The "Beyond God" questions

reply to post by DISRAELI


So is it wrong to want an answer? Or to even ask? I'm one to believe anything is possible, but I tend to question everything even after being given an answer. It just seems to me that you can boil down an answer to its simplest form. So I'm assuming you already know what's coming, my question is , would it be possible to have an understanding of what's outside of creation and if so wouldn't that make a you a god in itself or just a byproduct?

Originally posted by amsterdamn87
So I'm assuming you already know what's coming, my question is , would it be possible to have an understanding of what's outside of creation and if so wouldn't that make a you a god in itself or just a byproduct?

What is here is here - it is what is actual - it is what is happening. The idea that there is something outside of that is nothing more than deception.
The total belief in 'something outside' is the suffering of man.

reply to post by tachyonmind

[I will quote the definition of God I once provided on another thread]

God is a Creator
God is one who Communicates
God is one who becomes Incarnate

God is a Creator

I see this view as distinct from both Monism and Dualism.

As I understand the difference;
Monism resolves everything to one point of origin.
Dualism resolves everything to two points of origin, distinct and independent.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Monism, because the created universe is understood as distinct from God.

Creation theory falls short of being genuine Dualism, because the created universe is understood as dependent upon God.

My private theory is that Creation teaching ought to be called "One-and-a-half-ism", but I don't suppose it will catch on.

As far as I can see, this involves the traditional teaching of "ex nihilo" ("out of nothing") Creation.

Because if God is "creating" using pre-existing raw material, then the material is not genuinely dependent upon him- this has become Dualism.

Or if God is producing the material of the universe "out of himself", then the material is not genuinely distinct- this has become Monism.

"Ex nihilo" is the only logical alternative, which is presumably why the teaching was developed in the first place.

God is one who Communicates

This assumption is built into Biblical religion.

In the first place, the Bible is believed to contain examples of communication (as reported, for example, by the prophets).

Furthermore, the Bible is believed to reflect a policy of communication.
It is said that God is using the Bible to "reveal himself", and so Biblical religion used to be described as "revealed religion".

The belief that "God is one who Communicates" links back with the belief that "God is one who Creates".

In the first place, some of the content of the communication points to God as Creator.

The proper Biblical answer to the question "Why do you believe your God made the universe?" is not really "Becasue that's the only way to account for the universe."
The truly Biblical answer is "Because he says he did, and I believe him."

But I think the very act of communication also points to God as a Creator.

Any act of communication necessarily implies a distinction between the communicator and the other party.
I've already said the Biblical understanding of Creation involves a distinction between God and the universe.

An act of communication implies the existence of a "will" in the communicator, or at least some sort of analogy of one.
But the same could be said, surely, of an act of "Creation".

Finally, a God who creates a universe thereby sets up a relationship between himself and the universe.
The effect of communication is to set up a relationship between himself and individuals (or even a group of individuals) within the same universe.

I assume that a purely monistic deity would not be communicating with, or setting up a relationship with, parts of itself.

My point is that
The idea of the God who Creates
and the idea of the God who Communicates
are very akin to one another.

The kind of God who would Create would also be the kind of God who could Communicate.

God is one who becomes Incarnate

I could hardly, really, leave this out of a definition of the Christian God.

The understanding is that the Incarnation is a more direct presence of God within the created universe.

If this is true, it's the ultimate form of Communication, as the author of Hebrews points out;
"God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son".

But it's also the ultimate form of "establishing a relationship";

Because the doctrine of the Incarnation is that the Creator and his creation, divinity and humanity, are bound together within the person of the Son.
The bond is understood to be irrevocable.
It's impossible for a relationship to get any closer than that.

Anyone who tries to understand the church's teaching about the Incarnation will discover that it's all about finding the right "balance".

On the one hand, the distinction between the divinity and the humanity must not be exaggerated, to the point that the unity disappears.
O the other hand, the unity between them must not be exaggerated, to the point that the distinction disappears.
The correct position is somewhere halfway between the two extremes.

But this is exactly what I said, at the beginning of this piece, about Creation;
That it occupied a halfway position between Monism and Dualism.

So it seems to me that the "balancing act" which Jehovah's Witnesses love to mock, when it comes in the teaching about the Incarnation, is also inherent in the very doctrine of the Creation itself.

The kind of God who would Create is also the kind of God who could become Incarnate.


I began by naming the Christian God as
The one who Creates
The one who Communicates
The one who becomes Incarnate.

I now suggest that these three ideas are akin to one another.
They belong together, naturally.

Whether you can believe them or not, they all belong to the same kind of God.

reply to post by arpgme

In your analogy, the distinction disappears as well as the separation.
There is no difference, except in form, between the start-point and the end-result
What you are describing is the process of becoming.
But the Bible isn't describing "becoming", so that's not what i'm talking about.
What we're looking at here is Creation, where one creates, or makes, another; and this necessarily involves a real distinction between what creates and what is created.

reply to post by amsterdamn87

You need to be aware of the real context of this discussion.
Sceptics are prone to ask the question "Who made God?" (that is, did God have a cause) in response to the Biblical claim that God made the world.
They do this because the question "Who made God?" seems to be unanswerable, so they see it as a counter to the common argument that "There must be a God, because otherwise who made the world?"
At least two threads asking versions of that question were started on ATS only recently.
So this thread is pointing out that the question "What caused God?" or "Who made God?" has no meaning.
If the question has no meaning, then the fact that it can't be answered proves nothing.

On your second question;
It would not be possible for us to understand what is beyond the created world, for the same reason that a gallon of water can't be contained in a pint bottle.
Anything that's greater than the world is necessarily greater than our comprehension.
We can make words and attach them as labels, but that's not the same thing as genuine understanding.
So the condition "If we could understand..." doesn't arise.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by arpgme

 

In your analogy, the distinction disappears as well as the separation.
There is no difference, except in form, between the start-point and the end-result
What you are describing is the process of becoming.

If God is omnipresent, then yes, God is "becoming". If we are looking at the essence of God, then God always remains the same.

When I said God is water and all the individual things are like "ice crystals" in the water, I was explaining omnipresence. The essence of God, in that analogy would be H20.

In reality, God is "I AM". To be is essence of all things.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by arpgme

 

What we're looking at here is Creation, where one creates, or makes, another; and this necessarily involves a real distinction between what creates and what is created

If God is omnipresent, then God doesn't create anything, God only forms things from his own being (energy). All things are the essence of God is God is truly omnipresent.

Originally posted by arpgme
If God is omnipresent, then God doesn't create anything, God only forms things from his own being (energy). All things are the essence of God is God is truly omnipresent.

In other words, you and the Bible are talking about two different things.
You are talking about "becoming", the Bible is talking about Creation.
As I said at the beginning of the thread, this is an exercise in Christian or Biblical philosophy based on the Biblical premise of creation.

And if God is omnipresent, it does not follow that he formed all things "out of himself".
The standard answer in Christian philosophy, the answer which conforms with the Creation premise, is that he formed things "EX NIHILO"- that is, "out of nothing".
That is the only solution which allows creation to be distinct from God (so disagreeing with Monism) while still being dependent upon God (so disagreeing with true Dualism).

reply to post by DISRAELI


God is Eternal and Omnipresent
Omnipresent means everywhere.
That includes in all of creation.
Otherwise, the god of the bible is not omnipresent

reply to post by arpgme

He can be present in the whole of creation without being included within it.
He can support everything that exists- indeed he must, as Augustine points out- without ceasing to be distinct from it.
He can bring something into existence without taking it "out of himself".
It is called "creation EX NIHILO". It has been the standard teaching of Christian philosophy.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
He can be present in the whole of creation without being included within it.

Omnipresence means being everywhere. Being everywhere, but not being included in some place, is a contradiction.

reply to post by arpgme

I am not suggesting that there is any place where God is not.
In fact my case is the other way round.
God is actively sustaining the created world but also exists "beyond it", so I denying omni-presence to the created world.
Nobody has ever said that the created world is omni-present.

When I said "not included within it", I meant not contained within it, as a limitation.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Why do you have to make believing in something structuring our reality so darn complicated?

reply to post by rickymouse

Because if something is beyond our understanding, any simplification is necessarily a falsification.
Any attempt to explain why it is false is necessarily going to sound complicated.

Coming back to the original issue, this is about trying to explain the falsehood of the facile and tendentious "Who made God?" question.

reply to post by DISRAELI


The fact that there is some kind of unexplainable structure to the universe shows that something is assembling it in a certain way. The force that assembles it is a pulsing frequency. To say this pulsing frequency can not have some sort of pattern or consciousness is not possible with any technology we have.

So do we really need to prove god exists or does not exist? Does it really matter anyway. Religions have hijacked god and used it to promote religion, but we cannot own god. We cannot even really own the land or seas of the world, it belongs to nature.

reply to post by rickymouse

Why should a "pulsating frequency" be the only kind of power capable of making something inexplicable?
That logic does not follow at all.

The Biblical position is that God is not an abstract conclusion we have reached, but someone who has made himself known.
He has (as it were) walked up to us and said "Here I am".
So we can't avoid the choice of believing or not believing what he has said.

If we do believe the God who says he made the world, we're also bound to take note of everything else he says.
That's why it matters.
It is also, of course, why people are so desperately anxious not to believe it.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
When I said "not included within it", I meant not contained within it, as a limitation.

Ok, that is a big difference.

Have you ever heard of Panentheism?

reply to post by arpgme

Yes, but I'm not just talking about God co-existing with the universe.
The teaching is about God creating the universe, which is not necessarily included within panentheism.
What I'm after is Augustine's formulation, but it would take time to track it down again.
God created the world, and is therefore necessarily distinct from it- that is the important point.
It is also simply the starting-point of this thread, which takes the point as an opening assumption and then goes on to consider the consequences.

reply to post by DISRAELI

From the Confessions of Augustine;

CHAP. III. EVERYWHERE GOD WHOLLY FILLETH ALL THINGS, BUT NEITHER HEAVEN NOR EARTH CONTAINETH HIM.

3. Since, then, Thou fillest heaven and earth, do they contain Thee? Or, as they contain Thee not, dost Thou fill them, and yet there remains something over? And where dost Thou pour forth that which remaineth of Thee when the heaven and earth are filled? Or, indeed, is there no need that Thou who containest all things shouldest be contained of any, since those things which Thou fillest Thou fillest by containing them? For the vessels which Thou fillest do not sustain Thee, since should they even be broken Thou wilt not be poured forth. And when Thou art poured forth on us, Thou art not cast down, but we are uplifted; nor art Thou dissipated, but we are drawn together. But, as Thou fillest all things, dost Thou fill them with Thy whole self, or, as even all things cannot altogether contain Thee, do they contain a part, and do all at once contain the same part? Or has each its own proper part—the greater more, the smaller less? Is, then, one part of Thee greater, another less? Or is it that Thou art wholly everywhere whilst nothing altogether contains Thee?

reply to post by DISRAELI

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by arpgme

 

Yes, but I'm not just talking about God co-existing with the universe.

Panentheism is not about God co-existing with the universe. It's understanding God as Omnipresence, but not only present in creation but also beyond it . Beyond it is the pure force of God, without the physicality. It can be called "The Non-physical" that creates (and extends its presence through) physical.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
God created the world, and is therefore necessarily distinct from it- that is the important point.

In Pan-EN-theism God IS "distinct" from the world. It is Pantheism that says there is no distinction between the world and god.


In Pantheism, a good analogy would be this: Imagine there is water but there is ice crystals in it. God is not distinct but is the H20 which makes it all up. Just as in reality , everything exists and God is the "I AM" that makes it all up. That would be the Pantheistic view of God.

In Panentheism, a good analogy would be this: Imagine there is water with a giant piece of ice in it. The giant piece of ice is the physical universe, and the water surrounding it is the non-physical God which always remains the same and never changes. In this analogy, H20 is only God's Omnipresence.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Essentials

The” kingdom of God” is within you.” God is the experience of an inward reality, a personalized developmental state of awareness. God then is the completed and perfected development of the human merging with the divine.
The myth of Christ


For God to be real and cover all contradictions he has to be, in the end—everything . . . or everything is in him and he is in everything.

God creates configurations of being within himself.

The caveat to the postulation that ultimately: God is everything, which deals with the conundrum: “how then could God be evil or imperfect? Is that God becomes evil, or imperfect, or human within the realm of developmental reality.

Nothing is separate from God. To suggest that something is, suggests a God with God, an impossibility.

All this solves, “beyond God” and “what was before God”
What is beyond, above, below or before God, then is—God.

The condition of “above” has nothing to do with space, it relates to the maxim: As above so below

Or the outward (macro) is a reflection of the inward (micro) and visa versa.

Ultimately “the problem” is one of our conscious limitation to this sole dimension. We don’t see all that we can see.
All we can do is believe that we have the capacity to see and feel and abide in all dimensions.
And then develop the higher capacity