The properties of God.

[greylorn]

What properties or characteristics are required by an entity capable of creating the physical universe?

Prospective posters to this thread might kindly note that this is not a request for more reiterations of a catechism or quotes from the Bible. That is why it is posted in the philosophy section. It is an opportunity to consider the necessary and sufficient (i.e. minimum) properties of our Creator in the context of modern knowledge about how the universe works.

 

[Detales]

Whew! what a relief. I though you were going to launch into a treaties on Church real estate. Perhaps in another thread?

I would say as a first chip on the table that ALLness is the sole/soul prerequisite. The Universe, this, any, or all of them, then is not a Creation apart from God, but God appearing, as Creation, to discover Allness experientially. Such a proposition might eliminate the bickering about creationism and ID nonsense. It is also utterly elegant and Self sustaining. It then allows the idea of us being made in the image and likeness of God, and the exploration thereof, to be the fulfillment of Know ThySelf. this makes for a salvific picture that bypasses all of the silliness of necessitating a single Saviour for all mankind, not to mention whoever else is out there, because then they are already in the same hierarchy of self knowledge we are. That way we don’t have to have Jesus re-incarnating on other planets, or multiples of Jesus, etc. It is simply the most elegant solution. Think of all the inter/intra-faith bickering that could be bypassed!

 

[passus]

What properties or characteristics are required by an entity capable of creating the physical universe?

Prospective posters to this thread might kindly note that this is not a request for more reiterations of a catechism or quotes from the Bible. That is why it is posted in the philosophy section. It is an opportunity to consider the necessary and sufficient (i.e. minimum) properties of our Creator in the context of modern knowledge about how the universe works.

Define “creating.”

The role of the “creator,” depending on how you define the word, can be at its least the force or motion which sets into motion another motion or force, and so on. In other words, the first first domino to tip in the lineup or maybe the force to tip the first domino.

Most fundamentally speaking, existence is the only property an entity capable of “creating the physical universe” would need.

 

[tonyrey]

Define “creating.”

The role of the “creator,” depending on how you define the word, can be at its least the force or motion which sets into motion another motion or force, and so on. In other words, the first first domino to tip in the lineup or maybe the force to tip the first domino.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What properties or characteristics are required by an entity capable of creating the physical universe?

Prospective posters to this thread might kindly note that this is not a request for more reiterations of a catechism or quotes from the Bible. That is why it is posted in the philosophy section. It is an opportunity to consider the necessary and sufficient (i.e. minimum) properties of our Creator in the context of modern knowledge about how the universe works.

G-d as first cause is the maximal state of being, actus purus, infering then the maximal qualities, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.

 

[1holycatholic]

I would say as a first chip on the table that ALLness is the sole/soul prerequisite. The Universe, this, any, or all of them, then is not a Creation apart from God, but God appearing, as Creation, to discover Allness experientially. Such a proposition might eliminate the bickering about creationism and ID nonsense. It is also utterly elegant and Self sustaining. It then allows the idea of us being made in the image and likeness of God, and the exploration thereof, to be the fulfillment of Know ThySelf. this makes for a salvific picture that bypasses all of the silliness of necessitating a single Saviour for all mankind, not to mention whoever else is out there, because then they are already in the same hierarchy of self knowledge we are. That way we don’t have to have Jesus re-incarnating on other planets, or multiples of Jesus, etc. It is simply the most elegant solution. Think of all the inter/intra-faith bickering that could be bypassed!

Does “Allness” include omniscience?

 

[Sideline]

In all of my time posting and lurking on Catholic Answers, I have say this is one of the most interesting questions I have ever seen written here.

In order to bring about a universe as we understand it. we must assume, at an absolute minimum, that the creator must be able create matter/energy. Without any energy this being must bring energy into being. It is a fascinating concept

This is entirely unlike any creation *within *the universe because it in no way resembles a transformation from one state to another. It means that without effort, time, or raw materials… this creator simply willed a universe. It is so different from what we do that there should be different words to describe it. If we create, then the creation of the universe is not a creation. If the universe is a creation, then we do not create.

 

[Detales]

1Holycatholic~~~What part of “ALL” do you not understand?

 

[jkiernan56]

What properties or characteristics are required by an entity capable of creating the physical universe?

Prospective posters to this thread might kindly note that this is not a request for more reiterations of a catechism or quotes from the Bible. That is why it is posted in the philosophy section. It is an opportunity to consider the necessary and sufficient (i.e. minimum) properties of our Creator in the context of modern knowledge about how the universe works.

The Perfection of God
Pure Actuality

Here is a link to St. Thomas on the “Perfection of God” … and “Actus et Potentia” … the first principle/property of what is necessary for God to create the physical universe.

thesumma.info/one/one45.php

newadvent.org/cathen/01124a.htm

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Perfection of God - Pure Actuality and Omnipotence

Sorry Greylorn - there is no need to try to reinvent the wheel … I don’t think you can improve the circle by saying no catechism or quotes from the Bible … St. Thomas Aquinas explains the Absolute Perfection of God … and here you are asking people if they can invent the wheel … when it has already been invented … and explained very well in Philosophical terms. There is no need to try to reinvent the circle or try to improve upon it … when it is already perfect.

Here is a link to St. Thomas on the “Perfection of God” … the first principle/property of what is necessary for God to create the physical universe.

thesumma.info/one/one45.php

yeah i tried to state it modally, but no one bit.

 

[passus]

What about the power to create? Existence alone does not entail creativity or creation (except perhaps self-creation).

You’re assuming that said creation is a deliberate act of power–that whatever this entity might be decided, “OK, I’m going to tip this first domino now.” As far as this discussion is concerned, the state of the universe as it fares today could be the consequence of a prime entity’s mere existence and nothing more.

 

[jkiernan56]

yeah i tried to state it modally, but no one bit.

The properties of God cannot be dissected as if they were separate parts … like the body of a human being with all its parts … God is the most SIMPLE reality there is … ALL of God’s properties are contained in His INFINITE ACTUALITY … The Perfection of God …

trying to say “which property of God” is like trying to dissect God into parts … and God HAS NO PARTS

The Perfection of God in Pure Actuality to be able to create the universe is expressed through the property called ‘Omnipotence’ … although God’s Omnipotence is not a ‘part’ of God … and God’s Omniscence another part … and God’s Omnipresence another part … no … God’s properties are not ‘parts’ of God … each of these ‘terms’ express a reality about God … but they all of them are of the ONE and SAME reality.

 

[Detales]

I like what Passus says, perhaps summed up as “Sum, ergo Cogito.” That would be in line with Allness, and all of the OMNI’s taken together. All of th contentions here, including Aquinas’ are proceeding from the lesser to the greater, which greater they can neither adequately describe not contain, especially as an assertion. Furthermore, such descriptions lack the interior dimension of meaning and treat only the superficiality of appearance from and exterior position, or from a strictly subject/object awareness. That facet is only a bit of the whole manifestation of Creation, and perhaps the least helpful in this contention.

Again, "which part of ALLnes do you not understand? All of them, because you take them as parts. God is not devided against Self. God has no parts. WE only see God as parts through our mind and call it Creation.

 

[passus]

The properties of God cannot be dissected as if they were separate parts … like the body of a human being with all its parts … God is the most SIMPLE reality there is … ALL of God’s properties are contained in His INFINITE ACTUALITY … The Perfection of God …

trying to say “which property of God” is like trying to dissect God into parts … and God HAS NO PARTS

We can describe attributes of God without diminishing His eternity or disturbing His simplicity as long as it is understood that God’s being and His attributes are one in the same–that what we use to describe God really *is *at the root the substance of God’s being.

I can say that God has justice or that God has goodness or that God has righteousness. But God is not merely in possession of those attributes. He also is justice, He is goodness, and He is righteousness.

 

[Detales]

Passus has the IS part right. those adjectives are of our own making describing our parting up of God, and of ourselves for educational purposes.

 

[jkiernan56]

I like what Passus says, perhaps summed up as “Sum, ergo Cogito.” That would be in line with Allness, and all of the OMNI’s taken together. All of th contentions here, including Aquinas’ are proceeding from the lesser to the greater, which greater they can neither adequately describe not contain, especially as an assertion. Furthermore, such descriptions lack the interior dimension of meaning and treat only the superficiality of appearance from and exterior position, or from a strictly subject/object awareness. That facet is only a bit of the whole manifestation of Creation, and perhaps the least helpful in this contention.

I’m not sure if I am understanding you properly - but it is wisdom to understand limitations … and finite human beings will NEVER be able to grasp and understand INFINITY … and INFINITENESS of God in His Perfection is the greater to which you alluded to … this reality of the Perfection of God as expressed in Omnipotence is not something words will ever change … or lessen. It is what most fully expresses what we can understand in our finite being.

 

[passus]

Passus has the IS part right. those adjectives are of our own making describing our parting up of God, and of ourselves for educational purposes.

It’s not like we’re pulling words out from nowhere, though. They are “human words” of our own making, but then again, isn’t God the source of all tongues?

Sacred Scripture is one way by which God has revealed Himself to us and those whom He inspired wrote about God in this very way.

How else could we be sure of God’s justice or goodness or righteousness? He’s told us Himself!

 

[Detales]

Of course the human cannot encompass God. But as you yourself know from experience, there is a mode of at least glimpsing the Divine. How that is reasoned about in the relative mode of awareness is another matter, because the purest Recognition can suffer at the hands of inflexible belief, rendering the translation less potent for the “experiencer.” Clumsily put, but English works poorly in this realm of consideration, having inherent assumptions not true to fact.

 

[Detales]

"*Sacred Scripture is one way by which God has revealed Himself to us and those whom He inspired wrote about God in this very way.

How else could we be sure of God’s justice or goodness or righteousness? He’s told us Himself! *"

Yes, flames might stem from a single fire and appear as tongues. But Scritpure is the secondary way of knowing God, as that “knowledge” is contentious. Witness the sects and sects of sects inthe Abrahamic religons, all from the same or similar source. It is the very evidence of Babel. Better to go direct, though it is dangerous. As one man said, “The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world.”

 

[tonyrey]

You’re assuming that said creation is a deliberate act of power–that whatever this entity might be decided, “OK, I’m going to tip this first domino now.” As far as this discussion is concerned, the state of the universe as it fares today could be the consequence of a prime entity’s mere existence and nothing more.

In that case you either have to identify the universe with the prime entity or explain why it is the consequence of a prime entity’s mere existence. It is not self-evident that there have to be any consequences at all!