The ultimate truth is that there is Truth

[rossum]

And how does this diminish the majesty of the God who creates all things, both visible and invisible?

Your statement is false. God did not create all things since God did not create God - God is uncreated.

My statement has nothing to do with God’s majesty. I am merely pointing out that any creator is dependent on the existence of their creation. This applies to God, just as to any other creator.

Yes, that’s why I believe God is both outside and inside time. He created time, but is not dependent on it. He always existed, but “always” is a word used to describe something we can’t comprehend. Likewise, “eternity” and “infinite” are words we use because we can’t measure it in the human understanding of time.

God may or may not be dependent on time. However “Creator” is so dependent.

“Creator” is a word man uses to describe the great “I AM.” His glory is not dependent on our woefully inadequate use of words to describe Him.

A man, being created, can correctly use the word “creator”. It could not be correctly used before creation.

No words we use to describe Him limit Him. They merely show that we are limited. The more we describe Him, the more it reveals how great He is.

Then the words used no longer have their usual meanings. “All-knowing” also means “ignorant”. “Loving” also means “hating”. If words do not limit God, then no words can apply to God and retain their normal meanings. We are in Humpty Dumpty land where words mean what Humpty wants them to mean.

The fact you’re showing God can’t do some things, does not reveal His inability. These “shortcomings” are not restrictions at all; rather, it helps to show His greatness.

As I said, words lose their meaning.

Rossum, what is your point in all this? Your reasoning does nothing to diminish our view of God. Frankly, it’s doing just the opposite if that’s your goal.

The OP of this thread was in response to my sig. My presence here is due to that.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

Your statement is false. God did not create all things since God did not create God - God is uncreated.

No. You’re wrong. All that was created was created. God created all (that is created)

God created all.

Your objection doesn’t make sense because you note God was not created. Therefore God was not created. You can’t object that God didn’t create God when you know He wasn’t created!

How do *you *create something that’s not created?

 

[Montalban]

And how does this diminish the majesty of the God who creates all things, both visible and invisible?
God Bless,
JB

Their objection is based on a misunderstanding that God must have changed. Origen was faced withthis same error.

It goes like this.

God exists. The creation doesn’t. God then ‘creates’ creation. God has therefore changed from a being at being to a *being *in doing, that is from not doing something, to doing something. For them, this means that God is not perfect, because He changed - and God’s not supposed to change, if He’s perfect.

I’ve already explained how this error is solved; as it was by Gregory Palamas by the understanding that there’s a difference between who God is, and what God does. God’s being does not change.

 

[paarsurrey]

No. You’re wrong. All that was created was created. God created all (that is created)

God created all.

Your objection doesn’t make sense because you note God was not created. Therefore God was not created. You can’t object that God didn’t create God when you know He wasn’t created!

How do *you *create something that’s not created?

Hi

I agree with Montalban, if as in Mathematics/Algebra we fix a symbol for infinity, then we cannot say there should be infinity+, which is to be decided on the very outset. God is who created everything, and then it would be futile to say who created God.

Thanks

 

[rossum]

No. You’re wrong. All that was created was created. God created all (that is created)

You are changing what christcnection1 said. His(?) original statement was “the God who creates all things”. This is incorrect, as I pointed out. When you modified it to say “God created all (that is created)” then you are correct, but that was not what was stated originally. I cannot be expected to know what christcnection1 was thinking as opposed to what he actually wrote. It is important to be precise in logical and philosophical discussions.

Your objection doesn’t make sense because you note God was not created. Therefore God was not created. You can’t object that God didn’t create God when you know He wasn’t created!

My objection was that christcnection1 implied that God was created: “the God who creates all things”. I agree with you that God is not created, I was disagreeing with the logical error in christcnection1’s original statement.

How do you create something that’s not created?

How does God create something that is not created? Perhaps christcnection1 can tell us. I do not claim that God or anyone can create the uncreated.

rossum

 

[rossum]

It goes like this.

God exists. The creation doesn’t. God then ‘creates’ creation. God has therefore changed from a being at being to a *being *in doing, that is from not doing something, to doing something. For them, this means that God is not perfect, because He changed - and God’s not supposed to change, if He’s perfect.

This is a good argument. Both creator and creation are mutually dependent.

I’ve already explained how this error is solved; as it was by Gregory Palamas by the understanding that there’s a difference between who God is, and what God does. God’s being does not change.

I agree that this argument avoids a contingent God, by separating God from the Creator. This God is not a Creator because we agree that God is not contingent and does not change, wheras the Creator is contingent and does change. How can God be contingent and still be God? So Palamas’ God is not the Creator.

Separating God into God-is and God-does allows us to analyse both separately. We can show that they have different properties and hence that they are not the same thing. Your analysis does not save God, it merely remove all His contingent properties, including all possibilities of Him acting inside time. Any action inside time must imply change, as you correctly say for creation. God-is quickly becomes a remote unchanging inactive God, since the same analysis separates God-is from any possible actions.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I agree with Montalban, if as in Mathematics/Algebra we fix a symbol for infinity, then we cannot say there should be infinity+, which is to be decided on the very outset.

Have a look at a good mathematics textbook, there is more than one infinity - Aleph-1, Aleph-2 and so forth. The name “Cantor” will help you in your researches.

God is who created everything, and then it would be futile to say who created God.

No, God is who created everything except God. God did not create himself.

rossum

 

[christcnection1]

Your statement is false. God did not create all things since God did not create God - God is uncreated.

We already know this, and you’re only validating our point. God must be eternal. He is outside of time.

My statement has nothing to do with God’s majesty. I am merely pointing out that any creator is dependent on the existence of their creation. This applies to God, just as to any other creator.

In what sense is He dependent? God doesn’t need His creation in order to exist.

God may or may not be dependent on time. However “Creator” is so dependent.

“Creator” is a title for God, but does not adequately describe Him.

A man, being created, can correctly use the word “creator”. It could not be correctly used before creation.

Unless of course there were an infinite number of creations. Of course, we do not say this is true or not. I do not disagree with your premise.

Then the words used no longer have their usual meanings. “All-knowing” also means “ignorant”. “Loving” also means “hating”. If words do not limit God, then no words can apply to God and retain their normal meanings. We are in Humpty Dumpty land where words mean what Humpty wants them to mean.

Then on what basis do your words have any value?

As I said, words lose their meaning.

You are proving your own point.

The OP of this thread was in response to my sig. My presence here is due to that.

Please explain your understanding of Buddhism in light of these concepts.

Peace,
JB

 

[rossum]

In what sense is He dependent? God doesn’t need His creation in order to exist.

I am saying that the Creator is dependent on creation. How can this not be so? You cannot be a parent unless you also have children. Being a parent is dependent on having children.

“Creator” is a title for God, but does not adequately describe Him.

Of course not. In particular it does not describe Him before He started creating.

Please explain your understanding of Buddhism in light of these concepts.

• the world we live in is unsatisfactory.
• it is unsatisfactory because it is not as we want it to be.
• if we do not want it to be different to what it is then it will no longer be unsatisfactory.
• there is a method we can apply to change what we want.

rossum

 

[christcnection1]

I am saying that the Creator is dependent on creation. How can this not be so? You cannot be a parent unless you also have children. Being a parent is dependent on having children.

I think we are misunderstanding one another…

All I’m saying is that God doesn’t need His creation in order to exist. Yes, I agree that if God never created anything, then He would not be the “Creator.”

Of course not. In particular it does not describe Him before He started creating.

You are assuming there was a “time” when He wasn’t creating. I am not making that assumption. It could very well be that creating things is part of His very nature.

*] the world we live in is unsatisfactory.

We agree with this; however, we believe it’s a fallen creation because of sin. God, in His love, gave us free will, but “man” sinned, leading to death. Sin is the absence of virtue. Death is the absence of life. It’s not something other; it’s the absence of, just as darkness is the absence of light.

*] it is unsatisfactory because it is not as we want it to be.

We agree too.

*] if we do not want it to be different to what it is then it will no longer be unsatisfactory.

We believe Christians can have it both ways. We believe that we can change the world to make it better, but even though it’s bad, we can have the peace only God can give.

Ultimate peace is found in our eternal home, heaven. At the end of earthly time, Jesus will come back in glory to create a new heavens and new earth.

*] there is a method we can apply to change what we want.

We wouldn’t qualify it so much as a method, but a tangible transformational reality where we bring God’s love, grace, and mercy to a hurting world in an actual way. This including bringing the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, feeding/clothing the poor, and helping those with physical/emotional struggles, among other things…

We are not called to entirely hide from our pains and sorrows. Jesus called His people to “carry their cross” and to be raised to new life (both in this world and the next), just as He had.

The Savior of the world wasn’t trying to escape His suffering. Rather, He died on the cross for your sins. He is inviting you to a personal relationship with Him.

May He open your eyes to this ultimate truth.

JB

 

[rossum]

Yes, I agree that if God never created anything, then He would not be the “Creator.”

We certainly agree on this.

You are assuming there was a “time” when He wasn’t creating. I am not making that assumption. It could very well be that creating things is part of His very nature.

If that were the case then an eternal creating God implies an eternal creation. There is no time when God is not creating so there is not time when there is no creation. If creation is eternal then there is no logical requirement for a creator - there is no time when the universe does not exist.

We agree with this; however, we believe it’s a fallen creation because of sin. God, in His love, gave us free will, but “man” sinned, leading to death. Sin is the absence of virtue. Death is the absence of life. It’s not something other; it’s the absence of, just as darkness is the absence of light.

The Christian idea of the Fall is not useful since it is in the past, and so cannot be changed. I need something that I can change here and now.

We believe Christians can have it both ways. We believe that we can change the world to make it better, but even though it’s bad, we can have the peace only God can give.

Buddhists think that it is more useful to change ourselves than to change the world:“How much leather does it take to cover the entire world?”
“Enough for one pair of shoes.”

Ultimate peace is found in our eternal home, heaven. At the end of earthly time, Jesus will come back in glory to create a new heavens and new earth.

Again that is no use to me - I need to find peace and happiness here and now. The Buddha attained nirvana forty-five years before he died. I want pie now, not pie in the sky when I die.

May He open your eyes to this ultimate truth.

Did you read my sig?

rossum

 

[Montalban]

This is a good argument. Both creator and creation are mutually dependent.

So you say, but I’ve forwarded the idea that what a person does and who a person is aren’t the same thing.

You simply offer a just-so, that my support for Palamas is wrong

 

[rossum]

So you say, but I’ve forwarded the idea that what a person does and who a person is aren’t the same thing.

I have agreed with you, they are different things.

You simply offer a just-so, that my support for Palamas is wrong

According to Palamas, yourself and me, God’s actions (God-does) and who God is (God-is) are different. What I do is to analyse these two things separately. When I do this I find that the properties of God-does are incompatible with the properties of God-is. God-is is eternal, can take no action, cannot change, cannot cause anything that is not itself eternal. God-does is not eternal, can act, can change and can cause non-eternal things.

By splitting God into two parts it is clear that what is left to God-is is innefective. The effective part, God-does, is the non-eternal part.

I agree with Palamas’ analysis into two parts. I do not agree that this saves God from the paradox of an eternal immutable Creator acting to create a finite, mutable creation.

rossum

 

[Ahimsa]

I agree with Palamas’ analysis into two parts. I do not agree that this saves God from the paradox of an eternal immutable Creator acting to create a finite, mutable creation.

rossum

The paradox remains.

Didn’t Palamas say something about humans being able to become one with God’s energies, but never with God’s being? Could energies be analogous to “acts”, and “being” with “is”? If so, then can humans become one with “God-acts”, but never with “God-is”?

 

[Montalban]

By splitting God into two parts it is clear that what is left to God-is is innefective. The effective part, God-does, is the non-eternal part.

I agree with Palamas’ analysis into two parts. I do not agree that this saves God from the paradox of an eternal immutable Creator acting to create a finite, mutable creation.

rossum

We don’t split God into two parts. God is, and God does are not two parts. Anymore than you are the heat radiation that comes off you when you run.

 

[rossum]

We don’t split God into two parts. God is, and God does are not two parts. Anymore than you are the heat radiation that comes off you when you run.

We have agreed that God-is is immutable and not contingent on the existence of creation. We have agreed that God-does is mutable and is dependent on the existence of creation.

By the logical law of the excluded middle, no single thing can have opposite properties, formally: A and ~A = false. If God-is is not contingent and God-does is contingent, then these two cannot be the same thing by the law of the excluded middle. Otherwise you are saying both that God is contingent and God is not contingent.

If God is One, and does not have parts, then Palamas’ analysis is incorrect. If you agree with Palamas, then the law of the excluded middle forces the conclusion that God has two parts.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

We have agreed that God-is is immutable and not contingent on the existence of creation. We have agreed that God-does is mutable and is dependent on the existence of creation.

By the logical law of the excluded middle, no single thing can have opposite properties, formally: A and ~A = false. If God-is is not contingent and God-does is contingent, then these two cannot be the same thing by the law of the excluded middle. Otherwise you are saying both that God is contingent and God is not contingent.

If God is One, and does not have parts, then Palamas’ analysis is incorrect. If you agree with Palamas, then the law of the excluded middle forces the conclusion that God has two parts.

rossum

That law doesn’t apply to God in the Christian way of thinking. We Christians have always accept that Jesus was both fully God and fully man… without confusion as the statements go

We accept that God is unknowable, and knowable. The nature of God being God is beyond out understanding, and yet we know Him.

Where is God’s ‘doing’ being mutable upon creation? God was always a creator, even before creation.

We thus believe also God is love, God always emenates love, and always did, even before there was someone to love.

 

[rossum]

That law doesn’t apply to God in the Christian way of thinking.

To paraphrase a quote: the Christian gentleman always plays by the rules, but reserves the right to change the rules whenever he is losing.

Are all those Church fathers who use logic to argue in favour of God wrong? If logic does not apply to God, then you cannot logically refute me when I say that God lives solely in my right little finger and nowhere else. If logic does not apply to God, then you cannot win the game because the game no longer has any rules. Without rules, how can you tell who has won?

We Christians have always accept that Jesus was both fully God and fully man… without confusion as the statements go

Yes, that has always puzzled me. God sustains the universe which could not exist for one second on its own, yet the universe carried on regardless when God died for three days.

We thus believe also God is love, God always emenates love, and always did, even before there was someone to love.

You may believe what you want, but please do not try to claim that your belief is supported by logic.

rossum

 

[Montalban]

To paraphrase a quote: the Christian gentleman always plays by the rules, but reserves the right to change the rules whenever he is losing.

This implies point scoring, not very hospitalble.

Are all those Church fathers who use logic to argue in favour of God wrong? …

This itself is an illogical objection.

Logic dictates that one can not know everything, so saying “We don’t understand” would be perfectly correct, and logical.

The very nature of God must, ultimately be beyond our knowing, else we’d be God too… if we knew and experienced everything that God is and does.

Thus I can logically conclude
a) there are things beyond my knowing and understanding
and
b) that God is, ulitimately this.

and yet I can know that God is this. I can know that God is unknowable. I’m sorry that for you if something isn’t ‘black’ then it must be ‘white’. Grey and the realm of colour don’t enter into it.

“Chaos theory grounds a post-modern science that is unpredictable, hence unknowable to the degree of precision demanded by modern science. Indeed; the essence and presence of a factor in a given degree cannot be used to predict, linearly, the behavior of a system; bird, atom, molecule, photon, person, species, or society. No longer may we use formal axiomatic theory in conjunction with binary logic with which to model reality, predict and thus control system dynamics. Indeed control itself becomes a casualty of post-modern science.”

critcrim.com/redfeather/chaos/001intro.html

“(Chaos is) the unpredictable evolution of the behavior of many nonlinear dynamical systems. Because of their sensitive dependence on initial conditions, the error in predicting the future states of such systems grows exponentially with time, so that the future states of such systems becomes essentially unknowable in a relatively brief period of time. Although chaos means unpredictability, it should not be understood to mean that the system was not or is not determined (Masterpasqua & Perna, 1997, p. 304).”

goertzel.org/dynapsyc/2001/BrainsBodiesBifurcations.htm

Whilst this does not prove that God is both being and doing it shows that one can be both… insofar as one can be in a state that defies your ideas of logic.

Yes, that has always puzzled me. God sustains the universe which could not exist for one second on its own, yet the universe carried on regardless when God died for three days.

God who is God did not die, but God who is man.

You may believe what you want, but please do not try to claim that your belief is supported by logic.

rossum

I can, and I do. I know that there are unknowables. Science, a bastion of logic (some might say) can know that there are unknowables. Turing’s stopping machine is a maths hypothesis that will never be able to determine an answer, other than the answer will never be able to be pre-determined.
The Unknown and The Unknowable

“Another famous negative result, due to the British genius, Alan Turing, states that you cannot tell in advance if a certain abstraction of a digital computer called a Turing machine will ever halt with the correct answer. Now, what all these impossibility results have in common is that they are about the manipulation of symbols, that is, they are about mathematics.”

edge.org/3rd_culture/traub/traub_p2.html

Some scientists don’t shut eyes to the ‘unknowable’

"So what is an example of something unknowable? Take the diet of a given person living in a village in the year 1300. “You may know on average what his diet was,” said Jesse Ausubel, the program officer of the Sloan Foundation. “But you cannot say what he ate on Dec. 15, 1300.”

chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/98/02/02/unknowability.2-2.html

The strength of Christianity is it has a reasoned faith.

We continue to distinguish in God between who God is, and what He does. God is the Creator, whether He does anything or not. God creates. Thus God the creator is unchanging, whether He ever made the world or not.
“Historically, the Roman Catholic theology never made the distinction between God’s Essence (what He is) and His Uncreated Energies (by what means He acts). St. Gregory Palamas tried to explain this distinction through a comparison between God and the Sun. The sun has its rays, God has His Energies (among them, Grace and Light). By His Energies, God created, sustains and governs the universe. By His Energies, He will transform the creation and deify it, that is, He will fill the new creation with His Energies as water fills a sponge.”

orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.aspx

 

[Montalban]

Kant believed that the universe was unknowable.

"Kant, Immanuel (1724-1804) - German philosopher who, in metaphysics and epistemology, tried to steer a course between empiricism and rationalism. Rather than the mind conforming itself to the conditions of experience, experience is possible only because its objects must conform to the structure of the mind. This makes synthetic a priori judgments possible. However, things-in-themselves (the noumena) are unknowable; we know only things as they appear to the mind (the phenomena). In ethics, Kant advocated the categorical imperative as the basis of all ethical judgment. In one of its forms the categorical imperative says, “Act so as to treat others, yourself included, always as an end-in-itself, and never as a means to an end only.”

logossophia.freeservers.com/bios.htm