RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/4/2008 9:53:19 AM)

Yeah, what DID Bill Clinton mean when he questioned the meaning of the copula to avoid confession of copulation?[;)]



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/4/2008 11:26:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Yeah, what DID Bill Clinton mean when he questioned the meaning of the copula to avoid confession of copulation?[;)]


"Is" is only a copula when it connects or "links" a subject to something else. "Is" does not do that in this case. "God is." Therefore, God is found only within time.



gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/4/2008 1:21:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Yeah, what DID Bill Clinton mean when he questioned the meaning of the copula to avoid confession of copulation?[;)]


"Is" is only a copula when it connects or "links" a subject to something else. "Is" does not do that in this case. "God is." Therefore, God is found only within time.



Incorrect. A copula does not link a subject to something else. The predicate of a copula is the same thing as the subject, or a quality of the subject. When a proud mother says "My son is a doctor" she doesn't mean that her son and a doctor are different people.

Furthermore, as I noted previously, the biblical statement "God is" is a reference to the full statement "I am who I am" which links "I" with "who I am",.


In this sentence, the copula "am" links the subject "I" with a predicate "who I am" that refers back to the same subject, not to something else.

Nothing here requires the passage of time.



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/4/2008 3:50:04 PM)

quote:

(hellohellohi) Yeah, what DID Bill Clinton mean when he questioned the meaning of the copula to avoid confession of copulation?[;)]

(theo) "Is" is only a copula when it connects or "links" a subject to something else. "Is" does not do that in this case. "God is." Therefore, God is found only within time.

(gluadys) Incorrect. A copula does not link a subject to something else. The predicate of a copula is the same thing as the subject, or a quality of the subject. When a proud mother says "My son is a doctor" she doesn't mean that her son and a doctor are different people.

Furthermore, as I noted previously, the biblical statement "God is" is a reference to the full statement "I am who I am" which links "I" with "who I am",.

In this sentence, the copula "am" links the subject "I" with a predicate "who I am" that refers back to the same subject, not to something else.

Nothing here requires the passage of time.


But I did not say "God said I am who I am;" I said "God is." "Is" is only a copula when it connects or "links" a subject to something else. "Is" does not do that in this case. "God is." Therefore, God is found only within time.

That is the problem we are having gluadys. You aren't paying attention to the details and they will come back to bite you.



gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/4/2008 5:17:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book
But I did not say "God said I am who I am;" I said "God is." "Is" is only a copula when it connects or "links" a subject to something else. "Is" does not do that in this case. "God is." Therefore, God is found only within time.

That is the problem we are having gluadys. You aren't paying attention to the details and they will come back to bite you.



And you are still making the same grammatical error. A copula never links one thing to something else. The subject and predicate of a copula are always the same thing. (Or the predicate is a quality of the subject.)

A transitive verb links one thing to another. "The boy swatted the fly."

What you are trying to do is deal with a sentence in which there is no predicate.

When we speak of an action, this give us an intransitive verb; "George runs, Betsy sings, the cat purrs, etc."

So your contention is that "God is" implies this sort of action.

But it doesn't. It states a quality of God that is irrespective of time. It takes time for George to run anywhere and for Betsy to sing a song and for the cat to purr. It does not take time for God to be because "to be" implies a state, not an action.

It is more along the line of the copula + predicate adjective, except that there is a blank where the adjective would be. When we way "the sky is blue" or "the stone is hard" we don't imply that the sky is doing anything to be blue or the stone is doing anything to be hard. The same is true when we say "God is holy" or "God is love" or simply "God is". Since God does not have to act in time for any of these things to be true, they do not imply time.



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/4/2008 6:03:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book
But I did not say "God said I am who I am;" I said "God is." "Is" is only a copula when it connects or "links" a subject to something else. "Is" does not do that in this case. "God is." Therefore, God is found only within time.

That is the problem we are having gluadys. You aren't paying attention to the details and they will come back to bite you.



And you are still making the same grammatical error. A copula never links one thing to something else. The subject and predicate of a copula are always the same thing. (Or the predicate is a quality of the subject.)

A transitive verb links one thing to another. "The boy swatted the fly."

What you are trying to do is deal with a sentence in which there is no predicate.

When we speak of an action, this give us an intransitive verb; "George runs, Betsy sings, the cat purrs, etc."

So your contention is that "God is" implies this sort of action.


According to David Alan Black; "It's still Greek to me;"
There are three types of finite verbs.

1) A TRANSITIVE verb transfers an action from the subject of the verb to another peson, place, or thing: "Jane liked farmer Jones."

2) An INTRANSITIVE verb expresses an action that is limited to the subject of the sentence: "Jane smiled."

3) A LINKING verb allows words in the predicate to describe or rename the subject of the sentence: "Jane was happy."

In the 1st example, action "liked" is transfered from Jane to Farmer Jones; therefore, "liked" is a transitive verb.

In the 2nd example, the action "smiled" is limited to the subject, Jane; therefore, "smiled" is an intransitive verb.

In the 3rd example, "was" edentifies "Jane" and "happy" as the same subject; therefore, "was" is a linking verb.

In the example "God is," "is" serves therefore as an intransitive verb, as it transfers no action, no additional identification, no implied adjectival information whatsoever; rather the action "being" is limited to the subject "God."

quote:

(gluadys) But it doesn't. It states a quality of God that is irrespective of time. It takes time for George to run anywhere and for Betsy to sing a song and for the cat to purr. It does not take time for God to be because "to be" implies a state, not an action.

It is more along the line of the copula + predicate adjective, except that there is a blank where the adjective would be. When we say "the sky is blue" or "the stone is hard" we don't imply that the sky is doing anything to be blue or the stone is doing anything to be hard. The same is true when we say "God is holy" or "God is love" or simply "God is". Since God does not have to act in time for any of these things to be true, they do not imply time.


You are trying to assume your conclusion then use your conclusion to prove it to be true. Your statement "Since God does not have to act in time" which is precisely what you have not proved, only asserted.

God is.
"Is" is the third person present singular form of "to be." There is no "implied" SOMETHING for God to be. In this usage, "is" is NOT a copula, and is not to be treated as such.


Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to GOD must believe that HE IS, AND that HE IS a REWARDER of them that diligently seek him.

In this regard, He is rewarder, "is" is a copula because "He" and
"rewarder" both speak of the subject, and link the two together.

But "He is" has no copula, for it expresses only his "being" or existence, no "understood" or "implied" adjective. It is from the Greek "estin" which is the present active indicative form of the verb "to be," to exist. Existing requires time. To be a "linking verb" (copula), the verb MUST be followed by a word that names or describes the subject.

The use of "kai" indicates that the second phrase is not simply a continuation or explanation of the first. It begins a new thought, not an extension of an old thought.

Your contention that a state of being requires no time defies Webster's definitions of actions and states.

Your argument ((gluadys)Furthermore, as I noted previously, the biblical statement "God is" is a reference to the full statement "I am who I am" which links "I" with "who I am",. In this sentence, the copula "am" links the subject "I" with a predicate "who I am" that refers back to the same subject, not to something else. ) in post #103 is without merit.

"God is" is NOT a "reference to the full statement "I am who I am." It is only an indicative present active statement of being, independent of whatever else you might know about God from his revelations.



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/5/2008 7:41:24 AM)

quote:

(gluadys) So your contention is that "God is" implies this sort of action.

But it doesn't. It states a quality of God that is irrespective of time. It takes time for George to run anywhere and for Betsy to sing a song and for the cat to purr. It does not take time for God to be because "to be" implies a state, not an action.


Act: Anything done, being done, or to be done.

ACTION: Process or state of doing; being active

ACTIVE: Being in a state of existence, progress, or motion.

BE: To exist or live.

DURATION: The length of time something continues or exists.

STATE: the condition of a person or thing.

TIME: The system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

According to Webster, "Being" is the action of actively being in a A STATE of Existence. It therefore requires time.



gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/5/2008 9:14:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

(gluadys) So your contention is that "God is" implies this sort of action.

But it doesn't. It states a quality of God that is irrespective of time. It takes time for George to run anywhere and for Betsy to sing a song and for the cat to purr. It does not take time for God to be because "to be" implies a state, not an action.


Act: Anything done, being done, or to be done.

ACTION: Process or state of doing; being active

ACTIVE: Being in a state of existence, progress, or motion.

BE: To exist or live.

DURATION: The length of time something continues or exists.

STATE: the condition of a person or thing.

TIME: The system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

According to Webster, "Being" is the action of actively being in a A STATE of Existence. It therefore requires time.



No. Being is not an action. It is a state. A state is not an action. It is a quality of the subject, not something the subject does.



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/5/2008 7:50:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

(gluadys) So your contention is that "God is" implies this sort of action.

But it doesn't. It states a quality of God that is irrespective of time. It takes time for George to run anywhere and for Betsy to sing a song and for the cat to purr. It does not take time for God to be because "to be" implies a state, not an action.


Act: Anything done, being done, or to be done.

ACTION: Process or state of doing; being active

ACTIVE: Being in a state of existence, progress, or motion.

BE: To exist or live.

DURATION: The length of time something continues or exists.

STATE: the condition of a person or thing.

TIME: The system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

According to Webster, "Being" is the action of actively being in a A STATE of Existence. It therefore requires time.



No. Being is not an action. It is a state. A state is not an action. It is a quality of the subject, not something the subject does.

quote:

Act: Anything done, being done, or to be done.

ACTION: Process or state of doing; being active

ACTIVE: Being in a state of existence, progress, or motion.

BE: To exist or live.

DURATION: The length of time something continues or exists.

STATE: the condition of a person or thing.

TIME: The system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

According to Webster, "Being" is the action of actively being in a A STATE of Existence. It therefore requires time.



O.K. GLUADYS, I'll give you one more shot at this.
Act: Anything done, being done, or to be done.

ACTION: Process or state of doing; BEING ACTIVE

ACTIVE: Being in a STATE of EXISTENCE, progress, or motion.

BE: To EXIST or live.

DURATION: The length of time something continues or exists.

STATE: the CONDITION of a person or thing.

TIME: The system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.

According to Webster, "Being" is the action of actively being in a A STATE of Existence. It therefore requires time.

The CONDITION of God is EXISTENCE; EXISTENCE is BEING; BEING in a state of EXISTENCE is ACTIVE; And ACTIVELY BEING is ACTION.

Action requires time.

The problem you have is you are confusing action as not being a state or contdition.

A state or condition of being IS AN ACTIVITY requiring time.

Now, you may have your "last word."



gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/5/2008 8:01:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book
A state or condition of being IS AN ACTIVITY requiring time.

Now, you may have the last word.


Nope. A state of being is not an activity since nothing is being done. An activity requires some sort of motion or change in a state of being. The state of being per se does not.



hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 9:34:43 AM)

Hello theo_book,

Just curious -- why does the particular issue of time interest you so much? However, I have already come to appreciate from what you have written of the importance of time and season to God and His plan, but I just felt like giving you another opportunity to reinforce why this stuff matters.

It is fairly interesting in its own right, but it seems to me like it does matter to you.



hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 9:37:56 AM)

Also, I wanted to restate my thoughts on "God is."

I don't think in context that the epithet "I am" is meant to place God existing in the sense that other things exist in the world -- as subsets of the whole. Rather I think it is meant to express that nothing exists apart from God. (Other things that may appear to exist, for instance, are null.)



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 10:26:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Hello theo_book,

Just curious -- why does the particular issue of time interest you so much? However, I have already come to appreciate from what you have written of the importance of time and season to God and His plan, but I just felt like giving you another opportunity to reinforce why this stuff matters.

It is fairly interesting in its own right, but it seems to me like it does matter to you.


I have been debating with pastors and preachers for years who think
"orthodoxy" carries as much authority as scripture; the same error Catholicism falls into.

I meditate constantly in the scriptures and check what I read against what scriptures present. When I see something in scripture contrary to what I believe, I hasten to adjust my thinking, but any adjustment must be based on understanding. And my understanding must be based on what scripture actually says, not on what is not in scripture.

For years I have been led to believe "God created time" because I did not question "orthodoxy's" position on the issue. Of course, I was raised a Catholic for the same reason; i.,e., didn't question the "orthodox" position.

Now I question all of my beliefs, and verify my conclusions in scripture. I find God has an almost fanatical issue with "time." He names many things that he ties to their "season," as well as making seasonal considerations a large part of his covenants with mankind.


Eccl 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

I see so much beauty in God's presentation of his application of "time" to men who travail in their effort to find and please God, it makes my eyes tear.

It matters that we understand the proper place "Time" has in relationships that come up between God and men. And when men constantly try to cut down mankind to make God look greater than he is, it rankles my soul.

Nothing is greater than God.

God created man in his own image, and clothed them in the flesh of mortality.

God created angels to serve men. "Are they not all ministering spirits?"

God created animals less than men and angels.

And God gave only men and angels that thing called "free will." (I do not necessarily limit animals from having free will, I only limit my knowledge to the scriptural account of it.) But it is the exercise of "free will" by which men fully come to appreciate and please God.

And for men to subject their mental acumen to committees of other men to develope doctrine and tell the rest of us what we can believe and practice, and what is "unorthodox," violates God's mandates to man to "choose YE this day whom ye will serve." Committees cannot make the choices for us.

Scripture deos NOT tell us God created time. Scripture DOES tell us God created the sun and moon BY WHICH we measure time. I accept that. Creation is an activity; activities require the duration of time to function.
Time therefore is as old as God. God is not dependent upon time as some have suggested, except as he subjects himself to the covenant considerations of his own exercise of free will; coupled with the fact he binds himself by his promise and his oath, in that he cannot lie.

All of this is to be considered as we discover in God's revelation about himself and about men, as men strive to know and please God in accordance to his will.

There will always be those who cry "Heresy" if you present something they had not considered before, and is not covered in their "orthodox" understanding of truth. And if "heresy" doesn't cow the stout heart, it is soon followed by "Blasphemy," and "false teacher;" all over something that is not even discussed in scripture; i.e., the creation of time.

It has been suggested that "light is time." If light is time, why then is the speed of light (light moving through time, which if light is time, it equates to light moving through light) used to define time?

It makes me feel closer to God to think he created heaven and earth before he sat around for aeons of time trying to decide how he wanted it to develope; another position of "orthodoxy." By the time Daniel got around to describing God as "ancient of days," enough time had proccessed on earth to cause anyone to be so described. But that picture of God's age doesn't please "orthodoxy" so it is taboo.

I guess I just consider men to have been created on the earlier side of eternity, than on the later side. And THAT defies "orthodoxy."

When David the shepherd was jsut a lad, he pondered mightily about God and himself, and concluded "I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
I can do no less.

Ecc 3:17 I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 10:40:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

Also, I wanted to restate my thoughts on "God is."

I don't think in context that the epithet "I am" is meant to place God existing in the sense that other things exist in the world -- as subsets of the whole. Rather I think it is meant to express that nothing exists apart from God. (Other things that may appear to exist, for instance, are null.)


I think we are in agreement, though I am still pondering your wording.

The use of "am" in God's introduction to Moses as to the concept of "I am that I am" is not the same concept of "is" as in "He that cometh to God must believe that he is," for the simple reason Moses did not know God as his Father, nor did he know of the resurrected Christ, nor any of a myriad of other Christian considerations which change our concept of what it means God "is."

Jehovah God is our Father; and his son is our older brother. This is not what Moses understood God to be saying when he said "I am that I am."
But when a Christian comes to God, believing that "he is," the Christian has a whole different perspective about everything having to do with God and who he is.

I don't know if this clears it up or adds to the confusionl, but there IS a difference in the two concepts.



hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 11:01:46 AM)

quote:

though I am still pondering your wording.


Hello,

I thought about it a bit more, and I think I realize how to explain myself.

I find the concept of existence a pretty difficult one to define, inviting circularity.

To avoid this, I figure one can define "existence" simply on how it is used -- develop an "operative" definition.

For instance, I think whenever we speak of something existing, we mean SPECIFICALLY and tacitly that it exists among other things. It is a subset of the universal set of objects. The question of something's existence usually hinges on whether it is either an as yet unobserved combination of subsets of propoerties, collected as traits of one localized object, or whether it is a salient definition at all -- that is, whether it sticks out among other words, whethe rit simply isn't already covered by a word or concept already in existence. Stuff like that.

I think when God says He is though, He doesn't mean He is a subset of existence but rather apart from Him existence is a silly thing to talk about. Would two lips flapping in the forest make a sound if God wasn't around to hear it? Just making a joke.

Now, I am not trying to be overly technical. I certainly agree that God can be considered to be subjected (by Himself) to aspects of His creation. I am just trying to express how the phrases of God resonates with me. I just feel that when God says either "I am that I am" or "I am," He is basically saying, "Try and find such sufficiency within yourself -- I dare you!" But God has a nicer way of putting things than I have.

So, really, I don't even like to say "God exists" under that understanding. I would rather just give thanks for what I feel when He says "I am." I don't need to posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms. Rather, I would like to turn that on its head and say that God's terms and words are the basis for existence. One of His words is "time"!! And from that the understanding of "existence" can be derived.

Basically, all I am saying is that God is not ascribing the property "existence" to Himself (though, I would certainly listen to someone who disagreed with me on this) but rather attributing existence itself to Himself. I.E.: He is reiterating His sufficiency. (Of course, I would not be the first to say if I have that God is the only in-itself-for-itself.)

I agree with everything you've been saying, so don't misunderstand that I am trying to argue or even accent what you have been saying. I was just trying to explain what is behind my phrasing. Perhaps I will come to alter my use of these words.



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 12:03:18 PM)

quote:


So, really, I don't even like to say "God exists" under that understanding. I would rather just give thanks for what I feel when He says "I am." I don't need to posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms. Rather, I would like to turn that on its head and say that God's terms and words are the basis for existence. One of His words is "time"!! And from that the understanding of "existence" can be derived.


I have a comment on your comment:

quote:

I don't need to posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms.


Why not? Was it not God who chose to "explain his existence in universe based terms?" Why would we change that?

You see my friend, it seems to me we go out of our way sometimes to avoid seeming to insult God, when the reality is, God would LOVE to hear us exclaim our simple understanding in his own terms.

Allow me to give you a different example. Are you familiar with the concept of "making God in our own image?" Sometimes it is called "anthropomorphism." A big word that references man speaking of God having hands, feet, legs, eyes, ears, and so forth. MANY people consider it as anthropormorphism. It is NOT.

It is in fact Theomorphism. You see,
We speak of Anthropomorphism. This is the taking of characteristics of man, and placing them on God; Our hands, feet, nose, etc. and we say man makes God in man's image.

The truth of the matter however, as revealed in scripture, is God has arms [Deu 33:27]
Eyes [Deu 11:12]
Eyes and Ears [2 Kings 19:16]
Hand and Ear [Isa 59:1]
Hands [Deu 32:39][Josh 4:24][Psa 31:5]
Hand and Arm [Deu 5:15]
Heart and Soul [Jer 32:41]
Lips [Job 11:5]
Feet [Exo 24:10]
Voice [Exo 15:26][Deu 13:18]
Words [Num 24:4]
Joy and Singing [Zeph 3:17] (my personal favorite)
Finger [Exo 8:19]
Right and Left hand [1 Kings 22:19][2 Chron 18:18]

I call this Theomorphism, because God reveals that he has taken the perfect for a pattern, and created us as an imperfect image of the perfect.

So when we speak of God's hands or God's eyes or ears, it is not applying man's body parts to God, rather it is simply llowing God's own revelation to us, to speak for itself.

And lest some one think that God being Spirit, means he cannot have hands and etc, let me remind you "you don't know that." None knows anything about spirit beyond the fact we cannot perceive it with the eye. As to its shape or appearance, we cannot speak. We do know that it has not the same appearance as flesh has. That does not mean the appendages are different, only the appearance.



hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 1:27:00 PM)

quote:

You see my friend, it seems to me we go out of our way sometimes to avoid seeming to insult God, when the reality is, God would LOVE to hear us exclaim our simple understanding in his own terms.


Yes, I agree very much.

Basically, I think my feeling on the word "existence" is rather obtuse. It's just something to think about. I do agree that there is something really good in understanding God in exactly the ways He has enabled us to understand!

I just like the "big" thought that to speak of existence apart from God is to speak of death -- ergo existence (in the objective sense) is nothing. Nevertheless, I think language which sometimes has objective connotations is also vital to talk about God, such as time.

Basically, I wouldn't want to take time, existence, etc. as premises and then deduce God. Rather I would like to derive all (subjectively, or perhaps textually -- i.e.: from the Bible and contemplation of meanings of words, like you are interested in) other concepts from God or express how they relate to God. E.g.: Sin is not "based on" God, but it can be understood in terms of God as rebellion against Him.

Anyway...

later



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/7/2008 8:09:29 PM)

I sent you an e-mail.



mikejonesoftn -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 4:30:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PromiseLander

Genesis 1:3
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

Before this, there was no light. Why should there have been?



Well, technically speaking, I am assuming that there was light before God said "let there be light, It just wasn't present where he demanded it to be (Earth), therefor he said "Let there be light." and God is possible of all things but I'm sure he didn't actually say the exact term "light" but usually something is created before it is given a name. So I am assuming he had previously created it, maybe in heaven, we don't know. But I don't think that was the first time there was ever light.



drmark -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 7:10:10 AM)

quote:

I don't need to posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms.
NO ONE can "posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms" for the very reason that God is a Spirit Being who exists inside and outside (transcendent to) His created universe of objective reality. This is the simple meaning of the word "supernatural". C'mon people, let's not make God more complicated than He already is!

quote:

Well, technically speaking, I am assuming that there was light before God said "let there be light
Technically speaking, mjsn, Genesis 1:2 states that "the earth was empty and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep". How do you reconcile your assumption with that Biblical truth?



theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 8:19:53 AM)

quote:

(hellohellohi) I don't need to posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms.

(drmark) NO ONE can "posit or explain His existence in objective (universe-based) terms" for the very reason that God is a Spirit Being who exists inside and outside (transcendent to) His created universe of objective reality.


Of Course someone can. It is called "revelation." And it comes directly from God. He does express, posit, or explain his existence in objective
"universe-based" terms.

And it is not "expressed, positted, or explained" anywhere in revelation, that he exists "inside and outside (transcendant to) his created universe of objective reality."

2 Chr 2:6 But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?

Because the Chronicler uses a word (Kuwl) that is translated "contain" does not mean God is outside his creation. "Kuwl" conveys the idea of calculate, or measure, and there is no power in heaven or on earth that can calculate or measure God.

The Greek narrows it to "cannot bear (as in express or convey) his glory." This simply means heaven itself is inadequate to express God's glory.

quote:

(drmark) This is the simple meaning of the word "supernatural". C'mon people, let's not make God more complicated than He already is!


"Supernatural" means "not constrained by nature." It has nothing to do with adding superlatives to who or what God reveals He is.


quote:

(mikejonesoftn) Well, technically speaking, I am assuming that there was light before God said "let there be light


Well MJ, Do you really think God would say "let there be" ANYTHING that already WAS? What would be his motive? The Genesis account reveals he first pronounced it into reality, examined it, approved it, then separated it from darkness. How say you that it already was?



drmark -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 11:02:58 AM)

quote:

Of Course someone can. It is called "revelation." And it comes directly from God.
Exactly my point, t_b! It is only God who can explain His existence to us. Without His spiritual direction, we are unable to physically and completely explain God in human terms because we are natural and He is supernatural.



hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 11:14:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Of Course someone can. It is called "revelation." And it comes directly from God.
Exactly my point, t_b! It is only God who can explain His existence to us. Without His spiritual direction, we are unable to physically and completely explain God in human terms because we are natural and He is supernatural.


Yes, that is what I meant as well. -- I agree that we can "posit" attributes of God via revelation.

However, I also agree that we can describe God in universe-based terms such as love. But, then again, I don't think love IS universe-based. I think it is actually God-based.

So, what I was saying was that God gave us words with which to describe him in a REAL way. These words, if you like, are universe-based, but only insofar as our universe is based on God. What I meant by "we cannot posit" such and such is that, for instance, an objective description or foundational understanding of the universe ought not to be applied to God.

I guess it comes down to what I personally understand the word objective to mean. I believe it entails the mode of treating objects. I don't believe God can be objectified. Indeed, he is a person of sorts, no?

Edit: That is, objective things are undeniable, apart from claims of solipsism or something-such. Love, for instance, does not fall into this category. I know "objective" has the connotation of "knowing" while "subjective" has the connotation of merely "thinking," I prefer to think of both as ways of knowing, while subjective is inherently inner while objective reality is external and common to a hypothetical impartial observer. Love is surely common to all observers -- but there is a possibilty of denying it. That is why it falls under the category of subjectivity. Personally, I think subjective knowledge is superior to objective. Revelation, I contend here, is subjective, in that it is deniable by ourselves, which is sin.



hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 11:50:29 AM)

I think one of my basic questions behind the above thoughts is, I know God is connected to the Universe -- and I very much appreciate your (t_b specifically) and y'all's understanding, expression, and Bible verses related to God's concern with describing himself in real terms -- but I also understand that the concept "the flesh" seems connected to the universe. So where does one stop and the other begin? I'm asking because I don't know.

Basically, though, I believe that humanity makes the universe or understands the universe in other than Godly ways, in ways that serve the choice to sin. That is why I am reticent to use "universe-based" terms to describe God.

Of course, existence need not be "universe-based," but I can personally think of an understanding of the word that would be, an, interestingly, an understaanding subtle enough that could go unnoticed in common discourse. That is why I was trying to pick apart the word and extract what I think is good in it. The fact is, I like the way God put it as, "I am." This, to me, says, I dare you to say otherwise -- though, of course, He doesn't say that since He doesn't tempt us. He is just succinctly stating -- and with as little recourse to vaunted concepts as possible! -- that doubt of his existence is very ironic indeed. Basically, I am trying to say that I cannot personally ASCRIBE existence to God but, thankfully, He is ascribing His existence to ME. This I believe He does for all, though some can deny it. Further, I figure that even when one grants God's claim to existence, one may deny Him in other ways (sin), and one is therefore implicitly denying God's original contention of sufficiency: "I am that I am."

You see, I have spent most of my time contemplating the word "existence" by reading existentialists. They believe that existence -- well, Sartre, for instance, appears to take it as self-evident but then goes on to describe a philosophy that what existence is (its essence) is decided by the individual on their own power. This, however, is interesting, because he says first of all that a human exists as a "for-itself," meaning that we are self-observers. This displaces us from our essence, putting us at a remove, and putting it in doubt. That is why he contends that our essence (what could be called the "in-itself" I think) is not only ambiguous, but open to self-interpretation. God, on the other hand, is both a for-itself and an in-itself. His nature is both contingent on Himself and necessary, I suppose.

So, hmm, I suppose by calling him an "in-itself," it is to say that He exists. Perhaps I can't find any fault in this phrase! Perhaps God does exist like an object -- like a rock, contrasted with the sandyland, for instance. Good enough.



drmark -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/8/2008 12:03:06 PM)

quote:

But, then again, I don't think love IS universe-based. I think it is actually God-based
.Correct, there is no natural explanation for love. It is indeed "God-based" and thus transcends physical reality.

quote:

These words, if you like, are universe-based, but only insofar as our universe is based on God.
No, I don't like! While words are "real" in that they represent reality, the intelligence behind their design, creation, and usage is certainly not naturally explicable. Human intellect can only result from the Creator's omniscience.

quote:

What I meant by "we cannot posit" such and such is that, for instance, an objective description or foundational understanding of the universe ought not to be applied to God.
Why not? If He created the objective universe then surely we can apply some of our understanding of that universe to the knowledge of God! Indeed, this is the very basis of modern science as established in the 1500-1700s.

quote:

I don't believe God can be objectified. Indeed, he is a person of sorts, no?
And I would suggest that we "objectify" God every time we show the Love of Christ to others, especially unbelievers.

quote:

objective things are undeniable
Psychotics frequently deny objective reality - that's the nature of psychosis.

quote:

objective reality is external and common to a hypothetical impartial observer
Is there really such a thing as an "impartial observer"?

quote:

Revelation, I contend here, is subjective, in that it is deniable by ourselves, which is sin.
A potentially dangerous position, hhhi! Revelation must be objective or it ends up being nothing but relativistic mumbo-jumbo. Our interpretation of God's revelation is subjective and that's what may result in sin.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI