Evidence for God from Science

jenna wrote:ok, this is for Jac. first, i must say it seems to me that you have made a few statements that contradict themselves. first, you say that God has no form, that He is immaterial. Then you say that God is pure form.

Jenna, Jac is absolutely right. I may have added to the confusion in my attempt to use your own language (shape, form) and not in their proper philosophical understanding (no surprise there, I'm not a philosopher). It is true that God is both immaterial and pure form as it is equally true that God is pure love, pure goodness, pure existence (itself). That's philosophical jargon we can get into at some point if need be by delving into divine simplicity. But I really don't think we're there yet as we have to (hopefully) agree on some ideas first.

jenna wrote:2. you also say that the resurrected Christ has a physical body. which means that A) God does have a physical body, or B) that the resurrected Christ is not God.

This goes to the heart of the matter, i.e. the distinction between God the Father and God the Son, on one hand (we'll keep the discussion on God the HS for later), and the fact that there is only one God on the other. So let me state some things and get your take on them.

On God the Father:
- God is spirit, therefore immaterial
- No one has seen God

On God the Son:
- Prior to the incarnation, God is spirit, therefore immaterial
- At incarnation God took on a human nature

On God the Father and Son:
- There is only one God

I think that's a good start. Let me know if you disagree with any of the above and why.

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:ok, this is for Jac. first, i must say it seems to me that you have made a few statements that contradict themselves. first, you say that God has no form, that He is immaterial. Then you say that God is pure form.

Jenna, Jac is absolutely right. I may have added to the confusion in my attempt to use your own language (shape, form) and not in their proper philosophical understanding (no surprise there, I'm not a philosopher). It is true that God is both immaterial and pure form as it is equally true that God is pure love, pure goodness, pure existence (itself). That's philosophical jargon we can get into at some point if need be by delving into divine simplicity. But I really don't think we're there yet as we have to (hopefully) agree on some ideas first.

jenna wrote:2. you also say that the resurrected Christ has a physical body. which means that A) God does have a physical body, or B) that the resurrected Christ is not God.

This goes to the heart of the matter, i.e. the distinction between God the Father and God the Son, on one hand (we'll keep the discussion on God the HS for later), and the fact that there is only one God on the other. So let me state some things and get your take on them.

On God the Father:
- God is spirit, therefore immaterial
- No one has seen God

On God the Son:
- Prior to the incarnation, God is spirit, therefore immaterial
- At incarnation God took on a human nature

On God the Father and Son:
- There is only one God

I think that's a good start. Let me know if you disagree with any of the above and why.

ok, since Jac has not come on yet, and apparently everyone feels obligated to answer in his place.
i agree with all of your points above, except for God being immaterial. (if by immaterial you mean having no visible shape or form)

jenna wrote:ok, since Jac has not come on yet, and apparently everyone feels obligated to answer in his place.

I wasn't answering for him, only trying to narrow down the conversation between you and me to a manageable level and that is mainly for my benefit. I tend to be linear in my approach, my feeble attempt at countering my OCD.

jenna wrote:i agree with all of your points above, except for God being immaterial. (if by immaterial you mean having no visible shape or form)

Even before the incarnation?

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:ok, since Jac has not come on yet, and apparently everyone feels obligated to answer in his place.

I wasn't answering for him, only trying to narrow down the conversation between you and me to a manageable level and that is mainly for my benefit. I tend to be linear in my approach, my feeble attempt at countering my OCD.

jenna wrote:i agree with all of your points above, except for God being immaterial. (if by immaterial you mean having no visible shape or form)

Even before the incarnation?

yep.
and as far as OCD, well, haha, i am the same way myself. if i see a response to one of my posts, i MUST answer it right away, or else it will disappear and i will not be able to answer it otherwise. (i must be related to audacity, since it is apparent to me i have no choice.)

jenna wrote:and as far as OCD, well, haha, i am the same way myself. if i see a response to one of my posts, i MUST answer it right away, or else it will disappear and i will not be able to answer it otherwise. (i must be related to audacity, since it is apparent to me i have no choice.)

jenna wrote:i agree with all of your points above, except for God being immaterial. (if by immaterial you mean having no visible shape or form)

Byblos wrote:Even before the incarnation?

jenna wrote:yep.

Then why was there a need for the incarnation? If God already had a body (which obviously presents a host of other problems but again, we'll get to that later), why did he not see fit to use it and elected instead to get incarnated into a completely new one?

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:and as far as OCD, well, haha, i am the same way myself. if i see a response to one of my posts, i MUST answer it right away, or else it will disappear and i will not be able to answer it otherwise. (i must be related to audacity, since it is apparent to me i have no choice.)

jenna wrote:i agree with all of your points above, except for God being immaterial. (if by immaterial you mean having no visible shape or form)

Byblos wrote:Even before the incarnation?

jenna wrote:yep.

Then why was there a need for the incarnation? If God already had a body (which obviously presents a host of other problems but again, we'll get to that later), why did he not see fit to use it and elected instead to get incarnated into a completely new one?

God made Himself flesh and blood in order to be able to die. His spirit form is immortal, but He came in order to die. For Him to come in His spirit, immortal form would have defeated the whole purpose.

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then why was there a need for the incarnation? If God already had a body (which obviously presents a host of other problems but again, we'll get to that later), why did he not see fit to use it and elected instead to get incarnated into a completely new one?

God made Himself flesh and blood in order to be able to die. His spirit form is immortal, but He came in order to die. For Him to come in His spirit, immortal form would have defeated the whole purpose.

When you say spirit, immortal form I presume you also mean, the visible, material form as well since he does have a body. Let me then ask you this, before the incarnation, indeed before the creation of the universe (and with it space, time, matter and energy), where was God's body located?

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then why was there a need for the incarnation? If God already had a body (which obviously presents a host of other problems but again, we'll get to that later), why did he not see fit to use it and elected instead to get incarnated into a completely new one?

God made Himself flesh and blood in order to be able to die. His spirit form is immortal, but He came in order to die. For Him to come in His spirit, immortal form would have defeated the whole purpose.

When you say spirit, immortal form I presume you also mean, the visible, material form as well since he does have a body. Let me then ask you this, before the incarnation, indeed before the creation of the universe (and with it space, time, matter and energy), where was God's body located?

who among us can honestly answer that? you are asking something that cannot be answered by any human. but to ask you something in return, where was this immaterial being located, before time, space matter and energy? can this be honestly answered?

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then why was there a need for the incarnation? If God already had a body (which obviously presents a host of other problems but again, we'll get to that later), why did he not see fit to use it and elected instead to get incarnated into a completely new one?

God made Himself flesh and blood in order to be able to die. His spirit form is immortal, but He came in order to die. For Him to come in His spirit, immortal form would have defeated the whole purpose.

When you say spirit, immortal form I presume you also mean, the visible, material form as well since he does have a body. Let me then ask you this, before the incarnation, indeed before the creation of the universe (and with it space, time, matter and energy), where was God's body located?

who among us can honestly answer that? you are asking something that cannot be answered by any human. but to ask you something in return, where was this immaterial being located, before time, space matter and energy? can this be honestly answered?

To be honest I was expecting you to say heaven, where Jesus is today, which would be a very appropriate answer as far as the discussion goes. As to your question where the immaterial is before space-time, the question is nonsensical since the immaterial is outside of space-time. It would be like asking what comes after infinity.

Going back to the point I am trying to lead to, according to you there exists today somewhere (possibly heaven) God the Father in his own immortal body, and God the Son in his resurrected body. With those distinct bodies are two distinct minds, personalities, and wills, correct?

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:Then why was there a need for the incarnation? If God already had a body (which obviously presents a host of other problems but again, we'll get to that later), why did he not see fit to use it and elected instead to get incarnated into a completely new one?

God made Himself flesh and blood in order to be able to die. His spirit form is immortal, but He came in order to die. For Him to come in His spirit, immortal form would have defeated the whole purpose.

When you say spirit, immortal form I presume you also mean, the visible, material form as well since he does have a body. Let me then ask you this, before the incarnation, indeed before the creation of the universe (and with it space, time, matter and energy), where was God's body located?

who among us can honestly answer that? you are asking something that cannot be answered by any human. but to ask you something in return, where was this immaterial being located, before time, space matter and energy? can this be honestly answered?

To be honest I was expecting you to say heaven, where Jesus is today, which would be a very appropriate answer as far as the discussion goes. As to your question where the immaterial is before space-time, the question is nonsensical since the immaterial is outside of space-time. It would be like asking what comes after infinity.

Going back to the point I am trying to lead to, according to you there exists today somewhere (possibly heaven) God the Father in his own immortal body, and God the Son in his resurrected body. With those distinct bodies are two distinct minds, personalities, and wills, correct?

how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me? anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

*post edit: the reason I did not say "in heaven" was because you asked where He was BEFORE the creation. since He created heaven, that is why i could not answer.

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: God made Himself flesh and blood in order to be able to die. His spirit form is immortal, but He came in order to die. For Him to come in His spirit, immortal form would have defeated the whole purpose.

When you say spirit, immortal form I presume you also mean, the visible, material form as well since he does have a body. Let me then ask you this, before the incarnation, indeed before the creation of the universe (and with it space, time, matter and energy), where was God's body located?

who among us can honestly answer that? you are asking something that cannot be answered by any human. but to ask you something in return, where was this immaterial being located, before time, space matter and energy? can this be honestly answered?

To be honest I was expecting you to say heaven, where Jesus is today, which would be a very appropriate answer as far as the discussion goes. As to your question where the immaterial is before space-time, the question is nonsensical since the immaterial is outside of space-time. It would be like asking what comes after infinity.

Going back to the point I am trying to lead to, according to you there exists today somewhere (possibly heaven) God the Father in his own immortal body, and God the Son in his resurrected body. With those distinct bodies are two distinct minds, personalities, and wills, correct?

how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me?

I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.

jenna wrote:anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:
When you say spirit, immortal form I presume you also mean, the visible, material form as well since he does have a body. Let me then ask you this, before the incarnation, indeed before the creation of the universe (and with it space, time, matter and energy), where was God's body located?

who among us can honestly answer that? you are asking something that cannot be answered by any human. but to ask you something in return, where was this immaterial being located, before time, space matter and energy? can this be honestly answered?

To be honest I was expecting you to say heaven, where Jesus is today, which would be a very appropriate answer as far as the discussion goes. As to your question where the immaterial is before space-time, the question is nonsensical since the immaterial is outside of space-time. It would be like asking what comes after infinity.

Going back to the point I am trying to lead to, according to you there exists today somewhere (possibly heaven) God the Father in his own immortal body, and God the Son in his resurrected body. With those distinct bodies are two distinct minds, personalities, and wills, correct?

how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me?

I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.

jenna wrote:anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: who among us can honestly answer that? you are asking something that cannot be answered by any human. but to ask you something in return, where was this immaterial being located, before time, space matter and energy? can this be honestly answered?

To be honest I was expecting you to say heaven, where Jesus is today, which would be a very appropriate answer as far as the discussion goes. As to your question where the immaterial is before space-time, the question is nonsensical since the immaterial is outside of space-time. It would be like asking what comes after infinity.

Going back to the point I am trying to lead to, according to you there exists today somewhere (possibly heaven) God the Father in his own immortal body, and God the Son in his resurrected body. With those distinct bodies are two distinct minds, personalities, and wills, correct?

how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me?

I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.

jenna wrote:anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:
To be honest I was expecting you to say heaven, where Jesus is today, which would be a very appropriate answer as far as the discussion goes. As to your question where the immaterial is before space-time, the question is nonsensical since the immaterial is outside of space-time. It would be like asking what comes after infinity.

Going back to the point I am trying to lead to, according to you there exists today somewhere (possibly heaven) God the Father in his own immortal body, and God the Son in his resurrected body. With those distinct bodies are two distinct minds, personalities, and wills, correct?

how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me?

I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.

jenna wrote:anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jenna wrote: how is my question any more nonsensical than what you asked me?

I told you how, because the immaterial is not bound by space-time.

jenna wrote:anyhow, yes, they have 2 distinct minds, personalities, and wills, but they are in accordance with one another.

What does that mean, they are in accordance with one another? Does that mean they can never disagree? Why not? After all, they do have their own separate divine wills, it would make no sense whatsoever to have distinct wills and not have distinguishable differences. And if they don't have distinguishable differences they must be one and the same but that's not possible because they animate different bodies.

Not so. it is made plain that there are two distinct beings in the Godhead. The Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28). if they were just one being, how can one be greater than Himself? the reason They are one is that They are in complete agreement and accordance on everything. a house divided cannot stand. In John 17:11, here it is said "that they may be one, as We are". here it is meant that they be in complete agreement on everything, the same as the Father and Son are.

Surely you can see how believing in two distinct divine beings with distinct wills, even if they are in perfect accord, is polytheism, right?

no, i dont, because I believe there is ONE God. just like my family is ONE FAMILY. it simply has more than one member in that family. I consider God to be one family, God the Father, and God the Son. Together they make one.

I think it's pretty safe to say that you're arguing against a doctrine that you aren't even close to understanding.

I hope you are open to learning.