A thought experiment about what it means "to be" GOD

by Terry 143 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Perry
    Perry
    BEFORE God began creating.......he wasn't a CREATOR.

    Wrong premise. Since God created time, there was no "before" the beginning. Time is merely an invention of God. It seems so permanent to us.... but not to Him.

    BEFORE God began creating.....there was nothing......and nothing TO KNOW. (Nothing to know about, you see.)

    Because your premise is wrong, you make this mistake in your logic. It does not follow.

    BEFORE God began creating...there was nothing and nothing to know....nobody and nothing to LOVE.

    Because your premise is wrong, you make this mistake in your logic. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are eternal and are complete in themselves.

    BEFORE God began creating...He was alone. In the middle of nothing...with nothing to think about....nobody to love....yet He was somehow different than nothing?

    Because your premise is wrong, you make this mistake in your logic. Just because you cannot imagine God's existence before the establishment of time doesn't mean these things didn't exist in other contexts.

    God wasn't anyplace. God wasn't doing anything with anybody. Eternity of nothing leaves God with nothing to distinguish Him from nothing and no time to BE.

    God could not be ALL-KNOWING (there was nothing to know).
    God could not be ALL-POWERFUL (nothing over which to exert power).
    God could not be just, moral, loving or powerful (no wrongs to right, no good or bad and no action or event occuring.)
    God could not be WISE (no knowledge about things as yet non-created).

    Just because you do not understand the nature of a transcendent God, that doesn't give you license to make nonsensical statements like the ones above that you cannot possible have any inkling about. In other words, ignorance isn't a virtue. I don't mean that as a personal attack. It's just that many assume things as proof simply because that are aware of the fact that they know nothing at all about something. Ignorance isn't proof, it's a lack of it.

    Therefore:
    In what sense could GOD actually EXIST? To exist you must BE something rather than nothing. How was God distinguishable from nothing?
    God would have no attributes, identity or context.
    A God of Love with nothing to love? A God of wisdom with nothing to actually know?

    In order to BE God...there must already exist OTHER than God. Just as: for there to be a dream there must be a dreamer.
    Consequently, only in the mind of MAN can God find context and omniscience, power, etc.
    It is man who dreams of GOD and not the other way round.

    Terry, Terry, Terry. Your argument seems to be that since you cannot get your own mind around God, I mean really get on top of the subject, then he must not exist. Did it ever occur to you, that for that to happen he would cease being God and YOU would be him?

    Personally, I have become quite comfortable not knowing everything about God after 8 years of following Jesus and getting born again. To my fallen nature, it is quite annoying that God doesn't consult with me on things. Imagine that, God makes good things happen to me without consulting me whether or not it would be OK to do it?

    He MAKES ME lie down in green pastures." .... when most of the time I'd rather be fighting some ridiculous battle. Thank God, he knows my innermost desires, when sometimes they are hidden even to me.

    "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." (literally "the thing that I long for" - Jeremiah 29:11

    You can't ever get your mind around God Terry. Just enjoy him. He himself is the most valuable gift ever conceived.

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Since God created time, there was no "before" the beginning. Time is merely an invention of God.

    If there was no time before he created it, when did he actually find the time to do it?

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    The dictionary and traditional definition of nothing is not the same as this new explanation of 'Nothing'. (which is what i suspect you are leading up to... could be wrong though... but that was my point regarding re-defining words)

    One is nothing (your dictionary definition), the other is Nothing, a proper noun with a specific meaning, a name. What's the issue?

  • tec
    tec

    It is a new definition is it not? Taking the word, nothing, and giving it a new meaning?

    Peace,

    tammy

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    It is a new definition is it not? Taking the word, nothing, and giving it a new meaning?

    It's a new noun. Where you going with this, tec?

  • tec
    tec

    Where you going with this, tec?

    Pointing out a double standard regarding accusations about believers redefining words... to win arguments or to be dishonest or whatever. Sometimes words are redefined, or clarified, because there is more to them. Because we have learned more. Or because the definition can be subjective and so was based only upon what some thought was true. But in fact... that... was the hijacking of the word.

    It is off topic, I admit.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    Pointing out a double standard regarding accusations about believers redefining words... to win arguments or to be dishonest or whatever.

    What double standard? I need evidence of this.

  • tec
    tec

    What double standard? I need evidence of this.

    Really?

    I explained the double standard. Not going to go another round on it. The next time I see an atheist point a finger at a believer for 'redefining' a word, I'll point that out to you.

    peace,

    tammy

  • EntirelyPossible
    EntirelyPossible

    I explained the double standard. Not going to go another round on it. The next time I see an atheist point a finger at a believer for 'redefining' a word, I'll point that out to you.

    No, you didn't explain a double-standard. You excused attempting to ad-hoc change the definitions of words mid-flight by apologists by equating it with legitimate science showing how old meanings don't necessarily hold up under scrutiny.

  • Terry
    Terry

    To say that before God created this universe He was doing nothing or knowing nothing because there was nothing yes is to imply that...<snip>

    Infinite regress is not a response. It is the postponement of a response.

    You are multiplying the issue and not simplifying.

    Stop and think about this one point: does God come BEFORE the things he creates or not?

    If you answer "yes" then let's cut to the chase, okay? At whatever point in God's career he decided to begin creating let's begin this topic: RIGHT THERE.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit