God cannot have Form?

[Levite]

Just to also throw an additional monkey wrench by saying "cannot" are you implying that certain divine rules cannot be broken? Or is the Jewish view is that God contradicting "his" own laws are unconscionable?

If the Infinite seeks to be contained within the Finite, it becomes fractured, becomes part of the Infinite. When matter as we understand it in our universe is used to contain too much energy, it fails to do so, and breaks down, and the uncontrolled state of change results in matter returning to the state of energy.

This isn't a question of divine rules being broken, it's simply a question of God having created the Finite to be finite-- that is, by its inherent nature, not infinite. Perhaps there might have been a different kind of Finiteness that God could have created that would be different, and capable of holding more of the Infinite, or something. And matter, by its inherent nature is simply incapable of containing the level of power implied by full revelation of the divine presence. That is how it was created; and again, perhaps God could have created matter to be different. But He didn't create that. He created what we have. And we understand that what we have is by its nature too fragile to withstand the full truth of the Infinite, of full revelation of the divine presence.

For whatever reasons, this is the nature of the universe that God created. Perhaps He might have made things differently, resulting in a different nature, with different possibilities. But He made this. Could God nonetheless manifest Himself more fully within this universe? Sure. The universe wouldn't survive it, but He could do it. Could God manifest Himself in some significant measure within the material form of a human being or animal or plant? Sure. The material form wouldn't last for a microsecond under that kind of power, but He could do it.

Could God change those rules? Sure. He could create a different universe, in place of this one. But He hasn't done that.

The limitations are not truly on God, they are on what He has created. Only by extension are the limitations self-imposed on God, by virtue of His self-restriction in order to permit His creations to exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

When matter as we understand it in our universe is used to contain too much energy, it fails to do so, and breaks down, and the uncontrolled state of change results in matter returning to the state of energy.

No it doesn't; The whole thing just collapses into a black hole.

Besides, if you've got matter containing negative energies, then you can build spaces that are bigger on the inside, TARDIS-style.

 

[Willamena]

Because of atanu's idea, or it being wrong?

Neither. I just meant that emergence doesn't seem to be the 'creation' that atanu talked about.

If it's related to a prior conversation between you and he, though, I'm sorry I butted in.

 

[Levite]

No it doesn't; The whole thing just collapses into a black hole.

All the more so, then.

 

[atanu]

If the Infinite seeks to be contained within the Finite, it becomes fractured, becomes part of the Infinite. .....

Agreed. But this confining act is of our mind-sense and not of the incarnated God who through ages has taken up different vehicles to spread the word.

 

[Levite]

Agreed. But this confining act is of our mind-sense and not of the incarnated God who through ages has taken up different vehicles to spread the word.

Right, except that Judaism does not accept such a concept. Which is why I came to be responding to the OP's query with statements concerning the lack of form in the Divine.

 

[Otherright]

I don't believe that God has form, and I do believe that God is everywhere.

Judaism has always rejected the notion of God taking physical form, because the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite, and because the full truth of God's transcendent, paradoxical, eternality, omnipresence, and arationality would not only be uncontainable in this universe/plane of existence, but would be inimical to it, like trying to contain the power of a nuclear blast inside a 9-volt battery-- it simply was not designed to deal with that level of energy.

My personal belief about the omnipresence of God is complicated. But I'll try to encapsulate it quickly.

We have a concept in Lurianic Kabbalah (a type of Jewish mysticism) called tzimtzum, which means "contracting" or "pulling inward," and originally, it referred to a hypothesis that God had to contract Himself in order to create a void in which He might create the universe. Now, I never cared for this idea in its original form, because it implies that the universe occupies a space in which God is not present-- an idea I reject.

So what I think it means is that God contracted himself to expand the density of His own substance.

The analogy I like to use is that, outside the universe, God is like ice. His glory and presence solidly occupy everything else there is. But inside the universe, God is like liquid water. And the created universe-- and everything within it-- exists within that water. We live within God, and yet we are not ourselves God; much like fish exist within water-- they breathe water, they take nourishment from water, they cannot live without water-- and yet they themselves are not water...they are fish. Even so, we live within the materia divina, we are sustained by God, we are never out of contact with God, and yet we ourselves are not God, we are human beings, created by God. And even as the fish (which are not water) are themselves creatures composed in part of water, we (who are not God) have a divine spark powering the center of our souls.

But in Exodus 33, God takes a form.

 

[atanu]

Right, except that Judaism does not accept such a concept. Which is why I came to be responding to the OP's query with statements concerning the lack of form in the Divine.

No. I think I could not make myself clear.

God can wear a dress for a limited time for a big or small purpose yet be not limited to the dress.

It is our sensual apparatus that only superimposes its own limitation.

I hope I am making the point clear.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I don't believe that God has form, and I do believe that God is everywhere.

Judaism has always rejected the notion of God taking physical form, because the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite, and because the full truth of God's transcendent, paradoxical, eternality, omnipresence, and arationality would not only be uncontainable in this universe/plane of existence, but would be inimical to it, like trying to contain the power of a nuclear blast inside a 9-volt battery-- it simply was not designed to deal with that level of energy.

My personal belief about the omnipresence of God is complicated. But I'll try to encapsulate it quickly.

We have a concept in Lurianic Kabbalah (a type of Jewish mysticism) called tzimtzum, which means "contracting" or "pulling inward," and originally, it referred to a hypothesis that God had to contract Himself in order to create a void in which He might create the universe. Now, I never cared for this idea in its original form, because it implies that the universe occupies a space in which God is not present-- an idea I reject.

So what I think it means is that God contracted himself to expand the density of His own substance.

The analogy I like to use is that, outside the universe, God is like ice. His glory and presence solidly occupy everything else there is. But inside the universe, God is like liquid water. And the created universe-- and everything within it-- exists within that water. We live within God, and yet we are not ourselves God; much like fish exist within water-- they breathe water, they take nourishment from water, they cannot live without water-- and yet they themselves are not water...they are fish. Even so, we live within the materia divina, we are sustained by God, we are never out of contact with God, and yet we ourselves are not God, we are human beings, created by God. And even as the fish (which are not water) are themselves creatures composed in part of water, we (who are not God) have a divine spark powering the center of our souls.

I have gone back to your first post as what this says is quite sufficient....and I have little problem with it.

I too see God as all pervading, and that includes our souls ( which I see as, of God, not us. The biological process can not produce soul)

I would agree that God is infinite... which has an interesting property... If you divide the infinite into parts, all are individually still infinite.
I have no problem with God assuming any form he might wish. the appearance might suggest "small" but would remain infinite.

 

[horizon_mj1]

IMO, this is a very silly meme, because it completely ignores the idea of emergent complexity. (Or possibly makes a different mistake due to the holism under it.) Simplicity can quite easily lead to complexity.

Mankind is funny when it comes to this at times, in a way over complicating things. For things humanity seeks the answers for they will either look for a simplistic answer when the answer is extremely complex; or they will seek a complicated answer when simplicity is what is needed. IMO when seeking Divine Knowledge, seeing the simplicity within the complexity, and seeking the likenesses and differences allowing for the Truth to be found (that is if Truth chooses not to be eluded and your mind can comprehend).

 

[Vansdad]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

Such an interesting concept. I, like you, believe God is everywhere equally. As for taking a manifest form some believe He was in Jesus. I'm not sure if I believe it personally. However to take a form is different than being one. And I tend to think of this question in terms of how God is not what He can be. So I can't help but believe He is a spiritual being without form as we know it. But what do I know. lol It's just my feeling about it. But it is a great question.

 

[Katzpur]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

Obviously, you already know that we Latter-day Saints believe that God is all-powerful and yet has a form. We have other Christians tell us all the time that having a form would limit God. In my opinion, that's utter nonsense, and I often remind them that Jesus Christ was God and that He had a form. He was able to completely calm a storm on the Sea of Galilee by simply saying, "Peace. Be still." If Christ could control the elements themselves while in human form, there is clearly no legitimate argument that having a form limits God. Christ proved that isn't the case.

 

[Vendetta]

If the Infinite seeks to be contained within the Finite, it becomes fractured, becomes part of the Infinite. When matter as we understand it in our universe is used to contain too much energy, it fails to do so, and breaks down, and the uncontrolled state of change results in matter returning to the state of energy.

This isn't a question of divine rules being broken, it's simply a question of God having created the Finite to be finite-- that is, by its inherent nature, not infinite. Perhaps there might have been a different kind of Finiteness that God could have created that would be different, and capable of holding more of the Infinite, or something. And matter, by its inherent nature is simply incapable of containing the level of power implied by full revelation of the divine presence. That is how it was created; and again, perhaps God could have created matter to be different. But He didn't create that. He created what we have. And we understand that what we have is by its nature too fragile to withstand the full truth of the Infinite, of full revelation of the divine presence.

For whatever reasons, this is the nature of the universe that God created. Perhaps He might have made things differently, resulting in a different nature, with different possibilities. But He made this. Could God nonetheless manifest Himself more fully within this universe? Sure. The universe wouldn't survive it, but He could do it. Could God manifest Himself in some significant measure within the material form of a human being or animal or plant? Sure. The material form wouldn't last for a microsecond under that kind of power, but He could do it.

Could God change those rules? Sure. He could create a different universe, in place of this one. But He hasn't done that.

The limitations are not truly on God, they are on what He has created. Only by extension are the limitations self-imposed on God, by virtue of His self-restriction in order to permit His creations to exist.

Nice eloquent reply but I have to disagree. If God is beyond what we consider powerful, God can certainly manipulate the universe as he sees fit. Up can become down, black can be white etc I really don't see how God cant be within the finite.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Nice eloquent reply but I have to disagree. If God is beyond what we consider powerful, God can certainly manipulate the universe as he sees fit. Up can become down, black can be white etc I really don't see how God cant be within the finite.

The physics of up becoming down and left becoming right is already prevailent in macro sciences.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Silliness begins with "God cannot..."

People look for the Infinite, overlook the Zero - the mirror of the Almighty... the smallest part of God resides in I. Being a being of wisdom, D) I know there is I, and there is Else; I also know that I am not "without sin" and occasionally decree: I know! Using the gift of empathy, and scaling variables; I come to the simple conclusion that "a God without form" is function for all.

 

[horizon_mj1]

You can not spell sin without an I:angel2:

 

[thebigpicture]

I have been thinking about the objections that come from some religions regarding the idea that God can have form. Often I see the response from people who do believe in form to be ‘so you are placing restrictions on an all-powerful entity?’

I think that this response is fair enough. But what has also occurred to me is that for those who do not believe in form, arguing that a form is itself limited and yet God is limitless so therefore God cannot be contained in form…etc…do you not believe that God is everywhere?

And what does it mean to you that God is everywhere? Is a little bit of God here and a little bit of God there…or is God equally and fully present everywhere at all times?

This is something that I, as a Hindu, believe. God is fully present everywhere at all time. If this is true, then how can we argue that God is fully present everywhere but cannot be fully present within a manifest form? What then are the objections against the possibility of a personal form of God?

For a person to say that the Creator cannot take form because it limits Him is in and of itself saying that the Creator has limits. The Creator can take any form He wants. He is what He desires to be at any time He wants and chooses to be it. There is nothing He cannot do.

 

[Levite]

Nice eloquent reply but I have to disagree. If God is beyond what we consider powerful, God can certainly manipulate the universe as he sees fit. Up can become down, black can be white etc I really don't see how God cant be within the finite.

It's a matter of degree. God can be within the finite to a very small degree-- and is, in the energy that powers the universe, in the divine spark in all our souls, even sometimes slightly more so during moments of revelation or theophanic vision.

What I am talking about is a true and full manifestation of God's nature. In order for the Infinite to fit entirely inside the Finite, the Finite would have to become Infinite. That is only reasonable.

The whole "Can God make something and then have it be so different from how He made it that it has to be something else entirely and yet He has it remain somehow still how it is" question seems to fall, IMO, into the category of questions like "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it," or "Could God make a burrito so hot even He couldn't bite into it."

It is easier to believe, at least IMO, that God creates a thing to be as it is, and if He changes it, that thing becomes something else, with a different nature, and no longer is the same thing. In other words, if God changes the rules of the universe that He set up, He changes the universe in order to fit those rules, and in doing so, you end up with a different universe altogether.

 

[Madhuri]

I don't believe that God has form, and I do believe that God is everywhere.

Judaism has always rejected the notion of God taking physical form, because the Infinite cannot be contained within the finite, and because the full truth of God's transcendent, paradoxical, eternality, omnipresence, and arationality would not only be uncontainable in this universe/plane of existence, but would be inimical to it, like trying to contain the power of a nuclear blast inside a 9-volt battery-- it simply was not designed to deal with that level of energy.

My personal belief about the omnipresence of God is complicated. But I'll try to encapsulate it quickly.

We have a concept in Lurianic Kabbalah (a type of Jewish mysticism) called tzimtzum, which means "contracting" or "pulling inward," and originally, it referred to a hypothesis that God had to contract Himself in order to create a void in which He might create the universe. Now, I never cared for this idea in its original form, because it implies that the universe occupies a space in which God is not present-- an idea I reject.

So what I think it means is that God contracted himself to expand the density of His own substance.

I think I understand what you are saying here.

I have a similar way of conceptualising God in Hinduism. All that is manifest is an expansion of the Lord. God extends/expands himself into all that is manifest, and therefore nothing is 'other' than God.

The difference then in my religion is the concept that God is fully present everywhere. This is the Vedic philosophy and allows for God to be manifest in limitless forms simultaneously in all unlimited manifest universes.

I guess that when you believe this about God, then saying that he cannot be contained and therefore impossible etc. does seem like we are placing limitations on God.

 

[Madhuri]

Of course!



Very simple!

I quote an official Baha'i source:

"The human temple that has been made the vehicle of so overpowering a Revelation must, if we be faithful to the tenets of our Faith, ever remain entirely distinguished from that 'innermost Spirit of Spirits' and 'eternal Essence of Essences'--that invisible yet rational God Who, however much we extol the divinity of His Manifestations on earth, can in no wise incarnate His infinite, His unknowable, His incorruptible and all-embracing Reality in the concrete and limited frame of a mortal being. Indeed, the God Who could so incarnate His own reality would, in the light of the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, cease immediately to be God. So crude and fantastic a theory of Divine incarnation is as removed from, and incompatible with, the essentials of Bahá'í belief as are the no less inadmissible pantheistic and anthropomorphic conceptions of God-- both of which the utterances of Bahá'u'lláh emphatically repudiate and the fallacy of which they expose."

—(The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 113)

Peace,

Bruce

Unless God is powerful enough to be 'fully' present everywhere at all times. It is certainly possible in the minds of Hindus.
But also, a form of God (I am not just talking about human body, but eternal form) is in no way limited, even if it looks to be a certain size or shape. When our eyes perceive a limited form, it is only because we are not capable of seeing the infinite and thus it is shielded from us.

This is the Hindu understanding. It does not place limitations on God.