Something out of nothing

[STT]

God* is* cosmic force.

He’s just not only cosmic force.

Cool. I rest my case. It seems that you accept that God doesn’t have free will and that is enough for me.

 

[Wesrock]

All Catholics here agree that God has free will, STT.

 

[dshix]

I think this might be a useless discussion.

 

[STT]

All Catholics here agree that God has free will, STT.

Well, then tell me how God decides and acts in timeless state.

 

[Wesrock]

Decides what? You make it sound like there are multiple decisions at different times God should be making. You keep speaking as if God thinks dicursively and gains new knowledge over time.

 

[STT]

Decides what? You make it sound like there are multiple decisions at different times God should be making. You keep speaking as if God thinks dicursively.

We are talking about two acts of decision and creation. We are not talking about whether God think or not. Of course God does not think.

Well, you don’t want to accept the principle that decision allows act so I don’t know how to discuss with you further.

 

[Wesrock]

Lo, are they not full of their old leaven, who say to us, “What was God doing before He made heaven and earth? For if (say they) He were unemployed and wrought not, why does He not also henceforth, and for ever, as He did heretofore? For did any new motion arise in God, and a new will to make a creature, which He had never before made, how then would that be a true eternity, where there ariseth a will, which was not? For the will of God is not a creature, but before the creature; seeing nothing could be created, unless the will of the Creator had preceded. The will of God then belongeth to His very Substance. And if aught have arisen in God’s Substance, which before was not, that Substance cannot be truly called eternal. But if the will of God has been from eternity that the creature should be, why was not the creature also from eternity?”

Who speak thus, do not yet understand Thee, O Wisdom of God, Light of souls, understand not yet how the things be made, which by Thee, and in Thee are made: yet they strive to comprehend things eternal, whilst their heart fluttereth between the motions of things past and to come, and is still unstable. Who shall hold it, and fix it, that it be settled awhile, and awhile catch the glory of that everfixed Eternity, and compare it with the times which are never fixed, and see that it cannot be compared; and that a long time cannot become long, but out of many motions passing by, which cannot be prolonged altogether; but that in the Eternal nothing passeth, but the whole is present; whereas no time is all at once present: and that all time past, is driven on by time to come, and all to come followeth upon the past; and all past and to come, is created, and flows out of that which is ever present? Who shall hold the heart of man, that it may stand still, and see how eternity ever still-standing, neither past nor to come, uttereth the times past and to come? Can my hand do this, or the hand of my mouth by speech bring about a thing so great?

Nor dost Thou by time, precede time: else shouldest Thou not precede all times. But Thou precedest all things past, by the sublimity of an ever-present eternity; and surpassest all future because they are future, and when they come, they shall be past; but Thou art the Same, and Thy years fail not. Thy years neither come nor go; whereas ours both come and go, that they all may come. Thy years stand together, because they do stand; nor are departing thrust out by coming years, for they pass not away; but ours shall all be, when they shall no more be. Thy years are one day; and Thy day is not daily, but To-day, seeing Thy To-day gives not place unto to-morrow, for neither doth it replace yesterday. Thy To-day, is Eternity; therefore didst Thou beget The Coeternal, to whom Thou saidst, This day have I begotten Thee. Thou hast made all things; and before all times Thou art: neither in any time was time not.

At no time then hadst Thou not made any thing, because time itself Thou madest. And no times are coeternal with Thee, because Thou abidest; but if they abode, they should not be times. For what is time? Who can readily and briefly explain this? Who can even in thought comprehend it, so as to utter a word about it? But what in discourse do we mention more familiarly and knowingly, than time? And, we understand, when we speak of it; we understand also, when we hear it spoken of by another. What then is time? If no one asks me, I know: if I wish to explain it to one that asketh, I know not: yet I say boldly that I know, that if nothing passed away, time past were not; and if nothing were coming, a time to come were not; and if nothing were, time present were not. Those two times then, past and to come, how are they, seeing the past now is not, and that to come is not yet? But the present, should it always be present, and never pass into time past, verily it should not be time, but eternity. If time present (if it is to be time) only cometh into existence, because it passeth into time past, how can we say that either this is, whose cause of being is, that it shall not be; so, namely, that we cannot truly say that time is, but because it is tending not to be?

 

[Wesrock]

We are talking about two acts of decision and creation. We are not talking about whether God think or not. Of course God does not think.

Well, you don’t want to accept the principle that decision allows act so I don’t know how to discuss with you further.

Why do you say they are two? What God wills simply is.

 

[STT]

Why do you say they are two?

I don’t understand how that could be one. We are here so of course God created us. That is one act. The question is whether God has the ability to decide or not. Decision of course is another act if the answer to the last question is yes. So we have two separate acts. They are separate because decision allows act.

 

[goout]

Well, you don’t want to accept the principle that decision allows act so I don’t know how to discuss with you further.

BIG

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t understand how that could be one. We are here so of course God created us. That is one act. The question is whether God has the ability to decide or not. Decision of course is another act if the answer to the last question is yes. So we have two separate acts. They are separate because decision allows act.

Why is decision another act? In God, His will simply is his action. It’s not separate. Any orientation in will is simply in effect, and has been eternally, never having been otherwise. There was never a moment when His current will began to be. His will is Himself.

 

[PRmerger]

Why is decision another act? In God, His will simply is his action. It’s not separate. Any orientation in will is simply in effect, and has been eternally, never having been otherwise. There was never a moment when His current will began to be. His will is Himself.

I think what is going on here with STT is an inability to think in the abstract.

It is simply either/or thinking.

This, unfortunately, is a common paradigm that is, ironically, common among both atheists and fundamentalists.

The Bible ONLY.
English ONLY.
Latin ONLY.
King James Version of the Bible ONLY.
Science ONLY.

And: we must speak of God in anthropomorphisms ONLY.

 

[STT]

I think what is going on here with STT is an inability to think in the abstract.

It is simply either/or thinking.

This, unfortunately, is a common paradigm that is, ironically, common among both atheists and fundamentalists.

The Bible ONLY.
English ONLY.
Latin ONLY.
King James Version of the Bible ONLY.
Science ONLY.

And: we must speak of God in anthropomorphisms ONLY.

I am able to think abstract subject. I just think that the picture of timeless God is contradictory. You say that act of decision and creation can be performed in timeless state and I say no. I say that decision allows creation and you ironically say no. I don’t know how to discuss with you. At the end you call me fundamentalist!

 

[goout]

I am able to think abstract subject. I just think that the picture of timeless God is contradictory. You say that act of decision and creation can be performed in timeless state and I say no. I say that decision allows creation and you ironically say no. I don’t know how to discuss with you. At the end you call me fundamentalist!

Perhaps you can see that you have a widely divergent concept of God from the Christian concept.

Why don’t we just accept disagreement and let it go?
Maybe it would help if we knew what are you hoping to accomplish.

 

[STT]

Why don’t we just accept disagreement and let it go?

That is a good idea.

Maybe it would help if we knew what are you hoping to accomplish.

I just want to understand more and have a coherent picture of reality. That is why I came here to discuss things with you. I am discussing the same problems in another forums too.

 

[PRmerger]

That is a good idea.

I just want to understand more and have a coherent picture of reality. That is why I came here to discuss things with you. I am discussing the same problems in another forums too.

I think part of the problem is that English may not be your first language?

And this is not any indictment of you–to be able to discuss Philosophy in a language that’s not your own is admirable, but it can be tricky, too.

 

[STT]

I think part of the problem is that English may not be your first language?

And this is not any indictment of you–to be able to discuss Philosophy in a language that’s not your own is admirable, but it can be tricky, too.

Yes, English is not my first language but I can understand people well. I don’t know if they understand me well too.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, English is not my first language but I can understand people well. I don’t know if they understand me well too.

Ah.

Well, then, I see where your problem is.

Not only is English not your primary language, you have a language of theology that’s incapable of thinking in the abstract.

 

[STT]

Ah.

Well, then, I see where your problem is.

Not only is English not your primary language, you have a language of theology that’s incapable of thinking in the abstract.

I think I am capable of thinking in the abstract well. I think that the problem arises from the fact that people do not want to accept simple fact, like decision allows act, when their system of belief is threatened.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I think that the problem arises from the fact that people do not want to accept simple fact, like decision allows act, when their system of belief is threatened.

I might accept what you consider a simple fact that “decision allows act” if I knew what it means. Deciding is an act as far as I am concerned. In time, i read your post, felt your frustration and was confused, shrugged my shoulders, but having nothing else to do while drinking my coffee, then decided to respond. I’m writing, what I’m writing, reading and correcting if it doesn’t sound clear. It’s all a flow of different sort of activity. If I were to separate what is whole, I could describe this as a knower/doer who reaches out in the knowing and doing, connecting with the known/done - a sort of . . . trinity, perhaps a bit distorted by sin, but still in the image of, you know, the One who is here and everywhere. I still don’t really understand what you mean.