Why God is Worthy of Our Praise

[YouAreAwesome]

Everything we do everyday attests to our confidence that tangible objects impact like objects and that, as tangibility approaches zero, impact approaches zero.

Look, I can't prove anything 100%. I can't even prove that you exist. All I can do is remind you that a reasonable person will favor the conclusions most plausible in light of the data. For example, let's suppose you're a manager at a grocery store. The boss asks you why $300 cash is missing from the register. He proposes that one of your cashiers used his tangible hands to steal the tangible money. You reply:

"No. I have a much more reasonable theory. No physical agents were involved. There was no tangible interaction with the cash. Instead, an intangible mind used immaterial telekinesis to summon the cash into his pockets. "

He'd think you were crazy. Similarly, if one of the cashiers gave you that explanation, you'd dismiss that theory immediately. The only reason that Christians have entertained such ludicrous thinking is their historic love affair with Plato, compounded by centuries of indoctrination.

I don't think it's this simple. Missing money is not comparable to the nature of free will and the origin thought which are very different types of things. As you would call it, category mistake.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Ok now you're going so far as to claim that our immaterial thoughts (even those of an intangible angel) have physically viewable effects?

Yes, I believe in theory we could study the brain and see the result of our thoughts though again I haven't done much reading on this, I could be wrong.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

This kind of language is what immaterialists regularly emit. Flowery language that has a "theological ring" and thus in some sense "sounds biblical" but ultimately conveys absolutely nothing because there is nothing clear/coherent being stated. What do you mean the Holy Spirit becomes one with our spirit? I become God? God becomes me? Or is it a spatial juxtaposition/interlock?

Symbolic? You might have a good case if this statement was found only in Job, Psalms, or Proverbs. In such books we anticipate the possibility of many non-literal texts. Not in the epistles, however. The epistles are 99% literal, didactic texts. Furthermore, the term "flesh" screams matter. If Paul wanted to convey something immaterial, flesh is the worst possible choice of terminology.

But "one flesh" doesn't happen between husband and wife in a literal sense either. So it must be symbolic. And the interconnection between us and the Holy Spirit is likened to the interconnection of husband and wife. Just as a husband and wife are one, the Holy Spirit and I are one. But even more so because I believe we do actually become joined to God Spirit to spirit.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No, matter is eternal in the sense it doesn't emerge out of nothingness. Look, Platonists have been making similar claims about God for centuries. You'll often hear them say things like:
1. God is eternal
2. No time existed
3. Then God created time


No. There had to be a first motion. Time is just a term referring to the current count of motions. When the first motion transitioned that count from 0 to 1, I refer to it as the beginning of time.

1. God is eternal in heaven
2. Time exists in heaven (different to time in this universe because space is different and more importantly light is different and so eternal time is different)
3. Our universe did not exist and so there was no time
4. God created our universe
5. Time began in this universe the moment it was created
6. Heaven has no beginning and no end
7. Our universe has a beginning and an end

I agree there has to be a first motion in this universe, but not necessarily in heaven. And here is the problem. When you say the first motion transitioned from count 0 to 1 you have reached the unsolvable problem. The only way to answer this is to appeal to heaven. There are too many questions if you don't. The most important one being, why did something start? Why didn't it remain stationary?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That's not accurate, as far as I understand. Einstein proposed a completely different model, an entirely new understanding of the fabric of reality. Yes, that would count as overturning Newton's theories. And I am not denying that Newton's theories "work" to some extent. But Einstein managed to impugn their account of reality.


I don't need to explain anything. Any explosive effects postulated by Big-Bang theory, if legitimate, can be simulated by divine influence upon matter.

Well Newtons Laws are still taught today because they are accurate and helpful with regard to mass. They only have problems at the speed of light or at the Quantum level. A Theory of Everything will bring all the laws together into one coherent unit. Newton wasn't wrong, his theories were a subset of the larger ideas. But this is not so important to our discussion. More important to me is how your system works with science and I don't like the answer "divine influence" solves the problem. Sounds like a Young Earth Creationist argument. The point is space and time are one unit. You can't have space without time and you can't have time without space. So postulating a material mass that existed before time began seems at odds with physics.

 

[JAL]

But "one flesh" doesn't happen between husband and wife in a literal sense either.

Yes it does. Sexual intercourse is a physical union where two bodies interlock to form one contiguous block of flesh.

I think you're alluding to the fact that they don't mutually dissolve to the loss of their respective identities, but such is not required to form one flesh. Consider this analogy:

"I interlocked the puzzle pieces to form one picture".

So it must be symbolic.

Here's what Paul said:
"The two [i.e. Christ and the church] become one flesh."

You are claiming that, even in Genesis, "one flesh" is already non-literal (and thus symbolic). And then "one flesh" is again symbolic in Ephesians? Thus the original symbolism is now being used to symbolize - another symbol? Doesn't make sense. Symbols are used to symbolize the literal reality, not another symbol. Moreover, all exegetes, including yourself, are aware of metaphor/simile indicators in the Greek, conspicuously absent here.

Paul could have used symbolic language such as, "The union of husband and wife as one flesh was a figure of the church." And clearly Paul wasn't averse to such language, because he regarded Adam as a "figure of the [second Adam] to come" (Rom 5:12). Yet he refrained from such symbolic language because he was speaking literally.

As with the puzzle pieces interlocking, "one flesh" is an interlock by spatial juxtaposition. And we know that the Third Person entering our bodies is Christ (the husband) spatially juxtaposing Himself to His church (His bride).

Let's summarize. In Genesis, "one flesh" isn't specifically a symbol of marriage. It's a physical juxtaposition known as sexual intercourse. It definitely isn't a symbol of marriage, because Paul even says that a man becomes one flesh with a harlot (1Cor 6). Therefore Paul is clearly referring to spatial juxtaposition - and according to him the byproduct is "one flesh". Again, based on Eph 5 alone, the exegete is warranted in rejecting immaterialism.

And the interconnection between us and the Holy Spirit is likened to the interconnection of husband and wife. Just as a husband and wife are one, the Holy Spirit and I are one. But even more so because I believe we do actually become joined to God Spirit to spirit.

One what? One flesh - and that only during sex. They certainly are not one person. As I explained at length, there is no psychological immanence in play here, only a spatial union.

 

[JAL]

I agree there has to be a first motion in this universe, but not necessarily in heaven. And here is the problem. When you say the first motion transitioned from count 0 to 1 you have reached the unsolvable problem...

Counting from zero to one is an insoluble problem?

...the only way to answer this is to appeal to heaven. There are too many questions if you don't. The most important one being, why did something start? Why didn't it remain stationary?

Um...by virtue of self-propelling free will, for the millionth time.

 

[JAL]

1. God is eternal in heaven
2. Time exists in heaven (different to time in this universe because space is different and more importantly light is different and so eternal time is different)
3. Our universe did not exist and so there was no time
4. God created our universe
5. Time began in this universe the moment it was created
6. Heaven has no beginning and no end
7. Our universe has a beginning and an end

Incoherent. You imply an infinite past because you say that heaven-and-time have no beginning and end. An infinite past requires an infinite amount of time to transpire before God got around to creating the earth - which means He never created it. Yet here we are.

 

[JAL]

The point is space and time are one unit. You can't have space without time and you can't have time without space. So postulating a material mass that existed before time began seems at odds with physics.

Not necessarily. The Big-Bang theory postulates an explosion (think 'motion') culminating in space-time joint-arrival. Thenceforth, the model always presumes the constant coexistence of, constant interplay of, space, time, motion. And from that perspective it understandably won't entertain any notion of one without the remaining two. And frankly I have no reason to disagree with that perspective.

Yet you are basing your objection by scrutinizing my cosmogony at a prior point. Obviously, since I have a different theory of origins than modern science, my starting point is prone to differ in some respects from theirs. Such is the nature of the case. But at least my claim isn't the incoherent nonsense of matter emerging ex nihilo. If you want to believe drivel, that's your prerogative.

My claim is that motion defines time. And if you were to poll all physics professors with the question, "Suppose you have some matter but no motion. Wouldn't that imply the possibility of matter without time?", I suspect that you'd get differences of opinion on this. It's more of a metaphysical question than a scientifically verifiable one.

 

[JAL]

@YouAreAwesome,

An Open Theist like yourself (rightly) asserts that God cannot foreknow a free act and thus He learns something every time He observes one - He learns a newly-added fact of history. The question is, how does an immaterial God observe events? Surely, if He is too intangible to be impacted by sensory stimuli, He cannot observe anything. Here too, immaterialism is incoherent.

 

[JAL]

@YouAreAwesome,

Consciousness is loudness. Meaning, it is an ongoing stream of sensations more or less distinct("loud and clear"). The cessation of those sensations is unconsciousness and/or death. (Any alternative definition of consciousness is sheer drivel). Since it is ongoing, it involves time. This leads to a problem. Is the past infinite? Does God's self-awareness stretch all the way back through the entire span of an infinite past? That cannot be, for the reason already stated - planet Earth would never have been created if it had to wait for an infinite past to transpire.

Thus you'll have to agree with me that the divine consciousness awakened like a fetus in a womb, as the first moment of time. If He is a static substance, it's not likely that any change/awakening would occur. Thus it is more likely that motion/energy was involved, which suggests that He is a tangible Being. This confirms the basic elements of my cosmogony.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The divine Word monitors all particles. This means He is more or less sparsely distributed everywhere, for example everywhere within our universe, and all throughout the remainder of the Totality outside of our universe. Not sure why you find this so confusing.

Did our universe begin within the totality? If yes, is it expanding into this totality? What about a vacuum, is God there too? Is there anything outside of the totality? Or is the only thing that exists the Totality? Or is there a nothingness outside of the Totality? These kinds of things need to line up with physics that's all. Especially considering you are arguing that material existed before time, which I'm pretty sure flies in the face of Einstein.

 

[JAL]

Especially considering you are arguing that material existed before time, which I'm pretty sure flies in the face of Einstein.

Nope. Already addressed at post 109.

Did our universe begin within the totality? If yes, is it expanding into this totality?

Yes. The Totality is precisely what that word says - it is all reality. Therefore if the universe is expanding (and I have no reason to question that conclusion), then it is expanding within the Totality. Picture blowing up a baloon in your room. The baloon expands, but not your room.

What about a vacuum, is God there too?

God's main mission is to monitor particles. If there are no particles in a vacuum, I'm not sure He needs to be there. Not really my concern. Either way, He keeps Himself hidden from material instruments.

Is there anything outside of the totality? Or is the only thing that exists the Totality? Or is there a nothingness outside of the Totality? These kinds of things need to line up with physics that's all.

No, that particular question doesn't need to line up with physics. Historically speaking, the question as to what lies outside observable reality and/or outside the universe has frankly been ignored by most physicists, philosophers, and theologians. The point is that if you are concerned here with a possible point of incoherence in materialism, it's a double-edged sword because immaterialism must address the same question. No coherent answer to the question has been postulated to date. I don't have one either, but in the sense of stumbling around in the dark, I will share my (somewhat incoherent) opinions.

To answer your question, my position is finite reality (a finite Totality) because an actualized infinity:
(1) Is definitely incoherent
(2) Is less plausible. It's somewhat of a magical claim, because everyday we see finite objects, not infinite ones.

So what lies outside the Totality? Since it is the whole of reality, nothing can lie outside of it, and thus nothingness - not empty space but literally nothing. What does this mean? The length of nothingness is zero inches. That means if you travel to the border of the Totality and step across it, the distance to the OPPOSITE side is zero inches. You'll immediately arrive and not even know that you were at the border - an unbroken continuum of reality.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

No. Absolutely unacceptable analogy. Jesus volunteered to atone. Innocent suffering is perfectly acceptable if volunteered as atonement for others. This is perfectly consonant with the human concept of justice. For example if I decide to put in extra hours at work to pay for my son's speeding ticket, I've volunteered my own blood, sweat, and tears to pay for his sin.

In our world, the innocent receive pain all the time. Babies who receive pain receive the consequence of their parents sins (and by parents I don't mean immediate parent, but all previous generations), but remain innocent.

 

[JAL]

In our world, the innocent receive pain all the time. Babies who receive pain receive the consequence of their parents sins (and by parents I don't mean immediate parent, but all previous generations), but remain innocent.

But that's my point. Having 100 billion innocent offspring suffer for the sins of Adam and/or those of their own parents is incompatible with an infinitely kind God. That's the definition of a monster.

Suppose an evil man in your country poisons the water supply. The leader of your nation announces, "This man will die for his crime. And so will all of you. I have the antidote to the poison, but I've decided to let all of you suffer the consequences of his actions."

That leader is almost as much of an evil monster as the criminal himself. In an election, would you cast your vote in favor of such a leader? I don't think so. You'd hold him in the utmost despise and contempt.

And it's also contrary to fact, since Ezekiel 18 teaches that a child shall not suffer for the sins of his parents. Yes, I'm well aware there is a verse that seems to belie that, "I will visit the sins of the parents upon the children" but that's consistent with my theory of Adam. If we are all guilty in him already, then God has every right to visit our parent's sins upon us.

 

[JAL]

6. Heaven has no beginning and no end

That's a bit of an odd claim, isn't it?

 

[JAL]

@YouAreAwesome,

The sad thing is, I still don't feel free to say everything I'd like to say. Meaning, I have a couple of objections to the hypostatic union, but at times when I expressed them in the past, the thread wasn't merely shut down - it was actually deleted off the face of the earth.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

(1) God did in fact pronounce judgment upon the human race when Adam sinned. You ignored my appeal to Gen 3.
(2) Ideally, even human justice systems would like to shield the innocent from any side-effects of criminal behavior. They are often unable to do so. But God has no such excuse. An infinitely kind and fair God would not allow the consequences of Adam's sin to befall 100 billion innocent people. For instance He could have easily started over with Bob and Sue.

Your appeal hangs on Genesis 3:16 right? But H7235 does not need to be translated "I will greatly" but is showing how the impact of sinning will greatly impact childbirth. Look at the Hebrew and see the translators have added the "I will" to the text to make it make sense in the english. Notice it is correct later in the next verse where God explains, "Because you did X, Y has happened".

As for point two, that's exactly what he did with the flood.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

@YouAreAwesome

I'd like to make a couple of more notes about the biblical evidence for materialism.
(1) Angels. Angels are sufficiently tangible to stand around the throne (Rev 5:6 11), strike Peter in the ribs (Acts 12:7), walk ahead for Peter to follow (12:9), draw a sword from a sheath (Jos 5:13; 1Chr 21:27), open prison doors (Acts 5:19), wear garments (Mk 16:5; Lk 24:4), ride horses(Rev 6:1 8), open sealed scrolls (Rev 6:1 8), carry weight scales (Rev 6:5), sound trumpets (Rev 8:6ff.), play harps (Rev 5:8), hold bowls of incense (Rev 5:8 9), shout in thunderous voices (Rev 10:1 4), carry off the dead (Lk 16:22), and be fettered by chains (2Pet 2:4; Jud 1:6; Rev 20:1). In Ezekiel's vision of angelic cherubim "their [physical] feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot...Their wings were [physically] joined one to another" (Eze 1:7, 9). When they flew he "heard the [physical] noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of a host: when they stood, they let down their wings" (1:24).

(2) Sound. Regarding physical, sonic energy. Throughout Revelation entities cry out in loud voices or mighty voices (e.g. Rev 1:10, 15; 5:11 14 6:1, 9 10; 7:2, 10; 8:13;10:13; 11:12, 15; 12:10; 14:2, 7, 9, 15, 18; 16:1; 18:2; 19:1, 6, 17; 21:3). Voices can differ in loudness only in virtue of gradations in the magnitude of sonic energy. John never categorized heavenly voices as purely “in the mind” or “in the heart.” Certainly he knew the difference, for he documented that earthly Babylon “saith in her heart, I sit [as] a queen” (18:7). At one point “there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour ” (8:1). Silence means the cessation of objective sound, the environmental cessation of sonic energy. On the last day “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a [sonic] shout, with the [sonic] voice of the archangel, and with the [sonic] trump of God" (1Th 4:16), "for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible" (1Cor 15:52).

I agree with all of this.

 

[JAL]

Your appeal hangs on Genesis 3:16 right?

No.
(1) Verses 3:16-19 - that whole passage - pronounces consequences on the human race that we all experience daily.
(2) At minimum, God exiled them from the ideal Garden - and we in turn are all born in that state of exile.
(3) Unborn fetuses suffer consequences even in the womb.
Clearly, Adam's sin impacted 100 billion innocent offspring (except with my version of Adam). Not consistent with an infinitely kind, infinitely just God.

As for point two, that's exactly what he did with the flood.

Huh? God flooded the innocent? Not in my theodicy.