Did God occupy any space before creation?

[PaulThomson]

Here's a fun exercise:

1. Consider the concept of "love."
2. Now, tell us all just exactly where, in time and space, this concept resides. If you can measure it with a tape measure, and weigh it on a scale, and tell us where exactly it is so we can get a picture... now that would prove your point.

But if you cannot measure, weigh, or spatially locate love... then you need to try a better argument.



God Bless.

(BTW: This issue is not new in Christendom, and it's been thoroughly studied by the greatest Christian minds for millennia, and it isn't the kind of mysterious or difficult issue that trained pastors debate or worry about. It's a non issue. So if anyone wants to argue endlessly against the orthodox position which is well understood, I'll leave you all to do some reading. I won't stick around and argue.)


.

Din't the scriptures I gave answer that? God is love. God's love has height, depth, breadth and length. And can be known experientially. But with what instrument do you weigh and measure something invisible and weightless?

 

[PaulThomson]

no.

You don't think God breathes?

 

[Cameron143]

are we talking contiguous or are oceans allowed?

Anywhere. Can you list them?

 

[posthuman]

Maybe you are anti-anthropomorphizing. Your image of God seems to be created by negating every human-like attribute God ascribes to Himself in scripture, and replacing it with the contrary attribute on the theory that because God was not human in the old testament, He cannot be like man in any way.
However, if we were made in God's image, He must be like us in some ways: presumably in the ways He describes Himself to be in scripture.
And if He is unlike us in all ways, how could the fulness of God mesh coherently with humanity and dwell bodily and operate as a human being in Christ.

OK, let's solve the hypostatic union

you're right tho i do tend to emphasize the deity, maybe to a fault.

because i believe both are present, always. i don't have the kenosis position - i dont believe He emptied Himself of deity, but in humility, 'took off His robe' - -the one which filled the temple in Isaiah 6:1 - - hiding Himself in humanity, like the inverse of the ark being wood covered with gold, He became gold covered with wood ((the symbolism being wood, humanity; gold, deity))

the transfiguration, then, is peeling away the 'covering' or the 'veil' of you will, revealing the shekinah glory inside the human, so that the 3 core disciples knew with no shadow of a doubt Who this Man really is.

beyond human comprehension!!

 

[posthuman]

You don't think God breathes?

i know He does, that's how we became souls

wow, what a question! i will eventually get back to that..

but what i meant was, not like the balloon demonstration i mentioned a few posts up. the expansion of space is hard to visualize and i was trying and failing to come up with a good metaphor, which is why that reply was so curt.

i guess that's why people use the balloon example lol

 

[posthuman]

Anywhere. Can you list them?

hmm please allow me an indeterminate period of time for that one, too

 

[Cameron143]

hmm please allow me an indeterminate period of time for that one, too

Take your time. But if you wait too long I'll just ask Jesus.

 

[Lafftur]

Does God have size? If God has size, how big is He? If God has size now, was God always this big?

You asked, “Did God occupy any space before creation?”

Yes, God occupied space before creation…

There is a God Realm… ONLY God can exist there…

God displays Himself (makes Himself known) in the Heavenly, Spiritual, and Physical Realms but, He also has a Realm all of His own.

Next, you asked, “Does God have size? If God has size, how big is He? If God has size now, was God always this big?”

Yes, God does have size but not according to human finite reasoning because the totality substance of God is unmeasurable - there is no end… God cannot be measured in depth, height, width, weight, or any form of measurement.

There is no way to “measure” God. God does exist but He is unmeasurable.

 

[PaulThomson]

whoops typo i caught too late..

that should read, "... God can't be space itself... "

@PaulThomson my apologies i know i am a really frustrating person to argue with. no harm intended. maybe one day i will learn tact haha

very interesting thread no matter how much i might not currently agree with your current stance on the subject, thank you for that

God can't be space, but space can be God, in the same way that God can't be Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ can be God. God is more than Jesus Christ. God is more than the space in which all things live and move and have their being.

 

[PaulThomson]

That's really interesting.
Glad you jumped in brother.

I think the overarching issue here is really one of theology proper, which is the study of God himself.
When this is lacking, even among really nice people, we end up with all kinds of "perceived" conundrums which, upon more investigation, don't really exist.

Here's an example from a post you quoted.
PaulThomas, with the best intentions I'm sure, spoke about how "persons" require "time" to engage in logical and sequential conversation. So God must need this kind of time for members of the Godhead to communicate. But the comparison, unfortunately, gets into a common error right at the outset. Although God is a "person", he is not a "human person." So the dimensions that bind humans, like time and space, simply don't have the same effect on God, as he is not one of one us.

But I do think the "agreement" between members of the Godhead doesn't NEED to transcend time, as I think it just transcends any necessity. The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement. So for them to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature.

Anyway, it's all interesting stuff.
God Bless.

..

In what ways do time and space "bind" human beings? I would say they enable human beings to experience freedom.

I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".

Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.

 

[PaulThomson]

That's really interesting.
Glad you jumped in brother.

I think the overarching issue here is really one of theology proper, which is the study of God himself.
When this is lacking, even among really nice people, we end up with all kinds of "perceived" conundrums which, upon more investigation, don't really exist.

Here's an example from a post you quoted.
PaulThomas, with the best intentions I'm sure, spoke about how "persons" require "time" to engage in logical and sequential conversation. So God must need this kind of time for members of the Godhead to communicate. But the comparison, unfortunately, gets into a common error right at the outset. Although God is a "person", he is not a "human person." So the dimensions that bind humans, like time and space, simply don't have the same effect on God, as he is not one of one us.

But I do think the "agreement" between members of the Godhead doesn't NEED to transcend time, as I think it just transcends any necessity. The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement. So for them to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature.

Anyway, it's all interesting stuff.
God Bless.

..

In what ways do time and space "bind" human beings? I would say they enable human beings to experience freedom.

I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".

Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.

 

[Genez]

It boggles the mind unnecessarily, since God does not say about Himself that He has no size. So, what is the virtue in believing something about God that God Himself does not disclose about Himself, but which contradicts what God has disclosed about Himself?

God does not tell me that I have to dialogue with Paul Thomson either....

 

[maxwel]

In what ways do time and space "bind" human beings? I would say they enable human beings to experience freedom.

I don't see how "for [the Trinity] to "agree" on something, no time is even required... they are just in perpetual agreement by nature", follows from "The members of the trinity are, and always have been, in perfect agreement in all things. They all know what they are thinking, and they are all in agreement".

Even if they know each others thoughts as they think them, the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another, and each can certainly listen and understand and process three speakers at once. But thoughts and sentences themselves are sequences of ideas that take time to formulate and express. So, though they may instantaneously know each others thoughts, it would still take time to express those logically sequential thoughts.

"...the thoughts of each, though true, may be different from each another...:


God is not like us:

A. Since members of the trinity share in the same essence and nature, and are always in perfect agreement, and they are by nature perfect (which includes their thoughts)... there is no reason to think they ever have any thoughts that differ. In fact, this would seem impossible.

B. If they were capable of having any thoughts that differ (and I don't believe they can) that would still not require any conversation between them which takes up either time or space. All 3 members of the trinity KNOW ALL THINGS. This resolves any need for conversation, even if they were capable of differing in any way.
1.) If you and I knew each other's thoughts perfectly, we would never have to discuss anything.
2.) I would know exactly where you differ from me, and you would know what I think about that, and you would know my views and arguments, and you would know what I would say... we would have nothing to talk about... ever.
3.) But the trinity goes far beyond this: they not only know all things, including each other's thoughts, but on top of this perfect and complete omniscience they are also FLAWLESSLY PERFECT in every way. They have perfect thoughts, and their thoughts are always in perfect harmony.... so they are incapable of having disagreement. They quite literally have nothing to disagree about, and nothing to even discuss.

God is not like us.

Theology proper, the study of God's nature, requires we learn and think about God as he is in his perfection... and that we refrain from our natural tendency to drag his attributes down to a human level so he's more like us. He isn't like us.

God is not like us:




God Bless.

,

 

[maxwel]

More...

To get a little more specific and philosophical (and boring) the members of the trinity, regarding their thought life, probably differ within a few specific categories of non-propositional knowledge, which is merely a natural part of their trinitarian existence.

But these natural and inherent differences in non-propositional knowledge would not create any factual or preferential differences in views "about" anything.

So, if we want to get really technical and specific, we could say there are "thought life" differences in the trinity in the form of certain kinds of propositional knowledge like indexicals. (And even indexicals, within the Godhead, would be very limited because of their shared nature, and their divine properties like omnipresence.) So although there would be some limited differences in non-propositional knowlege, this would in no way change their perfection in harmony, and would not require them to have any conversations about anything whatsoever.

They still have complete and perfect knowledge of all things, meaning they know everything including each other's thoughts; and they still have perfection in all of their thoughts... meaning their thoughts are always in perfect harmony by definition.
They are all perfect, and have perfect thoughts, and have perfect knowledge of each other's thoughts... their thoughts are always in perfect harmony, meaning they never have anything to even discuss.


Conclusion:
If we want to be really nit-picky, we could say the members of the trinity have certain necessary differences in certain, and limited, areas of non-propositional knowledge, but that would have no affect on their perfect unity, and perfect harmony. And it would not require them to have any conversations about it.

.

 

[PaulThomson]

God is not like us:

Why do you think God made us in His image. Because He wanted an intelligent loving relqtionship with us. It is because He is like us in many ways, although to a higher order,, that we can find commonalities with God that allow us to communicate, commune and co-operate with Gos as His friends. It is ot possible for humans to have a meaningful loving relatunship with your completely other God.

 

[PaulThomson]

God is not like us:

Why do you think God made us in His image. Because He wanted an intelligent loving relqtionship with us. It is because He is like us in many ways, although to a higher order,, that we can find commonalities with God that allow us to communicate, commune and co-operate with God as His friends. It is not possible for humans to have a meaningful loving relationship with your "completely other" God.

 

[maxwel]

Why do you think God made us in His image. Because He wanted an intelligent loving relqtionship with us. It is because He is like us in many ways, although to a higher order,, that we can find commonalities with God that allow us to communicate, commune and co-operate with God as His friends. It is not possible for humans to have a meaningful loving relationship with your "completely other" God.

Completely Other?

You accused me of calling God "completely other", but that term has a very specific meaning in theology and philosophy, and that is exactly why I NEVER USED THAT TERM. NOT ONCE.

It isn't generally prudent to accuse people of saying things they didn't say.

That's called a straw man argument.
It's not just annoying, and disingenuous, it's also a logical fallacy.

I would explain, point by point, how you ignored the context of my rebuttal, and ignored all the specific things I said to give clarity, but that's the whole problem - you ignore what people say. If you ignore what people say, it would be paradoxical to explain all of the problems with that... because you aren't listening.



Since you give the impression of intentionally misrepresenting what I say, and just endlessly arguing against rudimentary, simple, basic doctrines that have been settled for millennia... I think it's time for me to opt out of the thread.

Take Care.

.

 

[PaulThomson]

i know He does, that's how we became souls

wow, what a question! i will eventually get back to that..

but what i meant was, not like the balloon demonstration i mentioned a few posts up. the expansion of space is hard to visualize and i was trying and failing to come up with a good metaphor, which is why that reply was so curt.

i guess that's why people use the balloon example lol

Lungs are a lot like balloons, but living.

 

[PaulThomson]

Completely Other?

You accused me of calling God "completely other", but that term has a very specific meaning in theology and philosophy, and that is exactly why I NEVER USED THAT TERM. NOT ONCE.

It isn't generally prudent to accuse people of saying things they didn't say.

That's called a straw man argument.
It's not just annoying, and disingenuous, it's also a logical fallacy.

I would explain, point by point, how you ignored the context of my rebuttal, and ignored all the specific things I said to give clarity, but that's the whole problem - you ignore what people say. If you ignore what people say, it would be paradoxical to explain all of the problems with that... because you aren't listening.



Since you give the impression of intentionally misrepresenting what I say, and just endlessly arguing against rudimentary, simple, basic doctrines that have been settled for millennia... I think it's time for me to opt out of the thread.

Take Care.

.

So, how do you determine in which ways God is like us and in which ways God is unlike us. If God in scripture describes himself as like us in various ways, should we call that an anthropomorphism (meaning he is not really as He describes) or should we take Him as describing Himself honestly?

 

[PaulThomson]

Completely Other?

You accused me of calling God "completely other", but that term has a very specific meaning in theology and philosophy, and that is exactly why I NEVER USED THAT TERM. NOT ONCE.

It isn't generally prudent to accuse people of saying things they didn't say.

That's called a straw man argument.
It's not just annoying, and disingenuous, it's also a logical fallacy.

I would explain, point by point, how you ignored the context of my rebuttal, and ignored all the specific things I said to give clarity, but that's the whole problem - you ignore what people say. If you ignore what people say, it would be paradoxical to explain all of the problems with that... because you aren't listening.



Since you give the impression of intentionally misrepresenting what I say, and just endlessly arguing against rudimentary, simple, basic doctrines that have been settled for millennia... I think it's time for me to opt out of the thread.

Take Care.

.

So, how do you determine in which ways God is like us and in which ways God is unlike us. If God in scripture describes himself as like us in various ways, should we call that an anthropomorphism (meaning he is not really as He describes Himself) or should we take Him as describing Himself honestly?