How do you know this? Now, you might say “How do you know it ISN’T” - Here is where my method of knowing I think differs from yours. I believe God has limitless potential - that is one of my key presuppositions. So, by his power he can emanate (not create) infinite multitudes of universes through the agency of lesser beings. It is less extraordinary than routine.
Kismetji:
I am getting the strange feeling that much of this is becoming purely argumentative. I produce propositions that, as best I can, I tie not only ontologically, to Reality, but also, to Catholic/Christian Theology and Philosophy/Logic. That’s from my side. From yours, I see conjecture and postulation.
For example, power = potential. You and I are using two different terms to define the same thing. We believe that God has the power (which means He also has the capability, or potential) to create. We believe that He is a constantly creative being, creating everything within His mind from all Eternity, i.e., within Infinity. Infinity and infinite mean
boundlessness. We believe that God is boundless and boundlessness, because one cannot be either-or.
We believe that He
creates, by making things by the action of His intelligence and Love on His Will, by
thinking them. All of this and us is/are due to His pre-eminent capability. We are held together precisely because He wills it and has willed the mechanisms, otherwise, Reality is all too fragile to maintain itself in existence.
Yes. But not the greatest power. That would be to be blinded by appearances.
Another interesting postulation. Let’s see: because we would be/are “blinded by appearances,” He is NOT the greatest power. What in the world does this naked assertion/postulation mean? It simply does not follow.
“Oh, I can create this whole world; therefore worship me!”
This is a red herring and a strawman, and a tad “nasty.” It is a mis-characterization emanating from frustration or fatigue, I presume.
Wherever did I deny it could well be a complicated process?
I never said that you did; I am defining, however poorly, a few of God’s attributes.
Of course we do not know the precise mechanisms for this happening. It could be as easy as baking a piece of cake. Given the right auxiliary circumstances.
Do you not see that that statement is nonsense, and presumptuous? First of all, we know only what we know. We can only postulate embellishments. Second of all, your statement presumes that man is exceptionally stupid. Thirdly, it presumes that we have not received any Revelation whatsoever from Him. Don’t you see that?
Now, how is THAT possible? Willing something by sheer will power? That does not make any sense.
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. It is a concept that you may not be willing to accept, and that is all. But, you cannot nakedly assert that it does not make sense. Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular, have volumes of writings concerning this. You, sir, rely a great deal on your Veda, we rely on our books of the Bible, our volumes on Theology, on our volumes on philosophy and logic. Plus, we have the Magisterium. These are our
authorities.
Nothing comes from nothing.
This seems correct . . . but, why?
Even with particle physics it is not “nothing” in the sense of being entirely separate from space and time, or other dimensions.
I’ve already said that I do not believe in “dimensions,” elsewhere in these forums, but, I don’t mind re-stating this personal axiom. I believe that your conclusion is correct, however. I see it as the only possible conclusion from a proper consideration of logic. There are two ways to look at it: (1) from the POV that “nothing” does not actually mean “Nothing,” and (2), that “nothing” actually means sheer, unadulterated non-existence. In (1) there is the presumption that something exists from which something else can be compiled, or fashioned. From (2) that presumption cannot be made.
I wholeheartedly take back all my comments which might have hinted at anything of this sort. What I wanted to convey was that being can pass from one mode (non-manifestation) to one of manifestation. Sort of like, in my lying down position, I have the potential to stand up.
I get it: it’s sort of like, “Where does my lap go when I stand up?” The problem here is that I wholeheartedly regard such postulations as fictional composites.
I believe we all have power, but we intentionally limit ourselves by weighing ourselves down by materiality.
Yes, one could say that. And it would be borne out by the amount of weight a power-lifter placed on his Texas power bar. Empirical evidence of materiality weighing us down. But, that was facetious. I understand that as we live, we acquire stuff. The more stuff we acquire, the more we are tied down by it (all). So, in that sense, you are correct.
Precisely. A competent demiurge.
We do not, nor do I, believe in any sort of secondary god, or gods. There is only God - and, it is not I. There can only be one God. And, the only way a person can conceive that there are two, is to mentally subtract one or more of God’s maximal determinants, from the one God’s necessary attributes. We do not and will not do that. Parsimony will not do that, and our theology will not do that. Besides, we have 73 books of revelation that give authority to our beliefs.
continued . . .
, but this relationship means space and time is a unity, spacetime. It makes sense that God wouldn’t create two separate things when He could more perfectly create one. Wherever we are, and however fast we’re moving, the constant speed of light in a vacuum (it moves more slowly through air, slower still in water which is why it gets refracted) tells us of that unity.