Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, it should be said that there is no single "God of scripture" - the one obvious thing about It is that it appears in a different guise with every prophet and evangelist.

With all due respect you now seem to be appealing to the God who is the subject of literary criticism. With the exception of some biblical henotheism, the writers are monotheists talking about a unitary divine nature and they don’t deviate from that. Whatever else that is central.
 God’s portrayal might be different but the claim of “No one God” is a misleading self indulgent flourish.

Maybe he's learning (Process theology)

About what?And from whom?

P.S. I note that our old returning friend Stranger has said something like my first paragraph too.

The boys are back in town,The boys are back in town.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Completely missing the point. We have no free will in this depiction of God - our 'futures' are already mapped out, God knows the history of reality from start to finish, it's already established for God who exists in each moment. So all the evils, all the pain, all the destruction, all are God's deliberate choice.

Given that we are physical, we exist in time and space that God has created in its entirety, we are entirely the creation of God. There is no movement towards or away from anything that God hasn't chosen.

O.

Fore knowledge is foreordination then? Perhaps you can demonstrate how that works. The trouble is I am not talking about fore anything I am talking of God being there at every moment, not just one point in the past using some kind of Clairvoyant power.

Even if morality could be described in terms of fundamental particles, fanning out from the unity of God at the base of each hierarchy we see the emergence of degrees of freedom and things becoming dependent on probability rather than it all being determined from some kind of Get go.

There is no evidence from physics which gives us a steer on right or wrong and as we’ve discussed neuroscience on the matter seems to need ideas on morality imported to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can fantasise a 'necessary entity' or 'base of all hierarchies' (which have as many logical problems as all other attempts to explain existence)

Feel free to justify that statement

but trying to identify it with anything remotely like the Abrahamic Gods leads to so many contradictions

What in your opinion then are the attributes of the “Abrahamic Gods” which clash with ultimacy, creator, sovereignty, uniqueness?.

Something that is unchanging cannot think, plan, create, judge, command, interact or act in any way at all. It cannot possibly be anything like the Abrahamic type Gods at all.

God’s nature doesn’t change, He doesn’t metamorphose, he doesn’t operate mechanically, thinking for God is not a mechanical process, he is not actualised potential. Again what aspects of the
Abrahamic God’s contradict these?

[jeremyp]

With all due respect you now seem to be appealing to the God who is the subject of literary criticism. With the exception of some biblical henotheism, the writers are monotheists talking about a unitary divine nature and they don’t deviate from that. Whatever else that is central.

So you are explicitly denying any support for the Trinity in the Bible.

God’s portrayal might be different

That is exactly the point. Gods portrayal is different in different parts of the Bible.All the different gods in the Bible may be "the one god" but they are different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are explicitly denying any support for the Trinity in the Bible.
That is exactly the point. Gods portrayal is different in different parts of the Bible.All the different gods in the Bible may be "the one god" but they are different.

We’ve been through this before, I dispute your tritheistic interpretation.

[jeremyp]

God’s nature doesn’t change

So he can't manifest on Earth as a human? Fine.

He doesn’t metamorphose, he doesn’t operate mechanically, thinking for God is not a mechanical process, he is not actualised potential.

You've gone off into the weeds. Nobody is arguing about what process God is using to think, only that your assertion that he is unchanging means he can't think at all.

Again what aspects of the
Abrahamic God’s contradict these?

Have you read any of the Bible?

[jeremyp]

We’ve been through this before, I dispute your tritheistic interpretation.

You were wrong then. You are wrong now.

[Stranger]

With the exception of some biblical henotheism, the writers are monotheists talking about a unitary divine nature and they don’t deviate from that. Whatever else that is central.
God’s portrayal might be different but the claim of “No one God” is a misleading self indulgent flourish.

Whoosh! The fact that there are multiple versions of the 'God of scripture' is a directly observable fact about the world. Look at all the endless denominations, sects, and cults and all their different ideas about what the 'God of the bible'.

The problem for you is that none of them (that I'm aware of) are compatible with the base of all hierarchies concept.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whoosh! The fact that there are multiple versions of the 'God of scripture' is a directly observable fact about the world. Look at all the endless denominations, sects, and cults and all their different ideas about what the 'God of the bible'.

The problem for you is that none of them (that I'm aware of) are compatible with the base of all hierarchies concept.

It's just another way of saying that without the necessary entity their would be nothing contingent.
Or to put it biblically God created what the Bible calls the heavens, the earth, the waters etc. So no contradiction there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So he can't manifest on Earth as a human? Fine.
You've gone off into the weeds. Nobody is arguing about what process God is using to think, only that your assertion that he is unchanging means he can't think at all.
Have you read any of the Bible?

Depends what you mean by manifest himself since he is by nature omnipresent. Jesus is both human and divine without confusion of the two things  He is not some chimera.

[Stranger]

Feel free to justify that statement

A necessary entity is incoherent for reasons we've been through many times.

What in your opinion then are the attributes of the “Abrahamic Gods” which clash with ultimacy, creator, sovereignty, uniqueness?.

Ultimacy, creator, sovereignty, and uniqueness are only partly the attributes of a changeless 'base of hierarchies'. Something changeless has no sovereignty because it is unable to do anything. Nor can it be a creator. Creation is an action.

God’s nature doesn’t change, He doesn’t metamorphose, he doesn’t operate mechanically, thinking for God is not a mechanical process, he is not actualised potential.

You can spout this sort of meaningless gibberish all you like but the various versions of the biblical God all plan, act, interact, judge, and any number of other things that would be totally impossible for anything that is changeless.

What on earth do you mean by "thinking for God is not a mechanical process"? How can anything think without time?

[Stranger]

It's just another way of saying that without the necessary entity their would be nothing contingent.

What is? And "without the necessary entity their [sic] would be nothing contingent" is apparently incoherent speculation. That is, unless you've thought of some way to make a 'necessary entity' make some sort of logical sense since we last discussed the matter...?

Or to put it biblically God created what the Bible calls the heavens, the earth, the waters etc. So no contradiction there.

What's that got to do with anything I said?

[Outrider]

Fore knowledge is foreordination then?

It is when you're doing the creation with absolute knowledge, yes.

Perhaps you can demonstrate how that works.

God knows how the show ends, knows each and every moment along the way, because there is not 'before' or 'after' for God, who is at all times at once. Therefore, when God does creation (however that works from a timeless perspective) it chooses a creation that ends in that particular way.

The trouble is I am not talking about fore anything I am talking of God being there at every moment, not just one point in the past using some kind of Clairvoyant power.

Which means God knows what's happening at the end when it chooses to do the start.

Even if morality could be described in terms of fundamental particles, fanning out from the unity of God at the base of each hierarchy we see the emergence of degrees of freedom and things becoming dependent on probability rather than it all being determined from some kind of Get go.

Even if morality is a conceptual analysis of what humans do in a given context, the fact that we functionally have no choice in a reality where God has already chosen how the universe goes means that human morality is non-existent..

There is no evidence from physics which gives us a steer on right or wrong and as we’ve discussed neuroscience on the matter seems to need ideas on morality imported to it.

It's not about physics. It's not about whether physical reality is deterministic or not, it's about the fact that the probability of an event that's already been observed is 100%, and God has already seen all the events. We don't have any real choice, God has chosen to create THIS reality, knowing what happens at every stage.

O.

[Stranger]

There is no evidence from physics which gives us a steer on right or wrong and as we’ve discussed neuroscience on the matter seems to need ideas on morality imported to it.

So morality emerges only at high levels and so cannot be present in the 'base of hierarchies'. Well done, yet another hole in your argument. BTW I don't really see what neuroscience would have to do with morality. You'd be better off looking at evolution.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is? And "without the necessary entity their [sic] would be nothing contingent" is apparently incoherent speculation. That is, unless you've thought of some way to make a 'necessary entity' make some sort of logical sense since we last discussed the matter...?

What's that got to do with anything I said?

Postulating contingent entities that aren’t contingent which is effectively what you are suggesting here is absurd. In terms of discussion you just tried to bandy the phrase space time continuum around shamanically imho

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A necessary entity is incoherent for reasons we've been through many times.

You should have no problem referencing them then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So morality emerges only at high levels and so cannot be present in the 'base of hierarchies'. Well done, yet another hole in your argument. BTW I don't really see what neuroscience would have to do with morality. You'd be better off looking at evolution.

What do you mean by high levels? Physical complexity doesn’t necessarily result in morality does it? You seem to be equating physical complexity with morality here.
But let’s run with your point.

I would say the capacity to do what we ought not to emerges independent of the base of the hierarchy.

[Stranger]

Postulating contingent entities that aren’t contingent which is effectively what you are suggesting here is absurd.

Please don't put words in my mouth, I don't know where they've been.

In terms of discussion you just tried to bandy the phrase space time continuum around shamanically imho

Don't really know what this refers to or what it has to do with what I said, and "space time continuum" sounds more Star Trek than me. I'd be much more likely to say just "space-time" or "manifold" rather than "continuum".

Have you thought of anything the space-time might actually be contingent on yet?

You should have no problem referencing them then.

#43159 and surrounding discussion, is just one example.

What do you mean by high levels?

You're the one talking about hierarchies of existence that you want to place God at the root of. I'd have thought physics was nearer the base than biology, let alone morality.

Physical complexity doesn’t necessarily result in morality does it? You seem to be equating physical complexity with morality here.

You really seem to have a problem with English comprehension.

But let’s run with your point.

I would say the capacity to do what we ought not to emerges independent of the base of the hierarchy.

What's that supposed to mean? If you're arranging reality in a hierarchy, then everything has to depend on the base.

[jeremyp]

Depends what you mean by manifest himself since he is by nature omnipresent.

You're the Christian.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

Ring any bells?

Jesus is both human and divine without confusion of the two things  He is not some chimera.

So what? If Jesus is both human and divine, he is something that changes but you said God is unchanging.

The whole point of this is to show you that your assertion that God is unchanging is, on its face, complete bollocks, unless this god does not intervene in the World. The act of intervention is, by definition, a change, no matter what gobbledegook you come up with to obfuscate the fact.

[Dicky Underpants]

With all due respect you now seem to be appealing to the God who is the subject of literary criticism.

Literary criticism, forsooth! No, I am appealing to what I observe is what the Bible actually says, with a little help from Julius Wellhausen and Richard Elliott Friedman, two worthies of rather greater stature in the field than dear old C.S. Lewis, the literary critic you are so fond of quoting.

With the exception of some biblical henotheism, the writers are monotheists talking about a unitary divine nature and they don’t deviate from that. Whatever else that is central.
 God’s portrayal might be different but the claim of “No one God” is a misleading self indulgent flourish.

The henotheism to which you refer is rather more prevalent than you suggest. Though unequivocal in Psalm 82, its presence can be discerned throughout the Pentateuch and beyond. Genesis 1 is an unequivocally monotheistic text, but this Priestly narrative derives from a far later period (probably post-exilic). From thereon the Priestly narrative is interpolated with a very mixed bag of texts which are certainly henotheistic by implication, but certainly do not show the transcendental monotheism of Genesis 1. Who is the old buffer in Genesis 2 - is he your unmoving, unchanging centre of all the 'hierarchies'? And the genocidal maniac who is behind Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, and even as far as Kings is surely not any sort of 'Ground of Being' or 'unmoving centre of the Hierarchies'. Let's hear you make a good case for Numbers 31 and the bloodthirsty massacres in Joshua inspired by this very "jealous" tribal deity. What was he 'jealous' of, to order all this slaughter? Presumably because he feared there were other gods.....

In fact, we do not find any unequivocal monotheism in the texts (except for other references in the Priestly narrative) after Genesis 1, until the 2nd Isaiah, especially chapter 45. This text has also been dated as post-exilic, possibly within decades of when the Priestly narrative was redacted, which is a significant point .(Isaiah 45 also a good one for Alan Burns to read, since he believes in a personal Devil in opposition to God. I wonder how this personal Devil hopes to usurp the 'unmoving, unchanging centre of all hierarchies'. Can anyone have a go?)

All this before we get round to the preposterous arguments about the Trinity, which neither Muslims nor Jews (as far as I can see) will accept as any kind of monotheism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God’s nature doesn’t change…

This seems to be a restatement of your “God is unchanging” schtick.

So, if according to this belief if this “God’s nature” is to want little Timmy to die of leukaemia then little Timmy will die of leukaemia right?

You also though seem to believe that praying can actually work. Thus if someone close to little Timmy prays hard enough and in the correct manner, then your god who intends him to die may change his mind and cure little Timmy instead. Thus your “unchanging” god changes the course of events he'd intended because the praying persuaded him to do so: ie, God's Plan A becomes God's Plan B instead.     

So which claim do your religious speculations make: an unchanging god, or praying that works? 

Your thesis can have either, but not both. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So morality emerges only at high levels and so cannot be present in the 'base of hierarchies'. Well done, yet another hole in your argument. BTW I don't really see what neuroscience would have to do with morality. You'd be better off looking at evolution.

Morality emerges at "higher" levels ( of complexity ) because immorality emerges. "Lower or simpler things appear to be doing what they ought to be doing.
However immorality isn't a given emergent from complexity.
Again Physical complexity defined by reductionism or eliminativism gives us no information regarding right or wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A necessary entity is incoherent for reasons we've been through many times.

Ultimacy, creator, sovereignty, and uniqueness are only partly the attributes of a changeless 'base of hierarchies'. Something changeless has no sovereignty because it is unable to do anything. Nor can it be a creator. Creation is an action.

You can spout this sort of meaningless gibberish all you like but the various versions of the biblical God all plan, act, interact, judge, and any number of other things that would be totally impossible for anything that is changeless.

What on earth do you mean by "thinking for God is not a echanical process"? How can anything think without time?

I think you need to say how things change.
The debate started with the phrase Prayer changes me, Not God.
The implication is that God was going to act in a certain way and is unchanged by us. It is rather us getting in with God rather
than him getting in with ours.

This was the transmuted into a God that cannot act because he doesn't move.
That though is different from an unmoved mover or unchanged changer or unactualised actualized and is therefore a bit of a red herring.

[Outrider]

Morality emerges at "higher" levels ( of complexity ) because immorality emerges. "Lower or simpler things appear to be doing what they ought to be doing.

This implies that morality and immorality are different things, rather than merely characterisations of particular points on a scale of a single concept.

However immorality isn't a given emergent from complexity.

How do you know? What complex systems are you aware of that don't have morality?

Again Physical complexity defined by reductionism or eliminativism gives us no information regarding right or wrong.

In the formulation you've given above, actually, it does - it says that given that morality isn't there until a certain level of complexity is reached, it's reasonable to consider that it's a product of that complexity, and not something inherent to reality. Which also leads to the conclusion that the detail of the complexity would affect the detail of the morality - in other words morality is relative.

O.

[jeremyp]

I think you need to say how things change.

No we don't. We just have to demonstrate that the Christian god could not be without change. We are just refuting your assertion that God is unchanging.

The debate started with the phrase Prayer changes me, Not God.

No it didn't. That was just your transparent attempt to sidestep the issue tat the Christian god cannot be unchanging.

The implication is that God was going to act in a certain way and is unchanged by us.

Many of your fellow Christians disagree with you. Alan, for example claims to be personally aware of miraculous healings brought about by prayer.

This was the transmuted into a God that cannot act because he doesn't move.

No: into a god that cannot act because he doesn't change.

That though is different from an unmoved mover or unchanged changer or unactualised actualized and is therefore a bit of a red herring.

How could this thing cause the Universe without changing?