Is God essentially Creator?

[public hermit]

Yes indeed. Empiricism is born of Ockham, for better or worse. He simplifies, and appears to solve philosophical problems but creates new ones that go a long way to blowing away the whole edifice of philosophy. You can hear Luther ripping philosophy as a simple outgrowth of this.

Poor Luther was philosophically trained as an Ockhamist, with the Ockhamist toolbox, hardly knowing any philosophy but Ockhamism, and basically only knowing the Ockhamist talking points against Thomas.

Yeah, great observation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes indeed. Empiricism is born of Ockham, for better or worse. He simplifies, and appears to solve philosophical problems but creates new ones that go a long way to blowing away the whole edifice of philosophy. You can hear Luther ripping philosophy as a simple outgrowth of this.

Poor Luther was philosophically trained as an Ockhamist, with the Ockhamist toolbox, hardly knowing any philosophy but Ockhamism, and basically only knowing the Ockhamist talking points against Thomas.

I have to append something.

The Islamic philosophers would have made great scientists if not for the fatalism of thinking everything was contingent. So eventually Islamic science went into retreat and is today a nothingburger. But the empiricism of Ockham lived on and pushed a scientific revolution that is still powerful. I think that is because we never went full Ockhamist as a European culture. Ockham simplified, maybe too much, but that opened the door to looking at things the way they actually appear to be, looking at them with new eyes. And yet we knew the world was not pure contingency. Which means we can build on discoveries. We know it will be the same, more or less, this afternoon as it was this morning. So it's worth expecting that to be the case. Science can build discovery on discovery. It couldn't have happened if Islam won the battle of Lepanto and had become the religion of Europe. It might have happened if Albertus Magnus was successful even without Ockham, but who knows.

 

[mlepfitjw]

Is God essentially Creator?

To this question, I would say yes. God is the Creator. He spoke His word, out and the words where created just as He created such as the sun, moon, stars, trees, mountains, valleys, flowers, fruits, cows, chickens, all sorts of animals, and also delicious food to eat in any country, there are people who are able to make it and find food to eat no doubt about it. Who wants to go hungry?

But The main point is that God created all things including when he made adam and eve he deemed all was good. (If I remember correctly). And even if someone doesn't know jesus or maybe follow his way exactly in the belief styles.

The Lord Jesus Christ taught us to tolerate, be patient, be kind, always do not repay evil for evil, to be thankful in all circumstances, sober minded, thoughtfulness of others, praying for others, loving others the right way, forbearing one another, encouraging one another, supporting one another.

 

[zippy2006]

This goes back to God's freedom. God was not necessitated in such a way that God could only create the present order. The present "order" is simply a collection of relations that have no real entity. So, if that's the case, notions such as "kind" go out the window. At least, there is no essence that necessitates one kind generated the same kind. There are only contingent collections of entities. God very well could have created such an order that ducks gave birth to chickens, who in turn gave birth to elephants. And, if God had done that, it would be the present order and would make perfect sense.

Right: Occasionalism. Here is a fun quote from the Islamic Occasionalist, Al-Ghazali, a predecessor to Ockham (and Hume):

"Fire, which is an inanimate thing, has no action. How can one prove that it is an agent? The only argument is from the observation of the fact of burning at the time of contact with fire. But observation only shows that one is with the other, not that it is by it and has no other cause than it." (Tahafut, 186) (IEP)
​

The allure of logical positivism clearly wasn't just a modern phenomenon, and Ockham seems to catalyze us in that direction.

But Empiricism really does presuppose Essentialism so far as I can see, and theologians like Aquinas who followed Aristotle held to the principle that there is nothing in the mind that was not first in the senses. The Aristotelian school therefore has a very strong empirical element. Further, it seems to me that Voluntarism carried to Occasionalism is incompatible with even thin Essentialism and therefore incompatible with science. For Occasionalists empirical observation can never justify prediction as it must for science.

Again Copleston, "For Ockham, then, the universe consist of 'absolutes', substances and absolute accidents, which can be brought into greater or lesser local approximation to one another, but which are not affected by any relative entities called 'real relations'. From this it would follow that it is futile to think that one could read off, as it were, a mirror of the whole universe. If one wants to know anything about the universe, one must study it empirically." (ibid.)

For example, if there are only substances and (absolute) accidents, then empirical observation seems to take a hit. For al-Ghazali the fact that one fire heats does not mean that the next fire will also heat, for he sees no reason to believe that heat is caused by fire. Ockham clearly didn't see that his ideas led to Occasionalism, nor did his successor Nicholaus of Autrecourt, who took his ideas further. Apparently we don't get into full Occasionalism territory in the West until Malebranche.

 

[Saint Steven]

Here's what I want to know.
If Ockham's razor drew blood, would that blood be thicker than water? Or are all relationships created equal?

 

[sparow]

John also tells us that this Word that God spoke in the beginning is the One through whom all things came into being and without this Word not one thing came into being, John 1:1-3. Angels are beings that came into being, i.e. they are creatures.

I have some sympathy with the notion that the creation account is abstract and in some sense says more than it says. But, the scriptures are not so abstract that we can't find any defining concepts of God as has been revealed and who creatures are in relation to their Creator. Yes, there is plenty of room for speculation, but it's not a blank slate.

The scriptures give us a clear indication of a beginning and an end. The scriptures are framed by two gardens. Everything in-between marks a beginning and an end to the enmity between God and humanity. We were created to be with God, and when it is all said and done we will be. In that, God cannot fail.

At any rate, the question at hand concerns whether or not God is essentially Creator. As odd as the thought that God is not essentially Creator seemed to me when I started this thread, I am convinced that Duns Scotus and others who have held that position are correct.

The question, 'Is God essentially creator”, is confusing or ambiguous to me; does God have other functions beside creating or could the creatures have come without God?

What we are given in the Bible is upper and lower limits and in between is a rationale; the creation story is the beginning or lower limit and the end of time is the upper limit; outside if the limits there is very little history or prophesy.

The creation story is abstract in two ways; first the story is irrational (God does not break His own Laws by performing magic), or is fictional as is a parable, and is an abstract or compressed overview of the next six thousand years (a day is a thousand years). What is created or recreated is the Kingdom of God and the occupants of it; even the King himself.

Mans relationship with God exist in three parts; genetic relationship followed by a spirit breathed in at birth and the the choice of an interaction with God where all three are bought together.

There is a “we” that will be with God, but there is also a “them” who will not be.

Your premise is irrational: If creation (misnomer) was by chance, throw the Bible in the trash can; if creation was and is then game on.

Beginnings and ends are always subjective, relative or circumstantial. When speaking of the universe or God there are paradoxes Like who created God or if one travels out there looking for the end one might come to a place where there is no longer any matter and if one reached that place one would not have the means to know if one was moving forward (relative to what), backward or which way; what sort of life form would one be and what sort of life support would be required

 

[public hermit]

The question, 'Is God essentially creator”, is confusing or ambiguous to me

I can see why that would come across as ambiguous. Did God have to create, necessarily? Or, was God free to not create? If the former, then God is Creator essentially. If the later, then God is not essentially Creator. At least, that is how I understand the question.

Essential def.: y is essential to x, if and only if, x would not be x without y.
In other words, if God is essentially Creator, then God necessarily creates. Thus, God and creation are inseparable and interdependent.

 

[Noxot]

The idea that God is radically free and that there are no real relations has further implications, I think (I don't know that Ockham would agree with what follows, so...)

God is radically free in the sense that God did not have to use a particular kind of order in creating. Creatures are distinct entities. According to Ockham, I cannot infer, a priori, the cause of an effect. I can infer that an entity has a cause, but there is no "real relation" by which I can deductively know anything about the cause itself. The only way I can know the cause is by observation.

This goes back to God's freedom. God was not necessitated in such a way that God could only create the present order. The present "order" is simply a collection of relations that have no real entity. So, if that's the case, notions such as "kind" go out the window. At least, there is no essence that necessitates one kind generated the same kind. There are only contingent collections of entities. God very well could have created such an order that ducks gave birth to chickens, who in turn gave birth to elephants. And, if God had done that, it would be the present order and would make perfect sense.

I think it appears obvious that God could have created a world that had a different order (different physics?), but when you try to think of specifics it gets wonky. But, for Ockham, that oddness is simply the result of this being the only contingent world we know by experience.

an infinite God means anything is possible. though there are already problematics for both monism and dualism. the Hindus basically solve this by non-duality. when I think of matter and what the modern world knows of it, it does seem to be something that can take many different forms and it seems to be truly accidental. it seems to be part of Chaos, but the logos is not chaotic. God made all things out of nothing. I'm thinking this chaotic empty Darkness principle must be the feminine Divine principle, the womb which the Son of God can be born. this makes sense when we're told the son of God is the form which turns our coin to his image.

in Genesis the spirit was hovering over the waters. water is of course feminine and passive. it will for instance fill whatever shape of container you put it in.

since we fulfill the goodness that can be done as a being that is accidental, God could in no otherwise way than me manifest my goodness, which is why he desired my hand in marriage. without me he could never have this goodness that I with his help can potentially be. what accidental goodness could God have if he is goodness by essence and necessity? so I still believe that we complete God and he completes us. this is one reason why Souls exist. I don't understand this relation business when I'm literally married to God. God being incomprehensible is even for my own Eternal enjoyment just as much as I am for his. God as essence is his positive actualization which is an infinity, but there is Darkness as well as light and darkness is the potentiality that is also infinite. at least it was berdyaev and Jacob bohme that spoke of these two infinities. others say that it is irrational that there be two infinities. but I would say that that is the point, apophaticly speaking. the universe speaks it plainly, there is darkness and there is light. last I checked Darkness and Light have a relation. I think that the West might have a tendency to lean towards atheism and scientific understanding. they're always trying to dissect, oversimplify and overanalyze everything. this is why Occam's razor is so great a tool for scientists. there is a possibility that they are pulling out of the irrational Void more manifestation of matter, they could be forcing reality to further come into focus by further descending away from God. but this kind of hypothesis is extremely alien to the modern mind. personally I do not know what to think of it but sometimes even reality feels like it shifts.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The question, 'Is God essentially creator”, is confusing or ambiguous to me; does God have other functions beside creating or could the creatures have come without God?

What we are given in the Bible is upper and lower limits and in between is a rationale; the creation story is the beginning or lower limit and the end of time is the upper limit; outside if the limits there is very little history or prophesy.

The creation story is abstract in two ways; first the story is irrational (God does not break His own Laws by performing magic), or is fictional as is a parable, and is an abstract or compressed overview of the next six thousand years (a day is a thousand years). What is created or recreated is the Kingdom of God and the occupants of it; even the King himself.

Mans relationship with God exist in three parts; genetic relationship followed by a spirit breathed in at birth and the the choice of an interaction with God where all three are bought together.

There is a “we” that will be with God, but there is also a “them” who will not be.

Your premise is irrational: If creation (misnomer) was by chance, throw the Bible in the trash can; if creation was and is then game on.

Beginnings and ends are always subjective, relative or circumstantial. When speaking of the universe or God there are paradoxes Like who created God or if one travels out there looking for the end one might come to a place where there is no longer any matter and if one reached that place one would not have the means to know if one was moving forward (relative to what), backward or which way; what sort of life form would one be and what sort of life support would be required

Yes in light of eternity and prior to Gen 1:1 , creator seems rather secondary considering time is only a created thing.

 

[Noxot]

Essence is only kataphatic theology. it is the Theology of wisdom. apophatic theology is the Theology of love, it is the Theology of the mystics.

one positive statement can negate another one because two droplets of water that join together are still the same and yet it is in some way negated because the truth is the water, not the two droplets. God is beyond his own essence, but he's not divided against himself.

necessary or not necessary becomes a meaningless question when you know that God is greater than his own energies and essence and that nothing can be without him and that since he is and that since we are then that is what is. when God interacts with us it is like an infinite flat field which bends outwards toward us like a cyst and we see that we are in fact that cyst of God, when he touches us and we melt away but yet preserved by him. God's essence is ice. his energies is vapor and Air. his incomprehensible divinity is water. we are a bubble in an ocean called God.

these questions are struggling with an incomplete metaphysics. a more complete metaphysics renders these questions as foolish, because it's like trying to apply the laws of physics to God. it's like trying to apply limited rationality to an infinite mind. it is the mindset of a Slave, of a creature who Shivers in Terror over an alien God. it is not the mindset of the Son of God who is fully human and fully God. Christians were too busy spreading their religion everywhere and not busy enough with understanding it deeply enough. perhaps God lead them to spread it so much so they could further acquire better methods of comprehending.

regardless it must be that most major religions are all so specifically distinct for a Divine Purpose. it would seem that Buddhism had an influence on Muslims more quickly than it had on Christians.

 

[public hermit]

Essence is only kataphatic theology. it is the Theology of wisdom. apophatic theology is the Theology of love, it is the Theology of the mystics.

one positive statement can negate another one because two droplets of water that join together are still the same and yet it is in some way negated because the truth is the water, not the two droplets. God is beyond his own essence, but he's not divided against himself.

necessary or not necessary becomes a meaningless question when you know that God is greater than his own energies and essence and that nothing can be without him and that since he is and that since we are then that is what is. when God interacts with us it is like an infinite flat field which bends outwards toward us like a cyst and we see that we are in fact that cyst of God, when he touches us and we melt away but yet preserved by him. God's essence is ice. his energies is vapor and Air. his incomprehensible divinity is water. we are a bubble in an ocean called God.

these questions are struggling with an incomplete metaphysics. a more complete metaphysics renders these questions as foolish, because it's like trying to apply the laws of physics to God. it's like trying to apply limited rationality to an infinite mind. it is the mindset of a Slave, of a creature who Shivers in Terror over an alien God. it is not the mindset of the Son of God who is fully human and fully God. Christians were too busy spreading their religion everywhere and not busy enough with understanding it deeply enough. perhaps God lead them to spread it so much so they could further acquire better methods of comprehending.

regardless it must be that most major religions are all so specifically distinct for a Divine Purpose. it would seem that Buddhism had an influence on Muslims more quickly than it had on Christians.

You have to find a better metaphor than "cysts of God." I'm not saying it's inappropriate. It's just that it reeks. It abuses the reader so that whatever else you say is forgotten for the stench.

 

[sparow]

Yes in light of eternity and prior to Gen 1:1 , creator seems rather secondary considering time is only a created thing.

Before creation there was the Word of God (spokesperson) and God; God is plural and could be an uncountable host, and regardless of whether that is true there is a history we know nothing about.

Time is not created nor is time a thing, (except in man's mind) time is as length and volume, having no physical existence in their own right, but are scales of measurement to measure other things, creation is measured in time, the scale being days, days were created (the earth spinning). If I were a scientist with some form of credentialed authority, I would define time as motion quantized. God did not create instantly but creation was a motion quantized.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Before creation there was the Word of God (spokesperson) and God; God is plural and could be an uncountable host, and regardless of whether that is true there is a history we know nothing about.

Time is not created nor is time a thing, (except in man's mind) time is as length and volume, having no physical existence in their own right, but are scales of measurement to measure other things, creation is measured in time, the scale being days, days were created (the earth spinning). If I were a scientist with some form of credentialed authority, I would define time as motion quantized. God did not create instantly but creation was a motion quantized.

so prior to Gen 1:1 are you saying the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit existed in time, if so there could be zillions upon zillions of years prior to Genesis 1:1.

 

[sparow]

so prior to Gen 1:1 are you saying the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit existed in time, if so there could be zillions upon zillions of years prior to Genesis 1:1.

The scriptures do not settle the matter one way or another; logically speaking, my mind cannot envisage a beginning without something preceding that beginning, conversely I cannot envisage something always existing without a beginning; I believe this is called a paradox; it might be a question that even God cannot answer; But it isn't important, because we live in an environment full of paradoxes and if we worry about them we could go mad, what we should worry about is keeping the Commandments and seeking a relationship with Him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The scriptures do not settle the matter one way or another; logically speaking, my mind cannot envisage a beginning without something preceding that beginning, conversely I cannot envisage something always existing without a beginning; I believe this is called a paradox; it might be a question that even God cannot answer; But it isn't important, because we live in an environment full of paradoxes and if we worry about them we could go mad, what we should worry about is keeping the Commandments and seeking a relationship with Him.

I would mention that paradox is necessarily so only to our limitations. To God, to whom belongs all fact by his beginning it, causing it, including all principle and logic. These are not self-existent except to our minds; they are all necessarily the "invention" (for lack of a better word), of First Cause --God. I do believe they, as all does nature itself, reveal his nature.

To make up a self-contradictory statement, such as "Can God make a fock too big for him to pick up?", as some sort of indication that God cannot be omnipotent, is pure gibberish. It is meaningless, it presents no paradox even to reasonable human minds. Any other thing we consider paradoxes are somewhat like that, only paradoxes because we don't have the information it would take to show our questions are not stated accurately. We all assume things in our ignorance that are meaningless, or worse.

 

[sparow]

I would mention that paradox is necessarily so only to our limitations. To God, to whom belongs all fact by his beginning it, causing it, including all principle and logic. These are not self-existent except to our minds; they are all necessarily the "invention" (for lack of a better word), of First Cause --God. I do believe they, as all does nature itself, reveal his nature.

To make up a self-contradictory statement, such as "Can God make a fock too big for him to pick up?", as some sort of indication that God cannot be omnipotent, is pure gibberish. It is meaningless, it presents no paradox even to reasonable human minds. Any other thing we consider paradoxes are somewhat like that, only paradoxes because we don't have the information it would take to show our questions are not stated accurately. We all assume things in our ignorance that are meaningless, or worse.

We are talking about stuff outside the range of scripture; omnipotent, doesn't mean to me what you suggest; of the Bibles that I have access to only the KJVs and the AMP use "omnipotent", others use "almighty"; for our purpose with regard to God, to assume or believe more than we have been given is not useful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We are talking about stuff outside the range of scripture; omnipotent, doesn't mean to me what you suggest; of the Bibles that I have access to only the KJVs and the AMP use "omnipotent", others use "almighty"; for our purpose with regard to God, to assume or believe more than we have been given is not useful.

I'm thinking we have been given more than you realize, in Scripture.

Also, logic too, reason, does apply, you know. .

 

[sparow]

I'm thinking we have been given more than you realize, in Scripture.

Also, logic too, reason, does apply, you know. .

There is that narrow path that leads to life that few find, it is more difficult with ones mind switched off.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is that narrow path that leads to life that few find, it is more difficult with ones mind switched off.

Of course.

 

[Fervent]

It seems to me the issue is placing emphasis on what was created. God is essentially Creator, in that He creates from His very nature and it is in His nature to create. Yet in no way does this make Him dependent on creation, because there is no dictation to what He may create and He may create within His own divine essence as much as He creates things external to His essence. This is especially true given the Triune nature of God, because Father Son and Holy Spirit may create within each other just as they love within the godhead. So God is Creator by essence, though creatures are still contingent.