Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.

32 comments:

J. K. Jones said...

I am not sure what you mean by time.

This is an honest question: what is time?

Paul Rinzler said...

God's perfection contradicts his creating the universe. If God is perfect, why create the universe? Perfection is paralysis.

J. K. Jones said...

Paul,

There is no defect in a fountain when it is fond to overflow. Why not demonstrate perfection to a created world?

JK

shane said...

Paul.

Good point!

A being complete in every way would have no reason to do anything!

They would have no wants, needs, desires, ambitions, drives, or goals!

ahswan said...

Unless, of course, time as we know it is a part of the physical universe, which of course it appears to be.

Think of the universe as a movie with God as producer; why does the producer have to find himself inside his movie? The fact that Hitchcock appears in his films doesn't mean he is bound by any of them.

J. K. Jones said...

“A being complete in every way … would have no wants, needs, desires, ambitions, drives, or goals!”

Why?

“Unless, of course, time as we know it is a part of the physical universe, which of course it appears to be.”

What would be a good book that would explain that to me. It seems to me that time is just an abstraction used to describe changes in the physical environment that we cannot track. Sort of like variables we set up in designed experiments in order to check for factors we know nothing about (randomization).

“… why does the producer have to find himself inside his movie?”
That’s a good question. Why does the Producer have to be so bound? Can He not be independent of time in that He is not limited by it? Seems like you have attributed being to time and then forced God into time without warrant.

shane said...

J.K.

You asked why?
Why would a being complete in everyway not have wants,needs,desires,drives, and goals?

Do I really have to answer that for you?
I guess that would be because a complete being would not be lacking anything J.K, why do you think?....lol...

J. K. Jones said...

“…a complete being would not be lacking anything…”

Why does a desire need to be the result of a lack or deficiency in a being? Could it be the result of an overflow of completeness? Could completeness have the desire to show its completeness?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

The premise is wrong, God would certainly have to exist before a universe. Time begins within movement (arguably) and if God is eternal (ie:without time) he existed without a universe. I would also hold that he was under no direction or path to create the universe, although I would give you that our understanding of this is very defecient and will be under any circumstance because of the finite makeup of our being and how we think.

Novel speculations and philosophical notions. Makes you think.

shane said...

J.K.

What do you mean by overflow? What is an overflow of completeness?

Chuck said...

Harv

I actually agree with your post. Now if you could just follow it up with the humility that your conclusion to absolute truth inside the unknown is speculation then you'd agree with what Jesus told me last night. He said you wouldn't though because he has a plan for your arrogance and stupidity.

mmcelhaney said...

Who says that God has to forever experience a sequence of events in time? Eternal means that God transcends time...He is not bound by it. And why would anyone think that the Universe and time goes on forever when the currently accepted view of Physics is that the Universe will end in heat death. When that happens nothing will move, entropy will be at it's maximum value and my best guess is that there will be no more time. That is if Christianity is not true, this is the most likely scenario given that we can't prove multiple universes or a universe does not cyclically expand and contract every some odd trillions of years. If it is true, then Jesus promised to reboot the universe.

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. - Revelations 21:1-3

Breckmin said...

"If God is perfect, why create the universe?"

Because it is good to create cognitive beings who can LOVE (choose). It is better to give than to receive. God does NOT need to receive worship...such an assertion would be ridiculous.

God does not need anything. God did NOT need to create anymore than He needs to be God/Creator.

He simply IS Creator...and He created because it was the greater good to create beings who could LOVE. Question everything.

Breckmin said...

"There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God"

True...but imperfect to say "personal" with respect to consciousness (also imperfect) or
any anthropomorphic application.

"who created the physical universe ex-nihilo"

Untrue. Creation ex nihilo is debated. The substance of the universe could easily be some sort of infinite equilibrium from which positive and negative energies arise as well as matter and anti matter.

Nothing comes from nothing and even nothing is something.

"in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time."

Time is non-effectual if God is omni-time (NOT outside of time) or beyon the limitations of time and three dimensional existence. If three dimensional existence is logically infinite and God is logically infinite and does not move and is transcendent/atemporal (and He would have to be in order to be omniscient), then God does not need to experience movement/time travel from points to other points or any sort of duration. Jesus would, however, forever experience duration the way in which we do. God the Father would not be bound by finite limitation.

We also have an imperfection with "the first moment in time" because you will always have something "before" this quote unquote beginning of time. It is much more logical to have duration/time experience become effectual with finite existence, then anything prior is superfluous.
There is no need for an infinite past (eternity past) since time was not effectual.

Breckmin said...

"God's perfection contradicts his creating the universe."

You would have to be Perfect in order to judge perfection and claim that it is somehow imperfect to create. Don't you see the illogic in your assertion? God is not creating out of need...if this is your assertion then you are starting with a false assumption.

You can not claim that it is not good to create beings of love unless you yourself are Perfect and know the standard for perfection.

This is no accident. QE

Breckmin said...

"A being complete in every way would have no reason to do anything!"

Logic asks you "How can you be infinite and not somehow be complete?"

You would have to be an infinite and perfect being(state of existence - NOT limited) in order to assert that such existence has no reason.

Breckmin said...

"They would have no wants, needs, desires, ambitions, drives, or goals!"

With respect of an Infinite Perfect Creator - ALL of these English descriptions are anthropomorphic to a degree. God has no needs. He is not in need of an ambition. His omniscience and Transcendent Existence makes the application of "goals" clearly silly to apply to God. An immutable atemporal existence would also not need to be driven (back to omniscience). Driven would require motive or goal setting which was outside of one's self.

Desires and intent are things we see as requiring variance like emotions...but God does NOT have a finite mind like we do..so we are all fools using imperfect words to describe this Holy Creator.

Welcome to the imperfection of languages that are developed by humans who are learning.

I believe your concept of God is too small and you are expecting too little from Him.

Anonymous said...

Marcus, if God decided to become outside of time again, then everything that happened in time would disappear. William Lane Craig argues that this must be the case, that God must forever experience a sequence of events according to time as Craig conceives it.

Breckmin said...

Bill Craig's idea that God the Father became temporal is problematic and defies basic principles regarding time/space relationships. It is much more logical that God's Infinite state is immutable and atemporal and that our perception of His "emotions" and "desires" are anthropocentric when they are unchanging.
Craig doesn't even realize that 3 dimensional existence is infinite.
His cosmology is just as problematic as his sytematic theology...BUT - he does preach the truth about Jesus Christ and salvation.

shane said...

Breckmin.

You said all of my examples are anthropomorphic to a degree.

Yes thay are, and your bible explains God this way, it explians God as an anthropomorphic being!
Especially in the OT!

That is why the christian concept of the three O's doesn't fly. It is not consistent with the scriptures depiction of God.

mmcelhaney said...

Obviously, I don't agree with everything Professor W.L. Craig teaches. But God is not bound by time. "Omnipresence" doesn't just mean existing everywhere simultaneously, it also means he is "every when" also. God existed prior to the created universe. There has never been a point that God has not existed. This is the God that the Bible presents. I agree with John Loftus that the god he presents is a fiction. But that is not the God of the Bible.

Breckmin said...

"Yes thay are, and your bible explains God this way, it explians God as an anthropomorphic being!
Especially in the OT!

That is why the christian concept of the three O's doesn't fly. It is not consistent with the scriptures depiction of God."

The scriptures are FAR more anthropomorphic that most theologians realize. It comes down to the very Hebrew and Paleo-Hebrew restriction. We attempt to translate these concepts into other languages - but they are originally intended to be anthropomorphic for the sake of understanding and communication. It is sort of like how you would communicate to a child some philosophical concepts and use simple illistrations. Inexactism is going to exist because the child hasn't "learned" enough yet to perfectly communicate certain concepts to them. Add an imperfect language that the child developed themselves and how you have to speak "their language" and you are getting closer to what is going on here.

Hyper-technicality is very unpractical in dissecting such concepts. Wisdom and common sense are required.

Scott said...

Q: "If God is perfect, why create the universe?"

Breckman answered:

Because it is good to create cognitive beings who can LOVE (choose). It is better to give than to receive. God does NOT need to receive worship...such an assertion would be ridiculous.

If it's "good" to create cognitive beings who can love and God is infinite, then why wouldn't God create an infinite number of cognitive beings? I mean, surely God, being infinite, could have meaningful relationships with an infinite number of cognitive beings. However, if Christianity is true, it seems he's set things up so only a finite number will actually be created.

Why would an infinite holy father, who could have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of cognitive beings, do this?

mmcelhaney said...

Um, Scott, how do you know that there isn't an infinite number of cognitive beings? What about angels? How many angels are there? What about extraterrestrial life? How many races of life are there in this Universe? Again, how do you know the number isn't that large. Also what about all the cognitive beings who aren't just around now. Countless millions have lived their lives and died. And millions more not born yet. Just how big do you think the number of cognitive beings could ultimately be? Surely, more than 7 billion.

Scott said...

Marcus,

The question was why did God create the universe. Breckman suggested it was necessary to create a universe if God wanted cognitive beings that "LOVE (choose)", whatever that means.

However, given that angels are supposedly immaterial beings which travel back and forth between heaven and earth it would seem that God could create cognitive beings without creating a universe at all.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that God's angels meet the goal that Breckman attributes to God, which is supposedly creating beings that can "LOVE (choose)"? If so, it would again appear that a universe is completely unnecessary, as would be a need for physical bodies, suffering, etc.

However, if you want to reconcile the existence of an all powerful God who is in complete control with the universe we observe, you must suggest that our current state of affairs are necessary as part of some greater purpose, which is fulfilled by creating human beings that exist in our universe.

Otherwise, why would God create us if he could have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of angels?

Marcus wrote:
What about extraterrestrial life? How many races of life are there in this Universe?

If our universe is finite, this necessitates a finite number of beings in said universe. It's unclear why God would create a finite universe as a source for an infinite number of cognitive beings.

Marcus wrote:
Just how big do you think the number of cognitive beings could ultimately be?

Marcus, do you think that Jesus will ultimately return and usher in a new age? do you think suffering here on earth will end and everything will be made new?

But If there is some "spirit building" process by which our existence in this current universe is necessary to create conscious beings which supposedly can "LOVE (choose)", then this process will end when Jesus returns.

Why would God do this if he could have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of human beings, which are supposedly the pinnacle of his creation?

If it continued in this new age, then what purpose does our current existence in this age and universe serve? If all that is required is to choose God, then it would again seem that this physical universe, and all that goes with it, would be unnecessary.

Didn't Satan supposedly reject God, even though he was God's number two? If so, it would seem having direct knowledge of God's existence isn't really a problem, which again seems to suggest that we could choose without existing in this universe, without God hiding from us, etc.

However, since we find ourselves in this particular state of affairs (which you want to escape from) you must assume our existence in this universe is part of some necessary plan, of which you just so happen to find yourself in just the right place at the right time.

mmcelhaney said...

Scott, thanks for asking thoughtful questions:

The question was why did God create the universe. Breckman suggested it was necessary to create a universe if God wanted cognitive beings that "LOVE (choose)", whatever that means.

A lot of Christians see this the way Breckman does. I see it a little different. The Bible does not say why God created the universe. I don't think we can say it was necessary because God doesn't need anything. He chose to do it. We don't know why, exactly. Maybe it's like asking why people climb Mt Everest?

However, given that angels are supposedly immaterial beings which travel back and forth between heaven and earth it would seem that God could create cognitive beings without creating a universe at all.

Scott, where do you see that angels are immaterial? Maybe their bodies are just different. However, they obviously are cognitive and possess free will given Biblical evidence. Therefore I really would not say that God needed to create the universe. Aside from the Bible telling us He wanted to do it, we have no idea.

mmcelhaney said...

@Scott

Furthermore, are you suggesting that God's angels meet the goal that Breckman attributes to God, which is supposedly creating beings that can "LOVE (choose)"? If so, it would again appear that a universe is completely unnecessary, as would be a need for physical bodies, suffering, etc.

I am suggesting that the angels meet the goal that Breckman attributes to God. The Bible says the angels cover God's throne with praise. They carry out God's orders. And they can choose to Love God or not - like we can. Remember Lucifer was an angel. He and the third of the angels rebelled and God kicked them out. As for the need for phyiscial bodies, suffering, ect.
I don't know. God has a plan. We are watching it take shape.

However, if you want to reconcile the existence of an all powerful God who is in complete control with the universe we observe, you must suggest that our current state of affairs are necessary as part of some greater purpose, which is fulfilled by creating human beings that exist in our universe.

Otherwise, why would God create us if he could have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of angels?

Exactamundo

mmcelhaney said...

@Scott

If our universe is finite, this necessitates a finite number of beings in said universe. It's unclear why God would create a finite universe as a source for an infinite number of cognitive beings.

I agree it's unclear. God has not chosen to give us the whole story yet. We are watching it happen. I'm not even certain we can say the plan is for an infinite number of finite, cognitive beings is the purpose. We don't know how many beings God has in mind.

Marcus, do you think that Jesus will ultimately return and usher in a new age? do you think suffering here on earth will end and everything will be made new?

Yes and Yes

But If there is some "spirit building" process by which our existence in this current universe is necessary to create conscious beings which supposedly can "LOVE (choose)", then this process will end when Jesus returns.

I think the purpose is more than just "spirit building" but that is a part of it. Again we can only see a part of the whole tapestry.

Why would God do this if he could have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of human beings, which are supposedly the pinnacle of his creation?

Ask God. God may reveal it to you. I don't know and no one but God knows why. What I know for sure is that Paul began to answer this question in Act 17:24-28 to the Athenians

24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'


If it continued in this new age, then what purpose does our current existence in this age and universe serve? If all that is required is to choose God, then it would again seem that this physical universe, and all that goes with it, would be unnecessary.

Paul is saying that God made everyone and put each one of us in the best possible plave to find God. God is not hidden from us. I also see that that all of your life experiences not just affect you but everyone you come into contact with. The best place God has put you includes the people you have and will interact with. Everything...even pain and suffering.

Didn't Satan supposedly reject God, even though he was God's number two? If so, it would seem having direct knowledge of God's existence isn't really a problem, which again seems to suggest that we could choose without existing in this universe, without God hiding from us, etc.

Agreed, having direct knowledge of God is not a problem. God isn't hiding but done everything needed to relate to us...He put on human flesh and allowed Himself to be tortured and persecuted - die for our sins instead of you for your own sin in the person of Jesus Christ. What more do you want?

However, since we find ourselves in this particular state of affairs (which you want to escape from) you must assume our existence in this universe is part of some necessary plan, of which you just so happen to find yourself in just the right place at the right time.

Scott this is exactly what Acts 17 says. You are at the best possible place and at the best possible time if you want a relationship with God. It's not about trying to escape the state of affairs but fulfilling the purpose God has made you for.

Scott said...

Marten wrote: A lot of Christians see this the way Breckman does. I see it a little different.

This difference in opinion represents the paradoxical nature of God.

For example, if God chooses Z, and he needs steps X and Y to achieve Z, then it would seem that X and Y are necessary for God to achieve Z. However, this seems problematic as and all powerful God should be able to just bring about Z.

He chose to do it. We don't know why, exactly. Maybe it's like asking why people climb Mt Everest?

This is clearly a flawed analogy, which again points to the points to the paradoxical nature of a God.

We are finite beings. We decide to climb Mt Everest because we do not know what it's like to do so, which is our motivation. However, God is supposedly infinite, which means he wouldn't need to actually do something to have knowledge of the resulting experience of that action. So what's his motivation?

If God doesn't need to do anything, then it would seem the real motivation at work here is work here is your's, rather than God's.

Therefore I really would not say that God needed to create the universe. Aside from the Bible telling us He wanted to do it, we have no idea.

Do you see the universe is a means to some specific end and, whatever that end is, the situation you find yourself in is not the end that God wants? If so, then, at a minimum, you seem to know what God does not want in the long term, as he supposedly wants something other than our current situation.

But here lies the problem. If God has some other final goal, which is not the state of affairs you find yourself in, yet nothing is necessary for God, then it would seem God intentionally chose this particular situation. Otherwise, it would seem some things are necessary for God.

For example, to bring things back to the OP, did God need to send Jesus so we could be saved? If so, then it would seem it was necessary for God to enter time so he could exist as a human being. But if nothing is necessary for God, then apparently God could just forgive us without his death and resurrection.

Scott said...

Marcus wrote: I'm not even certain we can say the plan is for an infinite number of finite, cognitive beings is the purpose. We don't know how many beings God has in mind.

Marcus,

The dilemma is God's motivation, including his decision to create a universe which supposedly created time. This is in contrast to our motivations to posit the existence of a particular God with a particular set of goals. As someone who does not presuppose God's existence, I'm attempting to compare the two as one way to determine if the Christian God exists.

On one hand, you seem think that God shares our motivations, but, on the other hand, you seem to think nothing is necessary for God. Perhaps you can clarify this?

For example, God supposedly created us because he wanted to have a relationship with other us. And, unless not a single human in history was saved when they died, then it seems clear that more than one person is preferable.

So, if nothing is necessary for God, and a relationship with more than one person is preferable, and God is infinite, then the question becomes, what would motivate God to put a upper cap on the number of human beings he could have a relationship with?

For example, as finite beings, human fathers have limitations. They have a limited number of resources. They do not have an infinite amount of time. They cannot house or feed an infinite number of children. They cannot have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of beings. But as our supposed heavenly father, God is everywhere at once. He is not limited by space or time. And he could have a meaningful relationship with an infinite number of human beings.

If nothing is necessary for God, then there doesn't seem to be an motivation for God to bring such a good thing to an end. However, your eventual eternal reward is dependent on this age eventually ending. You clearly have motive.

And if this universe represents "best possible [place] to find God.", as you claim, then your eternal reward will necessarily make this place inaccessible for anyone else in the future. Why would God do this?

mmcelhaney said...

Scott, I appreciate this exchange. You are being respectful and asking good and thoughtful questions but you are still making assumptions that I'm not making.

You Said:
For example, if God chooses Z, and he needs steps X and Y to achieve Z, then it would seem that X and Y are necessary for God to achieve Z. However, this seems problematic as and all powerful God should be able to just bring about Z.

God does not need steps X and Y to achieve Z. He chooses to do steps X and Y to do Z. He can do things any number of ways anyway He wants to do it. I don't know why He chooses to do things the Ways He has only that He could have done it anyway He wants.

You also said:

We are finite beings. We decide to climb Mt Everest because we do not know what it's like to do so, which is our motivation. However, God is supposedly infinite, which means he wouldn't need to actually do something to have knowledge of the resulting experience of that action. So what's his motivation?


I don't think that people today choose to climb Mt Everest today only for the reason you gave. That is yours. Ever hear the old saying about climbing the mountain because it is there? I know that God didn't create the universe to gain knowledge because God is omniscient. I'm again stating that other than the fact that the Bible says He has done what He has done is because He loves us, I have no answer for God's motivation. This brings me to another question, why does He love us? I have no idea. Some folks believe God has done this to glorify Himself fully, demonstrating all aspects of Himself. I like this answer to, but it still bring up further questions.

mmcelhaney said...

@Scott
You said:
Do you see the universe is a means to some specific end and, whatever that end is, the situation you find yourself in is not the end that God wants? If so, then, at a minimum, you seem to know what God does not want in the long term, as he supposedly wants something other than our current situation.


No, I don't see the universe as a situation that ends in a way God does not work. God is in control. How can anything happen that He does not allow on purpose? What I am saying that the long term situation will not look like our current one. God has a purpose for all of it.

You said:
But here lies the problem. If God has some other final goal, which is not the state of affairs you find yourself in, yet nothing is necessary for God, then it would seem God intentionally chose this particular situation. Otherwise, it would seem some things are necessary for God.

I agree with your statement, but I don't see a problem because God did intentionally choose the current state of the universe and knows about and controls everything in some detail - allowing room for our own wills at times and taking control at other times. You can see it in the Bible and in life.

You said:

On one hand, you seem think that God shares our motivations, but, on the other hand, you seem to think nothing is necessary for God. Perhaps you can clarify this?


No, I don't think God shares our motivations in the slightest. God sometimes chooses to share some of the picture with us but none of us has the full picture. The reason why I say God loves us is because God has gone through great lengths for each of us to exist, carefully placing us where we can best find Him - Every human being who ever has and ever will have lived.


You said:

If nothing is necessary for God, then there doesn't seem to be an motivation for God to bring such a good thing to an end. However, your eventual eternal reward is dependent on this age eventually ending. You clearly have motive.

And if this universe represents "best possible [place] to find God.", as you claim, then your eternal reward will necessarily make this place inaccessible for anyone else in the future. Why would God do this?


Scott, this universe of pain and suffering is not good. It started out good but God allowed things to happen because of his ultimate purposes - which hasn't been revealed yet. Could he have created us without the propensity to sin making the death and Resurrection of Jesus unnecessary? Yes. Would everyone who has ever lived existed and had the same life experiences? No. Without American Slavery I would not have been born. Most likely neither would you. God has a purpose. It's not about us. IT's about God's will.
I don't understand what you mean that "my eternal reward" makes the universe inaccessible for anyone else in the future? I'm saying that God picks who gets born and where and when. And in that way, God places them in the best possible situation for them to find God.