Who created God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ANV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Irrelevant. The question is if the Christian God is a living God, as the Bible says. If God is a ‘living God’ then He is incapable of creating the first living being.

rossum
The Trinity is immaterial and has Life in the highest degree. The Trinity creates creatures out of nothing.

Catechism
293 … The First Vatican Council explains:

This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power”, not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel "and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal. . ."137


296 We believe that God needs no pre-existent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance.144 God creates freely “out of nothing”:145

If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.146​

Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 18. The life of God, Article 3. Whether life is properly attributed to God?

I answer that, Life is in the highest degree properly in God. In proof of which it must be considered that since a thing is said to live in so far as it operates of itself and not as moved by another, the more perfectly this power is found in anything, the more perfect is the life of that thing. In things that move and are moved, a threefold order is found. In the first place, the end moves the agent: and the principal agent is that which acts through its form, and sometimes it does so through some instrument that acts by virtue not of its own form, but of the principal agent, and does no more than execute the action. Accordingly there are things that move themselves, not in respect of any form or end naturally inherent in them, but only in respect of the executing of the movement; the form by which they act, and the end of the action being alike determined for them by their nature. Of this kind are plants, which move themselves according to their inherent nature, with regard only to executing the movements of growth and decay.

Other things have self-movement in a higher degree, that is, not only with regard to executing the movement, but even as regards to the form, the principle of movement, which form they acquire of themselves. Of this kind are animals, in which the principle of movement is not a naturally implanted form; but one received through sense. Hence the more perfect is their sense, the more perfect is their power of self-movement. Such as have only the sense of touch, as shellfish, move only with the motion of expansion and contraction; and thus their movement hardly exceeds that of plants. Whereas such as have the sensitive power in perfection, so as to recognize not only connection and touch, but also objects apart from themselves, can move themselves to a distance by progressive movement. Yet although animals of the latter kind receive through sense the form that is the principle of their movement, nevertheless they cannot of themselves propose to themselves the end of their operation, or movement; for this has been implanted in them by nature; and by natural instinct they are moved to any action through the form apprehended by sense. Hence such animals as move themselves in respect to an end they themselves propose are superior to these. This can only be done by reason and intellect; whose province it is to know the proportion between the end and the means to that end, and duly coordinate them. Hence a more perfect degree of life is that of intelligible beings; for their power of self-movement is more perfect. This is shown by the fact that in one and the same man the intellectual faculty moves the sensitive powers; and these by their command move the organs of movement. Thus in the arts we see that the art of using a ship, i.e. the art of navigation, rules the art of ship-designing; and this in its turn rules the art that is only concerned with preparing the material for the ship.

But although our intellect moves itself to some things, yet others are supplied by nature, as are first principles, which it cannot doubt; and the last end, which it cannot but will. Hence, although with respect to some things it moves itself, yet with regard to other things it must be moved by another. Wherefore that being whose act of understanding is its very nature, and which, in what it naturally possesses, is not determined by another, must have life in the most perfect degree. Such is God; and hence in Him principally is life. From this the Philosopher concludes (Metaph. xii, 51), after showing God to be intelligent, that God has life most perfect and eternal, since His intellect is most perfect and always in act.
 
Oh, forget it.
Exactly, after multiple posting attempts it seems clear that this is a thoughtless, zombie thread where “god” is short naming for “netgod” and I know nothing more on it.
 
“Living” meaning real, true, not an attempt at anthropomorphism.
This is Humpty Dumpty argumentation:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

So, when the Bible uses a word about God I am free to redefine that word to mean whatever I want? How about, redefining “omniscient” to mean “does not eat butter on Wednesdays”?

If words in the Bible can mean whatever the reader wants, then the Bible becomes meaningless because there are as many different Bibles as there are readers.
Yes, the commonality being that we are both spiritual. Trying to limit God to physical human traits is simply foolish.
Life is not a “physical human trait”. Human souls are alive and they are not physical. Angels are alive and they are neither physical nor human. You are using far too narrow a definition of “life”, which seems to be why you are having difficulty with God being alive.

rossum
 
The Trinity is immaterial and has Life in the highest degree. The Trinity creates creatures out of nothing.
No. The Trinity creates creatures out of the Trinity. The Trinity is not “nothing”.

Since the Trinity has life then it is impossible for the Trinity to create the first living entity. It can only create the second living entity and so on.

rossum
 
No. The Trinity creates creatures out of the Trinity. The Trinity is not “nothing”.

Since the Trinity has life then it is impossible for the Trinity to create the first living entity. It can only create the second living entity and so on.

rossum
That would be Emanationism which is not accepted with ex nihilo creation. Creation is by power to create, this means not arrangement of the pre-existing.

The nature of the Trinity is divine but the nature of creatures is not divine. The creatures have life in a different sense than the creator. Their life has a beginning marked by time.
 
No. The Trinity creates creatures out of the Trinity. The Trinity is not “nothing”.

Since the Trinity has life then it is impossible for the Trinity to create the first living entity. It can only create the second living entity and so on.

rossum
:twocents:

The Trinity is Love, perfect relationality, Divine and eternal Self-Other united in One Breath.
The Triune Godhead, Existence Itself, brings all time, all space and everything within it, into being.
Through the incarnation of the Word, the second Person, God brings us, His creatures, through the Holy Spirit, into His Divine Union.
Because we are sinners, Jesus died that we might break our shackles and be free to love.
Becoming loving persons, giving of ourselves to God and the good of the other, we participate in the Way that is Jesus Christ Himself.
 
Creation is by power to create, this means not arrangement of the pre-existing.
The Creator must pre-exist creation, surely? If I start with a literal nothing, then I do not have God, just nothing. God and nothing is different from pure nothing. That is my point.

rossum
 
No. The Trinity creates creatures out of the Trinity. The Trinity is not “nothing”.
I dont understand the propostion you are objecting to?
You seem to be seeing immaterial as the same as nothing?
 
The Creator must pre-exist creation, surely? If I start with a literal nothing, then I do not have God, just nothing. God and nothing is different from pure nothing. That is my point.

rossum
Theology has used three concepts:

  1. *]creation out of nothing,
    *]creation out of the being of God.
    *]creation out of pre-existent eternal matter,

    So ex nihilo is the first.
 
God has a soul? I must say that is a new one on me.

rossum
I would think that a good faith protagonist would avoid the temptation to disenginuity and assume the usual classical understandings of boilerplate statements which you even as Buddhist obviously know better than some of your Catholic opponents here. To pretend otherwise does you little credit and does not endear me to Buddhism if that is what Buddhism has taught you to see acceptable.

Clearly being made in God’s likeness does not mean God is corporeal or material or the most perfect of men therefore being the strongest and with the biggest biceps and hairiest of chests.

But it does mean God must be more perfect in the spiritual order … hence the spiritual soul of man reflects the immaterial nature of our origins and indicates our maker is more perfect than his creation.

Typically this perfection is understood to mean this perfection is in his/her essence.
That is, all beings possess life, but God possesses life in the fullest possible way while that of a creature is always derived or “accidental”. This insight is well expressed in the ancient dictum that it is the essence of God to exist. Not so for creatures
 
When Moses asked God what name he should tell his people to call Him, God said “I Am”. That answers the question in a very basic way. Infinity “is” not was or will be.
 
You are changing the question. It is already clear that human life was not the first life. A living God can no more create the first life than He can create a square circle. A living God can only create the second, third, fourth … life.

Only a non-living God can create the first life, and the Bible states that the Abrahamic God is a living God.
Traditionally, in greek, there’s a distinction between zoe, psuche, and bios, to denote different types of life (not mutually exclusive, or referring to different genuses, but just different meanings, though with similarities). The life of God and the spiritual life we receive through God is referred to as zoe. Bios, and I’m sure you recognize the root of the word, refers to material life, biological life, which is what we commonly mean when we say God created “life.” Zoe is uncreated. Psuche refers to out psychology, or intellect and will and such, that type of life and health, and (I’m drawing my own conclusion in this next step) seems like the type of life angels would have naturally (they would not have bios). Humans naturally live in terms of both bios and psuche, and of course through union with God can receive zoe.

Either way, I feel like you’re getting too hung up on trying to make this distinction. I fail to see the point. It seems like you’re intentionally trying to ignore the different connotations which just seem implicit to me by the way we write about it, and that even before I learned anything of Greek or that other languages have multiple words for what, in English, are all translated to the same word.

Edit: I’m not particularly coherent today, so let me provide the following definitions:

Bios is our physiology, all the processes involved in maintaining homeostasis so we can stay alive. That is Bios; our physical life.

Psyche is our selves, who we are, our personality. Our being, Psyche, is our soul.

Finally, Zoe is our spirit, the part of us that is quickened when our soul reaches out to God. Zoe is our in God’s Image-ness and is the part of us that can’t live without God.
 
The Creator must pre-exist creation, surely? If I start with a literal nothing, then I do not have God, just nothing. God and nothing is different from pure nothing. That is my point.

rossum
God did not make other things out of Himself/His “substance”. He did not take material out of Himself and then form that into other things. He just willed that certain things be, and they were.
 
God did not make other things out of Himself/His “substance”. He did not take material out of Himself and then form that into other things. He just willed that certain things be, and they were.
God’s will and The Word are not exactly the same essence in that God’s will is not truly an essence at all as God does not have a “Bios” mind nor created psyche. That is not to deny Jesus as True God and True Man but to make the crucial distinction which is an answer to the original inquiry. Analyze this.
 
**God’s will and The Word are not exactly the same essence **in that God’s will is not truly an essence at all as God does not have a “Bios” mind nor created psyche. That is not to deny Jesus as True God and True Man but to make the crucial distinction which is an answer to the original inquiry. Analyze this.
We should not go far off topic and focus on Trinitarianism, but what you write here sounds very non-Trinitarian and indeed neo-Platonist. Your distinction is indeed much as the pagan Plotinus wrote about.

The Son/Word is of the same essence with the Father. Exactly the same essence. The Father is not “the intellect” and the Son “the will.” That’s not Trinitarianism. That’s not how the relationship between the Persons works.

Nicene Creed

I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ
The only begotten Son of God
Born of the Father before all ages
God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God.
Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.


Athanasius Creed

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.
 
We should not go far off topic and focus on Trinitarianism, …
[/INDENT]
Funny thing is that I was not off topic responding to God’s Will described as initiating Creation. As cause it may be argued to be true but not as the essence that formed Creation at the beginning. The Word, Logos, is the alpha.

God’s Will sustains Creation and is providential for person’s of special creation, as in angels and human persons. I added the elements of Christ’s nature to assure that the first fruits seated at the right hand was not denied in my reply. For in Christ there is both a divine and human nature. Are you then implying that Christ’s human nature is responsible for forming Creation? That seems a little odd and a nuanced non sequitor.
 
Funny thing is that I was not off topic responding to God’s Will described as initiating Creation. As cause it may be argued to be true but not as the essence that formed Creation at the beginning. The Word, Logos, is the alpha.

God’s Will sustains Creation and is providential for person’s of special creation, as in angels and human persons. I added the elements of Christ’s nature to assure that the first fruits seated at the right hand was not denied in my reply. For in Christ there is both a divine and human nature. Are you then implying that Christ’s human nature is responsible for forming Creation? That seems a little odd and a nuanced non sequitor.
From personal experience, all theology spider-webs into all other theology. Where does one choose to stop?
 
Funny thing is that I was not off topic responding to God’s Will described as initiating Creation. As cause it may be argued to be true but not as the essence that formed Creation at the beginning. The Word, Logos, is the alpha.

God’s Will sustains Creation and is providential for person’s of special creation, as in angels and human persons. I added the elements of Christ’s nature to assure that the first fruits seated at the right hand was not denied in my reply. For in Christ there is both a divine and human nature. Are you then implying that Christ’s human nature is responsible for forming Creation? That seems a little odd and a nuanced non sequitor.
No, I am not implying that. I also was not accusing you of going off topic. Re-reading your post, I may have misunderstood, as I had at the time thought you were stating that the Father and the Word were not the same essence, which would be heretical, which is why I responded at length, thinking it important to correct but stating that I did not wish to derail the thread entirely from “Who created God” into a tangent discussion on Trinitarianism.

Keep in mind that Catholics are to accept de fide divine simplicity:

Ecumenical Council Lateran IV [1215] stated:
. . . unchangeable . . . Father and Son and Holy Spirit: indeed three persons but one essence, substance, or nature entirely simple. (Denzinger [D] 428)

Pope Paul IV denied the following teaching, on 7 August 1555:
. . . that Almighty God was not three in persons and of an entirely uncomposed and undivided unity of substance and one single simple essence of divinity . . . (D 993)

And the First Vatican Council in 1870:
. . . He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance . . . (D 1782)

This doesn’t make Aquinas’ own explanation of divine simplicity itself dogma, but as great a doctor as he was, it should be noted that in his explanation of divine simplicity God’s will is His essence, as is God’s intellect and knowledge and power. That within God, His essence and these are one and there’s no distinction between them, so I take issue with declaring that God’s eternal Word (which is eternal and was before and after the Incarnation) is not the same essence as His will. Certainly the assumed human nature is not of the same essence, though it is united to the same essence.
 
I dont understand the propostion you are objecting to?
You seem to be seeing immaterial as the same as nothing?
I see the immaterial as something. If nothing exists, then there is nothing, neither material nor immaterial. That is the meaning of “nothing”.

If God exists, then there is one thing existing – God. Hence, if God exists then there is not “nothing” but instead “something”, with that something being God.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top