Theological question from a 6 yr old

[ReapReason]

I don’t know, I think if God wanted to find a way, he could. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition I could imagine such superposition of a square and circle.

Explain how quantum superposition is synonymous to making a square triangle. I would like you to prove me wrong about my feeling that you don’t understand the contextual difference between an object being in many places at once and an object having two distinct kinds of “essence” at once.

Perhaps its better if i ask you if you understand quantum physics at all.

God could create another God, similarly to how God created Jesus.

God created a human person; he did not create the “eternal word” that became a human person.

 

[Mahsiah_Waites]

Even if he could, I doubt he’d want to.

 

[JimG]

Thank you. Yet I find these understandings less than satisfactory.

For example, what does having parts or not have to do with immortality? It seems logical that if God can create a soul, He can also eradicate a soul. That makes the soul “immortal” only if God chooses to keep it around.

You claim that God does not exist in a “temporal plane.” In all my physics studies and subsequent readings, the term temporal plane has yet to appear. So I don’t know what a temporal plane is, and I’ll bet that you have no better notion of it than I do.

In the course of learning a little about spaces and dimensions, I relearned what I was taught in high school geometry, that a “plane” is a two dimensional mathematical object.

So what exactly is this temporal plane in which God does not exist?

My apologies for not using the word “plane” in its strict geometrical sense.

It seems the 6 year old’s question has already been addressed and answered. I was merely trying to address the distinction between immortal and eternal.

A human soul doesn’t die because it is immortal. But it is not eternal. Yes, it’s true that God could eradicate a soul once created. But that would make God a changeable being, and that is not his nature. He does not destroy his creation.

Perhaps instead of speaking of God not existing on a ‘temporal plane’ I should have said that God has no extension in space or time. That is a better way of putting it. It is related to not having parts because having parts means that the parts must be spread out to some extent in space and in time. A spiritual being has no parts.

But you will not learn theology through the study of physics. I recommend some readings of Frank J. Sheed for a start.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Why can’t we use this to answer “yes” to the original question? God could create another God, similarly to how God created Jesus.

Eh? I’m, not sure what you mean. By “born” I mean became incarnate in a human body, not actually created.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Explain how quantum superposition is synonymous to making a square triangle. I would like you to prove me wrong about my feeling that you don’t understand the contextual difference between an object being in many places at once and an object having two distinct kinds of “essence” at once.

Perhaps its better if i ask you if you understand quantum physics at all.

God created a human person; he did not create the “eternal word” that became a human person.

I don’t see how quantum superposition is even related.

 

[greylorn]

Because they were blinded by dogma, as you pointed out, and Saint Thomas went against the grain.

Also, there isn’t universal agreement that he’s correct, nor was there then. People simply disagreed with him. That’s to be expected.

Fair enough.

My point was only that the “immediately accepted by fellow theologians” phrase was utter bunk.

 

[greylorn]

My apologies for not using the word “plane” in its strict geometrical sense.

It seems the 6 year old’s question has already been addressed and answered. I was merely trying to address the distinction between immortal and eternal.

It has been addressed in many different and contradictory ways. Which one is the “answer?”

A human soul doesn’t die because it is immortal. But it is not eternal. Yes, it’s true that God could eradicate a soul once created. But that would make God a changeable being, and that is not his nature. He does not destroy his creation.

If God is not a changeable being, then it follows logically that God cannot have a creative or imaginative thought.

Only unimaginative people, it seems to me, could declare that the Creator of the Universe cannot think, and therefore cannot really create.

Dreadful notion.

Perhaps instead of speaking of God not existing on a ‘temporal plane’ I should have said that God has no extension in space or time. That is a better way of putting it. It is related to not having parts because having parts means that the parts must be spread out to some extent in space and in time. A spiritual being has no parts.

You still have the same problem. If God cannot exist in space-time, he cannot affect events in space-time.

But you will not learn theology through the study of physics. I recommend some readings of Frank J. Sheed for a start.

Really? The only evidence of God’s creation that we know for certain has not been mucked around with my man is the physical universe. How then, is a book full of stuff written, selected, filtered, translated and retranslated by men, then reinterpreted by men like Sheed, somehow a better testament to God’s purpose and intention than the laws and principles of physics?

I’ve read bibles and holy books and all sorts of religious stuff, and have also studied physics. How about you? Could it be that if you tried to study physics, you’d not comprehend the simplest equation? If so, you are denying the importance of physics to theology from a position of ignorance.

 

[jochoa]

If God is not a changeable being, then it follows logically that God cannot have a creative or imaginative thought.

I definitely agree with your line of thinking. What are your thoughts on the following concepts:
To be more specific, I would say God’s nature is unchangeable, where God’s nature is always freely being and spreading the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace in all relationships, including within the self.
Given this unchangeable being, God is the pinnacle of Creativity!

You still have the same problem. If God cannot exist in space-time, he cannot affect events in space-time.

What are your thoughts on this concept:
We do not exist in 2 dimensions, but we can affect events in 2 dimensions because we exist outside and with 2 dimensions.

Thanks for the great food for thought!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Fair enough.

My point was only that the “immediately accepted by fellow theologians” phrase was utter bunk.

I don’t see anybody who said he was immediately accepted. What was said is that he was immediately understood, and by this we meant that the terminology he used was the same terminology used by the other scholastics at the time.

 

[norain]

If you look at the answers, those that say" no, he cannot" expalin it in such a way that God cannot violate logic.

Aren’t miracles supposed to violate logic?

 

[J_Peterson]

If you look at the answers, those that say" no, he cannot" expalin it in such a way that God cannot violate logic.

Aren’t miracles supposed to violate logic?

Miricles violate laws of nature, not logic.

Think of something that’s white. Abstract the concept of white from it. Eveything that’s white participates in this concept. Would it make sense to postulate two “white’s”? It doesn’t make sense because there is only and can only be one concept of “white”.

Again, the problem is coming from treating God as a thing. He is not a thing, He is an Act, He simply Is.

 

[norain]

Miricles violate laws of nature, not logic.

Think of something that’s white. Abstract the concept of white from it. Eveything that’s white participates in this concept. Would it make sense to postulate two “white’s”? It doesn’t make sense because there is only and can only be one concept of “white”.

I’ll have to think about this one, J_Petersen. I smell a fallacy somewhere. The only problem left is how to properly convince you of it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ll have to think about this one, J_Petersen. I smell a fallacy somewhere. The only problem left is how to properly convince you of it.

J_Peterson is absolutely right, and that has ALWAYS been the traditional understanding of miracles.

As for God not being a thing but instead being pure Act that is true, but is not a complete description of ALL He is.

 

[norain]

Okay, I got it. I’ll give you a really good example.

J_Petersen,

Is the resurrection logical?

If yes, then how?

Be careful, for the answer will bite you back if you choose wrong.

 

[Edward_H]

Metaphysically impossible.

God is all truth. There is one God. If he made another, he’d no longer be One.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Okay, I got it. I’ll give you a really good example.

J_Petersen,

Is the resurrection logical?

If yes, then how?

Be careful, for the answer will bite you back if you choose wrong.

Um, yeah. What is illogical about it?

You seem to misunderstand the difference between “suspending the laws of nature” and “defying logic”.

 

[norain]

You seem to misunderstand the difference between “suspending the laws of nature” and “defying logic”.

There is? Wow, that is really messed up.

Instead of trying to figure out why it is wrong, I will have to think about how in the world that could possibly be right.

 

[J_Peterson]

Okay, I got it. I’ll give you a really good example.

J_Petersen,

Is the resurrection logical?

If yes, then how?

Be careful, for the answer will bite you back if you choose wrong.

I don’t feel like getting tricked but it is logical if you believe in God. I’m at a loss to see why it’s not logical. What are your axioms? I suspect you want me to look at it from a materialistic point of view.

There is a difference between metaphysical impossibility and a physical impossiblity. It’s physically impossible for me to grow wings and fly but it’s metaphysically possible.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

There is? Wow, that is really messed up.

Instead of trying to figure out why it is wrong, I will have to think about how in the world that could possibly be right.

I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here…

 

[J_Peterson]

As for God not being a thing but instead being pure Act that is true, but is not a complete description of ALL He is.

I thought that that would go without saying but you’re right, I wouldn’t want my answer to bite me back.