my understanding…" That is not a reason.

On the other hand, if you wish to question our beliefs and philosophy you have to begin by asking a specific question.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is just my understanding. I don’t know if I can call it faith. Can you tell me what is the problem with it? I am open to discuss it with you.

I will discuss it with you when you tell me how you came to hold these views. Otherwise I don’t think we have grounds for discussion.

Linus2nd

 

[Hypnotoad]

Our understanding of the absolute truth however is false if accept that the absolute truth is mysterious.

I don’t follow.

 

[Bahman]

I will discuss it with you when you tell me how you came to hold these views. Otherwise I don’t think we have grounds for discussion.

Linus2nd

The main question is what is the minimal model that could give us a better understanding of what is happening around us. There are three main facts that we could agree upon them as following: 1) Substance could be experienced by us, 2) Concepts could be deduced and concluded by experience different state of substance through a process so called creativity, 3) We are connected by substance and could have an understanding of each other through different state of substance.

In this simple picture there are two main qualities that coherently interact with each other through substance, namely Self (God) and selves (us). The main difference between the substance and self is that substance could not experience anything. The form of substance is subject of Self’s wish (with full control) and selves’ wishes (with partial control). Non of the above qualities can be studied by reductionism.

Lets start with this and see if we could go anywhere from here.

 

[Bahman]

Our understanding of the absolute truth then is false if accept that the absolute truth is mysterious.

You don’t agree with the above statement.

 

[runningdude]

To me there are only Self (God), selves (our selves), concepts and substance (illusion). Substance is illusion since it does not have self and cannot experience being. Selves are embedded into illusion to understand concept. Understating of concepts however requires a gradual (time) exposure to substance through a process which leads to construction of knowledge. To me time is an illusion as well as it existence only possible through changes in state of substance.

Self and selves are eternal and can experience different state of being through experiencing different state of substance. Concepts are known to Self and intrinsically hidden in the selves. Self has absolute power on controlling or creating the substance and partial control is granted to selves. The only way that Self and selves could interact is by substance.

To me, there is God who is paramount to the world. God experiences an “eternal now” that is intrinsic to his divine nature. Within this “now”, he created matter (ashes), and from these ashes, he created us. While our bodies and minds experience “time”, due to the relative motion of chemicals in our brains, we still exist (supported by God’s will) within the eternal now. When we die, our bodies return to ash and dust, but our souls persist, experiencing the totality of our actions and choices as a single moment.

Our immortal souls exist directly within the eternal now; choosing to love and obey God, our bodies will be raised on the last day. Should we choose sin, we remain dead, and continue on as a disembodied echo of former selves, as a direct consequence of our choices. Because our souls and bodies are both within the eternal now, though experience it differently, I disagree that there are “two states” that form an unsolvable paradox.

 

[Bahman]

To me, there is God who is paramount to the world. God experiences an “eternal now” that is intrinsic to his divine nature. Within this “now”, he created matter (ashes), and from these ashes, he created us. While our bodies and minds experience “time”, due to the relative motion of chemicals in our brains, we still exist (supported by God’s will) within the eternal now. When we die, our bodies return to ash and dust, but our souls persist, experiencing the totality of our actions and choices as a single moment.

Our immortal souls exist directly within the eternal now; choosing to love and obey God, our bodies will be raised on the last day. Should we choose sin, we remain dead, and continue on as a disembodied echo of former selves, as a direct consequence of our choices. Because our souls and bodies are both within the eternal now, though experience it differently, I disagree that there are “two states” that form an unsolvable paradox.

A part of your post is beyond the subject of this thread but lets discuss it for a moment. I have a few questions/points from/for you as following:

First, how do you define the act of creation then? There is no before and after from God point of view, in another word there should exist a state at which only God exist otherwise the act of creation is meaningless.

Second, you accept the concept of soul which I define it as self. Matter in my definition is part of substance.

Third, what is death if your soul still exist.

 

[Hypnotoad]

You don’t agree with the above statement.

I know that, what I didn’t follow was your logic. Our inability to fully comprehend something does not negate its existence or its truthfulness. When I was an infant I couldn’t comprehend the law of gravity, but this did not mean it did not exist even though it was a mystery to me.

Human beings where made to know; however, we were not made to know everything. We are living mysteries which no other person can fully comprehend, heck, we are even mysteries to ourselves and yet this does not negate the truth that we do exist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The main question is what is the minimal model that could give us a better understanding of what is happening around us. There are three main facts that we could agree upon them as following: 1) Substance could be experienced by us, 2) Concepts could be deduced and concluded by experience different state of substance through a process so called creativity, 3) We are connected by substance and could have an understanding of each other through different state of substance.

In this simple picture there are two main qualities that coherently interact with each other through substance, namely Self (God) and selves (us). The main difference between the substance and self is that substance could not experience anything. The form of substance is subject of Self’s wish (with full control) and selves’ wishes (with partial control). Non of the above qualities can be studied by reductionism.

Lets start with this and see if we could go anywhere from here.

No, I’m not agreeing to any of this. The first problem is your inability to express your thoughts clearly. This may be a language problem. Then you still have refused to explain where you got your ideas. Finally, you need to define your terms. So far you have not done that. At this point we have no common ground. But I suspect you are advocating from point of view of one of the Eastern cult religions - Hinduism or something similar, which are noted for their indistinctness.

Linus2nd

 

[runningdude]

A part of your post is beyond the subject of this thread but lets discuss it for a moment. I have a few questions/points from/for you as following:

First, how do you define the act of creation then? There is no before and after from God point of view, in another word there should exist a state at which only God exist otherwise the act of creation is meaningless.

I simply believe that the act of creation is dependent on God. God remains unchanged, except for the exceptional circumstances under which he took on a human soul and body and was born of the Virgin Mary. The Divine state is so fundamentally different from the subservient created state, that I think it is misleading to call it two different states.

The Church teaches that God the Father is ultimate source of all that is or was or will be. His son, God the Son, is equal in dignity, and of one divine substance from the father, but God the Father came infinitely before. The son was “begotten”, not “made”, meaning the Son’s shared divinity is intrinsic to the divine nature. The Holy Spirit similarly proceeds ultimately from the Father, as a necessary consequence of the divine nature. Because they all are of divine substance, “time” as we know it does not apply. They have always existed.

Creation however, was a voluntary act, exigent of God’s nature. There was no partitive to create matter or rationally beings. It occurred when God thought it was “very good” for it to occur. Since God is the underlying reality of the universe, the state of the universe simply didn’t appreciably change.

Third, what is death if your soul still exist.

Death is the destruction of the body. Humans are beings of both flesh and spirit by nature. The body and soul interact in deep and complex ways that are not necessarily detectable by scientific observation. To die, is to loose a fundamental part of one’s nature.

Second, you accept the concept of soul which I define it as self. Matter in my definition is part of substance.

Humans by this definition are both “self” and “substance” then, because the human body is constrained to the physical world, and made of physical materials, but the soul experiences the eternal now and gives the person rational agency to discern and choose good and evil. Angels, would be an example of pure “self”, because they are rational agents without physical bodies.

 

[Bahman]

The main question is what is the minimal model that could give us a better understanding of what is happening around us. There are three main facts that we could agree upon them as following: 1) Substance could be experienced by us, 2) Concepts could be deduced and concluded by experience different state of substance through a process so called creativity, 3) We are connected by substance and could have an understanding of each other through different state of substance.

Could you please tell me what is your problem with any of the above definitions? This is
just starting point and I highly hope that things become clear by time.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Re: God, then, God and creation!

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
Quote:
The main question is what is the minimal model that could give us a better understanding of what is happening around us. There are three main facts that we could agree upon them as following: 1) Substance could be experienced by us, 2) Concepts could be deduced and concluded by experience different state of substance through a process so called creativity, 3) We are connected by substance and could have an understanding of each other through different state of substance.

In this simple picture there are two main qualities that coherently interact with each other through substance, namely Self (God) and selves (us). The main difference between the substance and self is that substance could not experience anything. The form of substance is subject of Self’s wish (with full control) and selves’ wishes (with partial control). Non of the above qualities can be studied by reductionism.

Lets start with this and see if we could go anywhere from here.

No, I’m not agreeing to any of this. The first problem is your inability to express your thoughts clearly. This may be a language problem. Then you still have refused to explain where you got your ideas. Finally, you need to define your terms. So far you have not done that. At this point we have no common ground. But I suspect you are advocating from point of view of one of the Eastern cult religions - Hinduism or something similar, which are noted for their indistinctness.

Linus2nd

M. asks.
Could you please tell me what is your problem with any of the above definitions? This is
just starting point and I highly hope that things become clear by time.

---

L’s response.

I don’t know that there is any thing wrong with them. To me everything that exists is a substance of some kind. But I am separate and distinct from them all. God and Angels and man’s soul are spiritual substances. God created and sustains the universe and everything in it, but he does not mix with it. He is entirely separate from us. He guides and watches over us.

My " self " I define as the total material and spiritual composit that I am. I am myself, you are yourself and God is His-Self. He is not a part of us and we are not a part of him.

Every soul is different and distinct and determines and informas a different person or self.

When I die, my sould separates from my body and goes to a place prepared for it by God. At some future date, we don’t know when, the world will end and all deceased bodies will be reunited with their souls and live on for eternity in a state of reward and bliss or of punishment, determined by how we have lived.

I learn through information I pick up through the senses. I sort these out intellectually and judge whether or not the information is true or not.

Thomas Aquinas has a lot to say about all this.

How is that?

Linus2nd

 

[Elostirion]

It seems to me that time existing only as much as it has relation to matter and motion is quite compatible with both variants.
Also, are we to understand time as merely the passing of hours or as sequence?
It seems that the denial of sequence would deny causation (not to say that a cause and effect could not arise contemporaneously, but that one principally takes place before the other).

However, if one takes into account end or final causes towards which things act, doesn’t that imply jumping out of a sequence? Any movement then presupposes a future cause.

And now I lost where the heck I was going with any of that.

 

[Bahman]

L’s response.

I don’t know that there is any thing wrong with them. To me everything that exists is a substance of some kind. But I am separate and distinct from them all. God and Angels and man’s soul are spiritual substances. God created and sustains the universe and everything in it, but he does not mix with it. He is entirely separate from us. He guides and watches over us.

My " self " I define as the total material and spiritual composit that I am. I am myself, you are yourself and God is His-Self. He is not a part of us and we are not a part of him.

Every soul is different and distinct and determines and informas a different person or self.

When I die, my sould separates from my body and goes to a place prepared for it by God. At some future date, we don’t know when, the world will end and all deceased bodies will be reunited with their souls and live on for eternity in a state of reward and bliss or of punishment, determined by how we have lived.

I learn through information I pick up through the senses. I sort these out intellectually and judge whether or not the information is true or not.

Thomas Aquinas has a lot to say about all this.

How is that?

Linus2nd

To me soul is self and it is not substance. Substance is a quality of being like matter that can be cut to pieces and could take several forms and as a result can show different qualities/properties. Substance however does not own any consciousness. Self can experience itself (self-awareness) through self-reflection and could experience external world and other selves through substance.

My “self” I define as only self (not body and soul). Embedding self inside a form of substance can lead to different experience of external world. So to me I am only my “self” but my body as a substance allows me to experience certain quality of beings. For example I could feel like a woman if my self was embedded inside a body so called a body of woman etc.

 

[Bahman]

It seems to me that time existing only as much as it has relation to matter and motion is quite compatible with both variants.
Also, are we to understand time as merely the passing of hours or as sequence?

Yeah. That is relatively correct statement of concept of time: We understand time as merely the passing of events.

It seems that the denial of sequence would deny causation (not to say that a cause and effect could not arise contemporaneously, but that one principally takes place before the other).

True statement.

However, if one takes into account end or final causes towards which things act, doesn’t that imply jumping out of a sequence? Any movement then presupposes a future cause.

And now I lost where the heck I was going with any of that.

How do you apply this to God if God wish to cause something considering the fact that God cannot be part of its own creation, second God is in state of timeless, third God has to be part of a sequence created by itself to cause anything?

 

[runningdude]

My “self” I define as only self (not body and soul). Embedding self inside a form of substance can lead to different experience of external world. So to me I am only my “self” but my body as a substance allows me to experience certain quality of beings. For example I could feel like a woman if my self was embedded inside a body so called a body of woman etc.

You are straying outside of orthodox Catholic thought on this one. The human body, and its specific gender, are are taught be intrinsic to our human nature. There is no “self” apart from the body (which is why death is a bad thing!).

It is because our soul has a gender that our bodies have gender. Only the female soul, for instance, was given the graces to carrying a child into this world. Similarly, only the male soul was permitted to receive the graces to confect the Eucharist. Gender is thus not a mere attribute randomly assigned by genetics, but integral to the soul and identity that God gave us at our conception.

 

[runningdude]

How do you apply this to God if God wish to cause something considering the fact that God cannot be part of its own creation, second God is in state of timeless, third God has to be part of a sequence created by itself to cause anything?

I don’t think its really the case that God exists outside time and space; more that time and space exists within God. Since God always existed, his voluntary creation would mean there was, roughly put, a period before creation of a length unknowable with human senses.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

To me soul is self and it is not substance. Substance is a quality of being like matter that can be cut to pieces and could take several forms and as a result can show different qualities/properties. Substance however does not own any consciousness. Self can experience itself (self-awareness) through self-reflection and could experience external world and other selves through substance.

My “self” I define as only self (not body and soul). Embedding self inside a form of substance can lead to different experience of external world. So to me I am only my “self” but my body as a substance allows me to experience certain quality of beings. For example I could feel like a woman if my self was embedded inside a body so called a body of woman etc.

Sounds like Decartes to me. I don’t buy it. Besides the Catholic Church teaches that man is a composit of body and soul and the soul is the form of the body. It is the composit that is a person.( from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.) That’s good enough for me and I am also certain that is the way I experience myself.

Linus2nd