God and his free will

[Sultan Of Swing]

So, just taking two relationships, that between God and the Son, and God and the Father, how is it possible that:

The Son is identical with God (God would also be identical with the Son)
and
The Father is identical with God (God would also be identical with the Father)
but
the Son isn't identical with the Father?
​

Put more simply:

If
2 + 2 = 4 (4 = 2 + 2)
and
3 + 1 = 4 (4 = 3 + 1)
then why doesn't 2 + 2 = 3 + 1
​

An engine is part of a car.
A wheel is also part of a car.
Engine=part of car
Wheel=part of car
part of car=part of car
Engine=wheel?

In the same way, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three parts of the Godhead.

They are all one, and yet all separate parts of God. Lemme go into St Patrick mode and show ya:

The shamrock is made of three different parts, but these parts are still connected and still are one.

 

[PolyHedral]

An engine is part of a car.
A wheel is also part of a car.
Engine=part of car
Wheel=part of car
part of car=part of car
Engine=wheel?

Engines aren't identical to "part of car". Engines are a member of the set of things that match "part of a car." Presumably God is not a set of things?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Presumably God is not a set of things?

No, but He is made up of three individual parts. The whole of God is not defined as the Son, and neither is the whole of God defined as the Father. These are all parts of the Godhead.

An engine is still a part of a car, in the same way the Son is part of God.

Look back at the shamrock example. It's a good way of describing the relationship between the Trinity.

 

[Koldo]

No, but He is made up of three individual parts. The whole of God is not defined as the Son, and neither is the whole of God defined as the Father. These are all parts of the Godhead.

An engine is still a part of a car, in the same way the Son is part of God.

Look back at the shamrock example. It's a good way of describing the relationship between the Trinity.

If i understood you correctly, God would be similar to Cerberus.
Is that it?

 

[LuisDantas]

Egocentrism is a poor substitute for Deity.

You are seeing egocentrism just because people seek meaning in the idea of a deity?

That only makes sense if you come from the premise that a deity is needed or at least real to begin with. You can hardly blame people for wanting ideas and concepts to make sense before considering their existence as a possibility, after all.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't understand how Being, itself, can be "egocentric.":areyoucra

It is egocentrism to the highest degree when you assume it to exist, to be beyond rational analysis, and at the same time expect it to be the result of an all-powerful, supremely benign God.

After all, it amounts to not only belief in God proper... but also in the belief that he chooses to manifest itself through unconceivable levels of manifestation just to be aware of your existence.

That is not only egocentrism; it is a glorious, no-holds barred, all-week long wild rave and orgy of egocentrism.

 

[LuisDantas]

...What? You've totally lost me.

That is sort of Willamena's point as I understand it.

The concept of God that many people use (including sojourner and Sultain of Swing, I assume) is the ultimate exception. It transcends time, space, everything... up to and including the need to be self-consistent or logically possible.

It is just not possible to say with any certainty what his nature is or what he wants.

Of course, that also means that there is no need to assume its existence, nor any particular point in attempting to follow his will even if we knew clearly what it was. "Being beyond human logic" goes both ways: we can't understand him... and neither there is any real reason why we should bother or care to try.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If i understood you correctly, God would be similar to Cerberus.
Is that it?

No.

When dividing matter into solid, liquid and gas, would you say that the relationship between them is similar to Cerberus? When dividing time into past, present and future, would you say their relationship is similar to Cerberus? Using Cerberus to represent God would give the impression of some kind of three-headed God, when this is not true. The Trinity is God in three Persons, who all share the same nature of being God. The shamrock merely makes it easier to understand how they are one, while Cerberus would only increase confusion.

 

[PolyHedral]

The shamrock merely makes it easier to understand how they are one, while Cerberus would only increase confusion.

But as far I can tell, they are the same comparison.

 

[Koldo]

No.

When dividing matter into solid, liquid and gas, would you say that the relationship between them is similar to Cerberus?

If the current state of the matter is gas then the other two do not exist.
If the current state of 'God' is Son then the other two do not exist.

This is not the case in trinity. The trio exists at the same time.

When dividing time into past, present and future, would you say their relationship is similar to Cerberus?

This is a complicated analogy.
If the time is linear and the 'now' is all that exists then only one of the trio exists.
If the 'now' is not all that exists then it would be impossible to discern any of three from the others. And this is not the case in the trinity.

Using Cerberus to represent God would give the impression of some kind of three-headed God, when this is not true.

It is an analogy.
Three individuals sharing the same "body" which is called God.
Albeit it would mean that God is not the "I", but rather a triple "I".

The Trinity is God in three Persons, who all share the same nature of being God. The shamrock merely makes it easier to understand how they are one, while Cerberus would only increase confusion.

Is there a nature of being 'Sultan Of Swing'?
If there is, who else can have it other than 'Sultan Of Swing'?
If you are 'Sultan Of Swing', can someone else be 'Sultan Of Swing'?

The problem with the trinity is that a trio of "I" will never create a single "I" unless the three of them get merged.

 

[Skwim]

An engine is part of a car.
A wheel is also part of a car.
Engine=part of car
Wheel=part of car
part of car=part of car
Engine=wheel?

In the same way, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three parts of the Godhead.

They are all one, and yet all separate parts of God. Lemme go into St Patrick mode and show ya:

The shamrock is made of three different parts, but these parts are still connected and still are one.

As has been pointed out, the three are not considered to be parts of god, but identical to it. Take the Holy Spirit for example. This is how its relationship to god is described. (Emphases added)

"The Holy Spirit is understood to be one of the three persons of the Trinity. As such he is personal and also fully God."
Source: Wikipedia

"Simply put, the Bible declares that the Holy Spirit is God."
source

"The Holy Spirit is everywhere regarded as God."
source

"As God has said: 'I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.'" (2 Corinthians 6:16). Thus the Holy Spirit is God."
source

"The Holy Spirit is God."
source

"But you can only blaspheme against God, so it is clear from this that the Holy Spirit is God"
source

"The second truth is that the Holy Spirit is God . . . "
source
​

"As the book Our Orthodox Christian Faith says: "The Holy Spirit is totally God."
source
​

 

[Thief]

So with the ability in hand....
God would set all things in place and in motion.

For the order of things to continue in that way.....
He would have to refrain alteration.

If He makes alteration, it would be done by a means that does not disturb the flow of things in progress.

Freewill...on God's part would have...reservation.

If freewill was dealt, without reservation....tomorrow's sunrise is assured?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Technically both, but more of a "No" because technically, if he were omniscient, he would know the past, present, and future, and because he knows the future he would know his plans, and he'd live by them...

Though, on the other hand he chooses his plans, but yet follows them from what he sees.



Gosh, I hate using "he" when referring to God.

 

[Thief]

Technically both, but more of a "No" because technically, if he were omniscient, he would know the past, present, and future, and because he knows the future he would know his plans, and he'd live by them...

Though, on the other hand he chooses his plans, but yet follows them from what he sees.



Gosh, I hate using "he" when referring to God.

Bear with it.

If He did know the past, present and future....
Then in His perspective, this entire universe, and all that did happen, does and will happen....is done.
Like a volume of work, written and accomplished, there is no more.
End of story....shelve the copy.

But this perspective is terminal....not eternal.
No choices to make....no freewill.

For 'now', our linear existence won't let us back up.
Our existence won't allow us view what is pending.
Our next maneuver is reckoned with past efforts and a good guess.
The story continues.
Our choices are indication of freewill.

Scripture indicates occasion of God changing His mind,
and did refrain.....'the evil He would do...'

Perhaps God is able.....and willing... to participate in a linear existence.....
by choice.

 

[Skwim]

Bear with it.

If He did know the past, present and future....
Then in His perspective, this entire universe, and all that did happen, does and will happen....is done.

Yes.

Like a volume of work, written and accomplished, there is no more.
End of story....shelve the copy.

Yes.

But this perspective is terminal....not eternal.
No choices to make....no freewill.

Yes.

For 'now', our linear existence won't let us back up.
Our existence won't allow us view what is pending.
Our next maneuver is reckoned with past efforts and a good guess.
The story continues.
Our choices are indication of freewill.

Our choices are an indication of the illusion of free will.

Scripture indicates occasion of God changing His mind,
and did refrain.....'the evil He would do...'

Per the common mis-perception that choice is real.

Perhaps God is able.....and willing... to participate in a linear existence.....
by choice.

God is as bonded to cause as are the rest of us.

 

[Thief]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Our choices are an indication of the illusion of free will.
Per the common mis-perception that choice is real.
God is as bonded to cause as are the rest of us.

To say freewill is an illusion....is an illusion.

You can choose...yes you can.

And God might be bound to some things....
like not allowing to great a variation in form....

I suppose now I will have to explain that too.

 

[Skwim]

To say freewill is an illusion.

You can choose...yes you can.

And God might be bound to some things....
like not allowing to great a variation in form....

I suppose now I will have to explain that too.

Well your remarks are kind of cryptic, but assuming I understand you correctly:

"To say freewill is an illusion." ?? (still don't get this one.)

"You can choose...yes you can." As long as one recognizes that "choosing" denotes nothing more than the illusion of free selection between two or more objects.

"And God might be bound to some things....
like not allowing to great a variation in form...." Not sure what this alludes to, but Good. God, like every other organism can only do what it is caused to do.

 

[Thief]

Well your remarks are kind of cryptic, but assuming I understand you correctly:

"To say freewill is an illusion." ?? (still don't get this one.)

Sorry Skwim....I was typing too fast...and I'm not sharp at high speed.
To say freewill is an illusion.....is an illusion.

"You can choose...yes you can." As long as one recognizes that "choosing" denotes nothing more than the illusion of free selection between two or more objects.

"And God might be bound to some things....
like not allowing to great a variation in form...." Not sure what this alludes to, but Good. God, like every other organism can only do what it is caused to do.

At some 'point' you have to drop the word 'illusion'.
Otherwise....right now you're dreaming.
And then I get to say....'WAKE UP!'

At some 'point'....reality is firm...undeniable.
At some 'point'...life has an influence upon the material.
The material will respond to your thoughts.
(if your hand does anything at all...it's because you thought you should...
or because you felt like it.)

So, which came first?
God creating the universe.
or....
The material begets the Spirit?

 

[Skwim]

At some 'point' you have to drop the word 'illusion'.
Otherwise....right now you're dreaming.
And then I get to say....'WAKE UP!'

At some 'point'....reality is firm...undeniable.
At some 'point'...life has an influence upon the material.
The material will respond to your thoughts.
(if your hand does anything at all...it's because you thought you should...
or because you felt like it.)

What??
​

So, which came first?
God creating the universe.
or....
The material begets the Spirit?

The guy who thought up both.

 

[Thief]

What??
​

The guy who thought up both.

Okay...you seem confused.....

You would argue freewill is an illusion....

Nay.

You have a will.
Your body at least responds...immediately.
You are able to manipulate.....as long as your chemistry holds up.

But this is about the freewill of God.
God is spirit...without physical form.

Might be difficult to say he has freewill...
if you cannot affirm His handiwork.

Do you call Him...Creator?