-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nothing other than God?
- Thread starter LAGoff
- Start date
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Its logical, but some people might get caught up on the wording.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
LAGoff
Member
I assume you mean the second part of the first sentence is illogical: i.e. that God cannot create something that isn't God.
Do you mean it's illogical because you feel you aren't God?
LAGoff
Member
Can you suggest a way to phrase it so [more] people won't get caught up on the wording?
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
If G-d is almighty, why can't she/he create something that isn't G-d ?
LAGoff, are you a Jewish atheist or agnostic ?
Last edited:
chinu
chinu
Who told you that he can't ? he can
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
Exactly. People get caught up on wording
anything God makes is surely of God, divine, but it would only be a part of God.
There are qualitative differencs between God and Child of God.
All objects are children of God.
But they are still one with God.
anything God makes is surely of God, divine, but it would only be a part of God.
There are qualitative differencs between God and Child of God.
All objects are children of God.
But they are still one with God.
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
Y'all realise that this is the Orthodox DIR?
Huh? Where is it stated that Hashem can only create something like Hashem?
Huh? Where is it stated that Hashem can only create something like Hashem?
Tumah
Veteran Member
I agree with you on the first part. But once you say "G-d cannot", you're already wrong.
LAGoff
Member
Are you saying that the definition of 'almighty' is the ability of God to create something that is not Himself?
Interesting. That would be illogical, but then perhaps there is something greater than logic.
I should mention what I feel would be another position: that God can hide from Himself the fact that what He created is only Himself (this ability to 'hide' being just as 'almighty' a creation as the above mentioned creation, albeit a negative one).
I suppose between the two illogical positions, it's better to go with positive illogic.
I don't consider myself agnostic or atheist. I know that God exists. However, whether I am God(logical) or just a creation of Him(illogical), I am agnostic about that, but I live as though He is separate from me (I need a little distance).
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Hi LA, actually, as our discussion progresses, I am warming up to you original assertion, in the OP, a little. But no, that is not my definition of almighty.
Are you saying a little illogic is logical ?
Sorry, too anthropomorphic for me. I am a Renewal Jew. We believe in non-anthropomorphism, and I am a panentheist as well.
Good one ! However, that reasoning is totally illogical.
I think this notion contradicts the assertion in your OP, but it is interesting that you are partially agnostic.
By the way, how do you "know that G-d exists" ?
So, LA, are you an OJ ? If not, then as Flankie implied, what is a nice Jewish boy like you doing in an OJ sub-forum like this ?
Last edited:
CMike
Well-Known Member
G-D by definition can create anything.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
CMike, do you believe the universe was created by a self-assembly process, as modern physics now believes ?
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
quote: "So, LA, are you an OJ ? If not, then as Flankie implied, what is a nice Jewish boy like you doing in an OJ sub-forum like this ?
Trying not to be God.
Hi LA, it seems like you are struggling with the notion that if G-d is everything, then you, indeed, are part of G-d. Does this present a problem for you ? Is this an issue you are struggling with ? And did you put this post in the OJ sub-forum because you want to know the OJ views on it ? CMike is an OJ, and he gave you his opinion.
CMike
Well-Known Member
What do you mean?
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Physicists now believe the universe was not created by G-d. See Hawking:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian
That means it leaves G-d responsible for the relationships between man to man and man to the environment. So please behave well toward men and the environment, it will make G-d happy
.
Last edited:
LAGoff
Member
Something like that.
Except that I can forget about my logical mind forcing me to conclude that all is an absolute unity(i.e. there being no real separation between God and I) in the anthropomorphic, subject-object language of the Tanakh and traditional Judaism.
I know about [Lurianic] tsimtsum, but it seems the concept proves its failure to separate God from me by its extreme complexity.
People here saying that God can create something that is not God because God can do anything(because He is almighty) is just words. I thought perhaps I was missing some logical connection, so I came here.
It may have been nice if in all those places where it says "I am Hashem, and there is nothing else", it added something else to make it less pantheistic.
In reading these passages(Deut. 4 or 5; 1Sam,ch.2; Is.45 ,etc.), do any of you see that maybe it might be saying: "I am Hashem, and I am the only God(i.e. there is no other God but Me); instead of what it seems to be saying: "There is nothing else but Me, period".?).
punkdbass
I will be what I will be
Physicists now believe the universe was not created by G-d. See Hawking:
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God | Science | The Guardian
That means it leaves G-d responsible for the relationships between man to man and man to the environment. So please behave well toward men and the environment, it will make G-d happy
To me this article says nothing new at all, this is purely an issue of semantics. I don't know if you picked up on it - but the way Hawking describes the universe coming out of "nothing" is not a new idea.. such an idea has a perfect analogy within Judaism (Kabbalah especially), Hinduism, and many other religions I'm sure. The only difference is this guy uses X language to describe it, this guy uses Y language to describe it, and that guy uses Z... pure semantics, all referring to the same thing - Ultimate Reality. Check out my thread here where I explain how I believe, Nirvana (which is a consistent and coherent concept even from a purely Materialist point of view... I mean after all, there are tons of Materialist Buddhists) and Spirit or God are analogous and essentially both ideas use different language to point to the same Reality.
Here's a quick thought experiment. 2000 years ago, if someone was by today's conventional language labeled as "schizophrenic," back then they would say they were possessed by a demon. I think most of us can agree that such a person was not literally possessed by a demon, but I also think someday in the future we will come to realize that even the concept of "schizophrenia" or mental illness does not literally or fully encapsulate the totality of the state such a crazed person is experiencing. It would appear that both "Demonic possession" and "mental illness" language are inherently incorrect and miss the mark of reality in many ways... but yet both languages ultimately seem to point to the same phenomena, IMO... but are limited by the convential languages of their time and place in trying to describe said phenomena. Such is the way of trying to describe Reality.
The point here is that I don't think Hawking is adding anything new the mix, and theists have no reason to be scared - although perhaps they need to evolve their understanding of God. What theists have used "God language" to describe or point to for thousands of years is indeed real and can be experienced - although describing such experiences is a tricky thing, and is limited to the conventional language of your time and place
Last edited: