Peer-Review My Systematic Theology (it could be fun?), Pt. 1 - Intro & The Existence of God

originally posted by: CLPrime

For instance, we can say he knows all things, but that is relative to what he created. So is saying he has all power. Even saying that he is Love is relative to Creation - he loves us, but can love exist between two things when one of those things does not exist?

Ok, re read and noticed this
As christians and I am not sure you are and not judging, just dont know, so I wont say you are, you might take offence...

God is a Trinitarian entity to christians, so
We can say He is love because prior to creation He was already relational
In fact I think we were created to become equals with God, in His kingdom.
Big statement I know, but I get that sneaky suspicion

a reply to: Raggedyman

I may be called a Christian insofar as I follow Christ. "Christ," however, under it all, was a man named Yeshua. I prefer to call myself a follower of Yeshua.

According to what I've proposed so far, there should only be a single necessary, fundamental existence, not three, and certainly not three relational co-equals. Basically, I've found no Scriptural or philosophical reason to accept the Trinity.

Having a three-part, self-relational God who knows love because love is contained within him and among his persons is very poetic and attractive. I picked up the idea myself from reading The Shack, but I ultimately abandoned it in favor of what I'm going to present in Pt. 2 of my Systematic Theology, which will cover God's formation of a different sort of Trinity - and what I would say is one of several of my "heresies" that separates me from mainstream Christianity.

a reply to: CLPrime

and that is cool
No problems

I guess as you say, how can God be love outside of relationship and creation. He cant be
The answer is Trinity

God is single and relational. I think the trinity is the easiest way for God to explain what we cant understand about His identity
I mean we are told to relate to Him as a Father, when in fact He is not a male in the truest sense or a father in the true sense

Is there a difference between Christ and Yeshua in your theology?
Is Christ God?

a reply to: Raggedyman

"Christ" is a Greek title of Yeshua..."Messiah" in Hebrew, meaning Anointed One. And the difference between "Yeshua" and "Jesus" is only one of messy transliteration, my preference for Yeshua is simply a personal one.

I don't believe that Christ is God. God is one. He is the only one existing out of necessity, all things (including Yeshua, the Christ) were formed by him within himself completely according to his will.

originally posted by: CLPrime
a reply to: Raggedyman

"Christ" is a Greek title of Yeshua..."Messiah" in Hebrew, meaning Anointed One. And the difference between "Yeshua" and "Jesus" is only one of messy transliteration, my preference for Yeshua is simply a personal one.

I don't believe that Christ is God. God is one. He is the only one existing out of necessity, all things (including Yeshua, the Christ) were formed by him within himself completely according to his will.

Well I understand the trinity doctrine is hard to follow, swallow, no question
As you said, how can God be love before creation without relationship, Trinity- problem solved for me.

As for the Shack, lite entertainment, not theology

Bring on 2

originally posted by: Raggedyman
As you said, how can God be love before creation without relationship, Trinity- problem solved for me.

For me, the problem is solved by understanding that God's love is a result of his fundamental nature, not a part of it.
Being fundamentally the act of existing, God's nature is motivated toward furthering existence. I would then define love (and goodness in general) as that which progresses and preserves existence. This is the motivation behind everything God has ever done.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Bring on 2

I hope to have it ready tomorrow. I really appreciate the response I've gotten so far.

originally posted by: CLPrime
Zero, as you say, is a concept, and the human mind is perfectly capable of conceptualizing impossible things. Our ability to conceptualize a thing does not make that thing possible. And I would say that being able to have "zero" of some quantifiable thing that exists is different than having zero existence altogether.

But non-existence is a concept as well, as it's the most extreme example of an inability to prove a negative. Hell, the idea of a creator god (or an 'existence,' as you are using it), is just a concept as well. So, while you are arguing that there is this god/existence, it's an impossibility to prove at this point, and therefore is also just a conceptualized thing.

I think I can safely generalize when I say that the human mind is incapable of conceptualizing zero existence. At that, I basically have to go with what I know...which is that something exists instead of nothing. This tells me that it was more likely for something to exist than nothing. Whether the odds were 51:49 in favor of existence or 100:0, I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters. The fact is, existence itself proves that existence was favored over non-existence, therefore it was a "force" opposed to non-existence that caused existence. My proposal is that this necessary existence was/is "God" (apart from all of his qualities relative to Creation - just plain existing God).

I would argue that, while it's a difficult concept to truly understand, non-existence is a definable thing. In your quoted statement above, you are entering the logical-fallacy arena--you state that, simply because you thin the human mind is incapable of conceptualizing zero existence that you must go with your claim that "something exists instead of nothing." Just because you cannot conceptualize the idea of zero or non-existence doesn't mean that it is impossible.

As far as I can tell, there is no need for embedded existences. Singular improbable/impossible non-existence (there is never anymore than one "zero" of anything) creates singular existence.

So if I'm grasping your claim here, you are supporting the idea of balance, where there needs to be non-existence along with existence, correct? I mean, did you just say that non-existence creates singular existence?

Regardless, I still struggle with any--ANY--concept of a god-type thing, be it an omniscient alien being who demands worship and tithes and sacrifices, or an intangible concept such as pure existence. The concept of there being something that was created or existed without cause (as in, has existed in perpetuity) is as unfounded and unscientific an idea to me (at this point in our understanding) as the concept of non-existence seems to be to you. But herein lies the crux of the mystery that you are trying to solve, as is religion, as are certain fields of science and philosophy: Where did everything come from, and how does it exist, and by what mechanism(s) did the "how" catalyst come into being?

I'm not certain that you're there yet, for the reasons that I have brought up, but it's a pretty neat idea to consider, nonetheless. It doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong or way off, because like I noted, I have not true evidence or proof either way, but it just doesn't resonate with me like it does you.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But non-existence is a concept as well, as it's the most extreme example of an inability to prove a negative. Hell, the idea of a creator god (or an 'existence,' as you are using it), is just a concept as well. So, while you are arguing that there is this god/existence, it's an impossibility to prove at this point, and therefore is also just a conceptualized thing.

Fortunately, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, rather offer a possible cause of his existence.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
...you are entering the logical-fallacy arena--you state that, simply because you think the human mind is incapable of conceptualizing zero existence that you must go with your claim that "something exists instead of nothing." Just because you cannot conceptualize the idea of zero or non-existence doesn't mean that it is impossible.

Actually, what I stated was that, because there is existence, it is evident that existence was more likely than non-existence (even if only slightly more likely). The only way anything at all ever happens is if the probability of it happening vs not happening is in favor of it happening.

Take, for example, the flipping of a coin. We say that the probability of it landing on heads vs tails is 50:50, but this is really only a generalization. For any given flip, the conditions of the flip determine the outcome. As soon as the coin is flipped, the probability becomes 100:0 in favor of either heads or tails, causing it to land on that side. If, instead, the probability remained 50:50, the coin would land on neither - instead, it might land on its edge (now that would be an interesting result).
In the same way, the probability of non-existence vs existence must have been in favor of existence for existence to have been the outcome. Once we determine that, then it doesn't matter if the odds were 51:49 in favor of existence or 100:0, the fact is that non-existence was less likely than existence.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong or way off, because like I noted, I have not true evidence or proof either way, but it just doesn't resonate with me like it does you.

Regardless, I appreciate our discussion, it's exactly what I was looking for.

originally posted by: CLPrime
Fortunately, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, rather offer a possible cause of his existence.

I don't know...you did equate the two being the same, so if you're calling for the reality of one, you're calling for the reality of both, even if the term "god" as used by humanity ends up being a discussion of semantics:

originally posted by: CLPrime
The Existence of God

I propose that "God" is not a noun. "God" is a verb, and it means "to be." God is not something that exists - he is existence. He is the act of existing. He is Yahweh - "Existing One."

Actually, what I stated was that, because there is existence, it is evident that existence was more likely than non-existence (even if only slightly more likely). The only way anything at all ever happens is if the probability of it happening vs not happening is in favor of it happening.

I think that you're stretching on that one--there are myriad improbable things that happen every day. Are you implying that, even if something appears improbable, there are things happening unknown to us that tip their occurrences on the side of probability instead?

If, instead, the probability remained 50:50, the coin would land on neither - instead, it might land on its edge (now that would be an interesting result).

But what you just said is, "the only way anything at all ever happens is if the PROBABILITY ... is in favor of happening." I think that you're misusing the word "probability," here, because the probability of a coin landing on its side is minuscule at most, but it does happen. I'm failing to follow your logic on this one.

In the same way, the probability of non-existence vs existence must have been in favor of existence for existence to have been the outcome. Once we determine that, then it doesn't matter if the odds were 51:49 in favor of existence or 100:0, the fact is that non-existence was less likely than existence.

But as I just noted, "less likely" is not synonymous with impossible.

Regardless, I appreciate our discussion, it's exactly what I was looking for.

I hope so--I'm not just being a naysayer for the sake of saying nay, I do really find holes in your presentation and/or concept. If you don't see them as holes, more power to you, as you have had much more time to consider this than I.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I think that you're stretching on that one--there are myriad improbable things that happen every day. Are you implying that, even if something appears improbable, there are things happening unknown to us that tip their occurrences on the side of probability instead?

That's exactly what I'm saying.
Improbable things don't happen. Really, there is only ever a 100% of something either happening or not happening. Odds and probabilities are only averages, any single event has a whole host of factor leaning it one way or the other. An event either happens or it doesn't, there's no middle of the road, and probabilities only exist because we lack all the facts and factors that go into deciding the outcome.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I think that you're misusing the word "probability," here, because the probability of a coin landing on its side is minuscule at most, but it does happen. I'm failing to follow your logic on this one.

Only because the edge of a coin is really another "side" with finite dimensions and, likewise, a finite (if really small) probability that the coin will land on it.
I was theoretically working with a 2-dimensional coin with no edge. Either heads or tails, 50:50 - that is, until it's flipped, and then it becomes 100:0 in favor of one side or the other.

Pt. 2 is posted, moving from the existence of God to his first act creation.