How God Creates

[Starhunter]

Hi Starhunter, I always thought God could only do things which are according to his character, like for example God cannot do evil or make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it etc....... It strikes me as a little odd to say that God can to anything.

That's right. God will only do what is true to Him in character.

This makes knowing God by love through the gospel the avenue by which to judge and understand His works.

So the believer has two views - one from the top, the other from the bottom, God's character and nature.

[Starhunter]

As discussed earlier, the method of creation involves the change or settling down of infinite power, rather than an expression of it.
In theory, infinite power cannot be directed or governed, unless by another infinite source, as the Son of God possesses equal to the Father.

One way to illustrate this, is a river which is too deep and fast for the cattle to drink from, so the farmer, creates a diversion or tributary to the river and a dam, so that the waters can be calmed down and shallow enough to stand in.

Jesus has made a safe haven for the universe to exist, by His infinite power. A power which results from meekness, to be willingly helpful, to be second and not first. God will not honor any other power but this one - the power of love and humility, which is who He is as God.

So the universe exists by the surrender, meekness, and humility of God through Christ.

So although Christ governs the timing and application of the power of God to suit the making and maintenance of creation, it is not an effort or work as we are familiar with, but rather an expression of His personality, He is doing what is true and natural, so to speak, of Himself.
Plus the universe responds in the presence of that Real Living Personality.
In other words, if Christ the upholder of the universe was removed from the equation, there would be no physical point of reference for anything to exist.

It is the aim of the gospel to bring all things back into harmony with Christ the Creator, so that all things may exist and live by His presence - the attraction of the universe both for physical and spiritual life eternal.

[stuartcr]

Hi Starhunter, I always thought God could only do things which are according to his character, like for example God cannot do evil or make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it etc....... It strikes me as a little odd to say that God can to anything.

That's right. God will only do what is true to Him in character.

This makes knowing God by love through the gospel the avenue by which to judge and understand His works.

So the believer has two views - one from the top, the other from the bottom, God's character and nature.

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

[Starhunter]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

That's true in the sense that God is beyond our comprehension, but God governs the universe by rules, which are a reflection of His character. He has given the world a copy of those rules, so that we know where we stand with God. He has also given us His Son to show us the glory of His loving character.

Love has specific boundaries which can be appreciated by children. So we do know that right and wrong are found in trust and surrender to God. That's the definition of good and bad - trust or no trust in God. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

While God is beyond human comprehension, He has revealed his innermost heart to the world. So by love it is possible to know God, and what is for or against that love.

[Byblos]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

[Jac3510]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

Quite right, and stuartcr, if I may illustrate that (literally), look at this pictures:


That's a circle, of a sort, anyway. Would you say it's a "good" circle or a "bad" circle?

At the least, it's not a very good one! You could probbaly draw one that is much "better." The point is that the goodness of something is directly related to if it is what it is supposed to be. If it lacks something that it is supposed to be, then it is to the extent it is lacking not good. The word for that--"not good"--is "bad" or "evil."

So we tend to think of "evil" only in a moral sense, but that's far too narrow. Blindness is an evil because it is a lack of something. An eye that cannot see is blind because it lacks the ability to see. It is not a good eye. A rock is not blind because the rock isn't supposed to be able to see. We wouldn't say, then, that because it can't see that it's a bad rock.

So how do we know if something is "supposed to be" this or that? By its nature, of course. Circles have a certain nature. To describe that nature mathematically, every point is equidistant from the figure's center. If any point is not equidistant from the center, to that extend, the figure deviates from its circular nature. So we see that if you have or possess what you ought to have or possess by nature, you are good. If you lack that, then you are bad (or evil). That means that, at bottom, something is "good" if it exists the way it is supposed to. Why do I say "exists"? Because to have something is for you to be (to exist) in a particular way. To not have something is not to be (to exist) in a particular way. Thus, very literally, the word "good" is just another word for "exist" thought of under a very particular aspect: the aspect of what ought to be relative to something's nature. Since God is pure existence--His very existence is His nature--then He lacks absolutely nothing He ought to have. Therefore, God is pure good, not in some abstract sense in which we look at God and decide that His actions and character meet some external standard that such that we apply that label ("good"). Rather, Good really just is exactly what God.

That means, though, that to suggest that good and evil do not exist is to suggest that God's nature does not exist as pure goodness; but sense good is just being itself thought of with respect to a certain nature, that would mean that being itself does not exist. But that is self-contradictory, because it is nonsense to say that being does not exist, and more, it is nonsense to suggest that God, who is pure good, is not good after all.

Hope that helps at least a little.

[stuartcr]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

How could God not be God? I believe the reason you say we know God is pure goodness, love, etc, is because of a belief in the bible. Is that correct?

[Byblos]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

How could God not be God? I believe the reason you say we know God is pure goodness, love, etc, is because of a belief in the bible. Is that correct?

No, not correct at all. As I said, we know what we know about God from reason alone.

[stuartcr]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

Quite right, and stuartcr, if I may illustrate that (literally), look at this pictures:


That's a circle, of a sort, anyway. Would you say it's a "good" circle or a "bad" circle?

At the least, it's not a very good one! You could probbaly draw one that is much "better." The point is that the goodness of something is directly related to if it is what it is supposed to be. If it lacks something that it is supposed to be, then it is to the extent it is lacking not good. The word for that--"not good"--is "bad" or "evil."

So we tend to think of "evil" only in a moral sense, but that's far too narrow. Blindness is an evil because it is a lack of something. An eye that cannot see is blind because it lacks the ability to see. It is not a good eye. A rock is not blind because the rock isn't supposed to be able to see. We wouldn't say, then, that because it can't see that it's a bad rock.

So how do we know if something is "supposed to be" this or that? By its nature, of course. Circles have a certain nature. To describe that nature mathematically, every point is equidistant from the figure's center. If any point is not equidistant from the center, to that extend, the figure deviates from its circular nature. So we see that if you have or possess what you ought to have or possess by nature, you are good. If you lack that, then you are bad (or evil). That means that, at bottom, something is "good" if it exists the way it is supposed to. Why do I say "exists"? Because to have something is for you to be (to exist) in a particular way. To not have something is not to be (to exist) in a particular way. Thus, very literally, the word "good" is just another word for "exist" thought of under a very particular aspect: the aspect of what ought to be relative to something's nature. Since God is pure existence--His very existence is His nature--then He lacks absolutely nothing He ought to have. Therefore, God is pure good, not in some abstract sense in which we look at God and decide that His actions and character meet some external standard that such that we apply that label ("good"). Rather, Good really just is exactly what God.

That means, though, that to suggest that good and evil do not exist is to suggest that God's nature does not exist as pure goodness; but sense good is just being itself thought of with respect to a certain nature, that would mean that being itself does not exist. But that is self-contradictory, because it is nonsense to say that being does not exist, and more, it is nonsense to suggest that God, who is pure good, is not good after all.

Hope that helps at least a little.

Your picture is neither a good circle nor an evil circle. It is a connecting line with a relatively circular shape. You cannot assign goodness or a lack of goodness to it, unless you are discussing this with someone that agrees with you. I'm afraid I don't. Your beliefs are relative to what you have learned from the bible, correct?

[stuartcr]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

How could God not be God? I believe the reason you say we know God is pure goodness, love, etc, is because of a belief in the bible. Is that correct?

No, not correct at all. As I said, we know what we know about God from reason alone.

Other people, of other beliefs, have come to their conclusions, just as you have, from reason alone. Why are they not the same?

[Byblos]

What if to God, there is no good or evil? Perhaps God's true character, is really not known to us?

Then God would not be God, which is a violation of the law of non-contradiction, much like saying A is not A.

From reason alone we know that God is pure goodness, pure love, existence itself. Evil is not a thing in and of itself (for God to know whether or not it exists). Evil is a privation, a lack of something, i,e. love. Pure evil would necessarily entail the complete and total absence of love (i.e. of God).

How could God not be God? I believe the reason you say we know God is pure goodness, love, etc, is because of a belief in the bible. Is that correct?

No, not correct at all. As I said, we know what we know about God from reason alone.

Other people, of other beliefs, have come to their conclusions, just as you have, from reason alone. Why are they not the same?

When I refer to God and our knowledge of such from reason alone I am not referencing any particular faith or denomination. I am simply referencing the uncaused cause and unmoved mover who is existence itself who can be arrived at from reason, which also demands that there can be one only one uncaused cause. This pretty much precludes all non-monotheistic religions by definition. So if you want to relate it to the different faiths I am only referencing the God of Judeo-Christan-Islamic ones. From there which is the correct faith is a matter of reason as well as revelation (no longer reason alone). But never once did I mention revelation or a particular faith.

[Jac3510]

Your picture is neither a good circle nor an evil circle. It is a connecting line with a relatively circular shape. You cannot assign goodness or a lack of goodness to it, unless you are discussing this with someone that agrees with you. I'm afraid I don't.

What are you talking about? Are you really suggesting there is no such thing as a "good circle" or a "bad circle," a "good job" or a "bad job"? When someone takes a blurry picture, it's not a "bad picture"? Are you so obtuse that you won't even acknowledge such basic observations?

This isn't a matter of someone "agree[ing] with me." My five year old daughter knows the difference in a good circle and a bad circle. I know because she's pointed out to me that I don't know how to draw a good one (I'm not terribly good at art, but she is!). So honestly, are you really going to put yourself below the intellectual capacity of a five year old? If so, that says way more about you than it does the reasonableness of God's existence or the proposition that God is good. I'm sorry to be so direct here, but you need to see how absurd your suggestion is. This isn't one of those issues that reasonable people can disagree on. And there are plenty of things reasonable people can disagree on with respect to God and His attributes! This is just simple conversation about simple reality, and if you won't even grant that there are good circles (well drawn circles) and bad circles (poorly drawn circles), then you meet every conceivable standard of Prov 26:4. I'd like to think that's not you . . . say it ain't so, stewy.

Your beliefs are relative to what you have learned from the bible, correct?

On this matter, not at all. If you really want to know (and, franky, I don't think you do), the particular point I'm making here is relative to one I learned from Aristotle, who never read the Bible. But nice veiled genetic fallacy there . . . again, it suggests quite a few things about you (none of them complimentary) that you feel like that's at all relevant or worth raising at this juncture.

Now, would you like to try again?

[stuartcr]

Your picture is neither a good circle nor an evil circle. It is a connecting line with a relatively circular shape. You cannot assign goodness or a lack of goodness to it, unless you are discussing this with someone that agrees with you. I'm afraid I don't.

What are you talking about? Are you really suggesting there is no such thing as a "good circle" or a "bad circle," a "good job" or a "bad job"? When someone takes a blurry picture, it's not a "bad picture"? Are you so obtuse that you won't even acknowledge such basic observations?

This isn't a matter of someone "agree[ing] with me." My five year old daughter knows the difference in a good circle and a bad circle. I know because she's pointed out to me that I don't know how to draw a good one (I'm not terribly good at art, but she is!). So honestly, are you really going to put yourself below the intellectual capacity of a five year old? If so, that says way more about you than it does the reasonableness of God's existence or the proposition that God is good. I'm sorry to be so direct here, but you need to see how absurd your suggestion is. This isn't one of those issues that reasonable people can disagree on. And there are plenty of things reasonable people can disagree on with respect to God and His attributes! This is just simple conversation about simple reality, and if you won't even grant that there are good circles (well drawn circles) and bad circles (poorly drawn circles), then you meet every conceivable standard of Prov 26:4. I'd like to think that's not you . . . say it ain't so, stewy.

Your beliefs are relative to what you have learned from the bible, correct?

On this matter, not at all. If you really want to know (and, franky, I don't think you do), the particular point I'm making here is relative to one I learned from Aristotle, who never read the Bible. But nice veiled genetic fallacy there . . . again, it suggests quite a few things about you (none of them complimentary) that you feel like that's at all relevant or worth raising at this juncture.

Now, would you like to try again?

Yes, By your definition, a circle has to have all points in a plane that are at a given distance from the center. If those requirements are not met, it is not a circle, it is a line connected at each end that is roughly circular. Using a blurry picture as an analogy doesn't work. I was talking about your beliefs about God.

It appears that you are the type that likes to denigrate people on an anonymous forum, when you don't like the way a conversation is going. Thanks for your time.

[RickD]

Stuart,

You completely missed the point.

Reread Jac's post. Especially this:

At the least, it's not a very good one! You could probbaly draw one that is much "better." The point is that the goodness of something is directly related to if it is what it is supposed to be. If it lacks something that it is supposed to be, then it is to the extent it is lacking not good. The word for that--"not good"--is "bad" or "evil."

[stuartcr]

Sorry, but when he said blindness was evil because it is the lack of sight, he lost all credibility with me. I'm sure he knows that we are talking about good and evil in the moral sense, but he wants to skew the conversation by talking about good and evil drawings of a circle. As a result, he resorts to childish remarks.