What if God just came out of Nothing ? Would that lessen his Authority ?

[2PhiloVoid]

In theory, to be the creator of the universe does not exclude you from being a jerk. Creator of the Universe does not automatically put you in the position of also being a moral authority.

Why would I think that if I have 1,001 other considerations tied into even identifying this particular Creator? Do you really want to go on record and say that you think Jesus could be a jerk?

I mean, this isn't supposed to be an apologetics thread, but if you want to go there............................................

 

[2PhiloVoid]

??? You seem to be suggesting God learnt everything about humans while creating the humans. I would argue an eternal all knowing entity does not learn anything new from the act of creation

No, I didn't suggest that in the least.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

why?

There are some questions that are outside of human inquiry and comprehension, perplexed. Believe it or not, you've just hit upon one of them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In theory, to be the creator of the universe does not exclude you from being a jerk. Creator of the Universe does not automatically put you in the position of also being a moral authority.

Let me try again since we've had a misunderstanding: I'm going to assert that being the Creator of the Universe automatically DOES put that Being in the position of being the moral authority over every created thing (or person), if the Being in question is the Biblical God.

It's just the way it is, whether we like it or not. It's logical.

 

[perplexed]

Let me try again since we've had a misunderstanding: I'm going to assert that being the Creator of the Universe automatically DOES put that Being in the position of being the moral authority over every created thing (or person), if the Being in question is the Biblical God.

It's just the way it is, whether we like it or not. It's logical.

I don't see the logic , it is not a question of me liking it or not liking it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see the logic , it is not a question of me liking it or not liking it.

Ok. Then explain to me how it is you think it's not logical.

By the way, what is logic? I keep seeing that word thrown around like a rag-doll on this forum, but noone is actually defining it or explaining it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who cares??? It has nothing to do with your claim that your logic is equal to Math! Now I know you have good reason to wanna change the subject, but it ain't workin' if you gonna make such a claim, back it up! Once you do that, then we can talk about other stuff.

Back it up? But you've already expressed that you don't care much for deductive logic. You only care about empiricism. I have'nt made any empirical claims, only a deductive one, one that I've already admitted is "only" valid. If you can't see where I've left you an opening, then that's on you.

My point here isn't to prove that God being the Creator infers His authority. No, my point is that you don't even know what logic is or what the various forms and types of "logic" are out there. No, you're just making up things as you go and then DEMANDING that everyone else respect your own Nietzschean style adaptations or permutations of thought that are transpiring within your own mind.

The truth is, I don't respect that, and I don't have to do so, not anymore than an FBI agent has to respect the pathology of a serial murderer.

No, you don't get to just willy-nilly assert your own trans-valuations. It doesn't work that way. Not on my shift it won't.

 

[dzheremi]

If Time is a created thing, how would things be different if time did not exist?

This isn't entirely answerable, since we can't really conceive of a world without time, full stop, since it is at least rooted in the natural world. We know it's a created thing, however, because the only natural divisions of time relate to sun and moon cycles, and to weather phenomena that vary according to our own geographic location on earth, but neither of these are put into any specific longer time reference absent the human invention of the same. In other words, concepts like "before" and "after" make very little sense without human-created signposts to situate events in relation to one another. If there were only night and day, rather than "last Thursday", or "four years ago", then how would we even conceive of something being "before" or "after" something else? It either happened during the night or during the day, since those are the only natural (i.e., not man-made) references we have. Once you're saying things like "during the day many days ago", you're inserting a point of reference relative to now (the time of speaking/telling) that isn't naturally there.

None of this is to say that there aren't perfectly good reasons for inventing larger or smaller subdivisions of time so as to direct events in the world around us. It's pretty important to have some definable seasons if you're going to do settled agriculture, for instance, but even then I'm sure you recognize that human beings were not always agricultural -- this is a stage in the development of our species as we spread across the world, and not even all people have equally adopted it (there are still nomadic pastoralists and hunter-gatherers, for instance).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is untrue.

No, you equated it with math. Math is empirical, and when you compared your logic to math, that is equal to an empirical claim; something that applies to everyone.

Did you just make this up yourself? All by yourself? Or are you referencing some sources (or getting help) on the non-transparent sidelines? If you're not just looking at a wall and saying this, I EXPECT you to provide your reference that supports your view, even if you just do a (dare I say it) .....name drop. But just don't make spouts out of the void into the public sphere without

Math has both rational and empirical; as Kant would say, it can even be 'synthetic,' if by empirical you don't mean it in a colloquail way.

By the way, I haven't seen you establish a specific and exacting definition for. No, what I see you do here and there on this forum is just make grand overtures to this or that idea without EVER backing up anything you say. For instance, I'd like to see you line some educational info that reflects at least some portion of what it is you're attempting to communicate. For instance, if I'm going to even begin to talk about 'math,' and being that it's NOT my area of expertertise, then I'm going to bring in something like the following for initial consideration. Such a reference isn't meant to be a comprehensive answer, but it at least (as at the university level) offers some moderate justification for why we each hold an idea a true or useful or relevant:

Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

​

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=mat_facpub

Now if you want to change it and admit your logic is not equal to math thus not empirically applied to everyone; fine I can accept it as your logic that applies to you but not everyone the way math does.

Ok. My most basic and "ONLY" valid statement that Creator God of the Bible IS the moral authority, isn't identical with math. But it is deductive. It just isn't "sound." Which is what I've already implied twice.

 

[dzheremi]

How is time conceptulized differently from culture to culture? Can you give an example of this?

Sure. In Aymara, an indigenous language spoken by 1.7 million people in Peru, Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, the future is behind you, while the past is in front of you. If you think about time in a linear fashion, this is the opposite of what you would expect if you've spoken or studied mostly English or other European languages, where the past is behind you and the future in front of you. As it was explained to me, the reasoning behind this is rather intuitive: you can 'see' the past, because you've already been there, whereas the future remains unknown/not visible.

This is not to claim that the Aymara or anyone experience time in a fundamentally different way from people who live in 'future-forward' societies, only that they conceptualize time differently than others. Linguists have more or less completely abandoned the 'strong' form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is in brief that your language shapes your thought in a constraining way (e.g., because this language lacks terms for XYZ, its speakers cannot conceive of XYZ), in favor of weaker versions of it, such as the fairly uncontroversial claim that language influences thought, rather than binding it like a straightjacket.

 

[perplexed]

Ok. Then explain to me how it is you think it's not logical.

By the way, what is logic? I keep seeing that word thrown around like a rag-doll on this forum, but noone is actually defining it or explaining it.

If someone tells me "God is all knowing and likes purple so God has Moral authority, this is logical" my response would be I cannot see the logic, if they did not bother to explain themselves further there is no point continuing the conversation

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have many Christians talk about the concept of God's total moral Authority being related to fact that he was not caused by anything else.
This simply never makes sense to me. To help me understand can people try to answer the following question.

Obviously, If you see a physical object you are crazy to think it just appeared out of nothing a few days ago.
But suppose God appeared out of a total Godless void because that just a property of Godless total voids, A Godless total void does not have to follow the same rules as physical objects in our universe.
If God then created the physical universe and all good after springing out of nothing would he have to bother to change the nature of his origins to give himself total moral Authority?

The problem is that such a being would not be God. If our God is only something that CAME TO BE, he is only a god.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from Ethics & Morality to Exploring Christianity where it fits better. Ethics & Morality is not the place to debate God's existence.
Per the Statement of Purpose for Exploring Christianity, the posts by non-Christians were removed except from the OP who is the only non-Christian allowed to post in this thread.


​

 

[perplexed]

The problem is that such a being would not be God. If our God is only something that CAME TO BE, he is only a god.

Do you actually care about the fact God is not something that came to be?
Isn't it just a technicality if he is all knowing and created your soul?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Do you actually care about the fact God is not something that came to be?
Isn't it just a technicality if he is all knowing and created your soul?

No, it is not just a technicality. It is extremely relevant that he is self-existent, omnipotent, under obligation to no other fact or principle, the very creator of reality, the source of existence itself. My heart cannot belong to any other 'god'.

There can be no other God. No other god can be creator. Nor can any other god be the one to weigh the balances of sin. Nor can any other god take my place in payment of sin. Nor can any other god be the very definition and source of all virtue, and of all that is new.

 

[perplexed]

No, it is not just a technicality. It is extremely relevant that he is self-existent, omnipotent, under obligation to no other fact or principle, the very creator of reality, the source of existence itself. My heart cannot belong to any other 'god'.

There can be no other God. No other god can be creator. Nor can any other god be the one to weigh the balances of sin. Nor can any other god take my place in payment of sin. Nor can any other god be the very definition and source of all virtue, and of all that is new.

I don't understand, not even a little bit
I believe in the concept of a perfect moral being that should try to copy and that will forgive you for not copying perfectly but I don't see why I should care about what created what

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't understand, not even a little bit
I believe in the concept of a perfect moral being that should try to copy and that will forgive you for not copying perfectly but I don't see why I should care about what created what

Well, first you said, "I have many Christians talk about the concept of God's total moral Authority being related to fact that he was not caused by anything else. This simply never makes sense to me."

Then you said, "To help me understand can people try to answer the following question.

"Obviously, If you see a physical object you are crazy to think it just appeared out of nothing a few days ago.
But suppose God appeared out of a total Godless void because that just a property of Godless total voids, A Godless total void does not have to follow the same rules as physical objects in our universe.
If God then created the physical universe and all good after springing out of nothing would he have to bother to change the nature of his origins to give himself total moral Authority?"

Some of my many answers to this are philosophical, but the one that jumps out at me first is the fact that ALL reality is a moral reality. That is, morality doesn't exist as a separate consideration from other knowledge and fact, except only in our human minds. It is not a side issue. Right and Wrong is not separate from Good and Evil, and all things are good, except for what is evil. There is nothing neutral in creation. To me, at least, that is indicative of pervasive God —not just a side-issue god. But, like probably most people, that probably doesn't quite do it for you, nor will you accept that there is nothing morally neutral. But ok.

With some of my opponents, I have argued the difference between a "mind", as first cause, vs "mechanical fact", as first cause. One thing that seems apparent to me, is that 'mechanical fact as first cause' can be a mere intellectual consideration by its descendant effects (us). But 'a mind as first cause' invokes authority by that first cause, and submission by its creatures. But if this 'God' is not first cause, that is, if the void is what he came into is the first cause, then what authority does this 'God' have over

Is your notion of Moral God, only a standard, or does he/it have power of enforcement, or more to the point, the right of enforcement? If he is self-existent first cause (sorry for the redundancy), and if there was ever a void, the void came into being by God's causation, then there is no authority above him.

 

[perplexed]

Is your notion of Moral God, only a standard, or does he/it have power of enforcement, or more to the point, the right of enforcement?

perfect knowledge and moral standards give you perfect moral authority all other factors are totally irrelevant.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have many Christians talk about the concept of God's total moral Authority being related to fact that he was not caused by anything else.
This simply never makes sense to me. To help me understand can people try to answer the following question.

Obviously, If you see a physical object you are crazy to think it just appeared out of nothing a few days ago.
But suppose God appeared out of a total Godless void because that just a property of Godless total voids, A Godless total void does not have to follow the same rules as physical objects in our universe.
If God then created the physical universe and all good after springing out of nothing would he have to bother to change the nature of his origins to give himself total moral Authority?

I don't believe God's moral authority is because He is uncaused. God's moral authority is because of His own innate goodness and divine character. God is good.

He is uncaused, however. That is a difficult concept to try and wrap one's mind around.

The assertion is that God is. There is nothing beyond God, nothing behind God, nothing above God or after God. God is above all, beyond all, and through all.

We can't speak of a "time" before God, because time is itself a property of created existence. We can't speak of where God is or when God is except to speak of God as every-where (omnipresent) and every-when (omnitemporal). So as rather difficult as it is to contemplate it, to speak of God coming from anything or nothing, or that there is something--even nothing--before God is actually nonsense. It is like trying to draw a four-sided triangle, the very idea of a four-sided triangle is inherent nonsense.

God is. Everything else is because God is. This is, in a sense, what medieval philosophers spoke of when they spoke of necessary being and contingent being. God necessarily exists, His is necessary existence, apart from which existence of anything else is nonsense; and thus to speak of God not existing becomes itself a contradiction, like a four-sided triangle.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mark Quayle]

perfect knowledge and moral standards give you perfect moral authority all other factors are totally irrelevant.

Then how did this being get perfect knowledge, not being the very source of fact itself?

I hope you are beginning the see the difficulty you invoke by having this being "come to be"; in your paradigm, he is not the final authority for anything, but the void is. He is there, only an extremely better being than we are.