Fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe.

[OldWiseGuy]

Gotta love it when in the midst of an attempt to make a logical explanation "now, that´s a mystery" pops up.

Experts in all areas often admit to not knowing everything about their own chosen fields. When the bible speaks of a 'mystery' most often it is something that is simply not known, or hasn't been revealed yet, or has only been revealed to a chosen few. Many so-called mysteries are revealed through careful and diligent study. Others become plain through time and experience. What is a mystery in some Christian denominations is plainly understood in others (now that's a mystery all by itself).

 

[quatona]

DP, sorry.

 

[quatona]

Experts in all areas often admit to not knowing everything about their own chosen fields. When the bible speaks of a 'mystery' most often it is something that is simply not known, or hasn't been revealed yet, or has only been revealed to a chosen few. Many so-called mysteries are revealed through careful and diligent study. Others become plain through time and experience. What is a mystery in some Christian denominations is plainly understood in others (now that's a mystery all by itself).

That´s all fine and dandy. However, the element "this is a mystery" renders the attempt of an explanation surrounding it obsolete.
IOW: I don´t care much for a long winded explanation when at some point it comes down to "it´s a mystery", anyway.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That´s all fine and dandy. However, the element "this is a mystery" renders the attempt of an explanation surrounding it obsolete.
IOW: I don´t care much for a long winded explanation when at some point it comes down to "it´s a mystery", anyway.

Of course. If a person doesn't believe the explanation, it remains a mystery to them.

 

[quatona]

Of course. If you don't like the explanation, it remains a mystery.

The explanation remains "it´s a mystery" no matter whether I like it or not.

 

[Pachomius]

My purpose here is to hear from non-Christians specially atheists what they know of the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Because unless they know, they are not hitting the target they should hit in arguing against the existence of God, so that they are wasting their time and labor.

But on the other hand if their intention is to confuse the issue they could be succeeding with themselves, thinking that by intentionally not hitting the target, the target does not exist for themselves, but that is intellectually dishonest.

So, if you are a non-Christian, that includes everyone not a Christian be it an atheist, a Buddhist, a Hinduist, whatever, even a Satanist, it is to your interest to know what is the fundamental concept of God in relation to the universe in the Christian faith, otherwise you are hitting the wrong target, and thereby either being naive or intellectually dishonest.

But among non-Christians the atheists are the most opposite to the Christian faith, in that they deny the existence of God Who to Christian theists is the be all and end all of everything that is not God Himself.


Still I must address atheists to inform them that we are talking about concepts, not yet about the reality of existence outside the realm of concepts.

So if you get wrongly what is the fundamental concept of God for Christians in relation to the universe, then you are opposing the wrong as I said target, and perhaps congratulating yourselves that you have proven to your own conviction that there is no God in the realm of reality, because you have succeeded in hitting the wrong concept of God, namely, that concept of God which for Christians has a corresponding reality in the world of existence outside the realm as I said of concepts.



Now, people here are talking about mystery -- and I am the one who have brought up that word -- on which occasion someone says to the effect that how convenient that in a logical exposition on the concept of God for Christians, the word mystery suddenly pops up.

Well, of course, my good contributor of an attitude of an opinion, you don't see mysteries all around you, except in the Christian faith?

Let me see if you can agree with me on what is a mystery in all man's quest for knowledge.

Right away I will say that a mystery is a situation where we have two pieces of knowledge which are both accepted by us but are not compatible between themselves, such a situation is crudely for our purpose here also called a paradox or a dilemma.

However, please keep in mind that we are talking in the domain of concepts, not in the domain of reality outside our minds.

Some mysteries are created by the mind but in reality there is no mystery, for example the famous mystery of how Achilles in a race with a tortoise cannot catch up with the tortoise if he gives the tortoise headstart however little.

That is a mystery that is created by the mind of man, specifically, Zeno.

But Zeno certainly knows that outside in the realm of reality of a race between a human runner and a tortoise even with the human giving a headstart to the tortoise, that human racer will sooner than later catch up with and outstrip the tortoise.


Now, I said that the evil in man and the creation and operation of God in everything, that includes man and his action, it is a mystery for Christians that God cannot be blamed for the evil man does even though logically God is the author of everything in the end terms of what man does freely -- even the concept itself of free will is also a mystery in this connection.

The solution if I may hazard the Jewish theologian's whoever (and I still have to look him up) solution is simply to say that God is the author of evil but for Him He being the Big Boss it is no evil.

But that brings in why punish man at all if God is the agent of evil in the ultimate terms of man's evil deeds.

So, the Jewish theologian is not thereby with his solution freed of another mystery, that of why punish man when God is the doer in the end terms of man's free acts , but that is all in the realm of concepts.

In actual human society, man is answerable for every deed that he does consciously, so if it is not acceptable in society, his act namely, then that man is going to have to answer for it to fellowmen, otherwise society will not work and no man can lead a safe life except he by force is the most physically powerful man, a despotic tyrant.


Someone will say now that there are no mysteries in science?

Now that we have the internet, perhaps he will look up these words, mysteries of science, with google.



Coming back to what non-Christians know to be the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, I hope that you all non-Christians here in this Christian forum will read up on the concepts of God in the Christian faith, from established Christian writers, starting with the authors of the Gospel to the recognized exponents today of the Christian faith.




Pachomius

 

[quatona]

Well, of course, my good contributor of an attitude of an opinion, you don't see mysteries all around you, except in the Christian faith?

Yes, I don´t. I don´t even see mysteries in the Christian faith.

Let me see if you can agree with me on what is a mystery in all man's quest for knowledge.

I will simply accept your definition for purposes of this discussion, just like I simply accepted the definition of the poster I was talking to (which came down to 'mystery is a euphemism for 'I don´t know') for purposes of discussing his statements.

Right away I will say that a mystery is a situation where we have two pieces of knowledge which are both accepted by us but are not compatible between themselves, such a situation is crudely for our purpose here also called a paradox or a dilemma.

Great. There doesn´t seem to be much disagreement between us: Many Christian god concepts contain paradoxes.

Now, I said that the evil in man and the creation and operation of God in everything, that includes man and his action, it is a mystery for Christians that God cannot be blamed for the evil man does even though logically God is the author of everything in the end terms of what man does freely -- even the concept itself of free will is also a mystery in this connection.

Good. We seem to agree that this notion is a paradox.

The solution if I may hazard the Jewish theologian's whoever (and I still have to look him up) solution is simply to say that God is the author of evil but for Him He being the Big Boss it is no evil.

Err, yes, of course we can claim a lot of things ex cathedra. However, this claim doesn´t remove the paradox. It just tries to establish a paradox as a valid logical argument.

But that brings in why punish man at all if God is the agent of evil in the ultimate terms of man's evil deeds.

So, the Jewish theologian is not thereby with his solution freed of another mystery, that of why punish man when God is the doer in the end terms of man's free acts , but that is all in the realm of concepts.

Every abstract consideration is all in the realm of concepts.

In actual human society, man is answerable for every deed that he does consciously, so if it is not acceptable in society, his act namely, then that man is going to have to answer for it to fellowmen, otherwise society will not work and no man can lead a safe life except he by force is the most physically powerful man, a despotic tyrant.

I am afraid I neither understand what you are trying to say here nor how this tangent might even be relevant to the question at hand.

Someone will say now that there are no mysteries in science?

Since the operational term was "logic" (and not "science"), and since you defined mystery as a "paradox", it´s more likely that someone - unless he would like to change the subject for whatever reason - will say that paradoxes aren´t a valid element in logic. And that someone might be me.
Oh wait - that´s exactly what I said in my previous posts already.

 

[elopez]

I did not meant it in a nonanthropomorphic way......

I don't understand. You say you did not mean it in a non - anthropomorphism manner, yet that would mean that you did not mean it in way of not referring to human attributes in relation with God. So you describe God with human attributes then? Yes, that is pantheistic. Unless you meant to say that you did not mean it in a anthropomorphic way, in which case I would question how you do understand it then because how else do we understand the statement "God is the universe," or "God is part of everything"?

Moreover, if God is the universe it raises bigger questions for monotheism and thus Christianity. God is eternal. God has always existed and will continue to exist. So if God is the universe and God is eternal, then either the universe is eternal or God is not eternal and therefore had an origin to His existence.

 

[Pachomius]

God and the universe are not identical, that's crucial.

But for the rest, Christians are free to talk with all kinds of figures of speech and also with all kinds of poetic license how God is in everything and everything is in God, all due to our unavoidable way of conceiving and speaking of things which are not within the everyday's immediate experience of mankind.


But certainly atheists who say that God in the Christian faith is a flying spaghetti monster or an invisible pink unicorn or a celestial teapot, notwithstanding that they want to point to an aspect of the fundamental concept of God in Christianity in relation to the universe to be for them not acceptable, they are still betraying their non-academic attitude of flippancy.

And purposely mis-directing themselves as to avoid attending to the issue of what they should know if they do read the literature of the Christian faith: what is the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Namely, as creator of the universe.



Pachomius

 

[SithDoughnut]

And purposely mis-directing themselves as to avoid attending to the issue of what they should know if they do read the literature of the Christian faith: what is the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Namely, as creator of the universe.

I've never actually met an atheist who did not know this, so I'm not sure as to what your point is here. The disagreements and the discussion come when either discussing whether this concept actually exists, or when talking about other aspects of God - aspects that not even Christians agree on.

 

[jayem]

My purpose here is to hear from non-Christians specially atheists what they know of the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.

Well, I'm a non-Christian. But I have studied a bit of Christian theology. Traditional Christian doctrine states that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe. He is one God manifested in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in the universe, but he is also above and beyond the physical substance of the universe. There are variations here and there, but that's the general theme.

Now I'll tell you my opinion as a naturalist. I believe that everything in the universe is purely a function of matter, and energy, and the inherent properties thereof. I don't believe that there are any supernatural forces or entities outside the realm of matter and energy. So by logical extension, I an an atheist, at least as regards any supernatural gods. Though I don't know with certainty, I think it quite probable that the matter and energy which makes up the physical substance of the universe has always existed.

And lastly, I think God was created by man to explain what man could not understand. And that goes not just for the Abrahamic God, but all gods of all religions. They all are products of the human imagination.

 

[Pachomius]

Well, I'm a non-Christian. But I have studied a bit of Christian theology. Traditional Christian doctrine states that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe. He is one God manifested in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in the universe, but he is also above and beyond the physical substance of the universe. There are variations here and there, but that's the general theme.

[...]

You say:

Traditional Christian doctrine states that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe. ​

And I say you are one atheist who get the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith correctly, in relation to the universe.


That is all I want to hear, and I congratulate you for your acquaintance with the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.



Pachomius

 

[Gracchus]

You say:

Traditional Christian doctrine states that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe.
​

And I say you are one atheist who get the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith correctly, in relation to the universe.


That is all I want to hear, and I congratulate you for your acquaintance with the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.



Pachomius

I think, Pachomius, you might be surprised at how many non-Christians understand Christianity. They don't reject it because they don't understand it, they reject it because they do!

 

[Tim Myers]

"I don't understand. You say you did not mean it in a non - anthropomorphism manner, yet that would mean that you did not mean it in way of not referring to human attributes in relation with God. So you describe God with human attributes then? Yes, that is pantheistic. Unless you meant to say that you did not mean it in a anthropomorphic way, in which case I would question how you do understand it then because how else do we understand the statement "God is the universe," or "God is part of everything"?"

What ARE you rambling on and on about, elopez??

If you did not understand what I meant or wanted it clarified, why didn't you simply ask: "What did you mean there, Tim??"

Would that not have been more sensible than going on and on trying to make your own presumptions regarding my meaning or intentions??

 

[ElijahW]

The response I like is from Justin Martyr's letter to Typhro because it references God's constant nature.

Old Man: But what do you call God?

Justin: That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God.

 

[Tim Myers]

"If you want to be considered pantheistic........"

"Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical. Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god."

What I meant by "nonanthropomorphic" was that I see God personally and anthropomorphically....So, when I say God is a part of everything and everything is a part of God, I am not saying that in a way that excludes the anthropomorphic or human attributes commonly applied by people when they describe God......

I see God as a part of everything and everything as a part of God...personally and anthropomorphically...

 

[quatona]

You say:

Traditional Christian doctrine states that God is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe. ​

And I say you are one atheist who get the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith correctly, in relation to the universe.


That is all I want to hear, and I congratulate you for your acquaintance with the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe.



Pachomius

Are you honestly thinking that there´s only even one atheist around who isn´t aware of this concept?

 

[KCfromNC]

I think, Pachomius, you might be surprised at how many non-Christians understand Christianity. They don't reject it because they don't understand it, they reject it because they do!

Or they reject it because as defined it's impossible for anyone to understand or say anything meaningful about. But maybe we're talking about different levels of understanding - understanding the concept as believed by believers versus understanding it as a real being capable of actually existing.

 

[Pachomius]

Well, if you are an atheist who writes against the existence of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, please then don't bring in the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, the celestial teapot, and similar flippant concepts and names to refer to God.


About Christians who do not know the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, namely, that God is the creator of the universe, this issue is of concern to the leaders of the Christian faith.

And they discuss whether such Christians who do not know can get to the kingdom of God.

But they also know that such Christians who do go to church and have their children baptized and perform the routine acts to be performed by Christians, namely, prayer and living at least trying to do so as they can according to Christian morality, they know that such Christians if they don't know as to be able to give an account of God as to be as good as the learned atheist who knows the concept of God, etc., in the Christian faith, such Christians do know by their identifying themselves with the Christian faith.

And they certainly will get to the kingdom of God.

Such Christians cannot be taken to be like atheists who know the concept of God in the Christian faith and who atheists do take aggressive measures to seek to convince themselves that such a concept does not because cannot be possible in the realm of existence as opposed to non-existence.

And certainly they such supposedly unknowing Christians are not like atheists who also seek to suppress the concept of God in the heart and mind of fellowmen, or even to prevent such a concept of God ever getting to the heart and mind of fellowmen.


As regards man's knowledge of God, it is possible and actually extant in the heart and mind of people who do know God in the Christian faith, that they do know the meaning of God as maker of everything that is not God.

And no matter that mankind cannot talk about God except in the manner that is peculiar to mankind's mode of knowledge, that does not entail that mankind's own peculiar way of knowing -- which is the only way mankind possesses -- is not in fact targeting God effectively.

We can call that human way of knowing anthropomorphic, literally meaning in accordance, as it cannot be otherwise, to the way of human knowing.

But it is not anthropomorphic in the sense of saying God is a flying spaghetti monster, a celestial teapot, an invisible pink unicorn.

The anthropomorphic way of man's knowing as it cannot otherwise be than as it is peculiar to man, is to attribute to God what is the best and the most of good things in the common experience and aspiration of mankind in the whole history of man's existence and experience.

So, as man knows love to be good for mankind, people who know God also attribute love of the best kind and to the most degree in God and from God to mankind.

And also another example, as man knows what is intelligence and what is its opposite, man also attributes to God of the best kind and to the most degree, intelligence in God.

So also the power to bring about things, the knowledge of things, and so on.



I invite non-Christians and most specially atheists who do know God in the Christian faith to be creator of the universe, to explore with me what is wrong if anything be wrong with that concept of God, namely, as creator of the universe.

Now, I say atheists most specially who know God in the Christian faith to be the creator of the universe, I mean atheists who do not use such phrases as flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, celestial teapot when they do care to examine with me and with other Christians like myself the concept of God as the creator of the universe, i.e., everything that is not God Himself.




Pachomius

 

[Gracchus]

Well, if you are an atheist who writes against the existence of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, please then don't bring in the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, the celestial teapot, and similar flippant concepts and names to refer to God.

The reason that people bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel's Teapot, is not to use those terms to refer to God, but to point out that there is exactly as much reason to believe in them as there is to believe in God. In fact there is more reason to believe in these things because they have attributes that are observable in principle, as opposed to God who has no observable attributes.

About Christians who do not know the fundamental concept of God in the Christian faith in relation to the universe, namely, that God is the creator of the universe, this issue is of concern to the leaders of the Christian faith.

And they discuss whether such Christians who do not know can get to the kingdom of God.

So then, you have to have some intellectually unfounded and entirely theoretical belief to enter the Kingdom? You can't get in just by being a decent human being? I know lots of Christians believe this. The can murder, commit adulteries, molest children, lie cheat and steal, but because they believe something completely unsubstantiated they are "saved".

Did you know that Christians used to fight and kill each other over the question of whether the Son was of the same substance as the Father (homousion) or of a similar substance to the Father (homoiusion)? and that "substance" was by definition insubstantial! That didn't stop those men of faith from murdering and damning each other over that iota.

"Faith" has two meanings: On one hand it means belief. On the other hand it means trust. If you really believe or trust, then you will try to do the right thing. With practice you may even succeed occasionally. Or maybe you do the right thing just because it appeals to you. If I were God I would love those who loved what i loved, even if they had never heard of Me.

I would not be so forgiving perhaps, of those who believed in Me completely but went on doing the wrong thing in the confidence that they would be forgiven.

Not all Christians put their faith in a god who is a sadistic moron, but some of them do.