Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[BreezeWood]

Why would the idea of God existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material world leave you cold?
The painter can’t be the painting so to speak.

Well several things:
1) It seems counter to the concept of God becoming Man in the Incarnation. If God is so apart from us as human beings, why would He care? Why would He take the form of a man and allow Himself to be crucified?
2) It seems counter to the nature of the Holy Ghost to be the 'animating spirit of life' in Creation in all multiverses where there is life. If God is 100% transcendent, then what the hell is the Holy Ghost supposed to be? A Holy Fart in the Cosmic wind?
3) The Father, the Being of the Trinity who exists completely outside the flow of time I think is totally transcendent, but I think the Logos is the interaction between the space/time dimension and the Father, and the Holy Ghost the emanation of animus/life/love between the Father and His Son and Creation. The idea of the entire Godhead being transcendent is completely counter to this concept.

If I remember correctly from an old book I read about Eastern Orthodoxy, they have a school of thought that borrowed from the Greek Emanationists, so I dont think my cosmology here is heretical though it seems somewhat counter to the Cosmology of the Roman Catholic Church.

.

1) It seems counter to the concept of God becoming Man in the Incarnation.

hope springs eternal, for who are able to see the light of day - the latter is what you need to work on bowie. written forgeries are like beacons of light as well leading to an original intent and a proper conclusion.

 

[ding]

Why would the idea of God existing apart from and not subject to the limitations of the material world leave you cold?
The painter can’t be the painting so to speak.

Well several things:
1) It seems counter to the concept of God becoming Man in the Incarnation. If God is so apart from us as human beings, why would He care? Why would He take the form of a man and allow Himself to be crucified?
2) It seems counter to the nature of the Holy Ghost to be the 'animating spirit of life' in Creation in all multiverses where there is life. If God is 100% transcendent, then what the hell is the Holy Ghost supposed to be? A Holy Fart in the Cosmic wind?
3) The Father, the Being of the Trinity who exists completely outside the flow of time I think is totally transcendent, but I think the Logos is the interaction between the space/time dimension and the Father, and the Holy Ghost the emanation of animus/life/love between the Father and His Son and Creation. The idea of the entire Godhead being transcendent is completely counter to this concept.

If I remember correctly from an old book I read about Eastern Orthodoxy, they have a school of thought that borrowed from the Greek Emanationists, so I dont think my cosmology here is heretical though it seems somewhat counter to the Cosmology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thank you.

Those are great questions. The correct answer to those questions is only God knows.

But I will venture a guess. Because he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

That may not be comforting to some but it is to me.

I believe he works in everyone’s lives. Even the ones who don’t believe in him or recognize how he works.

 

[ding]

The Kalam has not 1, but SEVERAL refutations, and that you don't understand the implications of infinities doesn't make your assertions and misapprehensions true.

"The Kalam has not [one], but SEVERAL refutations," G.T. blurted and then went on to prattle something or another about how Spot didn't understand the implications of infinities.

"Yes, yes, go on," Spot encouraged as G.T. began to make a semblance of an argument.

"Do you think he'll actually go on to make an argument this time?" Dick wondered out loud.

Spot said, "I don't think so, Dick. I'm afraid he's spouting mindless slogans again."

"Is it possible that he thinks arguments are nothing more than bald assertions?" Jane wondered.

"You mean to say is he really that stupid?" Dick said.

"To think that slogans or bald claims are actual arguments?" Spot said, finishing the thought they were all thinking.

​

“To think that slogans or bald claims are actual arguments?"

Well, let’s examine that, Spot. Spot says “there are magical, supernatural creator gods, because I say so”

Now, Spot. A valid argument would suppose you support that argument.

Spot says, “I did support my argument, because I say so.”

Thanks, Spot. Resume your coma.

We only consider God to be supernatural because God exists outside of space and time and is supernatural to material beings inside of space and time.

I’m sure to God his existence is quite natural to him.

If you had ever seriously considered the origin question you would have discovered that the cause of existence could never have been something made of matter and energy and would have considered something beyond matter and energy as the source of existence. Something capable of creating matter and energy from nothing.

If God is 100% outside the flow of time/space He could not ACT as that requires the flow of time/space.

This is where I see the Logos coming in, as the interface between an eternal Father who is outside of Time flow, and the Creation which is entirely within it.

"Through Him (the Logos) All things were made" makes complete sense in this view of the Trinity.

I don’t know about that. I believe that God experiences time all at once. Such that he has an infinite amount of time for all things.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But I will venture a guess. Because he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

I trust the Creator to have our best interests in mind. But what is in our best interests is not often what we think it is.

That may not be comforting to some but it is to me.
I believe he works in everyone’s lives. Even the ones who don’t believe in him or recognize how he works.

I take comfort in having a rational conceptual model of the Creator. Maybe this is an autism thingy?

I think I have found it in something related to Eastern Orthodox Emanationism, but hey, each to his own.

The Creator takes us as we are, in our best efforts and cleanses the rest away with the Blood of the Lamb.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don’t know about that. I believe that God experiences time all at once. Such that he has an infinite amount of time for all things.

Yes, I think the Father does, and the Son as the Logos in an infinite number of Creations does also, but in a slightly different way.

Like the surface tension of a body of water, touching the air somewhat changes the behavior of the water, but it is all still just water.

But The Creator is both transcendent and immanent, and sometimes we focus on the one and downplay the other aspect of Him. I think the neo-Orthodox focus a bit too much on the transcendent and touch less on the immanent aspect of Who the Creator is.

 

[diver52]

But I will venture a guess. Because he is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

I trust the Creator to have our best interests in mind. But what is in our best interests is not often what we think it is.

That may not be comforting to some but it is to me.
I believe he works in everyone’s lives. Even the ones who don’t believe in him or recognize how he works.

I take comfort in having a rational conceptual model of the Creator. Maybe this is an autism thingy?

I think I have found it in something related to Eastern Orthodox Emanationism, but hey, each to his own.

The Creator takes us as we are, in our best efforts and cleanses the rest away with the Blood of the Lamb.

Sounds perfectly rational to me.

 

[Ringtone]

Do you recall what age you were when you first grasped that the material world began to exist and, ...

Seriously, the Universe coming out of nothing seemed reasonable, I just figured the Creator made an equal negative material world that all added up to zero, like an accountants books. It is a little more complex than that, I know, but I ran into this concept around the second grade when talking to my Dad about the genesis story.

therefore, that the eternal ground of existence was transcendent mind?

Is that the Tillich metaphor for the Creator? I read a little about him in college, but not a lot. Wasnt he in the Neo-Orthodox movement?

When I was 8 years old, in the 3rd grade I struggled with the phrase 'I am that I am', the name the Creator gave to Moses when Moses asked what the Creators Name was.

I was not thinking in philosophical terms, but I was mezmerized by this idea that unlike 'Thor the god of thunder', etc, Moses God was the God of Existence, self willed existence.

It didnt make a lot of sense that 1) a priest would try to 'sell' this new God with such a lame claim to fame, and 2) What the hell does it mean anyway?

To me it sounded like my Mom saying ''It is because it is, thats just the way it is.' I thought that was a non-answer to get me to leave her alone, and it probably was most of the time.

When my parents divorced I swore to never trust authority again, my parents, the government, preachers, cops, no one, I was so angry. But when I started reading about Christian apologetics in the 10th grade I let loose of my anger and open my mind again. When I studied the Infinite Regression Fallacy, the argument for God as the First Mover, it began to make more sense to me, but the idea of a purely transcendent God left me cold and still does.

It's just the classically orthodox construct of theism according to the first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic: God is the eternally self-subsistent and transcendent (i.e., wholly immaterial) ground of existence.

Something exists rather than nothing. The notion that all things began to exist is absurd, as that's necessarily the notion of existence arising from nonexistence, which is redundantly absurd.

Something has always existed, that which we call God, a wholly transcendent being (i.e., a being who exists apart from and is not subject to the limitations of the created, material universe). Ultimately, God is pure mind (spirit).

That's the view of Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam and Deism proper. Hence, it's the biblically orthodox construct of theism:

Folks are often confused by Hinduism in this regard because of its materialistic and pagan trappings couple with the multiplicity of "gods."

Hinduism proper begins with Brahman, the immaterial and eternal ground of existence. Brahman's personal forms/roles of the Trimurti are: Brahma (Creator), Vishnu (Preserver) and Shiva (Destroyer). The latter are manifestations of Brahman. The lesser gods are the spiritual offspring of the major manifestations and their wives. Hinduism is a convoluted mess.

 

[Ringtone]

If God is 100% outside the flow of time/space He could not ACT as that requires the flow of time/space.

This is where I see the Logos coming in, as the interface between an eternal Father who is outside of Time flow, and the Creation which is entirely within it.

"Through Him (the Logos) All things were made" makes complete sense in this view of the Trinity.

I'm not sure I agree with the emboldened, as I'm not sure what you mean by act. Remember, God existed from eternity, ontologically prior to the material world of space and time which he created. But we're on the same page with the rest it would seem.

 

[Ringtone]

I don’t know about that. I believe that God experiences time all at once. Such that he has an infinite amount of time for all things.

Yes, I think the Father does, and the Son as the Logos in an infinite number of Creations does also, but in a slightly different way.

Like the surface tension of a body of water, touching the air somewhat changes the behavior of the water, but it is all still just water.

But The Creator is both transcendent and immanent, and sometimes we focus on the one and downplay the other aspect of Him. I think the neo-Orthodox focus a bit too much on the transcendent and touch less on the immanent aspect of Who the Creator is.

I suppose that depends upon your reading of the Bible. To my mind both God's transcendence and immanence are equally emphasized, most emphatically in the person of Christ, the incarnate God Almighty. The Father and the Holy Spirit's interdimensional immanence is fascinating, as they do have a role in creation as well. God's continuous transcendence is emphasized in them, as God ontologically precedes the material world which he created and interdimensionally permeates in toto. In the person of Christ—through whom and by whom, as you observed, all creatures were directly created—God enters space and time.

Berkeley, the empiricist and orthodox Christian, declared that God is the necessary being who never looks away, meaning that all created things ultimately exist in God's mind and if God were to ever "look away," i.e., put us out of his mind, we would cease to exist—dissolve into the nothingness from which we came by the sheer power of God's imaginative will. I think this is right.

Edit: should read God ontologically precedes the material world

 

[Ringtone]

Well several things:
1) It seems counter to the concept of God becoming Man in the Incarnation. If God is so apart from us as human beings, why would He care? Why would He take the form of a man and allow Himself to be crucified?
2) It seems counter to the nature of the Holy Ghost to be the 'animating spirit of life' in Creation in all multiverses where there is life. If God is 100% transcendent, then what the hell is the Holy Ghost supposed to be? A Holy Fart in the Cosmic wind?
3) The Father, the Being of the Trinity who exists completely outside the flow of time I think is totally transcendent, but I think the Logos is the interaction between the space/time dimension and the Father, and the Holy Ghost the emanation of animus/life/love between the Father and His Son and Creation. The idea of the entire Godhead being transcendent is completely counter to this concept.

If I remember correctly from an old book I read about Eastern Orthodoxy, they have a school of thought that borrowed from the Greek Emanationists, so I dont think my cosmology here is heretical though it seems somewhat counter to the Cosmology of the Roman Catholic Church.

Would you see things differently if I were to suggest to you that there is a continuous spiritual connection between the persons of the Trinity and that the Father and Holy Spirit's immanence is interdimensional in toto?.

 

[JimBowie1958]

If God is 100% outside the flow of time/space He could not ACT as that requires the flow of time/space.

This is where I see the Logos coming in, as the interface between an eternal Father who is outside of Time flow, and the Creation which is entirely within it.

"Through Him (the Logos) All things were made" makes complete sense in this view of the Trinity.

I'm not sure I agree with the emboldened, as I'm not sure what you mean by act. Remember, God existed from eternity, ontologically prior to the material world of space and time which he created. But we're on the same page with the rest it would seem.

The Father does not take an action that reflects a change in Him or His being. Being outside the flow of time He simply cannot make a change.

When we speak of the Creator/Father changing mood or deciding something, it is nothing more than a reaction determined through all eternity to do certain things in certain situations. Much like if we drive the same route to our jobs every morning for 30 years and we one morning have an obstacle and have to take a detour. We do not decide to take a detour, nor do we thin out the detour route to work. We have already done it many times and are simply responding to a change in circumstances.

The same goes for the Father. Where God acts it is through His Son, the Logos, who exists within the flow of time and outside of it as well. Like surface tension in water, it touches both the air and the water and thereby behaves differently from the rest of the water not exposed to the air. The Father is Transcendent, the Holy Spirit is immanent and the Son is a bit of both which allows Him to redeem mankind.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Would you see things differently if I were to suggest to you that there is a continuous spiritual connection between the persons of the Trinity and that the Father and Holy Spirit's immanence is interdimensional in toto?.

Not sure how that would change my perception of this as that is the role of the Holy Spirit, to connect the Father with all the things He has made and with the Logos through Whom all things were made.
I do not reject neoOrthodoxy. I am a Catholic so it is not really an issue, but I like it and I think it has mostly had a positive effect.

But the indirect impact of the emphasis on the transcendent aspect of God seems to encourage many of these people to promote things that are squarely counter to the success or even survival of its adherents here in this life.

This rejection of faith being reduced to a mere tool of the state is warranted and Godly, but to take it to the opposite extreme of insisting that real faith/altruism must have no benefit or even be counter beneficial is ludicrous. And I seem to see that in many of the followers of that school of thought more and more.

 

[Ringtone]

But the earliest text was written a mere 25 years after the resurrection and we practice the same things the early Christians did. Early as in the time of Jesus.

Serious question ding. Do you recall what age you were when you first grasped that the material world began to exist and, therefore, that the eternal ground of existence was transcendent mind?

Probably in my early to mid 40’s.

I was seven, but, then, I was a weird kid whose teenage passions were philosophy, theology, poker . . . and racquetball. LOL! I was actually sitting on the toilet taking a dump and trying to imagine a state of nonexistence when it came to me. At the time, I didn't have the vocabulary to describe the "epiphany," but I grasped the ramifications of the pertinent first principles of ontology and logic.

 

[Ringtone]

The Father does not take an action that reflects a change in Him or His being. Being outside the flow of time He simply cannot make a change.

When we speak of the Creator/Father changing mood or deciding something, it is nothing more than a reaction determined through all eternity to do certain things in certain situations. Much like if we drive the same route to our jobs every morning for 30 years and we one morning have an obstacle and have to take a detour. We do not decide to take a detour, nor do we thin out the detour route to work. We have already done it many times and are simply responding to a change in circumstances.

The same goes for the Father. Where God acts it is through His Son, the Logos, who exists within the flow of time and outside of it as well. Like surface tension in water, it touches both the air and the water and thereby behaves differently from the rest of the water not exposed to the air. The Father is Transcendent, the Holy Spirit is immanent and the Son is a bit of both which allows Him to redeem mankind.

Oh, I follow your reasoning. It's coherent and biblical in my opinion. I've expressed this very view in the past. What I'm saying is that the Father is both the ground of the Godhead's transcendence and, via the continuous spiritual connection between the persons of the Trinity, interdimensionally immanent. Also, I take your meaning that the Father changes in mood or decides, but your analogy suggests that he does so in a passive fashion, as a responder. I see the Father as the one who directs the flow of traffic and the one who determines the route of the detours.

 

[ding]

The Father does not take an action that reflects a change in Him or His being. Being outside the flow of time He simply cannot make a change.

When we speak of the Creator/Father changing mood or deciding something, it is nothing more than a reaction determined through all eternity to do certain things in certain situations. Much like if we drive the same route to our jobs every morning for 30 years and we one morning have an obstacle and have to take a detour. We do not decide to take a detour, nor do we thin out the detour route to work. We have already done it many times and are simply responding to a change in circumstances.

The same goes for the Father. Where God acts it is through His Son, the Logos, who exists within the flow of time and outside of it as well. Like surface tension in water, it touches both the air and the water and thereby behaves differently from the rest of the water not exposed to the air. The Father is Transcendent, the Holy Spirit is immanent and the Son is a bit of both which allows Him to redeem mankind.

Oh, I follow your reasoning. It's coherent and biblical in my opinion. I've expressed this very view in the past. What I'm saying is that the Father is both the ground of the Godhead's transcendence and, via the continuous spiritual connection between the persons of the Trinity, interdimensionally immanent. Also, I take your meaning that the Father changes in mood or decides, but your analogy suggests that he does so in a passive fashion, as a responder. I see the Father as the one who directs the flow of traffic and the one who determines the route of the detours.

I liken the trinity to body, mind and soul.

Christ is the body. God is the mind. And the Holy Spirit is the soul.

It’s not a mystery to be solved but a relationship to be entered into. Of which the benefits of doing so are immense.

It literally switches me on and I become more than I am. It lights up all the learning centers of my brain and provides perspectives I would not have on my own. It brings peace through the storm, profound happiness and affects others in a concentric circle fashion.

So I don’t see God as passive but as active. He speaks in a very quiet voice and usually tells me things I don’t want hear but know I need to hear.

 

[Ringtone]

I don’t know about that. I believe that God experiences time all at once. Such that he has an infinite amount of time for all things.

Agree. It is difficult to parse the distinctions that Jim and I are making. On that score you posited a guess. Here you suggest what I believe to be an aspect of the continuous spiritual connection between the persons of the Trinity. God in toto is what I call the Eternal Now. I believe that view is both logically necessary and biblically revealed. What is the past or the future for us is happening now for God. Right now David is slaying Goliath, for example. What is past and present and future for us continuously exists in God's mind.

 

[Ringtone]

I liken the trinity to body, mind and soul.

Christ is the body. God is the mind. And the Holy Spirit is the soul.

It’s not a mystery to be solved but a relationship to be entered into. Of which the benefits of doing so are immense.

It literally switches me on and I become more than I am. It lights up all the learning centers of my brain and provides perspectives I would not have on my own. It brings peace through the storm, profound happiness and affects others in a concentric circle fashion.

So I don’t see God as passive but as active. He speaks in a very quiet voice and usually tells me things I don’t want hear but know I need to hear.

That analogy works for me.

God reveals himself via the written word and living Word (the Logos). The Father commands and directs, he decides and posits; the Son rejoices and actualizes; the Holy Spirit affirms and expounds. In the meantime, to faithfully follow the first principles of ontology and logic as we decipher the written word and God's creation is to explore the mind of God and the adventure never ends!

Folks who poo-poo the Trinity fail to understand that it answers the problem of an eternal being existing ontologically prior to all other existents, as well as the subject-object problem, the one-and-the-other problem. Of course God is an eternal Relationship of Agreement!

 

[JimBowie1958]

I liken the trinity to body, mind and soul.

Folks who poo-poo the Trinity fail to understand that it answers the problem of an eternal being existing ontologically prior to all other existents, as well as the subject-object problem, the one-and-the-other problem. Of course God is an eternal Relationship of Agreement!

The vast majority of Christians do not grasp the Trinity, and they don t really have to. Faith in the Creator is enough.

But some of us are obsessive and some are even Autisticly obsessive and so we dive into waters that are dark and still and may harbor who knows what?

But nonChristians mostly just laugh at our semantic wrangling. Their loss, really.

 

[Ringtone]

“To think that slogans or bald claims are actual arguments?"

Well, let’s examine that, Spot. Spot says “there are magical, supernatural creator gods, because I say so”

Now, Spot. A valid argument would suppose you support that argument.

Spot says, “I did support my argument, because I say so.”

Thanks, Spot. Resume your coma.

"Spot says there are magical, supernatural creator gods, because he says so,” Hollie lamely claimed.

"Oh, look, Spot," said Dick. "Hollie is spouting slogans again."

"I hear Hollie spouting slogans again too," said Jane.

Spot laughed. "Yes, children, I hear Hollie spouting slogans again too."

"Hollie is a mindless slogan spouter" Dick said.

"Hollie is silly," Jane said and giggled.

"Yeah, that Hollie is a real piece of work," Spot affirmed.

"Doesn't she understand that an infinite regress of causality is an absurdity?" Jane wondered.

"Either that or she doesn't get how crazy it is to believe that existence can arise from nonexistence," Dick observed.

Jane frowned. "Is she a lunatic?"

Dick moved closer to Jane, putting himself between Jane and Hollie as the latter's eyes began to roll back in their sockets in opposite directions.

Hollie blurted an obscenity and cackled.

"Well, children, I think it's safe to say that the cheese slid off Hollie's cracker years ago," Spot sighed.
​

 

[Hollie]

“To think that slogans or bald claims are actual arguments?"

Well, let’s examine that, Spot. Spot says “there are magical, supernatural creator gods, because I say so”

Now, Spot. A valid argument would suppose you support that argument.

Spot says, “I did support my argument, because I say so.”

Thanks, Spot. Resume your coma.

"Spot says there are magical, supernatural creator gods, because he says so,” Hollie lamely claimed.

"Oh, look, Spot," said Dick. "Hollie is spouting slogans again."

"I hear Hollie spouting slogans again too," said Jane.

Spot laughed. "Yes, children, I hear Hollie spouting slogans again too."

"Hollie is a mindless slogan spouter" Dick said.

"Hollie is silly," Jane said and giggled.

"Yeah, that Hollie is a real piece of work," Spot affirmed.

"Doesn't she understand that an infinite regress of causality is an absurdity?" Jane wondered.

"Either that or she doesn't get how crazy it is to believe that existence can arise from nonexistence," Dick observed.

Jane frowned. "Is she a lunatic?"

Dick moved closer to Jane, putting himself between Jane and Hollie as the latter's eyes began to roll back in their sockets in opposite directions.

Hollie blurted an obscenity and cackled.

"Well, children, I think it's safe to say that the cheese slid off Hollie's cracker years ago," Spot sighed.
​

Well, once again, you have managed to waste your time with the usual juvenile banter you waste your time with, all in a desperate bid for my attention.