Abrahamic God Creates...

[Levite]

Do you hold that God alone is above everything which exists? Do you hold that it is feasible to image a place in eternity God simply was alone?

I don't know what you mean by this. I believe God is the supreme being, given His unique nature and His being the sole creator of all things. I believe there was a "time" before the Creation, before even the Creation of the Heavenly Creatures and suchlike.

But I don't know about "God alone is above everything which exists." "Above" seems to indicate uninvolvement or unaffectedness. But God cannot be truly uninvolved or completely unaffected by the things He created, because He created them, and He maintains their existence in every moment, "powering" everything with His own "energy," and because He loves and cares about everything that He made-- especially self-aware, reasoning beings, like us.

 

[dantech]

When you start the question like this:
"Can a perfect God..." the answer will always be YES.

God can do anything he likes. It, however, doesn't mean that he does.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

1)Being a perfect God, implies there can be no other as equal. Otherwise, God is not uniquely, exclusively perfect.

Being a "perfect God" has nothing to do with being an "uniquely, exclusively perfect" god. You can't seem to get past your first point without falling on your face.

Part of perfection must mean God is unique and exclusive.
This is understood when we see that anything God creates is always something other than God, leaving God to be perpetually unique.

Leaving aside the (in my opinion uninteresting) issue about whether or not an omnipotent god could duplicate itself or transform itself itself into something less than preternatural, your 'logic' holds only if one assumes monotheism - in which case we have the rather underwhelming assertion that a unique god is unique.

On the other hand, you may well be right -- depending, of course, on how one defines the terms -- so, for example, you too are "perpetually unique." But to say so is to say very little indeed.

Makes perfect sense.

Circular reasoning often gives one that impression.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Again, not that I am totally disagreeing with you here, but I have to throw out that this is based on our quite limited understanding of things.

Maybe so, but that's all we have to go on.

You mean you can't come up with any eternal philosophies that would allow for an infinitely wise God to do this?

Oh, I'm sure I could come up with some, but none that makes any sense to me. I'm attempting to be as logical as possible. I'm trying not to make any assumptions based on presuppositions, and instead work from what we know about reality.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

<yawn>

petty ad hominem​

</yawn>

Wow...

Leaving aside the (in my opinion uninteresting) issue about whether or not an omnipotent god could duplicate itself or transform itself itself into something less than preternatural, your 'logic' holds only if one assumes monotheism - in which case we have the rather underwhelming assertion that a unique god is unique.

Since when is the abrahamic God not thought of as part of monotheism? The title of the thread is about that God, hence monotheism.

On the other hand, you may well be right -- depending, of course, on how one defines the terms -- so, for example, you too are "perpetually unique." But to say so is to say very little indeed.

Nothing circular about what I've said in the thread. If you are not interested just don't comment.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

Maybe so, but that's all we have to go on.



Oh, I'm sure I could come up with some, but none that makes any sense to me. I'm attempting to be as logical as possible. I'm trying not to make any assumptions based on presuppositions, and instead work from what we know about reality.

Part of our reality is the descriptions of God in doctrines. So, what I've come up with seems to fit your criteria. Am I missing something?

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

When you start the question like this:
"Can a perfect God..." the answer will always be YES.

God can do anything he likes. It, however, doesn't mean that he does.

But is has already been explained in many threads, about illogical things God can't do, because they amount to really nothing. Like square circles.

Problem is, some people think lesser of God if he can't do this, but "this" isn't really a thing to be done. "this" is just words we play with that have no meaning.

That is what I mean when I say there are things God can't do. Understand the difference?

On the other hand, God certainly can do all things and anything logically possible. No problem there.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Part of our reality is the descriptions of God in doctrines. So, what I've come up with seems to fit your criteria. Am I missing something?

The problem here is, when talking about deity, all we can do is offer nothing more than metaphysical speculation. Alot of people have conceptions of said deity that really don't fit the facts of reality. If we're going to discuss the logicalness of a deity, scriptures and doctrines can't really come into play. So all we have to go on is our knowledge, what we know based on what can be observed and tested. This really does away with alot of conceptions of deity. From the logical standpoint, I can discuss the existence of god in terms of deism or pantheism, but that's about it.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

The problem here is, when talking about deity, all we can do is offer nothing more than metaphysical speculation. Alot of people have conceptions of said deity that really don't fit the facts of reality. If we're going to discuss the logicalness of a deity, scriptures and doctrines can't really come into play. So all we have to go on is our knowledge, what we know based on what can be observed and tested. This really does away with alot of conceptions of deity. From the logical standpoint, I can discuss the existence of god in terms of deism or pantheism, but that's about it.

Fair enough, though the title of this thread is Abrahamic God

 

[Tumah]

The ideas in question is as follows:

1. Can a perfect God that is perfect in every way, create something, create anything as perfect as God?
   Logic says, it can't be done, that it is not logically possible.
   If said creation can not be as perfect as God, how near or far will it be from God's perfectness?
2. Doesn't this imply that if we accept this God to exist, in some cases worship this God, that we must accept the idea that suffering must exist to some extent?

This question is nonsense. Logic was not created before G-d. It is G-d's creation. G-d is not bound to the rules of logic. Whatever you say based on this is going to be based on a faulty suposition.
What is "perfect" in this instance referring to?

It is my contention that, God alone and in entirety does not and can not suffer. However, the moment something sentient is created, it must suffer because it is not God and therefor not privy to perfection.

None of this means, life free of suffering can't become possible to some degree, but that is a different topic.

Why are you equating suffering with imperfection? What does perfection mean? What does suffering mean?

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

Why are you equating suffering with imperfection?

Because it is a fair equation given the doctrine I have available to me.

What does perfection mean?

God, Love one and the same. Is stands to reason, that we see other aspects under the heading of Love, like jealousy, anger etc... because of creation, and not necessarily because God is just always jealous or angry.
When Love becomes divided, in this case when creation happens and perfection (God) is no longer alone, perfection itself is still limited to just God, and all other things will be less than perfection (God).

What does suffering mean?

Is the separation from God. Since God can never be separated from himself, there is no way he would suffer in the sense we define suffering.

If this is nonsense to you, so be it. I am just answering your questions.
Don't comment if it is just nonsense I guess

 

[nazz]

Like begets like. Perfection creates perfection. If god, who is considered perfect, created, this implies that he, in fact, isn't perfect. And even if god, considered perfect, created, it could only be perfect. The fact that this existence is imperfect, shows that, from this argument, god, if it exists, has to be imperfect, or doesn't exist at all.

I don't see how this follows at all. If God is constrained to create only what is perfect then God is not perfectly free to do as he wishes.

 

[Tumah]

Because it is a fair equation given the doctrine I have available to me.
God, Love one and the same. Is stands to reason, that we see other aspects under the heading of Love, like jealousy, anger etc... because of creation, and not necessarily because God is just always jealous or angry.
When Love becomes divided, in this case when creation happens and perfection (God) is no longer alone, perfection itself is still limited to just God, and all other things will be less than perfection (God).

How can G-d be love? Love is an emotion. G-d creates Love, He is not His creation. How do this make sense to you?

Is the separation from God. Since God can never be separated from himself, there is no way he would suffer in the sense we define suffering.

If this is nonsense to you, so be it. I am just answering your questions.
Don't comment if it is just nonsense I guess

I don't see this. If I break my bone, I am not suffering because I am not love, I am suffering because my body is not whole. If I am anxious, it is not because I am not love, but because my thoughts are not in an optimal state.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How can G-d be love? Love is an emotion. G-d creates Love, He is not His creation. How do this make sense to you?

It's anthropopathic drivel.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

How can G-d be love? Love is an emotion. G-d creates Love, He is not His creation. How do this make sense to you?

To start with my doctrine says God is Love, but seeing as that can be misunderstood, there are other reasons to say this.

I don't see this. If I break my bone, I am not suffering because I am not love,
I am suffering because my body is not whole.

Exactly, you are not whole which allows suffering. All things not God, all things not perfect, all things not whole metaphorically and sometimes literally are going to suffer.

If I am anxious, it is not because I am not love, but because my thoughts are not in an optimal state.

Again, Love is the optimal state, it is the state of being God. So, when we are NOT God, the possibility of anxiety, or broken bones or whatever you want to include becomes real.

You seem to think less of God, if he is Love, or if we say that Love is God.
In could be said, you are simply humanizing the word love.

 

[dantech]

But is has already been explained in many threads, about illogical things God can't do, because they amount to really nothing. Like square circles.

Problem is, some people think lesser of God if he can't do this, but "this" isn't really a thing to be done. "this" is just words we play with that have no meaning.

That is what I mean when I say there are things God can't do. Understand the difference?

On the other hand, God certainly can do all things and anything logically possible. No problem there.

God can make circle squares. You just wouldn't understand them.

I got sucked into the circular logic hypotheticals. Sorry

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

God can make circle squares. You just wouldn't understand them.

I got sucked into the circular logic hypotheticals. Sorry

You can make that statement, but it amounts to saying the following:

God can make keriofner oifehfgio3490r8349t0u30t9%%%%%

It just doesn't mean anything, and only serves to get off topic for those that can't stay on topic. If this doesn't interest you, I am not offended.

 

[dantech]

You can make that statement, but it amounts to saying the following:

God can make keriofner oifehfgio3490r8349t0u30t9%%%%%

It just doesn't mean anything, and only serves to get off topic for those that can't stay on topic. If this doesn't interest you, I am not offended.

Which is why I apologized with the following sentence.

 

[Akivah]

If a being, from everlasting to everlasting, that has no beginning or end, and is alone in this unique situation, creates something, imagines something, we can analyze the potential place and value of that "something" created. When we do analyze it, we find the follow results at minimum.

1)Being a perfect God, implies there can be no other as equal. Otherwise, God is not uniquely, exclusively perfect. The justification for this statement is in that anything God creates is at best a division of God, an aspect of God, the will of God.
2)In order to create another God identical to THE God, the first God would have to become the second God, otherwise the second God would not be identical. The second God would occupy a different space/existence, etc... Not identical, thus there is no logical way for God to duplicate himself exactly, because it will always be something different than the original.

I agree that G-d can’t create another G-d. G-d is unique and infinite. There can be only One unique and infinite G-d. For if there was a second one (or third, fourth, hundredth), then G-d wouldn’t be either unique or infinite.

As soon as this logic becomes the accepted basis of discussion, the inclusion of suffering and other topics can have a framework that allows God to still be Tri-Omni, and the argument of "Problem Of Evil" goes away.

The Christian Problem of Evil doesn’t exist in Judaism. Since G-d created everything, it follows that G-d also created evil. Indeed, G-d tells us directly in the bible that He did create evil. (Please don’t argue that, since that would be a separate thread by itself. Just accept the Judaism reading.) In Judaism, the question is “What is the purpose of evil in G-d’s Creation?” The existence of suffering and evil doesn't affect nor detract from G-d’s perfection.

 

[Tumah]

To start with my doctrine says God is Love, but seeing as that can be misunderstood, there are other reasons to say this.



Exactly, you are not whole which allows suffering. All things not God, all things not perfect, all things not whole metaphorically and sometimes literally are going to suffer.

Again, Love is the optimal state, it is the state of being God. So, when we are NOT God, the possibility of anxiety, or broken bones or whatever you want to include becomes real.

You seem to think less of God, if he is Love, or if we say that Love is God.
In could be said, you are simply humanizing the word love.

I'm not really sure then, why you entitled this thread "Abrahamic G-d creates..." It seems you weren't speaking about general Abrahamic religious beliefs about G-d but a doctrine specific to a certain Abrahamic religion. The entire basis of your thread is based on that doctrine. It would make more sense to ask your coreligionists as they are the only one that would share your views to begin with.

Yes, I do think that G-d is lessened by saying He is Love. Love is a creation, just like any other emotion. By subjecting G-d to His creation you are lessening Him.
In a later post you said it perfectly. "God can make keriofner oifehfgio3490r8349t0u30t9%%%%%"
This is exactly right. We as finite beings subject to logic can only perceive the finite and comprehend the logical. But G-d is the Creator of the finite and logic. He is not subject to either of these. Therefore there is no constraint on Him to be logical- if anything, the only way to be true to His placement as Creator of logic, would be to say that He can't be logically comprehended.