Infinite universe/multiple 'human' like races

[NewsTheMan]

This may seem simple but bear with me:

1)We are created out of Love. Specifically, God’s love
2)God is unchanging and his love is part of this unchanging nature.
3)God doesn’t ‘need’ nor ‘lack’ anything

• Thus, in order for 2+3 to be consistent with 1 we/non-God souls would have to have been created from all time/eternity just like God.

Basically I just can’t see a way around this.

It couldn’t be that at some point in God’s existence He said “Oh man, could really use some humans now that my love overflows a bit too much”. If His love is unchanging, and He created us out of Love, we would’ve had to have been created from eternity JUST like God. Note that I am not saying we are like God, just that we as a creation.

It’s similar to the argument I’ve seen in the cosmological argument that an eternal being would have to have been intelligent in order to have created a non-eternal creation. Or something like that.

Can anyone see what I am trying to say here???

 

[JDaniel]

This may seem simple but bear with me:

1)We are created out of Love. Specifically, God’s love
2)God is unchanging and his love is part of this unchanging nature.
3)God doesn’t ‘need’ nor ‘lack’ anything

• Thus, in order for 2+3 to be consistent with 1 we/non-God souls would have to have been created from all time/eternity just like God.

Basically I just can’t see a way around this.

It couldn’t be that at some point in God’s existence He said “Oh man, could really use some humans now that my love overflows a bit too much”. If His love is unchanging, and He created us out of Love, we would’ve had to have been created from eternity JUST like God. Note that I am not saying we are like God, just that we as a creation.

It’s similar to the argument I’ve seen in the cosmological argument that an eternal being would have to have been intelligent in order to have created a non-eternal creation. Or something like that.

Can anyone see what I am trying to say here???

Happy Easter, NtM:

Great question. Yes. I said something like that in a post just the other day. It is clearly logical and ontological. The only concept that might indicate that it is not precisely so, is that we are told that God created the Angels first. First, what?

God bless,
jd

 

[Anthony_V]

This may seem simple but bear with me:

1)We are created out of Love. Specifically, God’s love
2)God is unchanging and his love is part of this unchanging nature.
3)God doesn’t ‘need’ nor ‘lack’ anything

• Thus, in order for 2+3 to be consistent with 1 we/non-God souls would have to have been created from all time/eternity just like God.

Basically I just can’t see a way around this.

It couldn’t be that at some point in God’s existence He said “Oh man, could really use some humans now that my love overflows a bit too much”. If His love is unchanging, and He created us out of Love, we would’ve had to have been created from eternity JUST like God. Note that I am not saying we are like God, just that we as a creation.

It’s similar to the argument I’ve seen in the cosmological argument that an eternal being would have to have been intelligent in order to have created a non-eternal creation. Or something like that.

Can anyone see what I am trying to say here???

We are like God in the fact that we have no end. We aren’t like God in the fact that we have a beginning. It is imperative that you remember God does not need us! He is chained to nothing. His willpower is infinite in fortitude and self-discipline. He needs no one because he is perfect on his own.

I want you to think of it this way:
All we can give is ourselves. What else is ours? What sacrifice will you make in giving what is not part of you? But that begs the question, why will you give yourself to not get anything in return? That is beauty and veneration you will never receive to your face. God is perfect, so he does not require veneration for happiness. It is a supplement to his happiness. He is SO perfect and just REAL that he can give himself and never get ANYTHING in return. That’s how he created humanity. He is just… God. When Jesus said “it is better to give than to receive”, he meant it. Because he actually DID it. His dad DID and DOES it. It’s powerful and so… real. Its just THE truth!

 

[NewsTheMan]

We are like God in the fact that we have no end. We aren’t like God in the fact that we have a beginning. It is imperative that you remember God does not need us! He is chained to nothing. His willpower is infinite in fortitude and self-discipline. He needs no one because he is perfect on his own.

With all due respect, this is in my OP and it is a part of the argument and what I am trying to understand - or should I say, reconcile.

I want you to think of it this way:
All we can give is ourselves. What else is ours? What sacrifice will you make in giving what is not part of you? But that begs the question, why will you give yourself to not get anything in return? That is beauty and veneration you will never receive to your face. God is perfect, so he does not require veneration for happiness. It is a supplement to his happiness. He is SO perfect and just REAL that he can give himself and never get ANYTHING in return. That’s how he created humanity. He is just… God. When Jesus said “it is better to give than to receive”, he meant it. Because he actually DID it. His dad DID and DOES it. It’s powerful and so… real. Its just THE truth!

A nice emotional, poetic response but irrelevant to the OP. I mean that in the nicest way possible Thanks for responding though, it is a hard question, I think anyway!

 

[NewsTheMan]

I guess there’s a bit more for me to add to get at my question.

If an eternal, perfect, needless, changeless being exists…what does he love? If we lack existence until he creates us, how can he love us? How can he feel love for the non-existent? How does he go from not-loving what is not there to loving what is there. That implies change.

Furthermore, if omnibenevolence is a relational property and it must be exemplified in order for God to have it, then humans would have to be coeternal with God, which relates to my OP and my general worry.

 

[Anthony_V]

I guess there’s a bit more for me to add to get at my question.

If an eternal, perfect, needless, changeless being exists…what does he love? If we lack existence until he creates us, how can he love us? How can he feel love for the non-existent? How does he go from not-loving what is not there to loving what is there. That implies change.

Furthermore, if omnibenevolence is a relational property and it must be exemplified in order for God to have it, then humans would have to be coeternal with God, which relates to my OP and my general worry.

It’s imperative to understand that love isn’t merely an emotion. God is not a chemical being who experiences electrode spasms and node connections, yet he can clearly still love. It’s then something deeper than that. It’s a WILLingness (note how it has to do with complete self-mastery in his perfection) to give to others. It’s not a need, but a want. A desire! So he doesn’t have to love to HAVE love. love as we know it is more an expression of love as God sees it.

 

[Katholish]

This may seem simple but bear with me:

1)We are created out of Love. Specifically, God’s love
2)God is unchanging and his love is part of this unchanging nature.
3)God doesn’t ‘need’ nor ‘lack’ anything

• Thus, in order for 2+3 to be consistent with 1 we/non-God souls would have to have been created from all time/eternity just like God.

Basically I just can’t see a way around this.

It couldn’t be that at some point in God’s existence He said “Oh man, could really use some humans now that my love overflows a bit too much”. If His love is unchanging, and He created us out of Love, we would’ve had to have been created from eternity JUST like God. Note that I am not saying we are like God, just that we as a creation.

It’s similar to the argument I’ve seen in the cosmological argument that an eternal being would have to have been intelligent in order to have created a non-eternal creation. Or something like that.

Can anyone see what I am trying to say here???

From God’s perspective, creation is an eternal act. All of God’s acts are eternal acts because He is not in time. However, from our perspective, we had a beginning in time. It would be incorrect to say that we existed in any real way before we were created, yet we can truly speak of a time before we were created.

I think the linch pin for you might be the fact that creation is not a change of any kind. It isn’t a change in teh creator, nor is it a change in the created. St. Thomas talks about this at some length in the Summa. I remember it being a critical step in answering some of my own questions, but unfortunately I do not remember everything that St. Thomas said on the issue, so I can do little more than point you in the right direction (the Prima Pars).

 

[alexaustralia]

I guess there’s a bit more for me to add to get at my question.

If an eternal, perfect, needless, changeless being exists…what does he love? If we lack existence until he creates us, how can he love us? How can he feel love for the non-existent? How does he go from not-loving what is not there to loving what is there. That implies change.

Furthermore, if omnibenevolence is a relational property and it must be exemplified in order for God to have it, then humans would have to be coeternal with God, which relates to my OP and my general worry.

I believe this is why the Trinity is essential to the essence of who God is … the Perfect love in the Person’s of the Trinity. I know is almost inconceivable for us to think of self love as the greatest kind of love there could be … but for God this is true.

So I do not think God had the necessity of creating humans … that is very similar to the argument that in order for there to be good there must be evil … hence evil must also be eternal … which I disagree with.

Cheers,

Alex