Religious implications of God creating all things from eternal matter (Jesus, ritual)

[raffyv]

@Clear

Raffyv (I forgot to mention that I thought your analogies were very good and understandable - to make things understandable for average readers is wise).

Thank you very much ^_^ .. I usually get criticized for that by my friends.. They say that I talk/explain to them as if I were talking to grade-school students..

I apologize if I appeared to argue with you,

not at all.. I was merely implying that perhaps I, you (clear), Orontes, and Rolling_Stone had different understandings as to what was meant by the question. Most arguments are caused by such misunderstandings..

Anyway, my cousin was reading over my shoulder just now and presented yet another Option we may consider.. And I would hope that bringing this up wont cause us to stray away from the question once more.

possible Option 4 : God created the universe FROM himself.. She explained that it is also conceivable that the pre-existing matter from which was created all that is might also be once part of God.


@all (although quotes are still from Clear)

1.

If God did NOT create absolutely everything out of NOTHING this changes the context of this millenia long discussion. If there are principles (such as matter in this case) that are also eternal (and are simply part of the way things “are”), then THESE eternal principles may explain why Evil exists.

2.

For example: Some theists claim that God created the definitions of good and evil and can therefore arbitrarily change moral ”Good and Evil” if he desired. If moral principles are also eternal and uncreated and NOT ARBITRARY, then God CANNOT change them arbitrarily. He cannot Say in one age that it is EVIL to rape and kill a child, and then arbitrarily “change” morals and say in another age that is is now GOOD to rape and kill a child. This, God is unable to do.

1.This is just freaky.. This is the exact "concept" that I was planning to post today..

2.Mainly because this is very reminiscent to the conversation I and a friend had this afternoon..
Only we were discussing whether or not God can create a circle which has 3 sides and 3 corners and other such nonsense.




P.S. what are frubals??

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by raffyv

They say that I talk/explain to them as if I were talking to grade-school students..

Tell me who they are. I'll slap them for you.

Option #3 and option #4, seems to me, are different ways of saying the same thing. Can you explain the difference?

[raffyv]

Option #3 and option #4, seems to me, are different ways of saying the same thing. Can you explain the difference?

I did not come up with it, so I don't know if this is what my dear cousin meant (or even if this is what was originally meant by #3).. but as I understand it, in #3, the universe is still a part of God.. in #4, the universe was ONCE part of God, but separated after "creation"

Tell me who they are. I'll slap them for you.

They already get that from me.. except I shoot them with BB guns.. hehehe..

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by raffyv

Hello to you two.

Hello,

@all
However, when I first read the third option.. or rather, the explanation of the third option.. I immediately accepted it as a possible method of creation..

Would it be over-simplified if I rephrased the third option as "We are inside "God's Mind"??

After all, isn't conceivable that we are but characters inside another entity's "imagination"?

One could take that view, but it does not solve the base theodicy problem.

One of the most compelling argument used to justify God's existence is the argument of Intelligent Design; something as magnificent and complex as the universe must have had an Intelligent Mind to come up with it's design. We identify that designer as "God". And then, we are content.

Intelligent Design is in many ways a refashioning of the teleological argument which has its own problems. It then compounds the issue by claiming it is a scientific posture, rather than metaphysical one.

Note: Most teleological arguments assume an ex nihilo positioning.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Clear is right. Orontes and I got way off topic when he suggested that option 3, the one I put up for consideration, has problems with the problem of evil.

I don't agree. Your proposed Third Option is an actual third option. My participation simply focused on the implications of that Third Option.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Orontes

I don't agree. Your proposed Third Option is an actual third option. My participation simply focused on the implications of that Third Option.

Sorry, guy, but there's no sense in talking with someone who ignore my talking points: i.e., multiple absolutes that are derived from, co-exist in, and are co-eternal with one Consciousness-Force and the qualitative difference between primary and secondary causes.

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Sorry, guy, but there's no sense in talking with someone who ignore my talking points: i.e., multiple absolutes that are derived from, co-exist in, and are co-eternal with one Consciousness-Force and the qualitative difference between primary and secondary causes.

This comment doesn't relate to my post which simply noted your third option is a distinct option. I then focused on that option.

As to the content of your above post: I don't know what you mean by "talking points". Regardless, the above is incoherent: multiple absolutes (underlined or no) by definition cannot them be divided by primary and secondary causes. An absolute cannot be a secondary cause. Further, insofar as you have any multiples that are within some larger "Conscious Force" and those multiples entail either evil or imperfection, it undercuts the entire claim that larger thing is God: a part informs the whole. Your stance has a series of logical tensions, none of which you have been able to deal with. This means your view is reducible to simple bald assertion.

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by Clear

To me, If God IS “every thing” in your model, then evil is part of him (since it exists).

Evil is nonexistent, but an illusion. What we call evil is the behavior of people who rebel against the idea of an inclusionary deity, wherein all people regardless of race, creed, etc. are equally sacred. There is no evil, there is only ignorance of the pre-existing sacredness of all.

[Clear]

Hi Troublemane:

Originally Posted by Troublemane

"...Evil is nonexistent, but an illusion. What we call evil is the behavior of people who rebel against the idea of an inclusionary deity, wherein all people regardless of race, creed, etc. are equally sacred. There is no evil, there is only ignorance of the pre-existing sacredness of all..."

Could you further explain your theory as to why you view evil as a "nonexistent illusion". Your theory that evil is an "illusion" or that evil is "nonexistent" cannot make sense without further explanation since people constantly are expose to forms of what they see as "evil".

As a specific example: The rape; torture and subsequent murder of an innocent child is an act that we presently feel is "evil".

I don’t imagine you claim such types of acts do not occur, and that if they do, I cannot imagine you claim they are are not evil in some sense (though you may name it something else other than "evil"). If, for some reason, you truly feel such acts aren’t evil, then can you explain what does your theory say these sorts of act are, (if not a form of "evil"?)

Clear
(acvine)

[Ben Masada]

God did not create anything from eternal matter or from any pre-existent thing.
God is the only Being that's possible to say that created something from nothing.
If you don't believe it, provide us with the maker of the frist thing.

Ben