Abrahamic God Creates...

[MattersOfTheHeart]

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.

I didn't present all the cliff notes, but it is true. So, as it seems I must, I will elaborate on this point for you.

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.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Levite]

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?

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.

It seems to me that you are attempting to fuse several different issues.

I see no reason why only perfection prevents suffering, or why our suffering is the direct result of not being perfect. I also see no reason to suppose that God, being perfect, does not suffer.

And while I have heard before the argument that if God is unable to create another God precisely like Himself, that negates His omnipotence, I have to confess, I think it's a bit of a silly argument-- much along the same lines as "Can God create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it," or "Could God create a burrito so hot inside that even He couldn't take a bite without burning His tongue." The problem is that such arguments attempt to force God into patterns of logic, but God is the embodiment and acme of paradox. God is arational. Once past certain basic frameworks of premises, logical problems of theology will never yield satisfactory answers, for the same reason that one cannot use the rules of algebra to diagram a sentence, or the rules of Latin grammar to solve a chemistry problem.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I see no reason why only perfection prevents suffering,

it stands to reason that if God is the absence of suffering, then only God being perfect will lack suffering and all else could be subject to it.

or why our suffering is the direct result of not being perfect.

I didn't say that. I only suggested it is one of many possible outcomes, since it is a real part of the world.

I also see no reason to suppose that God, being perfect, does not suffer.

Good point. I personally have a hard time associating God with suffering. It seems much more logical that the suffering we experience in the world is a sort of calling card to be with God, the one that doesn't suffer, in hopes he can help our suffering. Make sense?

And while I have heard before the argument that if God is unable to create another God precisely like Himself, that negates His omnipotence, I have to confess, I think it's a bit of a silly argument-- much along the same lines as "Can God create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it," or "Could God create a burrito so hot inside that even He couldn't take a bite without burning His tongue." The problem is that such arguments attempt to force God into patterns of logic, but God is the embodiment and acme of paradox. God is arational. Once past certain basic frameworks of premises, logical problems of theology will never yield satisfactory answers, for the same reason that one cannot use the rules of algebra to diagram a sentence, or the rules of Latin grammar to solve a chemistry problem.

I agree with you. I didn't say such things myself.
I don't believe it is logically possible for the Abrahamic God to create a duplicate of himself. The idea becomes illogical if fleshed out, like the Rock example you gave.

 

[Levite]

it stands to reason that if God is the absence of suffering, then .....

But who says that God is the absence of suffering?

I didn't say that. I only suggested it is one of many possible outcomes, since it is a real part of the world.

I can see how, if one defined God as the absence of suffering, this line of reasoning would become attractive; but since it proceeds from an hypothesis for which I see no reason to accept....

Good point. I personally have a hard time associating God with suffering. It seems much more logical that the suffering we experience in the world is a sort of calling card to be with God, the one that doesn't suffer, in hopes he can help our suffering. Make sense?

Not all suffering is experienced the same way, or comes through the same routes.

God, being without physicality, is unlikely to suffer physical pain, or anything analogous to it. And, transcending the created universe, He is not liable to suffer the physical effects of chaos, entropy, and evolution that we face. And being supreme, He is unlikely to suffer torment inflicted by the malice of another.

But suffering comes hand in hand with empathy: if we truly love or care about others, we share in their suffering, just as we share in their joy. The decision to love another, to care about another, is the decision to open oneself to further sorrow and suffering, as well as to further happiness and causes for rejoicing. That is why opening oneself to love, compassion, and so on is risky, it makes us vulnerable.

If nothing else, God is the epitome of empathy, caring for every single one of His creations. Whether He chooses to interfere in the universe on our behalf or not, or chooses to intervene in ways we can perceive or not, the caring remains. He is invested in us, as He wishes us to be invested in Him. And therefore, He suffers. Because all of us suffer. Because the myriad creatures throughout the universe suffer. Because the earth and all the plants and animals upon it suffer beneath the boot of human civilization, and amid the greater forces of evolution and entropy, as no doubt other worlds' inhabitants suffer for analogous reasons. And since this is the universe He chose to create, He suffers knowingly, having chosen to make Himself vulnerable in this way by choosing to create this universe in this fashion, with us in it-- His children.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

But who says that God is the absence of suffering?

I define God as Love. True love is void of suffering of any kind. I get that from my doctrines. If you don't, then this would be an area we just have to agree to disagree about, ya know?

I can see how, if one defined God as the absence of suffering, this line of reasoning would become attractive; but since it proceeds from an hypothesis for which I see no reason to accept....

Again, same point as above.

Not all suffering is experienced the same way, or comes through the same routes.

Not sure the relevance, but I agree with the statement.

God, being without physicality, is unlikely to suffer physical pain, or anything analogous to it. And, transcending the created universe, He is not liable to suffer the physical effects of chaos, entropy, and evolution that we face. And being supreme, He is unlikely to suffer torment inflicted by the malice of another.

Obviously this is one huge divide between Christianity and Judaism, as we feel God took on human nature for perhaps precisely that very reason. Again, it is OK to not agree on this.

But suffering comes hand in hand with empathy: if we truly love or care about others, we share in their suffering, just as we share in their joy. The decision to love another, to care about another, is the decision to open oneself to further sorrow and suffering, as well as to further happiness and causes for rejoicing. That is why opening oneself to love, compassion, and so on is risky, it makes us vulnerable.

I agree with this paragraph. My only addition would be that, while this works well for explaining the suffering we know as humans, we can not just apply it to God.
I mean I can apply it to Jesus, but again that just illustrates why Jesus was sent to share in our world. Doing what God by nature could not (which doesn't make God less perfect)

If nothing else, God is the epitome of empathy, caring for every single one of His creations. Whether He chooses to interfere in the universe on our behalf or not, or chooses to intervene in ways we can perceive or not, the caring remains. He is invested in us, as He wishes us to be invested in Him. And therefore, He suffers

. Again, this is an assumption based on human circumstances. I agree he is the epitome of empathy, however, since he knows all things and what will be the outcome, he does not suffer as we do.

Because all of us suffer. Because the myriad creatures throughout the universe suffer. Because the earth and all the plants and animals upon it suffer beneath the boot of human civilization, and amid the greater forces of evolution and entropy, as no doubt other worlds' inhabitants suffer for analogous reasons. And since this is the universe He chose to create, He suffers knowingly, having chosen to make Himself vulnerable in this way by choosing to create this universe in this fashion, with us in it-- His children.

Same response as before. God is not oblivious to outcomes and whats around the corner, therefore it is baseless to say he suffers in the same way we do, or that he really suffers at all.

Obviously you and I come to different conclusions because of the material we are pulling from. I do however understand your position, and point of view.

 

[Levite]

I define God as Love. True love is void of suffering of any kind. I get that from my doctrines.

I definitely don't define God as Love. I'm sorry, but to me that definition has always seemed deeply reductive.

And I also disagree strongly that true love is void of suffering. True love is built largely on caring, empathy, investment in another: all of those are doorways to suffering, since even if one does not suffer directly, the pain of the beloved is as one's own pain.

Obviously this is one huge divide between Christianity and Judaism, as we feel God took on human nature for perhaps precisely that very reason.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

I agree with this paragraph. My only addition would be that, while this works well for explaining the suffering we know as humans, we can not just apply it to God. I mean I can apply it to Jesus, but again that just illustrates why Jesus was sent to share in our world. Doing what God by nature could not (which doesn't make God less perfect)

Maybe it's just the Jewish/Christian divide, but I just don't see any reason why not to apply it to God, except if you need not to apply it to God so as to have a justification for Jesus' existence.

Again, this is an assumption based on human circumstances. I agree he is the epitome of empathy, however, since he knows all things and what will be the outcome, he does not suffer as we do....God is not oblivious to outcomes and whats around the corner, therefore it is baseless to say he suffers in the same way we do, or that he really suffers at all.

First of all, this argument supposes that suffering would not exist if we knew what was to come, or could see all the results of our choices. But I do not believe that to be the case. Sometimes suffering is unavoidable, though I grant you that may indeed be only in human experience. But sometimes suffering is voluntarily taken on in service to a greater cause, or in order to gain something of greater value to us than the suffering. And even if we knew what was to come, we would still choose the path that led through suffering.

But in any case, whether God knows what is to come or not makes no difference (though personally, I believe that there are matters of which God chooses voluntarily to temporarily have no conscious awareness, in order to preserve human free will). The relevant point is that we have no such knowledge, and it is in empathy to our pain that God suffers.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I definitely don't define God as Love. I'm sorry, but to me that definition has always seemed deeply reductive.

I understand. I believe it 100% to be the case after considering it other ways. It is the one conclusions that has the power to draw everything sentient to Himself. Just something we can disagree on

And I also disagree strongly that true love is void of suffering. True love is built largely on caring, empathy, investment in another: all of those are doorways to suffering, since even if one does not suffer directly, the pain of the beloved is as one's own pain.

Now I make a distinction between Love we experience as humans and Love as in God.
Any love we experience as humans can be described as experiencing parts of God at times. In other words of Love is God and God is Love, we are just simply experiencing part of the nature of God, while living as humans. So of course our love as humans will be better known as the opposite of hate in some cases, or pain etc... However, if God IS Love, God does not need to experience these things to know himself, he simply has to exist.
It is us, that must know love in the manner that you are describing. So I agree with you from a human perspective, but can't pertaining to God.

Maybe it's just the Jewish/Christian divide, but I just don't see any reason why not to apply it to God, except if you need not to apply it to God so as to have a justification for Jesus' existence.

No, not so I can justify Jesus. I am just stating a fact as I see it, that Jesus can fully experience what we experience because he was human like us, where as God is spirit. So, I think applying our experience directly to God may be convenient for us to do, but perhaps isn't the wisest of path as I see it.

First of all, this argument supposes that suffering would not exist if we knew what was to come, or could see all the results of our choices. But I do not believe that to be the case.

Not exactly. Humans suffer from one other reason as well, namely the fear of death. Even if we could know everything that would happen here in this life, we don't perhaps know what's beyond the grave. So it is very hard for us to escape the idea of fear and suffering.
God however, can grant life, take life, etc... So in addition to knowing the outcomes, he can fix boo boos, and give and take life, in other words remove much of what people fear, though he would have to do this miraculously, but he could do it, and he knows he could do it.
Point being, us knowing the results of our choices again, and comparing that with what God knows, and then concluding God suffers seem awful weak to me.

Sometimes suffering is unavoidable, though I grant you that may indeed be only in human experience. But sometimes suffering is voluntarily taken on in service to a greater cause, or in order to gain something of greater value to us than the suffering. And even if we knew what was to come, we would still choose the path that led through suffering.

No problem with what is said here.

But in any case, whether God knows what is to come or not makes no difference (though personally, I believe that there are matters of which God chooses voluntarily to temporarily have no conscious awareness, in order to preserve human free will). The relevant point is that we have no such knowledge, and it is in empathy to our pain that God suffers.

I can only say again, that you are applying empathy that humans experience and all that is associated with it (suffering, crying, etc...) and insisting God must be or should be the same way. When there is plenty of reason to say otherwise.

It is part of our brain structure, our biology to cry, and all of that. Perhaps all tools to know what Love is. However, why is knowing Love so important? Again, to me, if God is Love, it is of utmost importance, and we have been designed to be able to follow the crumbs and not only find the source of Love, but become compelled to worship it.

I suppose we are a bit off topic, hope I am not boring you. Thanks for the replies.

 

[roger1440]

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?

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.

Do you have any children? If so, what was the very first thought that came to your mind when you held your child in your arms for the very first time? There is your answer.

 

[Levite]

Not exactly. Humans suffer from one other reason as well, namely the fear of death. Even if we could know everything that would happen here in this life, we don't perhaps know what's beyond the grave. So it is very hard for us to escape the idea of fear and suffering.
God however, can grant life, take life, etc... So in addition to knowing the outcomes, he can fix boo boos, and give and take life, in other words remove much of what people fear, though he would have to do this miraculously, but he could do it, and he knows he could do it.
Point being, us knowing the results of our choices again, and comparing that with what God knows, and then concluding God suffers seem awful weak to me.

I can only say again, that you are applying empathy that humans experience and all that is associated with it (suffering, crying, etc...) and insisting God must be or should be the same way. When there is plenty of reason to say otherwise.

It is part of our brain structure, our biology to cry, and all of that. Perhaps all tools to know what Love is. However, why is knowing Love so important? Again, to me, if God is Love, it is of utmost importance, and we have been designed to be able to follow the crumbs and not only find the source of Love, but become compelled to worship it.

I am not suggesting that God literally cries, of course. That would be impossible, since I don't believe God has physicality. Nor am I suggesting that God's "emotional experience" is identical to ours. But I think the analogous responses are often there in Him, to one degree or another, and often for similar reasons.

We are made in the image of God. Part of that is about free will, and part of that is about self-awareness and ability to reason. But part of that is also about the nature of our being, the ways in which we seek for connection outside ourselves, the way we take joy in things, the way we respond to the drama of Creation with deep feelings. Maybe the responses, the nature of what drives the feelings, the character or texture of the "emotion" is different with God, because He is God. But I think that to imply that God does not have those kinds of emotional responses in whatever way is appropriate to Him is to diminish Him, to make Him lesser than we. Because those responses spring from the noblest, most transcendant and elevated part of our natures, as well as drawing from the baser parts.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

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.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I am not suggesting that God literally cries, of course. That would be impossible, since I don't believe God has physicality. Nor am I suggesting that God's "emotional experience" is identical to ours. But I think the analogous responses are often there in Him, to one degree or another, and often for similar reasons.

We are made in the image of God. Part of that is about free will, and part of that is about self-awareness and ability to reason. But part of that is also about the nature of our being, the ways in which we seek for connection outside ourselves, the way we take joy in things, the way we respond to the drama of Creation with deep feelings. Maybe the responses, the nature of what drives the feelings, the character or texture of the "emotion" is different with God, because He is God. But I think that to imply that God does not have those kinds of emotional responses in whatever way is appropriate to Him is to diminish Him, to make Him lesser than we. Because those responses spring from the noblest, most transcendant and elevated part of our natures, as well as drawing from the baser parts.

I meant no offense towards your beliefs.
I disagree with a lot of what you just said, even though it sounds pleasing enough, it just seems wrong.

The OP is about God being perfect correct? I assert that part of being perfect is not suffering. You then stated that God suffers, and that suffering is part of his relationship with humans.
However, what about before creation? Was he suffering then?

I just don't see a way to present a perfect God as one who suffers, and as such I feel comfortable making a statement like in the OP.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

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.

Incorrect.

Try to imagine anything other than God that is the ultimate perfect thing. Just as an exercise.
Now imagine this thing is the ONLY thing in existence.
Now this thing has the power to make other things if it wants.

Briefly, I am working under the assumption that square circles, and rocks to big for God to pick up are just not possibilities, these are known as illogical-possibilities.

So, this thing attempts to create an exact replica of itself, I mean down to the very last decimal. Yet, finds it can't be done, because to do this, the new thing would have to occupy the same space as the first, to be EXACT.

If he makes it next to himself, it isn't exact. It is close but not perfect in every way.

As soon, as anything created steps away from exactly perfect, doors start opening to be either much closer to the perfect or much further away. This exercise demonstrates why God can't duplicate himself, yet God can still remain perfect.
You're examples are the same as the false statements that God should be able to make a rock he can't lift. Childish games is what that amounts too, not real philosophy.

Next, if we move one step further into the discussion. Let's assume this thing instead of building an exact of itself, wants to make lots of different creations.
So now, there is no attempt to create himself (the only perfect thing) but does want some of his creation to be similar to him.
So we have a bunch of creations that share some resemblance to that perfect thing, but the question becomes, what about the parts that aren't so perfect or like God?

Is this where suffering enters the picture?

I can't explain it any clearer than that.

 

[Levite]

However, what about before creation? Was he suffering then?

Who can say? Perhaps He suffered loneliness, or whatever we might wish to call the desire to have children.

I just don't see a way to present a perfect God as one who suffers, and as such I feel comfortable making a statement like in the OP.

I think it brings us back to the issue of paradox. God can be perfect and suffer because He is paradoxical, because His transcendance is not limited by His immanence, and vice-versa, and because His complete dissimilarity to us is not compromised by how very like us He is-- and vice-versa. God is One, the Source of all things-- including self-contradictory things, or things which appear to be self-contradictory.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Incorrect.

Try to imagine anything other than God that is the ultimate perfect thing. Just as an exercise.
Now imagine this thing is the ONLY thing in existence.
Now this thing has the power to make other things if it wants.

Briefly, I am working under the assumption that square circles, and rocks to big for God to pick up are just not possibilities, these are known as illogical-possibilities.

So, this thing attempts to create an exact replica, I mean down to the very last decimal. Yet, finds it can't be done, because to do this, the new thing would have to occupy the same space as the first, to be EXACT.

If he makes it next to himself, it isn't exact. It is close but not perfect in every way.

As soon, as anything created steps away from exactly perfect, doors start opening to be either much closer to the perfect or much further away. This exercise demonstrates why God can't duplicate himself, yet God can still remain perfect.
You're examples are the same as the false statements that God should be able to make a rock he can't lift. Childish games is what that amounts too, not real philosophy.

Next, if we move one step further into the discussion. Let's assume this thing instead of building an exact of itself, wants to make lots of different creations.
So now, there is no attempt to create himself (the only perfect thing) but does want some of his creation to be similar to him.
So we have a bunch of creations that share some resemblance to that perfect thing, but the question becomes, what about the parts that aren't so perfect or like God?

Is this where suffering enters the picture?

I can't explain it any clearer than that.

I understand what you're saying, I disagree with it. I'm having trouble accepting that something considered perfect would want to create in the first place. If we consider that one definition of perfect is complete, not lacking in anything, then the very fact that said being created would show it's lack of perfection. Now, if said being is perfect, then it would not have any hint of imperfection. This would suggest that creating something imperfect would be outside it reach. Hence, by the very act of creating something imperfect, shows the imperfection of god, if we're assuming such a being exists.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

Who can say? Perhaps He suffered loneliness, or whatever we might wish to call the desire to have children.



I think it brings us back to the issue of paradox. God can be perfect and suffer because He is paradoxical, because His transcendance is not limited by His immanence, and vice-versa, and because His complete dissimilarity to us is not compromised by how very like us He is-- and vice-versa. God is One, the Source of all things-- including self-contradictory things, or things which appear to be self-contradictory.

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?

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I understand what you're saying, I disagree with it. I'm having trouble accepting that something considered perfect would want to create in the first place. If we consider that one definition of perfect is complete, not lacking in anything, then the very fact that said being created would show it's lack of perfection. Now, if said being is perfect, then it would not have any hint of imperfection. This would suggest that creating something imperfect would be outside it reach. Hence, by the very act of creating something imperfect, shows the imperfection of god, if we're assuming such a being exists.

Your point only stands if we accept God "desires" in a manner consistent with what we consider desiring to be.

Take for example, the ocean is full of water, a single body moving about. sometimes that water crashes into the sand and water is seemingly lost right?

Yet, the ocean is still whole and in tact.

The idea of God can be the same thing. Say, God exhales, and this creation happens, our universe, humans and life are formed, and then God inhales and everything goes back to God (like the water going back out to the ocean)

In other words, It could simply be a part of God, and infinitely creative being looping to create, assemble, absorb, teach, love etc...

Anyway, not sure if that makes sense

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Your point only stands if we accept God "desires" in a manner consistent with what we consider desiring to be.

Take for example, the ocean is full of water, a single body moving about. sometimes that water crashes into the sand and water is seemingly lost right?

Yet, the ocean is still whole and in tact.

The idea of God can be the same thing. Say, God exhales, and this creation happens, our universe, humans and life are formed, and then God inhales and everything goes back to God (like the water going back out to the ocean)

In other words, It could simply be a part of God, and infinitely creative being looping to create, assemble, absorb, teach, love etc...

Anyway, not sure if that makes sense

I see what you're saying. But, this sounds like creating wasn't done on the willful part of the deity, but simply an action of it's nature. This would suggest to me that said deity doesn't possess consciousness. This might suggest more of a deist or pantheist view of god.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I see what you're saying. But, this sounds like creating wasn't done on the willful part of the deity, but simply an action of it's nature. This would suggest to me that said deity doesn't possess consciousness. This might suggest more of a deist or pantheist view of god.

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.

Let's say I'm right, God is there, making all of this, and is perfect.
You have asserted he can't be perfect because he has to make things.

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

I am just not as quick these days to make those kinds of judgements. Ya know?

 

[Parsimony]

Yet, finds it can't be done, because to do this, the new thing would have to occupy the same space as the first, to be EXACT.

This would only be relevant if you think that God needs a space to exist within. Not only that, but boson particles can occupy the same space at the same time. If bosons can do it, why not God?

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

This would only be relevant if you think that God needs a space to exist within. Not only that, but boson particles can occupy the same space at the same time. If bosons can do it, why not God?

boson attributes are still unknown entirely. We are making lots of assumption with them (ironically as we are with God I suppose )